Paxlovid Is a Fraud, When Will It Be Taken Off the Market?

  • Paxlovid, which was granted emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in December 2021, has become widely associated with rebound infection

  • While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Pfizer have tried to suggest that COVID rebound is spontaneous and not necessarily linked to Paxlovid, recent research found no rebound cases among COVID-19 patients who did not take Paxlovid

  • People who take Paxlovid can also still transmit COVID-19 to others, even if they’re asymptomatic

  • A number of high-profile individuals have experienced COVID rebound after using Paxlovid, including “The Late Show” host Stephen Colbert, comedian Jimmy Dore, Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden, First Lady Jill Biden and CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. Most were double-jabbed and double-boosted. Walensky actually had three boosters

  • Emerging evidence also suggests SARS-CoV-2 can develop resistance to Paxlovid. Two separate studies cultured SARS-CoV-2 and exposed it to low levels of nirmatrelvir — the active antiviral ingredient in Paxlovid — which would kill some, but not all, of the virus. As a result, the virus became 20 times and 80 times less susceptible to the drug, respectively

Visit Mercola Market


So far, all of the drugs developed against COVID-19 have been disastrous in one way or another. Remdesivir, for example, which to this day is the primary COVID drug approved for use in U.S. hospitals,1 routinely causes severe organ damage2 3 4 5 and, often, death.

Another notable one is Paxlovid, which was granted emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in December 2021.6 While not showing signs of being deadly like remdesivir, Paxlovid has become so widely associated with rebound infection that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has even issued a warning about it. According to the CDC’s health advisory:7

“Recent case reports document that some patients with normal immune response who have completed a 5-day course of Paxlovid for laboratory-confirmed infection and have recovered can experience recurrent illness 2 to 8 days later, including patients who have been vaccinated and/or boosted.”

The CDC8 and Pfizer9 have suggested that sometimes COVID-19 naturally comes back after a person tests negative, implying that COVID-19 rebound is spontaneous and not necessarily linked to Paxlovid. However, research10 by Dr. Michael Charness of the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Boston refutes this notion.

When Charness and colleagues analyzed 1,000 cases of COVID-19 diagnosed among members of the National Basketball Association — none of whom took Paxlovid — no cases of COVID-19 rebound were found.11 They also found that people who take Paxlovid can still transmit COVID-19 to others, even if they’re asymptomatic. Charness told CNN:12

“People who experience rebound are at risk of transmitting to other people, even though they’re outside what people accept as the usual window for being able to transmit.”

While Paxlovid-induced rebound of COVID is clearly widespread, health authorities insist the effect is “rare.”13 Pfizer’s clinical trial had a 1% to 2% rebound rate. White House COVID response coordinator, Dr. Ashish Jha, put the rebound rate at 5% in real-life settings.

“If you look at Twitter, it feels like everybody has rebound,” Jha said during a White House press conference in July 2022. “But it turns out there’s actually clinical data.”14

In one such study,15 5.87% of the 13,600 patients experienced rebound of symptoms within a month of the treatment. Dr. Aditya Shah, an infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic, thinks the rebound rate may be as high as 10%.16

But if those rebound statistics were actually true, how does one explain the fact that so many high-profile celebrities and government officials who have used it have ended up rebounding? Statistically, that seems rather incredible.

For example, in April 2022, the fully jabbed and boosted “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert got COVID, took Paxlovid and recovered, only to suffer a rebound a week later. Tweeting about his experience, Colbert referred to it as the “WORST. SEQUEL. EVER.”17 Comedian Jimmy Dore also experienced COVID-19 rebound after taking Paxlovid.18

Dr. Anthony Fauci got COVID in June 2022 — again despite being double-jabbed and double-boosted — and proudly shared that he took Paxlovid. Immediately after the five-day treatment, he tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Alas, three days after that, he not only tested positive again but all the symptoms of infection also returned, and they were more severe than the first time around.19 20

Fauci described his rebound in an interview: “Over the next day or so I started to feel really poorly, much worse than in the first go around. I went back on Paxlovid, and right now I am on my fourth day of a five-day course of my second course of Paxlovid. Fortunately, I feel reasonably good. I mean, I’m not completely without symptoms, but I certainly don’t feel acutely ill.”21

At the end of July 2022, it was President Joe Biden’s turn to announce he had COVID, despite being double-jabbed and double-boosted — something Biden had previously insisted could not happen (see video above). He too took Paxlovid and, like Fauci, ended up rebounding around Day 3, just as I predicted on Twitter.22 Unlike Fauci, however, he reportedly didn’t have any symptoms.23

In mid-August 2022, the double-jabbed, double-boosted First Lady, Jill Biden, came down with COVID,24 took Paxlovid and, like clockwork, rebounded a few days after finishing the treatment and initially testing negative.25

Toward the end of October 2022, double-jabbed and TRIPLE-boosted Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, got COVID. She’d received her fifth shot — the latest bivalent booster that has only been tested on mice — on September 22.26

Exactly one month later, she tested positive and reported mild symptoms.27 28 I think that makes the “new and improved” bivalent booster the shortest-acting shot so far. Anyway, Paxlovid to the rescue once again. And once again, it caused rebound. After initially testing negative after the treatment, she tested positive a couple of days later as symptoms returned.29

At the end of April 2022, Bloomberg described the post-Paxlovid rebound of David Ho, a virologist at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia University:30

“Ho said he came down with COVID on April 6 … His doctor prescribed Paxlovid, and within days of taking it, his symptoms dissipated and tests turned negative. But 10 days after first getting sick, the symptoms returned and his tests turned positive for another two days.

Ho said he sequenced his own virus and found that both infections were from the same strain, confirming that the virus had not mutated and become resistant to Paxlovid. A second family member who also got sick around the same time also had post-Paxlovid rebound in symptoms and virus, Ho says.

‘It surprised the heck out of me,’ he said. ‘Up until that point I had not heard of such cases elsewhere.’ While the reasons for the rebound are still unclear, Ho theorizes that it may occur when a small proportion of virus-infected cells may remain viable and resume pumping out viral progeny once treatment stops.”

Clinical Director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Dr. Paul Sax, told Bloomberg:31

“Providers who are going to be prescribing this should be aware that this phenomenon occurs, and if people have symptoms worsening after Paxlovid, it’s probably still COVID. The big problem is that when this drug was released, this information wasn’t included [on the label].”

Research published in Clinical Infectious Diseases32 33 looked into why Paxlovid may be leading to rebound symptoms and suggests it could be the result of insufficient exposure to the drug. Possibly, the drug is metabolized more rapidly in some individuals. Alternatively, perhaps the drug needs to be administered for a longer period of time.

Emerging evidence also suggests SARS-CoV-2 can develop resistance to Paxlovid if the drug doesn’t eradicate all of the virus the first time around. Two separate studies cultured SARS-CoV-2 in a lab and exposed it to low levels of nirmatrelvir — the active antiviral ingredient in Paxlovid — which would kill some, but not all, of the virus.

“Such tests are meant to simulate what might happen in an infected person who doesn’t take the whole regimen of the drug or an immunocompromised patient who has trouble clearing the virus,” Science reported.34

One of the studies revealed that SARS-CoV-2 developed three mutations after 12 rounds of nirmatrelvir treatment — “at positions 50, 166 and 167 in the string of amino acids that make up MPRO.”35 The mutations amounted to a 20-fold reduction in the virus’ susceptibility to nirmatrelvir.36

The other study37 also found mutations at positions 50 and 166, revealing that when they occurred together, SARS-CoV-2 became 80 times less susceptible to nirmatrelvir. According to the authors:38

“Reverse genetic studies in a homologous infectious cell culture system revealed up to 80-fold resistance conferred by the combination of substitutions L50F and E166V. Resistant variants had high fitness increasing the likelihood of occurrence and spread of resistance.”

It’s still unknown what might happen when two courses of Paxlovid are taken in quick succession to treat COVID-19 rebound — as occurred with Fauci. It’s possible that ever-mutating COVID-19 variants could be created.

Other antivirals on the market to treat COVID-19 have also led to concerns about drug resistance. Molnupiravir (sold under the brand name Lagevrio), approved by the FDA for emergency use in high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID symptoms, has been shown to supercharge the rate at which the virus mutates inside the patient, resulting in newer and more drug resistant variants.39

pfizer to make $54 billion off treating covid over and over

Pfizer’s revenue is expected to reach $101.3 billion in 2022,40 thanks to the COVID jab and Paxlovid ($10 billion from Paxlovid alone) — both of which are frauds. Neither of them actually work as advertised, and both can make matters worse. In the case of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot, you can still get the disease once you’ve been injected and boosted, and may still transmit the disease to others as well.

Then, when the shots don’t work to prevent infection — and we’ve now seen even five doses won’t prevent infection — Pfizer makes even more money by selling Paxlovid, which in many cases causes rebound! There can be only one reason for why the FDA has not withdrawn both of these drugs, and that is because they’re actually working for Pfizer.

“Immunocompromised patients ‘may carry this virus for a very, very long time, and we see that area as a real new opportunity growth area for Paxlovid to do very well, where you may need to take multiple courses.’” ~ Dr. Mikael Dolsten, chief scientist and president of Worldwide Research and Development at Pfizer

Pfizer itself doesn’t view COVID rebound after Paxlovid treatment as a failure; they see it as a successful venture because the more courses needed, the more money they make. As reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in early July 2022:41

“During a recent investor call, a Pfizer official could spin the recent reports that the virus can hide from Paxlovid into good news, predicting that, as with the vaccine, patients may need multiple courses.

Immunocompromised patients ‘may carry this virus for a very, very long time,’ Dr. Mikael Dolsten [chief scientist and President of Worldwide Research and Development at Pfizer42] said in the investor call. ‘And we see that area as a real new opportunity growth area for Paxlovid to do very well, where you may need to take multiple courses.’”

Pushing a drug that causes COVID rebound does not appear to be in the best interest of public health. Paxlovid is a fraud and should be taken off the market. The fact that the FDA and CDC have focused on Paxlovid, remdesivir and molnupiravir to the exclusion of all others, including older drugs with high rates of effectiveness and superior safety profiles, sends a very disturbing message.

They’ve basically become extensions of the drug industry and have abandoned their original purpose, which is to protect public health — by ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, in the case of the FDA,43 and by conducting critical science and data analysis in the case of the CDC.44

Instead, they seem to be doing everything they can to protect Big Pharma profits, even if it costs you your life. Remdesivir, for example, costs between $2,340 and $3,120 depending on your insurance.45 Ivermectin, meanwhile — which has been very effective against COVID and shown to outperform at least 10 other drugs, including Paxlovid46 — costs between $4847 and $9448 for 20 pills depending on your location. The average cost is said to be about $58 per treatment.49

Paxlovid costs $529 per five-day course of treatment,50 and molnupiravir is around $700.51 While not quite as expensive as remdesivir, both are still nearly 10 times costlier than ivermectin, which is more effective. Imagine the billions of dollars we could have saved were it not for our health agencies being so compromised by industry.

Since the FDA and CDC cannot be trusted, it’s imperative to take responsibility for your own health. Do your own research and follow your own conscience and conviction. Remember, when it comes to COVID-19, early treatment is crucial, and effective protocols are readily available — just not from the FDA, CDC or even most hospitals.

For a refresher, check out Dr. Pierre Kory’s interview with Chris Martenson. You can also find many other articles describing treatment protocols by searching through my Substack archive.

>”,”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.

How Birds in Nature Can Improve Our Mental Health

how birds can improve mental health

  • Hearing birdsongs may yield lasting mental health benefits that last up to eight hours

  • Significant improvements were reported in the mental well-being of people with and without depression upon seeing a bird or hearing birdsongs compared to not seeing or hearing a bird

  • Separate research found birdsongs and calls were the natural sounds most often associated with stress recovery and attention restoration

  • In a study of the perceived restorative benefits of wetland paths in China, the presence of singing birds significantly enhanced the experience

  • Humans are designed to be connected to their natural environment, and when this connection is severed, as is so common in the modern world, physical, emotional and mental health suffers

  • According to data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, 13.5% of bird species are threatened with global extinction, 4% of which are endangered and 2% that are critically endangered

Visit Mercola Market


The melodic sound of birds chirping brings a smile to many people’s faces. It turns out these sweet melodies may yield lasting mental health benefits, according to research from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN) at King’s College London1 — highlighting not only the importance of nature for human health but also the importance of protecting bird species around the globe.

It’s revealing that in the U.K. more than 1.3 million people belong to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which is more than the members of all the country’s political parties combined.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., birdwatching is a favorite hobby for more than 70 million people,2 and birders can be found worldwide, making a habit of seeking out different bird species whenever they can. The study reveals, however, that interactions with birds in your everyday life may be enough to compel lasting change to your mood.

The study took place between April 2018 and October 2021. It involved 1,292 participants primarily from the U.K., the European Union and the U.S. A cellphone app called Urban Mind was used to collect real-time reports of participants’ mood and environment.

Specifically, the app asked participants three times a day whether they could see or hear birds, along with posing questions about their mental well-being. Participants were also asked about whether they could see trees or plants or hear water to determine if those natural elements could be accounting for any mood benefits.3

Information was also collected regarding diagnoses of mental health conditions such as depression. During the study period, 26,856 assessments were completed using the Urban Mind app.4 Significant improvements were reported in the mental well-being of people with and without depression upon seeing a bird or hearing birdsongs compared to not seeing or hearing a bird.5

The positive benefits to mood lasted until the next app message, or up to eight hours.6 “That was something that quite hit home that it’s not just an immediate effect,” the study’s lead author, Ryan Hammoud, research assistant at IoPPN, said.7 Hammoud continued in a news release:8

“There is growing evidence on the mental health benefits of being around nature and we intuitively think that the presence of birdsong and birds would help lift our mood. However, there is little research that has actually investigated the impact of birds on mental health in real-time and in a real environment.

By using the Urban Mind app we have for the first time showed the direct link between seeing or hearing birds and positive mood. We hope this evidence can demonstrate the importance of protecting and providing environments to encourage birds, not only for biodiversity but for our mental health.”

Encounters with birds involve both sight and sound, providing complex, multisensory experiences. In 2013, researchers with the University of Surrey’s School of Psychology explored reasons for the restorative perceptions of bird sounds, nothing that natural environments are typically regarded as restorative following stress.9

Using semi-structured interviews with 20 adults, they found birdsongs and calls, specifically, were the natural sounds most often associated with stress recovery and attention restoration. Songs from different bird species offered varying levels of perceived restorative value, however.

In 2018, the researchers conducted another study to find out why certain bird sounds, but not others, were associated with restoration.10 Perceived familiarity, complexity and pattern, along with sound level, harmonics and frequency, were all involved in how stress-relieving certain bird sounds turned out to be.

Further, while spending time in natural areas is considered important for mental restoration, the presence of birdsongs appears to enhance the mental benefits. In a study of the perceived restorative benefits of wetland paths in China, the presence of singing birds significantly enhanced the experience.

“The results show that soundscapes can significantly improve perceived recovery benefits, and that hearing birdsongs can significantly improve the perceived restorative benefits of wetland paths,” the study, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, noted.11

While past studies on birds’ benefits to mental health relied on the recollection of past experiences, the featured study reduces the changes of recall bias by collecting data in real-time via the Urban Mind app. Senior author Andrea Mechelli, professor of early intervention in mental health at IoPPN, explained:12

“The term ecosystem services is often used to describe the benefits of certain aspects of the natural environment on our physical and mental health. However, it can be difficult to prove these benefits scientifically. Our study provides an evidence base for creating and supporting biodiverse spaces that harbor birdlife, since this is strongly linked with our mental health.

In addition, the findings support the implementation of measures to increase opportunities for people to come across birdlife, particularly for those living with mental health conditions such as depression.”

Research partner Jo Gibbons, a landscape architect, added:13

“Who hasn’t tuned into the melodic complexities of the dawn chorus early on a spring morning? A multisensory experience that seems to enrich everyday life, whatever our mood or whereabouts. This exciting research underpins just how much the sight and sound of birdsong lifts the spirits.

It captures intriguing evidence that a biodiverse environment is restorative in terms of mental wellbeing. That the sensual stimulation of birdsong, part of those daily ‘doses’ of nature, is precious and time-lasting.”

Birds are often seen and heard in the backdrop of the great outdoors. Perhaps not surprisingly, the positive effects of birds on mental well-being were more pronounced when people were outside. However, even when seeing trees, plants and water was taken into account, birdsongs still mattered, “providing support to a specific benefit of bird life on mental well-being, above and beyond the well-established effect of green spaces.”14

That said, there’s little doubt that time spent in nature — be it green spaces like forest preserves and parks or blue spaces like rivers, lakes, beaches and coastal areas — offers significant benefits to well-being. Increasingly, it’s being recognized that both green and blue spaces are important.

Though they share characteristics like cooling effects and exposure to biodiversity, they’re also unique. Blue spaces, for instance, offer unique opportunities for recreation, such as swimming, and offer different soundscapes — like water sounds — than green spaces.15 Using data from 18 countries, a team of researchers revealed that the best mental health benefits may come from exposure to multiple types of natural spaces.

For instance, visiting green spaces, inland blue spaces or coastal blue spaces in the last four weeks was positively associated with well-being and negatively associated with mental distress. Nature connectedness, or feeling psychologically connected to the natural world, was similarly associated with mental well-being and was additionally linked to a lower likelihood of using medication for depression.16

In separate research, older adults who had access to parks had better physical and psychological health, while blue space users also reported better health.17

Humans are designed to be connected to their natural environment, and when this connection is severed, as is so common in the modern world, physical, emotional and mental health suffers. It’s noted in Proceedings of the Royal Society B:18

“Humans in developed countries spend much of their time indoors and in urban landscapes that bear little resemblance to the environment in which our species evolved. For example, a large survey based in the USA suggested that a typical citizen spends 87% of their time indoors and an additional 6% of their time in vehicles.

Living almost entirely apart from nature can lead to an overall disconnection from nature that has negative consequences for environmental conservation and can deprive individuals of the health and well-being benefits that nature provides.”

That study also found a unique connection to birdsongs. Hikers exposed to a “phantom birdsong chorus,” which consisted of hidden speakers that played a variety of birdsongs on two trails, reported higher levels of restorative effects.19 They suggested that maintaining and improving natural soundscapes in protected areas may be one way to maximize humans’ time spent in nature.

Indeed, nature deficits are on the rise due to increasingly urbanized lifestyles, which generally include access to fewer natural spaces, lots of screen time and increased pressure from work and school, which leads to more time spent indoors and less leisure time in general, as well as less leisure time spent outdoors.

The term “nature deficit disorder” was coined by journalist Richard Louv, author of “Last Child in the Woods.”20 It’s not an actual psychological diagnosis but rather a term used to describe a lifestyle deficit that contributes to poor psychological and physical health. Louv suggested that humans’ alienation from nature led to “diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties and higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses.”21

Attending outdoor camp has been suggested as one way for children to gain crucial time in the outdoors, and one study found significant benefits when young adults attended a four-week wilderness camp.22 In addition to sense of place and nature connection improving, the participants felt that the wilderness environment facilitated social connections, and they experienced significantly improved well-being, including benefits to:23

  • Perceived stress

  • Relaxation

  • Positive and negative emotions

  • Sense of wholeness

  • Transcendence

It’s being increasingly recognized that spending time in nature encompasses senses including sight, smell and sound. Natural sounds enhance the natural experience. Birdsongs, in particular, may be appreciated by humans because birds have been around throughout evolution. Singing birds are also often heard in spring and summer, indicating forthcoming or current pleasant weather.24

Birds also play a vital role globally, helping to pollinate plants and disperse seeds while acting as both scavengers and predators. But North American birds are in peril with 29% of U.S. and Canadian bird populations having been lost since 1970. In a 2019 finding researchers called “staggering,”25 ornithologists analyzed decades of data from multiple and independent monitoring networks to estimate bird populations.26

They found a net loss of 2.9 billion birds occurred over the last 48 years,27 including not only rare species but also common birds at backyard feeders, such as sparrows, warblers, finches and blackbirds.28

Further, according to data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, 13.5% of bird species are threatened with global extinction, 4% of which are endangered and 2% that are critically endangered.29 What’s causing the declines? According to the featured study:30

“The reasons for this decline are complex. In rural areas, agricultural intensification and farming with chemicals are causing habitat loss and the disappearance of insects that feed birds; whereas in urban areas, bird population is falling due to a combination of trends including shortages of food, habitat loss, increase in diseases such as avian malaria and raising levels of air pollution.”

The massive loss of birds mirrors similar declines in other creatures, like insects, and is a wake-up call that shows the future of the Rockefeller Foundation-funded Green Revolution looks very dark — unless changes are urgently made.

The light at the end of the tunnel is regenerative agriculture, which is a savior to birds, insects and other species worldwide. The best course of action to reduce the harm industrial agriculture and habitat loss is having on birds is to support biodynamic, grass fed farms that are conserving diversity and not relying on synthetic chemicals and other intensive agriculture practices that harm birds and other wildlife.

Considering birds’ immense value to humans’ well-being, the featured study researchers explained, policy changes are in order to encourage not only protection of birds and the environment but also the “prescription” of time in nature:31

“Our investigation provides support to the introduction of environmental and wildlife protection policies which encourage biodiverse habitats in urban, suburban and rural areas (e.g., permaculture farming, wilding initiatives, hedgerow and meadow enhancement, urban forestry).

Second, the findings have implications for mental healthcare policy. In recent years social prescribing of nature-based activities, also known as ‘green prescribing,’ has become increasingly popular to support individuals with mental illness including depression. Our investigation supports the notion that visits to habitats with a high degree of birdlife, such as parks and canals, may be encouraged as part of green prescribing efforts.”

>”,”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.

Was the real winner the voting machines? The AI? The algorithms?

Surveys and exit polls showed Americans strongly disagreed with Democrats on key issues; but the contest apparently is going to the Democrats.

I’m waiting to post this piece. It’s 5:48 Wednesday morning. There is no overwhelming red wave. The Dems could take both the House and the Senate.

In an emblematic PA race, incoherent stroke victim John Fetterman has been declared the winner of a US Senate seat. Voting machines? The Dem base just keeping their heads down and casting ballots for the Party no matter what? A sympathy vote?

“Poor guy. Look at him. He deserves a break. Let’s make him a Senator.”

We could be looking at a formula. Damaged country, damaged candidates, damaged voters.

I refuse to look away from vote fraud. The majority of state bureaucracies that handle ballot processing across the land on Election Day are Democrat. I call that a clue. I’ve been calling it a clue for a long time.

UPDATE, 11:57AM, WEDNESDAY: The House and Senate are too close to call. But I’m calling it. FRAUD.

A staged event.

I’m abandoning “tough-minded realism.”

WEF: Eco-anxiety a Driver of the Mental Health Pandemic

Big news from the World Economic Forum’s agenda article: Eco-anxiety is a major mental health issue for our young people.

67% of young people are concerned about the impact of climate change on their mental health.

Reread this, please!

They are not merely worried about climate change. They are concerned about the impact of worrying about “climate change” on their MENTAL HEALTH!

Since many of my readers are not currently suffering from eco-anxiety, some may not immediately understand the mental struggle. But it is real, I assure you.

So bad is the climate change anxiety crisis that there exists a “Climate Psychiatry Alliance,” an organization of psychiatrists helping those suffering from climate change anxiety. Watch the co-founder of “Climate Psychiatry Alliance” explain her work helping sufferers of climate anxiety.

World Economic Forum’s article acknowledges that there is a mental health pandemic caused by eco-anxiety:

Identifying as female, using social media, and having a sense of helplessness all increase susceptibility to this new global mental health pandemic.

Fortunately, the WEF has a suggestion on how to cope with climate anxiety: engage in activism. A young sufferer of climate change anxiety Sofia Palau, did just that. To alleviate her sense of helplessness, she joined a youth climate activism group, “Youth vs. Apocalypse,” whose purpose is actually to create MORE climate anxiety:

No doubt, like most in-groups, “Youth vs. Apocalypse” take pains to validate and normalize their climate anxieties. Having “climate change panic attacks” is a matter of course for them and is celebrated.

Recruiting more young people into their climate advocacy group reaffirms their general outlook. It finds an outlet for frustrations that rule its members. Watch the video if you want.

The WEF agenda article explains the theoretical underpinnings:

While emotion-focused coping has been the most common strategy used by adolescents and young adults to date, research has found that meaning-focused coping is the most effective in regards to eco-anxiety. When done correctly, meaning-focused coping, such as getting involved in the fight against climate change through volunteering or campaigning, facilitates positive emotions like hope without ignoring negative ones like anger or anxiety.

The end result is processing, rather than getting stuck in, anxiety and feeling motivated to engage in activism and other pro-environmental behavior.

What is the result? More and more anxiety-affected young people suffering from real mental health problems, with adults in charge recommending that they get together and recruit more people who would also be made to suffer from climate anxiety.

The likely outcome is mass psychosis or mass formation of people who are good and well-intentioned but stuck in an anxiety-ridden in-group circular dynamic.

This pandemic of climate fear is not entirely dissimilar to the “mass formation” that Matias Desmet discussed so many times concerning whipping up fear during the Covid pandemic. Is the climate anxiety mass formation purely accidental? Not really.

All this is facilitated by rich old men with well-positioned investments, of course.

The press, sponsored by the same rich old men, intentionally creates climate anxiety in people also:

Kids are particularly targeted with child-friendly but anxiety-provoking messaging:

I hope my somewhat tongue-in-cheek but completely accurate retelling of what is going on in the mental health/climate activism world was interesting and perhaps made you smile.

Do NOT, please, make my story into a justification to dismiss your children! If your children, or young friends, suffer from climate anxiety, remember that

  • they are human beings

  • they base their emotions on what they see on TV and on their social feeds

  • that stuff is important to them

  • rebelliousness is a part of growing up

  • anxiety, helplessness, and hysteria do NOT need to be parts of growing up

  • we live in an uncertain world, and some of their concerns may be justified

  • the number one goal is NOT to lose their trust and respect

  • never dismiss them as persons or make fun of their anxieties

Any parent whose child has ANY anxiety needs to engage with the child, listen to them, NOT be judgmental, offer support, etc. Our children are NOT copies of ourselves (I bet you changed compared to when you were 16 also,) and we cannot force them to think the way we want.

A bonus is instilling a sense of self-reliance and internal locus of control in your children so that they do not feel “helplessness” and are not compelled to be a part of groups to normalize their anxieties. Helplessness drives many bad decisions and affects mental and physical health.

I am not a child psychiatrist or anything, but if my own hypothetical daughter (I have two great sons) suffered from climate anxiety, I would listen to her extensively. Then I would plant trees with her and make her dig big holes (the bigger, the better) to plant larger trees. Small trees are too easy. Perhaps plant a garden to “use less diesel fuel to grow food.”

Challenge some of their most anxiety-provoking beliefs without dismissing them. Explain how this tree needs CO2 to grow. That could give the child a sense of purpose and balance instead of falling prey to lunatic groups like “Youth Apocalypse.”

If you, my reader, disagree with me, you are welcome to comment and explain why.

My message would be remiss without noting that we, Covid-skeptics, also form an in-group with a very special narrative. Being vilified and targeted by the media, of course, does not help. Worrying about our health and loved ones could also create anxiety — oftentimes justified. A sense of helplessness among the unvaccinated was purposely instilled:

I am also, frankly, worried about what will happen with excess mortality and reduction in births!

Thus, we could be susceptible to the same challenges as some climate-anxious young people. So let’s make sure that we keep each other challenged, debate, and use our virtual gatherings to at least somewhat alleviate our anxieties instead of always whipping them up.

I am personally guilty of making several anxietyprovoking posts. I kind of realized that a while ago and try to mix them with good news to keep the balance.

Sorry if I sound too opinionated. Guilty as charged.

What do you think about the climate change mental health crisis?


Crossed Signals

Reuters reported that the European Medicines Agency recommended adding heavy menstrual issues as a side effect to Covid vaccines.  It appears they’ve done the exact opposite.

The topic of vaccines and all things fertility and reproduction is a conversation we’ll be having for a very long time. There are so many avenues to explore, information to be learned, and knowledge to uncover. At this point, the conversation is finally breaking through the information barrier.

In a just world, the health agencies that encouraged and mandated the vaccines while being tasked with ensuring their safety to a trusting public should be falling all over themselves to investigate any harms the vaccines may have caused. Yet we’re at a point where a simple acknowledgment of one of the most widespread harms is almost impossible to extract from health agencies, despite countless case studies and articles written about the topic.

Conflicting Statements in the European Medicines Agency

On October 28, a Reuters journalist named Natalie Glover wrote an article reporting that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) “recommends adding heavy periods to side effects of mRNA COVID shots”.

That seemed highly newsworthy to me, given all the information that’s come out to support that recommendation over the last year and a half, and given that journalists such as Dr. Naomi Wolf who reported on such issues were ridiculed, smeared, and kicked off of mainstream social media platforms.

However, when looking for the source to back up the Reuters claim, I found multiple conflicting statements in a variety of documents on the EMA website, all updated on Oct 28, the day the Reuters article was published.

  1. Meeting highlights from the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) 24 – 27 October 2022”: This documents that a subcommittee of the EMA, called PRAC – Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, held a session between Oct 24-27 on a variety of issues. One of those issues was about adding heavy menstrual bleeding as a side effect to the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines, which they recommended doing following an investigation into the matter.
  1. Summary of Product Characteristics”: This is a 223-page document that was also last updated Oct 28 (the same day as the Reuters article) titled “Summary of Product Characteristics” for the Comirnaty vaccine that had not a single mention of menstruation or periods.
  1. Assessment report on the renewal of the marketing authorization assessment report: (that’s actually what it’s called. It’s not a typo.) That report had ONE mention of heavy menstrual cycles, however, it specifically noted that there was NOT enough information to add it as a potential side effect.
According to safety documents that were updated one day after the conclusion of the PRAC committee, the EMA did NOT accept the recommendation to update the side effect profile, and in fact, specifically mentioned that the PRAC’s conclusion was that there was “insufficient evidence” to warrant an update.

I reached out to the Netherlands-based EMA for comment on these seemingly conflicting statements. The woman who answered the phone had no answer to my question, and nobody to whom to transfer me. I called multiple times, and never got past the answering service who’s outsourced to field calls.

Feel free to try yourself at: +31(0)88 781 6000

I sent an inquiry via their contact page as well, which read as follows:

“I’m inquiring to find out if the EMA will be accepting the recommendation of the PRAC to add heavy periods as a side effect of the Comirnaty and Spikevax vaccines. The updated safety reports from the day after the committee meeting ended do not reflect the acceptance of the recommendation.

Thank you,”

I will keep you posted on their response.

Meanwhile, there is, of course, a large number of studies and information that’s emerged regarding the shockingly high rate of menstrual issues post-vaccination, and we’re only beginning to understand how the rest of the reproductive system is affected. It seems these health agencies cannot find a signal blaring in their face if their lives depended on it.

The post Crossed Signals appeared first on DailyClout.

Willful Ignorance: A Letter to a Pediatrician

Dear DailyClout,
Please see below a letter that I wrote to our family’s pediatrician in December last year. I work as a vet in New Zealand and lost my job due to mandates. I am back working again at a different practice. Our pediatrician is a good person but, like so many in the medical profession, has become an expert in the specialty of willful ignorance. He has blocked my emails and never offered a response to my letter.
My aim with writing this letter was not to negatively target this one individual, but hopefully to engender a desire in pediatricians to boldly step out on behalf of the children under their care.
Unfortunately, almost a year on from writing this, it appears that none of our concerns in regard to jabbing children with these products have been answered or addressed in either of our countries. This was deplorably illustrated by the decision of the advisory committee to the CDC voting in favor of adding the Covid ‘vaccine’ to the recommended immunization schedule for children.
I hope that those that reached this decision in this cabal-committee, are only afflicted by the age-old character traits of avarice and cowardice, and are not influenced by an agenda far more sinister.
Kind regards,
C John

A letter to our paediatrician

The post Willful Ignorance: A Letter to a Pediatrician appeared first on DailyClout.