Denmark, Norway, and Iceland today announced they are joining other European countries in temporarily suspending the use of the AstraZeneca-Oxford COVID vaccine following reports of blood clots in people who got the vaccine.
Denmark suspended the shots until further notice after a 60-year-old woman died from a blood clot that formed after she was vaccinated, reported Reuters.
The Danish decision came days after Austrian authorities announced they were suspending a batch of AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine while investigating the death of one person and the illness of another after receiving the shots. The same batch used in Austria was used in Denmark, according to Reuters.
In Austria, a 49-year-old woman died of severe coagulation disorders, and a 35-year-old woman developed a pulmonary embolism –– an acute lung disease caused by a dislodged blood clot –– and is recovering, said The Federal Office for Safety in Health Care (BASG) in Austria.
Austrian newspaper Niederoesterreichische Nachrichten, broadcaster ORF and the APA news agency reported that both women were nurses at the same clinic where the vaccine batch was used.
In a statement provided to Reuters, AstraZeneca said the safety of its vaccine had been extensively studied in human trials and that peer-reviewed data had confirmed the vaccine was generally well tolerated.
Earlier this week, AstraZeneca reported “no confirmed serious adverse events associated with the vaccine” during trials and said it was working with Austria in its investigation.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Luxembourg have suspended all or part of their AstraZeneca vaccine roll-out as a precaution while they investigate concerns related to blood clots, reported France 24.
According to Reuters, Italy announced it banned a batch of the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine following the deaths of two men who had recently been vaccinated. One man was a 43-year-old naval officer who died after a suspected heart attack the day after his shot. The second man, a 50-year-old policeman, fell ill within 24 hours of his injection, never recovered, and died 12 days after being vaccinated. Both men had received shots from AstraZeneca’s ABV2856 batch.
As The Defender reported today, 12 prominent doctors and scientists are demanding that EU regulators address seven critical safety issues relating to the AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna COVID vaccines, or withdraw approval of the vaccines for use in the EU.
The UK government is meanwhile urging people to “still go and get their COVID-19 vaccine,” stressing the suspension in multiple countries “is a precautionary measure,” reported EuroNews.
On March 2, The Defender reported that government data showed 43% more reports of injuries related to the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine in the UK, including 77% more adverse events and 25% more deaths compared to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
The MHRA expressed no concern about the number of reports of adverse events connected with AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine.
“The problem with spontaneous reports of suspected adverse reactions to a vaccine is the enormous difficulty of distinguishing a causal effect from a coincidence,” Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine told France 24.
Last month two regions in Sweden temporarily halted AstraZeneca COVID vaccinations after 400 people received the vaccine and 100 people experienced adverse reactions leaving them unable to work. Another region observed a surprising number of side effects after a mass vaccination effort of more than 500 people, reported The Defender.
South Africa halted the roll-out of AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine due to low efficacy in February, and European countries France, Germany, and Sweden reported more side effects from the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine than from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
The World Health Organization approved the AstraZeneca-Oxford COVID vaccine for emergency use last month, despite growing safety concerns in other countries and questionable clinical trials.
AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine has not yet been approved for use in the U.S. but the drugmaker plans to file for Emergency Use Authorization with the U.S Food and Drug Administration in the upcoming weeks pending the results of a clinical trial, according to CBS News.
A single shot of one of the currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines may be sufficient to provide immunity to individuals who have previously been infected by the virus, thus eliminating the need for a second dose and helping to stretch severely limited vaccine supplies, a study from Mount Sinai has found. Such a change in public health policy could also spare these individuals the unnecessary side effects of the second dose of vaccine, which researchers found to be significantly greater in individuals with pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. A letter to the editor was published today in the New England Journal of Medicine detailing the study.
“We showed that the antibody response to the first vaccine dose in people with pre-existing immunity is equal to or even exceeds the response in uninfected people after the second dose,” says co-author Viviana Simon, MD, Ph.D., Professor in the Departments of Microbiology and Medicine (Infectious Diseases) in the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. “For that reason, we believe that a single dose of vaccine is sufficient for people who have already been infected by SARS-CoV-2 to reach immunity.”
Two COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) received emergency use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2020, and have been administered to millions of people throughout the country. In Phase 3 trials, both vaccines reported high efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 infections after two doses given three to four weeks apart. Both vaccines are also well tolerated with few side effects requiring additional medical attention.
In their study of 109 individuals with and without previous SARS-CoV-2 immunity, Mount Sinai researchers, led by Dr. Simon and co-author Florian Krammer, Ph.D., Professor of Vaccinology in the Department of Microbiology, found that the former group developed antibodies within days of the first dose of vaccine at a rate 10 to 20 times higher than those who were uninfected, and at a more than tenfold rate after the second dose. “These findings suggest that a single dose of vaccine elicits a very rapid immune response in individuals who have tested positive for COVID-19,” says Dr. Krammer. “In fact, that first dose immunologically resembles the booster (second) dose in people who have not been infected.”
The team also investigated systemic reactions after the first dose of vaccine in the second group of 231 individuals, 83 of whom had tested positive for COVID-19, and 148 who had not. While the vaccines were generally well-tolerated, injection site symptoms—including pain, swelling, and reddening of the skin—were found in both sub-groups. In recipients with pre-existing immunity, however, side effects occurred with a significantly higher frequency, including fatigue, headache, chills, fever, and muscle or joint pain.
The intensity of the response to the first dose in people previously infected appears to be similar to the response from people not previously infected after the second dose. The reason for the stronger response in both groups is likely due to the fact the body has already been “primed,” meaning the immune cells have learned how to recognize the spike protein of the virus—the antigen that forms the basis for vaccination. These cells thus respond more vigorously, leading to stronger reactions to the vaccine.
If the infection history of an individual is unknown, Dr. Simon suggests using a serological assay to detect antibodies that might exist to the spike protein. “If the screening process determines the presence of antibodies due to the previous infection, then a second shot of the coronavirus vaccine may not be necessary for the individual,” she concludes. “And if that approach were to translate into public health policy, it could not only expand limited vaccine supplies but control the more frequent and pronounced reactions to those vaccines experienced by COVID-19 survivors.”
Pfizer Bullies Nations to Put Up Collateral for Lawsuits
Pfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets, including bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings, as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation
Argentina and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands. According to legal experts, Pfizer is abusing its power
In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from the COVID-19 vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured, you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which is funded by U.S. taxpayers
A significant problem with the CICP is that it’s administered within the Department of Health and Human Services, which is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. This conflict of interest makes the CICP less likely to admit fault with the vaccine
The maximum CICP payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person, and you first have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP kicks in
As reported by New Delhi-based World Is One News (WION),1 Pfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation. In other words, it wants governments to guarantee the company will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it.
WION reports that Argentina and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands. Initially, the company demanded indemnification legislation to be enacted, such as that which it enjoys in the U.S. Argentina proposed legislation that would restrict Pfizer’s financial responsibility for injuries to those resulting from negligence or malice.
Pfizer rejected the proposal. It also rejected a rewritten proposal that included a clearer definition of negligence. Pfizer then demanded the Argentinian government put up sovereign assets — including its bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings — as collateral. Argentina refused. A similar situation occurred in Brazil. Pfizer demanded Brazil:
“Waive sovereignty of its assets abroad in favor of Pfizer”
Not apply its domestic laws to the company
Not penalize Pfizer for vaccine delivery delays
Exempt Pfizer from all civil liability for side effects
Brazil rejected Pfizer’s demands, calling them “abusive.” As noted by WION, Pfizer developed its vaccine with the help of government funding, and now it — a private company — is demanding governments hand over sovereign assets to ensure the company won’t lose a dime if its product injures people, even if those injuries are the result of negligent company practices, fraud or malice.
Aside from Argentina and Brazil, nine other South American countries have reportedly negotiated deals with Pfizer. It’s unclear whether they actually ended up giving up national assets in return.2
Vaccine Maker Accused of Abusing Its Power
According to STAT News,3 “Legal experts have raised concerns that Pfizer’s demands amount to an abuse of power.” Lawrence Gostin, law professor at Georgetown University and director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law told STAT:4
“Pharmaceutical companies shouldn’t be using their power to limit lifesaving vaccines in low- and middle-income countries. [This] seems to be exactly what they’re doing … Some liability protection is warranted, but certainly not for fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement, failure to follow good manufacturing practices. Companies have no right to ask for indemnity for these things.”
Mark Eccleston-Turner, a lecturer in global health law at Keele University in England, added:5
“[Pfizer] is trying to eke out as much profit and minimize its risk at every juncture with this vaccine development then this vaccine rollout. Now, the vaccine development has been heavily subsidized already. So there’s very minimal risk for the manufacturer involved there.”
Don’t Expect Compensation if Injured by COVID-19 Vaccine
In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from this or any other pandemic vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured, you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP),6 which is funded by U.S. taxpayers via Congressional appropriation to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
While similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which applies to nonpandemic vaccines, the CICP is even less generous when it comes to compensation. For example, while the NVICP pays some of the costs associated with any given claim, the CICP does not. This means you’ll also be responsible for attorney fees and expert witness fees.
A significant problem with the CICP is that it’s administered within the DHHS, which is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. This conflict of interest makes the CICP less than likely to find fault with the vaccine.
Your only route of appeal is within the DHHS, where your case would simply be reviewed by another employee. The DHHS is also responsible for making the payment, so the DHHS effectively acts as judge, jury and defendant. As reported by Dr. Meryl Nass,7 the maximum payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person; however, you’d have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP gives you a dime.
CICP will only pay the difference between what your insurance covers and the total payout amount established for your case. For permanent disability, even $250,000 won’t go far. The CICP also has a one year statute of limitations, so you have to act quickly.
This too is a significant problem, as no one really knows what injuries might arise from the COVID-19 vaccine, or when, and this makes tying the injury to the vaccination a difficult prospect. Employers that mandate the COVID-19 vaccine will also be indemnified from liability for side effects. Instead, claims will be routed through worker’s compensation programs.
If the COVID-19 vaccines are as safe as the manufacturers claim, why do they insist on so much indemnification? Do they suspect or know something they’re refusing to admit publicly?
Side Effects Are Inevitable
Of course, those of us who have been looking at the science behind the mRNA technology used to create these novel “vaccines” have long since realized there are tremendous risks involved. For starters, mRNA vaccines are most accurately referred to as gene therapies, as this is what they are.
They effectively turn your cells into bioreactors that churn out viral proteins to incite an immune response, and there’s no off-switch.8 Based on historical and preliminary evidence, significant short- and long-term side effects are, quite frankly, inevitable.
Free mRNA also drive inflammatory diseases, which is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable — i.e., slowing the breakdown of the RNA by encasing it in lipid nanoparticles — is likely to be problematic. The nanoparticles themselves also pose a risk. COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, which is known to cause allergic reactions and anaphylaxis.9,10
What’s more, previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic.11 An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?
As detailed in my interview with Mikovits, the synthetic RNA influences the gene syncytin, which can result in:
Dysregulated communication between the microglia in your brain, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens
Dysregulated immune system
Dysregulated endocannabinoid system (which calms inflammation)
Pathogenic Priming and Antibody-Dependent Enhancement
Another significant problem is that we don’t know whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. If pathogenic, vaccinated individuals may be at increased risk of severe illness if they’re exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the future. As reported in a December 11, 2020, Vaccine: X paper:12
“The first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine(s) will likely be licensed based on neutralizing antibodies in Phase 2 trials, but there are significant concerns about using antibody response in coronavirus infections as a sole metric of protective immunity.
Antibody response is often a poor marker of prior coronavirus infection, particularly in mild infections, and is shorter-lived than virus-reactive T-cells … Strong antibody response correlates with more severe clinical disease while T-cell response is correlated with less severe disease; and antibody-dependent enhancement of pathology and clinical severity has been described.
Indeed, it is unclear whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. Early data with SARS-CoV-2 support these findings. Data from coronavirus infections in animals and humans emphasize the generation of a high-quality T cell response in protective immunity.”
“ADE is an immunological phenomenon whereby a previous immune response to a virus can render an individual more susceptible to a subsequent analogous infection.
Rather than viral recognition and clearance, the prior development of virus-specific antibodies at a non-neutralizing level can facilitate viral uptake, enhancing replication; a possible immune evasion strategy avoiding intracellular innate immune sensors, or pattern recognition receptors …
ADE of SARS-CoV has also been described14 through a novel FcγRII-dependent and ACE2-independent cell entry mechanism. The authors state15 that this warrants concern in the safety evaluation of any candidate human vaccines against SARS-CoV.”
Similarly, “Pathogenic Priming Likely Contributes to Serious and Critical Illness and Mortality in COVID-19 Via Autoimmunity,” published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, warns that:16
“Failure of SARS and MERS vaccines in animal trials involved pathogenesis consistent with an immunological priming that could involve autoimmunity in lung tissues due to previous exposure to the SARS and MERS spike protein. Exposure pathogenesis to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 likely will lead to similar outcomes.”
So, to be clear, what all of this means is that if you get vaccinated, you may actually be at increased risk for serious illness if/when you’re exposed to any number of mutated SARS-CoV-2 strains in the future.
This is why the recommendation to vaccinate individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, may actually be quite dangerous. Dr. Hooman Noorchashm recently sent a public letter17 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner detailing these risks.
How mRNA Injections May Trigger Prion Disease
What’s more, in a paper18 titled, “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease,” published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, Dr. Bart Classen warns there are also troubling evidences suggesting some of the mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s and ALS. He writes:
“In the current paper, the concern is raised that the RNA based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19. This paper focuses on a novel potential adverse event mechanism causing prion disease which could be even more common and debilitating than the viral infection the vaccine is designed to prevent …
Analysis of the Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19 identified two potential risk factors for inducing prion disease is humans. The RNA sequence in the vaccine contains sequences believed to induce TDP-43 and FUS to aggregate in their prion based conformation leading to the development of common neurodegerative diseases.
In particular it has been shown that RNA sequences GGUA, UG rich sequences, UG tandem repeats, and G Quadruplex sequences, have increased affinity to bind TDP-43 and or FUS and may cause TDP-43 or FUS to take their pathologic configurations in the cytoplasm.
In the current analysis a total of sixteen UG tandem repeats were identified and additional UG rich sequences were identified. Two GGΨA sequences were found. G Quadruplex sequences are possibly present but sophisticated computer programs are needed to verify these.
The spike protein encoded by the vaccine binds angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), an enzyme which contains zinc molecules. The binding of spike protein to ACE2 has the potential to release the zinc molecule, an ion that causes TDP-43 to assume its pathologic prion transformation.”
mRNA Technology Has Potential to Cause Microvascular Injury
Additionally, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist specializing in multisystem inflammatory syndrome, submitted a public comment19 to the FDA back in December 2020, in which he expressed concern that mRNA vaccines have “the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in safety trials.”
He cited research showing that “the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots),” and that since no viral RNA has been found in brain endothelium, “viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus.”
“Is it possible the spike protein itself causes the tissue damage associated with Covid-19?” he asks. “In 13/13 brains from patients with fatal COVID-19, pseudovirions (spike, envelope, and membrane proteins) without viral RNA are present in the endothelia of cerebral microvessels …
It appears that the viral spike protein that is the target of the major SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing the damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung, and kidney.
Before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in humans, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart … Vaccinated patients could also be tested for distant tissue damage in deltoid area skin biopsies …”
Reports of Side Effects Are Rapidly Mounting
Around the world, reports are now pouring in of people dying shortly after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. In many cases, they die suddenly within hours of getting the shot. In others, death occurs within the span of a couple of weeks.
In the wake of 29 senior citizen deaths,20 Norway is reportedly considering excluding the very old and terminally ill from getting the AstraZeneca vaccine. According to the Norwegian Medicines Agency:21
“Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.”
The Norwegian Institute of Public Health further noted that “for those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side effects can have serious consequences,” and that “For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant.”22
In Sweden, hospitals in Sörmland and Gävleborg suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine in mid-February 2021 after a full quarter of the vaccinated hospital staff reported side effects. To prevent staff shortages and conduct an investigation, the vaccination push was temporarily paused.23 Examples of side effects reported after vaccination with Pfizer’s, Moderna’s and AstraZeneca’s vaccines from around the world include:
Swollen, painful lymph nodes
Severe allergic, including anaphylactic reactions30,31,32
Thrombocytopenia (a rare, often lethal blood disorder)33,34
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome35
Chronic seizures and convulsions38,39
Severe headache/migraine that does not respond to medication
Psychological effects such as mood changes, anxiety, depression, brain fog, confusion, dissociation and temporary inability to form words
Cardiac problems, including myocardial and tachycardia disorders41
Blindness, impaired vision and eye disorders42,43
In the U.K., there were 49,472 reported side effects to the Pfizer vaccine and 21,032 reactions to the AstraZeneca vaccine as of January 24, 2021. As reported by Principia Scientific International,46 “For both vaccines this equates to 1 in every 333 people suffering an adverse reaction. This rate could actually be higher as some cases may have not been reported …”
Greatest Risk of All: Sudden Death
Perhaps most concerning of all are rapidly mounting reports of sudden death,47,48,49,50,51,52 mostly in the elderly but also in much younger, healthy individuals. In the U.S., COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of vaccine-related deaths between January 2020 and January 2021.
As of February 12, 2021, the number of side effects reported to VAERS totaled 15,923, including 929 deaths.53 Of the 799 deaths reported within the U.S., one-third occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 21% of them were cardiac-related.
Pfizer’s vaccine was the most dangerous in terms of death, being responsible for 58% of deaths while Moderna’s vaccine accounted for 41% of deaths. Pfizer’s vaccine was also responsible for 75% of Bell’s Palsy cases, compared to Moderna’s at 25%.54
Curiously, based on the data submitted to the FDA, Moderna’s vaccine has a death rate 5.41 times higher than Pfizer’s, yet both are dramatically lower than the national average. As noted by The Defender, the dramatic discrepancy in death rates “deserves notice and requires explanation,” adding:55
“If Moderna’s on-vaccine death rate is so far below the national death rate and also simultaneously more than five times greater than Pfizer’s on-vaccine death rate, then Pfizer’s study sample appears even less representative of the entire population …
Moderna’s screening process and exclusion criteria in the trial led to evidence that the general population is dying at a rate 6.3 times greater than the death rate in the Moderna trial — which means the Moderna study, including its estimated efficacy rate and the vaccine’s alleged safety profile — cannot possibly be relevant to most of the U.S. population.
The super-healthy cohorts studied by Moderna are in no way representative of the U.S. population. Most deaths from COVID-19 involve pre-existing health conditions of the types excluded from both Pfizer and Moderna trials …
Those enrolling in the post-market surveillance studies deserve to know the abject absence of any relevant information on efficacy and risk for them. In their zeal to help humanity, or to help themselves, these people may very well be walking into a situation that will cause autoimmunity due to pathogenic priming, potentially leading to disease enhancement should they become infected following vaccination.”
Do a Risk-Benefit Analysis Before Making Up Your Mind
To avoid becoming a sad statistic, I urge you to review the science very carefully before making up your mind about this experimental gene therapy. Also remember that the lethality of COVID-19 is actually surprisingly low. It’s lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.56
If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible, insulin sensitive, and vitamin D replete.
So, really, what are we protecting against with a COVID-19 vaccine? These mRNA vaccines aren’t even designed to prevent infection, only to reduce the severity of symptoms. Meanwhile, they could potentially make you sicker once you’re exposed to the virus, and/or cause persistent serious side effects such as those reviewed above.
While I won’t tell anyone what to do, I would urge you to take the time to review the science and weigh the potential risks and benefits based on your individual situation before you make a decision that you may regret for the rest of your life, which can actually be shortened with this vaccine. Undoubtedly, Pfizer and other vaccine makers suspect this as well, which is why Pfizer is bullying nations into covering for any and all of its mistakes.
Media Hails New J&J Vaccine, Ignores Pharma Giant’s ‘Checkered Past’
On Feb. 26, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced — via a Saturday evening tweet — that the agency granted Emergency Use Authorization for Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) coronavirus vaccine for Americans 18 and older.
Claiming that “we’re in a hurry” because there’s not enough supply of the two COVID-19 vaccines already authorized for emergency use — Pfizer’s and Moderna’s — members of FDA’s committee agreed without dissent to allow a third COVID injection into the U.S. mix.
While the media drummed up enthusiasm for the expanded options, the Washington Post on March 2 offered an even splashier scoop: a “historic” production partnership between J&J and Merck, two pharma giants ordinarily portrayed as “fierce competitors.”
Employing hyperbolic language about the “wartime effort” and good “corporate citizenship,” public health leaders instantly celebrated the “unusual” arrangement for its potential to double “what Johnson & Johnson could make on its own.”
Experts bill J&J’s one-dose injections, which are storable for several months at refrigerator temperatures, as the ideal solution for vaccine programs challenged by the trickier storage and handling requirements of the two-dose Pfizer and Moderna shots — an “advantage [that] goes up in neon,” Dr. William Schaffner, an internist and infectious disease specialist with Vanderbilt University’s Department of Health Policy, told News7 Boston.
Rather than use the messenger RNA (mRNA) technology being deployed for the first time in the Pfizer and Moderna injections, J&J’s vaccine (made by the company’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals subsidiary) features a genetically engineered “viral vector” design reliant on a weakened common-cold virus called adenovirus 26.
Adenovirus vaccines have a lengthy history of use in the U.S. military, but the FDA’s emergency green light for J&J’s COVID injection represents the first time the agency has authorized an adenovirus-vectored vaccine for civilian use.
As J&J describes them, adenoviruses are “good for transporting things into humans.” In the case of the COVID vaccine, the aim is to shuttle genetic instructions — DNA coding for the coronavirus spike protein — into the cells and force the cells to make spike protein. In theory, these “self-made spike proteins” are then supposed to train the body to “detect and terminate any real SARS-CoV-2 infections before the virus wreaks havoc.”
Although the mode of delivery is different from the lipid nanoparticles (what CNN describes as “delicate little balls of fat”) that function as a carrier system for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, all three FDA-authorized COVID vaccines share the same novel goal of getting the body to manufacture spike protein — a goal that represents a radical departure from traditional vaccines.
A University of Tennessee microbiologist told Knox News that J&J’s approach is immunologically powerful, stating that the modified adenovirus vector is “about as subtle as a wrecking ball” and “very visible to the immune system.”
According to a May 2020 article in Chemical & Engineering News, the adenovirus approach — with 30 years of study behind it — has a “checkered past,” including as a “failed gene therapy.”
Undaunted by adenoviral vectors’ ability to generate dramatic and even fatal inflammatory effects, vaccine researchers embraced the strategy, only to discover that booster shots might “unleash an antibody attack on the vaccine itself.”
In 2007, Merck encountered yet another problem when it conducted clinical trials for an adenoviral-vectored HIV vaccine that, paradoxically, increased the risk of HIV infection in a subset of recipients — a cautionary tale that “put a big kibosh on adenoviruses” for some years thereafter.
In response to the FDA’s emergency authorization of J&J’s COVID-19 vaccine, the Catholic Archdiocese of New Orleans and Catholic leaders in St. Louis immediately pronounced the injection “morally compromised,” citing the company’s “extensive use of abortion-derived cell lines” and urging local Catholics not to take it. These objections are in the same vein as a letter submitted to the FDA a year ago by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which expressed concern about the development of COVID-19 vaccines reliant on “ethically problematic” cell lines.
The cell line in which Janssen grows its adenovirus vector is a human embryonic cell line called PER.C6. The retinal tissue that launched the cell line was obtained following the elective abortion of a healthy, 18-week-old fetus. The AstraZeneca-Oxford COVID vaccine uses a different human embryonic cell line called HEK293T to propagate its adenovirus.
To produce a continuous cell line of this type — what is called an “immortalized” cell line — scientists must artificially manipulate the original cells, which otherwise would have finite lifespans. This is accomplished by introducing chemical exposures or rendering them cancerous. Because this manipulation introduces genetic changes into the cells, “cell populations and cellular mechanisms are altered.”
A senior FDA official warned over two decades ago about the inherent risks of using continuous cell lines for vaccine development, noting that such cell lines, “by definition” have abnormalities, and worriedly acknowledging their “potential for growing tumors in laboratory animals.”
An FDA document published in late 2020 shows that these issues are far from resolved; explicitly referring to cell lines such as PER.C6 and HEK293T, the FDA author states: “The use of tumorigenic and tumor-derived cells is a major safety concern” and observes that the cell lines contain “latent” or “quiet” threats that “might become active under vaccine manufacturing conditions.”
The fact sheet for healthcare providers administering the J&J COVID vaccine specifies that each dose of vaccine “may … contain residual amounts of host cell proteins … and/or host cell DNA,” but the simplified fact sheet intended for vaccine recipients and their caregivers does not.
That means that unless vaccine recipients seek out the healthcare provider fact sheet, they’ll be unaware of this potentially crucial piece of information.
The Italian vaccine research and advocacy organization, Corvelva, which has conducted detailed studies of DNA from aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines, warns that such DNA is abnormal and potentially tumor-causing. Corvelva concludes that vaccines of this type “should be considered defective and potentially dangerous to human health.”
Along with a variety of other inactive ingredients, the J&J COVID vaccine also includes polysorbate-80, a stabilizer that studies have shown capable of transporting other substances across the blood-brain barrier.
Merck, for example, paid out $4.85 billion in 2007 after pleading guilty to criminal charges over illegal marketing of its lethal drug Vioxx. The company has gone on to face numerous other allegations of fraud, deceit, and negligence, including for its measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines.
For its part, J&J’s recent criminal history includes:
A 2013 order by the U.S. Department of Justice to pay $2.2 billion in civil and criminal fines related to the antipsychotic drug Risperdal and two other drugs, following aggressive off-label marketing and other dubious practices such as fraud and kickbacks.
A 2019 award by a Philadelphia jury of $8 billion in punitive damages to a man alleging that J&J failed to warn that Risperdal could lead to breast growth in boys. Thousands of other lawsuits against J&J feature the same allegation.
A $572 million judgment against J&J by the state of Oklahoma in 2019 for the company’s role in the opioid crisis.
$3.9 billion set aside for 25,000 lawsuits related to J&J’s asbestos-tainted baby powder. And a 2018 Missouri verdict, “one of the largest punitive-damages awards in U.S. legal history,” was reached after internal documents showed that the company had been aware of the baby powder contamination since the 1970s.
In the wake of these scandals, The Guardian wrote in 2019 that “experts are concerned that one of the world’s most recognizable names and most reliable and valuable companies is caught in no less than an existential crisis.” Citing the “product misfires,” “court judgments” and stark reputational decline, the British news outlet asked, “what happened to Johnson & Johnson?”
With the advent of J&J’s COVID vaccine (an injection already being hawked as a “vaccine for the world” and the potential “end of the pandemic”), it appears that The Guardian has its answer: J&J will send its former woes down the memory hole, an obliging media will ignore the spotty safety record of past adenovirus vaccine attempts (including J&J’s paused clinical trial last October) and a to-be-determined number of COVID-frightened Americans — tempted by the ease of a single shot — will line up for J&J’s investigational injection that, in the FDA’s own words, is “not licensed for any indication.”
Sadly, many of these individuals will be unaware that, unlike with dangerous drugs, they cannot sue indemnified COVID vaccine manufacturers should anything go wrong.
How We Know SARS-CoV-2 Absolutely Leaked From a Chinese Lab
The chance of a person from Wuhan being patient zero is approximately 1 in 630, based on calculations that take into account the population size of Wuhan, the global population, and the fact that coronavirus-carrying animals are found virtually all over the world
Taking into account that there are 28 Alpha- and Beta-coronavirus species with members that affect humans, the chance of Wuhan hosting a SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is 17,640 to 1
No credible theory for natural zoonotic spillover has been presented, to date
Meanwhile, there are at least four distinct lab origin theories, including the serial passage theory (which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture). There’s also a variety of evidence for genetic manipulation
A third theory is that SARS-CoV-2 is the result of vaccine development, and the fourth is the Mojiang miners passage theory, which proposes a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 sickened the miners, and once inside these patients, it mutated into SARS-CoV-2
Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, many scientists suspected SARS-CoV-2 might have originated in a biosafety laboratory, most likely in Wuhan, China, where the outbreak began in December 2019. Among them, Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., a molecular biologist, and a virologist, and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., a molecular biologist were experts who discussed the idea of a lab origin.
I interviewed Latham about some of their theories in July 2020. His interview is featured in “Cover-Up of SARS-CoV-2 Origin?” Latham and Wilson argue that while the virus most likely has a bat origin, the mechanism by which it jumped from bat to human was not a natural one and they have previously presented three different theories by which the virus may have been created and escaped from a lab.
A February 16, 2021, article1 in Independent Science News, the pair again reviewed the evidence for a laboratory origin and the reasons why a zoonotic origin will never be found.
Why Zoonotic Origin Is Most Unlikely
Aside from not being known for exotic culinary dishes involving animals such as bats, Wuhan, located in central China, is an unlikely location for zoonotic virus spillover as it has “no cultural, geographic or climatic predisposing factors,” Latham and Wilson note. Wuhan is also not a known hotspot for exotic animal smuggling.
The well-recognized absence of bats in Wuhan is why researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) traveled several hundred miles to collect bat coronavirus samples.
What’s more, Latham and Wilson cite research showing that “when WIV researchers needed to study a Chinese population that was not routinely exposed to bat coronaviruses (as a control group), they chose Wuhan residents.” Zheng-li Shi, head of coronavirus research at the WIV, even admitted that she “had never expected this kind of thing to happen in Wuhan, in central China.”
According to Latham and Wilson, “The chance of a person from Wuhan being patient zero is approximately 1 in 630,” based on calculations that take into account the population size of Wuhan, the global population, and the fact that coronavirus-carrying animals are found virtually all over the world.
“It truly is very, very, unlikely that a natural zoonotic pandemic would start in Wuhan. Yet no commentator on the outbreak seems to have properly acknowledged the true scale of this improbability,” Latham and Wilson write.2
Another coincidence that strongly points to a lab origin is the fact that the WIV not only has the world’s largest collection of bat coronaviruses, but WIV researchers had also singled out one specific coronavirus out of 28 relevant species for more in-depth work, “and it is a member of this species that broke out in Wuhan,” Latham and Wilson note, adding:
“This, then, is a further curious coincidence: for a pandemic coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) to emerge in Wuhan and be a member of the species most studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
Zoonotic Spillover of SARS-CoV-2 Is Not Random
Latham and Wilson go on to review the research done at the WIV in more detail, comparing and contrasting it to the natural evolution of coronaviruses. There are four basic types of coronaviruses: Alpha-, Beta-, Gamma- and Delta-coronaviruses. (For an illustration of the evolutionary tree of these viruses, please see the original article.3)
Of these four, only two are of interest when we’re searching for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 — the Alpha and Beta versions, of which there are 28 species, and “apparently random” coronavirus spillovers from Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses are known to have occurred in the past. (There are very few Gamma- and Delta-coronaviruses, and none is known to affect humans.)
Six of the 28 Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses are known to affect humans: HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229E, MERS, SARS, HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-HKU1 (SARS-CoV-2 makes No. 7). When you locate these six viruses on the coronavirus evolutionary tree, you find that they are widely distributed, which is an indication that previous zoonotic spillovers have been random.
Not so with SARS-CoV-2, though. When you place SARS-CoV-2 on this evolutionary tree, its location is not random like the others. Rather, it emerged from the original SARS (as evidenced by its name). Latham and Wilson explain:4
“From a zoonotic perspective, nothing appears to be special about these SARS-related coronaviruses. Consequently, the emergence of a second pandemic virus from the same coronavirus species constitutes a second surprising coincidence.
We can again calculate its probability. If each Alpha and Beta coronavirus species is equally likely to spill over to humans, which is consistent with our understanding, then the probability of a virus from the SARS-related coronavirus species starting a zoonotic pandemic is 1 in 28.
(And if there are undiscovered coronavirus species — pretty much a certainty — the number will be greater still). It is a coincidence that, just like the emergence in Wuhan, heavily favors a lab escape if we take into account the specifics of the coronavirus research program at the WIV …”
Zheng-li’s Research Revolved Around the Pandemic Virus
Latham and Wilson then go on to review 18 publications by Zheng-li, starting in 2005, describing her research into SARS-like coronaviruses. They point out that while Zheng-li collected a wide array of bat viruses, her specific research focus was the zoonotic spillover potential of a single species, namely SARS-related coronaviruses (one of the six Alpha- and Beta-coronaviruses known to infect humans).
“So while most discussions of a potential lab escape have mentioned that SARS-CoV-2 emerged within commuting distance of the WIV and that researchers at the WIV worked on bat coronaviruses, none have mentioned that the coincidence is much greater than that.
Zheng-li Shi concentrated, especially with her potentially highly risky molecular research, on the particular species of coronavirus that is responsible for the pandemic,” Latham and Wilson write, adding that:
“If one accepts as reasonable the assumptions made above, the probability of Wuhan being the site of a natural SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is obtained by multiplying 1 in 630 by 1 in 28. The chance of Wuhan hosting a SARS-related coronavirus outbreak is thus 17,640 to 1.”
They also dismiss the argument that these are little more than circumstantial pieces of evidence that could be due to sheer chance. Circumstantial evidence is not a “special category of evidence,” they point out; rather, “all evidence of causation is composed of coincidences.”
“All an observer can do is to add up the coincidences until they surmise that the threshold of reasonable doubt has been surpassed. Conclusions are always provisional, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, anyone open to persuasion ought at this point to conclude that a probability of 17,640 to 1 far exceeds that threshold. A lab escape should at this point be the default hypothesis.”
WIV Held Closest Known Relative to SARS-CoV-2
Since the beginning of the outbreak, we’ve also discovered that the WIV held a virus sample known as RaTG13 which, so far, is the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2. While Zheng-li has denied extensive study on RaTG13, scientific publications reveal this virus has been studied since at least 2017.
In addition to all of this, no substantive zoonotic theory has ever been presented, which makes it far less plausible than any of the lab-origin theories. While several potential intermediate species have been proposed, none has actually been found to carry SARS-CoV-2 or a precursor to it.
Both journals apparently allowed data sets to be secretly changed without publishing notices of correction. Authors appear to have renamed samples, failed to attribute samples properly and produced a genomic profile that doesn’t match the samples in the paper.
Some data are also missing. An investigation into the discrepancies found RaTG13, which is 96% identical to SARS-CoV-2, is actually btCoV-4991, a virus found in samples collected in 2013 and studies on them published in 2016. Meanwhile, there are at least “four distinct lab origin theories,” Wilson and Latham note, including:5
1.The serial passage theory, which proposes the virus was created by serial passaging through an animal host or cell culture.6
2.Evidence of genetic manipulation, including the chimeric structure of the virus and the presence of a furin cleavage site.7 While a majority of the viral genetic sequence is close to that of RaTG13, its receptor-binding domain is nearly identical to that of a pangolin coronavirus, while the furin cleavage site has not been seen in any other SARS-like coronaviruses.
Others have pointed out that the virus, which is highly adapted to human lung cells, appears to have evolved in the absence of immune system antibodies, which suggests mutation within cell culture.8
In “China Deletes Key SARS-CoV-2 Related Science,” I also review evidence9 suggesting SARS-CoV-2 was created by serial passaging an ancestor virus through transgenic mice equipped with human ACE2 receptors. (Research10 has confirmed transgenic mice with human ACE2 receptors are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, whereas normal mice are not.)
3.The failed vaccine development theory.11
4.The Mojiang miners passage theory,12,13 which proposes a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 — possibly RaTG13, as this virus was collected from that very same mine — sickened six miners in 2012, and once inside these patients, some of whom were ill for several weeks, it mutated into SARS-CoV-2. Samples from four of the hospitalized miners were sent to the WIV.
“To-date, there are conflicting claims about the results of those tests and nothing has been formally published. The Mojiang Miners Passage theory proposes, however, that, by the time they arrived at the WIV, these patient-derived samples contained a highly adapted human virus, which subsequently escaped,” Wilson and Latham write, adding:
“Our prediction … simply based on assessing the probabilities, is that no convincing natural zoonotic origin for the pandemic will ever be found by China or the WHO or anyone else — for the simple reason that one does not exist.”
WHO Investigation Into COVID-19 Origin Is Blatantly Corrupt
Despite the complete absence of a plausible zoonotic origin theory, the World Health Organization’s investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, has now officially cleared the WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.14,15,16
They’ve also stated that the lab-escape theory will no longer be part of the team’s investigation going forward.
The WHO team and its Chinese counterparts now insist the most likely scenario is that SARS-CoV-2 piggybacked its way into the Wuhan market in shipments of frozen food from other areas of China where coronavirus-carrying bats are known to reside, or another country, possibly in Europe. As a result, the WHO team is considering expanding its scope to look into other countries as the potential source of the virus.
As noted in a Wall Street Journal op-ed17 by Dr. Scott Gottlieb, “By lending credence to this improbable theory, WHO is damaging trust in the important project of figuring out where the virus originated.”
There are obvious problems with the WHO’s conclusions. For starters, no serious investigation was actually done. The WHO team was not equipped or designed to conduct a forensic examination of laboratory practices;18 rather, they relied on information obtained directly from the Chinese team.
Secondly, China was allowed to handpick the members of the WHO’s investigative team, which includes Peter Daszak, Ph.D., who has close professional ties to the WIV and has gone on record dismissing the lab-origin theory as “pure baloney.”19,20
He was also the mastermind behind the publication of a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”21,22 This manufactured “scientific consensus” was then relied on by the media to “debunk” theories and evidence showing the pandemic virus most likely originated from a laboratory.
No Credible Evidence Food Is a Route of Transmission
The inclusion of Dazsak on this team virtually guaranteed the dismissal of the lab-origin theory from the very start, and based on the lame justifications given by the team leader, Danish food safety and zoonosis scientist Ben Embarek, it seems clear they had no intention of looking at evidence that might implicate the WIV or any other Wuhan lab.
For example, Embarek claims that officials at the WIV “are the best ones to dismiss the claims and provide answers” about the potential for a lab leak. But suspects in an investigation are hardly the most reliable sources of evidence to dismiss suspicions against them.
Embark further insisted that lab accidents are “extremely rare,” hence it’s “very unlikely that anything could escape from such a place.”23 This too is a wholly unconvincing argument that flies in the face of available data.
According to the Cambridge Working Group in 2014, “biosafety incidents involving regulated pathogens have been occurring on average over twice a week” in the U.S. alone,24,25 and virology labs accidentally released the original SARS virus on no less than four separate occasions.26,27 Three of those four instances led to outbreaks.28 The 1977 H1N1 influenza outbreaks in the Soviet Union and China were also the result of a lab escape.29
Thirdly, a number of scientific bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods have resolutely dismissed the frozen food origination story, as no credible evidence has surfaced suggesting food, food packaging or food-handling might be a significant route of transmission.30
Why the Lab-Origin Theory Must Be Quashed
You may be wondering if there’s so much evidence pointing toward a lab origin, why are leading health authorities and scientists dismissing it all and insisting SARS-CoV-2 is a natural occurrence, mysterious as it might be? The answer undoubtedly comes down to money.
Should the COVID-19 pandemic be officially recognized as the result of a lab accident, the world might be forced to take a cold hard look at gain-of-function research that allows for the creation of these new pathogens. The end result would ideally be the banning of such research worldwide, which means tens of thousands of researchers would lose their jobs. Prestigious careers would be spoiled.
On top of that, the culprits might face criminal charges under the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, and nations might be held financially responsible for the economic destruction caused by the pandemic around the globe. These are no minor issues. They offer plenty of incentive to cover up the truth.
As Rutgers microbiologist and founding member of the Cambridge Working Group, Richard Ebright told Boston Magazine:31
“For the substantial subset of virologists who perform gain-of-function research, avoiding restrictions on research funding, avoiding implementation of appropriate biosafety standards, and avoiding implementation of appropriate research oversight are powerful motivators.”
Antonio Regalado, a biomedicine editor of MIT Technology Review, was even blunter, stating that if SARS-CoV-2 was found to be a lab creation, “it would shatter the scientific edifice top to bottom.”32 There’s little doubt that this is the reason why the lab origin theory has been roundly labeled as pure conspiracy theory spread by science deniers and Trump flag-wielding kooks.
Such a stance is extremely unhealthy, however, as it seeks to strangle not only free speech but also scientific inquiry, and “criminalizes” logic in general. In a February 15, 2021, AP News article,33 the three authors identify several professors and organizations as “superspreaders” of disinformation about SARS-CoV-2’s origin.
Among them are Francis Boyle, a bioweapons expert who drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act; Luc Montagnier, a world-renowned virologist who won the Nobel prize for his discovery of HIV; and the Center for Research on Globalization. The remainders are individuals and organizations that I, having written many hundreds of articles about COVID-19 over the past year, have never even heard of.
According to AP, the parties on this list have no training in virology (apparently, Nobel prize-winning virologists aren’t good enough) and therefore do not have the expertise to speak on the issue of viral origins. However, they don’t mention the many who have presented evidence for a lab origin who do have all the “right” credentials.
It’s also worth noting that the AP article was produced in collaboration with the Atlantic Council, which is part of the technocratic hub that is using the pandemic to further its Great Reset agenda. That alone qualifies the article as pure globalist propaganda.
If SARS-CoV-2 really was the result of zoonotic spillover, the easiest and most effective way to quash “conspiracy theories” about a lab origin would be to present compelling evidence for a plausible theory. So far, that hasn’t happened, and as noted by Latham and Wilson, the most likely reason for that is because the virus does not have a natural zoonotic origin, and you cannot find that which does not exist.
Massive Numbers of Flu Cases are Re-Labeled COVID Cases
The number of COVID cases has been faked in various ways.
By far, the most extensive strategy is re-labeling. Flu is called COVID.
We don’t need charts and graphs to see this. It’s right in front of our eyes.
The definition of a COVID case allows flu in the door. There is nothing unique about that definition. For example, a cough, or chills and fever, would constitute “a mild case of COVID.”
A positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 would also be required, but as I’ve shown in my recent series on the test, obtaining a false positive is as easy as pie.
All you have to do is run the test in more than 35 cycles. Most labs run the test at 40 cycles. A cycle is a quantum leap in magnification of the swab sample taken from the patient. When you run the test at more than 35 cycles, false-positives come pouring out like water from a fire hose.
So…with ordinary flu symptoms plus a false-positive PCR test…voila, you have a COVID case.
Keep in mind that, overwhelmingly, most COVID cases are mild. In other words, they’re indistinguishable from ordinary flu.
But there is a rabbit hole here, and we can go down that hole much farther. The next question is: what is a flu case? What is it really?
Researcher Peter Doshi did much to answer that question. In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published his shocking report, which created tremors through the halls of the CDC, where “the experts” used to tell the press that 36,000 people in the US die every year from the flu.
Here is a quote from Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):
“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”
You see, the CDC creates one overall category that combines both flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.
This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.
But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.
Therefore, the CDC could only say, with assurance, that 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.
Doshi continued his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.
This death toll is obviously far lower than the old parroted 36,000 figure.
However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of annual flu deaths plummet even further.
In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.
But we’re not finished yet. Because…what test were researchers using to decide there were 18 cases of honest flu, in which a virus was found and identified? Answer: unknown.
It’s quite probable the test didn’t really isolate a flu virus at all. It only identified some marker that was ASSUMED, without proof, to be unique to a flu virus.
If so—ZERO cases of actual flu were found in the population.
Instead, what we had was a “flu-like illness.” Chills, cough, congestion, fever, fatigue; the ubiquitous symptoms that describe a billion cases of illness, every year, worldwide.
The cause of those billion cases? There is no single cause. Instead, there are many factors, ranging from sudden weather changes to air pollution to malnutrition to sub-standard sanitation…on and on.
That being the case, we can now say: Many, many cases of FAKE FLU are being relabeled FAKE COVID.
Now we’re getting real.
The medical cartel “discovers” (markets) huge numbers of so-called unique diseases—each disease with a purported specific cause: virus A, virus B, virus C…
For each virus, there must be at least several highly profitable drugs that supposedly kill the germ. And for each germ, there must be a vaccine that prevents the disease.
Billions and trillions in rewards follow.
And so does CONTROL. Control of minds.
Because the population is tuned up by ceaseless propaganda to believe in the rigid one-disease one-germ notion.
And when the time is right, the medical cartel can even claim a new germ is decimating the world, and they must “destroy the village in order to save it.”
Which is the psychotic fiction we are in the middle of, right now.
The Holy Church of Biological Mysticism needs your support. Give them your time, your money, your livelihood, your future, your loyalty, your faith.
If you do, you are their most important product.
About the Author
Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29thDistrict of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
This article (Massive Number Of Flu Cases Are Re-labeled COVID Cases) was originally created and published by Jon Rappaport’s Blog and is re-posted here with permission.
1. It’s not a vaccine. A vaccine by definition provides immunity to a disease. This does not provide immunity to anything. In a best-case scenario, it merely reduces the chance of getting a severe case of a virus if one catches it. Hence, it is a medical treatment, not a vaccine. I do not want to take medical treatment for an illness I do not have.
2. The drug companies, politicians, medical establishments, and media have joined forces to universally refer to this as a vaccine when it is not one, with the intention of manipulating people into feeling safer about undergoing medical treatment. Because they are being deceitful, I do not trust them and want nothing to do with their medical treatment.
3. The presumed benefits of this medical treatment are minimal and would not last long in any case. The establishment acknowledges this and is already talking about additional shots and ever-increasing numbers of new “vaccines” that would be required on a regular basis. I refuse to turn myself into a chronic patient who receives injections of new pharmaceutical products on a regular basis simply to reduce my chances of getting a severe case of a virus that these injections do not even prevent.
4. I can reduce my chances of getting a severe case of a virus by strengthening my immune system naturally. In the event I catch a virus, there are vitamins and well-established drugs that have had wonderful results in warding off the illness, without the risks and unknowns of this medical treatment.
5. The establishment insists that this medical treatment is safe. They cannot possibly know this because the long-term effects are entirely unknown, and will not be known for many years. They may speculate that it is safe, but it is disingenuous for them to make such a claim that cannot possibly be known. Because they are being disingenuous, I do not trust them, and I want no part of their treatment.
6. The drug companies have zero liability if anything goes wrong, and cannot be sued. Same for the politicians who are pushing this treatment. I will not inject myself with a new, experimental medical device when the people behind it accept no liability or responsibility if something goes wrong. I will not risk my health and my life when they refuse to risk anything.
7. Israel’s Prime Minister has openly admitted that the Israeli people are the world’s laboratory for this experimental treatment. I am not interested in being a guinea pig or donating my body to science.
8. Israel agreed to share the medical data of its citizens with a foreign drug company as a fundamental part of their agreement to receive this treatment. I never consented for my personal medical data to be shared with any such entity, nor was I even asked. I will not contribute to this sleazy enterprise.
9. The executives and board members at Pfizer are on record that they have not taken their own treatment, despite all the fanfare and assurances. They are claiming that they would consider it unfair to “cut the line”. This is a preposterous excuse, and it takes an unbelievable amount of chutzpah to even say such a thing. Such a “line” is a figment of their own imagination; if they hogged a couple of injections for themselves no one would cry foul. In addition, billionaires with private jets and private islands are not known for waiting in line until hundreds of millions of peasants all over the world go first to receive anything these billionaires want for themselves.
10. The establishment media has accepted this preposterous excuse without question or concern. Moreover, they laud Pfizer’s executives for their supposed self-sacrifice in not taking their own experimental treatment until we go first. Since they consider us such fools, I do not trust them and do not want their new treatment. They can have my place in line. I’ll go to the very back of the line.
11. Three facts that must be put together:
Bill Gates is touting these vaccines as essential to the survival of the human race.
Bill Gates believes the world has too many people and needs to be “depopulated”.
Bill Gates, perhaps the richest man in the world, has also not been injected. No rush.
Uh, no. I’ll pass on any medical treatments he wants me to take.
12. The establishment has been entirely one-sided in celebrating this treatment. The politicians and media are urging people to take it as both a moral and civic duty. The benefits of the treatment are being greatly exaggerated, the risks are being ignored, and the unknowns are being brushed aside. Because they are being deceitful and manipulative, I will not gamble my personal wellbeing on their integrity.
13. There is an intense propaganda campaign for people to take this treatment. Politicians and celebrities are taking selfies of themselves getting injected (perhaps in some cases pretending to get injected), the media is hyping this as the coolest, smartest, most happy, and fun thing to do. It is the most widespread marketing campaign in history. This is not at all appropriate for any medical treatment, let alone a brand new one, and it makes me recoil.
14. The masses are following in tow, posting pictures of themselves getting injected with a drug, feeding the mass peer pressure to do the same. There is something very alarming and sick about this, and I want no part of it. I never took drugs just because “everyone’s doing it” and it’s cool. I’m certainly not going to start now.
15. Those who raise concerns about this medical treatment are being bullied, slandered, mocked, censored, ostracized, threatened, and fired from their jobs. This includes medical professionals who have science-based concerns about the drug and caregivers who have witnessed people under their charge suffering horrible reactions and died shortly after being injected. When the establishment is purging good people who risk everything simply to raise concerns about a new medical treatment – even if they don’t outright oppose it – I will trust these brave people over the establishment every time. I cannot think of a single similar case in history when truth and morality turned out to be on the side of the establishment.
Dr. David Martin, founder and chairman of M-CAM Inc, challenges our presuppositions about the new mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. Quoting the pharmaceutical companies themselves, David suggests that these are not vaccines, but, in actuality, gene therapy. He explains what the vaccines may do to us, what they are promising they can do for us, and how to distinguish the difference. He also reviews the problems with the PCR tests and even helps us understand our broader state of emergency. Finally, he explains how fear on a subconscious level can make us resist the truth.
Within the below transcript the bolded text is Hilda Labrada Gore and the regular text is Dr. David Martin.
I have a friend that works in the school system. She got a letter suggesting that she’s an essential worker and that she needs to get this one of these new vaccines being developed against this COVID virus. What should she know before she goes for it?
Let’s start with your opening sentence. None of the words in the order that you use exist in reality. Let’s unpack that. First of all, there is no vaccine that is in development or contemplated that is a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. That doesn’t exist. That hasn’t been developed. It isn’t even, in 2021, in contemplation. It’s one of the unfortunate things about what’s going on in the propaganda war, which is in February, the World Health Organization made it abundantly clear that SARS-CoV-2 or the virus and COVID-19, which is a series of clinical presentations of illness were two distinct things.
You’re making an interesting distinction. I have heard that SARS-CoV-2 is “the virus” and that COVID-19 is the disease. Is that what you’re saying?
COVID 19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with what used to be associated with influenza and with other febrile diseases. The problem that we have is that in February, the World Health Organization was clear in stating that there should not be a conflation between the two of these things. One is a virus, in their definition and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The illusion in February was that SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19. The problem with that definition and with the expectation is that the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2 are not ill at all. The illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart. That’s the reason why they invented the term asymptomatic carrier.
In other words, I might get a positive result from this PCR test and the reason I’m not asymptomatic, what’s happening is I’m not sick at all. They’ve made a false assumption that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19.
That’s never been the case, never has been the case and never will be the case. There is a causal statement that is made in the media where, for example, Johns Hopkins or the COVID tracker platform or any of these things has intentionally misled the people. There are not 5,000 new cases in Virginia. There potentially may be several thousand positive PCR tests but most of the people who have a positive test will never have a single symptom. Most of the people who have symptoms do not have positive tests.
I know some individuals who said that thing. They were like, “I was feeling sick and I got a negative test. My sister-in-law, who was feeling great, got a positive test.”
It will always be the case. The causal link that the media, the CDC made and the COVID tracker, which is the collaboration between the Bloomberg Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Zuckerberg Foundation and others, the official numbers that we get traped across the screens every morning of our computers in our televisions, those numbers are willfully lying. They have been willfully lying since the inception of this. There is not a causal link between these things that have never been established. It has never even been close to established. We have a situation where the illusion of the problem is that people say, “I don’t want to get COVID-19.” What they mean is they don’t want to get infected with a virus. The problem is those two things are not related to each other.
A viral infection hasn’t been documented in the majority of what is called cases. There is no basis for that conflation other than the manipulation of the public. That’s the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is that what is being touted as a vaccination, which as you well know when somebody says the word vaccination, the public understanding is that you are being treated with an attenuated or alive virus or a fragment of an attenuated and that the treatment is meant to keep you from getting an infection and it is meant to keep you from transmitting the infection that vaccine in the common definition of a vaccine is meant to do.
The problem is that in the case of Moderna and Pfizer, this is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy. It’s a chemotherapy agent that is gene therapy. It is not a vaccine. What is this doing? It’s sending a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being, the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen. It’s a toxin inside of human beings. This is not only not keeping you from getting sick, it’s making your body produce the thing that makes you sick.
In that sense, it does sound like a vaccine?
No, not at all because a vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. It’s not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin.
That’s how this differs.
It’s not somewhat different. It’s not the same at all. This is a public manipulation of misrepresentation of clinical treatment. It’s not a vaccination. It’s not a prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.
The way I’ve heard the companies put it is this is to teach your body to fight this virus when it comes around. That’s how they’re presenting it.
Their clinical trial didn’t include any of that as even a possibility within the clinical trial. The clinical trial did not measure the presence or absence of a virus or a virus fragment. The clinical trial did not measure the possibility of transmission suppression, the clinical trial didn’t measure any of those things. This is a case of misrepresentation of technology and it’s done exclusively so that they can get themselves under the umbrella of public health laws that exploit vaccination.
What you’re saying is different from what most of us have heard in the mainstream news and even from the press releases from big companies.
That’s because people aren’t reading the actual clinical trials. If you read the clinical trials, nothing that I’m saying is even remotely different. As a matter of fact, the companies themselves have said what I’m saying. They said, they could not test for the existence or absence of the virus and they could not test for the transmissivity because they said it would be impractical. The companies themselves have admitted to every single thing I’m saying but they are using the public manipulation of the word vaccine to co-opt the public into believing they’re getting a thing, which they are not getting. This is not going to stop you from getting Coronavirus. It’s not going to stop you from getting sick. In fact, on the contrary, it will make you sick far more often than the virus itself.
How can you say that so definitively?
Because the data is nothing but that, for people receiving by the time they got the second shot, 80% of people had one or more clinical presentations of COVID-19, 80% of people who have an infection according to RT-PCR have no symptoms at all.
Venezuela announced they have had encouraging results treating COVID-19 patients with Carvativir, an oral solution made from extracts of thyme and oregano
Historically, thyme has been used to treat coughs and upper respiratory infections, with evidence it also is effective against herpes and other viruses
Media outlets are quoting skeptics before the data have even been published, following closely in the footsteps of the hydroxychloroquine precedent
Officials are pushing a gene-based injection with an unknown track record over effective preventive strategies and at-home treatments, such as vitamins D and C, and zinc, nebulized hydrogen peroxide, or drugs with low side effect profiles like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro made the news when he began promoting Carvativir, an oral solution made from extracts of thyme and oregano, for the treatment of COVID-19.1 Long before placebo-controlled, randomized studies were the gold standard for clinical trials, people relied on results from small groups of people.
If a traditional medicine had positive results in a community, it was used. Without statistical analysis or comparing p-values, people had to rely on the proximate results. This meant a traditional medicine that was only nominally better than doing nothing may not have been adopted by indigenous people as the effects would not have been as obvious.
Through testing and experimentation, this served communities well in treating infections and other health conditions where treatment success could be measured quickly, such as using ginger for an upset stomach. One such traditional medicine is wild thyme (Thymus serpyllum), long used in the treatment of respiratory and digestive issues.2
Many of the benefits of thyme are from the essential oils made from Thymus vulgaris,3 which include potent compounds like thymol, camphene, linalool, and carvacrol. Thymol is the most active constituent of thyme essential oil. Levels can vary depending on the climate, extraction method, and production practice, ranging from 3% to 80%.4
While thyme has a long history in traditional medicine, more recent scientific analysis and clinical studies have demonstrated another powerful effect the essential oil has on health.
Venezuela Reports Encouraging Results Using Carvativir
Reuters wrote that Maduro “is promoting a “miracle” medication derived from thyme called Carvativir that he said neutralizes COVID-19 with no side effects, although some doctors say it is not backed by science.”5 According to the report, Maduro said the solution was tested on people who were being treated at emergency medical facilities and at a Caracas hospital.
During a televised broadcast, he claimed Carvativir had been through nine months of study and clinical application on people who had been “very sick” and “intubated,” yet had subsequently recovered.
In another statement, Venezuela’s National Academy of Medicine confirmed the solution has therapeutic potential against coronavirus but cautions it may be prudent to “wait for more data from the Carvativir tests … to consider it a candidate for an anti-COVID-19 medication.”6
While doctors have also acknowledged that thyme essential oils have been used for centuries on infections but have not been established against COVID-19, Venezuelan scientists, including Hector Rangel, a virologist who led studies on COVID-19 vaccines, assured the media that Carvativir has demonstrated activity against cells infected with SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.7
Maduro has promised studies will be published demonstrating Carvativir’s effectiveness. Due to the “tremendous controversy” generated over his initial comments, he now calls the medication “complementary” in the treatment against COVID-19.8
Headlines and Media Outlets May Not Tell the Whole Story
It becomes difficult to isolate evidence and data when headlines and articles are not impartial, such as “A Traditional Herb Created By Catholic Holy Doctors Criticized By World Health Experts”9 and “Doctors Skeptical As Venezuela’s Maduro Touts Coronavirus ‘Miracle’ Drug.”10 Instead of preparing arguments based on data, the media appear to be crafting their own narrative.
This has recent historical precedent when the fight over using hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19 was highly politicized and covered by the media, in a role that can be likened to genocide.
It’s impossible to estimate how many lives may have been saved had journalists done their due diligence and reported on the science truthfully as opposed to taking their lead from businesses that spend the most on advertising, namely drug companies.
Carvativir may or may not be effective or complementary in the treatment of COVID-19, yet before the data can be released, the drug is labeled as quackery. As most in the holistic field have been aware, there is an undercurrent of censorship used to mislead people that ultimately line the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many conventional doctors have also gotten a taste of what it’s like to have potentially life-saving treatments censored. July 23, 2020,11 Dr. Harvey A. Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, published an op-ed in Newsweek in which he expressed his dismay and frustration on this topic as it pertains to hydroxychloroquine.12
“I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals.
I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines.
As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily … I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine.
When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.
Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk.
I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.”
Thyme Has Demonstrated Antiviral Activity
The Venezuelan Minister for Science and Technology, Gabriela Jiménez, confirmed that the active ingredient in Carvativir is isothymol isolated from oregano and thyme.13 While the essential oils from thyme have not been scientifically proven against COVID-19, there is scientific evidence they have antiviral and antibacterial properties.
Historically, thyme has been used to help control cough associated with an upper respiratory infection. One tested combination14 used with upper respiratory infections is thyme and primrose in combination with thymol, which was shown to alleviate cough and shortness of breath and to shorten the length of the infection.
Evidence has also shown thyme is active against herpes15 and other viruses, likely by interfering with the protein envelope that surrounds virulent viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2. One study16 published in 2017 showed thymol was highly selective and a promising candidate against herpes infections.
Research from the University of Ahvaz17 showed extracts from thyme provided protection against the Newcastle virus that causes illness and death in birds and is transmissible to humans. Another analysis18 showed essential oil from Thymus transcaspicus, a variety of thyme, had moderate antimicrobial and antiviral activity.
Thyme has also been evaluated against the influenza virus as antiviral-resistant strains continue to emerge. Essential oils have been tested in experimental conditions, but one study19 tested essential oils from eucalyptus, Citrus bergamia, and Thymus vulgaris in vapor form.
Vaporized essential oils from thyme, among others, displayed 100% inhibitory activity without adverse effects on the epithelial layers, suggesting they could be “potentially useful in influenza therapy.”20
Officials Push Vaccine Over Prevention and Treatment
Carvativir is not the first cost-effective potential treatment to be ridiculed in the media in favor of sitting and waiting until an unproven genetic experiment can be unleashed on the public under the guise of Operation Warp Speed and a COVID-19 vaccine.
While the results on Carvativir are not yet published as of this writing, there are other effective and long-standing preventive measures and treatments for this virus. Although the recently released shot is being called a vaccine, by medical definition it’s more accurately an experimental gene therapy that could prematurely kill many people.
As I also wrote in the article linked above, equally shocking are the personal videos sharing the severe side effects people are experiencing — videos which are quickly removed by social media platforms, ostensibly for violating some term of service. It’s hard to fathom how a personal experience can be considered “false information.”
Whether you choose to take the vaccine or not, it is important to remember that it does not stop you from getting COVID-19 and may not be effective against the virus as it naturally mutates in the environment. It is essential you take steps to protect your overall health and be aware of the strategies you can use to prevent infection and be treated early at home to reduce your risk of severe disease.
Recently, doctors have returned to basic supportive care and treatments and have experienced better survival rates and patient outcomes. As the pandemic has progressed, doctors have also recognized the need for early outpatient treatment in order to halt the progression and lower the risk of severe disease.
Consider These Steps to Reduce Your Risk
One of those outpatient treatments that have been maligned in the media is a combination of hydroxychloroquine and zinc. Hydroxychloroquine acts as a zinc ionophore, helping to move zinc into the cells. Zinc helps prevent the replication of viruses inside the cell, which is why it has had such good results in shortening the common cold.
Evidence has also suggested that people admitted to the hospital with low zinc levels have a higher likelihood of dying from COVID-19.21 Low levels of vitamin D have also been associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease. Vitamin D optimization may help prevent infection and reduce the risk of severe symptoms.
In June 2020, I launched an information campaign about vitamin D that included a downloadable scientific report detailing the science behind vitamin D. A randomized double-blind study, published December 2020,22 demonstrated that giving critically ill patients with COVID-19 high doses of vitamin D could significantly reduce the number of days they spend in intensive care and reduce their need for ventilation.
A mathematical reanalysis of data from an earlier trial concluded there’s a “strong role for vitamin D in reducing ICU admission of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.”23 Ivermectin is another drug that’s been found to be useful in all stages of the infection. However, the real strength appears to be as a preventive.
As I reported in “Can Ivermectin Help Prevent COVID-19 Deaths?” two states in India with high population rates are reporting24 the lowest and second-lowest fatality rates in all of India after having added ivermectin to their treatment protocols.
As reported in Trial Site News, health officials in India had recognized the urgency in treating and preventing the illness, but, “Such urgency is in short supply in the U.S., where the single-minded focus is on vaccination.”25
Two other treatments for COVID-19 that have shown significant positive results are vitamin C and the MATH+ protocol. As reported in Nutrients, “Vitamin C’s antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulating effects make it a potential therapeutic candidate, both for the prevention and amelioration of COVID-19 infection, and as an adjunctive therapy in the critical care of COVID-19.”26
In response to this landmark review, the Alliance for Natural Health launched an international vitamin C campaign.27 Founder and scientific director Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., noted there are several reasons to take supplemental vitamin C:28
Your body cannot make it.
Most people do not get enough from their diet.
Your body’s requirement for vitamin C can increase 10-fold during an infection, disease, or physical trauma.
Consider These Steps to Take Control of Your Health
My personal choice for treating upper respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. In the video above I demonstrate how the solution should be mixed and administered for the best results.
It’s a home remedy I recommend everyone familiarize themselves with, as in many cases it can improve symptoms in mere hours. You can also use it as a preventive strategy if you know you’ve been exposed to someone who is ill.
The recent events over the past year have aptly demonstrated how crucial it is for you to take control of your health. In the past year, there have been a rising number of suicides,29 drug overdoses30, and mental health conditions,31 many of which may have stemmed from fear. It is important to remember you do not have to be afraid and that fear is what is being used to manipulate your behavior.
Take the time to gather the necessary tools you’ll need to protect your health, reduce your risk of infection and hasten to heal if you are infected. Then take a few minutes to share this important information with your friends and family members.
Many of the effective preventive and at-home treatment strategies are not shared by the media, as most are advocating you wait with bated breath for a vaccine. You can improve your health and make a difference in others’ lives.
Since COVID Vaccines Are Experimental, Vaccine Administrators Must Inform You of Risks
With the mass vaccination program now in full swing, we are hearing more and more reports suggesting this fundamental right and the legal requirement is not being respected. The vast majority of people are simply not being given the opportunity to exercise this right that is a foundational principle of medical ethics and central to the concept of patient autonomy. Most people likely don’t even know what information they should be able to receive prior to vaccination.
Check out our video below (under 8 minutes in length), presented by Rob Verkerk Ph.D., including inputs from a dentist, Dr. Zac Cox, from the World Doctors Alliance, and integrative doctor, Dr. Anna Forbes, founder, and director of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance.
You don’t need to sign something to give consent — baring your arm is sufficient.
In the case of vaccination, this is, in essence, the gesture that gives the vaccinator permission to touch you and inject you. Failure to seek your permission would typically be regarded, legally, as assault or battery.
The real problem, therefore, isn’t with the consent itself, but with the information that should precede the issue of consent.
The three prerequisites for informed consent
For consent to be valid you need 3 things:
It must be given voluntarily— without coercion or deceit.
It must be given by an individual who has mental capacity.
BEFORE giving consent, a person needs to have been fully informed about the issue. That includes being informed about what the risks and benefits of the treatment or vaccination are, as well as the risks and benefits of going without the treatment or vaccination, and what alternate options might be available.
Do health authority vaccine claims constitute deceit?
A search we carried out of the VAERS database in the U.S. shows that nearly 8,000 adverse events have been reported to date (note: as many as 90% of adverse reactions often go unreported), and over 1.5% of these involved death. It is then arguably deceitful to refer to these experimental vaccines as “safe.”
Even if it can be argued that the existing safety claims, advertising campaigns, or pressure from some sectors of the health professions are neither coercive nor deceitful, it is this last prerequisite concerning the provision of information where mass vaccination programs typically fall short.
Given the lack of vaccine transparency, vaccinators themselves are not properly informed so are generally not in any position to offer accurate information that might be available in the public domain, but is generally not well known.
Information that should be freely communicated includes the fact that the vaccines are experimental and unproven. Those considering giving consent should be told about the vaccines’ reliance on synthetic biology that has never been tested at scale. But it also includes information on known risks and benefits from Phase 3 trials, and that these trials are still underway and some won’t be complete for over 18 months (e.g. Jan. 31, 2023, for Pfizer mRNA vaccine).
Put simply – without vaccine transparency, informed consent is just not possible.
The very least we should expect is that every person gets to read the product information leaflet agreed between vaccine makers and regulators — before giving their consent. Even this isn’t happening. Where the information is being given — it’s often being handed to people as a passing gesture — a formality — after vaccination.
It’s time that those in charge of the vaccination programs begin to respect informed consent. And while they’re at it, recognize that they better change how they’re approaching informed consent because many are likely breaking the law by not allowing that right to be exercised.
The law on informed consent — present in nearly all jurisdictions — forms one of the central planks of medical ethics that’s the bedrock for the practice of “good medicine” in civilized, democratized societies. Let’s not throw that to the wind.
Children’s Health Defense has created a video of Dr. Liz Mumper’s presentation titled “How Will We Know That a COVID-19 Vaccine is Safe?” This presentation is the result of a collaborative effort between Dr. Mumper and the team of doctors, scientists, and researchers affiliated with CHD.
Dr. Mumper carefully provides detailed answers to two questions often asked by the public: “What does a safe and effective vaccine look like?” and “How will we know that a COVID-19 vaccine is safe?” She reviews many of the reasons why vaccines, as they are currently produced, are not safe, and explains that every year there are tens of thousands of adverse events, many of them resulting in serious conditions or even death.
Dr. Mumper reviews the scientific community’s numerous concerns about the safety of a COVID vaccine and its ingredients, providing information about each of the top COVID vaccine candidates. Lastly, she discusses the legality of mandatory vaccination in a free republic that proclaims to defend the rights of “we the people.”
We hope that individuals will use this video presentation and these additional files as tools to educate friends, parents, policymakers, state and federal legislators, and public health officials who need to know of the relative risks of vaccines in general, and especially those risks associated with COVID vaccines.
Dr. Mumper is President and CEO of The RIMLAND Center, established to mentor clinicians interested in children with neurodevelopmental problems. Her general pediatrics practice is Advocates for Children. Advocates for Families is devoted to the care of children with autism and other neurodevelopmental problems.
She attended the Medical College of Virginia, did residency training at the University of Massachusetts and University of Virginia, and she served as Chief Resident of Pediatrics at UVA.
Her clinical experience has included five years in pediatric practice, over a decade as Director of Pediatric Education in a Family Practice Residency Program, 16 years as clinical faculty at the University of Virginia, and five years as Medical Director of the Autism Research Institute. She is currently on the faculty of MAPS (Medical Academy for Pediatric Special Needs).
Scientists are witnessing an alarming trend: Men’s sperm counts are down, testosterone levels have plunged and erectile dysfunction is increasing. Male infertility is on the rise — and exposure to synthetic chemicals known as phthalates could be to blame, according to fertility scientist Shanna Swan, Ph.D., author of the new book, “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race.”
Citing Swan’s book, the New York Post reported that the global fertility rate has dropped 50% between 1960 and 2016, with the U.S. birth rate 16% below where it needs to be to sustain the population.
Although girls are experiencing early puberty, and women are experiencing declining egg quality and more miscarriages, emerging science is shifting the focus toward men as more couples suffer from infertility. However, all hope is not lost, because advances in fertility treatments are enabling people worldwide to create the family they’ve always dreamed of. People suffering from infertility can compare home insemination, IVF, and IUI (intrauterine insemination) before selecting which method is best for them.
In 2017, Swan, one of the world’s leading environmental and reproductive epidemiologists, co-authored a meta-analysis that came to a staggering conclusion: The sperm count of average Western countries had fallen by 59% between 1973 and 2011.
Normal sperm counts range from 15 million sperm per milliliter to 200 million per milliliter. A rate below 15 million is considered “low” by the World Health Organization (WHO), but Swan argues that anything below 40 million creates challenges for reproduction. The average male is nearing that number at 47.1 million sperm per milliliter compared to his father who had an average of 99 million sperm per milliliter at the same age.
“If you look at the curve on sperm count and project it forward — which is always risky — it reaches zero in 2045, meaning the median man would have essentially no viable sperm,” Swan writes in her book.
Men are also experiencing lower testosterone levels. A 2006 study showed that a 65-year-old man in 2002 had testosterone levels 15% lower than a 65-year-old man in 1987. A 2020 study in the Urology Times Journal showed a similar drop in young adults and adolescents.
As a result, more men are getting prescriptions for testosterone replacement therapy, which increases testosterone levels but causes an even greater reduction in sperm count. “Ninety percent of men can have their sperm counts drop to zero while they’re on it,” according to Swan. For further information about TRT treatment, you may visit RiseMensHealth.com.
The sexual desire among men is also declining. Swan, who has studied infertility for more than 30 years, says men are seeking help for erectile dysfunction on average seven years earlier than they did in 2005, with 26% of men falling under the age of 40.
According to the New York Post, research shows an overall increase in genital abnormalities, including a higher rate of undescended testicles and unusually small penises. Growing numbers of sperm appear defective with some having two heads or wandering aimlessly instead of pursuing an egg.
Exposure to phthalates is a particular problem during pregnancy when fetuses are sexually differentiating in the first trimester, says Swan, and infants with greater exposure to phthalates during pregnancy are shown to have smaller penises.
Similar abnormalities have been observed in animals. Small penises are being reported in alligators, otters, and minks. Polar bears have lower-than-normal testosterone levels, panthers are showing an increase in genital abnormalities, and fish, frogs, and turtles are being born with both male and female organs.
Research points to endocrine-disrupting phthalates as a likely cause
Phthalates are synthetic chemicals used to make plastics more flexible and harder to break. The chemicals are everywhere: plastics, shampoos, cosmetics, furniture, flame retardants, personal care products, pesticides, canned foods, and even receipts.
In several studies over the last two decades, phthalates have been shown to disrupt male hormones like testosterone and cause genital birth defects in male infants.
A 2018 systematic review published in Environmental International showed phthalates decreased testosterone and caused negative reproductive outcomes in men.
Flame retardants found in mattresses and foam furniture were linked to male infertility in a 2016 study published in the Reproductive Toxicology Journal, and chemicals in stain, water, fast-food packaging, paper plates, stain-resistant carpeting, and other household items have been linked to a reduction in semen quality, testicular volume, and penis length.
A 2017 U.S. study showed that 45 potentially harmful chemicals, including phthalates and flame retardants, were present in dust buildup in 90% of homes sampled, reported the New York Post.
Pesticides and herbicides have also been found to negatively affect male infertility. Atrazine, an herbicide used to prevent certain weeds from growing in corn, has been linked to lower sperm quality.
In her latest book, Swan writes:
“The problem isn’t that something is inherently wrong with the human body as it has evolved over time; it’s that chemicals in our environment and unhealthy lifestyle practices in our modern world are disrupting our hormonal balance, causing varying degrees of reproductive havoc that can foil fertility and lead to long-term health problems even after one has left the reproductive years.”
The cumulative effect of endocrine disruptors affects multiple generations. Patrician Hunt, a reproductive geneticist at Washington State University, conducted experiments on mice. When infant mice were exposed to disruptive chemicals for a few days their testes as adults produced fewer sperm. The mice passed on this propensity to their offspring, and after three generations of exposure, one-fifth of male mice were infertile.
“I find this particularly troubling,” Professor Hunt told The New York Times. “From the standpoint of human exposures, you could argue we are hitting the third generation just about now.”
Although more research, government regulation, and corporate responsibility are needed, Swan offers practical suggestions to help men tip the scale:
Store food in glass containers and never microwave food in plastic.
Stop smoking and cut back on drinking. Cigarette smoke is associated with a lower sperm count and increased sperm defects, while more than seven drinks per week are harmful to sperm.
Buy organic to avoid pesticides and herbicides that interfere with male hormones, especially strawberries, spinach, kale, apples, and grapes. Swan also recommends reducing full-fat dairy foods, which have been linked to greater sperm abnormalities, and avoiding processed meats, which can harm the DNA of sperm.
Avoid saunas, binge-watching TV, and cut out stress, says Swan. A Danish study, “Psychological stress and testicular function: a cross-sectional study of 1,215 Danish men,” published in Fertility and Sterility Journal, showed that high levels of work stress resulted in a 38 percent lower sperm concentration.“Men who’ve experienced two or more recent stressful life events — such as the death or serious illness of a close relative, divorce or serious relationship problems, moving, or a job change — were more likely to have below-normal sperm concentration,” writes Swan.
Buy products labeled “paraben-free” and “phthalate-free” and avoid skin-care products that are “antibacterial,” vinyl shower curtains, air fresheners, toxic household cleaners, and dust often to remove the build-up of chemicals, urges Swan.
“We can no longer afford to behave as though it’s business as usual,” Swan writes in her book. “The time has come for us to stop playing Russian roulette with our reproductive capacities.”
The U.K. government has given sizeable grants to a number of private companies developing vaccine passports and digital certificates that show vaccination status
It’s likely only a matter of time before you’ll be asked to prove your vaccination status in order to carry on with your daily life
This blatant move toward an ever-increasing surveillance state is being welcomed by many who have been led to believe they’re necessary to protect public health and safety
In the U.S., universities continue to institute lockdowns for students, going so far as to ban even outdoor exercise
While many countries have suggested that the COVID-19 vaccine will not be mandated, by giving special privileges to the vaccinated, such as the ability to travel, attend social events, or even enter a workplace, it essentially amounts to the same thing and insinuates a “cleaner” class of people in those who have been vaccinated
For a weary public longing to get back to normalcy, vaccine passports represent a tantalizing carrot, being dangled as a mechanism for freedom. By showing proof that you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, perhaps you can once again board an airplane and travel freely, attend a concert or enjoy a meal in your favorite restaurant, just like you used to.
Except, being required to present your “papers” in order to live your life isn’t actually freedom at all — it’s discrimination, and even a move toward technocratic fascism, one that’s setting the stage for increased surveillance and erosion of your privacy.
Nonetheless, this blatant move toward an ever-increasing surveillance state is being welcomed by many who have been led to believe the passports are necessary to protect public health and safety.
Vaccine Passports Are in Development
It’s likely only a matter of time before you’ll be asked to prove your vaccination status in order to carry on with your daily life. “The government seems to be developing vaccine passports by stealth, making sure the technology is in place for anyone who needs it,” wrote Lara Prendergast, The Spectator’s assistant editor.1
She’s referring to the U.K. government, which has given sizable grants to a number of private companies developing such technology. This includes more than $86,000 to Logifect, which is slated to launch a vaccine passport app in March 2021, and more than $104,000 to iProov and Mvine, which are developing digital certificates that show vaccination status.
As Prendergast noted, “Your phone would most likely be your vaccination passport. Everyone’s vaccination status is already being logged centrally by the National Immunization Vaccination System using their NHS number. This information could be easily linked with an app.”2
Around the world, vaccine passports are rapidly being rolled out, including in Denmark, which will begin issuing them in February 2021. Sweden. Spain, Italy, Cyprus, and Malta have also expressed positivity toward vaccine passports to revive tourism, while in the U.S., plans for vaccine IDs are under evaluation.3 International efforts are also underway.
The Commons Project and the World Economic Forum created the Common Trust Network, which developed the CommonPass app that’s intended to act as a health passport in the near future.
The app allows users to upload medical data such as a COVID-19 test result or proof of vaccination, which then generates a QR code that you will show to authorities as your health passport.4 The proposed common framework “for safe border reopening” around the world involves the following:5
Every nation must publish its health screening criteria for entry into the country using a standard format on a common framework
Each country must register trusted facilities that conduct COVID-19 lab testing for foreign travel and administer vaccines listed in the CommonPass registry
Each country will accept health screening status from foreign visitors through apps and services built on the CommonPass framework
Patient identification is to be collected at the time of sample collection and/or vaccination using an international standard
The CommonPass framework will be integrated into flight and hotel reservation check-in processes
Eventually, the CommonPass framework will be integrated with already existing personal health apps such as Apple Health and CommonHealth. If you want to travel, your personal health record will be evaluated and compared to a country’s entry requirements, and if you don’t meet them, you’ll be directed to an approved testing and vaccination location.
Majority Are in Favor of ‘Privacy-Encroaching Technology’
Even as mortality data show COVID-19 is hardly the deadly pandemic it’s been made out to be, fear-mongering remains in full effect — including warnings that a more infectious, mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2 is on the loose. With fear still omnipresent, acceptance of “privacy-encroaching technology” that promises an illusion of safety is high.
In the U.K., researchers from the University of Bristol conducted two large surveys about such technologies, with overwhelming positivity reported.6 The first measured public acceptance of location tracking through your cellphone that would allow health agencies to monitor your contact with others to target social distancing and quarantine measures.
About 70% of the respondents said they would accept such an app that they could choose to download and, surprisingly, 65% also said they would accept such an app even if it was mandated by the government and used to locate those violating lockdown orders and issue fines and arrests.7
A second survey evaluated acceptance of vaccine passports, with 60% stating they were in favor and only 20% stating they were strongly opposed. The study’s lead author, Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, described those opposed as “surprisingly low, adding, “It’s fascinating how people seem increasingly receptive to their personal data being used to inform themselves and others about what they can and can’t do.”8
Prendergast put this widespread acceptance into further context for the British, who “has traditionally been deeply suspicious of the idea of an official asking for ‘papers, please’:9
“[This] … is why there was such a backlash against Blair’s ID cards. As one journalist at the time put it:
‘If I am ever asked to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am, when I have done nothing wrong and when I am simply ambling along and breathing God’s fresh air like any other freeborn Englishman, then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.’
That journalist is now our Prime Minister. It would be an extraordinary turn of events if Boris Johnson ended up being the man who introduced an immunity identity system in Britain.”
US Universities Institute Jail-Like Restrictions
At every turn, long-standing societal norms — like college students gathering with friends in their dorms or even leaving their rooms for work and exercise — are disappearing. As of February 7, 2021, for instance, the University of Massachusetts Amherst was in a “high risk” operational mode due to a “continuing surge in COVID-19 cases.”10
The status, which was to be in place for a minimum of 14 days, made all classes remote and ordered all students, whether residing on or off-campus, to self-sequester in their residences, except to get meals, attend medical appointments or undergo twice-weekly COVID testing.
Violating these orders would result in “disciplinary action,” according to a university press release, which could include removal from residence halls or suspension.11 Students were also informed that, should they decide to leave campus to self-sequester at home, “it is highly unlikely we will be able to accommodate your return.”
Even within a residence hall, students were told to remain in their rooms at all times except when using a restroom on their floor. Outdoor exercise or attending to the immediate needs of a pet was allowed, but only when wearing a mask and maintaining social distancing.12
This wasn’t the case at UC Berkeley, however, which banned outdoor exercise in addition to extending dormitory lockdowns in February 2021. The only times students are allowed to leave their rooms during the lockdown are to obtain medical care, get required COVID tests, to use an assigned bathroom, or to obtain food from an outdoor dining kiosk, after which “you are required to return immediately to your room.”13
Are You Clean Enough to Travel?
While many countries have suggested that the COVID-19 vaccine will not be mandated, by giving special privileges to the vaccinated, such as the ability to travel, attend social events, or even enter a workplace, it essentially amounts to the same thing and insinuates a “cleaner” class of people in those who have been vaccinated.
It’s reminiscent of the early days of the pandemic when hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes were flying off store shelves in a frenzy to clean away COVID. Now we know that transmission of COVID-19 by fomites — the term used for inanimate surfaces and objects that can transmit a pathogen — has been exaggerated.
Emanuel Goldman, a microbiology professor at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, suggested this in July 2020, when he stated that studies suggesting SARS-CoV-2 was easily spread via surfaces did not present real-life situation.14
“In my opinion, the chance of transmission through inanimate surfaces is very small,” he said, and while period disinfection of surfaces, especially in hospitals, was a reasonable precaution, in public settings, he noted, “this can go to extremes not justified by the data.”15 In February 2021, an editorial in Nature supported Goldman’s work, suggesting that costly and toxic disinfection efforts are misguided.
“Catching the coronavirus from surfaces is rare. The World Health Organization and national public health agencies need to clarify their advice,” the editorial reads.16 The New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority alone is spending an estimated $380 million annually on COVID-related sanitation, and when it asked the U.S. government whether they should be focusing on fomites or solely aerosols, they were told to continue their focus on fomites.17
Writing in The Atlantic, Derek Thompson describes this as a type of “hygiene theater,” in which Americans are going through the motions of dutifully cleaning and, likely, over-disinfecting surfaces when the virus spreads most efficiently through the air.18
Indeed, much of the COVID-19 pandemic response has been embroiled in theatrics, including mask mandates, for which the scientific evidence has been described as “astonishingly weak.”19 Hygiene theater, much like the theater for vaccine passports, provides an illusion of safety, not one grounded in reality.
Discussion to Ban Florida Travel for Disobedience
In the U.S., Florida announced in December 2020 that it would have no more lockdowns and no statewide mask mandates.20 The act resulted in retaliation by the federal government, which entertained the idea of a domestic travel ban to the state, reportedly to curb the spread of new COVID-19 variants.
In a press conference, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis stated, “Any attempt to restrict by the federal government would be an attack on our state done purely for political purposes.” Sen. Marco Rubio agreed, calling the act unconstitutional: “So now that they’re considering actual restrictions on Americans inside the country, I think it is unconstitutional. I think it’s going to be challenged in court successfully.”21
The “technocratic fascist vision”22 of professor Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum who wrote the book on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, is moving ahead full-steam. He announced the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Initiative in June 2020, which includes stripping all people of their privately owned assets.
Getting health passports to become a new normal has, in fact, been part of the plan all along for the Commons Project, which began developing software that tracks medical data well before the COVID-19 pandemic. “But spikes in virus cases around the world this spring accelerated its work,” The New York Times reported.23
While the vaccine passports are starting out with the COVID-19 vaccine for international travel, it’s setting a precedent for expansion that can be extended to other vaccines and medical information, and then to domestic travel and even leaving your house, as the passports will be carried on your phone that has location-tracking abilities.
And it’s clear that when the fascists come, they’ll be wearing masks — probably two or three of them depending on their level of loyalty. For now, getting informed and sharing your knowledge is the first step to protecting your freedom.
COVID-19 “vaccines” do not impart immunity or inhibit the transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you get infected. As such, these products do not meet the medical definition of a vaccine
As of February 4, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has received 12,697 injury reports following COVID-19 vaccination and 653 deaths
The University of Oxford, which is collaborating on a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, is now enrolling children between the ages of 6 years and 17 years and 8 months in their U.K. vaccine trial
Moderna started testing its RNA-based gene therapy on American children between the ages of 12 and 17 in December 2020, and the first Pfizer trials involving adolescents began in mid-October 2020. In China, Sinovac and SinoPharm trials have been enrolling children as young as 3
Children do not need a COVID-19 vaccine as they are at extremely low risk of severe COVID-19 and are not a significant vector of infection
As of February 4, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received 12,697 injury reports and 653 deaths following the COVID-19 vaccination.1
Of the cases reported between December 14, 2020, and February 4, 2021, 3.69% were life-threatening and the number of deaths accounts for 5.14% of the total reports. The Pfizer vaccine accounted for 58% of deaths; Moderna’s accounted for 41%.
What’s more, when you look at vaccine-related deaths between January 2020 and January 2021, you find that COVID-19 vaccines account for a staggering 70% of the annual vaccine deaths, and that’s while having been available for less than two months. The first doses of Pfizer vaccine were given in mid-December 2020,2 while Moderna’s vaccine rolled out during the last week of December 2020.3
While these numbers are staggering, they’re likely only a tiny fraction of the actual number of adverse events. According to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study,4 fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are ever reported to VAERS.
This is primarily because VAERS reporting is voluntary. Many don’t even know it exists, or that you don’t have to be a medical professional to file a report. This would mean that there may, in reality, be over 1 MILLION COVID vaccine injuries, since 99% typically go unreported.
Report All COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects
To address these shortcomings and monitor the public health effects of this mass vaccination campaign, the Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do three things:5
Despite the clear and present dangers of these so-called vaccines, which are in actuality gene therapy, COVID-19 vaccine makers are steamrolling ahead with trials on children as young as 6 years old.
As reported6 by the University of Oxford, which is collaborating on a COVID-19 vaccine7,8 with AstraZeneca, children between the ages of 6 years and 17 years and 8 months are eligible for participation at four U.K. centers. Those over the age of 16 do not even require a parent’s approval but can consent on their own. The remuneration for those putting their entire future at risk is £10 (about $14) per visit.
A total of 300 children are scheduled to participate, 240 of whom will receive the candidate vaccine while so-called controls will receive a meningitis vaccine. The lack of a true placebo is a red flag in and of itself, as using a vaccine as a “placebo” helps mask any number of common side effects, making the vaccine appear safer than it actually is.
The AstraZeneca vaccine has received authorization for use in the U.K. but not the U.S. Contrary to the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines authorized for use in the U.S., the AstraZeneca vaccine delivers double-stranded DNA for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein inside a chimpanzee adenovirus.9
Moderna started testing its RNA-based gene therapy on American children between the ages of 12 and 17 back in December 2020,10 and the first Pfizer trials involving adolescents began in mid-October 2020.11 In China, Sinovac and SinoPharm trials have been enrolling children as young as 3.12
Children Do Not Need This Vaccine
Considering children are at extremely low risk of severe COVID-19, and have been shown to not be a significant vector of infection,13 why do children even need this vaccine? Dr. Robert Frenck, a lead investigator of the COVID-19 vaccine trials at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, told ABC News:14
“If you wipe out the infection in the younger children, they don’t spread it to the adults, and so then, you can get a big handle on disease just by targeting the younger children and getting the infection out of that age group.”
This is a standard justification, but it’s really little more than a mind game. In essence, children are being required to play Russian roulette with their health based on the premise that it will benefit the whole, but is it really reasonable to ask the youngest among us, who are at the lowest risk from the infection, to sacrifice their health too, presumably, protect the elderly?
Studies15 have shown children not only very rarely transmit the disease, either between themselves or to adults, but also, if they get the disease, they virtually never suffer any serious complications. So Frenck’s argument really flies in the face of the available data. If children don’t transmit the disease, how can you get “a big handle” on it by vaccinating them?
In reality, this argument appears to be designed to coerce parents into vaccinating their children even though the public benefit from doing so is minimal. Rather than being a true public health incentive, it seems the drive to vaccinate children is more about increasing profits. Additionally, early reports suggest that the elderly also have a tendency to die shortly after the inoculation,16,17 which is raising suspicions and concern.
Adverse Effects May Take Years to Develop
In children, the side effects are likely to be less immediately noticeable, but may instead result in future health problems. In a Microbiology & Infectious Diseases paper,18 immunologist Dr. J. Bart Classen warns the mRNA jabs may instigate adverse events that take years to fully develop.19
“One such potential adverse event is prion based diseases caused by activation of intrinsic proteins to form prions. A wealth of knowledge has been published on a class of RNA binding proteins shown to participate in causing a number of neurological diseases including Alzheimer’s disease and ALS,” Classen writes.
Since research had not been done to ascertain whether mRNA gene therapy might trigger prion-based disease, Classen conducted that study. He writes:20
“Analysis of the Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19 identified two potential risk factors for inducing prion disease is humans. The RNA sequence in the vaccine contains sequences believed to induce TDP-43 and FUS to aggregate in their prion based conformation leading to the development of common neurodegerative diseases.
In particular, it has been shown that RNA sequences GGUA, UG rich sequences, UG tandem repeats, and G Quadruplex sequences, have increased affinity to bind TDP-43 and or FUS and may cause TDP-43 or FUS to take their pathologic configurations in the cytoplasm.
In the current analysis, a total of sixteen UG tandem repeats (ΨGΨG) were identified and additional UG (ΨG) rich sequences were identified. Two GGΨA sequences were found. G Quadruplex sequences are possibly present but sophisticated computer programs are needed to verify these.
The spike protein encoded by the vaccine binds angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), an enzyme which contains zinc molecules. The binding of spike protein to ACE2 has the potential to release the zinc molecule, an ion that causes TDP-43 to assume its pathologic prion transformation.”
mRNA Vaccines Are Actually Gene Therapies
As detailed in “COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines,” these inoculations are more accurately described as gene therapies, and by referring to them as “vaccines,” the U.S. government is likely in violation of the 2011 U.S. Code Title 15, Section 1125,21 which regulates deceptive practices such as false descriptions in medical claims.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,22 a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Immunity, in turn, is defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”
Neither Moderna nor Pfizer claims this to be the case for their COVID-19 “vaccines.” In fact, in their clinical trials, they specify that they do not even test for immunity.
Unlike real vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the COVID-19 injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nano lipid carrier compound,23 the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.
They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit the transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.24,25 As such, these products do not meet the medical definition of a vaccine.
Not to worry, though, the Merriam-Webster dictionary recently updated its definition of “vaccine” to include mRNA technology,26 just in time for fact-checkers to be able to “debunk” the entirely factual claim of the difference between true vaccines and mRNA technology.
Crazy enough, scientists are already discussing the potential for switching out conventional vaccines that use live or attenuated viruses with this novel RNA technology.27
Considering it’s a gene therapy that turns your cells into little “bioreactors” that spit out immune system activating proteins and have no off-switch, I don’t even want to imagine what might happen if a person were to receive several different ones.
mRNA Therapy Is a Bad Idea, Especially for Children
Aside from the possibility of prion-based diseases, reviewed above, many medical experts warn that mRNA gene therapy can trigger autoimmune problems and a wide range of inflammatory conditions. As just one example, in a recent interview, Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained the mechanics that make injecting RNA so hazardous:
“Normally, messenger RNA is not free in your body because it’s a danger signal. The central dogma of molecular biology is that our genetic code, DNA, is transcribed, written, into the messenger RNA. That messenger RNA is translated into protein, or used in a regulatory capacity … to regulate gene expression in cells.
So, taking a synthetic messenger RNA and making it thermostable — making it not break down — [is problematic]. We have lots of enzymes (RNAses and DNAses) that degrade free RNA and DNA because those are danger signals to your immune system. They literally drive inflammatory diseases.
Now you’ve got PEG, PEGylated and polyethylene glycol, and a lipid nanoparticle that will allow it to enter every cell of the body and change the regulation of our own genes with this synthetic RNA, part of which actually is the message for the gene syncytin …
Syncytin is the endogenous gammaretrovirus envelope that’s encoded in the human genome … We know that if syncytin is expressed aberrantly in the body, for instance in the brain, which these lipid nanoparticles will go into, then you’ve got multiple sclerosis.
The expression of that gene alone enrages microglia — literally inflames and dysregulates the communication between the brain microglia — which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain and the communication with astrocytes.
It dysregulates not only the immune system, but also the endocannabinoid system, which is the dimmer switch on inflammation. We’ve already seen multiple sclerosis as an adverse event in the clinical trials … We also see myalgic encephalomyelitis. Inflammation of the brain and the spinal cord …”
Indeed, many of the side effects being reported are suggestive of neurological damage. Examples include severe dyskinesia (impairment of voluntary movement), ataxia (lack of muscle control), and intermittent or chronic seizures. As explained by Mikovits, these symptoms are caused by neuroinflammation, a dysregulated innate immune response, and/or a disrupted endocannabinoid system.
Another common side effect from the vaccine we’re seeing is allergic reactions, including anaphylactic shock. A likely culprit in this is PEG (polyethylene glycol), to which Mikovitz says an estimated 70% of Americans are allergic.
COVID-19 Vaccine Is an Unnecessary Risk
Overall, with reported severe side effects and deaths climbing by the hundreds every week, it’s astonishing to think that people would voluntarily risk their children in these trials. It’s even more astonishing that public health agencies are pushing for mass inoculation of children with these experimental gene therapies when there’s no data whatsoever to assure parents that their children’s health won’t be destroyed in years to come.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I suspect this global vaccination campaign will result in an avalanche of chronic health problems and deaths so great that any talk of mandates will have to be abandoned, or rescinded if already implemented.
So, if you care about your and your family’s health, the answer may simply be to put off getting vaccinated against COVID-19 for as long as possible and wait for the inevitable truth to come to light.
There are several prevention strategies and treatments readily available that have been shown to be highly effective, which means they need for a vaccine in the first place is nearly moot. Among them, nebulized hydrogen peroxide with iodine, which I’ve written about in previous articles, works very well.
The following video from Barbara Loe Fisher is one of the most powerful videos that I have ever seen. I am hopeful that watching this video will inspire you to take up the cause and join the fight for vaccine freedom and independence.
There are a cultural war and collusion between many industries and federal regulatory agencies that result in a suppression of the truth about vital important health issues. If this suppression continues we will gradually and progressively erode our private individual rights that our ancestors fought so hard to achieve. Please take a few minutes to watch this video.
Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions
With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it’s critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in-state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educate the leaders in your community.
Think Globally, Act Locally
National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.
It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations, and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.
Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your smartphone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up to date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and will get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community.
Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call-to-action items you need at your fingertips. So, please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.
Share Your Story With the Media and People You Know
If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call into a radio talk show that is presenting only one side of the vaccine story.
I must be frank with you: You have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.
We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination.
The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
I encourage you to visit the website of the nonprofit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:
Vaccine Requirements and Exemptions by State — Vaccine laws vary from one U.S. state to another. By knowing the specific policies where you live, you’ll learn how you can get exemptions and better protect your right to make informed vaccine choices.
NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims — View descriptions and photos of children and adults who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries, and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
A Spanish study found giving supplemental vitamin D3 (calcifediol) to hospitalized patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 — in addition to standard care — reduced ICU admissions by 82% and mortality by 64%
People who already had higher vitamin D at baseline were 60% less likely to die
Many are now calling for official vitamin D recommendations to be issued by their governments
Other recent research found vitamin D is a contributing factor to COVID-19 outbreaks and infection severity. Surges in daily positive tests during the fall of 2020 in 18 European countries linearly correlate with latitude, and, hence, sun exposure and vitamin D levels
One of the reasons vitamin D is so important against COVID-19 has to do with its influence on T cell responses. Vitamin D receptor signals regulate T cell responses and therefore play an important role in your body’s defense against viral and bacterial infections
Vitamin D plays an important role in most diseases, including infectious disease, which is why from the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, I suspected that optimizing vitamin D levels among the general population would significantly lower COVID-19 incidence and death.
Since then, mounting evidence reveals this is indeed the case, as researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that higher vitamin D levels reduce rates of positive tests, hospitalizations, and mortality related to this infection.
Vitamin D3 Reduces ICU Admissions and Mortality
Most recently, a Spanish study1,2 (which has yet to undergo peer-review) found giving supplemental vitamin D3 (calcifediol) to hospitalized patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 reduced ICU admissions by 82% and mortality by 64%.3 People who already had higher vitamin D at baseline were 60% less likely to die.
The study included 930 patients, 551 of whom received vitamin D3 — 532 micrograms on the first day of admission followed by 266 mcg on days 3, 7, 15, and 30. The remaining 379 patients served as controls.
All were given standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine and an antibiotic (or two antibiotics in cases where bacterial infections were diagnosed), plus a steroid in cases involving pulmonary inflammation and/or cytokine storm.4 As reported by the authors:5
“ICU assistance was required by 110 (11.8%) participants. Out of 551 patients treated with calcifediol at admission, 30 (5.4%) required ICU, compared to 80 out of 379 controls (21.1%).
Logistic regression of calcifediol treatment on ICU admission, adjusted by age, gender, linearized 25(OH)D levels at baseline, and comorbidities showed that treated patients had a reduced risk to require ICU (RR 0.18).
Baseline 25(OH)D levels inversely correlated with the risk of ICU admission (RR 0.53). Overall mortality was 10%. In the Intention-to-treat analysis, 36 (6.5%) out of 551 patients treated with calcifediol at admission died compared to 57 patients (15%) out of 379 controls.
Adjusted results showed a reduced mortality for more of 60%. Higher baseline 25(OH)D levels were significantly associated with decreased mortality (RR 0.40).
Age and obesity were also predictors of mortality. Interpretation: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, calcifediol treatment at the time of hospitalization significantly reduced ICU admission and mortality.”
Renewed Calls for Vitamin D Recommendations
In response to the Spanish findings, British MP David Davis tweeted that “The findings of this large and well-conducted study should result in this therapy being administered to every COVID patient in every hospital in the temperate latitudes,” adding that:6
“Since the study demonstrates that the clear relationship between vitamin D and COVID mortality is causal, the U.K. government should increase the dose and availability of free vitamin D to all the vulnerable groups. These approaches will save many thousands of lives. They are overdue and should be started immediately.”
Many others are also calling for official vitamin D recommendations to be issued by their governments. Among them, Emer Higgins,7 a member of the Irish political party Fine Gael, who called on the Irish health minister, Stephen Donnelly, to include vitamin D supplementation in its “Living with COVID-19” strategy, slated for launch at the end of February 2021.
Higgins leaned on evidence from the Irish Covit-D Consortium,8 which shows vitamin D helps optimize your immune response. “There is negligible risk in this strategy and potentially a massive gain,” she said. According to the Covit-D Consortium, the nutrient can lower the risk of death from COVID-19 in the elderly by as much as 700%.9
Low Vitamin D Linked to COVID-19 Outbreaks and Severity
Another recent study10 published in the journal Scientific Reports confirmed vitamin D is a contributing factor to COVID-19 outbreaks and infection severity. According to the authors, the surges in daily positive test results during the fall of 2020 in 18 European countries linearly correlate with latitude, and hence sun exposure and vitamin D levels. They point out that:
“The country surge date corresponds to the time when its sun UV daily dose drops below ≈ 34% of that of 0° latitude. Introducing reported seasonal blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration variation into the reported link between acute respiratory tract infection risk and 25(OH)D concentration quantitatively explains the surge dynamics …
The date of the surge is an intrapopulation observation and has the benefit of being triggered only by a parameter globally affecting the population, i.e. decreases in the sun UV daily dose.
The results indicate that a low 25(OH)D concentration is a contributing factor to COVID-19 severity, which, combined with previous studies, provides a convincing set of evidence.”
While it’s well-recognized that most elderly individuals are deficient in vitamin D, the problem is widespread in all age categories, including children.
As noted in a February 2021 study11 comparing vitamin D levels in breast milk collected in 1989 and 2016/2017, vitamin D concentrations are consistently higher during the summer, but overall, vitamin D levels have declined since 1989. As a result, pregnant and lactating mothers and their infants may require vitamin D supplementation for optimal health.
Vitamin D Is Crucial for Optimal T Cell Responses
One of the reasons why vitamin D is so important against COVID-19 has to do with its influence on T cell responses. Animal research12 published in 2014 explained how vitamin D receptor signals regulate T cell responses and therefore play an important role in your body’s defense against viral and bacterial infections.
As noted in that study, when vitamin D signaling is impaired, it significantly impacts the quantity, quality, breadth, and location of CD8 T cell immunity, resulting in more severe viral and bacterial infections.
What’s more, according to a December 11, 2020, paper13 in the journal Vaccine: X, high-quality T cell response actually appears to be far more important than antibodies when it comes to providing protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 specifically:14
“The first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine(s) will likely be licensed based on neutralizing antibodies in Phase 2 trials, but there are significant concerns about using antibody response in coronavirus infections as a sole metric of protective immunity.
Antibody response is often a poor marker of prior coronavirus infection, particularly in mild infections, and is shorter-lived than virus-reactive T-cells …
Strong antibody response correlates with more severe clinical disease while T-cell response is correlated with less severe disease; and antibody-dependent enhancement of pathology and clinical severity has been described.
Indeed, it is unclear whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. Early data with SARS-CoV-2 support these findings. Data from coronavirus infections in animals and humans emphasize the generation of a high-quality T cell response in protective immunity.”
The authors go on to state that epitopes associated with SARS-CoV2 have been identified on CD4 and CD8 T-cells in the blood from patients who have successfully recovered from COVID-19, and that these epitopes “are much less dominated by spike protein than in previous coronavirus infections.”15
As a refresher, aside from SARS-CoV-2, there are six other coronaviruses known to cause respiratory disease in humans:16
Types 229E, NL63, OC43, and KHU1 are quite common and cause mild to moderate respiratory infections such as the common cold.
SARS-CoV (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus), associated with severe respiratory illness.17,18
MERS-CoV (the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus) which, like SARS, causes more severe respiratory infections than the four common coronaviruses.19
Understanding the Role of Epitopes
What do they mean by “epitopes associated with SARS-CoV2 have been identified on CD4 and CD8 T-cells”? Epitopes20 are sites on the virus that allow antibodies or cell receptors in your immune system to recognize it. This is why epitopes are also referred to as “antigenic determinants,” as they are the part that is recognized by an antibody, B-cell receptor, or T-cell receptor.
Most antigens — substances that bind specifically to an antibody or a T-cell receptor — have several different epitopes, which allow them to be recognized by several different antibodies. Importantly, some epitopes can cause autoimmunological pathogenic priming if you’ve been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 or exposed via a COVID-19 vaccine.21
In other words, if you’ve had the infection once, and get reinfected (either by SARS-CoV-2 or a sufficiently similar coronavirus), the second bout has the potential to be more severe than the first. Similarly, if you get vaccinated and are then infected with SARS-CoV-2, your infection may be more severe than had you not been vaccinated.
For this reason, “these epitopes should be excluded from vaccines under development to minimize autoimmunity due to risk of pathogenic priming,” a recent paper22 in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity warns.
One of the reasons why mRNA gene therapy “vaccines” are causing so many problems may in fact be because they have failed to “screen out unsafe epitopes to reduce autoimmunity due to homology between parts of the viral protein and the human proteome,” according to that Journal of Translational Autoimmunity paper.23
The authors of the Vaccine: X paper point out that while most COVID-19 gene therapy “vaccines” focus on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein as a natural antigen, “natural infection by SARS-CoV-2 induces broad epitope coverage, cross-reactive with other betacoronviruses.”
Indeed, this has been demonstrated in a number of studies, including a Singaporean study24,25,26 that found common colds caused by the betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 might make you more resistant to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that the resulting immunity might last as long as 17 years.
In other words, if you’ve beat a common cold caused by an OC43 or HKU1 betacoronavirus in the past, you may have a 50/50 chance of having defensive T-cells that can recognize and help defend against SARS-CoV-2. What the Vaccine: X authors are basically warning about is that the so-called vaccines are unlikely to provide the same level of immunity as natural infection does, and may even cause pathogenic priming.
Vitamin D Speeds Viral Clearance
Other research,27 published in November 2020 in the Postgraduate Medical Journal, shows oral vitamin D supplementation also helps speed up SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance. This study included only asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals who also had vitamin D deficiency (a vitamin D blood level below 20 ng/mL).
Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 60,000 IUs of oral cholecalciferol (nano-liquid droplets) or a placebo for seven days. The target blood level was 50 ng/mL. Anyone who had not achieved a blood level of 50 ng/mL after the first seven days continued to receive the supplement until they reached the target level.
Periodically, all participants were tested for SARS-CoV-2 as well as fibrinogen, D-dimer, procalcitonin, and CRP, all of which are inflammatory markers. The primary outcome measure of the study was the proportion of patients testing negative for COVID-19 before Day 21 of the study, as well as changes in inflammatory markers. As reported by the authors:28
“Forty SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive individuals were randomized to intervention (n=16) or control (n=24) group. Baseline serum 25(OH)D was 8.6 and 9.54 ng/mL, in the intervention and control group, respectively.
10 out of 16 patients could achieve 25(OH)D>50 ng/ml by day-7 and another two by day-14 … 10 (62.5%) participants in the intervention group and 5 (20.8%) participants in the control arm became SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative. Fibrinogen levels significantly decreased with cholecalciferol supplementation unlike other inflammatory biomarkers.
[A] greater proportion of vitamin D-deficient individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection turned SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative with a significant decrease in fibrinogen on high-dose cholecalciferol supplementation.”
More Evidence Vitamin D Impacts COVID-19
If you haven’t already gone to the free website I created to educate the world about vitamin D, please do now. It’s www.stopcovidcold.com. You can download the free condensed version of the paper I had published last year that is easier to read and full of graphics to illustrate the information.
October 31, 2020, my own vitamin D review,29 co-written with William Grant, Ph.D., and Dr. Carol Wagner, both of whom are part of the GrassrootsHealth expert vitamin D panel, was published in the peer-reviewed journal Nutrients. You can read the paper for free on the journal’s website.
As noted in that paper, dark skin color, increased age, pre-existing chronic conditions, and vitamin D deficiency are all features of severe COVID disease, and of these, vitamin D deficiency is the only factor that is readily and easily modifiable.
You may be able to reverse chronic disease, but that typically takes time. Optimizing your vitamin D, on the other hand, can be achieved in just a few weeks, thereby significantly lowering your risk of severe COVID-19.
In our paper, we review several of the mechanisms by which vitamin D can reduce your risk of COVID-19 and other respiratory infections, including but not limited to the following:30
Reducing the survival and replication of viruses31
Reducing inflammatory cytokine production
Maintaining endothelial integrity — Endothelial dysfunction contributes to vascular inflammation and impaired blood clotting, two hallmarks of severe COVID-19
Increasing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) concentrations, which prevents the virus from entering cells via the ACE2 receptor — ACE2 is downregulated by SARS-CoV-2 infection, and by increasing ACE2, you also avoid excessive accumulation of angiotensin II, a peptide hormone known to increase the severity of COVID-19
Vitamin D is also an important component of COVID-19 prevention and treatment for the fact that it:
Boosts your overall immune function by modulating your innate and adaptive immune responses
Reduces respiratory distress32
Improves overall lung function
Helps produce surfactants in your lungs that aid in fluid clearance33
Lowers your risk of comorbidities associated with poor COVID-19 prognosis, including obesity,34 Type 2 diabetes,35 high blood pressure36, and heart disease37
Data from 14 observational studies — summarized in Table 1 of our paper38 — suggest that vitamin D blood levels are inversely correlated with the incidence and/or severity of COVID-19, and the evidence currently available generally satisfies Hill’s criteria for causality in a biological system.39 Our paper40 also details several features of COVID-19 that suggest vitamin D deficiency is at play in this illness.
How to Optimize Your Vitamin D
While most people would probably benefit from a vitamin D3 supplement, it’s important to get your vitamin D level tested before you start supplementing. The reason for this is because you cannot rely on blanket dosing recommendations. The crucial factor here is your blood level, not the dose, as the dose you need is dependent on several individual factors, including your baseline blood level.
Data from GrassrootsHealth’s D*Action studies suggest the optimal level for health and disease prevention is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL, while the cutoff for sufficiency appears to be around 40 ng/mL. In Europe, the measurements you’re looking for are 150 to 200 nmol/L and 100 nmol/L respectively.
I’ve published a comprehensive vitamin D report in which I detail vitamin D’s mechanisms of action and how to ensure optimal levels. I recommend downloading and sharing that report with everyone you know. A quick summary of the key steps is as follows:
1.First, measure your vitamin D level — One of the easiest and most cost-effective ways of measuring your vitamin D level is to participate in the GrassrootsHealth’s personalized nutrition project, which includes a vitamin D testing kit.
Once you know what your blood level is, you can assess the dose needed to maintain or improve your level. If you cannot get enough vitamin D from the sun (you can use the DMinder app41 to see how much vitamin D your body can make depending on your location and other individual factors), then you’ll need an oral supplement.
2.Assess your individualized vitamin D dosage — To do that, you can either use the chart below or use GrassrootsHealth’s Vitamin D*calculator. To convert ng/mL into the European measurement (nmol/L), simply multiply the ng/mL measurement by 2.5. To calculate how much vitamin D you may be getting from regular sun exposure in addition to your supplemental intake, use the DMinder app.42
3.Retest in three to six months — Lastly, you’ll need to remeasure your vitamin D level in three to six months, to evaluate how your sun exposure and/or supplement dose is working for you.
Take Your Vitamin D With Magnesium and K2
As detailed in “Magnesium and K2 Optimize Your Vitamin D Supplementation,” it’s strongly recommended to take magnesium and K2 concomitant with oral vitamin D. Data from nearly 3,000 individuals reveal you need 244% more oral vitamin D if you’re not also taking magnesium and vitamin K2.43
What this means in practical terms is that if you take all three supplements in combination, you need far less oral vitamin D in order to achieve a healthy vitamin D level.