The Role of Rasputin as Grand Conspiracy Agent Provocateur

PHOTO: Le Nouveau Cénacle

In “Tragedy and Hope,” author Caroll Quigley describes the mobilization of the Russian army on July 31, 1914.

The Russian czar, under severe pressure from his generals, issued, retracted, modified, and reissued an order for general mobilization. Since the German military timetable for a two-front war provided that France must be defeated before Russian mobilization was completed, France and Germany both ordered mobilization on August 1st, and Germany declared war on Russia. As the German armies began to pour westward, Germany declared war on France (August 3rd), and Belgium (August 4th).

Russian mystic Grigori Yefimovich Rasputin (1869-1916) befriended the family of Russian Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918), the last monarch of Russia. Through his association with royal family, the self-proclaimed holy man gained considerable influence in late imperial Russia.

Initially, Rasputin was not a member of Russia’s war party. In the international crisis that followed the assassination of Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand (1863-1914), the Tsar Nicholas made it clear that he was willing to go to war over this issue. Rasputin was an outspoken critic of this policy and joined forces with two senior figures — Sergei Witte and Pyotr Durnovo — to try and prevent the war.

However, after war started, Rasputin’s behavior suggested malice. According to, Rasputin’s “malign influence over the Russian imperial family contributed directly to the collapse of the Romanov dynasty shortly after his own death.”

[He] gained fame locally as a faith healer. Appearing at the imperial court in the Russian capital St. Petersburg about 1907, Rasputin soon acquired a reputation as a mystic and healer, and became a favorite of Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna and through her influenced Nicholas II. Rasputin’s hold over Alexandra stemmed from his hypnotic power to alleviate the suffering of the hemophiliac crown prince, Aleksei.

Tsar Goes to the Front, Agent Provocateur Comes Out to Play

In the first year of WWI, the Russian army was in retreat. Rasputin manipulated the Tsar into believing that the Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolayevich, commander of the army, was lying about the state of the army as a pretext for forcing the abdication of the Tsar. According to Rasputin, the reports from the duke of food shortages were fabricated to create an excuse for him to retreat. He would then occupy Petrograd and take over the government.

In fact, the Russian army was reeling back through Poland under the shock of a major German offensive. After a late night drinking session with Rasputin, the Tsar dismissed the duke from army command, sent him to an obscure post in Caucasus and took over the command of the army at the front himself.

Empress Alexandra with son Alexei Nikolaevich

The Enemy Within Conspiracy

When the Tsar departed for war, he left his wife, Empress (Tsarina) Alexandra Feodorovna, in charge of the Russian government, and she turned to Rasputin for advice. As the Tsar spent most of his time at GHQ, the empress took responsibility for domestic policy. Rasputin served as her adviser and, during the months that followed, she dismissed ministers and their deputies in rapid succession.

The pair removed an effective Minister of War Alexei Polivanov, who in his few months of office had brought about a solid recovery of the Russian army. He was replaced with an incompetent hack.

Russia’s economy, which had been growing until the beginning of the Great War, was now declining at a very rapid rate.

Rumors began to circulate that Rasputin and the empress were leaders of a pro-German court group. British MI6 considered Rasputin “one of the most potent of the baleful Germanophile forces in Russia.”

I also have my doubts about the Tsarina- Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine aka German by birth and family. Regular readers know I refer to the Rhineland-Palatine and Hesse regions as an Illuminism-Frankist cesspool and fonte of conspiracy.

At this point, the Russian people lost confidence in the Romanov dynasty. Rasputin was an alcoholic degenerate, and many people believed (correctly, we would say) that he was a demonic charlatan.

Several members of Russian nobility recognized what was happening and were likely in cahoots when MI6 decided to kill Rasputin.

At the end of December 1916 Rasputin was invited to tea at the house of one of the noble conspirators and was fed cake and wine laced with cyanide. Unaffected by the poison, he was then shot several times and beaten with an iron bar. Still alive, he was dragged to the frozen River Neva, tied-up, and thrown through a hole in the ice. Within two years, Tsar Nicholas and his family were dead, executed by the Bolsheviks.

Rasputin was no more, but the ministers appointed by this half-illiterate rascal remained at their posts and conducted the affairs of the state as if still guided by his shadow.

Plotters and Subversives

A number of posts published on Winter Watch recount stories of certain individuals who are inserted into positions of influence or power to serve as agent provocateurs and purveyors of ill advice to advance a hidden agenda. One such post recalled the relatively unknown story of George Cortelyou, who set up the death of President William McKinley in 1901. Cortelyou went on to become Secretary of the Treasury and provided J.P Morgan with ample working capital to carry out a parasite guild looting operation in the Panic of 1907. Rasputin operated under a similar infiltration template to influence war and peace and assist in the takedown the Tsar.

In such cases, we are interested in the mechanism of how these influence insertions are made. Where and from what did Rasputin emerge depends on your world view. It’s “unknown” or, as we say at Winter Watch, “hidden history.” According to historian  Douglas Smith, Rasputin’s youth and early adulthood are “a black hole about which we know almost nothing.”

However, his father once said, “Grigori became a pilgrim out of laziness — nothing else.” He left his villages to seek enlightenment and came to believe that the quickest way to become close to God was continually sinning (especially through sex) and repenting. The name “Rasputin” was a name given to him by fellow villagers. It means “libertine” or “debauched one.” Yes, seems right at home with inverted Frankism.

Read “The Influence of Sabbatean Frankism on the World”

Wikipedia leaves a lot out, referring to “some church and social leaders.” The obvious question is what kind of “social leader” would be “captivated by” and promote a drunk, womanizing, satanic charlatan?

Rasputin was a “strannik” (wanderer, or pilgrim), who held no official position in the Russian Orthodox Church. After traveling to St. Petersburg, either in 1903 or the winter of 1904–05, Rasputin captivated some church and social leaders. He became a society figure, and met the Tsar and Tsarina in November 1905.

The Russian State archives revealed the Okhrana  (Tsarist Secret Police) surveillance activity on Rasputin from Jan. 1, 1915, up to Feb. 10, 1916. It shows a pattern of drinking, parties and orgies with men and women (aka social leaders) into all hours of the night. Bringing “a guitar player” to these events is a nice touch.

Additionally, there is more than an urban legend that Rasputin’s penis was rumored to be huge and, supposedly, magical. He believed that his gifts and “charms” were given to him by God, and he became a member of the Khlisti sect, which practiced eroticism and erotic form of spirituality.

Favorite daughter Maria Rasputin

“His female devotees,” his daughter, Maria, wrote, “were drawn to the worship of his phallus, endowing it with mystical qualities as well as sexual ones, for it was an extraordinary member indeed, measuring a good 13 inches when fully erect. … As their passions were aroused, there was a tendency to forget the ritualistic aspect … and the participants would fall into a general orgy.”

Rasputin is believed to have had thousands of mistresses and partners, as well as a large offspring, including peasant girls and aristocratic ladies, many of whom worshiped him like a God.

So it doesn’t take much imagination to believe that the bisexual “good times” Rasputin was pimping sexual favors to “society figures” with certain proclivities. To our eye, it resembles and is the same template as the debouched Hellfire Club and certain types like those involved in the Franklin Scandal or with Jimmy Savile. Rasputin was likely the point of the spear for corruption, war profiteering and ultimately the take-down of the Tsar and Russia. Money was observed regularly passing into Rasputin’s horny hands.

The Strange Case of Rasputin Associate Boris Soloviev

Image result for
Degenerate occultist worm and Bolshevik associate of Rasputin, Boris Soloviev

The Okkrana report mentions the numerous characters with whom Rasputin fraternized. An important historical investigation would be to scrutinize all of these Hellfire Club-type of people. That is beyond our reach, but a key Rasputin associate reveals plenty.

His name is Boris Soloviev (also spelled Solovyov). Somehow Soloviev — who was a discordian degenerate like Rasputin — functioned as the Treasurer of the Holy Synod. No doubt Rasputin secured this position for his ally. Soloviev quickly emerged as Rasputin’s successor after the murder. On Oct. 5, 1917, he even married Rasputin’s popular and favorite daughter Maria, although Maria claimed she never liked the guy.

Per Okkrana: “19 February, 1916. At 10.15 in the evening Rasputin came out of No. I, Spasskaia Street from the Solovievs [Soloviev – a Secretary of State], accompanied by two ladies and left for an unknown destination. He returned home alone at three o’clock at night.”

The book “The Last Tsar: The Life and Death of Nicholas II” by Edvard Radzinsky provides some background extracted from Soloviev’s biography. He studied in Berlin but ended up in India, where he became a disciple of occultist theosophist Madame Blavatsky. What a coinkydink. 

Like a “Forrest Gump,” made man Soloviev after the Bolshevik Revolution turned up in the revolutionary Tauride Palace and was inexplicably made a high ranking Bolshevik officer in the War Commission.

Then, since he was an acquaintance of the Tsar’s family through Rasputin, he turns up in Tobolsk, where the royal family was held captive. There, he communicated with the Tsarina, pushing a scheme for an escape. The Tsar, however, was suspicious of a setup (recall Louis XVI’s ill fated escape attempt in the French Revolution). However, when Rasputin’s daughter and Soloviev’s new wife of convenience Maria also showed up in Tobolsk (in the middle of nowhere), the Tsar and Tsarina fell for the escape plot trap. The family jewels were even turned over to Soloviev to finance the liberation.

The Tsar writes in his diary on March 25, 1918, about the arrival of a certain Vladimir Stein. The escape plan was quickly foiled soon after. Even from the grave, Rasputin, via the nasty Soloviev, was playing a role in his downfall.

Consequently, the Russian Imperial Romanov family (Tsar Nicholas II, his wife Empress/Tsarina Alexandra and their five children Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei) and all those who chose to accompany them into imprisonment — notably, Eugene Botkin, Anna Demidova, Alexei Trupp and Ivan Kharitonov — were shot and bayoneted to death late in the night of July 16, 1918.

Here is the standard Rasputin apologist back story of this grand conspiracy and plotting from the promoted book “Rasputin: The Biography” by Douglas Smith. Eventually the White Russians caught up with ole Boris. Although open sources on Soloviev strike me as oddly scrubbed, investigator Nikolai Sokolov no doubt knew the truth. But even here, Soloviev and Maria Rasputin managed to slip loose. Boris the snake died in 1926, mission accomplished. Maria lived to a ripe old age and died in 1977.

Source: Rasputin: The Biography by Douglas Smith, pg 672

BREAKING: Former CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky Was Requested to Testify, and Preserve Her Communications

Representative Brad Wenstrup, D.P.M., Chairman of the Congressional Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has requested that Dr. Rochelle Walensky, former director of the CDC, appear before the committee on June 14 for a hearing.

Rep. Wenstrup sent Dr. Walensky a letter requesting her appearance before the committee, which is investigating whether the CDC was influenced by “non-governmental groups”, specifically in regard to the CDC’s Feb 2021 “Operational Strategy for K-12 schools Through Phased Prevention”.

Dr. Walensky has failed to respond to a letter that was sent two months ago inquiring whether the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) worked to keep schools closed.

Mrs. Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT was specifically mentioned in Rep. Wenstrup’s letter as someone who may have unduly influenced the decisions of the CDC regarding school closures. Dr. Walensky was informed in the letter that she is to preserve all communications beginning from January 2021 between her and Mrs. Weingarten, as well as any communications regarding school closures, “Operational Strategy” and the AFT.  Rep. Wenstrup included a transcript from testimony by Mrs. Weingarten that she does indeed have Dr. Walensky’s number saved in her contacts.

As reported by Ms. Jennifer Sey, Mrs. Weingarten’s impact on negative policies that affected the children is clear. How much weight did the AFT have on the decisions of Dr. Rochelle Walensky and the CDC?

Already Covering Tracks? 

A quick search for the specific Operational Strategy that Rep. Wenstrup is referring to in his letter shows that the CDC has wiped the page from its website. This is what you see if you go to the link it lived at:

If you click on the link it sends you, that is a broken link as well:

Luckily for us, we have the trusty Wayback Machine which shows us exactly which “operational strategy” Rep. Wenstrup is referring to in his request:

The CDC, under the guidance of Dr. Rochelle Walensky, has put a generation of children through hell. The damages caused by the militant “operational strategy” will be unraveled for years to come. Although Dr. Walensky has announced her departure from the CDD, as the Select Subcommittee posted on Twitter, “Impending departure from federal service does not protect you from accountability”.

Rep. Wenstrup ended his letter by stating that the Select Subcommittee is “authorized to investigate ‘the societal impact of decisions to close schools, how the decisions were made, and whether there is evidence of widespread learning loss or other negative effects as a result of these decisions’ and ‘executive branch policies, deliberations, decisions, activities, and internal and external communications related to the coronavirus pandemic’ under H. Res. 5.”

The full letter can be found here

Support DailyClout! 

The post BREAKING: Former CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky Was Requested to Testify, and Preserve Her Communications appeared first on DailyClout.

The Great SARS-CoV-2 Charade: Chapter II

Author’s Note: The following is Chapter II in a four-part series about the true origin of SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19 illness. For Background and Context, please see Chapter I.

As noted in Chapter I, starting in 2013, UNC Professor Ralph Baric worked with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to perform gain-of-function work on Bat SL-CoV-WIV1 and SHCO15 coronaviruses. His collaboration with Ge Xing-Ye and Shi Zhengli began shortly after they (along with Peter Daszak) discovered these two viruses in horseshoe bats in southern China. Xing-Ye, Zhengli, and Daszak published their discovery in Nature magazine in a 2013 paper titled Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. They were very excited about it, because for the first time in history, they found a wild bat coronavirus that would bind with a human ACE2 receptor—a protein (enzyme) on the surface of many cell types.

With this important discovery, Baric commenced work with his Chinese colleagues to fashion these two viruses into two new chimeric viruses that would infect the human respiratory tract. They reported their results in papers published in 2015 and 2016.

1). A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence (published in Nature Medicine)

2). SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence (published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, or PNAS).

It’s important to understand that a chimeric virus is one that combines genetic material from two or more different viruses. The word comes from the Greek chimera—a mythical monster with a lion’s head, a goat’s body, and serpent’s tail.

Chimera, mythical monster and ultimate expression of the unnatural.

They recounted their process for creating the chimeric virus as follows:

In contrast, 7 of 14 ACE2-interaction residues in SHC014 are different from those in SARS-CoV, including all five residues critical for host range. These changes, coupled with the failure of pseudotyped lentiviruses expressing the SHC014 spike to enter cells, suggested that the SHC014 spike is unable to bind human ACE2. However, similar changes in related SARS-CoV strains had been reported to allow ACE2 binding, suggesting that additional functional testing was required for verification. Therefore, we synthesized the SHC014 spike in the context of the replication-competent, mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone (we hereafter refer to the chimeric CoV as SHC014-MA15) to maximize the opportunity for pathogenesis and vaccine studies in mice.

It would be hard to find a more perfect description of gain-of-function work. Indeed, as they state in their “Biosafety and biosecurity” section:

Can you name >5 unvaxxed Amish who died from COVID? Why not? They are “supposed to be” dying in droves!

People who live in Amish communities: No vaccines, No masks. No deaths. Nobody could name 5 Amish who died from COVID in Lancaster, PA which is the largest Amish community in the US. Whoops! I offered $2,500 and all I got was excuses on why they couldn’t give me a single name of anyone who died.

The traditional Amish do not vaccinate. And they are a tight knit community. So they are the perfect placebo cohort. We just compare the rate of death of the unvaccinated Amish with the rate of death of people in the same area.

I recently learned that it’s likely that in the >50,000 person unvaccinated Amish community in Lancaster, PA there are less than a handful of people who died from COVID. Lancaster is the largest Amish community in the US.


If nobody in the world can name more than 5 Amish unvaxxed people who died in Lancaster, PA, it means the entire pandemic response (lockdowns, business closures, school closures, church closures, testing, masking, social distancing, mandates, not testing people for immunity before vaccination, and vaccination) was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. Whoops!

So my “Can you name >5?” challenge posted to Twitter is an objective test that should be trivial to win if the medical journal papers are right about there being a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

So far, nobody could name >5 unvaxxed Amish people in Lancaster, PA who died from COVID. In fact, they can’t name anyone. Zero.

People just came up with excuses, referenced vaccinated Amish who died, thought a Mennonite is the same thing as an Amish person, etc. The list of excuses was endless. The number of qualifying names? Zero.

If you want objective proof that our society was destroyed for nothing, my Amish bet is your proof.

The Amish did nothing and their death toll was 30X lower than ours. They operated as if nothing happened.

Will we learn from them? Not a chance.

The CDC will never do a study on the Amish; it would be too embarrassing for them. It would show the world that the CDC everything they demanded of us was both harmful and unnecessary; it made things worse. And the stuff the CDC said to not do? Well, that’s what the Amish did. You know; like that horse paste.

Instead of handing over control in the next pandemic to the WHO, we’d actually be better off putting the Amish in charge.

The bottom line is this. They can throw all the technical papers in the world at you explaining how the Amish are dying in droves, but if they can’t actually come up with the names of >5 unvaccinated Amish people who died from COVID in Lancaster, PA since the start of the pandemic, you should tell them where they can stick their “scientific studies” and their stupid COVID mitigation policies.

This will give the needed background. It’s a short 5 minute video featuring Sharyl Attkisson.

Nobody in mainstream media will touch this story because it completely blows up the narrative. It shows that all the COVID interventions were completely unnecessary! The Amish returned to normal in May 2020. Read that again.

The Amish achieved herd immunity before the vaccines were even available.

They also have zero autism (except if the person is adopted) for the people who eschew vaccination.

Even if the vaccine worked and was safe, there was simply no reason for them to take the vaccine because 90% had already been infected in 2020. Taking a vaccine after you’ve already got natural immunity is nonsensical and counterproductive. However, in the US, we were told to get the vaccine even if we recovered from COVID. Very dumb.

How did they achieve herd immunity so fast? They did the opposite of what the CDC recommended; they lived their lives normally and used drugs like ivermectin if they got sick.

Today, more than 3 years later, you still can’t find more than a handful who died from COVID.

To drive that point home with people, I am making a $2,500 offer to the first person who can find more than a handful of unvaxxed Amish who died from COVID in Lancaster, PA during the entire pandemic.

Lancaster has 500,000 and 50,000 unvaxxed Amish. As far as I know, no more than 5 died from symptoms consistent with COVID and that number may be high. The actual number may be 0 for all I know; the two names I have are suspected COVID.

When I first heard about the Amish community in Lancaster, I immediately thought that I could simply search the national death index and compare the rise in deaths in 2021 vs. 2020 in Lancaster vs. surrounding counties and I’d know instantly whether the Amish had a lower or higher death rate! Unfortunately, the unvaxxed Amish are only 10% of the Lancaster county population and they don’t break down deaths by the full FIPS code; if they did, we could do the analysis in a heartbeat by comparing Salisbury with Ephrata all-cause mortality. I was soooo close!

In downloading the 2.7GB death data for 2021, I did discover that they blank out the county (and many other fields). This is their idea of “data transparency.”

It’s as if they don’t want you ever to learn the truth. Can you imagine that?! One thing I’ve learned is if they have to keep the data hidden, there’s a reason.

So you can’t compare the death rates in Lancaster, PA vs. surrounding counties due to too much noise. Darn. I was soooooooo close.

But when I heard that there were less than 5 COVID deaths in 50,000 people over the entire pandemic, I knew I had a winner.

A simple objective test that nobody can meet that proves all the stuff we were told to do actually made things about 30X worse.

There were at least two fully unvaccinated Amish people who died of COVID in Lancaster, PA. But as far as I know, there aren’t more than 5. So this contest is theoretically winnable (since nobody has perfect knowledge). There is no trick. Any reasonable evidence is acceptable (e.g., their Amish neighbors vouch that they were unvaxxed). If the threshold was 2 deaths, I’d win it myself. But I couldn’t find more than 5 fully unvaccinated Amish who met the contest criteria below:

This paper couldn’t find any Amish COVID deaths in Lancaster, PA.

The contest ends May 30, 2023 and I will reveal the two names I know just to prove it was possible to win if there were more deaths.

I got everything except names. Nobody came up with a single name. You can read the entire Twitter thread here. They pointed me to various junk science papers claiming the unvaxxed were more likely to die from COVID, the Amish were dying in droves, etc. If any of those papers were true, they’d be able to easily win my contest. One person pointed me to a single Mennonite woman who died and claimed I should pay up. You can read the responses and you’ll shake your head.

Some said they can’t give the names of people who died because that would be a HIPAA violation. Interesting! Have you ever seen an obit in the newspaper where the name was redacted for medical privacy reasons? HIPAA only applies if the person is a patient of theirs and the patient gave them medical info as part of the medical practice. As far as I know, none of these people claimed to be treating the Amish.

This is all bullshit. All they have to do is pick up the phone and talk to their Amish friends and say, “Hey, do you know anyone who was unvaxxed and died from COVID?”

I did that, but I just got 2 names.

The whole thing was to distract from the fact that they can’t come up with >5 names because no more than 5 Amish people died from COVID. That’s inescapable.

This is the winner. It got 50% more views than my main tweet!

Here are some others:

Their next move is to pass a law ordering DHS to forcibly vaccinate all Amish with 70+ vaccines in one sitting to keep America safe: “it’s for the greater good.”

This next comment is a bit tongue-in-cheek:

Check back in a day to see what Andrew’s friends told him:

OK, so if there are so many excess deaths, then how come nobody knows more than a few people in the unvaxxed Amish community who died from COVID?

That’s what I want to know!

The Amish achieved herd immunity in March 2021. So if there is a paper claiming there were excess deaths in March 2021 and beyond, we can now cite that as evidence that the vaccines don’t work. The reason is simple: the Amish are the “best case” possible: they were FULLY “vaccinated” in 2020. So if people claim they had excess deaths in 2021, it means that the vaccines (which must be worse than natural immunity) will have even worse outcomes.

If you like activities like this one and want to see more like this, please consider becoming a paid subscriber

It helps to support my work and the work of others. Thanks!

This is a very simple objective test that everyone in the world can instantly understand: just name >5 fully unvaxxed Amish people who died from COVID in Lancaster, PA during the pandemic.

It can’t be hard. After all, the medical literature proved that they have to be dying in droves, with bodies stacked up on the side of the road and large waiting lines at the morgue.

If I win, it shows I was right all along and the medical community was wrong. And it also shows that thousands of papers published in the peer-reviewed literature supporting the COVID interventions were all wrong as well.

I’m pretty sure my money is safe and the whole thing was for nothing.

Try this with your blue-pilled friends… make it a bet…. a way for them to make money and prove you wrong.

Even if I lose and there are 6 Amish deaths, the Amish, who didn’t vaccinate, had a 30X lower death count than we obtained after turning the country upside down.

This contest proves an important point: all these measures were completely unnecessary, we destroyed our businesses and economy for nothing, we set our kids education back years for no benefit, the medical community is inept, the CDC and FDA and NIH are inept, and we should not trust Biden or members of Congress who went along with the whole thing while people were shouting stop. With rare exceptions (such as Senator Ron Johnson and Congressman Bill Posey and a few others), none of them are interested in listening to the possibility that they might be wrong.

This all happened because voices of reason were silenced. Free speech, debate, etc. was tossed out the window. Any doctor who stood against the “consensus” was crushed into oblivion.

The leaders of America need to stop listening to the people they trusted, and start listening to the people they labeled “misinformation spreaders.” They got it completely backwards.

You should never trust the CDC, mainstream media, or members of Congress again until they admit their mistakes, vow never to support censorship again, and always listen to people on both sides of an issue before making a decision.


NIH Spends $1 Billion Studying Long COVID — Produces Nothing

nih long covid

  • In February 2021, NIH announced that Congress would provide the agency $1.15 billion in funding over four years to study long COVID

  • An investigation by STAT and MuckRock, a nonprofit news outlet, revealed the NIH’s efforts to study long COVID have done little to benefit those struggling with the disorder and haven’t contributed meaningful information about the condition, either

  • As of April 2023, NIH has “basically nothing to show for” its research to date

  • Instead of conducting trials to pin down how to prevent and cure long COVID, NIH has spent most of its money simply watching, tracking and recording long COVID symptoms

  • Gathering information about NIH’s long COVID data — and where the $1.15 billion in funding has gone — hasn’t proven easy; there is no single NIH official in charge of the efforts and the agency isn’t sharing even basic information about its research

Visit Mercola Market


An estimated 7.5% of U.S. adults

— that’s 1 in 13 — have symptoms of long COVID, a term used to describe a complex disorder that persists for three or more months after contracting COVID-19. With so many affected, there’s clearly an urgent need to investigate long COVID and how to treat it — and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) did just that.

In February 2021, Dr. Francis Collins, NIH’s former director, announced that Congress would provide the agency $1.15 billion in funding over four years “to support research into the prolonged health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

“A diverse team of experts from across the agency has worked diligently over the past few weeks to identify the most pressing research questions and the areas of greatest opportunity to address this emerging public health priority,” he continued. Fast forward more than two years later.

What has NIH accomplished with the money? “There’s basically nothing to show for it,” journalists Rachel Cohrs and Betsy Ladyzhets wrote in STAT.

An investigation by STAT and MuckRock, a nonprofit news outlet, revealed the NIH’s efforts to study long COVID have done little to benefit those struggling with the disorder and haven’t contributed meaningful information about the condition, either. STAT reported:

“The National Institutes of Health hasn’t signed up a single patient to test any potential treatments — despite a clear mandate from Congress to study them. And the few trials it is planning have already drawn a firestorm of criticism, especially one intervention that experts and advocates say may actually make some patients’ long Covid symptoms worse.

Instead, the NIH spent the majority of its money on broader, observational research that won’t directly bring relief to patients. But it still hasn’t published any findings from the patients who joined that study, almost two years after it started.

There’s no sense of urgency to do more or to speed things up, either. The agency isn’t asking Congress for any more funding for long Covid research, and STAT and MuckRock obtained documents showing the NIH refuses to use its own money to change course.”

In other words, instead of conducting trials to pin down how to prevent and cure long COVID, NIH has spent most of its money simply watching, tracking and recording long COVID symptoms.

Eric Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told STAT he expected NIH would have launched multiple large-scale trials, prioritizing those testing treatments, but this didn’t happen. “I don’t know that they’ve contributed anything except more confusion,” he said.

Considering long COVID is supposedly the consequence of a pandemic that brought the world to a halt for years, you’d think the NIH — “the largest biomedical research agency in the world”

— would be blazing trails and conducting groundbreaking studies at a frenzied pace to get to the bottom of this, especially with $1.15 billion to throw at the problem.

Not so. By March 2022, NIH had recruited only 3% of its planned study participants.

“Critics charge that the NIH’s missteps are even bigger: that it is acting without urgency, that it is taking on vague, open-ended research questions rather than testing out therapies or treatments, and that it is not being fully transparent with patient advocates and researchers,” Cohrs wrote.

Meanwhile, Lauren Stiles, a research assistant professor of neurology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, who had long COVID, described related NIH research as “a slow-moving glacier.” She told Cohrs in 2022, “With a half-billion dollars, they could have run multiple clinical trials.”

As of April 2023, NIH states they’re planning five clinical trials, but only one has been formally announced. In another serious misstep, it’s going to study the antiviral medicine Paxlovid, a drug known for causing COVID rebound,

to treat long COVID.

A study dubbed RECOVER, however, is intended to be NIH’s largest on the topic, to set “precedents for future research and clinical guidelines. It will dictate how doctors across the country treat their patients — and, in turn, impact people’s ability to access work accommodations, disability benefits, and more,” STAT reported.

But already, critics have described the study as “pointless” and “a waste of time and resources.” It also doesn’t have anyone signed up to participate. As of April 2023, NIH was still stalling, and estimated that trials would begin in summer 2023.

August 2022, Duke Clinical Research Institute announced that it was coordinating long COVID clinical trials, including the Paxlovid study, with the NIH. According to STAT:

“All five clinical trial protocols are going through safety reviews, and the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is reviewing the trials that will test Paxlovid and other drugs, the Duke Clinical Research Institute said. The institute plans to share these protocols publicly when reviews are complete, but did not provide an estimate for when that will happen.”

This is noteworthy given that Dr. Robert M. Califf, FDA commissioner, has deep ties to Duke University and Big Pharma.

Califf — who recently blamed misinformation for falling life expectancy in the U.S. — formerly worked at Duke University as an adjunct professor of medicine (cardiology) and served as former director of the Duke Clinical Research Institute — the same one now partnering with NIH to study long COVID. As Freedom magazine reported, it’s another case of the fox guarding the henhouse:

“[W]hile at Duke University [Califf] received money from 23 Big Pharma outfits, and he has served as an official or director at Genentech and other companies. Califf has conceded that he has ties to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Califf was a cheerleader for Vioxx, which was reported to have caused 50,000 heart attacks. While at Duke, the research operations over which Califf presided resulted in major fraud.

Michael Carome, director of the health research group at Public Citizen, a consumer activist group in Washington, D.C., said: ‘It would be dangerously naïve to think he [Califf] has not developed deeply ingrained attitudes that tilt in favor of the medical device and drug industries.’”

Gathering information about NIH’s long COVID data — and where the $1.15 billion in funding has gone — hasn’t proven easy.

“There is no single NIH official responsible for leading RECOVER, and the initiative has failed to share basic information that would typically be available for a government research project of this scale,” STAT reported.

“… There’s also little accountability for NIH leaders to disclose how funds are spent or respond to other concerns with RECOVER because an entity intended to oversee long Covid research across the federal government hasn’t been created.”

Further, much of the money has been shuttled to Duke University and other collaborators. But while NIH drags its feet, patients continue to suffer from incapacitating symptoms while feeling ignored and abandoned by the medical community and society at large.

This certainly wasn’t the case during the pandemic, when officials fast-tracked a COVID-19 shot to market at an unprecedented pace. Why aren’t they moving with the same sense of urgency now? STAT noted:

“The crawling pace of the government’s long Covid efforts stand in stark contrast with the government’s wildly successful partnership with the pharmaceutical industry to get Covid-19 vaccines to market in less than 12 months. There are no ongoing efforts to support independent private-sector companies or researchers trying to study treatments for long Covid through the NIH, even though some have proved promising.”

Long COVID symptoms vary but often include fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog, sleep disorders, fevers, gastrointestinal problems, anxiety and depression.

Severity ranges from mild to debilitating, and the disorder shares many similarities with post-jab injuries.

Many people who’ve received COVID-19 shots report long COVID-like symptoms,

such as memory problems, headaches, blurred vision, loss of smell, nerve pain, heart rate fluctuations, dramatic blood pressure swings and muscle weakness.

In one study from early in the pandemic, more than two-thirds of those reporting long COVID symptoms had negative antibody tests, suggesting at least some of them didn’t even have COVID-19.

The primary difference

between post-jab long COVID and long COVID symptoms after infection is that in people who get it from the infection, early treatment was withheld and the resulting infection severe. Post-jab long COVID, on the other hand, can occur either after very mild breakthrough infection or no breakthrough infection at all.

strategies to optimize mitochondrial health in long covid

The NIH is failing Americans who urgently need relief from long COVID symptoms due to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 shots. Fortunately, help is out there.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group’s (FLCCC) I-RECOVER

protocol can be downloaded in full,

giving you step-by-step instructions on how to treat long COVID

and/or reactions from COVID-19 injections.

I also recently summarized strategies to optimize mitochondrial health if you’re suffering from long COVID, with a focus on boosting mitochondrial health.

To allow your body to heal you’ll want to minimize EMF exposure as much as possible. Your diet also matters, as the cristae of the inner membrane of the mitochondria contains a fat called cardiolipin, the function of which is dependent on the type of fat you get from your diet.

The type of dietary fat that promotes healthy cardiolipin is omega-3 fat, and the type that destroys it is omega-6, especially linoleic acid (LA), which is highly susceptible to oxidation. So, to optimize your mitochondrial function, you want to avoid LA as much as possible and increase your intake of omega-3s.

Primary sources of LA include seed oils used in cooking, processed foods and restaurant foods made with seed oils, condiments, seeds and nuts, most olive oils and avocado oils (due to the high prevalence of adulteration with cheaper seed oils), and animal foods raised on grains, such as conventional chicken and pork.

Another major culprit that destroys mitochondrial function is excess iron — and almost everyone has too much iron. Copper is also important for energy metabolism, detoxification and mitochondrial function, and copper deficiency is common. Other strategies include sun exposure and near-infrared light therapy, time-restricted eating, NAD+ optimizers and methylene blue, which can be a valuable rescue remedy.

It could be years before the NIH gets around to releasing its data on long COVID, and even then, there’s no guarantee that its research will be useful. But each individual suffering deserves access to the full range of potential treatments — now, not years from now, if at all.

If you or a loved one is affected, know that if you improve your mitochondrial function and restore the energy supply to your cells, you’ll significantly increase your odds of reversing the problems caused by the jab or the virus.

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

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

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

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

Is This Why Pediatricians Push Vaccines?

why pediatricians push vaccines

  • Primary care providers across the U.S. were bribed with incentive programs to coerce patients into getting the toxic COVID shot. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield paid doctors $50 for each Medicaid patient aged 6 months and older, who got the experimental jab

  • Doctors have been financially incentivized to vaccinate children for a long time. In 2016, Blue Cross Blue Shield paid pediatricians a $400 bonus for each patient that completed 10 vaccinations before their second birthday, provided 63% of their patients were fully vaccinated

  • “Client and family incentives” also exist. In 2015, the Community Preventive Services Task Force recommended boosting vaccination rates by giving small, inexpensive incentive rewards to patients

  • Bribery is also par for the course when it comes to vaccine mandates. Pfizer paid undisclosed sums to front groups that advocated for COVID jab mandates, thereby hiding their conflict of interest

  • While the COVID-19 pandemic furthered many globalist goals, it inadvertently tanked childhood vaccination rates. To get childhood vaccination rates back on track, a global alliance has launched “The Big Catch-Up” initiative. It’s touted as the largest childhood immunization effort ever

Visit Mercola Market


In April 2023, I reported how primary care providers across the U.S. were bribed with incentive programs to coerce patients into getting the toxic COVID shot. Since there was no medical malpractice liability, doctors profited while patients risked their lives as participants in an unprecedented medical experiment, all while being lied to about the safety and effectiveness of these injections.

Even more egregiously, once the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the COVID shot for children, similar vaccination incentives were extended to pediatricians as well. As detailed in an Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Medicaid provider bulletin

dated July 2022, doctors received $50 for each Medicaid patient aged 6 months and older, who got the experimental jab.

As it turns out, doctors have been financially incentivized to vaccinate children for a long time. According to a 1999 JAMA Pediatrics article,

the average patient load of American pediatricians is 1,546, although the number of patients was “significantly higher in less populated areas and solo practices.”

Of these, 8.3% were younger than 1 year, 9.5% were 1 year old and 8.6% were 2 years old.

That means approximately 26.4% of the average pediatrician’s patients were 2 years old and younger. More recent data,

published in 2021, show 75% of pediatricians have between 1,000 and 1,800 patients and 21% have around 1,200 patients; most practices, 65%, are in the 1,000 to 1,500 range.

As shown in the 2016 provider incentive program document from Blue Cross Blue Shield below,

pediatricians were getting $400 for each pediatric patient that completed all the 10 vaccinations listed — 25 doses in all

— before their second birthday. (Keep in mind that incentives can vary by state. The example provided is part of Michigan’s Blue Cross Blue Shield Performance Recognition Program.)

The math from there is pretty straight-forward (although keep in mind that we’re dealing with presumed averages and aged statistics here). Just multiply the number of patients under age 2 times $400. Using the average statistics from 1999, if a pediatrician has 1,000 patients, 264 can be expected to be 2 years old or younger. If all are fully vaccinated, the pediatrician would be eligible for a $105,600 year-end bonus.

childhood immunization - combo 10

While $400 per fully vaccinated child might seem incentivizing enough, there’s an added pressure here, because Blue Cross Blue Shield also has (or at least had, in 2016) a “target” level of 63%.

This means that if the pediatrician fails to vaccinate 63% of his eligible patients, he or she gets nothing. So, the pediatrician has a VERY high incentive to get as many toddlers fully vaccinated as possible, so as not to miss that target. It’s not just $400 that is at stake when parents decline one or more shots. Tens of thousands of dollars could be on the line. As noted by Dr. Bob Sears:

“Such incentives … end up forcing a doctor to consider the financial implications of accepting patients who even just want to opt out of one vaccine … Maybe a few such families wouldn’t make them fail the chart reviews, but if they have too many, there goes their year-end bonus.”

Anytime financial incentives are part of the equation, one can reasonably assume that the lure of self-enrichment will win. With tens of thousands of dollars at stake, pediatricians can easily be lulled into complacency when it comes to digging deeper into the science.

After all, who wants to see evidence that what they’re doing is causing more harm than good? These kinds of incentives also encourage pediatricians to simply toss questioning parents out of their practice, to make room for more compliant patients that don’t put their income at risk. As reported by Children’s Health Defense back in 2018:

“… the 11 well-child visits recommended by the AAP over a child’s first 30 months (with annual visits thereafter through age 21) ensure a steady stream of repeat customers and revenue for pediatricians.

In accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine schedule, pediatric practices are expected to administer vaccines (often as many as six at a time) at about half of well-child visits through the adolescent years, making vaccination a foundational bread-and-butter component of pediatricians’ job description …

It is quite common for pediatricians (and family doctors) to encounter parents who refuse one or more infant vaccines, most often due to safety concerns. These concerns also mean that pediatricians frequently get requests to modify or delay the vaccine schedule — nearly three-fifths (58%) of pediatricians reported such requests in a 2014 AAP survey …

Rather than recognize the validity of parents’ safety concerns or admit to their own ambivalence about some of the newer vaccines, many pediatricians — nearly two in five according to some estimates — choose to boot uncooperative families out of their practice …

Ultimately … subtle and not-so-subtle financial incentives and social pressures are likely to maintain widespread adherence by pediatricians to the vaccine schedule — even in instances where contraindications are present.

Although pediatricians have a legal duty to fully inform patients about vaccine risks and side effects, the lure of monetary perks and the desire to fit in may lessen their motivation to do so.”

In addition to the financial incentives given to physicians, “client and family incentives” also exist. A nongovernmental panel of public health and prevention experts called the “Community Preventive Services Task Force”

in 2015 published a guide

on how to boost vaccination rates using incentive rewards for patients.

The task force was established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1996 “to develop guidance on which community-based health promotion and disease prevention intervention approaches work and which do not work, based on available scientific evidence.”

As explained by this task force:

“The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends client or family incentive rewards, used alone or in combination with additional interventions, to increase vaccination rates in children and adults.

Client or family incentive rewards are used to motivate people to obtain recommended vaccinations. Rewards may be monetary or non-monetary, and they may be given to clients or families in exchange for keeping an appointment, receiving a vaccination, returning for a vaccination series, or producing documentation of vaccination status. Rewards are typically small (e.g., food vouchers, gift cards, lottery prizes, baby products).”

The scientific evidence supporting bribery of patients with food vouchers, gift cards and other products of limited value was said to be 4 out of 4, meaning very strong. In other words, incentives, even near-worthless ones, work.

Indeed, we saw this during COVID-19 as well. People were lining up for experimental COVID shots in return for a doughnut, hamburger and fries or even a free lap dance at the local strip club. The pattern is the same. Throw the patient a bone and they’ll agree to things that bring others big profits.

As patients, we need to get savvier about these kinds of tricks and interpret them for what they are. These kinds of “gifts” are not given out of kindness or concern for your well-being. It’s a compliance bribe, and your compliance is making someone rich. Meanwhile, any risks involved are on you.

Bribery is also par for the course when it comes to vaccine mandates. As detailed in a previous article, Pfizer paid undisclosed sums to front groups that advocated for COVID jab mandates, thereby hiding their conflict of interest. In part due to the fake “grassroots” work of these groups, Pfizer was able to rake in a record-breaking $100 billion in sales in 2022.

Of course, the U.S. government also paid news media a staggering $1 billion to promote and build public confidence in the jab, and Pfizer itself spent $2.8 billion on ads in 2022 alone.

But the pressure from consumer groups, civil rights groups, patient groups and doctors’ groups — all of which had been paid off — was probably why COVID jab mandates could even be officially considered by the government. They created a false consensus that people desperately wanted vaccine mandates to keep everyone “safe.”

Special interest groups paid by Pfizer

to push for COVID jab mandates and coercive vaccine policies included the Chicago Urban league (which argued that the jab mandate would benefit the Black community), the National Consumers League, the Immunization Partnership, the Advertising Council and a long list of universities and cancer, liver diseases, cardiology, rheumatology and medical science organizations.

“Pfizer didn’t have to take a prominent stand to argue for vaccine mandates, which would have been an obvious conflict of interest. They paid others to push the mandates for them.”

Each of these organizations received anywhere from several thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars from Pfizer in 2021 alone. Is it any wonder, then, that more than 50 major health care organizations called for vaccine mandates that year, including for their own workers?

While the COVID-19 pandemic furthered many globalist goals, it inadvertently tanked childhood vaccination rates, as many parents ended up missing routine well-child visits due to clinic closures, lockdowns and fear of taking their children outside. As reported by the American Medical Association (AMA) in November 2021:

“… recently published research sheds new light on how the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted some of those routine vaccinations, as parents and their children didn’t just stay home — they stayed away from the doctor.

The JAMA Pediatrics study

… found that vaccine-administration rates were significantly lower across all pediatric age groups as the pandemic first surged in the U.S. … For example, only 74% of infants turning 7 months old in September 2020 were up to date on their vaccinations, a drop from 81% in September 2019.

And just 57% of infants who hit the 18-month mark in September 2020 were up to date, down from 61% the year before. The proportion of children up to date for routine vaccinations was lowest among Black children, with inequities more pronounced in the 18-month-old group.”

Chelsea Clinton Announces 'The Big Catch-Up' Initiative

To get childhood vaccination rates back on track, Chelsea Clinton is now making the rounds promoting a new vaccine initiative called “The Big Catch-Up.” In a recent interview with Fortune Magazine,

Clinton promised it would be “the largest childhood immunization effort ever.” Over the next 18 months, this initiative will attempt to “catch as many kids up as possible,” she said.

Partners in this effort include the World Health Organization, UNICEF, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Immunization Agenda 2030, and several other “global and national health partners.” As reported by the WHO, April 24, 2023:

“The pandemic saw essential immunization levels decrease in over 100 countries, leading to rising outbreaks of measles, diphtheria, polio and yellow fever. ‘The Big Catch-up’ is an extended effort to lift vaccination levels among children to at least pre-pandemic levels and endeavors to exceed those …

While calling on people and governments in every country to play their part in helping to catch up by reaching the children who missed out, The Big Catch-up will have a particular focus on the 20 countries where three quarters of the children who missed vaccinations in 2021 live …

The 20 countries where three quarters of the children who missed vaccinations in 2021 live are: Afghanistan, Angola, Brazil, Cameroon, Chad, DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo], Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Somalia, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, Myanmar, Tanzania, Viet Nam.”

When you look at all these areas of bribery and financial incentives, doesn’t it seem as though the entire vaccine program runs on financial coercion? A sort of “soft mafia” kind of operation, where the threats and promises all revolve around money and public/professional shaming versus accolades.

What would happen if all financial incentives were removed? All the performance bonuses paid to doctors, the freebies given to patients, the “charitable donations” to industry-friendly organizations and payments to front groups?

What would happen if parents were simply given unbiased evidence and no one was financially driven to pressure them either way? I don’t have the answer. It’s a thought experiment. But I suspect that vaccination rates would drop dramatically.

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

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

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

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