VSRF Update Thursday Night: The Gut Microbiome, Damage & Disease

VSRF Weekly Update

Thursday, October 13

7pm Eastern / 4pm Pacific

Register here to watch on Zoom


Live stream on Rumble

Watch the preview for this Thursday’s show with Dr. Sabine Hazan, MD.

Dr. Sabine Hazan, MD, is a pioneer in the research and treatment of Covid-19. With a special focus on the gut microbiome, Dr. Hazan’s articles have been published across numerous peer-reviewed journals and she is board certified in gastroenterology, hepatology, and internal medicine.  From the beginning (think March 2020), Dr. Hazan has been at the forefront of Covid-19 research, leading ongoing FDA approved clinical trials for Covid-19 treatment and prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine, Z-Pak, vitamins C & D, zinc, and ivermectin.

Learn more about Dr. Hazan’s Clinical Work

VSRF Update: Friday College Edition 

Be sure to join us for our new show every Friday, Noon Eastern / 9am Pacific, for college students hosted by Ohio University Senior Tyce Patt.

This week, Tyce will further explore the ramifications of these Covid-19 mandates on Generation Z. Our guests will appear on our show anonymously due to the massive social, collegiate, and potential career-threatening scrutiny they face.

This community of college age youth is not going to back down until the mandates are dropped everywhere for everyone.  Thank you to Tyce, these anonymous young heroes, and countless others for their courage against the Mandate system. Generation Z is leading this fight against these Covid-19 vaccines. We will win.

Watch VSRF College Edition on Rumble

Please “share” any of these links:

  1. VSRF Promo on Defeat The Mandates Twitter

  2. VSRF Promo on Gettr

  3. VSRF Promo on Gab

  4. VSRF Promo on Instagram

  5. VRSF Promo on TruthSocial

  6. VSRF Promo on Telegram

  7. Friends of VSRF on Facebook

‘The Report From Iron Mountain’: Revelation of the Method for Warmongering and Tyranny or a Satirical Tome?

IMAGE: History.com

Dial Press in 1967 published an unauthored book titled “The Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace” that the publisher put forth as a report from a government-appointed panel. The publisher claims it’s the product of a special and secret study group of 15 men whose identities were to remain secret. The year it was published, it became a New York Times bestseller.

A 79-page pdf of “The Report from Iron Mountain” (RFIM) is available via Wikispooks.

The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society, and that even if lasting peace “could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it.” War was a part of the economy. Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy.

The major conclusion of the report was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal. It contends that only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint.

RFIM sets up the false dialectic of nations versus world government. It’s implies that the national system is highly dependent on war, and that the cure is one world government. This is invalid on it’s face.

Examples of “Iron Mountain” logic and revelation of method:

War is the defining element of any nation’s existence vis-a-vis any other nation. Without the war system no government has ever been able to acquiesce in its legitimacy or right to rule society.

The possibility of war provides the external necessity without which no nation can remain in power. The basic authority of the modern state over it’s people resides in it’s war power.”

War is a necessary economic waste. It operates outside the normal supply and demand system. It creates artificial demand. Defense spending is a simulator of national metabolism. War is progressive for research and development of weapons systems spurring technological advances.

Winter Watch Takeaway No.1

Substitute scamdemics for war and the same “Iron Mountain” authority over people is put in play. In the RFIM scheme, substitutes or enhancements to the war system must be credible and must be accepted by the vast majority of the population.

RFIM states that “new political machinery would be needed at once” and “the threat will have to be invented.”

Interpretation: Keep war system until all substitutes (such as scamdemics) are in place and running so that justification for autocratic kakistocracy rule has continuity.

A member of the panel, an unknown professor at a college in the Midwest, decided to release the report to the public.

Galbraith vs. Friedman — “The emancipation of belief is the most formidable of the tasks of reform, the one on which all else depends” | Economic Sociology & Political Economy

On Nov. 26, 1967, RFIM was reviewed in the book section of the Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, which was the pen name for John Kenneth Galbraith, a Harvard economics professor and U.S. Ambassador to India John Kenneth Galbraith during President Kennedy’s administration.

Galbraith, who also had been a member of the CFR, said that he knew firsthand of RFIM’s authenticity, because he had been invited to participate in it. Although he was unable to be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project a secret.

G. Edward Griffin wrote in his book “Creature from Jekyll Island”:

Although the origin of the report is highly debated, the document itself hints that it was commissioned by the Department of Defense under Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and was produced by the Hudson Institute located at the base of Iron Mountain in Croton-on-Hudson, New York. The Hudson Institute was founded and directed by Herman Kahn, formerly of the Rand Corporation. Both McNamara and Kahn were members of the CFR.

The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution– in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible. Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare.

Accuracy in these predictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not to inform. It might even be necessary to deliberately poison the environment to make the predictions more convincing and to focus the public mind on fighting a new enemy.

The masses would more willingly accept a falling standard of living, tax increases, and bureaucratic intervention in their lives as simply “the price we must pay to save Mother Earth.”

As the Report pointed out, truth is not important in these matters. It’s what people can be made to believe that counts. “Credibility” is the key, not reality.

Doth Protest Too Loudly? Decades of Muddy the Waters

Three men — Victor Navasky, Richard Lingeman and Leonard C. Lewin — allege they lied to create a political parody as a leaked government report supposedly delivered to Mr. Lewin by one of the 15 members of a special government group.

Having read “Iron Mountain,” I really don’t see how these echo-chamber leftists would have had the motivation, insight and ability to concoct this book. It’s a non-starter for me, but decide for yourselves.

But in 1972, after the book gained significant traction for over half a decade in the patriot community, Mr. Lewin suddenly materialized to announced that he was the real author of the report; and furthermore, it was written anomalously as a “satire.”

Lewin, the Jewish self-proclaimed “author,” denied that RFIM was a real government report; and therefore, was not in the public domain and insisted on copyright protection. Rather than allow free and open discussion, his posse then proceeded to devote all of their energy to exposing his own alleged work as a hoax and suppress the book, with nary a positive mention of the prophetic revelation of the method messages contained in RFIM.

The copyright was ultimately enforced after a lingering legal fight with the Liberty Lobby, which was represented by Mark Lane, who wrote “Rush to Judgment,” a book that challenged the Warren Commission’s account of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Victor Navasky

Victor Navasky was the editor and later the publisher of the leftist rag The Nation. The Jewish Navasky was also a supporter of alleged Soviet spy Alger Hiss, having published vociferous defenses of the man’s innocence in The Nation.

This self-admitted, takes-one-to-know-one hoaxster and liar later wrote a script called “The Experts Speak: The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation.” In 2008, he wrote a neocon Zionist puff piece called ” Mission Accomplished! (or How We Won the War in Iraq).”

In 2005, Navasky was named chairman of the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR). This appointment engendered some controversy. Critics on the political right saw this as hiding that — despite the magazine’s purported lack of political bias — a “major left-wing polemicist is calling the shots at CJR without any mention on the masthead.”

In 2008, Victor Navasky asserted his involvement in creating RFIM and named Leonard Lewin as the main writer with “input” from the aforementioned economist Galbraith, two editors of the satirical magazine Monocle (Marvin Kitman and Richard Lingeman) and himself.

Richard Lingeman in his own biography page states he was an intel agent. In the Army Counter-Intelligence Corps, wrote Lingeman, he found himself “plunked in an appalling hotbed of McCarthyism.

“By luck of the draw, I ended up in Japan, semi-undercover and spying on ultra-nationalist groups.”

Lingeman wrote “Drugs from A to Z,” a dictionary of slang and illicit substances published by McGraw-Hill. He then went on to become executive editor of The Nation.

Simon & Schuster, a unit of Viacom, Inc., has its own suppression group of electronic detectives, who aggressively patrol the Internet for copyright violations of its publications. They were helped by a tipster, who simply called himself “nobody,” an anonymous messenger, who sent emails alerting company lawyers about the appearance of pirated copies and the locations of RFIM texts.

Winter Watch Takeaway No. 2

Given that the owners of the copyright want to make a buck, the book today is not entirely suppressed and can be bought on Amazon for a reasonable price – but with the hoax disclaimer. The latest edition comes with a 20-page forward by Leonard Lewin and Victor Navasky. They laboriously drum out their reasoning as to why RFIM should be dismissed as a fraud.

Doth protest too much, in my opinion, and in an odd manner, especially when one considers that the book is so over the target.

The whole sistema has piled on to the hoax narrative. The book was even listed in the “Guinness Book of World Records” as the “Most Successful Literary Hoax.”

Regardless, and much like the “Protocols of Zion,” the important point is that RFIM, whether written as an amoral think-tank study or political satire, explains the reality that surrounds us. Regardless of its origin, the concepts presented in it are now being implemented in almost every detail. No wonder the sistema has tried to steer the narrative, memory hole and deep six the book.

In defense of my friend Dr. Joseph Ladapo

I wrote an earlier article on Joe pointing out he’s one of just two honest public health officials in the US that I’m aware of who realizes the vaccines are not safe.

Recently, I wrote this article on the study done in Florida which recommended against the vaccine for males 18 to 39. The reason: a huge safety signal was triggered that is impossible to explain if the vaccines are safe and effective.

The LA Times called his study a threat to public health, flawed, and unscientific.

I’m going to examine each of these claims and show why they are misleading.

Here are the key points:

  1. “Flawed”: This is silly. Every scientific study ever done has flaws: biases, confounders, protocol violations, limited number of participants, etc. The study was limited to a certain population, e.g., to rule out COVID as the cause of the effect observed. So this claim means nothing. That is why there is a limitations section to the study. Also, if it was flawed, then why are they touting the parts of the study that agree with their beliefs??? You can’t cherry pick the parts you believe are true on the basis of your belief system. In my case, I’ll point out the big flaw of the study, but the fact that there was a huge statistically significant safety signal despite this flaw is impossible to explain if the vaccine is safe. That’s what the focus should be on. More on that below. So despite the limitation, there was a serious signal there and that’s legit to focus on and it has nothing to do with cherry picking those conclusions I may personally agree with.

  2. “Unscientific”: This is silly again. Science is all about fitting observations to the best hypothesis. Always has been, always will be. They observed that vaccinated males had a statistically significant elevation in cardiac death 28 days post vax. Had they concluded the opposite, that the vaccine was perfectly safe, then Ladapo could be criticized as being unscientific. But he reported the signal. On the other hand, newspapers promoting the COVID vaccines as safe as the LA Times is doing should be labeled as unscientific. See Evidence of Harm. Also, the same logic applies again for “unscientific”: either the study is valid or it should be ignored. You can’t cherry pick the parts you believe are true like the LA Times in their claim that the all-cause mortality was lower. You can only cherry pick parts where the data is significant and it is not caused by a limitation of the study.

  3. “Even if there were higher cardiac deaths, the all-cause deaths were lower for vaccinated people in that age group.” This is the whopper. The big obvious lie. The study concluded nothing for 18-39 all-cause mortality because the confidence intervals were too wide to make a determination of harm or benefit. But what the study did show clearly was a strong, statistically significant evidence of an increase in cardiac deaths for 18-39 year-olds as can be seen from Table 2 on page 6:

    What the LA Times engaged in is deception. All-cause deaths weren’t statistically significant, but the cardiac deaths were up by almost a factor of 2 in men who got vaccinated. That’s nearly a 100% increase in death.

And this should be no surprise since it is consistent with the cardiac rates post vaccine in Israel. The data was so bad that they were not given access to data beyond the initial period.

As for rates of myocarditis caused by COVID vs. vaccines, consider the following anecdote from the first doctor I asked about this. He’s been practicing for 30 years and never saw a case of myocarditis or pericarditis. Since the vaccines rolled out, he’s seen 4 cases. He’s hardly alone. I don’t know of any cardiologist who saw rates of myocarditis drop after the vaccines rolled out, everyone I know has seen the opposite.

I also know a pediatrician at Stanford who has never seen so many cases of cardiac issues in her career. She is the sole breadwinner in her family so she has to remain silent while other kids die. She isn’t allowed to warn her patients because if she does, they’ll fire her and take away her medical license (AB 2098). If these injuries were from COVID, they’d be encouraging her to speak out. But when it’s from the vaccine, they must all say nothing. The LA Times should be writing about this.

If the vaccines are so effective, where are all the cardiologists who are seeing the dramatic drop in myocarditis cases?

They don’t exist AFAIK. If they do, where are they? That’s a problem for the mainstream media. A big problem. But none of them ask the critical questions because they never consider that they could be wrong.

The LA Times wrote:

Ladapo has been labeled a “quack” and a “COVID crank.” If there has been any doubt that these labels are justified, they should be dispelled by his latest action.

There is just one tiny problem with that that they missed in the article… p: Ladapo wasn’t involved in the execution of the study; it was all done by the professional staff who are pro-vax (at least they were before they did the study). That’s really significant by the LA Times missed that. I haven’t a clue how that might have happened.

The study showed a mortality benefit for the vaccine, but if you are a regular reader of my Substack, you know that that’s impossible; these vaccines are all downside. Nobody should take these vaccines.

So how did this study show a benefit for vaccination for certain age groups? Do you understand why that happened? The LA Times didn’t. Not at all. None of their trusted sources had a clue. They never pointed it out.

The explanation is in this article that I wrote 6 weeks ago: Vaccines are taking an average of 5 months to kill people.

There are two time constants for this vaccine: fast (within weeks) and slow (peaking at around 5 months). Some events happen quickly, others delayed, and some events (cardiac) happen both quickly and delayed.

If the vaccine deaths all happened in a 30 day window, this study would be very accurate. But they don’t.

But the death curve for the entire population in aggregate peaks 5 months out as noted in the article.

This makes a case controlled study where everyone is vaccinated problematic.

Say we have a deadly vaccine which kills 50% of people at exactly 20 weeks out. Those who aren’t killed are fine.

Based on the study design looking at 28 days vs. the range after the 28 days, our vaccine would be a miracle life-saving drug when in reality it should be immediately stopped.

The LA Times and their sources didn’t point this out to anyone. How could they miss this? I guess these people don’t read my Substack.

Is this study worthless for this reason? No, not at all because it found a strong spike for myocarditis despite this complication. That’s extraordinary and cannot be explained since a “perfectly safe” vaccine should have a relative incidence (RI) value of 1 (rate of death is random) and not close to 2.

But if you want to see how the deaths compare overall for vaxxed vs. unvaxxed, here’s a graph that just came out moments ago:

Email Image

And the data behind that shows exactly what I am talking about:

See how the COVID deaths are actually HIGHER in the first 28 days than lower (like we would have thought from the study). Also see how the non-COVID all-cause mortality keeps going up? So it makes it look like the vaccines are saving lives when in reality they are just ramping up the kill rate over time.

It’s great to have both perspectives (the Florida study and these UK numbers) to give us great insight as to what is really going on.

Watch particularly at 1:30 into the video where Tucker asks:

“There are 50 states; why is your state the only one telling us this?”

Joe has a brilliant answer:

“I think frankly it’s because we are the only ones who asked the question.”

Yup. Exactly right. No other state wants to expose the truth.

Joe defends his study here.

Twitter censored Joe’s tweet about the study and then changed their minds.

Twitter clearly thinks (now) that it is not misinformation and «sarcasm on> there is no authority who is more highly respected in the medical community than the Twitter censorship network.

All studies have limitations. Science is all about open discussion of the limitations of the study and what you can learn from it so you can try to avoid mistakes the next time. Science is never about trying to deplatform and discredit people who are making an honest attempt to find the truth.

Comparing the vaccine against itself is a bit problematic because all the death events are not clustered within 28 days of vaccination like they might be with other vaccines.

So in this case, the vaccines should like they save lives even though they are doing the exact opposite.

In light of this observation, the fact that there is close to a 2X elevation in the death rate in the first 28 days is very hard to explain.

Instead of criticizing Joe’s study, the mainstream narrative promoters should explain to the public exactly how a vaccine which is so safe can double the cardiac death rate for young people.

I’m all ears!!!


Is the US Shutting Down Power to Europe?

  • September 26, 2022, massive “leaks” were detected in two Russian pipelines, Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, which deliver natural gas from Russia to Europe underneath the Baltic Sea

  • It was quickly determined the leaks were the result of intentional sabotage. Germany will partner with Denmark and Sweden to investigate the explosions using navy, police and intelligence services from the three countries

  • One day after the Nord Stream sabotage, a new Polish natural gas pipeline was inaugurated. Israel has also been in negotiations with the EU to supply natural gas to Europe

  • Western officials and media blame Russia itself. The Washington Post suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin is “weaponizing the Nord Stream pipelines,” and Bob Rae, Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations, accused Russia of “using pollution as an act of war.” Putin has dismissed such allegations as “stupid,” and is placing the blame on the U.S.

  • In a September 27, 2022, show, Fox News host Tucker Carlson laid the blame at the feet of the Biden administration. Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs, an economist and public policy analyst, also believes the pipelines were struck by the U.S. as a means of damaging the Russian economy, something that sanctions have failed to accomplish

Visit Mercola Market


September 26, 2022, massive “leaks” were detected in two Russian pipelines, Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, which deliver natural gas from Russia to Europe underneath the Baltic Sea.

Within a couple of days, several countries, including Russia, agreed the leaks were the result of intentional sabotage or, to quote Fox News host Tucker Carlson (above), “an act of industrial terrorism.” Obvious questions include who did it? Why? And why now?

Incidentally, just one day after the Nord Stream sabotage, a new Polish pipeline was inaugurated. As reported by the Pipeline Technology Journal, the Baltic Pipe will “help Poland and Europe reduce their longstanding dependency on Russian natural gas” by transporting gas from Norway via Denmark to Poland and neighboring nations.1

According to Naval News, Nordic countries have heightened their military readiness in response to the sabotage:2

“The explosions took place in the Swedish and Danish exclusive economic zones, and the Danish Navy was quick to send both naval and airborne units to investigate, while on the Swedish side the Coast Guard is responsible with the Navy standing by to provide assistance if needed …

Closer to the other end of the pipeline, Finland has declined to comment on whether there is an increase in readiness following the Nordstream leaks in line with a longstanding policy of ambiguity …

A country that has been open with their heightened readiness is Norway. The European oil and gas powerhouse had already before the incidents reported on unidentified drone activity close to their energy infrastructure in the North Sea, and in the aftermath of the incident the Norwegian government has decided on heightened security at the Norwegian oil and gas infrastructure …

[Norwegian] Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre has accepted offers of help from Germany, France and the UK to increase the security surrounding the North Sea oil and gas infrastructure.”

Germany has announced it will partner with Denmark and Sweden to investigate the sabotage using navy, police and intelligence services from the three countries.3

Several countries have officially condemned the brazen attack on civilian infrastructure, including the U.K. Ministry of Defense4 and the NATO alliance as a whole. In a September 29, 2022, statement, NATO said attacks on allies’ critical infrastructure will be met with “a united and determined response.”5

Fatih Birol, head of the Paris-based International Energy Agency — which provides energy policy recommendations, analysis and data for 42 countries — said it was “very obvious” who was behind the sabotage, but didn’t specify who that might be.6

Western officials and media have by and large blamed Russia itself. The Washington Post suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin is “fully weaponizing the Nord Stream pipelines.” Bob Rae, Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations, accused Russia of “using pollution as an act of war.”7

The Center for Strategic & International Studies admitted that Russia’s motives for attacking its own pipelines are unclear, but that it “may be warning and signaling to Europe and the West that it is willing to target civilian infrastructure.”8 Putin has dismissed such allegations as “stupid,” and is placing the blame on the West, the U.S. in particular.9 As reported by Yahoo News:10

“Russian officials have said Washington had a motive as it wants to sell more liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe. President Vladimir Putin said … the United States and its allies blew up Nord Stream. ‘The sanctions were not enough for the Anglo-Saxons: they moved onto sabotage,’ he said … [The] White House has dismissed the accusation that it was responsible …

[If] it was an act of sabotage, it has damaged pipelines that were built by Kremlin-controlled Gazprom and its European partners at a cost that ran into billions of dollars.

The damage also means Russia loses an element of leverage it still had over Europe, which has been racing to find other gas supplies for winter, even if the Nord Stream pipelines where not pumping gas when the leaks were discovered, analysts say.

Whoever or whatever is to blame, Ukraine may also be a beneficiary. Kyiv has long called for Europe to halt all purchases of Russian fuel — even though some gas still runs to Europe across its territory. Disrupting Nord Stream brings Kyiv’s call for a full Russian fuel embargo closer to reality.”

European security officials claim Russian navy support ships and submarines were observed in the vicinity of the leaks. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov rebutted saying “a much larger” NATO presence was also in the area.11 As mentioned earlier, Norwegian authorities have also reported “unidentified drone activity” near other energy infrastructure in the North Sea.

In his September 27, 2022, show, Carlson laid the blame at the feet of the Biden administration. As noted by Carlson, Russia has no reasonable motive for blowing up its own multibillion-dollar pipelines. Those pipelines are part of Russia’s power, wealth and leverage against Europe, which needs Russian energy to survive, both economically and physically.

To quote Carlson, Putin would have to be “a suicidal moron” to waste that leverage, for any reason. If he wanted to cripple Europe by shutting off the gas, he could do that without destroying the equipment. Indeed, he’d already done just that.

Other countries, however, may gain from the destruction of those pipelines, and at least two U.S. officials have openly called for it.

Carlson showed footage from a February 2022 White House press conference in which President Biden warns that if Russia invades Ukraine, the U.S. will “bring an end” to Nord Stream 2. When asked, “But how will you do that, exactly, since the project is within Germany’s control?” Biden replied, “I promise you, we will be able to do it.”

Victoria Nuland, under secretary for political affairs at the U.S. State Department, made similar promises in January 2022, when she stated that “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.”

Another person who believes the U.S. is responsible is Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs,12 an economist, public policy analyst, director of the Center for Sustainable Development and chairman of the Lancet Commission, who, by the way, has also been outspoken about his suspicions that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a U.S.-backed research program in China.

In a recent Bloomberg interview, Sachs suggested the pipelines were struck by the U.S. as a means of damaging the Russian economy, something that sanctions have failed to accomplish. Bloomberg host Tom Keene quickly interjected saying, “Jeff, we’ve got to stop there … What evidence do you have of that?” Sachs responded:13

“Well, first, there is direct radar evidence that US military helicopters that are normally based in Gdansk were circling over this area. We also had the threat from … [Nuland] earlier this year that ‘one way or another we are going to end Nord Stream.’

We also had a remarkable statement from Secretary of State [Antony] Blinken last Friday in a press conference where he said ‘this is also a tremendous opportunity.’ It’s a strange way to talk if you’re worried about piracy on international infrastructure of vital significance.

I know it runs counter to our narrative; you‘re not allowed to say these things in the West. But the fact of the matter is, all over the world, when I talk to people, they think the U.S. did it. Even reporters on our papers that are involved tell me ‘of course’ (the U.S. did it), but it doesn’t show up in our media.”

Carlson also highlighted the environmental impacts of this sabotage. Enormous amounts of natural gas are streaming into the Baltic Sea, which may have a dire effect on marine mammals in the area.

“The people lecturing you about your SUV may have blown up a natural gas pipeline and created one of the great catastrophes of our time in its effect on the environment. If they did this, it would be the craziest, most destructive things any American administration has EVER done.” ~ Tucker Carlson

Natural gas is also comprised of 90% methane, a key driver, allegedly, of manmade global warming, which climate change activists insist poses an acute and lethal threat to all mankind.

“So, if you’re worried about climate change, what just happened to the Nord Stream pipelines is as close to the apocalypse as we have ever come,” Carlson says.

Biden has declared climate change the most pressing emergency in the history of the world. If his administration is responsible for blowing up these pipelines, then they’re also responsible for massively worsening climate change, as the methane emitted from these pipelines far outweigh the methane released from cows, for example, which the Green Agenda is so intent on eliminating in order to “save the planet.” As noted by Carlson:

“The people lecturing you about your SUV may have blown up a natural gas pipeline and created one of the great catastrophes of our time in its effect on the environment. If they did this, it would be the craziest, most destructive things any American administration has EVER done.

But it would also be totally consistent with what they do … They destroy. These people build nothing. Not one thing. Instead, they tear down and they desecrate — from historic statues, to the Constitution, to energy infrastructure.

And no one in Congress is trying to stop any of it. They’re just preparing for the inevitable fallout. Tonight, the Senate just prepared a spending bill with $35 million for the Department of Energy to ‘prepare for and respond to potential radiological incidences in Ukraine.’”

That bill brings U.S. expenditure on Ukraine, for its war effort and funding of its government and energy, to $67 billion. According to Carlson, that’s more than Russia’s entire military budget for 2021.

Another obvious question that remains to be answered is, what next? As Carlson points out, if the U.S. is responsible for blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines, we have basically entered into direct war with Russia, one of the greatest nuclear powers on the planet.

And, certainly, it’s reasonable to suspect that this kind of industrial terrorism, this intentional sabotage, will have consequences. Aside from a nuclear response, Russia could conceivably respond by severing underwater power and data cables, which would immediately cripple Western nations.

In his Bloomberg interview, Sachs discussed his deep concerns about where we’re headed. He correctly highlighted that the world is in a period of unprecedented instability, with the potential for nuclear war looming, at the same time as we’re suffering hyperinflation, energy shortages and more.

What’s worse, there are no efforts to address any of these issues. Instead, world leaders are acting in a manner that escalates and worsens the situation. “So many provocations in the midst of huge instability!” Sachs said.

So, who would actually benefit from the destruction of the two Nord Stream pipelines, one of which, by the way, had not even opened yet (Nord Stream 2). The U.S. certainly appears to have both motive and intention. U.S. officials have publicly stated that they would “one way or another” eliminate Nord Stream 2 if Russia decided to invade Ukraine, which, of course, it did.

By sabotaging the pipelines, the U.S. stands to gain financially by increasing its own natural gas exports, and it gains by weakening Russia’s income potential and leverage over Europe. The loss of the pipelines also benefits the U.S. by putting Europe in a situation where it cannot be tempted to leave America’s side against Russia. As noted by The American Conservative:14

“Winter is soon arriving in Europe. If European peoples get tired of being cold, and/or paying a fortune for heating, they may take to the streets to demand that their governments push for peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, so that the flow of Russian gas can start again. But now, with the Nord Stream pipelines badly damaged, that possibility has been foreclosed …”

Poland may also benefit, as it just opened its own pipeline, as might Israel,15 16 which entered into negotiations with the European Union to supply natural gas when Russia started cutting off supplies (see video above).

Russia, meanwhile, just lost a multibillion-dollar investment, long-term wealth potential and hence geopolitical power, and present-day leverage against NATO sanctions.

Aside from “sending a message” that it’s willing to destroy civilian infrastructure, it gains nothing from sabotaging its own pipelines, and such a message would have been far clearer and more rational had they attacked someone else’s infrastructure and not its own. 

For now, the answer to who blew up the Nord Stream pipelines remains elusive. It seems all we can do is wait for the results of the German-Nordic alliance’s investigation, and hope that cooler heads prevail.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>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.

Scientists Find Antibodies That Neutralize All COVID Strains

antibodies neutralize all covid strains

  • Two antibodies have been uncovered that are so effective at neutralizing COVID-19 — and all of its variants — that they believe the antibodies could serve as an “effective substitute for vaccines”

  • The antibodies — TAU-1109 and TAU-2310 — bind to a different area of the spike protein than other antibodies, one that doesn’t undergo many mutations

  • TAU-1109 is 92% effective at neutralizing the omicron strain and 90% effective at neutralizing the delta strain

  • TAU-2310 has an efficacy rate of 84% at neutralizing omicron and a 97% efficacy rate against the delta variant

  • The researchers believe that with effective antibody treatment, “we will not have to provide booster doses to the entire population every time there is a new variant”

Visit Mercola Market


Researchers at Tel Aviv University revealed two antibodies that are so effective at neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 — and all of its variants — that they believe the antibodies could serve as an “effective substitute for vaccines.”1 One of the glaring failures surrounding COVID-19 shots is their lack of effectiveness against emerging COVID-19 strains.

By choosing the spike protein on which to base COVID-19 shots, scientists picked a protein that not only was known to be toxic to humans but was not the part of the virus that prompted the best immune response.

Spike protein mutates rapidly, which essentially destroys virtually any protection that the shot provides shortly after it’s given. The end result is a seemingly never-ending series of annual shots and boosters, which can only offer rapidly waning protection. If the Israeli researchers’ findings are verified and the antibodies turn out to be as effective as suspected, it could eliminate COVID-19 booster shots entirely.2

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized multiple monoclonal antibody (mAb) cocktails for the treatment of COVID-19. However, as variants emerged, their effectiveness varied, with some becoming ineffective and others retaining their activity.

“This indicates that some antibodies elicited by infection are more variation-sensitive than others, and that antibody breadth of specificity, and not only potency, should be considered,” the researchers, from the department of clinical microbiology and immunology at Tel Aviv University’s Sackler Faculty of Medicine,3 wrote in the journal Communications Biology.4

For instance, in January 2022, the FDA limited the use of two monoclonal antibody treatments — bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which are administered together, and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) — to patients infected with a variant known to be susceptible to them.5 The two antibody treatments mentioned had lost much of their effectiveness against the omicron variant, leading to the usage restriction in people infected with omicron.

On the other hand, in February 2022, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a monoclonal antibody treatment known as bebtelovimab, which retained activity against the omicron variant.6 According to the FDA:7

“Bebtelovimab works by binding to the spike protein of the virus that causes COVID-19, similar to other monoclonal antibodies that have been authorized for the treatment of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and shown a benefit in reducing the risk of hospitalization or death.”

The way the antibodies bind to the spike protein may hold the key to their ultimate effectiveness against various strains. In previous research conducted in October 2020, lead study author Natalia Freund and colleagues isolated nine antibodies from people who recovered from the original COVID-19 strain in Israel. Freund stated in a news release:8

“In the previous study, we showed that the various antibodies that are formed in response to infection with the original virus are directed against different sites of the virus. The most effective antibodies were those that bound to the virus’s ‘spike’ protein, in the same place where the spike binds the cellular receptor ACE2.

Of course, we were not the only ones to isolate these antibodies, and the global health system made extensive use of them until the arrival of the different variants of the coronavirus, which in fact rendered most of those antibodies useless.”

The featured study picks up where the October 2020 study left off, revealing two antibodies — TAU-1109 and TAU-2310 — that bind to a different area of the spike protein — one that doesn’t undergo many mutations — making them capable of neutralizing all known strains of COVID-19. According to Freund:9

“In the current study, we proved that two other antibodies, TAU-1109 and TAU-2310, which bind the viral spike protein in a different area from the region where most of the antibodies were concentrated until now (and were therefore less effective in neutralizing the original strain) are actually very effective in neutralizing the Delta and Omicron variants.”

Specifically, they found TAU-1109 is 92% effective at neutralizing the omicron strain and 90% effective at neutralizing the delta strain. TAU-2310 has an efficacy rate of 84% at neutralizing omicron and a 97% efficacy rate against the delta variant.10 The study was conducted in collaboration with the University of California at San Diego, where the two antibodies were sent for additional testing against live viruses in laboratory cultures.

The antibodies were also tested against pseudoviruses at Bar-Ilan University in the Galilee. “The results were identical and equally encouraging in both tests,” according to a news release.11 What’s interesting is that the mutating virus may have played a part in making the two antibodies so effective. Freund explained:12

“The infectivity of the virus increased with each variant because each time, it changed the amino acid sequence of the part of the spike protein that binds to the ACE2 receptor, thereby increasing its infectivity and at the same time evading the natural antibodies that were created following vaccinations.

In contrast, the antibodies TAU-1109 and TAU-2310 don’t bind to the ACE2 receptor binding site, but to another region of the spike protein – an area of ​​the viral spike that for some reason does not undergo many mutations – and they are therefore effective in neutralizing more viral variants. These findings emerged as we tested all the known COVID strains to date.”

Freund believes that the antibodies are so effective they could ultimately replace COVID-19 booster shots. This is welcome news, as most protection gained from COVID-19 shots, including boosters, doesn’t last.

One study funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention involved data from 10 states collected from August 26, 2021, to January 22, 2022, periods during which both the delta and omicron variants were circulating.13 Within two months of the second COVID-19 shot, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits related to COVID-19 was at 69%. This dropped to 37% after five months post-shot.

The low effectiveness five months after the initial shot series is what prompted officials to recommend a booster dose — and the third shot “boosted” effectiveness to 87%. This boost was short-lived, however. Within four to five months post-booster, protection against emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) visits decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more post-booster.14

Rather than admitting defeat, health officials are planning to hand out even more doses of their embarrassingly ineffective boosters with new so-called “updated” shots. On August 31, 2022, the FDA amended the EUAs of Moderna and Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots to authorize bivalent formulations to be used as booster doses at least two months after a previous booster or primary serious of the shots.

“The bivalent vaccines, which we will also refer to as “updated boosters,” contain two messenger RNA (mRNA) components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 and the other one in common between the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages of the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2,” the FDA stated.15

In addition to the strong possibility that protection against COVID-19 will once again rapidly disappear following the booster, there’s a real risk of serious adverse events from repeatedly artificially inflating antibodies in your body via repeated booster shots.

This tricks your body into thinking it’s always infected with COVID-19, a condition that can only lead to a “death zone,” accelerating the development of autoimmune conditions such as Parkinson’s, Kawasaki disease and multiple sclerosis, according to tech leader and COVID analyst Marc Girardot, who urged a retreat from the COVID shot “death zone” before it’s too late.16

There may be a light at the end of the tunnel, as Freund is confident the “cross-neutralizing capabilities of antibodies naturally elicited during wild type SARS-CoV-2 infection” may end up providing an alternative to booster shots. She stated:17

“For reasons we still don’t yet fully understand, the level of antibodies against COVID-19 declines significantly after three months, which is why we see people getting infected again and again, even after being vaccinated three times. In our view, targeted treatment with antibodies and their delivery to the body in high concentrations can serve as an effective substitute for repeated boosters, especially for at-risk populations and those with weakened immune systems.

COVID-19 infection can cause serious illness, and we know that providing antibodies in the first days following infection can stop the spread of the virus. It is therefore possible that by using effective antibody treatment, we will not have to provide booster doses to the entire population every time there is a new variant.”

This is encouraging, though not exactly surprising considering what’s known about natural immunity — the type earned by recovering from infection. A 2022 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)18 is just one example of research showing natural COVID-19 immunity is not only effective but lasts longer than the immunity that’s acquired from COVID-19 shots.19

What’s more, prior COVID-19 infection — i.e., natural immunity — offered better protection against symptomatic omicron infection more than one year later than three doses of COVID-19 shots did after one month.

To put it into numbers, a graph in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that previous infection was 54.9% effective against symptomatic omicron infection after more than 12 months, while three doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot were only 44.7% effective a month later. The same held true for three doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 shot, which were only 41.2 % effective after one month, compared to 53.5% effectiveness for natural immunity more than a year later.20

Another one of the most talked-about reports showing the superiority of natural immunity involved data presented July 17, 2021, to the Israeli Health Ministry, which revealed that, of more than 7,700 COVID-19 cases reported, only 72 occurred in people who had previously had COVID-19 — a rate of less than 1%. In contrast, more than 3,000 cases — or approximately 40% — occurred in people who had received a COVID-19 shot.21

In other words, those who were vaccinated were nearly 700% more likely to develop COVID-19 than those who had natural immunity from a prior infection.22

Why is there a good chance you haven’t heard about this news? Repeated booster shots equate to ongoing dollar signs for Big Pharma and the health agencies and officials it controls. So it remains to be seen whether an antibody treatment that targets every COVID-19 variant effectively will ever see the light of day in hospitals and outpatient clinics.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

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.

UK government data show 1 in 73 vaxxed Britons dead as of May 31

Image: UK government data show 1 in 73 vaxxed Britons dead as of May 31

(Natural News) Britons declining the lethal Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine are truly blessed as they are farther from the grave than those who chose to get injected.

Figures from the U.K. Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that one in every 110 vaccinated Britons had died by Jan. 31, 2022. Meanwhile, only one in every 187 unvaccinated Britons had died as of the same period. Unfortunately, this discrepancy is just increasing every passing day.

More up-to-date figures from the ONS showed that one in every 73 vaccinated Britons had died as of May 31, 2022. This spike in deaths among vaccinated Britons was definitely a cause for alarm as 43 million people in the U.K. had been injected with at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose.

According to the country’s National Immunization Management system, this means that 19.6 million remain unvaccinated in England. This directly contradicted claims by the British government and the mainstream media that only between three million and five million Britons are yet to be injected.

“These figures prove we definitely have a serious problem,” the Daily Expose pointed out. “There is no other conclusion that can be found for the fact mortality rates per 100,000 are the lowest among the unvaccinated other than that the COVID-19 injections are killing people.”

“Government and mainstream media would never tell you this. The extraordinary amount of your hard-earned money spent on these experimental, harmful injections, and the amount of propaganda they’ve used to coerce the public into taking them is disgraceful and amounts to a crime against humanity. This is why they will never admit the damage they have done.” (Related: UK covering up THOUSANDS of COVID-19 vaccine deaths.)


UKHSA: Vaccinated individuals account for 90 percent of COVID-19 deaths

Downing Street has been adamant in pushing boosters, but new research has shown that the boosters are only “boosting” vaccine deaths. Moreover, the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) itself bared that vaccinated individuals accounted for 90 percent of all COVID-19 deaths in England. It also revealed that four of five deaths in the U.K. are among those injected with COVID-19 booster doses.

The figures published July 6 by the ONS covered the period between Jan. 1, 2021 and May 31, 2022. Calculations done by the Expose found that between Jan. 1, 2021 and Jan. 31, 2022, a total of 394,178 vaccinated individuals died. In contrast, only 104,659 unvaccinated individuals died. Given these computations, it won’t be long before hundreds of thousands of Britons will soon be buried.

Aside from this, the ONS data further revealed that mortality rates per 100,000 are lowest among the unvaccinated in every age group. This leads to the conclusion that the COVID injections are, in fact, killing people.

Given these alarming numbers, British cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra called for the immediate suspension of the COVID-19 vaccine. He joined many Britons weary of the narrative that vaccines are necessary for normal life to resume.

“There is a strong scientific, ethical and moral case to be made that the current COVID vaccine administration must stop until all the raw data has been subjected to fully independent scrutiny,” he wrote. “Until all the raw data on the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been independently analyzed, any claims purporting that they confer a net benefit to humankind cannot be considered to be evidence based.”

From experience, Britons have come to realize that the vaccines are no wonder cure for COVID-19 as the vaccinated are not only dying – they are being killed. The experimental vaccines have failed to produce the desired results and people have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies.

Watch this video about Britons shutting down a COVID-19 vaccine center in Bristol.

This video is from the Fritjof Persson channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Vaccine die-off: Fully vaccinated and triple-vaccinated deaths skyrocket.

Trail of death: Latest actuarial data connects excess deaths to covid vaccine mandate.

Thousands of non-COVID excess deaths in the UK likely caused by COVID-19 vaccines.

Sources include: