Venezuela has its lowest homicide rate in 22 years because of gang migration

News Ticker

February 28, 2024 Winter Watch Around the Web 1

1 Comment on Venezuela has its lowest homicide rate in 22 years because of gang migration

  1. I reside in Panama, a country in Central America, for those who may be challenged geographically. I feel far safer here than I did when living in the U.S. It is impossible to receive legal residency in Panama if you are from Venezuela. Good luck to those people living in the U.S. You will need it.

Post a Comment

Copyright © 2024 | MH Magazine WordPress Theme by MH Themes

CIA Built “12 Secret Spy Bases” In Ukraine & Waged Shadow War For Last Decade, Bombshell NYT Report Confirms

Zero Hedge | Feb. 26, 2024

On Sunday The New York Times published an explosive and very belated full admission that US intelligence has not only been instrumental in Ukraine wartime decision-making, but has established and financed high tech command-and-control spy centers, and was doing so long prior to the Feb. 24 Russian invasion of two years ago.

Among the biggest revelations is that the program was established a decade ago and spans three different American presidents. The Times says the CIA program to modernize Ukraine’s intelligence services has “transformed” the former Soviet state and its capabilities into “Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today.”

This has included the agency having secretly trained and equipped Ukrainian intelligence officers spanning back to just after the 2014 Maidan coup events, as well constructing a network of 12 secret bases along the Russian borderwork which began eight years ago. These intelligence bases, from which Russian commanders’ communications can be swept up and Russian spy satellites monitored, are being used launch and track cross-border drone and missile attacks on Russian territory.

(***)

Anna Von Reitz Webinar Replay Monday Feb 26, 2024 with Teri Kealoha Sahm

Watch and comment of Rumble: https://rumble.com/v4g4u8u-anna-von-reitz-webinar-replay-monday-feb-26-2024-with-teri-kealoha-sahm.html

Get started filling out and recording the paperwork to be an American State National or American State Citizen based on Anna’s article #928 at https://tasa.americanstatenationals.org/correct-your-status/

Help support the work of Anna and the Living Law Firm here https://asnsecure.com/DONATIONS.asp or if you have Cash.App, send to $AnnaReize. Thank you.

Link to original webinar recording: https://mega.nz/file/thcjECjK#r-MsX2r0ZeyXV7xww71ifnxKTGDiBJsTxef78UZNxVo

Watch the previously recorded Monday night webinars with Anna Von Reitz and Teri Sahm https://webinarsearch.americanstatenationals.org/ or http://www.annavonreitz.com/videos.html

Elevate your frequency with Orgone Energy https://www.sacredintuitiveelements.com/

Anna Webinar Snippet Channel on Rumble.com https://rumble.com/c/AnnaWebinarSnippets

Rockefeller Foundation: Hardly a Gentile White to be Found

GRAPHIC: Steemit

Starting in 2019, Winter Watch ran a series of posts on the big foundations. These should have gotten more traction than they did, because the influence and clout of these institutions are immense. They are effectively shadow governments.

The following posts listed below focus on historical, societal and cultural impacts, much of which are sketchy or negative. Yes, the titles aren’t click baity, but don’t let that fool you.

“Rockefeller Minion Robert Maynard Hutchins Delivers for His Masters”

“The Foundations Fund the Hack Abraham Flexner to ‘Standardize’ Medicine”

“Reece Committee Report from 1954 Shows Foundations Funded the Collectivist Capture of US Education”

The Rockefeller Foundation has been a major contributor to New Underworld Order power centers, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution and the World Bank, along with massive grants to the Ivy league yeshivas.

Next, we look at the management of the Rockefeller Foundation today. As we often say at Winter Watch “We aren’t in Kansas anymore.” As important, we must ask: How has that been workin’ for ya? If systems are failing, isn’t it more than appropriate to ask who’s responsible?

Among the Rockefeller Foundation’s 12 board members, there is just one Gentile white person: John Rowe, and he’s affiliated with the Jewish Mount Sinai.

As of Jan. 7, 2017, the foundation’s board members include:

  • Richard Parsons (chair), 2007 – Chairman of the Board, Citigroup, Inc. (Black American)
  • Helene D. Gayle, 2009 – president and CEO of CARE (Black American)
  • Donald Kaberuka, 2015 – former president, African Development Bank Group, Rwanda Minister of Finance and Economic Planning between 1997 and 2005 (Black African)
  • Martin L. Leibowitz, 2012 – Managing Director, Morgan Stanley; formerly TIAA-CREF (1995 to 2004) and 26 years with Salomon Brothers (Jewish)
  • Yifei Li, 2013 – Country Chair, Man Group China (Chinese)
  • Monica Lozano, 2012 – CEO, ImpreMedia, LLC (Mexican-American)
  • Strive Masiyiwa, 2003 – Zimbabwean businessman and cellphone pioneer, founding Econet Wireless (Black African)
  • Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, 2009 – Finance Minister of Nigeria; former Managing Director of the World Bank; former Foreign Minister of Nigeria (Black African)
  • Judith Rodin, President of the foundation (2005-); ex-officio member of board (Jewish)
  • John Rowe, M.D., 2007 – professor at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health; former Chairman and CEO of Aetna, Inc. (White, although the fact that he was president of Mount Sinai Hospital and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City).
  • Rajiv Shah, 2015 – Distinguished Fellow in Residence, Georgetown University; previously administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) from 2010-2015 (Indian American)- Now the Foundation President
  • Ravi Venkatesan, 2014 – Chairman, Bank of Baroda; previously Microsoft India (2004-2011) and Cummins India (Indian)

For 21 of the past 30 years, the foundation has had a Jewish president:

  • Judith Rodin (2005-2017, retiring) — former president of the University of Pennsylvania, and provost, chair of the Department of Psychology, Yale University
  • Peter Goldmark, Jr. (1988-1997) – former executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

The foundation has dipped into the Indian subcontinent’s “big brain talent pool” for its new president, one Rajiv J. Shah.

New Underworld Order Autotrons in America: Upper-Caste Supremacist Subcontinent Indians

A glance at the list of past board members reveals a number of high-profile Jews:

  • Orvil E. Dryfoos (1960–1963) – Publisher of The New York Times (1961-1963)
  • Stephen Jay Gould (1993–2002) – Author; Professor and Curator, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University
  • Jessica T. Mathews – President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.
  • Julius Rosenwald (1917–1931) – Chairman of Sears Roebuck (1932-1939)
  • Arthur Hays Sulzberger (1939–1957) – Publisher of The New York Times (1935-1961)
  • James Wolfensohn – Former President of World Bank

If we didn’t know any better, we might think this is the template for completely marginalizing gentile whites. That would certainly be nothing new.  Rockefeller Foundation is also an un-American institution, with no real concern for Americans other than sheeple-herding. We are almost afraid of bird-dogging who runs the other big foundations.

Sidebar note are editorial columnists for the New York Times aka Slimes.

Yes – Wouldn’t You Know it, the Rockefeller Foundation Ran a Coronavirus Simulation

The coronavirus epidemic playing out in China and two dozen other countries, including the US, is unfolding in line with a decade-old simulation titled “Lock Step” devised by the Rockefeller Foundation in conjunction with the Global Business Network. The scenario, from a publication called “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” in 2010, describes a coronavirus-like pandemic that becomes the trigger for the imposition of police-state controls on movement, economy, and other areas of society.

The Lock Step scenario describes “a world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership.”

Countries of Africa, southeast Asia, and central America suffer the worst “in the absence of official containment protocols” – it wouldn’t be the Rockefeller Foundation if someone wasn’t licking their lips at the thought of a mass die-off in the Global South – but western “democracies” also pay the ultimate price. “The United States’ initial policy of ‘strongly discouraging’ citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the US but across borders,” the report warns. But remove such obstacles as ‘individual rights’ and you have a recipe for surviving, even thriving in the event of a pandemic, the Foundation gushes:

“A few countries did fare better – China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing-off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.”

Winter Watch Takeaway: Now in 2022 China has implemented draconian measures to deal with a common cold outbreak.

The message is clear – police state good, freedom bad. And other governments rapidly get the message, according to the simulation. First and third world nations alike follow suit by “flexing their authority” and imposing quarantines, body-temperature checks, and other “airtight rules and restrictions” – most of which, the report is careful to note, remain in place even as the pandemic recedes into the past. “In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems – from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty – leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.”

The lizard lip licking report about this global power-grab “is facilitated by a frightened citizenry who willingly gave up some of their sovereignty – and their privacy – to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability…tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight.” Everything from tighter biometric identification to stricter industrial regulation is welcomed with open arms.

Is Ultrapasteurized Milk Hurting Your Health?

  • Ultrapasteurized milk arose in response to the emergence of pasteurization-resistant pathogens like Listeria and antibiotic-resistant Salmonella that couldn’t be killed using lower temperatures

  • The shift toward grain-based diets for dairy cows, encouraged by the U.S. Department of Agriculture since the mid-1980s, fosters antibiotic resistance and exacerbates milk contamination issues

  • Ultrapasteurization, which uses temperatures significantly higher than traditional pasteurization, has detrimental effects on milk nutrients, enzymes and proteins

  • A 2019 study found that all forms of milk processing tested caused “formation of protein oxidation products which impair spatial learning and memory in rats.” That includes boiling, microwave heating, spray drying and freeze-drying, and ultrapasteurization exposes the milk to far higher heat than boiling (284 F compared to 212 F)

  • For optimal health benefits, opt for organic, grass fed raw (unpasteurized) milk, ideally certified by the American Grassfed Association (AGA), which ensures the highest quality grass fed products

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

Last winter, I spent nearly a month in Mexico and aimed to maintain my daily habit of drinking a glass of milk. My preference is organic milk, but the only type I could find was ultrapasteurized milk, which is widely available in grocery stores there. I was unaware of the risks associated with this product and feel it’s important to share my concerns with you and why I suggest you seriously consider avoid ever using this product.

In a recent article,1 Sally Fallon Morell, author of “Nourishing Traditions” and president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, discusses the implications of ultrapasteurization of milk, which arose in response to the emergence of pasteurization-resistant pathogens like Listeria, and antibiotic-resistant Salmonella.

It began in 1983 when an outbreak of listeriosis sickened 49 individuals, resulting in 14 fatalities. The outbreak was traced back to pasteurized milk, yet inspections of the plant where the milk was made uncovered no evidence of improper pasteurization.

Regulatory officials involved in the investigation noted that Listeria is notably resilient to heat and that the intracellular nature of L. monocytogenes might allow it to survive pasteurization. “These results … raise questions about the ability of pasteurization to eradicate a large inoculum of L. monocytogenes from contaminated raw milk,” they wrote.2

Further outbreaks occurred in 1984 and 1985, linked to Salmonella typhimurium. Disturbingly, investigations revealed this pathogen had developed resistance to commonly used antibiotics. An estimated 168,791 and 197,581 people were sickened and at least five people died in these outbreaks.

“Health officials concluded that the milk was contaminated after pasteurization by Salmonella, which persisted in the plant despite efforts to eradicate it,” Fallon writes.3 But just how did the Salmonella become so hardy?

As explained by Fallon, in the mid-1980s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) started urging dairy farmers to enhance their efficiency by confining cows to barns and providing them with grain-based diets, which necessitates the use of antibiotics to keep the animals healthy. This, in turn, set the stage for antibiotic resistance to develop.

“Large amounts of grain are not a natural diet for cows,” Fallon explains,4 “nor is it natural for cows to live in close quarters with no way of distancing themselves from their fresh manure. To keep the cows alive in such conditions of filth, antibiotics became necessary. It was a recipe for antibiotic resistance and stronger, mutated pathogens.

With the outbreaks of the mid-1980s, the dairy industry realized that under these new conditions, pasteurization was not working. Unfortunately, their solution to the problem was not to go cleaner, but to go hotter. Enter UHT-ultra-high temperature processing.

Old-fashioned, ‘low-temperature’ pasteurization takes milk to 150 F — hot enough to destroy most of the enzymes in milk, many of which protect against pathogens, while others attach to vitamins and minerals in order to make them easy to absorb. High-temperature pasteurization (also called flash pasteurization) takes milk to 161 F, hot enough to kill all the enzymes and denature some of the proteins.

Ultrapasteurization takes milk to 284 F — hotter, much hotter, than the boiling point — by rushing this most fragile, delicate food past superheated stainless steel plates.

The process kills bacterial endospores — tough, dormant structures produced by many pathogens, which allows them to ‘hibernate’ and come back to life when conditions are sufficiently favorable (such as the small intestine). The process also kills everything else, including nutrients, enzymes, and proteins.”

According to Parmalat,5 which sells ultrapasteurized milk in Europe, the product is “the same as fresh milk” and “contains a lot of nutrients that are good for your body, just like fresh milk.” Scientific studies, however, strongly suggest otherwise.

For example, a 2019 study6 from China found that all forms of milk processing tested caused “formation of protein oxidation products which impair spatial learning and memory in rats.” That includes boiling, microwave heating, spray drying and freeze-drying, and as noted by Fallon, ultrapasteurization exposes the milk to far higher heat than boiling (284 F compared to 212 F). So, clearly, ultrapasteurized milk doesn’t even come close to real milk.

“All four techniques (even freeze-drying) caused ‘various degrees of redox state imbalance and oxidative damage in plasma, liver, and brain tissues,’” Fallon writes.7 “Feeding damaged milk proteins to rats resulted in learning and memory impairment — why would any parent want to give UHT [ultra-high temperature] milk to their kids?”

According to the authors of that study, the industry ought to “control milk protein oxidation and improve the processing methods applied to food.” Other researchers have come to similar conclusions.

A 2021 study8 in the journal Polymers noted that “The major protein modifications that occur during UHT treatment are denaturation and aggregation of the protein, and chemical modifications of its amino acids.”

Damaged milk proteins may contribute to allergic reactions, Fallon notes, and milk allergy is now commonplace. According to the Asthma and Allergy Network, an estimated 20 Americans die each year from anaphylactic shock caused by conventional milk9 — a shocking reminder of just how far modern milk has strayed from real, raw milk, which rarely causes any allergic reactions.

Nonorganic pasteurized milk also has other downsides. Aside from potentially hazardous pathogens, conventional milk has also been found to contain a variety of drugs and agricultural chemicals, including:10 11

  • Antibiotics such as amoxicillin, oxytetracycline and sulfadimethoxine, as well as sulfathiazole and sulfamethazine, both of which are banned for use in dairy production due to human health concerns, which include acute and potentially life-threatening allergic reactions.12

  • Pesticides such as chlorpyrifos (an insecticide known to disrupt brain development and cause brain damage, neurological abnormalities, reduced IQ and aggressiveness in children), atrazine (linked to reproductive harm in animals, birth defects and cancer), diazinon, cypermethrin and permethrin (a synthetic pyrethroid13 insecticide linked to behavior problems in children).

None of these pesticides and antibiotics were found in organic milk samples, however. As noted by the authors:14

“Among the conventional samples, residue levels exceeded federal limits for amoxicillin in one sample (3%) and in multiple samples for sulfamethazine (37%) and sulfathiazole (26%). Median bGH and IGF-1 concentrations in conventional milk were 9·8 and 3·5 ng/ml, respectively, twenty and three times that in organic samples …

Current-use antibiotics and pesticides were undetectable in organic but prevalent in conventionally produced milk samples, with multiple samples exceeding federal limits. Higher bGH and IGF-1 levels in conventional milk suggest the presence of synthetic growth hormone.”

While it may sound as though avoiding milk altogether might be your best bet, that’s not the case at all. As detailed in “The Amazing Benefits of Dairy Fat,” whole or full-fat dairy contains the odd-chain saturated fats (OCFAs) pentadecanoic acid (C15:0) and heptadecanoic acid (C17:0), which have significant health benefits.

These OCFAs are primarily found in dairy fat, and your body cannot make C15:0, so you must get it from your diet. This fat is so beneficial that researchers now speculate that it may be an overlooked essential fat. Higher circulating levels of OCFAs in the blood is associated with lower risks of obesity, chronic inflammation, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Type 2 diabetes, NASH, COPD, pancreatic cancer and all-cause mortality.

And, importantly, OCFAs do not have an inhibitory effect on glucose burning because they are not converted to acetyl-CoA; rather, they enter the Krebs Cycle as succinyl-CoA. What this means in practical terms is that you don’t need to restrict your consumption of full fat dairy, as it won’t affect your ability to burn glucose.

Raw organic grass fed milk also has important immune-boosting benefits. According to a 2015 study15 in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, children who drank raw organic grass fed milk had 30% lower rates of viral and respiratory tract infections, including regular colds, then those who drink ultrapasteurized milk. So, milk can indeed “do your body good,” as the old marketing slogan used to say, but you must drink the right kind of milk.

The healthiest and safest variety of milk is raw, unpasteurized milk sourced from organically raised, grass fed or pastured cows. Contrary to widespread belief, raw milk is significantly less likely to harbor hazardous bacteria linked to foodborne illness compared to pasteurized counterparts.

Despite assertions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration16 and the USDA17 regarding the increased health risks associated with raw milk consumption, empirical evidence from foodborne illness data contradicts these claims. According to an investigation by Dr. Ted Beals,18 the likelihood of falling ill from raw milk is 35,000 times lower than from other food sources.

Similarly, a 2012 investigation by Mark McAfee, CEO of Organic Pastures Dairy — which included a FOIA request to the CDC for data on deaths claimed to be related to raw milk — revealed:19

  • Zero deaths attributed to raw milk consumption in California over a 37-year span

  • The two deaths the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists as being related to raw milk were actually due to illegal Mexican bathtub cheese, and not raw milk produced in the U.S.

  • The last people to die from milk died from contaminated pasteurized milk

  • According to a Cornell study which used CDC data, 1,100 illnesses were linked to raw milk between 1973 and 2009. Meanwhile, 422,000 illnesses were traced back to pasteurized milk. And, while no one died from raw milk, at least 50 Americans died from pasteurized milk or pasteurized cheese

Both FDA and USDA caution against the potential presence of disease-causing bacteria in raw milk, yet fail to acknowledge that these pathogens stem from industrial farming practices, which contribute to animal health issues. Animals raised on pasture under healthier conditions typically do not harbor harmful levels of pathogenic bacteria.

Their cautionary stance on raw milk consumption would only be warranted if explicitly targeting unpasteurized milk from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where risks are indeed elevated. Raw organic grass fed milk, when handled according to proper sanitary protocols, seldom poses health hazards as organic dairy farms are mandated to adhere to stringent guidelines, enhancing safety measures.

I, along with many others, have a distinct preference for raw goat’s milk over cow’s milk. This choice isn’t just about taste; it’s also influenced by the nutritional and physical properties of goat milk. One of the notable differences between goat’s milk and cow’s milk is the composition of fat. Goat milk has smaller fat globules and a different type of fat, which means it naturally remains more homogenous.

Unlike cow’s milk, which often requires mechanical homogenization to prevent its fat from separating, goat milk naturally maintains a consistent mixture. This characteristic not only affects its texture and taste, making it smoother and more palatable, but it also makes goat milk easier to digest for many people. Additionally, goat milk predominantly contains A2 casein.

Unlike most cow’s milk, which can have both A1 and A2 casein, goat’s milk, along with sheep and buffalo milk, generally contains the A2 type of casein that is considered to be easier to digest for some people and less likely to cause the adverse effects associated with A1 casein. This makes goat’s milk a preferred option for those sensitive to dairy products derived from cows with A1 casein.

Upon its introduction to the U.S. market in the early 1990s, ultrapasteurized milk was sold in specialized sterile containers, originally developed in Europe. This product required no refrigeration and boasted a shelf-life of up to nine months.

However, American consumers were leery about buying unrefrigerated milk. Consequently, the industry reverted to traditional packaging methods and relocated the product back to the refrigerated aisle. Fast-forward to today and most of the milk sold is ultrapasteurized, even if it’s organic.

Fermented products like sour cream and cheese, however, are typically made from pasteurized milk, but not ultrapasteurized, as milk that has undergone ultra-high heat treatment cannot ferment. “That’s another way of saying that UHT milk is indigestible, as fermentation is a form of digestion,” Fallon notes. She goes on:20

“A recent listeria outbreak causing two deaths and more than 20 hospitalizations initiated a Feb. 5 recall of pasteurized cheese, yogurt, and sour cream — an indication that pasteurization doesn’t ensure safety in fermented dairy foods.

UHT milk has served as a temporary fix for the dairy industry, but it will ultimately be its undoing. Milk consumption in the United States has declined by half since 1970, and the dairy industry has been unable to reverse the trend. It blames competition from sodas and plant-based ‘milk’ but won’t admit that UHT processing makes milk unpalatable, allergenic, and indigestible.”

Though organic milk stands as a preferable option compared to conventional counterparts, it’s crucial to recognize that any organic milk sold in mainstream grocery stores is either pasteurized or ultrapasteurized, thus compromising some of its advantages. Pasteurization, responsible for eliminating harmful bacteria, also eradicates beneficial bacteria and may harm essential enzymes.

To learn more, see RealMilk.com’s article, “The 15 Things That Milk Pasteurization Kills.”21 What’s worse — regulatory loopholes permitting CAFO dairies to produce “organic” milk, even though the cows are not grass fed on pasture? I discuss this in “How Organic is Your Organic Milk?

For optimal health benefits, opt for organic, grass fed raw (unpasteurized) milk, ideally certified by the American Grassfed Association (AGA), which ensures the highest quality grass fed products.

The AGA website allows you to search for AGA-approved producers22 certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100% forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; and born and raised on American family farms.

Other resources that can help you find raw grass fed milk locally include Raw-Milk-Facts.com23 and RealMilk.com.24 They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund25 also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.26 California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.rawfarmusa.com.27 As noted by Fallon:28

“My prediction: Within 20 years UHT milk will be a thing of the past, recognized as a misuse of technology, a rust belt solution that ruins the goodness of Nature’s perfect food.

We have many elegant technologies today — stainless steel, on-site testing, a national cold chain, and moveable electric fencing that makes grazing feasible — which allow us to get clean raw milk safely to every person in America. ‘Get bigger, go hotter’ is not the future. The future is small and medium grass-based farms selling raw milk directly to grateful customers.”

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}” data-component-name=”ButtonCreateButton”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

Rediscovered — Vitamin C Benefits Concealed for 70 Years

  • Vitamin C has always been vital to immune function, but research data also show it plays an important role in the treatment of several health conditions, including cancer. Since it cannot be patented, it’s likely a threat to Big Pharma and Western medicine’s disease model of care

  • From a historical perspective, vitamin C benefits associated with cancer, polio, multiple sclerosis and other damaging diseases have been suppressed, likely since it is effective, cheap and can’t be patented, which means you can’t make money prescribing or manufacturing it

  • Humans cannot make vitamin C, so it must be consumed. Large dose vitamin C is the foundation of Dr. Frederick Klenner’s cure for polio and Dr. Paul Marik’s treatment for sepsis. It’s also integral to the successful treatment protocols developed by the FLCCC Alliance for COVID, of which Marik is a founding member

  • Dr. Alpha Fowler performed Phase 1 trials of vitamin C in sepsis using Marik’s protocol. Phase 2 was the Vitamin C, Thiamine and Steroids in Sepsis (VICTUS) study that demonstrated an outcome difference, but the journal demanded the research be published as a negative result

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

Vitamin C was first isolated in 1928 and the chemical structure was identified in 1933.1 It wasn’t until the early 1970s that Dr. Linus Pauling recommended that the optimum daily intake of vitamin C was 2,000 milligrams (mg) and everyone should consume at least 200 mg to 250 mg per day.2

However, as “modern” medicine and the pharmaceutical industry ramped up the health care machine, vitamin C quickly fell out of favor as it is inexpensive, easy to administer and has very few side effects. In other words, as effective as vitamin C is in prevention and treatment, you can’t make money prescribing or manufacturing it.

It’s important to note that most mammals can make vitamin C in the body,3 but humans and guinea pigs must get it from their diet. Vitamin C is an essential factor in many enzyme reactions and several studies have shown that it’s associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular conditions such as stroke, high blood pressure and coronary heart disease.

Vitamin C has always been vital to immune function, but research data also show that it plays an important role in the treatment of several health conditions, including cancer. Research suggests that IV vitamin C could extend survival,4 even in people with pancreatic5 and ovarian cancers,6 which are among the deadliest types of tumor growth.

Throughout the early years of the COVID pandemic, researchers and doctors who used vitamin C to help treat the infection were ridiculed and “modern” medicine organizations tried to sideline them. In the following three years, information about vitamin C continued to be shared but many suffered at the hands of Big Pharma.

Since vitamin C cannot be patented, it’s a significant threat to the pharmaceutical industry and Western medicine’s disease model of care. An Australian independent journalist, Just Call Me Jack from Totality of Evidence, published a deep-dive history of vitamin C,7 how it’s been used and suppressed.

He intends to identify and capture significant data points throughout history that have led up to the COVID-19 pandemic and document what has happened since, including to “discover incremental changes through time, which on their own may seem laudable or benign, but watch them morph and put them together and the Totality of Evidence reveals a picture of ever-increasing centralized control and influence.”8

Vitamin C has played a role in this influence.9 In 2002, Dr. Thomas E. Levy published the book “Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases, and Toxins: Curing the Incurable.” By 2011, research and publications identifying ways in which vitamin C might be used were reaching the media. Dr. Suzanne Humphries published a special report on the treatment of whooping cough and Orthomolecular Medical News proposed intravenous vitamin C as a cancer therapy.

In November 2013, “Clinical Guide to the Use of Vitamin C” was revised and republished. The book recorded the clinical experiences of Dr. Frederick R. Klenner, who used vitamin C in the treatment of polio, which I discuss below. In 2014, Alpha Fowler from Virginia Commonwealth University and his team published Phase 1 safety trials for the IV administration of vitamin C in patients with sepsis.

The goal was to move to Phase 2 trials and when Dr. Paul Marik, former chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in East Virginia, was asked if he wanted to participate, he declined since vitamin C had already become his standard of care after the Phase 1 trial was published.10 Marik further developed the treatment protocol, adding thiamine and steroids, which was published in the journal Chest in 2017.11

Some physicians joined Marik in using the early sepsis protocol while others dragged their heels, waiting for larger clinical trials despite knowing the treatment doesn’t have significant side effects or make patients sicker.

In a 2018 review12 of the protocol, the writers noted the reception for the treatment was mixed, which means your ability to receive this potentially life-saving treatment depends on the hospital where you end up. One of the anticipated larger studies was the Vitamin C, Thiamine and Steroids in Sepsis (VICTUS) study sponsored by Emory University and published in JAMA.13

Initially, the researchers, including Fowler, hoped for 2,000 participants but finalized the study with 501. In a presentation at the Fralin Biomedical Research Institute, Fowler describes the positive effects of vitamin C on sepsis.14

However, the VICTUS paper came to a negative conclusion — that the treatment “did not significantly increase ventilator- and vasopressor-free days within 30 days”15 — because he was told he to make it negative. In this video16 of the presentation, you can see Fowler’s reaction to the negative conclusion he and the team were asked to make.

He notes that $1 billion spent on clinical trials had not produced anything that enhanced survival, but in the VICTUS trial they “have shown an outcome difference.” Fowler goes on to say:17

“I got an email from them [JAMA] yesterday and I shared this with Leslie today. They have asked us to state that this trial is negative and that we do not recommend it as a therapy. I am going to put a caveat into that ‘until a large phase 3 trial is done.’”

In 2022, Marik’s paper in the journal Chest came under attack in a series of unsubstantiated allegations of fraud from Australian doctor Kyle Sheldrick.18 The journal then launched a thorough review of the study and in April 2023, stated there were no methodological errors. Marik and the FLCCC followed up with a defamation suit against Sheldrick and, as a result, Sheldrick had to publicly acknowledge regret for questioning Marik’s integrity.

One of the important threads that winds its way through polio and COVID history is vitamin C. During the polio epidemic of 1948 to 1955, many people avoided crowds and public gatherings19 in much the same way as during the COVID pandemic, without mandates to do so. In a biography on Klenner, Andrew Saul, assistant editor for the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, discussed some of the pioneering work by Klenner during the polio epidemic.20

Klenner began with vitamin C treatments for patients with viral pneumonia, the details of which he presented in 1948 in the Journal of Southern Medicine and Surgery. Before the polio vaccine was released, Klenner treated polio patients with high doses of vitamin C administered intramuscularly.

In 1949, Klenner summarized his work with polio at the annual session of the American Medical Association. He was from Reidsville, North Carolina, and had no national credentials, research grants or experimental laboratory, but declared in front of this group of authorities that “When proper amounts are used, it [vitamin C] will destroy all virus organisms.”

Although Klenner found the most effective route was intravenous, he had determined that intramuscular injections were satisfactory at a dose of 25,000 to 30,000 mg for an adult delivered at 350 mg per kilogram of body weight every two hours. He operated under the premise that the sicker the patient, the higher the dose should be.

He treated 60 cases of polio with the administration of massive doses of vitamin C and cured everyone. None of his patients were paralyzed and all were well within three days.

Levy discussed the remarkable case of a 5-year-old girl who already had lower limb paralysis for four days by the time Klenner treated her. She only received massive doses of vitamin C and massage. By day 19, the girl had a complete return of sensation and motor function and no long-term impairment. Yet, this simple, effective and inexpensive treatment was not well-published, and Klenner did not receive any acknowledgment for his results.

Saul also describes the vitamin-based cure for multiple sclerosis that Klenner went on to develop. Following the doctor’s death in 1984, his son was implicated in the murders of five people, a tragedy that became the subject of a 1988 book and a 1994 made-for-TV movie. Yet, true to how the media treats the pharmaceutical industry, it was the son’s crimes that were reported far more than the father’s cures.21

Just Call Me Jack22 details the history of the polio vaccine, which is alarmingly similar to the release of the COVID-19 shot. By 1952, the public’s fear of polio was at a peak, and all were focused on the hope of a vaccine. April 12, 1955, the Salk inactivated polio vaccine was declared “safe and effective” and on the same day, the U.S. licensed it for use. Earlier that year — just like COVID —the diagnostic criteria for polio was changed too. Just Call Me Jack asks: Sound familiar?

In their book “Dissolving Illusions,” Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk detail a history of medical interventions that have claimed to lengthen lifespan and prevent masses of deaths. The book demonstrates how these interventions were not responsible and an Amazon summary of the book asks the question: What else is being ignored and misinterpreted today?23 Polio is one of the diseases and subsequent vaccines included in the book.

Before 1954, patients with short-term paralysis were diagnosed with polio but this criterion changed in 1955 when the vaccine was released. Instead, patients who had no residual paralysis after 60 days did not have polio. Just Call Me Jack quotes the book, writing “Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number of paralytic cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955-1997 whether or not any vaccine was used.”

In other words, how a case was defined instantly changed both the incidence of the disease and the efficacy of the polio vaccine. April 2, 1999, the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, entitled “10 Great Public Health Achievements,” said:24

“During 1951–1954, an average of 16,316 paralytic polio cases and 1879 deaths from polio were reported each year. Polio incidence declined sharply following the introduction of vaccine to <1000 cases in 1962 and remained below 100 cases after that year."

The question you must ask yourself is whether the decline in polio was a result of the vaccine or because the criteria for diagnosing polio had changed? The Totality of Evidence reports that less than one month after the oral vaccine was introduced, the lab suspended production because children who were vaccinated were infected with poliomyelitis,25 a concern that continues to this day.26

Statistics from American Polio Surveillance Reports demonstrated that in 1957, two years after the vaccine had been released, nearly half the cases of paralytic polio in children were happening in vaccinated children, which led to the decision that the children needed more vaccines.27

It is not difficult to see the similarities between the release of the COVID-19 vaccine, after which the number of deaths from COVID in the U.S. spiked, and the polio vaccine.

While public health officials initially told the public that the COVID clinical trials indicated the vaccine would prevent them from getting infected, prevent them from spreading the infection and that only one vaccine was required, those recommendations quickly changed when the genetic experiment was released to a far wider cohort than the one in which it was initially tested.

In other words, the shot was released to the world and the public health experts suddenly had much more disturbing data.

The antiviral capacity of vitamin C was successfully paired with quercetin during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and included in the initial MATH+ protocol released in April 2020. I reported that in the early months of COVID-19, the FLCCC Alliance recommended a combination of vitamin C, quercetin, zinc, melatonin and vitamin D3 for prophylaxis.

To date, the preventive protocol for COVID, flu and RSV includes antimicrobial mouthwash, vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc and melatonin. June 19, 2020, Marik published the paper,28 “Quercetin and Vitamin C: An Experimental, Synergistic Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Related Disease (COVID-19)” in the journal Frontiers in Immunology, noting:

“Ascorbic acid [vitamin C] … plays a role in stress response and has shown promising results when administered to the critically ill. Quercetin is a well-known flavonoid whose antiviral properties have been investigated in numerous studies.

There is evidence that vitamin C and quercetin co-administration exerts a synergistic antiviral action due to overlapping antiviral and immunomodulatory properties and the capacity of ascorbate to recycle quercetin, increasing its efficacy. Safe, cheap interventions which have a sound biological rationale should be prioritized for experimental use in the current context of a global health pandemic.”

However, as many have noted during the COVID pandemic, the use of “Safe, cheap interventions which have a sound biological rationale” has not been prioritized, but rather has been vilified. Much of the benefit from vitamin C is how it helps to mediate inflammation and oxidative stress.

This was demonstrated in a 2022 study,29 which sought to determine how vitamin C could help individuals with cystic fibrosis. The data showed that vitamin C supplementation in individuals with advanced inflammatory disease could help increase plasma vitamin E and lower the inflammatory response.

Vitamin C also plays a significant role in holistic cancer treatment as Dr. Nathan Goodyear and I discussed in a 2022 interview.30 In this area, Western medicine also strove to suppress information since vitamin C is inexpensive and cannot be patented.

As I said, Linus Pauling originally demonstrated that intravenous vitamin C could improve cancer survival, but when Mayo Clinic physicians attempted to reproduce the results without using IV administration, they found no benefit.

The history of vitamin C is replete with public health experts who count the benefits of vitamin C as preventive but continue to push Big Pharma solutions in the face of infection or disease, not the least of whom is former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was interviewed in 2016 in the Washingtonian.31

When asked how do you avoid getting sick when you’re around sick people all day, he replied: “I take vitamin C. It can enhance your body’s defense against microbes. I take 1,000 milligrams a day. Many people also do not get enough vitamin D, which affects a lot of body functions, so that would be helpful, too.”

During the COVID pandemic, Laura Bartlett and Greta Crawford founded an organization to help people address the forced treatments they were receiving when hospitalized. This same strategy, which must be in place before you are hospitalized, can be used to protect yourself against other medical hazards as well. Read more about how to include this in your health plan at “How to Save Your Life and Those You Love When Hospitalized.”

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}” data-component-name=”ButtonCreateButton”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.