Fat vs. Glucose for Weight Loss: Constructing the Ideal Menu

  • When the fuel from the food you eat cannot efficiently be burned and converted to energy (ATP), it’s typically diverted and stored as fat. So, the primary cause of obesity is the inability to efficiently metabolize food, typically glucose in the mitochondria, into energy

  • The inefficient burning of fuel (metabolizing of food) is why people who are obese typically also struggle with other health issues, such as low energy, fatigue, an inability to maintain focus, digestive problems and poor immune function

  • Mitochondrial dysfunction, psychological stress, oxidative stress (reductive stress), heavy metals, endotoxin, lack of sleep and certain nutritional deficiencies can flip your metabolism into fat burning, which then impedes the metabolism of glucose and converts the glucose into fat rather than energy

  • High energy production equates to high metabolism, so part of the solution for obesity and most other conditions is to raise your metabolic rate

  • A key strategy to optimize your mitochondrial energy production is to remove blocks in the electron transport chain. Endotoxin and other bacterial toxins are among the biggest culprits, as they can directly impair electron transport. Another effective blocker of mitochondrial energy production is polyunsaturated fat (PUFA)

Visit Mercola Market


In the “GET LEAN Eat Clean” podcast above, personal health and wellness coach Brian Gryn interviews Jay Feldman — a health coach and independent health researcher who is extremely knowledgeable in the work of the late Ray Peat — about the underlying causes of obesity and how to optimize mitochondrial energy. I am also scheduled to interview Jay in the near future.

Feldman is the founder of Jay Feldman Wellness and hosts the Energy Balance podcast. A key concept he presents is that when the fuel from your food you eat cannot be efficiently metabolized and converted to energy (ATP), it’s instead typically diverted and stored as fat. In my view, he is the best teacher of Ray Peat’s work. You can view the first seven episodes of his podcast to develop a foundational understanding of bioenergetic medicine.

Another key concept is that high energy production equates to high metabolism, so part of the solution for obesity is to raise your metabolic rate. Unlike conventional wisdom which suggests calorie restriction is associated with longevity, a high metabolic rate slows aging and helps you remain more youthful — at least biologically speaking — as you age.

The inefficient burning of fuel (metabolizing of food) is why people who are obese typically also struggle with other health issues, such as low energy, fatigue, an inability to maintain focus, digestive problems and poor immune function.

As noted by Feldman, these all result from a lack of energy production in your mitochondria. So, the primary problem in obesity is that your body cannot efficiently convert the food you eat into energy. Instead, it gets converted into fat. As a result, you end up with obesity, low energy and perpetual hunger, which leads to overeating. Feldman explains:

“I … come from the bioenergetic view of health … the idea that energy, the energy that’s produced in our mitochondria, is the main driver of our health, and a lack of that energy is what leads to dysfunction …

I would say obesity is an energy problem, and endocrine problems are superimposed, happening on the energetic front. So, it’s really helpful to look at hormones … like cortisol … thyroid hormones … the reproductive hormones …

Those things are really helpful when we’re trying to get a gauge on where somebody’s at because you can’t always see what’s happening in the cells and the mitochondria. So, we can look at hormones as a proxy there, but those hormones are just signals and messengers that are being produced or inhibited in response to what’s going on in terms of the energetic state.”

As noted by Feldman, your metabolism is a sensitive system, especially when it comes to glucose metabolism. Things like mitochondrial dysfunction, psychological stress, oxidative stress (reductive stress), heavy metals, endotoxin, lack of sleep and certain nutritional deficiencies can flip your metabolism into fat burning, which then impedes the metabolism of glucose and converts the glucose into fat rather than energy.

“This is why we want to be looking at food choices in terms of how they affect our energy production,” Feldman says. The conventional view is that fuel equates to energy, which is why obesity is thought of as an energy excess and all you need to do is eat less and exercise more. But that’s not accurate.

“That [view] is something I think we definitely want to work ourselves away from and instead focus on how well we’re using the food that’s coming in, and what types of foods are better used, considering our human physiology,” Feldman says. “That’s really where we want to focus, as opposed to eating less or exercising more.”

Many, myself included, used to believe that optimizing fat burning was the solution not only to obesity but most other health problems as well, but we’re now starting to realize that this is borne out of a misconception. As explained by Feldman:

“I think what’s happened is we’ve come into this with preconceived notions that people are overweight and have excess body fat, so there must be a fat burning problem. And that is an assumption that I would say is definitely not true …

There have been clear metabolic studies where they see that you can be on a low-carb diet and you can be burning more fat with lower insulin, and having more fat released from the fat stores, and still be losing less body fat because there’s also more fat coming into the fat stores.

And on the flip side, you can be on a higher carb diet, burning less body fat, and still losing more body fat because in that case you’re storing less body fat. So, we’ve just focused in on this one piece of the equation — how much fat are we burning — when it doesn’t acknowledge the whole flow in and out of of the fat stores …

I used to think that … everyone was oxidizing carbs and the problem was that we needed to become better fat burners, but when you actually look at what’s going on in these states, fat burning is part of the problem. That is what happens when things are problematic.

There is one caveat here that’s important, which is that burning carbohydrates doesn’t always mean the same thing. We can oxidize glucose through oxidative processes, meaning we go through glycolysis, and then we go through the Krebs cycle, and then we go through the electron transport chain …

The glucose gets oxidized and we end up with a decent amount of energy. When we are in a degenerated state, in addition to burning more fat, we also run through glycolysis more, and glycolysis is the first step … of glucose burning.

Because there are blocks farther down, we can’t use the glucose all the way, and that’s a problem … but that is not caused by the sugar, it’s not caused by the carbohydrates, it’s not caused by carb burning.

That’s caused by mitochondrial dysfunction caused by our ability to produce energy. So, we’re stuck in a very inefficient glucose burning along with fat burning, and that’s not a great state to be in. But that is not the same thing as fully oxidizing glucose in a healthy metabolic state.”

I like to use graphics when explaining this, so let me restate what Feldman is saying, along with a couple of images. In summary, your body can use two fuels for energy: glucose and fat. If you eat any type of sugar or complex carbohydrate, it’s metabolized to glucose. Glucose is then broken down to pyruvate.

At that point in the process, there’s a “switch,” known as the Randle Cycle. The pyruvate can either enter the glycolysis pathway and turn into lactate, or it can be metabolized into acetyl-CoA through aerobic respiration, as shown in the image below.

muscle building energy production

Provided your fat intake is below 30% or so (this is merely a best-guess at this point, as no one knows exactly what the threshold is), the glucose you consume will be shuttled into acetyl-CoA. When it goes to acetyl-CoA, it goes into the electron transport chain in the mitochondria.

Free fatty acids can also be metabolized into acetyl-CoA through beta-oxidation in the mitochondria, and there’s a competition that occurs there with glucose, which is why your fat intake needs to be low enough for glucose to enter this pathway.

Aerobic respiration uses oxygen in the mitochondria, whereas glycolysis, which occurs in the cytosol, does not use oxygen and is very inefficient. Glycolysis only generates two ATP molecules for each molecule of glucose, whereas aerobic respiration, which occurs in the mitochondria, generates 36 to 38 ATPs per molecule of glucose.

Ultimately, you want to burn glucose in your mitochondria. That’s the most efficient, allowing you to generate the most energy, while simultaneously producing the least amount of harmful “exhaust” in the form of reactive oxygen species (ROS).

And, again, the only way to ensure that is to keep your dietary fat content below 30% of your total calories. If you’re insulin resistant, which means you’re metabolically inflexible, that threshold may be closer to 20% or even 10%. So, if you’re insulin resistant, you’ll want to significantly lower your fat intake until your insulin resistance is resolved. Then you can increase it to 30%.

randle cycle

Next, Feldman discusses a key strategy to optimize your mitochondrial energy production, which is to remove blocks in the electron transport chain so that electrons can move smoothly forward, without accumulating and backing up.

“We don’t need to focus on doing extra things to stimulate [mitochondrial energy production],” Feldman says. “Our mitochondria will work perfectly well if they have the right fuel and nutrients, and they aren’t being inhibited or blocked.”

According to Feldman, endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide or LPS) and other bacterial toxins are among the biggest culprits when it comes to things that hinder mitochondrial energy production. These toxins can directly impair electron transport through the complexes of the electron transport chain. They can also impair certain enzymes in the Krebs cycle.

“The primary solution for obesity and most other conditions is to raise your metabolic rate, and a key strategy for that is to remove blocks in the electron transport chain. Endotoxin and polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) are two key culprits that need to be eliminated.”

Poor digestion is frequently associated with negative gram bacteria in your gut that produce endotoxin, and this will inhibit your ability to convert food to energy, resulting in increased body fat. So, it’s important to reduce your endotoxin load. Aside from poor digestion, excess endotoxin is also a common culprit in degenerative conditions, metabolic syndrome, diabetes and fatty liver. To reduce your endotoxin load:

  • Rebalance your gut microbiome by reintroducing beneficial bacteria (probiotics and prebiotics). One of the best and least expensive ways to do this is to eat a serving of fermented vegetables each day.

  • Temporarily go on a low-fiber diet and avoid fiber supplements as it can feed undesirable bacteria. Cook your vegetables thoroughly rather than eating them raw, and if your condition is serious, limit fruits for a time too.

  • Eat a low-carb ketogenic diet and/or fast until the problem is resolved. As noted by Feldman, “This is one of the main places where low-carb diets, ketogenic diets, fasting, carnivore [diets] are really helpful, as they provide relief from the feeding of bacteria that are producing a lot of endotoxin.” Foods to avoid include most grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds.

  • Avoid resistant starches, as they feed LPS-producing bacteria.

Once your microbiome is balanced and symptoms of poor gut function have resolved, you can slowly reintroduce whole fruits, vegetables, roots and tubers, and other foods. Another effective blocker of mitochondrial energy production is polyunsaturated fat (PUFA).

These are your processed seed oils, canola oil being among the worst of the worst. Seed oils are loaded with linoleic acid, an omega-6 PUFA, which appears to be one of the primary drivers of chronic diseases, in part due to its detrimental impact on your mitochondrial function and energy production.

After a short discussion about ancestral diets and the likelihood that such diets were generally high in carbs, Feldman and Gryn review the “expensive tissue hypothesis,” which is the idea that the less energy you waste on hard to digest, fibrous foods, the more energy is available for your brain.

“… that’s also a reason to be consuming a lot of carbohydrates and not excess protein, because the conversion from protein to glucose and then to energy is very inefficient,” Feldman says.

“It’s about 30% less efficient than just using glucose. So, if we consider the … expensive tissue hypothesis, we shouldn’t be consuming excess protein beyond our needs and trying to use that for energy, because … that leaves less energy for our immune function, our brain function, for reproductive function and and on …

Coming back to weight loss, there’s the constrained model of energy expenditure, which is very related here, which basically says that you can’t just expend more and more calories from, let’s say, exercise, without it coming at a cost.

So, if you exercise 1,000 calories’ worth and before you were burning 2,000 calories, that doesn’t mean that you just burned 3,000. What actually happens is, you start to cut into your own basal metabolic rate, and you start to cut into your bodily function.

So, your reproduction is turned down, your immune function is turned down … Extrapolated, it really also gets at the problem with the ‘eat less exercise more’ advice for weight loss.”

Feldman also debunks the argument that fructose, unlike what is being promoted by Drs, Robert Lustig, Richard Johnson and David Perlmutter, causes nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). He reminds listeners that both dietary fat and fructose can be converted into fat, and fructose isn’t automatically destined to end up as liver fat.

“In fact, very little fructose gets converted to fat,” he says, because “there are all sorts of of routes for it to go before it’s getting converted to fat … Fructose does go to the liver and it gets picked up by the liver immediately, whereas glucose will go out into the bloodstream and can be picked up by the muscles.

But our livers have developed to handle massive amounts of fructose. Most of the research that is looking at what happens to fructose … is going on in rats. And there are a few differences, there are a few problems there. One is that rat livers are very different from human livers in their capacity for fructose handling.

Our livers have an incredible capacity for handling fructose. Hundreds and hundreds of grams can be stored as glycogen, can be converted to glucose or lactate and sent out to be stored elsewhere, or used elsewhere, and then can also be oxidized.

So, when we consume excess fructose in a normal context, in a healthy liver, very little is going to be going to fat. It takes huge amounts of carbohydrates before you’re … producing much fat in the liver through de novo lipogenesis. And that’s because our livers have this incredible capacity for handling it …”

Feldman also remarks that many fructose studies are flawed in that they’re looking at fructose-only sources, which rarely ever exists in our food supply as it is virtually always accompanied with glucose. Results from such studies therefore do not tell you much about how natural, whole food-based fructose, say from fruit or honey, acts in the body.

“Whether you’re consuming fruit or honey or anything else, the fructose to glucose ratio is always near 1-to-1,” he says. “Sometimes there’s a slight bit more fructose [than] glucose, but even in high fructose corn syrup … it’s about 55% fructose and 45% glucose. We’re really not talking about major differences here.

And that’s important because our intestines don’t absorb pure fructose. If there’s glucose present, we absorb it very well. But if there’s no glucose present … you can’t really absorb it very well.

So, what happens is a lot of it doesn’t get absorbed in our small intestine. [It] continues down to the large intestine where it feeds bacteria. Those bacteria produce endotoxin, and that is what leads to things like fatty liver production [and] fatty liver disease.”

According to the rate-of-living theory, the higher your metabolic rate — which means the quicker the electrons move from food toward oxygen, which is the final acceptor of electrons — the faster you’ll age because there’ll be higher oxidative stress.

However, deeper analysis reveals the exact opposite. The truth is, the higher your metabolic rate, the slower you age, because a high metabolism creates fewer ROS that can damage your tissues.

Your metabolism is high when electrons move rapidly and easily through the mitochondrial electron transport chain, which results in optimal energy production. When electrons are impeded from moving forward, they can back up, leak through the mitochondrial membrane and start moving backward, where they combine with oxygen to create excessive ROS.

So, for optimal health, you want high energy production and that means a high metabolic rate. As explained by Feldman, you can gauge your metabolic rate using your pulse and body temperature.

“If you’re not hitting 98.6 [degrees Fahrenheit] later in the day, if you’re not hitting 97.8 or 98.0°F when you’re waking up, that can be a sign of a hypometabolic state,” he says.

“If your [resting] pulse [first thing in the morning] is particularly low, if you’re not getting into the mid-70s or potentially low-80s, depending on your fitness state, that can also be a sign of a low metabolic rate.

The caveat is that the more cardiovascularly fit you are, the lower your pulse rate will be, independent of metabolic state. That’s because your stroke volume increases. The stroke volume is the amount of blood your heart pumps with each beat. So you can have fewer beats and still pump the same amount of blood … You can also look at temperature and pulse before and after a meal.

If … somebody wakes up at temperature 98.4°F. and then they have their breakfast and it drops to 97.5°F., that is a situation of a drop in stress hormones, where someone was waking up in a stress state, their sleep’s probably not optimal, they’re probably not optimal metabolically, then they’re consuming some carbohydrates and their stress hormones drop.

If you’re seeing that happen after a meal, it’s a pretty good sign that that’s what’s happening.

Another good way to do it is just seeing how many calories you can consume while maintaining your weight … If, with your activity and everything else, you should be burning 3,000 calories a day, but you’re maintaining your weight on 2,200 calories a day, that’s a sign that you’re pretty hypometabolic.”

Conversely, if you can maintain your weight when you add more calories, your metabolic rate is likely high, and the extra food will oftentimes improve your sleep, relaxation, energy and recovery.

While there are no magic pills to fix slow metabolism or low energy production, there are some that can help. I’ve previously written about the usefulness of niacinamide, for example. Another helpful one is methylene blue. As explained by Feldman:

“As a supplement, it’s got a number of interesting effects. For one, it’s antimicrobial … but it also has some pretty interesting mitochondrial or energetic effects, where it is able to work as an electron acceptor and donor.

So, if things are not working well in the electron transport chain, the main site where we produce ATP, [if] something’s blocked, let’s say by endotoxin or polyunsaturated fats, whatever it is, methyl blue can help us bypass those issues and allow us to continue to produce energy despite those things.

It also lowers nitric oxide, which is another inhibitor of mitochondrial respiration. So, it’s got a number of benefits. I will say, like any other supplement, there’s a place for it and there’s also a place where it can be problematic, and it’s never the first thing I would go to.

We always want to work at those foundations first — get diet on point, eat consistently, get enough carbs and fats in, make sure we’re getting the nutrients we need, trying to work on our sleep hygiene, our movement …

But I do think there’s a place for methylene blue to help with either those microbial issues or for getting the metabolism going in certain instances. It also, in particular, has some benefits neurologically, because of these stimulating effects on respiration … So, yeah, I like it. Again, it’s not magic in that it is going to fix the problems, but it can be helpful along the way.”

While it’s nearly impossible to come up with a diet that is ideal for everyone, general guidelines can be provided. After that, it’s up to you to experiment and note what works and what doesn’t. For example, some are outfitted with genes that can handle dietary fats better than others, while some may have had their gallbladder removed and can’t handle much fat at all. Following are some general principles for devising your ideal diet:

  • Protein — Most adults need about 0.6 to 0.8 grams of protein per pound of lean body mass. As an example, if your body fat mass is 20%, your lean mass is 80% of your total body weight.

    Ideally, stick to animal-based protein such as clean seafood and low-LA animals like beef, bison, lamb and other ruminant game animals, raw grass fed dairy and organic pastured eggs.

    Avoid chicken and pork as, even if pasture-raised and organically fed, they are given grains and other foods that are high in LA so they will increase your LA levels. Many plant-based proteins, including nuts and seeds (with the exception of macadamia nuts), are also high in PUFAs.

  • Carbs — Avoid hard-to-digest carbs like most grains, including brown rice, and legumes, unless they’re soaked, properly cooked, sprouted or fermented. Good options include raw authentic honey, maple syrup, white rice, ripe and dried fruit, and well-cooked (preferentially pressure cooked) tubers like red potatoes, sweet potatoes and parsnip.

  • Fats — Avoid seed oils, which are loaded with PUFAs like LA. Good options include butter, tallow, ghee, coconut oil and avocados.

If you’ve been on a low-carb, high-fat diet, slowly add in more carbs while simultaneously lowering your fat intake. As mentioned earlier, your fat intake probably needs to be somewhere around 30% or lower to allow for efficient glucose metabolism.

Feldman typically recommends a range of 20% to 40%, with the upper limit being for more physically active people with greater muscle mass. With fats at 30%, carbs would then be in the range of 55% to 60%, with protein making up the remaining 10% to 15%.

As mentioned earlier, high metabolism is the key to slowing down aging. And the slower you age, the more youthful and resilient you’ll be. As noted by Feldman:

“When we’re in our 20s, let’s say, or late teens, we can kind of eat whatever, our metabolic rate’s really, [we have] high libido’s, sleep is never an issue … digestion is really good; things don’t bother you. That’s the state … we want to be getting to. And I would say the key difference there is, where is our metabolic rate at?

Over time, metabolic rate slows, mitochondrial respiration slows. If you take aged mitochondria from someone who’s above the age of let’s say 60 or 70, there’s a dramatic reduction in energy production … So, the solution is to get back to that young metabolism. And I think it’s totally doable.

It’s just a matter of eating the things that are designed for optimal function, that allow for maximal energy production, [and] avoiding the things that interfere with that — avoiding the polyunsaturated fats, lowering endotoxin, having good, consistent sleep, consistent movement.

It’s a complex, right? It’s never as simple as ‘Just eat this one thing,’ or ‘just take this one pill.’ [It’s] having that perspective of trying to think of speeding things up, as opposed to slowing things down.”

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.

Why Were Such Terrible Approaches Chosen to Handle COVID-19?

terrible approaches used to handle covid 19

By: A Midwestern Doctor

  • A common problem in medicine is that tests and interventions are chosen that do not make sense once the full picture of their implementation is considered. Unfortunately, doctors are not trained to think two steps ahead, and we witnessed this throughout the disastrous COVID-19 response

  • Most of the options we ultimately chose to combat the pandemic were ineffective, frequently illegal, at odds with the existing medical evidence and often extremely detrimental to society. Nonetheless, anyone who provided reasonable criticisms to those approaches or suggested effective solutions to stop the pandemic was widely criticized and silenced

  • Much of that debacle resulted from three incompetent and dishonest doctors, with the support of the national media, hijacking the COVID-19 response and becoming public health dictators

  • Now that plans are being laid to revive the COVID-19 response, it is critical we reflect on the systemic mistakes that were made so we do not repeat those mistakes again

Visit Mercola Market


Two of the themes I’ve repeatedly tried to illustrate in my writings are the widespread lack of critical thinking in medicine and the pervasive propaganda apparatus that in many ways has taken its place. I believe both of these are particularly relevant to the current attempts to revive the COVID response.

For example, when someone (thanks to effective propaganda) has a monopoly over the truth, it shields their actions from scrutiny because no one will be able to question if what’s being done makes any sense. Since many of the COVID mitigation policies made no sense, those who became aware of their nonsensical nature in turn refused to follow them, but since many others were shielded from that information, they happily complied with everything.

In this article, I would like to examine some of the major deficits in critical thinking I observed throughout the COVID response in the hope we can avoid making those mistakes again.

When COVID first started, there were a variety of unknowns about the virus. One of the most important ones was if it had a droplet or aerosol spread. Some viruses, like influenza (the flu) spread through being attached to water droplets, and for those viruses, “targeting” water droplet spread to varying degrees mitigates their transmission.

For example, while viruses are infinitely smaller than the gaps in a cloth mask, water droplets are not, so if someone wears a cloth mask, the cloth fiber will inhibit the expulsion of water droplets from the mask wearer, and by extension the degree to which they spread influenza. Likewise, the distance water droplets can travel is limited to around 6 feet, as the droplets quickly fall to the ground, so maintaining distance between people reduces the spread of those viruses.

Finally, droplet with viruses will attach to surfaces, after which point, they can be picked up by someone physically touching the surface.

Conversely, if a virus is aerosolized (meaning it freely floats in and travels through the air), none of the above applies. Instead it will spread everywhere, hang around in the air long after someone has left, and penetrates most of the barriers designed to block it.

Aerosolized pathogens are thus known to be much more contagious and the hospitals have much stricter isolation protocols to prevent their spread within the hospital (tuberculosis and measles are the two classic pathogens known for this).

As it so happened, from the start of the pandemic, there was very strong evidence COVID-19 spread through aerosols — for example at the end of January 2020, the Diamond Princess cruise ship experienced one of the earliest COVID outbreaks and was quarantined. The outbreak on the ship was closely studied by experts around the world as it had inadvertently provided the perfect experimental conditions to study how COVID-19 was transmitted.

One of the many observations made was that people who remained in their rooms caught COVID-19, which suggested the virus was spreading through the ventilation system and was thus aerosolized.

Subsequently, numerous other observations also emerged suggesting aerosolized transmission, such as outbreaks occurring where individual indoors were 18 times more likely to catch the virus indoors than those outdoors along with numerous cases of individuals catching COVID-19 from people they were far over 6 feet away from.

By the time the Diamond Princess outbreak happened, I was relatively certain aerosols were a key route of transmission. Yet, despite numerous parties petitioning the WHO with evidence of aerosol transmission, the WHO insisted that only droplet transmission was occurring, and sent out numerous statements dismissing the aerosol hypothesis. Eventually, two years later, the WHO changed their position and quietly announced that aerosol transmission also was occurring.

This monumental mistake prompted Nature (a premier scientific journal) to conduct an investigation to determine exactly how this happened and confirmed that the WHO had ignored an overwhelming volume of evidence for aerosol transmission during that period.

Note: For those of you who cannot view the full article, a summary by Mercola can be viewed here.

This is very similar to many of the other profound lapses of judgement we saw throughout COVID-19 (we will cover throughout this article) where longstanding scientific principles and clear scientific evidence were thrown out the window so a COVID-19 response at odds with the actual science could be conducted.

In short, had aerosol transmission have been recognized, there would have been no justification for either masking or social distancing.

Note: In a 3/21/21 editorial by Scott Gottlieb (one of Trump’s FDA commissioners) stated that no one knew where the arbitrary 6 foot recommendation came from and Gottlieb’s best guess was that it originated from the mistaken assumption that SARS-CoV-2 spread through water droplets.

My best guess is that social distancing originated from a high school sophomore’s 2006 science fair project, and like many things to come in the pandemic industry, was based off of wildly inaccurate computer models.

Within medicine, much of a doctor’s education has shifted to being trained to follow clinical algorithms, standardized protocols, and authoritative guidelines (all of which often but not always improve patient outcomes) rather than doctors using their critical thinking to independently decide what the best approach is for each patient they see.

As the previous example illustrates, being told to have everyone wear cloth masks and socially distance should have raised some red flags, but rather than ask if the recommendations made sense, the majority of doctors instead simply pushed the guidelines they were given onto their patients and community.

One longstanding area that highlights the issues with robotically following protocols is the way diagnostic testing is utilized. When doctors aren’t sure what to do, they typically order standard diagnostic tests to help their guide their approach. While this seems reasonable, the problem is that they often don’t think two steps ahead and ask any of the following before ordering the test:

  • Will the possible results of this test in any way change how I treat this patient?

  • How likely is this test to harm the patient and does that potential harm outweigh the benefits of the test?

  • How likely is this test to tell me something I don’t already know?

  • Could an appropriate physical examination tell me what I am trying to figure out with this test?

Note: The last point is a huge issue in medicine, as medical training has gradually shifted away from performing a detailed physical examination (which is often the most useful way to evaluate someone) to ordering lots of expensive tests, which has led to much of the physical examination becoming a lost art in the richer nations. I can’t prove this, but I have always thought this shift occurred to help make money for the medical industry.

Because of all of this, I continually see patients who receive lots of unnecessary tests. For instance, any time a patient is sent to a specialist, the specialist will typically order the bread and butter tests of their specialty even if there is no good justification for doing so.

In many cases, I’ve referred a patient to an appropriate specialist, told the specialist on the phone what I think the patient needs done, why I would caution against using their standard tests for the patient’s specific circumstances, tell the same to my patient, and then inevitably find out that the specialist successfully pushed them to do the test, and in many cases didn’t do anything else.

Eventually, I realized the most effective way to prevent this happening to my patients was to tell them:

The doctor I’m sending you to may want to order this test. If they do, ask them to tell you what possible results could come up from the test, roughly how likely each one is, and how each result would change their management of your case. You can also ask them if there are any potential risks from the test and how much the test will cost, but try to focus on if there is any point to the test in the first place.

The area where I most commonly encounter this issue is with MRIs, which neurologists typically default to using, particularly if they can’t make sense of what’s happening. Whenever an MRI (or CT) is done, you have the option of injecting a contrast agent which makes it easier to see all the details present. With MRIs, the primary contras agent utilized is gadolinium, a metal that due to its magnetic properties, becomes illuminated on MRIs.

Gadolinium is a toxic heavy metal that has the unfortunate side effect of sometimes causing severe permanent illnesses (e.g., neurological disabilities) in those who receive contrast agents containing it. For example, Maddie DeGaray was a child enrolled in Pfizer’s small trial that tested their vaccine in children.

She had a bad reaction which the investigators tried to cover up (as her injury alone would have made the vaccine too dangerous to approve for children), eventually got a gadolinium MRI, at which point she immediately and permanently lost the ability to walk.

In short, because of how many people I’ve run into that developed gadolinium illnesses, I try to avoid those MRIs if at all possible (especially for sensitive patients). In doing so, I have learned that in the majority of cases where neurologists insist on a gadolinium MRI, there is no real net benefit compared to performing a normal MRI (e.g., the final test result will still be ambiguous, or nothing can do done for the most likely diagnosis the gadolinium MRI will detect).

Despite this, and the fact that enough evidence of gadolinium harm has accumulated that many large groups now recommend against it unless absolutely necessary, almost all doctors I meet still push these MRIs.

Note: Manganese is a much safer metal which also has the magnetic properties necessary to functions as a contrast agent. Despite decades of research and data showing it is both safe and effective, it is still not available to patients.

To provide an example that puts all of this into context, many COVID-19 vaccine injured patients I know have seen dozens of doctors (including specialists at premier institutions).

Those doctors have ordered countless (not necessarily safe) tests which cost insane amounts (e.g., one of my patients has seen over 30 specialists, had received almost 100 tests — many which required nuclear isotopes being injection, and their insurance has now paid well over $300,000.00 for those tests), but all failed to detect anything that could be diagnosed (frequently leading to the patient’s being referred to psychiatry).

In many cases, I’ve found this issue emerged because the conditions the vaccine injured have are things the standard tests and labs are simply not designed to detect.

For example, when microclotting occurs throughout the body due to strong positive charges (like those found on the spike protein) shifting the zeta potential to one which causes red blood cells to clump together (explained here), a myriad of different complex issues emerge throughout the body, many of which are due to nerves not getting the blood they need to function.

Those microclots are too small for MRIs to detect, so all MRI’s are “normal.” However in these same patients, when I’ve looked for the microclotting with tests designed to detect it (e.g., by examining the blood vessels of the eyes with a stereomicroscopes) the systemic microclotting can be easily seen.

One of largest failures in critical thinking I observed during COVID-19 came from the infamous PCR tests — the mass adoption of which was justified by the unscientific (and largely proven to be false) assumption that SARS-CoV-2 spread from asymptomatic individuals. These tests had two major issues:

  • First their sensitivity was incorrectly calibrated, as the number of times PCR tests amplified existing viral RNA fragments was much higher than appropriate, so the PCR tests would frequently detect SARS-CoV-2 when it was not actually present.

  • Secondly (due to the previous point), positive COVID tests often had no correlation with disease outbreaks in communities or the likelihood someone would later become ill. Rather, the only correlation ever observed was the number of COVID cases being directly proportional to the number of tests performed.

    The great shame about this was that there was already a reliable and non-invasive way to detect if COVID-19 was going to spike in a community — by testing if it was in the sewage (as COVID lives in your GI tract), and if the amount of it in a community’s wastewater began increasing. However since that was not as alarming as listing thousands of new cases each day, this much more practical approach was never the focus of the pandemic response.

Later, antigen tests were introduced which were much more useful because they could be done immediately (rather than you having to wait to get a PCR result from a lab) and more importantly, did not constantly get false positives.

To illustrate the ridiculousness of all of this, at my hospital, when a patient came in my colleagues did not think needed to be hospitalized, they gave the patient an antigen test (which typically came up negative — and thus did not require them to hospitalize the patient), whereas when a patient came in they felt needed to be admitted, that patient always received a PCR test that invariably came up positive.

Note: A few people I know believe they either got COVID from a nasal swab or suffered a significant injury to their nose as the result of a quick forceful swab at a testing site (which definitely has happened). In many of the cases I came across where the individual caught COVID after a swab, the timeline of events strongly argued for the two being connected.

However, I know Ryan Cole tested numerous swabs and was never able to find SARS-CoV-2 on one Because of this, I think those infections most likely resulted from individuals who were not ill being in close proximity to those who were when they went to get tested and an aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 then infecting everyone there.

When COVID-19 started in late 2019, I became very worried about it and concluded that I needed to find an effective way to treat it as soon as possible. At the same time, I also recognized that if the HIV response was anything to go off of, it was unlikely an effective treatment would ever see the light of day, especially given that Fauci (who was directly responsible for this happening with HIV) was still in charge — and as you all know, this is exactly what ended up happening.

My thought process in turn was that given the danger the virus posed (based on what I’d seen in China and Italy), I could not risk getting COVID until I felt confident I could treat it. For this reason, I fully admit I was one of the first people in the United States to mask with a fitted N-95 (specifically doing so at work, conferences and when traveling in airports), something many of my colleagues actively made fun of me for doing.

Note: For pathogens with an aerosol spread, N-95’s don’t really work unless they are fitted to the wearer as otherwise they just get in from the gaps between the mask and your face.

Additionally, for many infectious illnesses, the route of infection is often through the eyes or ears, something people rarely consider protecting (e.g., by not touching them), and frequently clearing out the ears (e.g., with hydrogen peroxide) can make a huge difference if done early in the course of a viral upper respiratory illness.

By May of 2020, I felt confident that I could treat COVID-19 and stopped masking entirely except when I was around a patient with COVID or legally required to — at which point those same colleagues were hostile towards me for not (cloth) masking in public.

In short, masking was not something I at all wanted to do, but I felt given all the unknowns at the start, it made sense to mask while I was figuring out how to treat COVID-19. In contrast, most of my colleagues did the exact opposite and did not listen to any of my warnings (which for example resulted in me needing to supply them with PPE I’d stocked up before it ran out).

I believe the difference in our thought processes came about because I always thought two steps ahead, whereas in each case, like I highlighted in the previous section with diagnostic testing, they did not and instead simply did whatever the current guidelines were.

This was particularly frustrating because after my warnings about COVID and then the need to acquire PPE were ignored, no one was interested in the treatments I put forward for treating COVID-19 (as they were not in the guidelines) even when the protocols I found had saved patients otherwise expected to die.

Once the masking kicked into gear, there were a few major points that argued against their mass adoption:

  • No one knew how to wear them (it baffles me but I still see medical students who elect to wear masks — when many are not — but don’t even have the mask cover their nose).

  • Since more and more evidence accumulated people with masks were getting infected and that COVID had an aerosolized spread, there was no possible justification for cloth masks.

  • People developed a variety of health effects from the masks such as difficulty breathing and increased respiratory tract infections.

    One of the most interesting ones I learned of came from a few integrative colleagues who had tested the nasal bacterial and fungal flora of their patients for years (as this commonly is applicable for complex illnesses) and found that after the COVID masking, Klebsiella and Pseudomonas (along with a few weirder species) started being frequently found in their patients.

In a recent article, I put forward the argument that people in power will typically lie if it’s possible for propaganda to convince the public they are telling the truth. Fauci’s duplicity during COVID-19 is an excellent example of this, as it can be proven he lied continually, and the manner in which he lied employed many of the classic propaganda techniques.

Consider this February 5, 2020 email Fauci wrote (which essentially matches what I believed at the time):

“Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection.

The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you.

I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location.”

However, as we all know, Fauci instead became one of the leading cheerleaders for the masks, even after more and more evidence accumulated showing it made no sense at all. Many other politicians followed in his footsteps with equally ridiculous demonstrations:

Note: I suspect they did not do this at home.

As time went on, public opinion turned more and more against the masks. Eventually a Cochrane review (the most definitive form of evidence) was published that determined there was no benefit from cloth masking, a small benefit may occur from N-95 masking (depending on how it was assessed, compared to cloth masking, a -10%, 14% or 30% improvement was observed).

It should be noted that this review also included viruses like influenza which have a droplet spread, which means any of the benefits found for COVID-19 were likely smaller than stated. Given all of that, it’s remarkable to see how Fauci still makes non-sensical lies to defends their use — which even CNN is now calling him out on:

even cnn now confronting fauci on effectiveness of masks

Note: What I find particularly frustrating about the useless approaches we used was that in tandem highly effective ones were never utilized. For example, since COVID-19 was known spread by aerosols and much more severely affected people indoors (since the SARS-CoV-2 aerosols floated in place rather than going away), increasing ventilation (e.g., by opening windows) was a simple and highly impactful approach no one ever used.

Likewise, numerous groups were able to show that safe ultraviolet light frequencies could rapidly neutralize the virus and prevent it from infecting individuals where those affordable (and non-disruptive) UV lamps were deployed.

The CDC and many other organizations regularly released guidelines advocating for as much hand-washing as possible. The problem with this is that COVID-19 was never shown to spread through hands contacting contaminated surfaces (not unlike how its transmission was erroneously assumed to be through droplets).

A few physicians pointed this out from the get-go, and by early 2021, Nature one of the top scientific journals had admitted there was no point in repeatedly sanitizing surfaces. Likewise, the recent Cochrane review found regular hand washing at best can cause an 11% – 14% reduction in acute respiratory infections.

Nonetheless, compulsive handwashing became a fixture of the pandemic response. Reminders to wash your hands were everywhere. Individuals were regularly chastised or reprimanded for failing to continually wash their hands for 20 seconds, and before long every surface was being regularly disinfected with toxic chemicals.

As I watched all of this, I could not help but recall that a common feature of obsessive-compulsive disorder is a tendency to compulsively wash one’s hands (sometimes to the point the skin is damaged).

Since individuals with similar neurotic conditions became one of the demographics most committed to the pandemic response, I have often wondered if the mass hand-washing campaign was partly chosen to recruit neurotic members of society to fight for the pandemic policies.

This in turn touches upon a broader point. As I am trying to show in this article, virtually every approach we used to address COVID in 2020 was a hassle for everyone involved and known to have no real benefit in preventing COVID. This argues that the primary purpose of the campaigns was not to reduce deaths, but rather to have each member of the populace do the work necessary to comply with those approaches.

I would argue this actually makes a lot of sense because it is well known in psychology that the more work someone engages in relating to an idea, the more invested they become in supporting the idea.

This principle in turn has been repeatedly exploited by groups seeking to control others all throughout history, including within the United States (e.g., children going door to door collecting scrap metal to be turned into munitions to fight the Nazis — even though the metal was ultimately never used).

Prior to the vaccines, without question, the most damaging COVID policy were the lockdowns — something I believe was made possible by having the public already be habituated to all of this due to the continual hand washing, social isolation and mask wearing they had already done.

Since those rituals were not sufficient to overcome much of the public’s resistant to these measures, we watched other sneaky tactics be used such as moving the goal posts. For instance, do you remember how long the “Two weeks to slow the spread” ended up lasting for?

Once you got past all the propaganda, the lockdowns made no sense. For example let’s consider what the WHO had to say about all of this in 2019:

“The evidence base on the effectiveness of NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) in community settings is limited, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for most interventions.

There have been a number of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that personal protective measures such as hand hygiene and face masks have, at best, a small effect on influenza transmission. However, there are few RCTs for other NPIs, and much of the evidence base is from observational studies and computer simulations.

School closures can reduce influenza transmission but would need to be carefully timed in order to achieve mitigation objectives. Travel-related measures are unlikely to be successful in most locations … and travel restrictions and travel bans are likely to have prohibitive economic consequences.

The most effective strategy to mitigate the impact of a pandemic is to reduce contacts between infected and uninfected persons, thereby reducing the spread of infection, the peak demand for hospital beds, and the total number of infections, hospitalizations and deaths.

However, social distancing measures (e.g. contact tracing, isolation, quarantine, school and workplace measures and closures, and avoiding crowding) can be highly disruptive, and the cost of these measures must be weighed against their potential impact.”

Unfortunately, all of this went out the window after a hysteria was whipped up about COVID-19. Shortly before the lockdowns, a model was put forward asserting that a global catastrophe would occur if strict lockdowns were not immediately implemented, and that model was largely responsible for convincing leaders around the world they had no choice but to enact them. To give you an idea of just how “accurate” the model was:

performance of imperial college

Note: Much of the existing evidence suggests lockdowns increased rather than decreased the COVID-19 death rate.

Many things should have called the Imperial model’s predictions into question (e.g., its author had for decades repeatedly made extreme overestimations of the severity of previous infectious disease outbreaks, and the model itself made no sense).

Yet despite its repeated failures to accurately predict COVID-19, it was never challenged nor updated as data became available showing its core assumptions were wrong. Instead leaders (with a few exceptions like Ron DeSantis) didn’t think the argument through and simply took the most trustable experts at their word.

This was a shame because it should have been obvious the lockdowns (which lacked evidence to support their use) didn’t make even sense once you thought more than one step ahead. Consider each of the following:

  • Lockdowns are extremely costly to society, so they cannot be maintained indefinitely.

  • Once lockdowns are broken, all the cases that would have been prevented will occur anyways. So at best, they can only delay the inevitable.

  • The only way lockdowns can make sense is if they are done within a strategic context such as buying time for an emergency therapy or to ensure individuals are exposed at a later time when they will be the most likely to survive an infection.

Instead, once the lockdowns were pushed forward, every strategically valid follow-up was disparaged. For example:

  • Each (non-patentable) COVID-19 therapy that independent researchers discovered was blacklisted — even simple things like encouraging people to take vitamin D or throat and nasal washes (which I now believe, provided xylitol and a disinfectant are used, was the most accessible and effective way to treat early COVID-19 due to the virus initially entering through those routes before it got to the lungs).

  • People were encouraged to stay indoors and socially distance over the summer (which for numerous reasons predictably set them up for a bad COVID season right before the election and throughout the following winter).

  • The proposal to have those at the lowest risk from COVID go back to their normal lives and develop a natural immunity that could then protect the most vulnerable members of society (both due to their natural immunity slowing the spread and because COVID would, following the laws of virology, mutate to less dangerous strains) was relentlessly attacked — for example FOIA’d emails showed that Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins conspired to torpedo that proposal, and shortly after the national media did.

Unfortunately, since the medical profession once again did not think two steps ahead, the inevitable (and later proven) failures of the lockdowns were never considered. Conversely, the costs of the lockdowns were immense. For instance:

  • According to the WHO, in the first year of the pandemic, global prevalence of anxiety and depression increased by a massive 25%.

  • Domestic abuse rose by 8.1% during the lockdowns.

  • There was a general worsening of health. For example to quantify the lockdown’s effects on metabolic health, one study found people gained an average of 2 pounds per month of lockdowns.

  • Critically important evaluations and treatments (e.g., for cancer) were skipped.

    Note: There was also an unprecedented drop in sudden infant deaths during the lockdowns, something many people in the vaccine safety community accurately predicted would occur as a result of infants skipping their routine vaccination appointments during the lockdowns.

  • School closures (which were completely unjustified as children had no risk for COVID-19) had devastating effects on the educational development of students across America — particularly for the poorest children.

    For example, researchers who had monitored children for years identified a drop from 100 to 78 in the average IQ of children born during the pandemic (which was most likely due to their social isolation and facial expressions being concealed by masking). To quantify the impact of a 22-point drop:

    An IQ of 70-85 is the threshold for borderline intellectual functioning and is technically a cognitive impairment, but the deficit is not as severe as intellectual disability and this group may hence not be sufficiently mentally disabled to be eligible for specialized services. During school years, these individuals are often “slow learners” and a large percentage of this group fails to complete high school.

    As a result, many can often achieve only a low socioeconomic status, and most adults in this group blend in with the rest of the population.

  • The lockdowns caused a “historically unprecedented increase in global poverty” of close to 100 million people, and a 11.6% global increase of extreme poverty.

  • 150 million people no longer had the food they needed. The magnitude of this wave of global starvation in another thing that is almost impossible to put into words.

  • One third of American’s small businesses closed. These were often sources of generational wealth and more importantly, a way to escape from poverty.

  • We witnessed the largest transfer of wealth in history. From 2020 to 2021, billionaires went from owning slightly over 2% of the global household wealth to 3.5% of it.

All of the points I made above were entirely predictable, and many of them were explicitly warned against as reasons for not enacting the lockdowns. I would argue that a really good reason would be needed to justify inflicting a single one of these points upon society — yet instead we did all of them (and more) for the lockdowns, which were a speculative measure that ultimately had no benefit.

Had I not subsequently witnessed the COVID vaccine campaign, I would have argued the COVID lockdowns were in contention for the biggest public health mistake in history.

In my opinion, the best argument for the lockdowns was that if they could have been instituted prior to COVID-19 entering a community, that in theory could have permanently prevented a lot of people from getting the infection (although as the WHO’s 2019 report stated, it was unclear if even this was a good idea).

A similar issue existed with vaccinating for COVID-19. If it was somehow possible to vaccinate the entire community for COVID prior to it entering the population and there were relatively few people the vaccines failed for (e.g., the immune suppressed individuals), it might have been possible to make COVID disappear.

However, if that did not happen and only some people were vaccinated once the virus was already there, the virus would simply infect those not immune to it, and then within those infected patients, rapidly mutate to strains not covered by the vaccine and then infect the vaccinated.

Since the vaccines were not available until a year into the pandemic it was essentially a forgone conclusion that all they could do was trigger the evolution of variants the vaccines would not be effective against. Furthermore, from an efficacy perspective, there were three major problems with the vaccines.

First, coronaviruses, and particularly SARS-CoV-2, are known for rapidly mutating. Because of how rapidly they mutate, it had long been considered an immensely challenging task to make a vaccine against them.

Second, the vaccine design chosen only made one antigen (the toxic spike protein). Since this was one of the most rapidly mutating part of the virus, it was a forgone conclusion that the vaccine would rapidly stop working on the currently circulating strains of COVID. Ryan Cole has aptly summarized this as “why are we mandating a vaccine for an extinct virus?”

Third, the immunity the injected vaccine created only existed in the blood (something which the virus enters much later in the infection), meaning that it did not protected against infection and thus transmission — a problem well-known for vaccines that do not create mucosal immunity.

Third, because of how fast SARS-CoV-2 mutates, it is almost impossible to identify an existing strain, produce a matching vaccine to it, and then get it to the population before that variant is already on the way to extinction.

When you consider that the vaccine was also highly experimental and had a huge number of known potential risks, like the lockdowns (provided one thought two steps ahead), it was very difficult to provide a justifiable argument for why it could possibly be a good idea to inject the entire world with this technology — especially if doing so required unparalleled ethical violations.

As it so happens, not only were the vaccines a mistake from the start, we essentially saw the worst case scenario happen with them:

  • Every single potential risk turned out to be true, and the spike protein vaccines ended up being one of the most dangerous medical products in history.

  • Rather than decreasing COVID-19, in many cases they increased its duration and prevalence (something which has only gotten worse as time has gone forward).

  • COVID had originally been projected to have a few waves and then go extinct. After the vaccines came out, this did not happen and instead COVID has now become a fixture in our daily lives that will “require” annual vaccinations like the flu.

    While I can’t prove this, I long thought the reason why there was such a desperate push to rapidly get a vaccine for COVID to the market was so that a vaccine could be created for the virus prior to it becoming extinct and the market no longer existing.

    Consider for instance that numerous countries in Africa never instituted the COVID-19 vaccines, and COVID long ago disappeared from those countries.

uganda usa covid deaths

Note: Uganda has less people than America, while the total number of deaths is much larger on the USA graph. To illustrate the deaths proportional to the population, the USA graph should have been about 7 times larger than it was.

Because of how rapidly SARS-CoV-2 mutated, many of us believed from the start that the only way to address it was by allowing people to get the infections, provide treatments to mitigate the danger of their infections and then allow them to develop natural immunity (which is much harder for the virus to evolve resistance to). As we all know, this was not what happened.

Instead, we are now seeing the toxic vaccine become normalized as an annual required product. Sadder still, the goal posts have moved to the point not only our top public officials, but even a Pfizer executive (the previously mentioned former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb) is promoting it on national television.

Joe Navarro and Scott Atlas M.D., in each of their White House memoirs provided the best summaries I have come across of what went awry during the COVID-19 response.

Navarro recognized early on that COVID-19 would turn into a huge problem, but when he tried to initiate something being done, the rest of the administration shut him down because they didn’t agree with his dire forecasts. Eventually, Navarro was able to convince Trump to go against the experts (e.g., Fauci) and initiate a travel ban from China (which was widely decried in the media).

Later, once the pandemic started, he observed that the pandemic response was dysfunctional and kept on (unsuccessfully) trying to push for viable treatments like hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to be used to treat the virus. The roadblocks he ran into were quite illuminating:

“On March 23, four days after President Trump had promised that the FDA would expedite the use of HCQ, [HHS Secretary] Azar and his deputy at HHS, Bob Kadlec, gave several FDA bureaucrats very clear and explicit instructions to make hydroxychloroquine widely available to the American public as an early CCP Virus treatment on an outpatient basis.

Nonetheless, five days later, those very same FDA bureaucrats — including FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn and his eventual replacement, Janet Woodcock — completely countermanded the POTUS-Azar-Kadlec order. Instead, on March 28, the FDA issued a rogue directive restricting the use of HCQ to the late treatment of hospitalized patients.

With its rogue directive, the FDA effectively ensured that HCQ would be diverted from its best possible use as an early treatment for outpatients [where it worked and save lives] to its worst possible use as a late-treatment medicine for hospitalized patients. At least in the court of public opinion, that single decision was tantamount if not to murder, then certainly to negligent homicide.

Yet there would be even more blood on Anthony Fauci’s hands … when it was Fauci’s turn [at the COVID task force], right on cue, he immediately played his “there’s only anecdotal evidence card. Just as immediately, I stood up from my backbench chair just behind Vice President Pence and walked straight toward Fauci.”

As I approached him, I saw fear in his eyes. I’m sure it crossed his mind that I might physically assault him. Instead, I dumped my large dossier of studies onto the table in front of him and said to Fauci as much as to everyone else in the room — especially VPOTUS — “Tony, these are not anecdotes. That’s more than fifty scientific studies in support of HCQ.

Fifty! So stop spouting your crap about there only being anecdotal evidence because not only is it counterfactual. You are going to kill people just like you did during the AIDS crisis when you refused to approve medicines that everybody but you knew worked.”

As if all that weren’t bad enough, on April 23, FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn took yet another rogue and inexplicable action that would blow even more fetid air into Hydroxy Hysteria’s billowing sails.

Under Hahn’s signature, the FDA issued a “Drug Safety Communication” that warned of “abnormal heart rhythms and possible death” associated with HCQ [which was due to one study that deliberately gave toxic doses to patients]. The FDA also warned practicing physicians that the drug should be used only in hospital settings and not with outpatients.

The ludicrous new “Fauci-Hahn-Woodcock National Pandemic Strategy” would keep early-stage infected patients quarantined at home and without hydroxychloroquine treatment until they became so ill that they had to be admitted to a hospital.

Once in hospital, they would finally be given hydroxychloroquine, which, in that late-treatment use, would not work very well. It can’t be said too forcefully: what the FDA did was flat-out Grim Reaper ridiculous.”

As a result of the FDA’s warning, demand dried up for HCQ, doctors became scared to prescribe it, facilities stopped allowing it to be prescribed, and it became impossible for doctors to recruit patients for further HCQ trials. Navarro found this particularly frustrating as he had had the foresight to stockpile enough HCQ to treat COVID-19 throughout America, but instead no treatment for COVID was ever made available and hundreds of thousands of Americans died.

However, no bad deed goes unrewarded, and roughly a year later, Commissioner Hahn, left his position and became the Chief Medical Officer for Moderna’s parent company.

Not long after in June, despite highly questionable evidence of safety or efficacy, Azar signed a deal to buy the entire supply of remdesivir (approximately 500,000 doses) for roughly 3200.00 per treatment course. It was estimated the fair price for each course of treatment was around 310.00 (while the production cost was approximately 10.00).

Typically, when the government makes an investment of this scale (e.g., both in the development and acquisition of remdesivir), it will always do everything it can to utilize the investment regardless of how dangerous and ineffective the product turns out to be (this likewise is one reason there has been such a push to “use” all the vaccines the government already paid for).

Almost everything Navarro described in the HCQ saga was identical to what my colleague and friend Pierre Kory experienced with the agencies conspiring to block Ivermectin from being used to treat COVID, so I can deeply empathize with how frustrating all of this must have been for Navarro.

Once the lockdowns began, Atlas (a highly regarded academic physician) became an outspoken critic of the lockdowns as he realized they had no benefit and were causing massive harms to the country. Trump eventually reached out to him and asked him to join the White House’s COVID task force as he felt Atlas’s approach was correct for America.

Once there, Atlas realized that everyone in the White House was deferring to the expertise of the three doctors on the COVID-19 task force, and that Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx, and Robert Redfield (the CDC director) were effectively directing the entire COVID response. Later it was discovered they shared a questionable past together and all three had made a pact to quit if Trump dismissed any one of them from the task force.

For example, in the early 1990s, Redfield and Birx, both army medical officers, worked together on a HIV vaccine and published fraudulent data suggesting it worked. They were investigated by the military and charged with deliberate scientific misconduct and fraud which Redfield confessed to.

Nonetheless, Redfield then lied to congress, claiming his vaccine worked (it didn’t) and was able to secure a 20 million dollar grant to the military for his vaccine, which in turn led to all the charges being dropped and kickstarted Redfield and Birx’s advancement through the Federal bureaucracy.

Note: Fauci was also heavily involved in the HIV vaccine research, but like his colleagues never found an effective vaccine.

During his time on the task force, Atlas was struck by the gross incompetence he witnessed, particularly in Fauci and Birx, as they frequently demonstrated an inability to grasp simple concepts in scientific publications to such a severe degree Atlas was doubtful either of them could have completed a medical residency now.

Many of the examples he observed were almost surreal and he came to refer to the COVID task force as the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party (I personally felt Atlas’s account most closely matched the presidential cabinet meeting in Idiocracy).

The central issue with the task force was that from the start Birx became convinced the only solution for the pandemic was to conduct as much testing as possible and then use the positive cases those tests yielded to justify mask mandates and scaring governors into locking down their states (leading to many Republican governors to complain to Atlas about the useless advice Birx was continually giving them).

Regardless of the arguments or data Atlas raised (e.g., that COVID was not dangerous to children so there was no reason to lockdown schools), he could not get Birx to change her mind, and in the cases where he gained any type of momentum against her policies, she would demonstrate remarkable demonstrations of emotional immaturity.

In the rare cases where Atlas was able to make progress with convincing the rest of the task force to move away from endorsing lockdowns, and instead towards targeted protection of the most vulnerable groups (particularly the elderly), someone would leak what happened on the task force to the national media.

A hysteria would then immediately flood the airwaves (often bolstered by statements Fauci gave to the press) alleging the herd immunity strategy sacrificed large numbers of American lives for the economy, which in turn led to Atlas’s proposals being rolled back to avoid the political backlash the strategy they would cause prior to the election.

A quotation from a review of Atlas’s memoir perfectly summarizes much of the what happened within the White House during the pandemic response:

“When he resigned from the Task Force in a telephone call to Trump, Atlas writes, the president told him, “You were right about everything, all along the way. And you know what? You were also right about something else. Fauci wasn’t the biggest problem of all of them. It really wasn’t him.”

Trump meant that it was Birx, and Atlas couldn’t resist a parting shot at the aides who had been so afraid of her. Knowing that they were listening on the speakerphone in the Oval Office, Atlas said, “Well, Mr. President, I will say this. You have balls. I have balls. But the closest people around you — they didn’t. They had no balls. They let you down.” They let down the rest of the country, too.”

Note: One of the most telling examples of Birx’s conduct occurred in July 2022 after she left the COVID task force (she ironically is the chief medical officer for a private company that uses UV light to disinfect an area from things like COVID-19). In the July 2022 interview, she admits they overplayed the vaccines and that she knew they would not protect against infection:

I believe you can argue many of the immense errors we witnessed during the COVID-19 response occurred due to it being entirely unscientific.

For example, the most appropriate way to have scientifically decided how to handle the pandemic would have been for an international team of experts is each relevant field (e.g., economics, epidemiology, virology, immunology, vaccinology, molecular biology, and evolutionary biology) to have been convened and vigorously debated which approach made the most sense.

Instead, because the media covered for them, a small number of doctors who were entirely incompetent within those fields were able to become public health dictators with absolute control over everything that happened. As a result, we all paid the price for their terrible decisions (e.g., their single minded focus on trying to free up hospital beds in the short term by isolating everyone), while many of them (e.g., the two FDA commissioners) got paid off for selling out America.

Consider for a moment how the WHO’s 2019 guidance for handling a respiratory pandemic compared to what was actually enacted throughout 2020 and 2021:

recomendations on the use of npis by severity level

After I began to hear reports over the last month along with more and more signs that many of these measures may be brought back this fall I felt I need to write this article and review the historical context behind what happened.

For instance, because of absurdity of mask mandates, Trump blocked the CDC from implementing one, but less than a month after Biden became president, the CDC instituted a nationwide mandate which affected all airline passengers in the United States.

A few months later, a lawsuit was filed against the Biden Administration alleging that the CDC had exceeded its statutory authority by implementing the mandate, and as many of you might remember (everyone on my plane broke out in applause), on April 18th 2022, a federal judge sided with the plaintiffs and overturned the mask mandate.

The CDC requested for the Department of Justice to overturn this ruling, which caused 23 states concerned about the CDC’s illegal overreach to have their Attorney Generals file an amicus brief in August 2022 opposing the ruling ever being appealed (17 congressmen also did the same). As the illegality of the CDC’s national mask mandate was quite clear, it took a year for Biden’s DOJ to come up a creative way to overcome the initial ruling.

In May 2023, the Biden administration ended the COVID-19 emergency and then moved to have lawsuits filed against their conduct throughout the pandemic be declared moot and dismissed. For masks, the moot point argument won, leading the 11th Circuit Court to eventually rule on 6-22-23 that:

“Here, the government has carried its burden: there is no reasonable basis to expect the Mandate will be reinstated if this case is rendered moot … and there is not a grain of evidence that the CDC has any plans to promulgate an identical mandate.

We find Appellees’ contention that there is a reasonable expectation that the CDC will issue another nationwide mask mandate for all conveyances and transportation hubs to be speculative at best.

Accordingly, the order and judgment of the district court are VACATED, and the district court is instructed to DISMISS the case as MOOT.”

As legal resources are limited, even at the DOJ, I assumed the Biden administration was putting so much work into appealing the judge’s ruling because they wanted to reinstate unpopular national mandates in the future. Given that, it is something to behold that promising there would be no future mask mandates was the tactic ultimately used to remove the barriers to bringing the mask mandates back.

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I’m grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.

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.

Siberian Ginseng Benefits

siberian ginseng benefits

  • For centuries, the therapeutic benefits of Siberian ginseng have been used to boost immunity, longevity and endurance, relieve fatigue and help prevent and remedy colds and flu

  • Siberian ginseng, botanical name Eleutherococcus senticosus, is an adaptogen, meaning that with use, your body is better able to adapt to physical, environmental and emotional stress

  • While scientists may disagree on the abilities of this root, sometimes called eleuthero, a plethora of studies reveal it to have antioxidant, antibacterial, radiation-shielding and insulin-lowering capabilities

  • American and Asian (Korean) ginseng have botanical references of Panax in their names, and the plant chemicals they contain are not the same as those in Siberian ginseng

Visit Mercola Market


Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published March 19, 2018.

Siberian ginseng may be the common term for the versatile root recognized in ancient Eastern cultures as a powerful medicinal, but the botanical term, or at least part of it, is eleuthero. The entire scientific designation is Eleutherococcus senticosus, and it’s been used for thousands of years for overall longevity, endurance and to boost immunity.

These and a multitude of other benefits have made the odd-looking root a very expensive commodity all over the world. It’s right behind gingko as the most popular herbal supplement, but it’s often confused with other roots with “ginseng” on the label.

It doesn’t help that other monikers for it around the world include Russian ginseng, devil’s shrub, touch-me-not, wild pepper and shigoka. A thorny shrub that can reach 10 feet in height, Siberian ginseng bears yellow or violet flowers that develop in umbrella-shaped clusters and, later, round black berries. But it’s the wrinkly, twisted root that gets all the attention. Its active ingredients are phytochemicals known as polysaccharides.

For centuries, healers from Russia, where it originated, to Asia and other Eastern countries and beyond have used it extensively to remedy colds and flu. One of the most effective aspects of Siberian ginseng is that it’s an adaptogen, which means your body is better able to adapt to stressors, whether physical, mental or emotional.

Multiple studies on E. senticosus indicate the root is good for a number of diseases and disorders, often rivaling the drugs and medications prescribed by doctors.

While saying scientists aren’t sure how it works, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC)

states that compounds from Siberian ginseng stimulate immune cells and protect the nervous system. It also notes, “Siberian ginseng extract was shown to moderately inhibit breast cancer resistance.”

The MSKCC website either asserts that claims Siberian ginseng can increase strength and stamina and reduce side effects of chemotherapy are unsubstantiated scientifically, or that “more research is needed.” Patented drugs with ginseng components, however, were given much more credence. Acknowledgment of plant chemicals with active ingredients note:

“In vitro studies indicate that eleuthero contains chemicals that bind to estrogen, progestin, mineralocorticoid and glucocorticoid receptors. In macrophages, a Siberian ginseng extract suppressed LPS-induced iNOS expression and thus nitric oxide production by possibly inhibiting nuclear factor-kappa B activity or Akt and JNK signaling, and inhibited reactive oxygen species production.

Eleutheroside B, eleutheroside E and isofraxidin — active constituents of Siberian ginseng — showed protective effects against Aβ(25-35)-induced atrophies of axons and dendrites in rat cultured cortical neurons. Isofraxidin also inhibited cell invasion and the expression of matrix metalloproteinase-7 by human hepatoma cell lines HuH-7 and Hep G-2, possibly through the inhibition of ERK1/2 phosphorylation.”

In a 2004 randomized double-blind study,

20 elderly hypertensive participants undergoing digitalis treatment who reported feeling weak and tired with no energy were given either Siberian ginseng or a placebo. At the end of the four-week study, the subjects were tested and found to have higher scores in social functioning and mental health, noticeable after four weeks of therapy and none noted “adverse events” in any of the patients.

Seventy percent of the patients on ginseng supplementation said they received “active therapy” compared to 20% in the placebo group. The same study noted that the definition of “adaptogen” was first referenced in the late 1950s. Subsequent research noted pharmacological results in cell cultures, animal and human subjects, listing improvements in several areas in regard to:

  • Antioxidant activity

  • Anticancer action

  • Immune system stimulation

  • Lowered insulin levels

  • Radioprotection

  • Decreased inflammation

  • Fever reduction

  • Antibacterial activity

The effect involves the adrenal glands and supports their function, along with stress hormones such as cortisol.

Bulletproof lists a number of studies that have explored different ways Siberian ginseng helps, treats and prevents illnesses and conditions in several ways:

  • It produced an immune-boosting effect both in cancer patients and healthy controls, according to one study, resulting in “nonspecific resistance and immunologic vigor in the course of cytostatic and radiation treatment for breast cancer.”

  • According to Europe PMC, ginseng showed potential for maintaining healthy T4 lymphocytes, which are the specific immune cells that weaken in patients with HIV and AIDS.

  • Neuroprotective aspects were improved via hippocampal and microglial cell signaling;

    one example is its effectiveness in preventing the slow and sometimes lost motor function associated with Parkinson’s.

  • Antiviral capability of ginseng was measured and found to inhibit the replication of “all RNA viruses studies thus far,” which included human rhinovirus (HRV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza A virus in cell cultures.

  • Siberian ginseng may also have antidepressive effects

    and may also help with insomnia and alleviate behavioral and memory problems, according to an animal study.

One study showed that Siberian ginseng improved endurance, initiated through improved oxygen utilization.

Further, it may protect DNA

and enhance cardiovascular function,

and bacterial cultures treated with ginseng compounds were resistant to radiation

and even protected study subjects from ionizing radiation exposure.

Research also strongly suggests that Siberian ginseng has a positive and significant effect on several types of cancer cell cultures, including breast,


lung and colon cancers.

Incidentally, there’s something known as Korean ginseng or Asian ginseng, which also contains healing properties, but it presents a perfect example of the phrase “the word is not the thing.” In other words, just because it has the word ginseng in its name doesn’t mean it’s synonymous with Siberian ginseng (which is not considered a “true” ginseng). SFGate notes:

“Korean ginseng and Siberian ginseng, despite both being called ginseng, are not from the same family. Siberian ginseng does not belong to the Panax family, so it is not considered a ‘true’ ginseng … Siberian ginseng contains polysaccharides which are associated with lower blood sugar levels, and eleutherosides are its active ingredient.

They are also both associated with increased mental ability and concentration, greater alertness and higher stamina levels. Both are also associated with potentially helping lower triglyceride and blood pressure levels, and may be helpful in treating and avoiding cardiovascular complications.”

There’s also American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), an endangered, wild-growing, shade-loving and widely poached root. While Korean or Asian ginseng is known in Chinese medicine as a “hot” or mild stimulant, the American variety is “cool” or calming, useful for enhancing memory, mood and possibly lowering blood sugar levels.

All have ginsenosides, but in varying levels, Smithsonian.com

says. The American type found in moist patches of Appalachian Mountain regions was used by Native Americans and even propagated by the Cherokee tribe as a medicinal. Samples and then boatloads of the roots were shipped from North Carolina, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Canada to Chinese markets as early as the early 1700s.

While adaptogens such as Siberian ginseng are generally fine for most people, don’t typically cause allergic reactions and can be taken for extended periods of time, caution is advised with both Siberian and Korean ginseng. If you’re on medication, keep in mind they can interfere with a number of them, including immune system suppressants, blood thinners, heart medications, and any types of sedatives or stimulants.

Precautions should be taken due to a number of potential side effects, including accelerated heartbeat, insomnia, mood swings, sudden changes in blood pressure and feeling dizzy and/or jittery. Anyone with sleep apnea, narcolepsy, heart disease, mental illness such as mania or schizophrenia, autoimmune diseases such as Crohn’s disease or rheumatoid arthritis should also pass it up.

Importantly, children should not be given ginseng. The University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC) notes that women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, as well as those with estrogen-sensitive breast cancer, should avoid ginseng as it can have an estrogen-like effect;

women with a history of uterine fibroids may also be vulnerable.

It’s imperative that you check your sources when buying ginseng, whether it’s in supplement or root form, as one lab reported that only nine of 22 samples met quality and purity criteria. At the same time, harvesting methods, handling techniques and high-heat processing can damage the therapeutic compounds. Livestrong notes:

“Supplements are available in liquid and solid extracts, powders, capsules, tablets and tea form. Up to 25 percent of Siberian ginseng supplements sold in the United States do not contain the herb, and it can pose side effects. For these reasons, pharmacist and doctor guidance is recommended.”

Ginseng has become one of the most popular additives in multivitamins, energy drinks, teas, chewing gum and snacks, claiming to impart all manner of benefits. But it should be noted that most Americans aren’t aware there’s any difference between the ginseng varieties, which are so intermingled in advertising their advantages that governmental agencies have stepped in. For instance, Smithsonian.com observes:

“‘What is most striking about ginseng is the amount of misinformation in ads and on packages,’ says nutritionist David Schardt at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). ‘Panax ginseng, the most commonly available type, does not boost energy levels, mood, or memory and doesn’t reduce stress.’

After reviewing studies over the past two decades, the CSPI asked the Food and Drug Administration three years ago to halt phony claims. During the past two years, the FDA has sent letters to about half a dozen manufacturers, ordering them to limit product health claims due to the lack of evidence to support them.”

For arguably any disease, prevention is a wonderful thing, but don’t take advantage of Siberian ginseng by assuming that the compounds that stimulate your immune response can make up for living irresponsibly. As science writer Dave Asprey, known as the father of biohacking, writes:

“Adaptogens are worth exploring, but don’t use them to make up for a crappy diet and lifestyle. Making sure to eat good food, get outside and sleep well, and generally take care of yourself will do more for your stress, energy, and longevity than any one herb will do. Pay attention to adaptogens and key supplements, but don’t forget the basics.”

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.

FDA Refuses to Change Anti-Ivermectin Statements After Court Ruling

FDA Refuses to Change Anti-Ivermectin Statements After Court Ruling

Anti-ivermectin statements made by the FDA are not being changed, even after an appeals court ruled against the agency.

9/16/2023 – Updated: 9/19/2023

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is refusing to change its statements against ivermectin, even after a court said it acted outside of its authority when it told people to stop using it to treat COVID-19.

The U.S. appeals court said that the FDA’s statements, including one telling people to “stop” using ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, went beyond the authority conferred on the agency by Congress.

“FDA can inform, but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers ‘stop’ taking medicine,” U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett wrote in the Sept. 1 ruling.

Two weeks later, FDA social media posts and a key webpage remain unchanged.

That includes an Aug. 21, 2021, Twitter post, on the social media site since renamed X, that hyperlinked to a FDA webpage and stated: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

The page has not been updated either. It says people “should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.”

The appeals court did not order the FDA to take any action and remanded the case to a lower court for consideration on standing.But Dr. Robert Apter, the lead plaintiff in the case that led to the ruling, said that the FDA should still take action.

“From an ethical point of view, the FDA has been told not to do what they are doing. They have an ethical and moral obligation to follow the court’s directive and stop giving advice against using effective repurposed drugs for early treatment of COVID,” Dr. Apter told The Epoch Times in a message.

The FDA declined to comment.

“The FDA does not comment on possible, pending, or ongoing litigation,” a spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email.

Exposing the FDA’s Orwellian Lie About Ivermectin | CLIP | Facts Matter

In a statement after the ruling was handed down, the agency noted that ivermectin is approved by the FDA but for other uses. The FDA “has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19, nor has the agency stated that it is safe or effective for that use,” the agency said.

“Health care professionals generally may choose to prescribe an approved human drug for an unapproved use when they judge that the unapproved use is medically appropriate for an individual patient,” it added.

Such prescriptions are known as off-label prescriptions and are common in the United States.

Another FDA page may have been removed in the wake of the ruling. That page said, in part: “Q: Should I take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19? A: No.”

Archives show it was still up as of this year but it’s unclear exactly when it was taken down.


In the ruling, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit panel found in favor of Drs. Apter, Mary Talley Bowden, and Paul Marik, overturning a previous decision.

The doctors sued the FDA in 2022 over its anti-ivermectin statements, arguing the agency was illegally interfering with their practice of medicine.

While the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act enables the FDA to inform consumers, it does not let the agency give medical advise, Jared Kelson, an attorney representing the doctors, told the panel during oral arguments.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown had ruled against the plaintiffs, finding the FDA acted within the authority conferred by the act.

The panel disagreed.

“FDA never points to any authority that allows it to issue recommendations or give medical advice,” Judge Willett wrote. “Nothing in the act’s plain text authorizes FDA to issue medical advice or recommendations,” he also said.

“The decision is pretty clear that the FDA is not a physician, and that while it might have authority to inform the public, it can’t endorse particular treatments or advise on how to approach any specific illness,” Mr. Kelson told The Epoch Times.

He declined to comment on whether the FDA should update its statements.

The appeals court decision trumps the previous ruling, but the panel also sent the case back to Judge Brown.

The FDA had asked the appeals court to dismiss the case based on lack of standing. The court said it chose not to decide on the standing issue.

“We see greater wisdom in remanding for the district court to address standing and any other jurisdictional issues in the first instance,” the panel said. “We express no view on those issues, and instead we trust their initial determination to the district court’s sound judgment.”

That means Judge Brown will take up the case again, but that his ruling on standing could be overturned.

The government could also appeal the recent appeals court ruling. That appeal would go to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Department of Justice, which is representing the FDA, did not respond to a request for comment.


From 1 June 2023, prescribing of oral ivermectin for ‘off-label’ uses will no longer be limited to specialists such as dermatologists, gastroenterologists and infectious diseases specialists. Read full article here.

As a side note: Ivermectine is widely available and has been for years. But now, the prices for this once very inexpensive drug have increased dramatically.  Here is one source to buy in Canada. I am not a physician or pharmacist and this link is for information only! Use your own discresion or check with your MD.


Princes of Light.

Gold for gods.

Princes of Light

Swarna Bhasma, Gold Bhasma

Supercharge your Vimana.

Earth, and Humanity, was invaded by Space Aliens over 10,000 years ago.

Lots of events piled up into history that was deliberately obscured from us by specific groups who profit from that hidden information.

These Space Aliens had abilities, technology, and thinking, that humans did not. It is my conclusion that humanity did not have such advantages due to our suffering the Yugas.


The Space Alien invaders used their superior technology to convince the humans that they, the Space Aliens, were our ‘gods’. Some of the Space Aliens, such as Elyon (aka Adoni), even claimed to be ‘the creator’ of the Universe.

These Space Aliens were variously known as Elohim, Annunaki, Devas, Theoae, and many other labels in various human languages.

They were not ‘gods’, and did not create our Universe. The Space Aliens, settled in as rulers of Humanity, set about re-engineering us to suit their needs. They had many uses for humans. We were variously a labor source, a food source, a drug source, and a source for carbon based, semi-conductor computers (our brains).

It is worth noting that we find many words, and grammatical constructions from the Space Aliens’ language embedded in our human languages. There are several languages, now dead, that were heavily dominated by the Space Aliens. These languages, such as ancient Elamite, originating in modern day Iran, was dominated by linguistic constructions, and grammatical complexities not found in human languages, before, or since.

Even the name of the language ‘Elamite’, was a constructed label that meant ‘words of the Elohim’. This and many other references to the Elohim arose out of central Asia, at least 3 thousand years prior to their appearance as the ‘gods’ of the Old Testament of the Bible/Torah, and thus about 7,000 years BCE (at least). Inscriptions, and signage, in Elamite, uncovered in archaeologic research, has puzzled for thousands of years as being nonsensical. However, IF one presumes that the signage is related to a technological civilization such as ours, most, if not all of the puzzles disappear. A significant percentage of Elamite inscriptions are ‘cautionary’, in ways that make no sense to people of the past, but are perfectly clear to those of us in a technological society. The signage is on the order of “No Smoking” around gas pumps, or “All items MUST be examined before boarding.” or similar signs at today’s airports.

There are hints within the history of Elamite, it’s origin, and precursor languages, that suggest that the landing forces of the Space Alien invasion of Earth and Humanity was within the highlands of Iran and central Asia.

Within Elamite’s history, that is, of the civilization that modern scholars think was the source of the language, we find texts that are undecipherable now, but nonetheless, even without translation, are still able to be recognized as ‘signage’ based on their locations, as well as specific forms of brevity. The conclusion is that donkey-riding civilizations don’t require cautionary signage. Especially signage that has a ‘sky focused’ aspect. There is no point, and presumably they would not waste the calories in the creation (*not carved, appear to be melted into both clay & stone) of useless cautionary warnings.

There are reasons, archaeologic, as well as linguistic, to suspect that Elamite, and it’s antecedent languages, are the source for Ayurveda (the medicinal context) in Sanskrit which appears several thousands of years closer to our time.

In my examination of these ancient texts, and their source languages, I am always seeking references to these Space Aliens invaders. These will always be characterized as involving the ‘gods’, or a ‘god’, and so are more easily located by these instances of bad labeling. Other key words include ‘blessings (given by gods/god)’, and ‘offerings (to gods/god)’.

In Elamite, and those of its more ancient precursor languages that we understand, the ‘gods’, known as ‘hapir’ (it’s plural), were specifically interested in gold (‘huzi’ or ‘huzzi’), and demanded it as a major part of the ‘tributes’ that the humans in that area were to provide on a very regular basis under penalty of death. This context of ‘gold for gods’ is repeated constantly throughout all those parts of humanity where the ‘gods’ beset the people. Ultimately we see this being seized upon by the Khazarian Mafia with their ‘love’, and ‘lust’ for gold that knows no satisfaction.

But what did they, the gods, do with all the gold?

It seems that they, the hapir, the gods, ate the stuff.

Yes, there are very ancient texts that describe the metal gold, being prepared, then consumed (along with the blood and fats of human children) by the gods. There are other languages where ancient texts also speak to the consumption of prepared gold by the ‘gods’. Most notably, we find this in ancient central Eurasian languages, many of which use the same root words, and symbols for ‘gold’. This relates to the region of Khazaria (now Ukraine), where the Elohim, as a distinct ‘tribe’ of the ‘gods’ were driven by the war with the rest of the ‘gods’ in central India that is the foundation for much of the Vedic literature.

The various recipes noted that the preparation of the gold offerings for the gods followed a specific recipe which is most closely replicated in today’s Ayurvedic processing of gold into medicine known as “Swarna Bhasma”. In these methods, the gold is converted through multiple processes into colloidal forms, including nano-particulates to some degree, by methods of heat calcification, and deliberate exposures to maximum levels of sunlight during the repeated grindings. There are explicit references to sunlight in preparation instructions.

The Elohim/Annunaki had a great appetite for the colloidal gold. Modern medicine has found that nano particulate gold has an affinity for bonding with both fats and proteins, and is an excellent substrate carrier of drugs. The Elohim used the gold by consuming it with the adrenal gland and abdominal fats of the humans sacrificed. In that use, not only was the gold itself a nootropic, as it is with humans and modern gold consumption, but also was a very effective carrier for the drugs of the oxidized adrenaline (adrenochrome) extracted from the humans.

In addition to the ‘gods’ eating gold, they also gave it to their human slaves. These ‘golden blessings’ from the ‘gods’ were to their Vimana pilots (really just carbon based computers, not that the human involved had much control, nor awareness of their situation). The Vimana pilots were said to be ‘enhanced’ by the nootropic properties of the gold. This was the Space Alien version of supercharging your vehicle. Like boosting the air flow through the engine with a powered carburetor.

These ‘blessings’ from the gods were always given prior to taking their Vimana into battle. The humans were given doses of a form of gold that the Space Alien masters did not take themselves. The Space Aliens knew that this gold preparation for their humans would ‘consume (burn out)’ the Space Alien form of mind, but it was apparently worthwhile for the humans used in the mind-to-machine interface devices as it made the human brains and minds quicker in reaction time by some significant level, as well as prolonging the use of an individual human in the machine. The words applied are such as ‘balancing’ (the human mind), and ‘smoothing/lubricating’ it’s abilities in the device. In essence, it appeared to aid in hardening the human mind to the rigors and stresses imposed by this technology as well as providing an ‘energy’ boost in the connection between the mind, and the machine interface.

Other ‘blessings of the gods’ included a silver based preparation that was used by the Elohim/Annunaki to ‘complete’ or ‘connect’ to what we would call their ‘wide area network’. There was a class of humans who were used as communications vehicles. These were reported to be instantaneous, even at distances around half of the planet. There are also indications that the silver ingesting humans were used as a sensor network as they were reportedly able to ‘see’ over a thousand miles away with the accuracy to locate a specific ‘god’, or his human retinue.

In my opinion, the Ayurveda use of gold and silver originate from these uses by the invading Space Aliens, as does much of the languages around them, and the preparation methods employed.

There is specific mention of the gold mixture for their human slaves not containing blood, and explicit references to adrenochrome not being included. These are references very much like ‘don’t feed meat to cattle’. When these are within texts such as religious ‘hymns’ that had been mistranslated for centuries, they stand out as sudden departures of theme to specific pointers about humans. While the gold and silver being ingested by the human slaves (carbon based computing devices) is described as increasing mental activity, and accuracy of the human in running the various devices, those instances of caution about the ‘blood and fats’ of human children not being allowed would seem to be based on actual experiences that were very bad indeed. The ‘blood and fats’ of the human being consumed by a human were noted to turn the human into an out of control device. In modern terms we would say it made them ‘berserk’. The human, as computer control of the flying ‘castle’ of the Vimana, could not be relied upon to follow instructions if they were under the influence of the ‘blood and fats’.

In all these references, it is the ‘gods’ that are central, and the humans are merely annotations of the ‘gods’ activity. In the main, the humans are referenced by function, not name. When it was pertinent to the ‘gods’ goals, specific attributes of humans were noted, such as tribe of origin, whether or not circumcised, and frequently mentions of specific aspects of human ‘body types’. These read in a similar fashion to modern farmers referencing the traits of various breeds of cattle, such as horn length, average weight, that sort of physical aspects. In the case of these notes on humans, the human mind, and psychology will appear in texts as well. All of these texts would be seen as ‘racist’, perhaps, extremely so, by the socially sensitive portion of modern society.

As noted, it is my opinion that Ayurveda has taken the gold and silver preparations of the ‘gods’, and, over time, converted them into concoctions for human health.

One element of this historical journey for ingested gold, is that it is, even now, as it has always been, known as a nootropic, a mind enhancing metal. In the ancient texts, labels applied to the anonymous humans who took the gold preparation were centered on the concept that they were the ‘Princes of Light’. As noted in my previous articles, the connection mechanism between the human body and the Space Alien mind-to-machine interface device was by way of bio-photonic activity within the human body. In my opinion, the word ‘prince’ is a bad translation of a technical description, the context, and meaning for which has been lost over these thousands of years.

It is worth noting that the ancient texts described some human body types as lasting longer as controllers for your Vimana if they were given the gold mixture. Today we still have that association between Ayurvedic gold based medicines, and longevity, as well as the nootropic effects.

Be wary of consuming gold. Many reports that, done incorrectly, it results in a bad outcome for the human.

Welcoming Medical Freedom Advocates at The Summit for Truth & Wellness in Rochester


For Immediate Release


(Rochester, NY)


Americans for Health Care Alternatives (AFHA) and Joy Media are pleased to announce the second gathering of medical freedom advocates at The Summit for Truth & Wellness in Rochester, NY on October 21, 2023!!


We welcome Dr. Naomi Wolf, Robert W Malone MD, Jeffrey Tucker and Dr. Ryan Cole to Rochester, NY for this momentous meeting. Each brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to share as we navigate these extraordinary times. 


The Summit for Truth & Wellness is a FULL day event hosted by Bethel Christian Fellowship in the main sanctuary. The morning session features an intimate Q&A and panel session with the speakers and the afternoon session features full presentations from our guest speakers. 


The Summit brings together some of the most courageous and brilliant voices in America to speak truth about the state of society and our healthcare system in America. Discussion will include vital data on COVID vaccine safety & adverse events, early COVID treatment, the crimes against humanity committed in 2020 in the name of ‘collective health’ and how to organize locally to achieve justice  for those who have been harmed and FIX our broken systems. 


This event supports the AFHA mission to bring a brick and mortar, holistic wellness center to Western NY and the independent broadcast of The Shannon Joy Show!

October 21, 2023

9 am to 6 pm (Doors open at 8:30 am) 

Bethel Christian Fellowship

Rochester, New York

Please go to www.summitfortruth.com for more information and to purchase tickets to the event.


The post Welcoming Medical Freedom Advocates at The Summit for Truth & Wellness in Rochester appeared first on DailyClout.