1

Understanding the Psychology Behind the COVID Pandemic | Dr. Joseph Mercola

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com 

Story at-a-glance

  • A psychological condition of society known as “mass formation psychosis” is a condition for totalitarianism. Under mass formation psychosis, a population enters a hypnotic-type trance that makes them willing to sacrifice anything, including their lives and their freedom. That’s what’s happening right now
  • There are four key conditions that must be in place for mass formation psychosis to occur: Lack of societal bonding, experiencing life as meaningless and senseless, widespread free-floating anxiety/free-floating discontent, and free-floating frustration/aggression
  • Once these four conditions are widespread, the mass formation can occur, which allows for totalitarianism to rise and thrive
  • A key strategy to break mass formation and prevent totalitarianism is to speak out against it. We also need to give those hypnotized a greater fear to replace the fear of the virus with, namely the fear of totalitarianism and the loss of their and their children’s lives, livelihoods, and freedoms that go along with it
  • Dissenters need to join together, thereby giving fence-sitters who are not yet fully hypnotized an alternative to going along with the totalitarians

In the video above, Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,1 review a theory professor Mattias Desmet, a Belgian psychologist, and statistician, believes explains the absurd and irrational behavior we’re now seeing worldwide with regard to the COVID pandemic and its countermeasures.

He calls this phenomenon “mass formation psychosis,” a type of crowd hypnosis that results in literally converting a large segment of the population into psychosis. Mass formation psychosis is the explanation for how the Germans accepted the atrocities by the Nazi Party in the 1930s, and it’s the explanation for why so many around the world support medical apartheid and the destruction of the unvaccinated now.

It’s so irrational and inhumane, many have wondered how we got here. As it turns out, the psychology of totalitarianism has been studied for decades, and the whole thing is in fact explainable as a psychiatric phenomenon that arises when certain conditions exist in a society.

The Four Base Conditions for ‘Mass Formation’

The four central conditions that need to exist in order for mass formation psychosis to take root are:

1. Lack of social bonding — Social isolation was a widespread problem long before the pandemic. In one survey, 25% of respondents said they didn’t have a single close friend. The COVID lockdowns also contributed to and worsened already existing isolation. We were all told that any contact with others, including members of our own family, could be a death sentence.

2. Seeing life as meaningless, purposelessness and senseless, and/or being faced with persistent circumstances that don’t make rational sense — Desmet cites research showing that half of all adults feel their jobs are completely meaningless, providing no value to either themselves or others.

In another poll, done in 2012, 63% of respondents said they were “sleepwalking” through their workdays, putting no passion into their work whatsoever. So, condition No. 2 for mass formation hypnosis was also fulfilled, even before the pandemic hit.

Events that occurred in late 2019 and early 2020, such as the many questions surrounding the presidential election and the initial COVID lockdowns, added fuel to the widespread confusion and uncertainty, resulting in the next condition: free-floating anxiety.

3. Widespread free-floating anxiety and free-floating discontent — Free-floating anxiety refers to anxiety that has no apparent or distinct cause. Judging by the popularity of antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs, condition No. 3 was also fulfilled long before the pandemic, but additional fuel was piled on just before the pandemic.

Many felt, and still feel, that “things just aren’t right.” Through 2020, it became increasingly apparent to many that most if not all of the systems we depend on are broken, and likely broken beyond repair, including our medical system, our voting system, and our judicial system.

4. Widespread free-floating frustration and aggression — This tends to naturally follow the previous three. Here, again, the frustration and aggression have no discernible cause.

How Mass Formation Allows Totalitarianism to Rise

When these four conditions are fulfilled by a large enough portion of society, they are ripe for the picking to convert to a psychosis, being totally out of touch with reality, which in turn leads to the rise of totalitarianism. As explained by Malone, when the pandemic broke out, people around the world became obsessed with one thing: the virus.

People everywhere thought about, read about, and talked about the virus almost exclusively to everything else. This singular focus, this obsession, having the base conditions for mass formation already firmly in place, allowed for large portions of the population to enter into a hypnotic-like state.

In that hypnotic-like state (it’s very similar to conventional hypnotism but with minor differences), people lose their ability to have rational thought and judgment.

As noted by Malone, there is evidence that suggests at least parts of this psychological operation were done intentionally, by “some entity that has financial benefit or power to gain from doing this, which gets to the point of global totalitarianism.” Now, once a large portion of society is hyper-focused on and fused in their joint discontent and anxiety, all a leader or leaders need to do to convince many that totalitarian control and loss of their freedom is best for them is to:

a) Present a story in which the cause of the anxiety is identified, and then

b) Offer a strategy for neutralizing that cause

Social Bonding Is Key

By accepting and participating in whatever that strategy is, people with free-floating anxiety feel equipped with the means to control their anxiety and avoid panic. They also feel a strong bond with others, because they’ve all identified the same nemesis. As explained by Desmet in the Peak Prosperity interview below:

“Because many people participate in the same strategy to deal with the object of anxiety, a new kind of social bond emerges a new kind of solidarity. So, people feel connected again in a new way. And that’s actually the most crucial thing.

If you look at the corona crisis and listen to the mainstream narrative, you will hear that everything is about solidarity. You have to participate, you have to accept the vaccine. You have to respect social distancing, because if you don’t, you lack citizenship, you show no solidarity. That’s the most crucial thing, always, in mass formation.

That’s the real reason why people buy into the story, even if it is utterly absurd. It’s not because they believe in the narrative. It is because the narrative leads to a new social bond. That’s the real reason.

There’s [also another] advantage. All the frustration and aggression can be directed at an object. And that object is the people who, for one reason or another, do not want to participate in the mass formation …

So, you have this very strange situation where people start from a very negative and divisive mental state; [they have a] lack of social bond, lack of meaning-making, free floating anxiety and a lot of frustration and aggression.

They switch from this very highly aversive mental state to a symptomatic positive state where they feel connected. Their life makes sense again through this heroic struggle with the object of anxiety … That’s why people continue to believe in the narrative, even if it is utterly absurd.”

Mass Formation Psychosis Is a Self-Destructive Condition

The crazy thing is that the story can be an obvious lie, yet those under this hypnotic spell will believe it. The remedy can be utterly absurd, yet they’ll obey. This is how totalitarianism is allowed to rise.

Of course, there must always be a common enemy that must be obliterated — the “cause” for the peoples’ fear and anxiety — and under totalitarian rule, that enemy is anyone who is not spellbound. The dissenters are the enemy. In 2021, the unmasked and unvaccinated are the enemy.

If everyone would just get the experimental jab, COVID would vanish and everyone could go back to feeling safe again. That’s the narrative. It makes no sense, it’s irrational, inhumane, and unscientific, but those who are in mass formation psychosis believe it’s just that simple, and that’s why some are able to wish death on the unmasked and/or unvaccinated.

So, as noted by Malone, “If it seems to you that the rest of the world has gone mad, the truth is, they have.” A problem far greater than any virus now is mass formation itself.

It’s a very dangerous condition, both for those under its spell and those who aren’t, because the “mental intoxication” that results makes people willing to do things that are clearly wrong and utterly immoral, up to and including voluntarily killing their own families and themselves if told it’s for the greater good. In short, masses of people become profoundly gullible and self-destructive, which is a frightening combination.

As noted by Desmet, in a dictatorship, people comply because they fear the dictator. In a totalitarian regime, however, mass formation psychosis is at work, and this gives the regime extreme power over the individual, as the people, when in this hypnotic trance, voluntarily destroy their own families, their lives and themselves, along with the stated enemy.

Is Totalitarianism Unavoidable?

Malone says that in his conversations with Desmet, Desmet has said he believes the mass formation psychosis is so widespread at this point that global totalitarianism may be unavoidable. He believes it’ll take over, as we’re seeing in a number of countries already. So, what, if anything, can we do? A summary of suggestions are as follows:

Continue providing true and accurate information to counter the false narrative. Some who aren’t yet fully hypnotized may still be routed back to sanity. Speaking out can also help to limit the atrocities the totalitarian regime is emboldened to implement because in totalitarianism, atrocities and crimes against humanity increase as dissent decreases.

Substitute fear of the virus narratives with narratives that highlight an even greater fear — fear of totalitarianism. “Totalitarianism is a bigger boogeyman than the virus is,” Malone says. “Losing control to Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, BlackRock, and Vanguard is a bigger threat than SARS-CoV-2 is for you and your children, by far.”

Desmet has tested this theory and found you CAN break the hypnotic focus on COVID if you’re able to refocus their attention on something that’s of even greater concern to them.

Join with other dissenters into larger groups. This gives the larger majority who aren’t fully hypnotized but too fearful to go against the grain an alternative to going along with the totalitarians.

Build parallel structures within your local communities. Think globally, act locally. Start developing parallel structures to heal the four underlying conditions that allowed mass formation to occur in the first place.

A parallel structure is any kind of business, organization, technology, movement, or creative pursuit that fits within a totalitarian society while being morally outside of it. Once enough parallel structures are created, a parallel culture is born that functions as a sanctuary of sanity within the totalitarian world.

The Gravity of Our Situation

To hear from Desmet himself, listen to his hour-long interview with Dr. Chris Martenson. As noted by Desmet, since self-destructiveness is built into the totalitarian system from the ground up, totalitarian regimes cannot be sustained forever. They fall apart as they’re destroyed from within. That’s the good news.

The bad news is it can be hell while it lasts, as totalitarianism built on mass formation almost always leads to heinous atrocities being committed in the name of doing good. There are usually few survivors at the end.

That said, Desmet believes this new global totalitarianism is more unstable than regional dictator-led totalitarian systems, so it may self-destruct faster. He has just finished writing a book, “The Psychology of Totalitarianism,” which is expected to be published in January 2022.

Sources and References



First Comply, Then We’ll Grant You Some Rights

By | Brownstone Institute

More and more people feel like something is “off” about our response to the “Covid” pandemic. This pandemic is claimed by political establishment prophets to be the first time in history that we need universal, worldwide “vaccination” to dissipate a respiratory pathogen. The proffered “vaccines” do not provide sterilizing immunity; rather, they lead to regular “breakthrough” infections. Yet we are directed to “mix and match” them as we like, on a regular basis, in order to eat in restaurants and attend events.

Having recovered from the disease itself does not suffice to maintain your rights. The ability to prove that you are not susceptible to the pathogen due to inherent good health does not suffice. To maintain freedom of movement, you must submit to the injections.

Something is off. They want us to take these “vaccines” very badly. They want to build a QR/tracking infrastructure on this “safety” premise very badly. One must ask: did they ever have a legitimate basis to lead us to this point? Did they really believe they could “save grandma” with a lockdown?

By picking apart the superficially flawed justification they gave to the terrified world population for first imposing universal house arrest, we can see that they did not. Both the WHO and the Imperial College modeler Neil Ferguson called for lockdowns specifically based on China’s Wuhan lockdown of January 2020. They admitted that “lockdown” was something no one previously believed would work. When “Xi Jinpeng succeeded,” they abruptly reversed course 180 degrees, calling for the entire world to “copy China.”

“It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought…and then Italy did it. And we realised we could…If China had not done it, the year would have been very different.” — Neil Ferguson

Six weeks after the discovery of the first case, the WHO, during a press conference, sold the world on lockdown by claiming that “Wuhan’s curve is flatter” compared to other regions of China. The data it used to make this case — a case that it knew would devastate world economies and any individual human who could not earn money by sitting in front of a computer screen— was presumably provided via the communist dictator.

“So here’s the outbreak that happened in the whole country on the bottom. Here’s what the outbreak looked like outside of Hubei. Here are the areas of Hubei outside of Wuhan. And then the last one is Wuhan. And you can see this is a much flatter curve than the others. And that’s what happens when you have an aggressive action that changes the shape that you would expect from an infectious disease outbreak. This is extremely important for China, but it’s extremely important for the rest of the world . . .

The Chinese government and the Chinese people have used the non-pharmaceutical measures (or the social measures) [to] effectively change[] the course of the disease, as evidenced by the epidemic curves…In the report we have recommended this method to the international community.”

This superficially pleasing explanation — one easily accepted by a trusting scared person — raises huge red flags on closer analysis. First, how was the testing in the various regions conducted? Was it randomized throughout the population, or were only those who presented at clinics or hospitals tested? How many tests were conducted per capita? Was that number standard throughout the regions? How can we be sure “asymptomatic” cases were captured?, and so forth. In short, each curve could simply have depicted testing protocol — the tester could quite literally have compiled any curve it wanted.

Even worse, there is a logical flaw so breathtaking that it is impossible to believe it could have been overlooked by all lockdown-imposing world governments. Of the thousands of national, state, and local political and media actors cheering on the lockdowns, at least one must have noticed that while the curve may have been “flatter in Wuhan,” the disease still went away in all of China. The supposed “flatter” curve in Wuhan had zero net benefits. The residents there suffered through the pain of lockdown, neighboring regions did not, and they all ended up at the same point.

China has not reported any Covid cases in nearly four months. Prior to that, its cases were flatlined for fifteen months, since March 2020. China’s disease “curve” would be comedic if the rest of the world had not given up democracy and precious constitutional rights to “fight the virus”:

Contrast this with the rest of the world — particularly the countries that tried the hardest to replicate the Chinese example — such as Peru, Israel, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, and Canada. All of them have reported multiple “waves” of Covid despite all of the pain of lockdown. Even mass vaccination has not “stopped” waves of cases. China is the only country with a perfectly flat “curve,” and it did that with a single-city lockdown, despite reporting the presence of the virus in many other regions. Magic.

World governments clearly know about this. They do not trust the communist dictator. If they really believed the disease was serious and China underreported cases, they would not be firing doctors and nurses who refuse the “vaccine” after working safely with covid patients for 18 months. Rather, they know that the rules have no effect. The disease curves rise and fall, rise and fall — it would be absurd and perverse to conclude the rules work sometimes and fail at other times.

Yet they keep imposing rules. The population complies, conditioned to an illusion of control; a superstitious belief that “because we did something, it must have had an effect.” But facts are facts: even the “vaccines” have not stopped the virus, there are “breakthrough infections.” Desiring to be “good people,” everyone stays unthinkingly on the track that started with Wuhan’s lockdown.

They are trying to save grandma, but grandma’s fate is sealed. What is actually happening is they are paving the way to routine universal mandatory vaccination. The political establishment intends to make “the unvaccinated” second-class citizens, to dehumanize them and deny them basic rights many generations have taken for granted. This conditions the population to movement restrictions based on behavior. Compliance gets you rights, like a dog earning treats.

In this system — which is steadily getting underway in country after country — a person who weighs 350 pounds, is completely sedentary and eats a steady stream of Big Macs is considered “healthy” and accepted in society. The decisive factor is obedience: he dutifully takes all of the “boosters.” By contrast, a world-class athlete such as Novak Djokovic cannot play tennis at the Australian Open. He is deemed an “infection risk” because he insists on maintaining his body using eastern-style health practices, the same ones that made him into the greatest tennis player of all time. (The establishment would rather he copy the Big Mac devotee described above because it earns them — not him —more profits).

The political establishment is so devoted to this cause that it is hard to see how we can extricate ourselves. Accepting the first lockdown was the decisive point. We sacrificed our rights due to fear, and nearly two years later, we still don’t have them back. It was as obvious then as it is now: power is never seized and then voluntarily returned.

Australia now has “quarantine camps.” “Unvaccinated” Canadians cannot use mass transit. Austrians who refuse the jab cannot leave their homes. It bears repeating: world governments are holding law-abiding adults in house arrest for refusing to take an injection. This is not a drill.

Combine this real-life dystopia with the twisted “logic” used to launch the lockdowns, and it is hard to ignore the sinking feeling that lockdown was a preconceived pathway to where we are now: staring down the barrel at permanent, regular, mandatory adult vaccination — your immune system is now a subscription service — and corresponding movement “passports.”

Why do they want to inject us so badly? Certainly not for our own good. They act in their own self-interest, under cover of fake, “grandma-saving” goodwill. They are stealing from us — from you. How much more will you let them take?

Author

Stacey Rudin is an attorney and writer in New Jersey, USA

THIS WORK IS LICENSED UNDER A CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL LICENSE.




Is U.S. Response to COVID Pandemic an Official Government Psychological Operation?

“Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home — so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.”  — Eleanor Roosevelt

Those who have questioned the intentions behind government policy in response to the pandemic continue to observe the unreasonable intensity of supporters of mandated protocols. Declaring vehement loyalty to vaccine therapy, their minds are closed to any further input.

Vaccination proponents don’t want to see or hear anything contradicting their very confident, though most questionable position: that a benevolent government, supported by a monolithic, knowledgeable, scientific community, is successfully dealing with the crisis.

In addition to the challenges of an uncompromising public debate, some of us face a personal crisis: The compassionate principles of long-term relationships are being tested.

With entrenched devotion to vaccines, loved ones and friends who were once willing to discuss most other topics, refuse to engage. At a minimum, they express disappointment in our lack of understanding and compliance. When forthright they confess their judgment — our unwillingness to conform causes continuing affliction.

Many people have been persuaded that anyone who has doubts about the infallible words and irrefutable facts presented by somber leaders and an impartial press corps are infecting others with dangerous information.

Failures of the pandemic response are increasingly laid at the feet of the unvaccinated.

However, the furious indignation is often irrational, inordinate, and out of character, suggesting it is driven by a set of external stimuli designed to create the response.

A looming crisis, initially presented with expectations of horrific consequences including widespread severe disease and millions dead, can be viewed as the beginning of prescribed government response to the pandemic.

The intentional amplification of the threat, unjustifiable by any scientific defense, was never diminished, even as ominous predictions of suffering and mortality proved to be greatly exaggerated.

From the moment vaccines were released, anyone who doubted their importance and efficacy has been depicted as a hostile deviant entranced by fantasies or blindly following aberrant leaders.

And although so-called anti-vaxxers are belittled for their ignorance, there is no indication those rejecting enforced protocols are doing anything but defending their inalienable rights — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The extreme aggressive tactics of the government and media to promote vaccines — including a campaign to humiliate those who refuse to comply — have the earmarks of psychological warfare, with manipulation of citizens on a grander scale than any effort in recent history.

The continuing prevailing mindset of many people appears to be the reaction to a calculated induction of a mass hypnotic trance.

Of all aspects of the pandemic response, this is one of the most troubling and should cause us to consider its probability, provenance, and rectification.

‘My honor is my loyalty’

The government’s use of a psychological operation — aka PSYOP — to promote immunization follows standards and practices for engendering a cult mentality to reach its objectives.

The central technique for initiating and maintaining an obedient population is developing an “us versus them” mindset. The demonization of outsiders is essential.

Demands and sacrifices are made of the members, solidifying their involvement and ensuring they see themselves as superior to those who don’t participate.

These mesmeric psychological operations can be identified in groups small and large, including mass populations.

The most dramatic example of a PSYOP engendering a cult is the rise of fascism in Nazi Germany. An elite propaganda machine entranced a nation into believing they were a superior race, arousing a blind loyalty to their cause, with a loss of moral parameters unmatched in modern history.

Hitler’s most loyal troops, the SS, closely associated with forced labor and death camps, and deemed a criminal organization by the Nuremberg tribunals, wore belt buckles and kept daggers engraved with the words, “my honor is loyalty.”

More recently, less-militarized cults have made some dramatic impact in the United States.

The religious organization, the People’s Temple, in its early days gained the support of politicians and manipulated the media to project a positive spin on its activities.

The People’s Temple devolved into darkness, eventually leading to a quintessential cult event in Jonestown, Guyana. On the cusp of being arrested for the murder of a visiting congressman, their leader, Jim Jones, demanded the highest level of loyalty: Hundreds of members committed mass suicide, including their children, by drinking a cyanide valium cocktail.

Mass hypnosis allows transference of an individual’s attention and priorities to a singular objective or ideology, and loyalty to the cause is elevated, overshadowing self-preservation.

Another example of an influential cult based in the United States is the Unification Church. Their members, the Moonies, were staunchly loyal to Sun Myung Moon, who was famous for presiding over spectacular mass weddings of arranged marriages.

The Unification Church also funneled money to powerful politicians through grants and speaking fees. Moon founded the Washington Times, which openly supported his political agenda.

As a lead investigator in a BBC biography of the Korean Cult leader, I met and interviewed former devotees and abettors who described the process of indoctrination into a trance of blind obedience.

Moon created a sophisticated psychological framework to attract and retain members, claiming he was a messiah greater than Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed combined. Good-hearted, intelligent people succumbed to a psychotic euphoria invoked by Moon and his agents, with support from the government and media.

Only later did they awaken to their profound mistake, falling for rhetoric they eventually recognized as hypnotic, deeply flawed, and dangerous.

One of the interviewees spoke most eloquently about having lost his soul and given away years of his life.

An individual whose attitude embraces the affirmation — “My honor is loyalty” — towards any leader, cult or policy, has given up his or her personal power, often to abusive forces.

Symbolically, the SS motto has been illegal to use in Germany since 1947.

Cults are often viewed as aberrations that occurred in the past, however, they continue to thrive.

The susceptibility of humans to mass hypnosis and manipulation continues to be exploited and has never been applied for the greater good.

Cult of the vaccinated

Those who resist vaccination are reacting to harsh directives and overt hostility from a heavy-handed government. Their position is neither the result of mass hypnosis nor cult-like programming, rather an exercise in freedom of speech and choice.

Psychologically, there is an indisputable, definitive metric that demonstrates the difference between the anti- and pro-vaccine groups.

A large majority of the unvaccinated have reviewed information and statistics from a range of sources, that either support or contradict government policy. They have made choices based on concerns about efficacy and risks, but are open to engaging in debate.

Most of the pro-vaccine factions stand by what they deem unassailable information from the news media. They are willing to accept a filtered version of data and staunchly refuse to look at any material that might cause doubt about their decisions or challenge authoritative mandates.

They refuse to engage in debate.

A majority of the general public has been beguiled into feeling threatened by the virus and roused to angrily denounce those who doubt the efficacy or risks of COVID-19 inoculants.

The pro-vaccine disciple’s lockstep, cult-like behavior is classic. The mentality includes:

  • Unbending loyalty to a methodology promulgated by influential leaders who make claims that are too good to be true.
  • Unquestioning adherence to and dependency on the group’s approach and procedures, with an insistence that they are on the only true and worthy path.
  • Unwillingness to consider any written or spoken words, or ideas that counter the messaging of leaders or the group’s intentions.
  • Willingness to change lifestyle or engage in risky behavior, with the blind acceptance that there are only benefits and minimal risks.
  • Continuing belief in dogma, even when firmly presented concepts devolve, or prove to be deeply flawed.
  • Denying any self-doubt in the name of greater mission-critical thinking about the group is an abomination.
  • Persuading or pressuring new members to join, using guilt as the primary motivation. When this fails, forcing a submission through ridicule, mental anguish, or material punishment.
  • Demeaning, isolating, and penalizing anyone who defects or does not enlist.
  • Willingness to dishonor family or destroy long-term relationships in the name of the cult’s objectives.
  • Self-destructive behavior — as in all of the above — that eventually leads to the dissolution of the cult and irreparable harm to the members.

Designing a PSYOP for a pandemic

A strong circumstantial case can be made that there is an imposed PSYOP in place in the United States. The vehement public support and willingness to obey without question are the precise results a government would seek in response to the perceived threat of a deadly pandemic.

The tactics used to generate this kind of outcome are not hidden from those willing to consider how the U.S. government applies its knowledge.

This excerpt from the opening chapter of the “U.S. Army Field Manual on PSYOP” makes intentions of a campaign very clear:

“PSYOP is planned operations that convey selected information and indicators to foreign target audiences (TAs) to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately, the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of all PSYOP is to create in neutral, friendly, or hostile foreign groups the emotions, attitudes, or desired behavior that support the achievement of U.S. national objectives and the military mission. In doing so, PSYOP influence not only policy and decisions, but also the ability to govern, the ability to command, the will to fight, the will to obey, and the will to support. The combination of PSYOP products and actions create in the selected TAs a behavior that supports U.S. national policy objectives and the theater commander’s intentions at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels.”

If this type of operation has been applied, it appears the public is behaving in concordance with a PSYOP to imbue a key objective: universal ongoing vaccination.

Activities of a massive psychological operation to promote inoculation are evident. They are:

  • Gaining public obedience by exaggerating or fabricating a threat, focusing on an approaching danger, and relying on the human response to authoritative commands.
  • Using an imminent threat to eliminate the basic right to personal medical autonomy in the name of social and political obligation. (i.e., Initial pictures of body bags on the streets of Wuhan and estimates of at least a 3% death toll were used to incite fear.)
  • Glorification of vaccination as an unquestionable, patriotic, team effort.
  • Labeling dissenters and launching phrases with the intent to diminish, dehumanize and increase paranoia. (i.e., vaccine hesitancy, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” and “disinformation dozen.)”
  • Developing and/or promoting information distributed in news media supporting debasement of critics. (i.e., the Center for Countering Digital Hate, disseminators of the so-called disinformation dozen, claim to be an international not-for-profit NGO. News media outlets were quick to embrace their claims, never challenging their motivation or funding source.)
  • Rapid responses to degrade and eliminate sources, including respected scientists and doctors, who provide information and perspective that counters the prime directive to get vaccinated.
  • Dismissal of facts as fabrications or subjective interpretations, even those extracted from government and reliable scientific sources.
  • Belittling or rebranding competitive, yet effective treatments in an attempt to dismiss them without analysis. (i.e. labeling Ivermectin a horse dewormer.)

The enemy is within

In further consideration of whether a PSYOP has been applied to our current health crisis, it is important to understand that sophisticated psychological warfare has been developed and forced upon foreign enemies for decades.

The most recent and widely accepted uses of psychological operations have been against U.S. foes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lack of effectiveness of PSYOP in these countries is self-evident unless the intent was to completely divide and degrade the societies and instill perpetual animosity towards the United States.

Information covertly or overtly distributed to support U.S. government goals has a singular mission, and it is unrelated to disseminating truth, rather geared towards attaining submission and compliance.

Social psychologists postulate that advertising and public relations, whether promoting products or policies, are softened terms to disguise what should be called propaganda.

Government public relations activities, justified by a need for unified thinking, are sometimes applied as a propaganda tool to advance a domestic or international agenda.

There is corroboration of a Psychological Operations Committee, coordinating the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency in foreign and domestic activities.

The cartel within the National Security Council was initiated during the Reagan administration, with no indication that its surreptitious activities have ceased. Its present appellation and leadership are unknown, and current endeavors are necessarily covert and deniable.

There are some explicit examples of how the government interferes with domestic business and media:

As there is no current investigation, further evidence confirming operations is limited. Yet the unprecedented mass behavior, in light of a pattern of government intervention and media hit pieces, is strongly indicative of an underlying clandestine program.

The operation would need to shield itself from scrutiny.

The primary tactic in avoiding inquiry would be part of the offensive effort, disseminating negative information about those who challenge the precepts. This is why anti-vaxxers must be regarded as dangerous non-conformists, not to be taken seriously.

Criticism of the government is simply deemed foolish or a conspiracy theory, thus the existence of a huge PSYOP is easily dismissed and never considered by the general public.

The concealment of the PSYOP is integral in the fabricated distortions that dominate the disinformation. Truth, human rights, and common decency are pushed aside in the name of fighting a virus.

One might argue that using — whatever it takes — as the core of a methodology to promote vaccines is a noble objective, insisting the pandemic and the campaign for vaccines must be fought like a civil war.

This certainly could be the government’s rationale for developing and using a PSYOP to quell a pandemic. But its utilization raises a number of questions regarding moral and legal precedents and potentially harmful results.

Motives and malfeasance

In establishing the possibility of a heinous offense, in this instance a domestic PSYOP, it is important to examine the alleged perpetrators’ stated intentions.

Motivation and outcome could be considered mitigating factors in understanding why extreme tactics might be used. If ending the pandemic is considered the primary goal of a government plan, it should entail the development and application of appropriate prevention and treatment modalities.

A strong case can be made that the COVID-19 vaccines were presented with a false pretense. Promoted as safe, effective, and free, an examination shows that all three of these superlatives are unsupported exaggerations.

  • Safety can only be determined by an objective assessment of data. This information has been intentionally limited or obscured. What little detail is made public indicates incredible risks vs. benefits.
  • Lack of effectiveness of vaccines in preventing transmission, which should be their primary function, has been admitted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Need for additional doses, conveniently labeled as boosters, reveal initial expectations were exaggerated. Current analysis shows vaccination has not impacted the spread of the virus and rates of infection.
  • The financial costs of vaccines and the profits made from their proliferation present numbers that show they certainly are not free. And the public health cost of focusing on a failed modality will only be revealed by historical outcomes.

The loss to those whose lives could have been saved by immediate treatment with other remedies is incalculable. Although some pharmaceuticals are being tested for late-stage symptoms, there has been no warp speed development or application of drugs for early intervention in the treatment of the illness.

There are very few protocols issued by the government for caring for those with COVID-19, other than staying at home until there is a need for hospitalization.

The overall progression of the pandemic suggests that emphasis on vaccines is misguided or deceitful. And the government and news media continue to scapegoat the unvaccinated — the latest ruse is blaming them for the growing economic crisis.

Malfeasance is undeniable. Although most evidence has been intentionally obfuscated by powerful forces whose motivation appears to be everything but benevolent.

Law and disorder

It’s worth scrutinizing the actual incentives for using propaganda to promote the universal vaccination program. Whether motives are financial or political, the use of a PSYOP in response to the pandemic is unethical and reprehensible.

The U.S. government has a history of overstepping legal boundaries to control what it deems national security threats.

PSYOP and other manipulative techniques have no place in a country that rejects absolute sovereignty, founded on principles of inherent individual rights.

The application of subversive tactics is a symptom of the overt degradation of constitutional principles.

The use of PSYOP remains specifically illegal under U.S. law, which forbids federal and military intelligence agencies to operate domestically unless there is a clear and present foreign threat.

There is continuing justification for abuse of power with invocations of war-like extremis. And it is feasible the government and the agencies charged with disseminating vaccine compliance would use the most sophisticated mass psychological techniques under the administration’s command.

However, no matter what the degree of disaster or suffering, trustworthy government response to the pandemic should rest on a foundation of openness and democratic principles.

The obvious dismissal of this approach reveals the core morality of the current public health policy.

The most compelling circumstantial evidence of a duplicitous scheme to manipulate the public is the overt hostility, deception, and defensiveness of leadership in promoting vaccination as a panacea.

Strategy for intervention

Government programs, supported by news media, that secretly engender or condone public, cult-like behavior are catastrophic and deeply disconcerting.

The entrancement promulgated by corporations and government agencies to achieve their ends has reached a crescendo. This approach has resulted in extreme polarization, heightened tension, and deterioration of personal relationships.

Most people who are hostile towards the unvaccinated don’t realize how much their inflamed emotions have been encouraged by manipulative forces who project animosity out into the world.

The damage to those who have embraced the burden of the government’s vaccine campaign, both physically and emotionally, is yet to be calculated.

Contributing further to their disturbance is clearly counter-productive.

It is difficult, but important, to not respond with animosity or scorn when blamed for the downfall of a policy full of inherent flaws.

Divisive language and insults will only cause additional tension and suffering. Strategies for improved communication are best when they are gentle, humorous and dynamic.

As demands and attitudes are mollified, informative, non-judgemental discussions can heal the divides caused by manipulation, deception, and coercion.

No doubt there will be obstinate resistance, but eventually, as a lack of an imminent threat becomes apparent, people will come to their senses and recall that questioning authority should be instinctive and welcome.

Maintaining an open, inquisitive mind to understand new and different ideas is a more natural and practical approach to resolving differences.

This ancient knowledge seems lost in the shadow of distorted, hardened policies, but this will pass as compounding new data emerges that can’t be hidden or denied.

The fallacies that have been widely accepted will vanish as verifiable and irrefutable information about the pandemic and vaccines come to light.

Truth is a relentless force that awakens us to what is important.

The outrageous possibility that U.S. government psychological operations have been applied to sway the public should be investigated thoroughly.

If this criminality is confirmed, it is the utmost priority that a major shift is implemented towards protecting all citizens from totalitarian tactics.

As we recover from imposed divisiveness we should not lose sight of a guiding concept: There is never a justified cause to eclipse humility or lose compassion for our fellow human beings.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




The People Are Unaware of the War Being Conducted Against Them

By Paul Craig Roberts 

Dear Friends,

As my long-time readers know, I have experienced much in my life at high levels of government, journalism, academia, and business. Yet I am stunned by the depth and breadth of the organized conspiracy working on behalf of the orchestrated “Covid pandemic.” Washington, shielded by a whore media, has long lied to us about everything -— 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Iranian nukes, Russian invasions, Osama bin Laden, Muammar Gaddafi, Russiagate, Trump insurrection. Currently, lies are being used to damage Americans with a “vaccine” that is more dangerous than the virus.

The extent of the propaganda on behalf of a “vaccine” that is known not to protect but to cause death and serious health impairments, and against known proven cures increasingly used worldwide, is astounding. Even in the red state of Georgia, the Georgia Department of Public Health has pharmacies delivering prescriptions in bags with a smiling young woman saying in 2 inch high letters: COVID VACCINE. I SAID YES! SO I CAN STAY IN MY CLASSROOM.

Before we proceed, think about the message. In order to go to school, she had to take the mRNA “vaccine” known to be especially dangerous to young people. In “free democratic America” school children are being coerced into accepting what has in our previous history been unacceptable risks. Never in history has a “vaccine” associated with even a tiny fraction of deaths as the mRNA vaccine has been permitted to remain in use. Despite the known and proven danger of the mRNA vaccine to the young, the criminal organization is known as Pfizer is putting pressure on its servants at FDA to approve the injection of 5-year olds with the deadly substance. The chances are high that every five-year-old injected will be infertile.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/pfizer-formally-asks-drug-regulators-to-let-kids-as-young-as-5-get-its-covid-19-vaccine_4036989.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-10-08&mktids=1a69496352d8ee2e4c76e4ae0487ee3c&est=gpFTDxYhp3%2BC7FGnEG0b5DK14zxk4vTLB8e7T%2F4ToGyYcdv8owjRFA%3D%3D

What is the agenda that can reach down so far as to plant and control the message on prescription bags from pharmacies?

Obviously profit for Big Pharma. Obviously control over people and ability to dictate their decisions by government. Obviously from what we are learning about the impact of the mRNA vaccine on human fertility, population control. To succeed in reducing the population, you have to kill off the young or make them infertile. Thus the drive to vaccinate 5-year old children.

There are no other explanations for the determined censoring of renowned experts and Nobel laureates who keep blowing the whistle and issuing warnings. There are no other explanations for hospitals refusing to report adverse reactions to the vaccine and refusing to save Covid patients’ lives by treating them with HCQ or Ivermectin. There are no other explanations for the medical establishment to pretend that variants are not the products of the vaccine itself.

Considering the fact that the mRNA “vaccine” was rushed into use without the necessary trials under an “emergency use authorization,” where is the credibility of the medical establishments’ claim that although HCQ and Ivermectin have a perfect safety record after 60 years of human use, no doctor should prescribe them because there are no trials determining their effectiveness on Covid?

In other words, the position of the American Medical Establishment is that we can give you a life-threatening injection on an emergency basis without trials, but not a known cure increasingly used worldwide safely and effectively to prevent and to cure Covid. https://ippocrateorg.org/en/

Over the course of my lifetime in the United States, I have watched all moral values be replaced by the greed for, and pursuit of, money. Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that Big Pharma, media, Biden, the American Medical Association, hospitals, pharmacists, school boards, governors, private employers would so willingly coerce Americans into accepting dangerous injections in order to keep their jobs, go to school, go out for an evening, and travel only for the purpose of enriching Pfizer, Moderna, and the rest.

There are now tens of thousands of doctors, nurses, medical professionals, and scientists who dissent from the Covid protocol being imposed on Western countries. Their voices are suppressed. Their jobs and medical licenses are threatened. Despite having all the facts on their side, they are denounced for “Covid disinformation.”

On October 8, 2021, I heard on NPR on behalf of vaccination, which the pharmaceutical companies themselves admit does not protect beyond 6 months (the protection declines daily), propaganda so blatant that it would have astonished Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. NPR intentionally withheld from the listening audience the proven established facts that the mRNA “vaccine” (1) is associated with a historic high rate of health injuries and deaths, (2) produces variants immune to the vaccine, thereby requiring endless boosters, and (3) shuts down and destroys your natural immunity leaving you dependent for life on Big Pharma.

Why did National Public radio withhold this known information and engage in purposefully deceiving its gullible audience? Possibly the weak-minded NPR crowd is afraid to offend those who control the Covid narrative by being real journalists. NPR is accustomed to being mouthpieces for donors, and I suspect you can safely bet your life that Big Pharma, indirectly if not directly, has bought NPR’s reporting. Unfortunately, America has no investigative media to look into this question.

America is a place where lies are verified as truth by CNN, MSNBC, NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, and multitudes of Internet sites financed by the Establishment that controls our opinions and renders us impotent by programming us with lies.

Many books, articles, and movies over the years predicted the triumph of secret agendas over gullible insouciant peoples to be humanity’s fate.

I watch this happen every day. Are people, especially those in the West, too stupid and trusting to survive?




4,600+ Doctors, Scientists Accuse COVID Policymakers of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’

An international group of physicians and scientists signed a declaration Friday accusing COVID-19 policy-makers of “crimes against humanity” for preventing the use of life-saving treatments on their patients.

As of Monday morning, the Physicians Declaration had garnered more than 4,600 signatures. The signers accused policymakers of forcing a “one-size-fits-all” treatment strategy, resulting in “needless illness and death,” rather than “upholding fundamental concepts of the individualized.”

According to the Global COVID Summit, the declaration was created by physicians and scientists during the Rome COVID Summit. The signatories are professionals, many of whom are on the front lines of treating COVID patients.

The Global COVID Summit reported:

“Though the declaration’s signatories are diverse in their specialties, treatment philosophies, and medical opinions, they have risen up to take a collective stand against authoritarian measures by corporations, medical associations, and governments and their respective agencies. The objective of the declaration is to reclaim their leadership role in conquering this pandemic.”

The Declaration states:

“The Physicians’ Declaration was first read at the Rome COVID Summit, catalyzing an explosion of active support from medical scientists and physicians around the globe. These professionals were not expecting career threats, character assassination, papers and research censored, social accounts blocked, search results manipulated, clinical trials and patient observations banned, and their professional history and accomplishments altered or omitted in academic and mainstream media.

“Thousands have died from COVID as a result of being denied life-saving early treatment. The Declaration is a battle cry from physicians who are daily fighting for the right to treat their patients, and the right of patients to receive those treatments — without fear of interference, retribution, or censorship by the government, pharmacies, pharmaceutical corporations, and big tech.”

The signatories created a “doctors- and scientists-only” COVID information platform so citizens can make informed decisions for their families “without interruption, manipulation, politicization or profiteering from external forces outside of the doctor-patient relationship.”

Read the Physicians Declaration here.

Watch Dr. Robert Malone, architect of the mRNA vaccine technology, read the Physicians Declaration:




The Emperor Has No Clothes: COVID Math Simply Doesn’t Add Up

From the beginning of the series of events branded as a global health emergency, many people have smelled a rat.

Whether one looks at leaders’ willingness to engage in wanton economic destruction, or the rapidity with which billionaires have amassed new wealth, or the multisectoral efforts to link and my people’s intimate data, it is not hard to recognize that something much larger than a health crisis is afoot.

However, even if one restricts oneself to the narrow confines of the health narrative, 18 months of data — emerging in spite of ferocious censorship — have repeatedly illustrated that the official story is full of lies and omissions.

One of the biggest holes in the story is the trail of destruction that the experimental COVID vaccines are leaving in their wake, with hundreds of thousands of reported injuries in the U.S. alone and, according to some statisticians, as many as 150,000 dead Americans.

With this level of damage after just nine months, now is as good a time as any to reexamine “COVID math” and highlight some of the embedded falsehoods that cast serious doubt on official and corporate pronouncements about risks and benefits.

The false case for vaccinating kids

Pfizer’s CEO, veterinarian Albert Bourla, is currently drumming up buzz in anticipation of a likely decision by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to green-light emergency use of his company’s COVID vaccine in children ages 5-11. To buttress his arguments, Bourla claims that pediatric COVID cases are on the rise.

However, setting aside the questionable PCR testing methodology being used to identify these “cases” (that is, until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) retires the PCR test at the end of the year), recent studies show reported COVID-19 hospitalizations — “one of the primary metrics for tracking the severity of the coronavirus pandemic” — have been grossly inflated for children. In actuality, pediatric COVID hospitalization rates are “vanishingly small.”

One fact, especially, bears repeating: Through age 19, children and adolescents have a 99.9973% COVID-19 survival rate. This information, which has been a constant throughout the reported pandemic, is reiterated in the most recent analyses by Stanford physician, epidemiologist, and statistician John Ioannidis, who has been a steadfast critic of COVID alarmism from the very beginning.

And Ioannidis’s good news does not stop with the 19-and-under. Until people hit their seventies, all age groups have survival rates well over 99%:

  • 0-19: 99.9973%
  • 20-29: 99.986%
  • 30-39: 99.969%
  • 40-49: 99.918%
  • 50-59: 99.73%
  • 60-69: 99.41%
  • 70+: 97.6% (non-institutionalized)
  • 70+: 94.5% (institutionalized and non-institutionalized)

As Off-Guardian’s Kit Knightly wrote about another Ioannidis study this past spring, “With every new study, with every new paper, the ‘deadly’ pandemic gets less and less, well, deadly.”

At that time, Ioannidis ascertained that the global infection fatality rate was 95% lower than the one disseminated by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Risks: the example of myocarditis

Commenting on the pediatric hospital studies — in which more than half of the children entered the hospital for reasons having nothing to do with anything resembling COVID — a reporter wrote, “The implications … are enormously important, as reports of pediatric hospitalizations have regularly made headlines over the past year, greatly affecting public perceptions about risks to children.”

Those headlines and perceptions likely will prompt some parents to rush into the waiting arms of their local vaccinator.

Bourla and other Pfizer executives have remained mum about the many 12- to 17-year-olds who are ending up hospitalized and injured after taking the company’s experimental mRNA product.

Sadly, the post-jab statements made by these disabled teens and their parents share a common refrain: influenced by skewed media reports from some corners, and without the benefit of information censored in other corners, they were not aware of the risks.

What are some of those risks? 

A study out of Ottawa recently estimated that one of every 625 Moderna doses administered results in myocarditis (heart inflammation), as does an estimated one in 2,500 doses of the Pfizer shot, with a “tight temporal association between receipt of mRNA vaccine and subsequent development of symptoms in a relatively short time frame afterwards.”

The Ottawa authors pointed out that their estimates — based on “direct investigation of patients” who were “largely in the vulnerable 18- 30 age category” — were tenfold higher than the incidence produced by a less rigorous study that looked only at “administrative health data.”

The authors also noted the relevance of their findings for the “ongoing public debate regarding proposals for vaccination of children under the age of 16.”

According to another new study, healthy boys between the ages of 12 and 15, with no underlying medical conditions, were four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than they were to be hospitalized with COVID.

The Ottawa study may have pointed more of a finger at the Moderna shot, but a late August CDC update on heart problems reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the aftermath of COVID vaccination suggests the Pfizer injection may be equally treacherous, especially for young men.

Using a statistically credible estimate that VAERS data are underreporting COVID injuries by a factor of 41, Steve Kirsch (founder of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund) has calculated (slide #15) that roughly one in 318 boys ages 16 and 17 can be expected to develop myocarditis after two Pfizer doses, and a third booster dose of the Pfizer vaccine could escalate that risk to a frightening one in 25.

Another recent look at VAERS data by Health Impact News showed that in 2021, to date, 12- to 19-year-olds have been 50 times more likely to experience heart problems after receiving experimental COVID shots — and nearly eight times more likely to die — compared to all other FDA-approved vaccines combined.

Considering adverse events reported to VAERS over the past decade for all vaccines combined, there has been a “highly anomalous” 1,000% increase in total adverse events reported thus far for 2021.

With these kinds of findings, the pushback against giving children the shots is growing louder and stronger.

The authors of a just-published study in Toxicology Reports openly ask, “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” They warn that younger age groups could experience longer-term effects (such as myocarditis) “that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.”

Safe treatments withheld, dangerous protocols incentivized

John Ioannidis’s new study shows that institutionalization negatively skews outcomes for the 70-plus age group. Whereas the survival rate is 97.5% for the community-dwelling elderly 70 or older, it falls to 94.5% when institutionalized elderly in that age group are included in the count.

Why is the institutionalized elderly faring so poorly? In the UK, reporters and undertakers have furnished one possible answer, sharing troubling on-the-ground descriptions about illegal euthanasia alleged to be taking place on a widespread basis in care homes as well as hospitals.

In the U.S., meanwhile, regulators, hospitals, and pharmacies have implemented equally disturbing policies that require withholding inexpensive drugs, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine — shown elsewhere to be effective and safe — while essentially forcing hospitalized COVID patients onto protocols that are not only unhelpful but murderous.

Mexico City achieved up to a 76% reduction in COVID hospitalizations by making ivermectin-based home treatment kits widely available. With evidence like this, why are U.S. hospitals stubbornly adhering to life-threatening protocols involving remdesivir (known to produce fluid in the lungs and longer hospital stays) and intubation?

One rather dark answer is that hospitals are not only immune from liability for any fatal outcomes resulting from this approach but receive hefty federal payments — including a 20% Medicare “add-on” that may sum up to as much as $40,000 for patients who spend four or more days on a ventilator.

Although hospitals may hasten to refute that these factors are at play, the growing number of hospital whistleblowers is becoming hard to ignore.

In March, Baylor University’s Dr. Peter McCullough lamented that as many as 85% of COVID deaths could have been prevented with early treatment using ivermectin and other formerly commonplace drugs disallowed by regulators and for which U.S. pharmacies will no longer fill “off-label” prescriptions.

There is an international agreement with McCullough’s position that “large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin,” and the U.S.-based Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance describes the drug as potentially the “global solution to the pandemic.”

However, instead of applauding these advocates of early intervention for their efforts to save lives, they have become, according to mRNA vaccine inventor Dr. Robert Malone, the focus of intense “coordinated strategies” to subject them to “derision and attacks and character assassination.”

Those ‘anomalous’ deaths

In analyses presented by Steve Kirsch to the FDA (slide #6), Kirsch summarized data showing the COVID vaccines are killing more people than they are saving — including producing six excess deaths for each life reportedly saved in nursing home residents, and five excess deaths per life saved according to Pfizer’s early clinical trial data.

Independent statisticians estimate the injections are linked to roughly 470 deaths per million doses administered. (By way of comparison, CDC researchers once conceded that smallpox vaccination was responsible for one death per million.)

In February, studies out of Israel were already showing the Pfizer shot (the only one used in Israel) was causing “mortality hundreds of times greater in young people compared to mortality from coronavirus without the vaccine, and dozens of times more in the elderly.”

Investigative journalist Corey Lynn of Corey’s Digs pointed out the CDC’s methodology for calculating COVID vaccine-related deaths is highly misleading because it is based on the number of doses administered, rather than on the number of people who receive injections.

Lynn’s analysis shows this methodology reduces the percentage of deaths almost by half, “an incredible mathematical error, surely done with intention.”

Another CDC ploy for undercounting the damage done by the COVID injections has to do with the agency’s definition of “fully vaccinated. The CDC currently considers as “unvaccinated” anyone who is not two weeks out from their second dose (in a two-dose series) or two weeks out from a single-dose vaccine. (And as Children’s Health Defense President Mary Holland recently pointed out, “unvaccinated” could “soon mean anyone who’s missing the latest booster dose,” with even more boosters likely in store down the road.)

Given that 17% of the deaths reported to VAERS have occurred within 48 hours of COVID vaccination, it is clear many U.S. vaccine deaths are being counted as “unvaccinated” deaths and misattributed to COVID-19 or other causes.

In the UK, however, public health data show that 80% of “COVID-19” deaths in August were in people who had been vaccinated, and hospitalization rates were 70% higher in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated.

Increasingly, members of the public are not fooled by the statistical shenanigans. When a Detroit TV channel recently tried to drum up hostility against the unvaccinated by asking viewers to submit tales of recalcitrant uninjected relatives dying from COVID-19, they instead got more than 182,000 comments about loved ones who had died or been injured after receiving one or more COVID shots.

These replies provide compelling evidence that what we are now experiencing is a “pandemic of the vaccinated.”




Pandemic Virus Industrial Complex Is World’s Greatest Threat

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The pandemic virus industrial complex — a term invented by Jonathan Latham, Ph.D. — is an interlocking set of corporations and other institutions who feed off and support each other with goods and services in a self-reinforcing way. It is an enterprise that leverages public money for private profit
  • It includes philanthropic organizations that act as string-pullers, influencers, and profit centers, the Defense Department, which is both a cash cow and a provocateur, academics, who provide public relations, and academic nonprofits that act as money launderers
  • The pandemic virus industrial complex is expected to be beneficial and transparent. As such, it has an image of respectability that must be maintained, which is why academics and philanthropic and nonprofit organizations play such important roles in this scheme. Together, they help obscure the real agenda under a veneer of respectability and the public good
  • One of the latest propaganda tactics employed in an effort to shape public opinion and discourage inquisitiveness is to accuse all inquiries of being “anti-science”
  • When dangerous science has the potential to wipe out mankind, it is cause for concern among thinking individuals of all political persuasions. It’s not anti-science. It’s anti-recklessness, and to prevent another disaster, those responsible must be held to account for their actions

In January 22, 2021, lecture above, Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., discusses what he has dubbed the pandemic virus industrial complex — who they are, how they function and interact with elements within the academic, military, and commercial complexes, and how they have been trying to obscure facts that indicate SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus that originated in a lab.

I have previously interviewed Latham a few times. He is the publisher of Independent Science News, a website that provides critical commentary on food, agriculture, and biotechnology. It’s part of the Bioscience Resource Project, an educational nonprofit public interest group co-founded by Latham and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., that provides independent research and analysis of genetic engineering and its risks.

Latham points out that there are currently no data to suggest a natural zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2. On the other hand, there’s plenty of evidence and data suggesting the virus was genetically manipulated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. Much of the related research was done by a scientist called Shi Zheng-Li, Ph.D.

He goes on to summarize the Mojiang miners’ passage theory. This theory postulates that the virus evolved inside the bodies of six miners who became ill with a suspected novel coronavirus infection in 2012. Some of the miners were sick for several weeks — a sufficient amount of time for the virus to mutate, Latham believes.

Viral samples from the miners were sent to the WIV. Latham and Wilson believe research on these samples was what led to an accidental release of the virus in late 2019.

The Pandemic Virus Industrial Complex

Latham describes the pandemic virus industrial complex as “an interlocking set of corporations and other institutions who feed off and support each other with goods and services in a self-reinforcing way.” It is an enterprise that leverages public money for private profit. He also notes that many of these participants play unexpected roles. For example:

  • Philanthropic organizations act as string-pullers, influencers, and profit centers
  • The Defense Department is both a cash cow and a provocateur
  • Academia provides public relations via legacy media controlled by philanthropic organizations and the drug industry
  • Academic nonprofits act as money launderers

“These nontraditional roles are intended to confuse and camouflage the various moving parts of what is a complex situation,” Latham says, “thereby protecting the whole from scrutiny.” While there are many similarities between the military-industrial complex and the pandemic virus industrial complex, there’s an important difference between the two.

The pandemic virus industrial complex is public-facing, and is expected to be beneficial and transparent. As such, it has an image of respectability that must be maintained, and that is why academics and philanthropic and nonprofit organizations play such important roles in this scheme.

Together, they help obscure the real agenda under a veneer of respectability and the public good. In essence, they maintain the illusion that everything that’s taking place is for the betterment of mankind when, in reality, it’s a profit-making scheme.

Latham believes the pandemic virus industrial complex has played a decisive role in the effort to obscure the likely origin of the pandemic. He also believes this is the missing framework that helps explain the politicization of the pandemic.

Previous Obscuration Attempts of Manmade Outbreaks

In his lecture, Latham reviews some of the history of this viral pandemic industrial complex. In 2014, an Ebola outbreak in West Africa was decisively blamed on zoonotic transfer from infected bats. According to a report in EMBO Molecular Medicine,1 a 2-year-old boy playing with bats in a tree stump was Patient Zero.

However, while the paper failed to produce conclusive evidence to support its conclusion, Western media ran with this story. In West Africa, however, the rumor was that the real source of the outbreak was a hospital in Sierra Leone, which housed a biological laboratory where research on Ebola and related viruses, such as the Lassa fever virus, was being done.

This research was largely funded by the U.S. Department of Defense. The reason for this funding was a recent upgrading by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the Lassa fever virus as a Category A infectious substance, meaning a pathogen likely to be used as a bioweapon by terrorists. The research was carried out under the auspices of the Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium, led by Harvard University.

The Consortium is also tied to other academic institutions, including Tulane University, Scripps Research Institute, the University of California, San Diego, the Broad Institute of Boston and the University of Texas, as well as a number of private drug companies. According to Latham, statements made by some of the people involved in the research suggest they were taking advantage of West Africa’s lax and inferior biosecurity standards.

In his book, “The Ebola Outbreak in West Africa: Corporate Gangsters, Multinationals & Rogue Politicians,” Chernoh Bah provides evidence showing the Patient Zero story was a fraud. The young boy died at 18 months of age, far too young to play with bats, and he was never diagnosed with Ebola. Neither was anyone in his family. The first recorded case of Ebola was actually found in Guinea, some three months after the little boy had died.

Bah also found other gaping holes in the narrative. For example, despite widespread sampling, no Ebola virus was ever found in any animal, and no animal die-offs occurred before the outbreak, which tends to be typical in natural zoonotic spillover events. Despite the obvious problems with the official narrative, no formal investigation of the lab leak theory was ever performed.

Follow the Money

According to Latham, we can learn a number of things from this story. First of all, lab escapes are likely more common than we think, and widely considered zoonotic outbreaks may not be zoonotic in origin at all. Another example is the AIDS epidemic, which you can learn about in the book “The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS.”

The second thing we can learn from the West African Ebola story relates to the money trail. The U.S. Department of Defense-funded the research done by the Viral Hemorrhagic Fever Consortium. Other oft-used alternative sources are public health funding and international aid. Whatever the case, be it biodefense, public health funding, or relief aid, the money comes from We the People.

Thirdly, corporate members of the Consortium had a specific business model in mind, and it had nothing to do with protecting vulnerable Africans from Lassa or Ebola. The goal of drug companies is to sell vaccines, drugs and diagnostic tools, primarily to the U.S. or European militaries.

The fact that the 2014 Ebola outbreak narrative went unchallenged shows a disturbing lack of academic rigor, and it was certainly not the first time. As noted by Latham, scientists are failing in their role to pursue and promulgate knowledge and understanding.

“Instead, more and more frequently, academia creates fictions,” he says. They create “convenient, self-serving narratives.” Legacy media works hand-in-hand with such academics, acting as a megaphone for their dubious scientific claims.

Science Used for PR Purposes

One example of how businesses use academics to shape a narrative and manipulate public opinion was when, in May 2020, 77 Nobel laureates signed a public letter urging the U.S. government to reinstate funding to EcoHealth Alliance, which has subcontracted gain-of-function research on coronaviruses to the WIV. Earlier that year, then-President Trump had ordered the National Institutes of Health to cancel that funding.

The letter was organized by Sir Richard Roberts, a molecular biologist and Nobel Prize winner who also happens to be a senior executive with New England Biolabs, a manufacturer of laboratory equipment and reagents.

“Cutting funds for biotech virus research threatens their core business,” Latham says. So, is Roberts really a disinterested party? Or does he have a very keen interest in keeping dangerous gain-of-function research going, risks be damned?

Back in 2016, Roberts organized a similar campaign, in which 107 Nobel laureates attacked Greenpeace for supposedly blocking the approval of GMO golden rice.

The National Press Club in Washington D.C. brought nationwide attention to the letter with a formal press conference. One of the organizers of that press event was a former Monsanto PR executive, and the website created to promote the campaign was traced to the biotech industry.

“The point here is that there’s nothing spontaneous about these letters,” Latham says. “They’re carefully choreographed PR gambits … What is really being defended is the overlapping interests of companies like New England Biolabs and Monsanto. In this world, science and scientists are useful pawns with which to shape public opinion.”

Propaganda Now Coming From the Most Unlikely Sources

One of the latest propaganda tactics employed in an effort to shape public opinion and discourage inquisitiveness is that if you’re concerned about the potential for lab leaks, you’re anti-science and a racist pro-Trumper.

If you file freedom of information act (FOIA) requests with scientists, you’re anti-science. If you question Dr. Anthony Fauci, you’re anti-science.2,3 If you’re against GMOs, you’re anti-science. If you’re against gain-of-function research, you’re anti-science. If you’re anti-nuclear energy, you’re anti-science. This is a ploy and nothing else. Sadly, this propaganda is now being spewed by even the most unlikely of sources, such as Mother Jones.

June 14, 2021, Mother Jones published a hit piece on the Center for Food Safety, penned by Kiera Butler.4 In May 2021, the Center for Food Safety sued the NIH in an effort to force the agency to reveal its funding of gain-of-function research.

“Virologists say this kind of research is vital and has led to many important medical discoveries, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. But Center for Food Safety argues that gain-of-function research is too dangerous to pursue,” Butler writes.

“Why would this lefty food and farms group … rail against high-level virology research? The key to the answer has to do with the Center for Food Safety’s long opposition to the practice of genetic engineering. In a recent phone call, I spoke to CFS’s Kimbrell, who explained what he sees as the connection.

‘You genetically engineer bacteria and plants, then you genetically engineer animals, then you genetically engineer embryos — all that has happened, with some promise, but also a tremendous amount of danger and threat,’ he said.

‘Now, viruses are not technically an organism, but they are living biological elements. So, they fit certainly within that narrative: Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should do something.’

Kimbrell said he ‘absolutely’ thinks the pandemic was the result of an accidental lab release. Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, he believes, used gain-of-function to enhance a coronavirus. The virus then escaped out of the lab, spread uncontrollably, and caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, in effect, gain-of-function research caused the pandemic.”

Butler also discusses the Organic Consumers Association, the U.S. Right to Know, the International Center for Technology Assessment, and Children’s Health Defense — all of which have raised questions and concerns about this kind of dangerous research on pathogens. According to Butler, they have no business questioning such research, and their involvement could put us all in jeopardy.

“With tens of thousands of followers on social media, anti-GMO groups have the potential to turn the tide of public opinion; hanging in the balance is science that could potentially help prevent the next pandemic,” she writes.

Butler Accused of Journalistic Malpractice

In true propagandist fashion, Butler goes on to rebut gain-of-function concerns with commentary from EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak, Ph.D., one of the most conflicted individuals you could possibly find. Indeed, his conflicts of interest have become so widely known, he was recently removed from the Lancet commission charged with investigating the origin of COVID-19 because of it.5,6

Butler also goes to great lengths trying to paint the issue in political partisan colors, and quotes Dr. Peter Hotez, another highly compromised industry-funded player who has publicly called for cyberwarfare assaults on American citizens who disagree with official COVID narratives.

In a scathing rebuttal, Center for Food Safety founder attorney Andrew Kimbrell accuses Butler of “journalistic malpractice,”7 and rightfully so, in my opinion. She clearly tries to confuse readers by stressing that “gain-of-function” is a broad definition and that much of the gain-of-function research being done is both harmless and valuable.

However, that’s not the kind of research the Center for Food Safety or anyone else is concerned about. The Center for Food Safety’s lawsuit specifically pertains to the manipulation of pathogens in order to make them more virulent and dangerous to humans, and she didn’t interview a single mainstream scientist who has warned of the dangers associated with this practice, even though there are dozens of them.

Overall, Butler’s piece reads like classic propaganda, created by the very people with something to hide. As noted by GM Watch:8

“The Gates-funded Alliance for Science was quick to promote Butler’s article. They’re a PR campaign based at Cornell that pushes agrichemical industry views and tries to undermine the industry’s critics, particularly those critics concerned about GMOs.

As part of this effort, the Alliance for Science has been posing as an expert body on myths about the pandemic, even though they have no such myth-busting expertise. An early example of this was a piece they published by their employee Mark Lynas that branded GMWatch, among others, as conspiracy theorists for saying the virus may have accidentally leaked from a lab.

On Twitter, Mary Mangan, who sits on the Alliance’s advisory board, has been carefully tracking and commenting on exactly which ‘anti-GMO groups’ have been calling for the lab leak hypothesis to be taken seriously …

Interestingly, a reporter told HuffPost in relation to a court case involving Monsanto that she thought Mangan had tried to ‘play’ her to do a hit job on one of the expert witnesses critical of the company’s Roundup herbicide. Could it be that Ms Butler wasn’t so resistant to being played?”

Gain-of-Function Research Poses Very Real Threat

Another clear propaganda piece was published by Hotez in The Daily Beast, June 21, 2021.9 In recent weeks, Fauci’s role in the pandemic has become increasingly clear, and it’s far from flattering. He funded dangerous research that may in fact have resulted in a global outbreak. Now, he’s trying to deflect blame by saying that personal attacks on him “represent an assault on American science,” and Hotez is doing what he can to strengthen that ridiculous notion.

To do so, Hotez takes it a step further, linking attacks on Fauci to attacks not only on science but also on the very foundation of democracy. According to Hotez, “moral courage and standing up for democratic values demands that the American people throw their full support behind scientists and scientific institutions. To do otherwise is to capitulate to the forces of insurrection.”10

Like Butler, Hotez spends an inordinate amount of time trying to paint concerns about dangerous research on pathogens that have the potential to kill us all as a far-right, racist, anti-science, anti-democracy issue, when it’s nothing of the sort.

When dangerous science has the potential to wipe out mankind, it is cause for concern among thinking individuals of all political persuasions. It’s not anti-science. It’s anti-recklessness, and to prevent another disaster, those responsible must be held to account for their actions. Clearly, not all science is dangerous. Being against recklessly dangerous science does not mean you’re against all science or science in general.

If we want to prevent another pandemic like this from occurring in the future, we must first determine the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and how it ended up in the population. If it can be proven that it came from a lab, then we need to identify and hold those responsible for its creation and release accountable for their actions and/or neglect and, lastly, we need to prevent a reoccurrence by banning research in which pathogens are purposely manipulated to make them more dangerous.

To get to the bottom of it all, we need to look at the pandemic virus industrial complex. We need to dissect how it functions and how its members interlink and work together to obscure the truth.




The Real Reason We Locked Down the Healthy

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • “Deception in America Episode One: The Tale of Peter Daszak,” presents a succinct history of his involvement in gain-of-function research that may have triggered the pandemic
  • EcoHealth Alliance is a nonprofit organization that receives millions in funding every year from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which then gives it to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), where it appears increasingly likely that the virus emerged from
  • Daszak continues to say emerging infectious diseases come from climate change and ecological drivers, ignoring the gain-of-function research on SARS viruses that he and his organization are directly involved with
  • One study found there is an 80% likelihood of a potential pandemic pathogen escaping from at least one of the 42 labs engaged in their research every 12.8 years
  • Several members of the U.S. Congress have vowed to launch an investigation to explore the lab accident theory after a WHO investigation found no connection
  • The Energy and Commerce Committee has also requested extensive records from both the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance detailing research and collaborations with WIV

There are two prevailing theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The first is that SARS-CoV-2 emerged naturally and jumped from wildlife to humans, with or without an intermediary host. The other is that the virus was being kept and/or studied in a lab, from which it escaped.

Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, is one of the most ardent supporters of the theory of natural origins. He told The Associated Press in November 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 could have passed from a wildlife poacher to a trader who brought it to Wuhan.1 Daszak also organized the publication of a scientific statement, published in The Lancet and signed by 26 additional scientists, condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”2

Daszak, however, is part of the World Health Organization team that investigated the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and has a long history of close ties to the Chinese laboratory in question — the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), from where it appears increasingly likely that the virus emerged.

The video above, “Deception in America Episode One: The Tale of Peter Daszak,” presents a succinct history of his involvement, as well as that of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and who has also long backed dangerous coronavirus research, including that conducted by EcoHealth Alliance. According to the film:3

“From the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, said to have begun some time in December of 2019, the battle to control the narrative has been fought ferociously by global organizations, CEOs, billionaires and the programs at the center of the Wuhan Institute of Virology controversy … Despite his attempts to shift the blame to anyone else but himself and his team, all roads eventually lead back to Daszak.”

EcoHealth Alliance Is the Middleman for NIAID’s WIV Funding

EcoHealth Alliance is a nonprofit organization that receives millions in funding every year from NIAID and then gives it to WIV. In fact, the film reveals that, since 2002, EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak have received over 32 grants worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from NIH, with most coming from NIAID:4

“Over the years, Peter Daszak and the Ecohealth Alliance have received $5,764,128 from the Fogarty International Center and $7,875,012 from the NIAID, for a grand total of $13,639,140.”

EcoHealth Alliance also has contracts with other government departments worth millions of dollars. The following contracts are among them:5

  • $4.5 million with the Department of Defense (DOD)
  • $2.9 million with DOD
  • $499,000 with the National Science Foundation
  • $566,000 with the Department of Homeland Security
  • $1.2 million with the Department of Commerce

There are many others as well. According to USASpending.gov, EcoHealth Alliance has 36 contracts with various government agencies.6 Over the years, the organization has been awarded $61.5 million, with DOD chief among its funders, giving them a total of $41.9 million. Overall, 91% of EcoHealth Alliance’s funding comes from government grants.7

Daszak Joins the Lancet Commission on COVID-19

Daszak has extensive connections, including having worked for the Center of Infection and Immunity at Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, alongside colleague Jeffrey Sachs, the former director of The Earth Institute at Columbia.8 Sachs, also an adviser to the United Nations, spearheaded the Millennium Villages project, which was an attempt to reduce extreme poverty in Africa, supporting a shift to self-sufficiency.

While the project claimed to be a success, an evaluation in 2012 revealed its goals were unrealistic and serious questions were raised about the project’s ability to create long-lasting impact, along with its cost-effectiveness. 9

Sachs also wrote a number of articles in support of China, stating, for instance, that “the U.S., not China, is the real threat to international law,”10 and was named chair of the Lancet Commission on COVID-19. He then named Daszak as one of the commissioners.

“Peter Daszak’s constant involvement with people like Jeffrey Sachs and the World Economic Forum suggests that he could be another one of those types of men who are so disconnected with reality that they will do anything to shape the world, not realizing what they are doing,” the film noted.11

In fact, in a Tweet from May 10, 2011, EcoHealth Alliance wrote, “Q for the crowd: is western-style democracy, a la USA, compatible with sustainability? Or is eastern style (a la China) better?”12 As further noted by the film:13

“Peter Daszak’s Ecohealth Alliance receives far more in funding from the U.S. government, including grants from the Department of Defense, among others. He is also closely associated with Jeffrey Sachs via Columbia, who frequently appears alongside George Soros in talks and seminars.

Daszak is very well connected to many globalist enterprises and their organizers. His own organization touts the sustainable development goal model, originally devised by Jeffrey Sachs.

So, when Peter Daszak deflects and says his team and their research that are directly involved the Wuhan Virology Lab has nothing to do with the SARS coronavirus outbreak in 2019, it follows a pattern that the organizations he surrounds himself with do, wherein they blame a lack of funding, or other outside factors. It is never his fault.”

Daszak’s Gain-of-Function Research

Gain-of-function (GOF) research refers to studies that have the potential to enhance the ability of pathogens to cause disease, including enhancing either their pathogenicity or transmissibility.14 Such research is by its very nature controversial since there are clear risks should the information be misused or the pathogens escape (or are maliciously released).

Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., a molecular biologist, and virologist, and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., a geneticist, are among those who believe gain-of-function research performed at WIV played “an essential causative role in the pandemic.”15 However, Daszak continues to say emerging infectious diseases come from climate change and ecological drivers, ignoring the gain-of-function research that he and his organization are directly involved with.

For instance, as reported by Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director for the Organic Consumers Association, EcoHealth Alliance lists WIV and the Wuhan University School of Public Health as subcontractors under a $3.7-million NIH grant16 titled, “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”

EcoHealth Alliance also used a sub-grant17 from the University of California at Davis to fund a gain-of-function experiment by Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., the director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also known as “batwoman,” and colleague Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, involving the use of genetic engineering to create a “new bat SARS-like virus … that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans.” According to Baden-Mayer (see hyperlinked article above):

“The work, ‘A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence,’18 published in Nature in 2015 during the NIH’s moratorium19 on gain-of-function research, was grandfathered in because it was initiated before the moratorium … and because the request by Shi and Baric to continue their research during the moratorium was approved by the NIH.

As a condition of publication, Nature, like most scientific journals, requires20 authors to submit new DNA and RNA sequences to GenBank, the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information Database. Yet the new SARS-like virus Shi and Baric created wasn’t deposited21 in GenBank until May 2020.”

Unacceptable Risks of a Man-Made Pandemic

Daszak and WHO officials continue to state that safety guidelines make it very unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 could have escaped from a lab, but a paper published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists22 revealed in 2012 that it’s a matter of when, not if, a potential pandemic pathogen (PPP) escapes.

At the time, they noted that there were at least 42 facilities engaged in research on live PPPs, “and the actual number is likely higher.” Using a conservative estimate that the probability for escape from a lab in a year is 0.3%, they found:

“[This] translates to an 80 percent likelihood of escape from at least one of the 42 labs every 12.8 years, a time interval smaller than those that have separated influenza pandemics in the 20th century. This level of risk is clearly unacceptable.”

In fact, biosecurity breaches in high containment biological labs in the U.S. and around the world have occurred with surprising frequency,23 and as the film noted:24

“It is hardly reassuring that despite increased policy demands for rigorous biosecurity procedures, potentially high-consequence breaches occur nearly daily. In 2010, 244 unintended releases of bioweapon candidate ‘select agents’ were reported. Being practical, the question is not if such escapes will result in a major civilian outbreak, but what the pathogen will be and how well it can be contained, if it can be contained at all.”

WHO’s investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, announced the Wuhan Institute of Virology and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan, China, had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak in February 2021. Since then, WIV deleted mentions of its collaboration with the NIAID/NIH and other U.S. research partners from its website.25 It also deleted descriptions of gain-of-function research on the SARS virus.

Several members of the U.S. Congress have now vowed to launch their own investigation to explore the lab accident theory. The Energy and Commerce Committee has also requested extensive records from both the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance detailing research and collaborations with WIV.26

If SARS-CoV-2 did, in fact, come from a lab, it shows clearly that gain-of-function research is the real threat and reason for locking down the healthy and highlights the disturbing truth that any such pathogen manufactured to infect humans can be designated as a biological weapon, even if it was created with non-nefarious intentions.




Ivermectin Could Have Saved ‘Millions’ of Lives — But Doctors Were Told Not to Use It

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | The Defender

Story at-a-glance:

  • Data clearly show ivermectin can prevent COVID-19 and when used early can keep patients from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease. It can even help critically ill patients recover.
  • Ivermectin has a long history of use as an antiparasitic, but its antiviral properties have been under investigation since 2012.
  • Studies have shown ivermectin inhibits replication of SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza viruses, inhibits inflammation through several pathways, lowers viral load, protects against organ damage, prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure, speeds recovery, and lowers the risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients.
  • Doctors have been told not to use ivermectin as large controlled trials are still lacking. However, once you can see from clinical evidence that something is working, then conducting controlled trials becomes unethical, as you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death. In fact, this is the exact argument vaccine makers now use to justify the elimination of control groups and giving everyone the vaccine.
  • The Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance recommends the widespread use of ivermectin for all stages of COVID-19, including prevention.

In the video above, DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein Ph.D. interviews Dr. Pierre Kory about the importance of early treatment of COVID-19 and the shameful censoring of information about ivermectin, which has been shown to be very useful against this infection.

It’s no small irony then that YouTube deleted this interview, which is why I embedded a Bitchute version. How this interview could possibly be labeled as misinformation is a mystery, considering all they do is discuss published research. Not to mention, they’re both credentialed, medical science experts.

Kory, a lung and ICU specialist and former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is the president and chief medical officer of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). Another founding member of FLCCC is Dr. Paul Marik who, as noted by Kory, is the most published intensive care specialist who is still practicing medicine and seeing patients.

Marik, known for having created an effective sepsis treatment protocol, was asked by a group of peers early on in the pandemic to help create a treatment protocol for COVID-19. The resulting collaboration led to the creation of the FLCCC. Each of the five founding members has treated critical illnesses for decades and, as Weinstein says, they are “unimpeachable. You couldn’t ask for better credentials. You couldn’t ask for a better publication record.”

Yet, despite stellar credentials and being on the frontlines treating hundreds of COVID-19 patients, they have been dismissed as “kooks on the fringe, making wild-eyed claims,” Weinstein says. How can that be? Initially, the FLCCC insisted, based on the evidence, that COVID-19 was a corticosteroid-dependent disease and that corticosteroids were a crucial part of effective treatment.

“I was actually invited to give Senate testimony back in May [2020] where I testified that it was critical to use corticosteroids; that lives are being lost [because we weren’t using it],” Kory says.

“As you might know, I got killed for that. We got killed for that. We were totally criticized for not having an evidence-based. [Yet] our reading of the evidence was that you had to use it. So that’s basically how we came together, and that was the first component of our protocol.”

Ivermectin suitable for all treatment stages

The FLCCC’s COVID-19 protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol are now known as I-MASK+ while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+, due to the addition of ivermectin.

The two protocols — I-MASK+ and I-MATH+ — are available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages. The clinical and scientific rationale for the I-MATH+ hospital protocol has also been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine in mid-December 2020.

Since those early days, the FLCCC has been vindicated and corticosteroids, as well as blood thinners, are now part of the standard of care for COVID-19 in many places. The same cannot be said for the remainder of the protocols, however, including the use of ivermectin, which continues to be suppressed, despite robust clinical evidence supporting its use in all phases of COVID-19. As noted by the FLCCC:

“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.

“… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment, and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”

Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 2020 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.

A disease of phases

As noted by Kory, they rather quickly realized that COVID-19 was a disease with very specific phases and that successful treatment depended on the phase the patient was currently in. It starts out as a general viral syndrome, much like a cold or flu. Most patients recover without incidence. However, in a subset of patients, things take a turn for the worse after day five. Their oxygen level starts dropping and lung inflammation sets in.

“We now know that it’s a cell called a macrophage that gets activated and attacks the lungs,” Kory explains. “So, you have this sort of immune response that is attacking the lungs and the lungs start to fail … So, it’s predominantly a severe lung disease …

“We knew relatively early on that by the time they get to the ICU … there’s not a lot of viral replication going on. In fact, you can’t culture a virus after about day seven or eight. So, it’s actually a disease of inflammation, not viral invasion …

“So, you didn’t have to go after the virus at that point, you had to actually check the inflammation … What we think triggers [the] inflammation is actually the viral debris. It’s the RNA that triggers this massive response. It’s not the virus. It’s actually the debris of the dead virus that does it.”

Kory notes that after having treated the first handful of patients, he realized that anticoagulants, blood thinners, were needed, as there was abnormal blood clotting going on in all of them. Yet for some reason, the medical community was, again, told not to do it because there were no clinical trials supporting the use of anticoagulants for a viral illness.

“It was bizarre,” Kory says. “They were like, you can’t observe, you can’t make clinical reasoning, you can’t deduce, you need a trial before you do [anything] … Everyone talks about evidence-based. I’m like, what about experience-based medicine? I’ve been doing this for 30 years. Why can’t I do what my experience tells me to do? …

“You couldn’t actually doctor. I felt like I was being handcuffed. I’ve never seen that in my life before … I have the sense that doctors have been forcibly demoted from the position of a scientific clinician to technician …

“I’ve never been asked before to get advice from … desk jockeys. I mean, they’re not on the front lines … I’ve never been asked to do that before. I’ve always been asked to use the best extent of my experience and judgment and insight to best help the patient. That’s the oath I took …

“Instead we’re in this situation where if we open our mouth and say the wrong word, suddenly there are warnings appended to what we’ve said. It’s insane. It’s limiting discussion, limiting choices, limiting approaches.”

Overwhelming evidence for ivermectin

Kory spends a significant portion of the 2 1/2-hour interviews reviewing the evidence for using ivermectin. This drug has a long history of use as an antiparasitic. It’s been credited with virtually eradicating onchocerciasis (river blindness), a condition caused by a parasitic worm. The drug was originally made from a soil organism found in Japan. However, as early as 2012, researchers started looking at ivermectin’s antiviral properties.

In April 2020, an Australian group showed ivermectin eradicated all viruses studied in as little as 48 hours, at least in the petri dish. Due to the state of emergency the world was in, some countries, including Peru, decided to recommend ivermectin to their population. It was well-known that the medication was safe, so the risk of doing so was very low.

As was the trend, Peruvian officials were roundly criticized for using an “unproven” remedy, and shortly thereafter, they removed it from the national guidelines. Some states continued to give it out, however, and according to Kory, each ivermectin campaign resulted in a precipitous decline in cases and deaths.

Marik was the first in the group to really take notice of the remarkable consistency in the studies using ivermectin. Kory dove into the research right behind him and came to the conclusion that there indeed was something special about this drug. The population-based evidence was also very strong.

With regard to calls for randomized controlled trials, Kory points out that once you can see from clinical evidence that something really is working, then conducting controlled trials becomes more or less unethical, as you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death. In fact, this is the exact same argument vaccine makers now use to justify the elimination of control groups by giving everyone the vaccine.

“When I posted our preprint on Nov.13, 2020, I literally thought the pandemic was over,” Kory says. “We showed the basic science level. We showed multiple clinical trials. We showed the epidemiologic effects.

“Everything was there to show that this is an intervention on the par of vaccines that could literally extinguish the pandemic, and quickly. I thought at the beginning that it was as simple as putting the evidence out there … and what happened? Crickets! Nothing happened …

“I cannot believe that this is occurring. Literally, people are dying because they don’t know about this medicine. Providers are being told not to use the medicine … And I’ve never studied medicine that has more evidence than this …

“You have dozens of randomized controlled trials conducted by interested and committed clinicians from oftentimes low and middle-income countries around the world.

And there’s no conflict of interest. None of them is going to make a million dollars by finding out that ivermectin works in COVID. None of them have a conflict of interest.”

For example, studies have shown ivermectin:

  • Inhibits replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza viruses — In “COVID-19: Antiparasitic Offers Treatment Hope,” I review data showing a single dose of ivermectin killed 99.8% of SARS-CoV-2 in 48 hours.
  • An observational study14 from Bangladesh, which looked at ivermectin as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 among health care workers, found only four of the 58 volunteers who took 12 mg of ivermectin once per month for four months developed mild COVID-19 symptoms between May and August 2020, compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who had declined the medication.
  • Inhibits inflammation through several pathways.
  • Lowers viral load.
  • Protects against organ damage.
  • Prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure; speeds recovery and lowers the risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients — The average reduction in mortality, based on 18 trials, is 75%.  A WHO-sponsored review suggests ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 mortality by as much as 83%.

Ivermectin has been intentionally suppressed

As noted by Weinstein, ivermectin appears to be intentionally suppressed. It’s simply not allowed to be a go-to remedy. The obvious question is why? Don’t they want to save lives? Isn’t that why we shut down the world?

“I would have these data arguments,” Kory says. “But it’s not about the data. There’s something else. There’s [something] out there that is just squashing, distorting, suppressing the efficacy of ivermectin, and it’s egregious.”

Indeed, as noted by Weinstein, it’s not even difficult to prove that ivermectin is being suppressed and censored. Censorship of certain COVID-related information, such as ivermectin, is written into the community guidelines. You’re not allowed to talk about it. If you do, your post will be censored, shadow-banned, or taken down. If you persist, your entire account will be taken down.

Mexico’s experience with ivermectin

Another population-based experiment that demonstrates ivermectin’s real-world usefulness occurred in Mexico. Kory explains:

“Mexico did something which I think is the model for the world. I think, on a public health level, it’s what every country in the world should adopt, at a minimum. They [had a] clinicians committee.

“They actually got expert clinicians [and] they gave them a seat at the table at the public health level. It’s called IMSS, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. That’s the agency that controls a good portion of their healthcare infrastructure, mostly outpatient, I think …

“In December, hospitals were filling. It was a crisis almost like in India. They decided to deploy ivermectin using a test and treat strategy. Basically, anyone who appeared at the testing booths, if you tested positive, you were given ivermectin at a reasonably low dose … 12 milligrams … and only two days’ worth. They got four pills at 3 mg each].

“And when they did that, you saw across Mexico this precipitous decline in deaths and hospitalizations. And, if you look a few months later, right now — and this is publicly available data — look at the occupancy of beds in hospitals in Mexico, throughout the entire country, we’re talking about 25% to 30% occupancy.

“There’s nobody in the hospitals in Mexico. They’ve basically decimated COVID in that country by using a test and treat strategy … Those were real public health leaders. They made a risk-benefit decision. They used their clinical judgment and expertise to have the right people at the table.”

As noted by Kory, the IMSS was attacked by the federal health minister, but they fought back and laid out the evidence supporting their decision. This included studies showing a 50% to 75% reduction in hospitalizations using just that four-pill regimen.

As for the FLCCC, they recommend dosages between 0.2 mg and 0.4 mg per kilogram when taken at first signs of mild symptoms. For mild disease, they recommend continuing the drug for five days. For moderate disease, or if you start taking it late, they recommend continuing until you’re recovered

The in-hospital protocol involves higher doses. Keep in mind, however, that the FLCCC protocols include several other remedies, not just ivermectin, so be sure to review the latest guidance.

Some regions in India have also used ivermectin. Kory believes the minister of Goa made some of the boldest moves in the world with regard to ivermectin, recommending all adults over the age of 18 to take ivermectin for five days, as a preventive. Uttar Pradesh also gave it out, while other states, such as Tamil Nadu, outlawed it. Here too, population-based data suggest ivermectin is tightly correlated with a decline in hospitalizations and deaths.

Where you can learn more

If you want to learn more about ivermectin, there are several places where you can do that, including the following:

  • April 24 – 25 Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd., hosted the first International Ivermectin for COVID Conference online.
  • Twelve medical experts from around the world — including Kory — shared their knowledge, reviewing mechanisms of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings, and real-world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.
  • An easy-to-read and print one-page summary of the clinical trial evidence for ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website.
  • A more comprehensive, 31-page review of trial data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology.
  • The FLCCC website also has a helpful FAQ section where Kory and Marik answer common questions about the drug and its recommended use.
  • listing of all ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com.

As noted by Lawrie during her closing address at the 2021 International Ivermectin for COVID Conference:

“The story of Ivermectin has highlighted that we are at a remarkable juncture in medical history. The tools that we use to heal and our connection with our patients are being systematically undermined by relentless disinformation stemming from corporate greed.

“The story of Ivermectin shows that we as a public have misplaced our trust in the authorities and have underestimated the extent to which money and power corrupts.

“Had Ivermectin being employed in 2020 when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end …

“With politicians and other nonmedical individuals dictating to us what we are allowed to prescribe to the ill, we as doctors, have been put in a position such that our ability to uphold the Hippocratic oath is under attack.

“At this fateful juncture, we must therefore choose, will we continue to be held ransom by corrupt organizations, health authorities, Big Pharma, and billionaire sociopaths, or will we do our moral and professional duty to do no harm and always do the best for those in our care?

“The latter includes urgently reaching out to colleagues around the world to discuss which of our tried and tested safe older medicines can be used against COVID.”

Originally published by Mercola.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.




COVID, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Data clearly show ivermectin can prevent COVID-19 and when used early can keep patients from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease. It can even help critically ill patients recover
  • Ivermectin has a long history of use as an antiparasitic, but its antiviral properties have been under investigation since 2012
  • Studies have shown ivermectin inhibits replication of SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza viruses, inhibits inflammation through several pathways, lowers viral load, protects against organ damage, prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure, speeds recovery, and lowers the risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients
  • Doctors have been told not to use ivermectin as large controlled trials are still lacking. However, once you can see from clinical evidence that something is working, then conducting controlled trials becomes unethical, as you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death. In fact, this is the exact argument vaccine makers now use to justify the elimination of control groups and giving everyone the vaccine
  • The Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance recommends widespread use of ivermectin for all stages of COVID-19, including prevention

In the video above, DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein Ph.D. interviews Dr. Pierre Kory about the importance of early treatment of COVID-19 and the shameful censoring of information about ivermectin, which has been shown to be very useful against this infection.

It’s no small irony then that YouTube deleted this interview, which is why I embedded a Bitchute version. How this interview could possibly be labeled as misinformation is a mystery, considering all they do is discuss published research. Not to mention, they’re both credentialed, medical science experts.

Kory, a lung and ICU specialist and former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is the president and chief medical officer1 of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). Another founding member of FLCCC is Dr. Paul Marik2 who, as noted by Kory, is the most-published intensive care specialist who is still practicing medicine and seeing patients.

Marik, known for having created an effective sepsis treatment protocol, was asked by a group of peers early on in the pandemic to help create a treatment protocol for COVID-19. The resulting collaboration led to the creation of the FLCCC. Each of the five founding members has treated critical illnesses for decades and, as Weinstein says, they are “unimpeachable. You couldn’t ask for better credentials. You couldn’t ask for a better publication record.”

Yet, despite stellar credentials and being on the frontlines treating hundreds of COVID-19 patients, they have been dismissed as “kooks on the fringe, making wild-eyed claims,” Weinstein says. How can that be? Initially, the FLCCC insisted, based on the evidence, that COVID-19 was a corticosteroid-dependent disease and that corticosteroids were a crucial part of effective treatment.

“I was actually invited to give Senate testimony back in May [2020] where I testified that it was critical to use corticosteroids; that lives are being lost [because we weren’t using it],” Kory says.

“As you might know, I got killed for that. We got killed for that. We were totally criticized for not having an evidence-base. [Yet] our reading of the evidence was that you had to use it. So that basically that’s how we came together, and that was the first components of our protocol.”

Ivermectin Suitable for All Treatment Stages

The FLCCC’s COVID-19 protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol are now known as I-MASK+3 while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,4 due to the addition of ivermectin.

The two protocols — I-MASK+5 and I-MATH+6 — are available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages. The clinical and scientific rationale for the I-MATH+ hospital protocol has also been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine7 in mid-December 2020.

Since those early days, the FLCCC has been vindicated and corticosteroids, as well as blood thinners, are now part of the standard of care for COVID-19 in many places. The same cannot be said for the remainder of the protocols, however, including the use of ivermectin, which continues to be suppressed, despite robust clinical evidence supporting its use in all phases of COVID-19.8,9 As noted by the FLCCC:10

“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.

… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”

Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202011 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.12

A Disease of Phases

As noted by Kory, they rather quickly realized that COVID-19 was a disease with very specific phases and that successful treatment depended on the phase the patient was currently in. It starts out as a general viral syndrome, much like a cold or flu. Most patients recover without incidence. However, in a subset of patients, things take a turn for the worse after Day 5. Their oxygen level starts dropping and lung inflammation sets in.

“We now know that it’s a cell called a macrophage that gets activated and attacks the lungs,” Kory explains. “So, you have this sort of immune response that is attacking the lungs and the lungs start to fail … So, it’s predominantly a severe lung disease …

We knew relatively early on that by the time they get to the ICU … there’s not a lot of viral replication on going on. In fact, you can’t culture a virus after about Day 7 or 8. So, it’s actually a disease of inflammation, not viral invasion …

So, you didn’t have to go after the virus at that point, you had to actually check the inflammation … What we think triggers [the] inflammation is actually the viral debris. It’s the RNA that triggers this massive response. It’s not the virus. It’s actually the debris of the dead virus that does it.”

Kory notes that after having treated the first handful of patients, he realized that anticoagulants, blood thinners, were needed, as there was abnormal blood clotting going on in all of them. Yet for some reason, the medical community was, again, told not to do it because there were no clinical trials supporting the use of anticoagulants for a viral illness.

“It was bizarre,” Kory says. “They were like, you can’t observe, you can’t make clinical reasoning, you can’t deduce, you need a trial before you do [anything] … Everyone talks about evidence-based. I’m like, what about experience-based medicine? I’ve been doing this for 30 years. Why can’t I do what my experience tells me to do? …

You couldn’t actually doctor. I felt like I was being handcuffed. I I’ve never seen that in my life before … I have the sense that doctors have been forcibly demoted from the position of scientific clinician to technician …

I’ve never been asked before to get advice from … desk jockeys. I mean, they’re not on the front lines … I’ve never been asked to do that before. I’ve always been asked to use the best extent of my experience and judgment and insight to best help the patient. That’s the oath I took …

Instead we’re in this situation where if we open our mouth and say the wrong word, suddenly there are warnings appended to what we’ve said. It’s insane. It’s limiting discussion, limiting choices, limiting approaches.”

Overwhelming Evidence for Ivermectin

Kory spends a significant portion of the 2 1/2-hour interviews reviewing the evidence for using ivermectin. This drug has a long history of use as an antiparasitic. It’s been credited with virtually eradicating onchocerciasis (river blindness), a condition caused by a parasitic worm. The drug was originally made from a soil organism found in Japan. However, as early as 2012, researchers started looking at ivermectin’s antiviral properties.

In April 2020, an Australian group showed ivermectin eradicated all viruses studied in as little as 48 hours, at least in the petri dish. Due to the state of emergency the world was in, some countries, including Peru, decided to recommend ivermectin to their population. It was well-known that the medication was safe, so the risk of doing so was very low.

As was the trend, Peruvian officials were roundly criticized for using an “unproven” remedy, and shortly thereafter, they removed it from the national guidelines. Some states continued to give it out, however, and according to Kory, each ivermectin campaign resulted in a precipitous decline in cases and deaths.

Marik was the first in the group to really take notice of the remarkable consistency in the studies using ivermectin. Kory dove into the research right behind him and came to the conclusion that there indeed was something special about this drug. The population-based evidence was also very strong.

With regard to calls for randomized controlled trials, Kory points out that once you can see from clinical evidence that something really is working, then conducting controlled trials becomes more or less unethical, as you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death. In fact, this is the exact same argument vaccine makers now use to justify the elimination of control groups by giving everyone the vaccine.

“When I posted our preprint November 13 [2020], I literally thought the pandemic was over,” Kory says. “We showed the basic science level. We showed multiple clinical trials. We showed the epidemiologic effects.

Everything was there to show that this is an intervention on the par of vaccines that could literally extinguish the pandemic, and quickly. I thought at the beginning that it was as simple as putting the evidence out there … and what happened? Crickets! Nothing happened …

I cannot believe that this is occurring. Literally, people are dying because they don’t know about this medicine. Providers are being told not to use the medicine … And I’ve never studied a medicine which has more evidence than this …

You have dozens of randomized controlled trials conducted by interested and committed clinicians from oftentimes low and middle income countries around the world. And there’s no conflicts of interest. None of them is going to make a million dollars by finding out that ivermectin works in COVID. None of them have a conflict of interest.”

For example, studies have shown ivermectin:13

Inhibits replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza viruses — In “COVID-19: Antiparasitic Offers Treatment Hope,” I review data showing a single dose of ivermectin killed 99.8% of SARS-CoV-2 in 48 hours.

An observational study14 from Bangladesh, which looked at ivermectin as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 among health care workers, found only four of the 58 volunteers who took 12 mg of ivermectin once per month for four months developed mild COVID-19 symptoms between May and August 2020, compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who had declined the medication

Inhibits inflammation through several pathways

Lowers viral load

Protects against organ damage

Prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure; speeds recovery and lowers the risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients — The average reduction in mortality, based on 18 trials, is 75%.15 A WHO-sponsored review16 suggests ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 mortality by as much as 83%

Ivermectin Has Been Intentionally Suppressed

As noted by Weinstein, ivermectin appears to be intentionally suppressed. It’s simply not allowed to be a go-to remedy. The obvious question is why? Don’t they want to save lives? Isn’t that why we shut down the world?

“I would have these data arguments,” Kory says. “But it’s not about the data. There’s something else. There’s [something] out there that is just squashing, distorting, suppressing the efficacy of ivermectin, and its egregious.”

Indeed, as noted by Weinstein, it’s not even difficult to prove that ivermectin is being suppressed and censored. Censorship of certain COVID-related information, such as ivermectin, is written into the community guidelines. You’re not allowed to talk about it. If you do, your post will be censored, shadow-banned, or taken down. If you persist, your entire account will be taken down.

Mexico’s Experience With Ivermectin

Another population-based experiment that demonstrates ivermectin’s real-world usefulness occurred in Mexico. Kory explains:

“Mexico did something which I think is the model for the world. I think, on a public health level, it’s what every country in the world should adopt, at a minimum. They [had a] clinicians committee.

They actually got expert clinicians [and] they gave them a seat at the table at the public health level. It’s called IMSS, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. That’s the agency which controls a good portion of their healthcare infrastructure, mostly outpatient, I think …

In December, hospitals were filling. It was a crisis almost like in India. They decided to deploy ivermectin using a test and treat strategy. Basically, anyone who appeared at the testing booths, if you tested positive, you were given ivermectin at a reasonably low dose … 12 milligrams … and only two days’ worth. They got four pills [at 3 mg each].

And when they did that, you saw across Mexico this precipitous decline in deaths and hospitalizations. And, if you look a few months later, right now — and this is publicly available data — look at the occupancy of beds in hospitals in Mexico, throughout the entire country, we’re talking about 25% to 30% occupancy.

There’s nobody in the hospitals in Mexico. They’ve basically decimated COVID in that country by using a test and treat strategy … Those were real public health leaders. They made a risk-benefit decision. They used their clinical judgment and expertise to have the right people at the table.”

As noted by Kory, the IMSS was attacked by the federal health minister, but they fought back and laid out the evidence supporting their decision. This included studies showing a 50% to 75% reduction in hospitalizations using just that four-pill regimen.

As for the FLCCC, they recommend dosages between 0.2 mg and 0.4 mg per kilogram when taken at first signs of mild symptoms. For mild disease, they recommend continuing the drug for five days. For moderate disease, or if you start taking it late, they recommend continuing until you’re recovered.

The in-hospital protocol involves higher doses. Keep in mind, however, that the FLCCC protocols include several other remedies, not just ivermectin, so be sure to review the latest guidance.17,18

Some regions in India have also used ivermectin. Kory believes the minister of Goa made some of the boldest moves in the world with regard to ivermectin, recommending all adults over the age of 18 to take ivermectin for five days, as a preventive. Uttar Pradesh also gave it out, while other states, such as Tamil Nadu, outlawed it. Here too, population-based data suggest ivermectin is tightly correlated with a decline in hospitalizations and deaths.

Where You Can Learn More

While ivermectin certainly appears to be a useful strategy, which is why I am covering it, it is not among my primary recommendations. In terms of prevention, I believe your best bet is to optimize your vitamin D level, as your body needs vitamin D for a wide variety of functions, including a healthy immune response.

What’s more, although ivermectin is a relatively safe drug, it can still have side effects. Vitamin D, on the other hand, is something your body absolutely requires for optimal health, which is why I would encourage you to focus on vitamin D first.

As for early treatment, I recommend nebulized hydrogen peroxide treatment,19,20 which is inexpensive, highly effective, and completely harmless when you’re using the low (0.04% to 0.1%) peroxide concentration recommended.

All of that said, ivermectin and several other remedies certainly have a place, and it’s good to know they exist and work well. On the whole, there’s really no reason to remain panicked about COVID-19. If you want to learn more about ivermectin, there are several places where you can do that, including the following:

April 24 through 25, 2021, Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd.,21 hosted the first International Ivermectin for COVID Conference online.22

Twelve medical experts23 from around the world — including Kory — shared their knowledge, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings, and real-world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org24

An easy-to-read and print one-page summary of the clinical trial evidence for ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website25

A more comprehensive, 31-page review of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology26

The FLCCC website also has a helpful FAQ section where Kory and Marik answer common questions about the drug and its recommended use27

A listing of all ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com28

As noted by Lawrie during her closing address at the 2021 International Ivermectin for COVID Conference:29

“The story of Ivermectin has highlighted that we are at a remarkable juncture in medical history. The tools that we use to heal and our connection with our patients are being systematically undermined by relentless disinformation stemming from corporate greed.

The story of Ivermectin shows that we as a public have misplaced our trust in the authorities and have underestimated the extent to which money and power corrupts.

Had Ivermectin being employed in 2020 when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end …

With politicians and other nonmedical individuals dictating to us what we are allowed to prescribe to the ill, we as doctors, have been put in a position such that our ability to uphold the Hippocratic oath is under attack.

At this fateful juncture, we must therefore choose, will we continue to be held ransom by corrupt organizations, health authorities, Big Pharma, and billionaire sociopaths, or will we do our moral and professional duty to do no harm and always do the best for those in our care?

The latter includes urgently reaching out to colleagues around the world to discuss which of our tried and tested safe older medicines can be used against COVID.”




Was the Whole Pandemic About the Vaccine?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Could it be that the whole COVID-19 pandemic was about the vaccine and getting a global mass vaccination campaign underway for population control purposes?
  • Recent weeks have seen a significant rise in vaccination incentives in the U.S., from free doughnuts, cake, french fries, hot dogs and pizza, to arcade tokens, 10-cent beer, free state park season passes, free Uber and Lyft rides, free marijuana, and Cincinnati Reds baseball tickets, a chance to win a full scholarship and even $1 million and $5 million giveaways
  • Meanwhile, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System has logged more deaths following COVID-19 vaccination than all available vaccines combined over a 15.5-year period
  • Former COVID-19 patients are even pushed to get the jab, even though they already have superior immunity and studies show they have a far higher risk of severe side effects from the vaccine, and North Carolina has passed legislation that allows children as young as 12 to get the COVID vaccine without parental consent
  • COVID-19 vaccines might perform as a “depopulation weapon” by triggering antibody-dependent immune enhancement, making you more susceptible to severe COVID-19 if exposed to the virus. Antibodies against the spike proteins may also attack syncytin-homologous proteins essential for the formation of the placenta, which could result in infertility. Overall, the shots may destroy your innate immunity and set you up for the rapid onset of debilitating illness and premature death

In my opinion, Dr. Peter McCullough is one of the most courageous well-credentialed academic physicians out there and I hope to interview him soon. He is vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and despite his impeccable credentials, he has been vilified for stating during the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, that it was all about the vaccine and getting a global mass vaccination campaign underway.

“All roads lead to the vaccine,” McCullough said in a recent interview (video above1,2), with stakeholders banking on countries mandating the vaccine worldwide. The first video above is a 16-minute outtake from a much longer interview, which is the second video.3

McCullough points out that a number of countries are already talking about making the as-yet unlicensed COVID-19 vaccine compulsory, meaning anyone and everyone can be forced to take it against their will. “That’s how bad stakeholders want a vaccination,” McCullough says. “They do want a needle in every arm. But why?” That’s the million-dollar question right there.

Unbelievable Incentives Offered

Recent weeks have seen a significant rise in all sorts of vaccination incentives in the U.S., from free doughnuts, cake,4 french fries, hot dogs and pizza,5 to arcade tokens,6 10-cent beer,7 free state park season passes,8 free Uber and Lyft rides,9 free marijuana10 and Cincinnati Reds baseball tickets,11 a chance to win a full scholarship12 and even $1 million13 and $5 million14 giveaways. Below is a more complete list of incentives, posted on vaccines.gov.15

rewards after you get your vaccine
additional vaccination support

To say the vaccine push has an air of desperation about it would be a profoundly serious understatement.

Considering the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has logged more deaths following COVID-19 vaccination than all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 201316 — a period of 15 1/2 years — one has to wonder why our leaders are so insistent on everyone getting these experimental gene therapies.

They’re even pushing for former COVID-19 patients to get the jab, even though they already have superior permanent immunity17 and studies show they have a far higher risk of severe side effects from the COVID jab.18

If it’s really about protecting the public against COVID-19, why aren’t recovered COVID patients — whose protection is far superior to vaccine-induced immunity — offered some sort of immunity passport or granted access to sporting events or education that is now only granted to those with vaccine certificates?

What’s more, North Carolina has now passed legislation that allows children as young as 12 to get the COVID vaccine without parental consent.19 Think about that. As of May 21, 2021, 4,406 Americans had died after the COVID vaccine,20 including three teenagers,21,22,23,24 and 12-year-olds are now being encouraged to make a life and death decision without their parents?

As noted by McCullough, historically, the threshold at which an experimental vaccine program is shut down is 25 to 50 deaths, yet here we are, with over 4,000 deaths being reported in the U.S. and many thousands more in Europe.25,26

In a recent report, the Israeli People Committee, a civilian body of health experts, similarly concluded that “there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people.”27

After vaccinating 45 million with the pandemic swine flu vaccine in 1976, the U.S. stopped the program after only 25 deaths.28 (The number of deaths reported after the 1976 inoculation program varies from three to 53, depending on the source.29,30,31,32) And let’s remember this too: If something goes wrong, the vaccine manufacturers are completely indemnified against lawsuits. You’re on your own.

Mass Vaccination Is a Beyond Terrible Strategy

As a physician, McCullough is no longer recommending this vaccine, and other prominent virologists and physicians are calling for a stop to the program. Sadly, many are complying simply because they’re desperate to get back to the “normal” they knew before, of sending their children to school, keeping their job, and leading the life they had before the pandemic.

Don’t do it, McCullough says — don’t fall for this trap because it’s only going to make things worse. By vaccinating everyone against a very narrow spectrum of immunity — the original SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which has since mutated in any number of ways and no longer exists — “we are setting ourselves up for a superbug that’s going to wipe out populations,” he says.

As such, the COVID-19 vaccine is a bioweapon, McCullough warns, and the side effect concerns are “far beyond anything we have ever seen … Americans should be extraordinarily alarmed.”

What’s This Vaccine Program Really About?

Why is the vaccine pushed in this way? McCollough believes it’s a global goal to “mark” people, to get you into their vaccine database, which will eventually be turned into a tool for population control, courtesy of vaccine passports.

When we’re talking about population control, there are two distinct forms, and both may apply in this case. One form of population control is about controlling people through the ideology of utilitarianism, vaccine passports, and a social credit system, all of which are tied together. Another form is actual depopulation.

Population Control Through Utilitarianism and Vaccination

Utilitarianism is based on a mathematical equation that some individuals can be sacrificed for the greater good of the majority. In other words, if some people are harmed by vaccines, it’s an acceptable loss because society as a whole may or will reap gains.

This discredited pseudo-ethic has repeatedly been used to justify horrific human rights abuses. The Third Reich, for example, employed the utilitarian rationale as an excuse to demonize and eliminate minorities judged to be a threat to the health, security, and well-being of the State.33 Now, utilitarianism is being called upon yet again, under the false narrative that mankind as a whole is in peril unless everyone rolls the dice and gets vaccinated.

In the end, the idea is that vaccine refusers won’t be allowed to freely participate in society any longer. This is the disincentive or negative incentive, which is added on top of the positive incentives previously mentioned.

While U.S. government officials realize they cannot mandate vaccination on a national level, as it would be a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, they are pushing for it nonetheless by encouraging private companies to mandate vaccination as a condition of employment or access to services. They’re also spending billions of dollars on advertising in conventional media, paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

In short, vaccine passports are a way to force compliance. But the vaccine database can also form the foundation for a much larger control structure, a social credit system, where you lose points any time you behave in a way that is deemed undesirable.

This quite literally could be anything, judging by the Chinese social credit system. People with low social credit scores can’t travel on certain kinds of public transportation, can’t travel overseas, hold certain jobs, go to school or even get a loan.

The point is, once you’re in this system, you’re under someone else’s control. If they say you have to get a booster shot, you have to comply — again and again — or risk losing basic human rights, such as the ability to buy and sell, travel or get an education.

The Depopulation Agenda

The other form of population control refers to actual depopulation. A primary problem the global elite have been trying to solve for a long time is that there are too many people consuming too much of the world’s perceived limited resources and polluting everything in the process. The answer, in their mind, is to reduce the global population.

While birth control and abortions are promoted to help with this, these strategies aren’t effective, or rapid, enough. They need a less fertile population and they need people to die sooner.

While many may not want to believe this could possibly be true, you have to remember that the intention is not to cause suffering per se. It’s a form of self-preservation, as their end goal is to concentrate all the world’s wealth into their own hands. Ultimately, that’s what the Great Reset is all about.

In the interview above, which is part of the full-length documentary “Planet Lockdown,”34 Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a life science researcher and former vice-president and chief scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer, shares his views on the COVID-19 pandemic and his fears about the COVID-19 vaccines.

“Basically, everything your government has told you about this virus, everything you need to do to stay safe, is a lie,” Yeadon says. “And if they’re not telling the truth, that means there’s something else. And I’m here to tell you that there is something very, very bad happening. If you don’t pay attention, you will soon lose any chance to do anything about it.”

Will Booster Shots Be the Death Knell?

Of all the lies we’ve been told over the past year, the ones that worry and frighten Yeadon the most are the lies about virus variants and booster shots. In fact, he believes not buying into these lies may be key to your very survival.

“When your government scientists tell you that a variant that’s 0.3% different from SARS-CoV-2 could masquerade as a new virus and be a threat to your health, you should know, and I’m telling you, they are lying,” Yeadon says.

“If they’re lying — and they are — why is the pharmaceutical industry making top-up [booster] vaccines? … There’s absolutely no possible justification for their manufacture. And the world’s medicines regulators have said, ‘Because they are quite similar to the original vaccines … we won’t be asking them to do any clinical safety studies’ …

There’s no possible benign interpretation of this. I believe they’re going to be used to damage your health and possibly kill you. Seriously. I can see no sensible interpretation other than a serious attempt at mass depopulation.

This will provide the tools to do it, and plausible deniability. They’ll create another story about some sort of biological threat and you’ll line up and get your top-up vaccines [booster shots], and a few months or a year or so later, you’ll die of some peculiar inexplicable syndrome. And they won’t be able to associate it with the vaccines …

Given that this virus represents, at worst, a slightly bigger risk to the old and ill than influenza, and a smaller risk [than influenza] to almost everyone else … we didn’t need to do anything. [We didn’t need] lockdowns, masks, mass testing, vaccines.

There are multiple therapeutic drugs that are at least as effective as the vaccines are. They’re already available and cheap … An off-patent drug called ivermectin, one of the most widely-used drugs in the world, is able to reduce symptoms at any stage of the disease, including lethality by about 90%. So, you don’t need vaccines and you don’t need any of the measures that have been introduced at all.”

Why Have Effective Treatments Been Suppressed?

Like Yeadon, McCullough has raised serious questions about the need for a vaccine. The evidence clearly shows there are highly effective treatments,35,36 yet they’ve been near-universally suppressed in favor of these experimental shots. Why? If it’s about protecting public health and saving lives, why would effective treatments be vilified?

As noted by McCullough during a roundtable discussion in the first of several U.S.-based tribunals on COVID-19,37 something very unusual happened in 2020. For the first time, doctors around the world were actively discouraged and prevented from saving their patients. There was “an enormous, complete, pervasive, steadfast suppression of any attempts to help patients with COVID-19,” he said, adding:

“We seem to somehow have developed a uniform game plan … to passively allow as much suffering hospitalization and death as possible, create enormous amounts of fear in our society, and then be prepared for mass vaccination.”

Disturbingly, there’s evidence suggesting the COVID-19 vaccines might indeed perform as a “depopulation weapon” of sorts. For example, there’s the potential for the formation of non-neutralizing antibodies that can trigger an exaggerated immune reaction (referred to as paradoxical immune enhancement or antibody-dependent immune enhancement or ADE) when the individual is exposed to the wild virus post-vaccination. 38,39,40

I’ve detailed this issue in several articles, including “How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System” and “Will Vaccinated People Be More Vulnerable to Variants?

Put plainly, the vaccine may increase susceptibility to the virus and make people more likely to die from the infection, and data41 now show COVID-19 deaths are spiking around the world right along with rising vaccination rates, even though countries were trending toward herd immunity and deaths were at an all-time low right before the vaccines were released.

The mRNA vaccines also trigger your body to produce antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and the spike proteins, in turn, contain syncytin-homologous proteins that are essential for the formation of the placenta.42 If a woman’s immune system starts reacting against syncytin-1, then there is the possibility she will miscarry if pregnant and ultimately become infertile.

Mass vaccinating children and women of childbearing age against COVID-19 is a profoundly bad idea that could cause mass infertility if the COVID jab triggers an immune reaction against syncytin-1.

We also now know that the worst symptoms of COVID-19 are created by the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and that is the very thing these gene-based vaccines are instructing your body to make. What’s worse, the spike protein your body creates is a genetically modified version that appears far more toxic than the spike protein found in the actual virus.

This was discussed in great detail in my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., featured in “The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health.”

Like McCullough and Yeadon, Mikovits believes the COVID-19 vaccine is a bioweapon designed to destroy your innate immunity and set you up for the rapid onset of debilitating illness and premature death. She too suspects many will die rather rapidly. “It’s not going to be ‘live and suffer forever.’ It’s going to suffer five years and die,” she says.

While the death toll from COVID-19 vaccines is already at a historical level, I fear it may shoot far higher as we move through fall and winter. The reason for this is ADE.

Fall and winter are the seasons in which most coronavirus infections occur, be it SARS-CoV2 or other coronaviruses responsible for the common cold, and if ADE does turn out to be a common problem, then vaccinated individuals may in fact turn out to be at significantly higher risk of severe COVID-19 and a potentially lethal immune reaction due to pathogenic priming.

Will You Gamble Your Life?

In my view, there are still so many potential avenues of harm and so many uncertainties, I would encourage everyone to do their homework, keep reading and learning, weigh the potential pros and cons, ignore all pressure tactics and take your time when deciding whether to get any of these COVID-19 gene therapies.

And, if you or someone you love has already received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations.43 While adverse effects and deaths have thus far been ignored, we need as much data as possible if we’re to have any chance of stopping this mass vaccination campaign and push toward population control.

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the Children’s Health Defense website

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.

The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors, and parents of vaccine-injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law, and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.

In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.

Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.

Watch Now




Must Mankind Bow to False Gods?

By Julian Rose | Waking Times

We are living in the land of fake belief. Nothing is as it seems in this virtual world invented and monopolized by deceivers. A world in which warriors of truth are named ‘conspiracy theorists’ and masters of the lie is named ‘upholders of the truth’. And all the while, a largely hypnotized humanity bows down its head to this vainglorious game. This game of thrones.

The messages being broadcast to the world by what is known as ‘the media’ are an incomprehensible jumble of fact and fiction; with fiction coming out very much on top. ‘Fake news’ designed to rob us of our ability for independent thinking while selling the line of the architects of control, no matter what.

In the great majority of cases, ‘the media’ manifests with no actual journalism involved, just a robotic feed-through to Joe public of the ‘spin of the day’, spiced-up by the fear formula. It’s a menu that changes very little wherever one is in the world – an endless repetition of fake belief – until one can’t be sure that one is who one is and/or whether one is maybe on another planet altogether.

A helium balloon on a string, sporting an agenda invented and scripted by the devil himself. And the longer it goes on the more unreal it all becomes. Yet it is ‘actual’, in the sense that it is actually happening. It’s just that, since logic is the reverse of human logic, we are experiencing a back-to-front reality.

In this place, the Minister of Health’s role is to ensure citizens get sick while the doctor is there to ensure the sick never recover. The nurse’s job is to be the master of the poisoned needle. The school teacher’s role is to ensure the physical separation of pupils and to enforce the wearing of the mask. The policeman’s job is to push society into a crime, and at the head of this show, is, of course, the Crime Minister himself.

Then what about we the people? What is our role within this sadistic drama? Why be culled of course. Not all and not all at once. Oldies first, because they are ‘useless eaters’ and a drain on the economy. They know something too, and that’s not good. Some may be ‘useful’ but only as sterile cyborgs, not as thinking, feeling human beings still capable of rational judgment – no, they must go – and the sooner the better.

Since the reality of this open attack on humanity is simultaneously an expression of its insanity, many are lost, not able to grasp the complexity of this fact. So this insanity also moves amongst us ‘we the people. In fact, public obedience to the beast is simply another form of insanity.

Obedience to the beast is what most conceive as constituting ‘a responsible citizen’. Doing what one is told to do carries with it a quasi-religious moral imperative. A sense of self-righteousness concerning one’s duty to follow the script, the diktat of the status quo. Never to step out of line.

Who would ever have guessed, just eighteen months ago, that a very significant percentage of the world’s population would unthinkingly follow the call of madmen to accept being locked down in their own homes? So ready to be so obedient; so ready to be hypnotized into submission to the protagonists of the New World Order/ Great Reset.

Now a key accomplice to our present state of abstraction and enfeeblement lies in addiction to virtual technologies, the cell phone is the chief culprit. We – and it – together, have created a 3D world that is not this world, but a digitalized virtual version. The great danger is that this digital version will, through constant reliance upon it for information and communication, seem more real than the real world of emotions, instincts, nature, earth, and the elements.

This is what transhumanist promoters are pressing for and governments going along with – to become permanently plugged into the virtual electronic grid and have this connection hard wired via a direct chip-based feed from super-computer to the human brain.

Just as the genetically modified Covid hook protein jab is sold as a protective ‘vaccine’, so too will a computer chip with direct access to the brain, be sold as a ‘cure’ for our apparent inability to process a vast quantity of supposedly essential – but actually useless – information. A technocratic mind is being promoted as the Omega point for humanity, while intuition and heart are being downgraded to junk status.

I write extensively about this in my book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind’.

The dark political agenda – we are right to name it Satanic – so evident at this moment, is closely integrated with the digital processing of the human brain and psyche. Those leading ‘the way of the lie’ in this fabricated Covid holocaust, are relying on we the people not recognizing that their political proselytizing is a stage-managed deception designed to push through ever more constricting centralized control, leading to totalitarian dictatorship: The New World Order/Great Reset.

So long as a large percentage of mankind spends more time engrossed in an algorithmically controlled digital reality – than time spent engrossed in ‘real life’ – our self-elected leaders of deception will have no difficulty mind-controlling the masses into following its program. A program that includes the jab-insertion of a magnetic chip called a ‘vaccination’, designed to keep steering humanity into permanent slavery to an anti-life dictatorship.

Man seeing ‘the machine’ as a god – if not God –  has been a thematic of insightful authors for the past century or more. ‘Deus ex Machina is not a fantasy for those currently wedded to their mobile phones. In fact, what they are subconsciously ‘wedded’ to is the addictive convenience afforded by these little microwave time-bombs; and after a while, most cannot even imagine life without them.

Further high-tech so-called ‘breakthroughs’ are already in the pipeline. ‘Zero point’ quantum energy; anti-gravity ‘faster than light’ transportation and ‘celestial chambers’ for all manner of molecular body repairs. Not to mention synthetic plasma foods made by quantum computers and having nothing to do with food grown from seeds in the soil.

All this and more is rushing mankind towards so-called ‘solutions’ to so-called ‘problems’.  A World Economic Forum-led ‘Great Reset’ is currently being pushed upon us, on the absurd notion that we need ‘a grand solution’ to a non-existent problem called Global Warming.

Equally, scientific ‘progressives’ believe we are all being held back from liberation by the constraints of gravity rather than by our disastrous lack of spiritual awareness.

But can anyone stop long enough to ask if any of this is the path most likely to support the evolution of man as a sentient, warm, loving, and creative being?

Is speed and high-tech wizardry deepening human experience or making it more sterile?

Are the protagonists of futuristic solutions like ‘the internet of everything’ sane people? Do those who go along with such notions actually believe some nice men and women are steering mankind in a direction that fulfills our deeper desires and aspirations?

Are we so lost as to believe it is worth living under a dictatorship in order to ensure that this dark madhouse gets to become the main agenda on planet Earth?

And lastly, are those promoting a digitalized algorithmic future in any way wise, far-sighted, spiritual beings? Or are they simply the latest exploiters of trends whose origins are to be found in Illuminati and secret society annals of history?

These are the questions that need to be factored into our thinking each time we hear about another ‘breakthrough’ in man’s technological prowess. There is more to living than playing with machines and then passively subjecting one’s self to their ability to manage one’s life.

Only by stopping to listen to the deeper call that comes from the real God within ourselves can we be guided onto the path of actual wisdom. Where that path takes us is what constitutes genuine ‘progress’ for humanity.

Only technologies, medical treatments, educational policies, and governing bodies that follow this path – are worthy of being defined as ‘progressive’.  Anything and everything else is fake. Fakery has no place within a steadily emerging consciousness that reveals man to be a higher being, gifted with deep powers of love, empathy, and a burning desire for true global justice.

The human race, cease playing powerless victim to your self imposed jail-sentence. Take control of your destiny – move forward into the light.

About the Author

Julian Rose is an early pioneer and practitioner of UK organic farming; an entrepreneur and leader of projects to create self-sufficient communities based on local supply and demand; a teacher of holistic life approaches and the author of four books – one of which ‘Creative Solutions to a World in Crisis’ lays-out detailed guidelines for the transformation of society into caring communities built upon ecological and spiritual awareness, justice and cooperation. See Julian’s website for more information www.julianrose.info




‘Highly Probable’ Military Developed COVID, Leaked From Lab

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • According to David Asher, former lead investigator for the U.S. State Department’s task force that looked into the origins of COVID-19, the data “made us feel the Wuhan Institute was highly probably the source of the COVID pandemic”
  • Asher also admits there is evidence in the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 suggesting it’s been synthetically altered
  • An assessment report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency states SARS-CoV-2 was likely an accidental release from an infectious diseases laboratory. The intentional release was ruled out
  • The Chinese tried to remove viral sequencing data from a European database. The sequences included adenovirus, a vaccine vector, which could indicate that SARS-CoV-2 is part of a vaccine program. Such a vaccine would likely be the antidote to a biological weapon
  • There’s evidence the Wuhan Institute of Virology worked on classified military programs, and since the NIH has funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV, this could mean the U.S. funded research that ended up being used in a Chinese military bioweapons program

It typically takes a lot longer for the truth to become public knowledge than the finely orchestrated propaganda we are all exposed to on a daily basis, but eventually, the truth tends to rise to the surface.

This appears to be the case with the origin of SARS-CoV-2 as well, as we’re now starting to see more mainstream media reporting what alternative media have been saying for months, which is that the most likely origin of the virus is a laboratory.

I first mentioned that the outbreak had the hallmarks of a laboratory escape in my February 4, 2020, article, “Novel Coronavirus — The Latest Pandemic Scare.” Currently, the mainstream narrative is that while it may indeed have been a lab creation, after all, it’s certainly not part of a bioweapons project.

Well, at least that brings us halfway, and this is good news. Personally, I wouldn’t dismiss the bioweapon’s angle just yet, though. In the end, we may well find that this pandemic was the result of a bioweapon program after all, which is precisely why I believe we need to permanently ban gain-of-function research. The risks to public health are simply too great.

As noted by investigative journalist Alison Young in a recent USA Today op-ed, in which she details a number of hair-raising near-misses involving extremely lethal pathogens that could have led to unmitigated disaster were it not for sheer luck:1

“The risk that a laboratory-released virus — carried into the community by a worker who didn’t know they were infected or through the leak of infectious waste — could cause a deadly outbreak has been a growing concern for many years.

In America, scientists and members of Congress … and the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office have expressed concerns for years. In reports and hearings, they’ve worried that the proliferation of laboratories working with high-risk pathogens is increasing the aggregate threat of a deliberate or accidental lab release causing a catastrophic outbreak …

If the COVID-19 pandemic were found to have been caused by a lab accident, it would have far-reaching implications for the fragmented and secretive oversight of biological research in the United States and worldwide that currently relies heavily on the scientific community to police itself.”

US State Department Suspects Lab Leak

In a March 21, 2021, interview with Sky News Australia2 (video above), David Asher, former lead investigator for the U.S. State Department’s task force that looked into the origins of COVID-19, said the data they collected “made us feel the Wuhan Institute was highly probably the source of the COVID pandemic.”

According to Asher, three workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) who worked with the RatG13 coronavirus — the closest relative to SARS-CoV-2 identified to date — appear to have been the first cluster of cases of COVID-19. They fell ill with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 as early as October 2019. At least one of the workers required hospitalization.

He also points out there is evidence in the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 suggesting it’s been synthetically altered. It has the backbone of a bat coronavirus, combined with a pangolin receptor and “some sort of humanized mice transceptor.” “These things don’t naturally make sense,” Asher says, adding that experts around the world agree that the odds of this configuration occurring naturally is “very low.”

Another troubling indicator that something was amiss at the WIV was the Chinese government’s taking down of a WIV database in September 2019. According to the Chinese, this was done because of “thousands of hacking attempts.”

However, Asher points out many other databases were taken offline around the same time as well.3 The Chinese also tried to remove data posted in a European database containing viral sequencing from patients exhibiting COVID-19-related symptoms.

SARS-CoV-2, a Suspected Bioweapon Vector

Interestingly, the sequences posted in the European database included adenovirus, which is a vaccine vector. This, Asher says, could indicate that SARS-CoV-2 is part of a vaccine program.

Now, it doesn’t make sense to create a vaccine for just any virus that they happen to be working on. It is, however, consistent with a biological weapons program. Meaning, first a biological weapon is created, and then an antidote, such as a vaccine, is developed to defend your own population and your allies.

In an earlier article4 by The Sun, Asher is quoted saying the WIV “was operating a secret, classified program,” and that “In my view … it was a biological weapons program.” He stops short of accusing China of intentional release, however, which also would not make sense from a bioweapon point of view. Instead, he said he believes it was a weapon vector that, during development, “somehow leaked.”5

This falls in line with a March 27, 2020, assessment report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, which stated that SARS-CoV-2 was likely an accidental release from an infectious diseases laboratory. According to Newsweek,6 “The classified report, titled ‘China: Origins of COVID-19 Outbreak Remain Unknown,’ ruled out that the disease was genetically engineered or released intentionally as a biological weapon.”

On March 8, 2021, Politico article,7 columnist Josh Rogin also pointed out that “just months into the pandemic, a large swath of the government already believed the virus had escaped from the WIV lab, rather than having leaped from an animal to a human …”

Hallmarks of Guilt

Asher also told Sky News8 he’s never seen a more systematic cover-up, and The Sun9 quotes him as saying that “Motive, cover-up, conspiracy, all the hallmarks of guilt are associated with this.”

Regardless of how the virus came about, Asher is unequivocal about China’s behavior resulting in a global pandemic, as they delayed border closings and even claimed the virus didn’t appear to spread from human to human, even though there were clear indications that it did. Indeed, people were secretly complaining about China’s lack of transparency from the earliest days of the pandemic. As reported by RTE:10

“China insists that it was transparent during the early outbreak, delivering ‘timely’ information to the WHO. Indeed, the WHO publicly praised China for its openness and cooperation. Yet behind the scenes, the Irishman leading the emergency response complained they weren’t getting the information or access they needed.

In leaked recordings obtained by Prime Time, Dr. Michael Ryan is heard comparing it to China’s cover-up during the SARS outbreak in 2003. ‘This is exactly the same scenario, endlessly trying to get updates from China about what was going on in Guangdong and then, bang,’ he said.

‘The WHO barely got out of that one with its neck intact given the issues that arose around transparency in southern China … We do need to shift gears here.

‘There’s been no evidence of human-to-human transmission’ is not good enough,’ Dr. Ryan is heard saying in the recordings … ‘We need to see the data, we need to be able to determine for ourselves the geographic distribution, the timeline, the epicurve and all of that,’ he said.”

Chinese Researchers Sought to Distance China From the Virus

In a March 22, 2021, article,11 The Sun also reported that emails from Dr. Shi Zhengli at WIV, obtained by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) via freedom of information act requests, “shows how Chinese scientists fought to shift blame” for the pandemic away from China and Wuhan.

To distance themselves from the virus, they initially tried to get it renamed, as SARS-CoV-2 links it to the Chinese SARS outbreak of 2003. Shi suggested the virus be called TARS-CoV or HARS-CoV, to clearly differentiate it from the Chinese SARS outbreak.

They also feared the virus might become known as the “Wuhan coronavirus” or “Wuhan pneumonia.” The scientists’ effort to change the scientific name “shows their conscription into political processes,” Gary Ruskin, executive director of USRTK said, adding that “The power to name is the power to define.”

Congress Demands Information From the NIH

Other good news includes March 18, 2021, letter12 from the U.S. Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce to the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, requesting “information, assistance and needed-leadership” from the agency “to advance an independent scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

In the letter, they quote Stanford professor David Relman, who in a November 2020 commentary in the journal PNAS stated that:

“A more complete understanding of the origins of COVID-19 clearly serves the interests of every person in every country on this planet. It will limit further recriminations and diminish the likelihood of conflict; it will lead to more effective responses to this pandemic, as well as efforts to anticipate and prevent the next one.

It will also advance our discussions about risky science. And it will do something else: Delineating COVID-19’s origin story will help elucidate the nature of our very precarious coexistence within the biosphere.”

The Committee also stresses that while the WHO attempted to investigate the origins of the virus and had vowed to be guided by science and not exclude any hypothesis, they failed to live up to this promise, as China “did not provide complete access or independence” for the team.

Without conducting a thorough investigation, but rather relying on information provided by the Chinese, the team roundly dismissed the lab-origin theory and announced it would no longer be part of their investigation.

Within days, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus walked back the team’s outright dismissal saying “I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study.”13 Perhaps he realized the WHO was about to make a public relations mistake so severe it would never recover.

China Cites ‘Privacy Laws’ to Avoid Crucial Data Sharing

In response to questions as to why China refused to share original patient data with the WHO’s investigative team, the Chinese head of the WHO joint team claims such data cannot be copied and shared due to patient privacy and data protection laws.14

As noted by OneShared.World founder Jamie Metzl in a Tweet,15 this sounds like a dubious justification considering the Chinese government is “forcibly extracting genetic samples from Uighurs [and] Tibetans,” a practice reported by The New York Times in June 2020.16 Besides, Metzl notes, “If anonymized data can be shared safely in democracies, it can be shared safely everywhere.”

WHO Investigation Was Tainted From the Start

Lastly, while not discussed in the Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce’s letter, the WHO’s investigative team was also severely biased from the start, thanks to the inclusion of Peter Daszak, Ph.D., president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization focused on pandemic prevention that worked closely with bat coronavirus researchers at the WIV, including Shi.

Daszak was also found to have played a central role in the early plot to obscure the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 by crafting a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”17,18 Mainstream media have been referring to and relying on this manufactured “consensus” statement ever since to “debunk” counternarratives.

Was US-Funded Research Used in Chinese Bioweapons Program?

The Committee on Energy and Commerce does raise the issue of the U.S. having potentially funded the research that resulted in SARS-CoV-2, and that the Chinese military may have been involved as well. According to letter,19 the U.S. government has “determined that the WIV has collaborated on projects with China’s military,” and “engaged in classified research … on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.”

Disturbingly, since the NIH has funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV through grants to the EcoHealth Alliance, this could mean the U.S. actually funded research that ended up being used in a Chinese military bioweapons program.

“Accordingly, it is imperative to determine not only where SARS-CoV-2 originated, but also how and if NIH’s funding and research to projects at the WIV could have contributed to SARS CoV-2,” the letter states.20

The letter includes a long list of information requests, including:

  • All information the NIH has about laboratory accidents at the WIV since January 2015.
  • Any communication between NIH staff, grantees, subgrantees, contractors, and subcontractors with the China-based NIH, the Chinese National Science Foundation, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Chinese CDC, regarding events at the WIV between August 2019 and the present.
  • Whether the WIV invited researchers from the University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston (UTMBG), as indicated in an April 2018 State Department cable, whether any UTMBG researchers ended up conducting research there, and any documents relating to that research.
  • All correspondence between the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance since January 1, 2020, related to funding involving the WIV.
  • The sources for its April 2020 communication with EcoHealth Alliance, in which the NIH stated it had “received reports” that the WIV “has been conducting research … that pose serious biosafety concerns.”

Scientists Also Call for Independent Investigation

Two dozen scientists and policy experts have also signed an open letter21 calling for an independent investigation into the virus’ origin,22 listings a number of flaws in the joint WHO-China inquiry, including the universal absence of evidence demonstrating a wholly natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. If the virus was truly natural, surely, we’d have some evidence of its evolution at this point, yet we have nothing.

In addition to the shortcomings of the WHO’s investigative commission, the letter also details what a full and independent investigation “should look like,” starting with the creation of a multidisciplinary team, whose members have “no unresolved conflicts of interest and no full or partial control by any specific agenda or country.”

They also recommend “considering all possible scenarios for each pathway,” and then following standard forensic approaches, which include securing full access to all relevant sites, records, logs, databases, and samples.

Gain-of-Function Research Must Be Banned

I firmly believe we need to ban gain-of-function research across the world. As noted by Marc Lipsitch in his 2018 review, “Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza?”:23

“This is a question of intense debate … Experiments to create potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs) are nearly unique in that they present biosafety risks that extend well beyond the experimenter or laboratory performing them; an accidental release could, as the name suggests, lead to global spread of a virulent virus, a biosafety incident on a scale never before seen …

While there are indisputably certain questions that can be answered only by gain-of-function experiments in highly pathogenic strains, these questions are narrow and unlikely to meaningfully advance public health goals such as vaccine production and pandemic prediction.

Alternative approaches to experimental influenza virology and characterization of existing strains are in general completely safe, higher throughput, more generalizable, and less costly than creation of PPP in the laboratory and can thereby better inform public health. Indeed, virtually every finding of recent PPP experiments that has been cited for its public health value was predated by similar findings using safe methodologies.”

While the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains to be conclusively proven, a paper24 published in Nature in 2015 discussed how a “lab-made coronavirus related to SARS” capable of infecting human cells had stirred up debate as to whether or not this kind of research is worth the risks:

“Although the extent of any risk is difficult to assess, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel virus that ‘grows remarkably well’ in human cells. ‘If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,’ he says.”

With 20/20 hindsight, we now have a much clearer idea of what the release of such a virus can do. We may chalk it up to luck that SARS-CoV-2 turned out to be orders of magnitude less lethal than initially suspected, although government containment measures have turned out to be devastating and deadly as well. If this kind of research is allowed to continue, the next time there’s a leak, we may not be nearly as lucky.