Day: October 24, 2022

• Polls taken in 2020 and 2021 revealed Americans were wildly confused and misinformed about their true risk of dying from COVID

• Based on a new preprint analysis by professor John Ioannidis, there’s no reason for anyone to live in fear anymore, regardless of your age, as your risk of dying from COVID is — and always was — minuscule across the board

• Before the COVID jabs were rolled out, if you were 19 or younger, your risk of dying of COVID was 0.0003%; only 3 per 1 million infected with COVID at this age ended up dying. Between ages 60 and 69, the infection fatality rate was 0.501%, i.e., 1 out of 200 infected died

• Emerging evidence suggests the shots are causing immune deficiency in some people, thereby actually raising their risk of dying from SARS-CoV-2 infection, even with the now-milder strains

• The real-world risk of dying from COVID-19 based on published data from the Irish census bureau and the central statistics office for 2020 and 2021 is as follows: For people under 70, the death rate was 0.014%; under 50 years of age, it was 0.002%, which equates to a 1 in 50,000 risk, or about the same as dying from fire or smoke inhalation. Under 25 years of age, the mortality rate was 0.00018%, or 1 in 500,000 risk of dying from COVID

Do you really understand your risk of dying from COVID-19? According to The Hill,1 a poll taken in mid-August 2020 showed “Americans have a significant misunderstanding of the risk of death from COVID-19 when it comes to different age groups.”

On average, Americans were under the impression that people under the age of 44 made up about 30% of deaths, when the actual figure was less than 3%. At the time, 58% of those polled who were between the ages of 18 and 24 also said they feared “significant health consequences” were they to get infected, when in reality this age group accounted for a mere 0.1% of COVID deaths.

Similar stats were found in April 2021, when the Washington Examiner reported on polls showing “COVID-19 alarmism” had resulted in 18- to 24-year-olds being the “most anxious about resuming normal life — despite being by far the least at risk from COVID-19.”2

At the time, the reported death rate among this group was 0.006%, yet half reported being nervous about interacting socially. Meanwhile, in the highest-risk group, those 55 and older, only 31% were nervous about social interactions; 65% were not.

Has anything changed? Anecdotally, it seems mask wearers these days are primarily young (and seemingly healthy) people, while the majority of older individuals have embraced the freedom to breathe freely again.

Based on a new preprint analysis by professor John Ioannidis, there’s really no reason for anyone to live in fear anymore, regardless of your age, as your risk of dying from COVID is — and always was — minuscule across the board.

Ioannidis’ paper,3 4 posted on the preprint server medRxiv October 13, 2022, looked at pre-jab national seroprevalence studies to ascertain the age-stratified infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 in people between the ages of birth and 69. As noted in the abstract:

“The infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection is important to estimate accurately, since 94% of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86% is younger than 60 years.

In systematic searches in SeroTracker and PubMed … we identified 40 eligible national seroprevalence studies covering 38 countries with pre-vaccination seroprevalence data.

For 29 countries (24 high-income, 5 others), publicly available age-stratified COVID-19 death data and age-stratified seroprevalence information were available and were included in the primary analysis.”

Based on these data, the authors came up with the following median IFRs:

• Birth to 19 years: 0.0003% = 3 out of 1,000,000 infected were dying

• 20 to 29 years: 0.003% = 3 out of 100,000 infected were dying

• 30 to 39 years: 0.011% = 1.1 out of 10,000 infected were dying

• 40 to 49 years: 0.035% = 3.5 out of 10,000 infected were dying

• 50 to 59 years: 0.129% = 1.3 out of 1,000 infected were dying

• 60 to 69 years: 0.501% = 1 out of 200 infected were dying

Source: Ioannidis et al.5

Overall, the median IFR for all age groups combined (birth to 69 years) was 0.095%, with an interquartile range of 0.036 – 0.125%. Limiting the age range to between birth and 59, the median IFR was even lower, just 0.035%, with an interquartile range of 0.013 – 0.056%.

In other words, before the COVID jabs came along, out of 10,000 infected people under the age of 59, three died. Looking at the full age spread — birth to 69 — 7 in 10,000 infected individuals died. According to the authors:6

“At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively. These IFR estimates in non-elderly populations are lower than previous calculations had suggested … Large differences did exist between countries and may reflect differences in comorbidities and other factors.”

The graph below illustrates the ranging IFRs across populations in different countries.

As reported by the Daily Skeptic,7 “The significantly higher values for the top seven [countries] suggest some of the difference may be an artifact of, for example, the way COVID-19 deaths are counted, particularly where excess death levels are similar …”

Wide variations in IFR between countries for the same age groups were also found, which they postulate may be due to:8 9

• Data artifacts, such as inaccurate measures of seroprevalence or inaccurate recording of deaths

•  Presence and severity of comorbidities — For example, in the U.S., obesity affects 41.9% of the population, compared to just 2% in Vietnam and 4% in India

• Prevalence of frailty (number of elderly living in nursing homes)

• Differences in health care management and societal support

• Prevalence of drug problems

Presenting this same data as COVID survival rates in the pre-jab era (i.e. 2020, before the rollout of the COVID shots) instead of fatality rates, you get the following:

• Birth to 19 years: 99.9997% survival rate

• 20 to 29 years: 99.997% survival rate

• 30 to 39 years: 99.989% survival rate

• 40 to 49 years: 99.965% survival rate

• 50 to 59 years: 99.871% survival rate

• 60 to 69 years: 99.499% survival rate

Now, these numbers were all prior to the COVID jabs. Emerging evidence suggests the shots are causing immune deficiency in some people, thereby actually raising their risk of dying from SARS-CoV-2 infection, even with the now milder strains.

It’s important to understand that when you’re dealing with a risk that is but a fraction of a percent, the real-world hazard is so small it’s really pointless to worry about.

As a follow up to Ioannides’ new paper, Ivor Cummins, founder of TheFatEmperor.com, decided to review the real-world risk of dying from COVID-19 based on published data from the Irish census bureau and the central statistics office (CSO) for 2020 and 2021 (see video above10).

In other words, these data are based on actual deaths, not projections or estimates. He also compares it to the risk of suffering other causes of death, such as accidental poisoning or falling off a ladder. Here’s a summary of Cummins’ findings:

• Under 70 years of age (i.e., ages birth through 69), 600 out of 4.4 million (0.014%) died of COVID. This equates to a 1 in 7,500 risk of dying from COVID, or approximately the same as your risk of death from accidental poisoning

• In the 50 to 60 age group, 130 died out of 600,000 (0.022%), which equates to a 1 in 5,000 risk

• Under 50 years of age, 70 died out of 3,4 million (0.002%), which equates to a 1 in 50,000 risk, or about the same as dying from fire or smoke inhalation

• Under 25 years of age, fewer than five deaths were recorded in a population totaling 1.65 million. Since no number is specified, Cummins settled on three deaths to make his calculation, which gives us a mortality rate of 0.00018%. This equates to a 1 in 500,000 risk of dying from COVID if you’re under 25, or one-fourth the risk of dying from falling down stairs or off a ladder

Keep in mind that these deaths are not confirmed as being due to severe COVID infection. They’re people who died with a COVID positive PCR test, so the real-world risks are likely to be even lower if you’re healthy and have no comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes and preexisting heart disease.

In all, only 150 Irish people died from COVID during 2020 and 2021 who had no underlying health conditions contributing to their deaths, meaning they truly died from COVID and nothing else.

Cummins has also published a draft paper titled “Evidence For and Against the Effectiveness of Lockdown Policies.”11 He points out that during 2020 and 2021, there was massive PCR positivity across the Irish population, so lockdowns were NOT the reason for why the death toll was so low.

“People were testing positive in droves, even during lockdowns, yet very few were dying. The only reason that could be so is because the infection really wasn’t as lethal as they made it out to be.”

People were testing positive in droves, even during lockdowns, yet very few were dying. The only reason that could be so is because the infection really wasn’t as lethal as they made it out to be.

As of early May 2022, the official COVID death toll in the U.S. was reported as 1 million, and 4 out of 10 Americans polled claimed they knew someone who died of COVID.12 But did they really die from COVID? That is the question. There’s ample evidence suggesting the vast majority of so-called “COVID deaths” were of three main categories:

1. People who died of other causes but had a positive COVID test within the last month — There were all sorts of incentives to mark non-COVID deaths down as COVID, from hospitals getting paid extra for each COVID patient13 to families getting funeral expenses paid (up to $9,000) for deceased family members who died from or with COVID.14 15

2. COVID patients were killed by incorrect and lethal “standard of care” treatment for COVID — It started with routine use of ventilators, which was quickly recognized as killing rather than curing patients. According to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) whistleblowers, 84.9% of Texans who were placed on ventilators died within 96 hours.16 Yet the practice continues to this day.

   Then came routine use of remdesivir, a failed Ebola drug with extreme toxicity, and denying patients basic nutrition and fluids. There are countless horror stories of people who had no symptoms of COVID when entering the hospital but were placed on this death protocol simply because they tested positive on PCR, and subsequently died from the treatment.

   Attorney Thomas Renz has calculated17 that hospitals, at a minimum, are making $100,000 extra per COVID patient provided they do not deviate from the standard of care protocol, which includes lethal remdesivir and lethal ventilation, and bars the use of life-saving options like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, vitamin D or anything else shown to effectively treat the infection.

   In short, every patient who has tested positive has had a massive bounty on their head, and hospitals have cashed in by overtreating and mistreating patients. It’s been estimated that 75% to 80% of all COVID deaths could have been prevented had early treatment with successful protocols not been vilified or outright banned.18

3. COVID (when it did play a significant role) primarily took out those already close to death, either because of their age or poor state of health — For example, as detailed in “The Truth Is Coming Out About COVID Deaths,” the average age of death in the U.K. from COVID in 2021 was 82.5 years. Compare that to the projected life expectancy in the U.K., which is 79 for men and 82.9 for women.19

In closing, COVID-19 was never as dangerous as they made it out to be, and the virus has not gotten more lethal over time. It’s gotten milder. More infectious, yes, but milder, being near-indistinguishable to the common cold. So, please, if you’re still panicked about COVID, it’s time to stop. It’s safe to stop. It was a manufactured crisis from the start.

I encourage you to read Dr. Russell Blaylock’s article, “COVID Update: What Is the Truth?” published in the April 2022 issue of Surgical Neurology International. Here’s an extended excerpt from this excellent article in which he covers most if not all the basics:20

“The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies.

We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence …

Neither Anthony Fauci, the CDC, WHO nor any medical governmental establishment has ever offered any early treatment other than Tylenol, hydration and call an ambulance once you have difficulty breathing. This is unprecedented in the entire history of medical care as early treatment of infections is critical to saving lives and preventing severe complications.

Not only have these medical organizations and federal lapdogs not even suggested early treatment, they attacked anyone who attempted to initiate such treatment with all the weapons at their disposal — loss of license, removal of hospital privileges, shaming, destruction of reputations and even arrest …

Never in the history of American medicine have hospital administrators dictated to its physicians how they will practice medicine and what medications they can use.

The CDC has no authority to dictate to hospitals or doctors concerning medical treatments. Yet, most physicians complied without the slightest resistance … It should be an embarrassment to the medical profession that so many doctors mindlessly followed the deadly protocols.”

Blaylock continues addressing the only rational reasons for why hospitals were following clearly lethal protocols passed down from on-high by medically illiterate bureaucrats:

“The federal Care Act encouraged this human disaster by offering all US hospitals up to 39,000 dollars for each ICU patient they put on respirators, despite the fact that early on it was obvious that the respirators were a major cause of death …

In addition, the hospitals received 12,000 dollars for each patient that was admitted to the ICU — explaining, in my opinion and others, why all federal medical bureaucracies (CDC, FDA, NIAID, NIH, etc) did all in their power to prevent life-saving early treatments. Letting patients deteriorate to the point they needed hospitalization, meant big money for all hospitals …

It has been noted that billions in Federal COVID aid is being used by these hospital giants to acquire these financially endangered hospitals, further increasing the power of corporate medicine over physician independence …

One must also keep in mind that this event never satisfied the criteria for a pandemic. The World Health Organization changed the criteria to make this a pandemic …

The draconian measures established to contain this contrived ‘pandemic’ have never been shown to be successful, such as masking the public, lockdowns, and social distancing. A number of carefully done studies during previous flu seasons demonstrated that masks, of any kind, had never prevented the spread of the virus among the public …”

Blaylock also reviews how truth has been suppressed while falsehoods have flourished during these COVID years:

“The designers of this pandemic anticipated a pushback by the public and that major embarrassing questions would be asked. To prevent this, the controllers fed the media a number of tactics, one of the most commonly used was and is the ‘fact check’ scam …

When sources are in fact revealed they are invariably the corrupt CDC, WHO or Anthony Fauci or just their opinion. Here is a list of things that were labeled as ‘myths’ and ‘misinformation’ that were later proven to be true.

• The asymptomatic vaccinated are spreading the virus equally as with unvaccinated symptomatic infected.

• The vaccines cannot protect adequately against new variants, such as Delta and Omicron.

• Natural immunity is far superior to vaccine immunity and is most likely lifelong.

• Vaccine immunity not only wanes after several months, but all immune cells are impaired for prolonged periods, putting the vaccinated at a high risk of all infections and cancer.

• COVID vaccines can cause a significant incidence of blood clots and other serious side effects.

• The vaccine proponents will demand numerous boosters as each variant appears on the scene.

• Fauci will insist on the COVID vaccine for small children and even babies.

• Vaccine passports will be required to enter a business, fly in a plane, and use public transportation.

• There will be internment camps for the unvaccinated (as in Australia, Austria and Canada).

• The unvaccinated will be denied employment.

• There are secret agreements between the government, elitist institutions, and vaccine makers.

• Many hospitals were either empty or had low occupancy during the pandemic.

• The spike protein from the vaccine enters the nucleus of the cell, altering cell DNA repair function.

• Hundreds of thousands have been killed by the vaccines and many times more have been permanently damaged.

• Early treatment could have saved the lives of most … who died.

• Vaccine-induced myocarditis (which was denied initially) is a significant problem and clears over a short period.

• Special deadly lots (batches) of these vaccines are mixed with the mass of other COVID-19 vaccines.”

Blaylock goes on to review COVID jab hazards, evidence of “hot lots,” the unprecedented lack of autopsies being done on people who die shortly post-jab, Pfizer’s deceptive trial practices, the shameful vilification of useful drugs, going even so far as to fabricate studies to make them look deadly, the dangers of the COVID jab during pregnancy, the skyrocketing excess mortality post-jab and much more.

It’s a fairly long article, but well worth reading through for a summary of where we’ve been — and where we’re headed.

>”,”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.

• Dr. Meryl Nass, a board-certified internal medicine physician with special expertise in vaccine safety and vaccine mandates, is one of countless health care professionals who have been targeted for speaking out against the COVID-19 narrative

• January 12, 2021, the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine ordered the immediate suspension of Nass’ medical license, accusing her of spreading COVID-19 “misinformation” and ordering her to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation

• The suspension of her medical license was due to four complaints from strangers related to spreading “misinformation” online and prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine

• September 26, 2022, it withdrew six accusations that Nass was spreading misinformation; then, on September 30, 2022, it withdrew more factual allegations related to misinformation

• At an October 11, 2022, hearing to defend herself, Nass introduced 286 pages of emails and letters from her patients and others, attesting to her competency as a physician

Dr. Meryl Nass, a board-certified internal medicine physician with special expertise in vaccine safety and vaccine mandates, is one of countless health care professionals who have been targeted for speaking out against the COVID-19 narrative.

January 12, 2021, the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine ordered the immediate suspension of Nass’ medical license, accusing her of spreading COVID-19 “misinformation” and ordering her to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation conducted by a psychologist of the board’s choosing.1

In over 40 years of practice, Nass had never had a malpractice case or a board action against her — prior to this. Further, none of Nass’ patients issued any complaints. The suspension of her medical license was due to four complaints from strangers made to the Maine Board from October to December 2021. Two came from people who said they saw “misinformation” from Nass online.

The third came from a physician who reported Nass prescribing “deworming medication” — i.e., ivermectin. And the fourth complaint came from a midwife who reported Nass prescribing hydroxychloroquine.

Nass’ license was suspended immediately without a hearing, with the board implying that she was, according to Children’s Health Defense (CHD), “mentally impaired or a substance abuser and incompetent to practice medicine.”2 The board’s suspension order also accused Nass of spreading misinformation — a dangerous witch hunt because misinformation has no accepted definition.

What constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation” worthy of taking away a person’s medical license? It’s anyone’s guess, really. It could be anything. In Nass’ case, the board’s suspension order seemed to take issue with her statements about mandatory COVID-19 shots and concerns regarding boosters, vaccine passports and government surveillance. It stated, for instance:3

“On October 26, 2021, the Board received a complaint alleging that Dr. Nass was engaging in the public dissemination of “misinformation regarding the SARS CoV2 pandemic and the official public health response calling for vaccinations” via a video interview and on her website, and that the information that Dr. Nass was disseminating was a “danger to the public.”

Dr. Nass’s comments in the interview and on her website include, but are not limited to: a) she “did not intend to comply with masking and vaccine orders”; b) that the federal government “won’t let us find out” how many people are immune from less severe or asymptomatic COVID cases and the federal government has “basically prohibited the use of normal tests of immunity, normal antibody, T-cell tests, etc., or some pattern of those”, and “instead we all have to be vaccinated” and that “doesn’t make scientific or medical sense”.”

It should be noted that this type of affront is not unique to Maine. A California law — AB 2098 — also gives the state power to take away doctors’ medical licenses if they spread “misinformation” that goes against the standard COVID-19 rhetoric.

Specifically, those who “disseminate or promote misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” could be “disciplined,” which includes loss of their medical license.4

It’s akin to putting shackles on their wrists, forcing them to conform to a narrative intent on pushing dangerous gene therapies and ineffective medications. It’s also a potential warning of darker things to come. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor specializing in epidemiology and health policy at Stanford Medical School, who has also personally been the target of a smear campaign due to his beliefs about COVID-19, explained:5

“The language of the bill itself is intentionally vague about what constitutes ‘misinformation,’ which makes it even more damaging. Doctors, fearing loss of their livelihoods, will need to hew closely to the government line on Covid science and policy, even if that line does not track the scientific evidence.

After all, until recently, top government science bureaucrats like Dr. Fauci claimed that the idea that Covid came from a Wuhan laboratory was a conspiracy theory, rather than a valid hypothesis that should be open to discussion. The government’s track record on discerning Covid truths is poor.”

It’s not only in the U.S. that people are at risk of losing their careers for speaking their mind or sharing data that goes against the status quo. For instance, Dr. Sam Bailey of Christchurch, New Zealand, was a well-known presenter in a TVNZ health series called “The Checkup.” That is, until she was terminated for “spreading misinformation.”

We’re at the convoluted point where a medical doctor can give an opinion and have it labeled “misinformation,” but how can an opinion be “wrong”? The livelihoods and reputations of countless people have been decimated based on “misinformation” while we still don’t have answers to these questions.

Bailey cites the Cambridge Dictionary’s definition of misinformation, which is “wrong information, or the fact that people are misinformed.”6 This implies that there are either incorrect statements or the person is trying to deceive others. Governments, and the corporations associated with them, are the ones most often using the term misinformation, but Bailey notes:7

“… We know from history that governments, and their associated corporations, are specialists at gaslighting not only foreign countries but also their own citizens to do all sorts of crazy things. However now they expect us to believe that whistleblowers and individuals risking their careers are the ones behind the misinformation.”

People are also being censored, deplatformed and banned from social media for the crime of spreading misinformation, the meaning of which can change from day to day and from platform to platform.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security even lists promulgating “false narratives” around COVID-19 as a top national security threat, which basically puts a “domestic terrorist” target on the backs of those of us who have been identified as the most prolific “superspreaders” of COVID-19 misinformation, whatever that “misinformation” happens to be.

Curiously, in the days leading up to Nass’ October 11, 2022, hearing, the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine walked back some of its misinformation claims. September 26, 2022, it withdrew six accusations that Nass was spreading misinformation. Then, September 30, it withdrew more factual allegations related to misinformation.

By the time of the hearing, CHD, which is supporting Nass’ defense, noted, “The board has now dropped all charges regarding so-called ‘misinformation.’”8 In November 2021, before her license was suspended, Nass wrote to the board asking it to define “misinformation” and “disinformation” as well as requesting it clarify what authority it has to discipline physicians based on “undefined transgressions.”9

As noted by CHD president and general counsel Mary Holland, “The Board’s attempts to censor physicians like Nass have no role in medicine or science; they present a grave danger to the health and human rights of all Americans.”10

You can watch a video of Nass’ October 11 hearing in the video above, which includes expert testimony on Nass’ behalf from Professor Emeritus in epidemiology at Yale Dr. Harvey Risch; pulmonary and critical care specialist Dr. Paul Marik; inventor of mRNA vaccine technology Dr. Robert Malone; intensive care specialist Dr. Pierre Kory; and surgeon Dr. Steven Katsis, who is with the Oklahoma Medical Board.11

The prosecution focused on Nass’ prescribing of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, as well as petty record-keeping issues that CHD noted are “well within the standard of care.”12 As CHD reported:13

“Nass’s Maine counsel, Gene Libby and Tyler Smith, have moved to dismiss all charges and asked the Board to apologize to her for its unfounded case intended only to silence Nass and like-minded physicians who used effective early treatments for COVID-19 — as opposed to no treatment at all until patients were hospitalized.”

During the hearing, which was about four hours long and viewed more than 180,000 times around the world,14 Nass introduced 286 pages of emails and letters from her patients and others, attesting to her competency as a physician.15 Further, in the opening statement it’s stated:16

“Dr. Nass is facing discipline only because she exercised her free speech rights against what Thomas Jefferson called ‘the civil authority.’ Dr. Nass has practiced medicine 42 years without a patient complaint. She stands before you today without a patient complaint …

Dr. Nass is here only because she criticized the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines distributed and promoted by the Federal and State government. Indeed, her patients love and respect her. Dr. Nass is revered among her patients …

Dr. Nass is before you because she was caught up in a political cauldron that could not accept dissenting voices and attempted to vilify and discredit physicians who did not adopt the government narrative that mRNA vaccines were safe and effective.”

Overall Nass felt the hearing “went very well,” and she was glad to finally get to share her side of the case. In an update on the hearing, Nass explained:17

“The first 2.5 hours I was questioned by an assistant attorney general to try and set up a case based on minutiae such as failing to obtain a signed informed consent before writing a prescription and false claims, such as that I had not recommended ER/inpatient care to the patients when it was needed. None of the claims were accurate.

The last 1.5 hours include my attorney questioning me about my background, and establishing some of the impediments placed in the way of honest physicians who wanted to effectively treat COVID by the medical board, the governor and the health department. This is the more interesting part of the day.”

When the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine first threatened to suspend Nass’ license, they gave her a choice. Place her medical license in inactive status or face disciplinary action. She chose the latter because, as she stated at the hearing, she wanted to clear her name and stop these unjust attacks, which are also happening to hundreds of other health care professionals.

In other words, she’s not giving up without a fight. Toward that end, Nass has created a pledge to restore the U.S. and its values,18 which will roll out soon and provide a way to speak out against the injustice of vaccine mandates, propaganda and censorship that’s run rampant since March 2020. She explained:19

“What we have to do is redo the emergency laws in the U.S., and I’ve suggested a pledge that we can ask people and candidates to take that will cause legislatures to review emergency rules.

So when an emergency is declared, you only get it for two weeks, if you’re a governor or a secretary of health or the president, and then by the end of two weeks the legislature or the Congress has to convene and hold hearings on whether they’re still in an emergency and whether they’ve done the right things for that emergency.

The pledge also asks for mandates to be lifted. It’s against U.S. law to mandate experimental products and everything under EUA is an investigational, experimental product. I’m happy for anyone to be vaccinated or wear masks who wants to, but there should be no mandates for those products.”

The pledge also asks to end censorship, the restriction of communication between people, the propagandizing by government and private enterprises and the collusion between government and social media, as well as to ban gain-of-function research, which likely contributed to the creation of SARS-CoV-2 in the first place.

“The founders paid, in blood, for the freedoms we have,” Nass said. “And we have a lot of freedoms enshrined in law, but they’ve been taken from us under the guise of a pandemic. Now we have to fight with everything we’ve got to get them back before they’re gone forever.”20

>”,”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.

• Tea tree oil is not only a useful natural remedy for warts and cold sores, but it also has at least 25 other beneficial health and household applications

• Due to its strong antifungal, antimicrobial and antiviral properties, tea tree oil is effective in clearing up dermatitis, jock itch, nail fungus and other skin conditions

• Tea tree oil is also useful as a household cleaner and laundry agent

• You might want to try using tea tree oil as an insect repellant or to treat mosquito bites or head lice

• While tea tree oil is generally safe for topical application, never use it orally; avoid swallowing any homemade preparations made with tea tree oil

Tea tree oil is considered to be one of the most versatile essential oils. While it has a long history of use for the treatment of skin conditions and wounds, you may appreciate this pungent oil most when you have an unsightly cold sore or bothersome wart. Given its many uses for health and home, I highly recommend tea tree oil.

Tea tree oil, also known as melaleuca oil, is extracted from the leaves of the tea tree plant (Melaleuca alternifolia), a member of the myrtle tree family, which is native to Australia and New Zealand. The name was coined by British explorer Capt. James Cook in the 1770s when he saw native Australians brewing tea using leaves from the tree.1

The tea tree was highly prized by primitive Australian communities for its unique healing ability. With regard to some of tea tree’s uses, The Australian Tea Tree Industry Association states:2

“The indigenous Bundjalung people of eastern Australia are believed to have used tea trees as a traditional medicine for many years in a variety of ways, including inhaling the oil from the crushed leaves to treat coughs and colds and applying the leaves on wounds as a poultice, as well as brewing an infusion of the leaves to make a tea for [the] treatment of sore throats, or applying [it] on the skin for minor wounds, abrasions and insect bites and stings.”

It was only in the 1920s and 1930s that tea tree oil’s medicinal properties became more widely known, thanks to the efforts of researcher Arthur Penfold, an Australian state government chemist, who published a series of papers on the oil’s antimicrobial properties.3 He rated it as 11 times more active than phenol. The author of a 2012 review on tea tree oil stated:4

“The commercial tea tree oil industry was born after the medicinal properties of the oil were first reported by Penfold. Production ebbed after World War II, as demand for the oil declined, presumably due to the development of effective antibiotics and the waning image of natural products.

Interest in the oil was rekindled in the 1970s as part of the general renaissance of interest in natural products. Commercial plantations were established in the 1970s and 1980s, which led to mechanization and large-scale production of a consistent essential oil product.”

Tea tree oil contains more than 100 components, but it is mostly made up of terpene hydrocarbons: monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes and their alcohols.5 Through modern distillation methods, manufacturers are able to produce tea tree oil with a clear to very pale golden or yellow color, and a camphor-like scent.6

Authors of lab-based experiments performed by a research arm of the Australian government found tea tree oil to be effective in the treatment of cold sores. They concluded:7

“TTO (tea tree oil) may be a potentially useful alternative treatment for cold sores which is relatively inexpensive, acceptable to patients and which does not have the capacity to induce resistance to systemic antiviral agents. A larger study is required to further evaluate TTO as a topical treatment for RHL [recurrent herpes labialis, also known as cold sores].”

Research published in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy8 indicates tea tree oil has shown broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity in vitro, including activity against herpes simplex virus (HSV), the etiological agent of RHL. In this research, patients aged 18 to 70 years participated in a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

Participants presented as soon as possible after onset of a cold sore outbreak and were randomized to receive either 6% tea tree oil in an aqueous gel base or a placebo gel, both of which were applied five times daily. The median time to re-epithelialization after treatment with tea tree oil was nine days, compared with 12.5 days for the placebo group.

The study authors stated, “Tea tree oil may be a potentially useful cheaper alternative, acceptable to patients and which poses little threat of inducing resistance to systemic antiviral agents.”9

A study published in the journal Microbiology and Immunology10 evaluated the impact of 12 essential oils, including tea tree oil, on HSV type-1 (HSV-1) in vitro. The researchers noted tea tree oil had previously been shown to have antiviral activity against HSV-1 and HSV-2, along with eucalyptus essential oil. They said:11

“It is well-known that TTO has strong antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal activity. The antiviral activity of tea tree against HSV-1 and -2 has been reported; however, the results in the present study demonstrated that because tea tree possessed antiviral activity against HSV-1 at a concentration of 1%, but not at a concentration of 0.1%, lemongrass showed the stronger antiviral activity than tea tree.”

As you can see, when it comes to treating cold sores, you have more than one option when applying essential oils. The good news is, if you have a sensitivity to tea tree oil, you might also try either eucalyptus essential oil or lemongrass essential oil. The video above provides a couple of additional ideas on how to treat cold sores naturally.

Warts come in all shapes and sizes, and tea tree oil has been shown to be effective in treating warts found on the genitals, hands and feet. The treatment for each type of wart is similar: Simply apply one drop of tea tree oil to a cotton ball and press it over the wart.

If desired, you can apply a bandage or piece of tape over the cotton ball to keep it in place. Clean the area well and repeat the oil treatment daily until the wart disappears — usually in one to four weeks. Alternately, you can apply a drop of tea tree oil directly to the affected area once daily until the condition improves.

Research published in the journal Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice12 highlights the successful topical treatment of hand warts for pediatric patients using tea tree oil.

The oil was applied directly to the lesions once a day for 12 days. The study authors commented, “The case highlights the potential use of tea tree oil in the treatment of common warts due to human papilloma virus.”13

Tea tree oil has been long valued for its antifungal, antibacterial and antiviral properties. It was first used in dentistry and surgery to help clean wounds and prevent infections in the 1920s and during World War II to treat skin injuries suffered by people working in munition factories.14

More recently, tea tree oil has been added to lotions, shampoos and soaps. Below are 25 anecdotal uses for this versatile oil:15 16

• Acne treatment — Add a drop of this oil to your normal cleansing routine or dab a very small amount on acne breakouts to soothe and disinfect the area

• All-purpose cleaner and disinfectant — Add one drop of this oil to a cup of water and put it in a spray bottle for use as an all-purpose natural cleaner in your bathroom and kitchen; works well on most surfaces, including ceramic, linoleum, porcelain and stone

• Bad breath — Add one drop of oil to 1 ounce of water and use as a gargle; do not swallow!

• Bladder infection — Mix 10 to 15 drops of tea tree oil into 1 cup of Epsom salts and add to a shallow bath; soak for 10 minutes and then wash the area well with soap and water

• Boils — Wet and apply a warm washcloth for a few minutes and then apply a drop or two of tea tree oil to the area, which should cause the infection to surface and be released

• Bronchitis — Use for steam inhalation by adding 1 to 2 drops of tea tree oil to a pot of boiled water or massage the oil directly over your chest

• Dandruff — Add 20 to 30 drops of tea tree oil to your regular shampoo or massage a few drops directly into your scalp after washing

• Dermatitis — Add 10 drops of oil to 1 tablespoon of a carrier oil and massage into the affected areas two to three times a day until the condition improves

• Gout — Add 10 drops of tea tree oil to 2 tablespoons of a carrier oil and massage into the affected area two to three times a day

• Head lice — Add 20 drops of oil to 2 tablespoons of shampoo and massage into your scalp and hair; leave on for 10 minutes and then rinse. Repeat three to four times a day until the eggs are gone.

• Immune booster — Add a few drops of tea tree oil to a diffuser and diffuse it into the air or apply 1 to 2 drops to the bottoms of your feet and massage into the skin

• Inflammation — Massage over any inflamed areas using gentle, gliding strokes directed toward your heart

• Jock itch — Apply 10 to 15 drops of tea tree oil to 2 tablespoons of a carrier oil and apply to affected area twice daily; dust with cornstarch to reduce chafing

• Laundry freshener — Adding a few drops of tea tree oil during the wash cycle will not only make your laundry smell fresher, but will also kill organisms lurking in your washer

• Mosquito bites — Apply one drop of oil directly to bites and repeat daily as needed

• Muscle aches and pains — Add 10 to 15 drops of oil to one-half cup Epsom salts, and dissolve in bath. Add 10 drops of oil to 2 tablespoons of carrier oil. Massage well.

• Natural pest control — The strong smell of tea tree oil naturally repels ants and other insects, as well as moths. Make a natural insect repellent by mixing a few drops of tea tree oil with coconut oil or put cotton balls soaked in tea tree oil in bins of stored clothing

• Sinusitis — Use as directed for bronchitis or use as a sinus rinse by adding two drops to a neti pot

• Sports equipment deodorizer — Remove funky smells and bacteria from sports gear by spritzing it with the same spray formulation noted above for all-purpose cleaning and disinfecting

• Stain remover — Mix a couple drops of tea tree oil with salt or baking soda to create a gentle abrasive cleaner that is great for removing stubborn stains

• Sunburn — Mix one drop of tea tree oil with 1 tablespoon of coconut oil and one drop of lavender; gently apply to sunburn-affected areas at least twice a day

• Tattoos — Apply a few drops of tea tree oil directly to newly applied tattoos to prevent infection, or mix with a carrier oil first and then apply

• Toenail fungus — Add one to two drops of tea tree oil directly to the affected nail and surrounding tissue; repeat morning and evening until the condition improves

• Toothbrush cleaner — Use one drop to disinfect your toothbrush, a known breeding ground for mold and bacteria

• Wound care — For minor cuts and abrasions, clean the area well and then apply a few drops of the oil directly to the affected area; use the same treatment for blisters

Undiluted tea tree oil has been known to cause skin irritation in some people, but the risk is considered low.

Authors of a 2003 study,17 involving 311 participants treated with undiluted and diluted formulations of tea tree oil, said, “Topical application of tea tree oil is associated with negligible skin irritancy. In the group of subjects studied, the risk of developing an allergic dermatitis from topical tea tree oil usage was found to be less than 1%.”18

That said, they also noted three subjects developed a grade 3 skin reaction when tea tree oil was applied, which is suggestive of an allergic reaction. As with all essential oils, I recommend you perform a patch test as a first step to determining if your body may have a sensitivity to tea tree oil.

Simply apply one drop to the underside of your forearm and wait 24 hours. If your skin breaks out or you have other unexplained symptoms, do not use the oil. Keep in mind that tea tree oil can be toxic when ingested in larger amounts so never use this oil orally, and do not swallow any homemade preparations containing tea tree oil.

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.