The Leaky Vaccine Breakthrough Variant Is Here

It was only a matter of time before a vaccine-resistant strain of COVID-19 would surface, and that time has already come to pass. As reported by The Conservative Treehouse October 3, 2021:1

“What this study2 finds is exactly what vaccine developer Geert Vanden Bossche (Belgium) has been predicting. The predominance of antibody-resistant SARS-Cov-2 variants in vaccine breakthrough cases from the San Francisco Bay Area, California …

Dr. Vanden Bossche has been using Israeli data and showing3 how the widespread vaccination rates were creating pressure on the virus to mutate into variants with higher levels of contagion.

The unvaccinated group has been keeping the pressure down by defeating the virus and carrying natural immunity. However, as the unvaccinated population is increasingly made smaller, the pressure on the virus to mutate increases. Subsequently, these mutations stay at higher or more effective levels of infection.”

Vaccine-Evading Variants Are Emerging

The study, posted on the preprint server medRxiv, August 25, 2021, concluded that those who are fully “vaccinated” against COVID-19 are in fact more susceptible to COVID variant infections than unvaccinated people.

Vanden Bossche’s theory was that vaccine antibodies would suppress natural antibody responses, allowing variants to slip through, and this seems to be what’s happening. As explained by The Conservative Treehouse October 3, 2021:4

“Among vaccinated individuals, a COVID variant virus is not recognized by the specialized antibodies provided by the vaccine, and the natural antibodies have been programmed to stand down.”

According to the authors of the study:5

“Associations between vaccine breakthrough cases and infection by SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants have remained largely unexplored. Here we analyzed SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequences and viral loads from 1,373 persons with COVID-19 from the San Francisco Bay Area from February 1 to June 30, 2021, of which 125 (9.1%) were vaccine breakthrough infections.

Fully vaccinated were more likely than unvaccinated persons to be infected by variants carrying mutations associated with decreased antibody neutralization (78% versus 48%), but not by those associated with increased infectivity (85% versus 77%) …

These findings suggest that vaccine breakthrough cases are preferentially caused by circulating antibody-resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants, and that symptomatic breakthrough infections may potentially transmit COVID-19 as efficiently as unvaccinated infections, regardless of the infecting lineage.”

“Be careful around vaccinated people, because they can carry a more resistant form of COVID-19,” The Conservative Treehouse warns, adding that the narrow protection you get from the COVID shot will inevitably necessitate a booster shot for each emerging new variant that is resistant to the shots.

UK Data Show Increased COVID Mortality Among Fully Vaxxed

British data also raise serious questions about the wisdom of this injection campaign. In its Technical Briefing 23,6 published September 17, 2021, Public Health England reveals data showing the COVID death toll is actually higher among the fully vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.

Between February 1, 2021, and September 12, 2021, 157,400 fully vaccinated patients (26.52% of total cases) were diagnosed with a Delta variant. Among the unvaccinated, there were 257,357 Delta variant cases (43.36% of total cases).

However, while Delta infections were far more prevalent among the unvaccinated, these patients also had better outcomes. In all, 63.5% of those who died from COVID-19 within 28 days of a positive test were fully vaccinated (1,613 compared to 722 in the unvaccinated group).

More Signs of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement

In a letter to the editor of the Journal of Infection,7 published August 9, 2021, three researchers point out that “infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants,” which suggests antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) is emerging. According to the authors:8

“Antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection is a safety concern for vaccine strategies. In a recent publication, Li et al. (Cell 184 :4203–4219, 2021) have reported that infection-enhancing antibodies directed against the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein facilitate virus infection in vitro, but not in vivo.

However, this study was performed with the original Wuhan/D614G strain. Since the Covid-19 pandemic is now dominated with Delta variants, we analyzed the interaction of facilitating antibodies with the NTD of these variants … [W]e show that enhancing antibodies have a higher affinity for Delta variants than for Wuhan/D614G NTDs …

As the NTD is also targeted by neutralizing antibodies, our data suggest that the balance between neutralizing and facilitating antibodies in vaccinated individuals is in favor of neutralization for the original Wuhan/D614G strain.

However, in the case of the Delta variant, neutralizing antibodies have a decreased affinity for the spike protein, whereas facilitating antibodies display a strikingly increased affinity. Thus, ADE may be a concern for people receiving vaccines based on the original Wuhan strain spike sequence (either mRNA or viral vectors).”

As noted by independent journalist Sharyl Attkisson,9 “Despite the fact that multiple medical authorities predicted, told us, and hoped, ADE would not impact Covid-19 vaccines, data from the study indicates it has done just that.”

Antibody Levels Decrease After Second Dose

While you’re not considered “fully vaccinated” until 14 days after your first dose of Janssen’s or AstraZeneca’s shot, or second dose of Moderna’s or Pfizer’s, a recent Israeli study found antibody levels actually decrease after the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID shot. The findings were reported by The Jerusalem Post, October 7, 2021:10

“Antibody levels decrease rapidly after two doses of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, a study11 by researchers at the Sheba Medical Center published … in the New England Journal of Medicine …

The research also showed the probability that different groups of individuals — based on age and general health status — will find themselves below a certain antibody threshold after a period of six months.”

In all, 4,868 staff members at the Sheba Medical Center participated in the study,12 undergoing monthly serological tests to measure their antibodies for up to six months after their second Pfizer shot.

Everyone, regardless of age or gender, saw a rapid decline in their antibodies after the second dose. IgG antibodies — which are part of your humoral immune response — decreased at a consistent rate over time, whereas the neutralizing antibodies rapidly decreased during the first three months, and then slowed down thereafter. According to the authors:13

“Although IgG antibody levels were highly correlated with neutralizing antibody titers (Spearman’s rank correlation between 0.68 and 0.75), the regression relationship between the IgG and neutralizing antibody levels depended on the time since receipt of the second vaccine dose …

The highest titers after the receipt of the second vaccine dose (peak) were observed during days 4 through 30, so this was defined as the peak period.

The expected geometric mean titer (GMT) for IgG for the peak period, expressed as a sample-to-cutoff ratio, was 29.3. A substantial reduction in the IgG level each month, which culminated in a decrease by a factor of 18.3 after 6 months, was observed.

Neutralizing antibody titers also decreased significantly, with a decrease by a factor of 3.9 from the peak to the end of study period 2, but the decrease from the start of period 3 onward was much slower, with an overall decrease by a factor of 1.2 during periods 3 through 6. The GMT of neutralizing antibody, expressed as a 50% neutralization titer, was 557.1 in the peak period and decreased to 119.4 in period 6 …

Six months after receipt of the second dose, neutralizing antibody titers were substantially lower among men than among women, lower among persons 65 years of age or older than among those 18 to less than 45 years of age, and lower among participants with immunosuppression than among those without immunosuppression.”

COVID-19 Unrelated to Jab in 68 Countries, 2,947 US Counties

The Israeli findings above can help explain the findings of a study14 published September 30, 2021, in the European Journal of Epidemiology, which found no relationship between COVID-19 cases and levels of vaccination in 68 countries worldwide and 2,947 counties in the U.S. If anything, areas with high vaccination rates had slightly higher incidences of COVID-19. According to the authors:15

“[T]he trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.”

Iceland and Portugal, for example, where more than 75% of their populations are fully vaccinated, had more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than Vietnam and South Africa, where only about 10% of the populations are fully vaccinated.16

Data from U.S. counties showed the same thing. New COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people were “largely similar,” regardless of the percentage of a state’s population that was fully vaccinated.

“There … appears to be no significant signaling of COVID-19 cases decreasing with higher percentages of population fully vaccinated,” the authors wrote.17 Notably, out of the five U.S. counties with the highest vaccination rates — ranging from 84.3% to 99.9% fully vaccinated — four of them were on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “high transmission” list. Meanwhile, 26.3% of the 57 counties with “low transmission” have vaccination rates below 20%.

The study even accounted for a one-month lag time that could occur among the fully vaccinated, since it’s said that it takes two weeks after the final dose for “full immunity” to occur. Still, “no discernable association between COVID-19 cases and levels of fully vaccinated” was observed.18

Key Reasons Why Reliance on Jabs Should Be Reexamined

The study summed up several reasons why the “sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19” should be reevaluated. For starters, the jab’s effectiveness is rapidly waning.

“A substantial decline in immunity from mRNA vaccines six months’ post immunization has … been reported,” the researchers noted, adding that even severe hospitalization and death from COVID-19, which the jabs claim to protect against, have increased from 0.01% to 9% and 0% to 15.1%, respectively, among the fully vaccinated from January 2021 to May 2021.19

If the jabs work as advertised, why haven’t these rates continued to rise instead of fall? “It is also emerging,” the researchers noted, “that immunity derived from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may not be as strong as immunity acquired through recovery from the COVID-19 virus.”20

For instance, a retrospective observational study published August 25, 2021, revealed that natural immunity is superior to immunity from COVID-19 jabs. According to the authors:21

“This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”

Reinfection Is Very Rare

The fact is, while breakthrough cases continue among those who have gotten one or more COVID-19 injections, it’s extremely rare to get COVID-19 after you’ve recovered from the infection. How rare? Researchers from Ireland conducted a systematic review including 615,777 people who had recovered from COVID-19, with a maximum duration of follow-up of more than 10 months.22

“Reinfection was an uncommon event,” they noted, “with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time.” The absolute reinfection rate ranged from 0% to 1.1%, while the median reinfection rate was just 0.27%.23,24,25

Another study revealed similarly reassuring results. It followed 43,044 SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positive people for up to 35 weeks, and only 0.7% were reinfected. When genome sequencing was applied to estimate population-level risk of reinfection, the risk was estimated at 0.1%.26

There was no indication of waning immunity over seven months of follow-up, unlike with the COVID-19 injection, which led the researchers to conclude that “Reinfection is rare. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy >90% for at least seven months.”27

All Risk for No Reward?

The purpose of informed consent is to give people all of the data related to a medical procedure so they can make an educated decision before consenting. In the case of COVID-19 injections, such data initially weren’t available, given their emergency authorization, and as concerning side effects became apparent, attempts to share them publicly were suppressed.

In August 2021, a large study from Israel28 revealed that the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA jab is associated with a threefold increased risk of myocarditis,29 leading to the condition at a rate of one to five events per 100,000 persons.30 Other elevated risks were also identified following the COVID-19 jab, including lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes), appendicitis and herpes zoster infection.31

Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist and epidemiologist, is among those who have warned that COVID-19 injections are not only failing but putting lives at risk.32

According to McCullough, by January 22, 2021, there had been 186 deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database following COVID-19 injection — more than enough to reach the mortality signal of concern to stop the program.

“With a program this size, anything over 150 deaths would be an alarm signal,” he said. The U.S. “hit 186 deaths with only 27 million Americans jabbed.” McCullough believes if the proper safety boards had been in place, the COVID-19 jab program would have been shut down in February 2021 based on safety and risk of death.33

Now, with data showing no difference in rates of COVID-19 cases among the vaxxed and unvaxxed, it appears more and more likely that the injections have a high level of risk with very little reward, especially among certain populations, like youth.

Mass Vaccination Drives Mutations

It’s well-known that if you put living organisms like bacteria or viruses under pressure, via antibiotics, antibodies or chemotherapeutics, for example, but don’t kill them off completely, you can inadvertently encourage their mutation into more virulent strains. Those that escape your immune system end up surviving and selecting mutations to ensure their further survival.

Many have warned about immune escape due to the pressure being placed upon the COVID-19 virus during mass vaccination,34 and according to one mathematical model,35 a worst-case scenario can develop when a large percentage of a population is vaccinated but viral transmission remains high, such as it is now. This is a prime scenario for the development of resistant mutant strains.36

At this point, COVID-19 injection failures and serious jab-related health risks are both apparent. We now also have data showing that having a high vaccination rate does nothing to lower COVID-19 incidence.

It might actually increase it slightly, as we’re seeing in India. In Kerala, India, which boasts a 93% vaccination rate, more than half of all new COVID cases are fully vaccinated, as are 57% of COVID-related deaths.37 With all data pointing in the same direction, it’s clear that COVID shots aren’t the answer. As noted in the European of Journal of Epidemiology:38

“Stigmatizing populations can do more harm than good. Importantly, other non-pharmacological prevention efforts (e.g., the importance of basic public health hygiene with regards to maintaining safe distance or handwashing, promoting better frequent and cheaper forms of testing) needs to be renewed in order to strike the balance of learning to live with COVID-19 in the same manner we continue to live a 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus.”

If You’re ‘Vaccinated’ You May Be High-Risk for COVID

As predicted from the very beginning of the mass vaccination campaign, we’re now starting to see evidence of ADE, which makes people more prone to serious illness rather than less.

Even if your risk for ADE is small (and we have no data on prevalence as of yet), the data we do have suggest the shots aren’t ending outbreaks, and indeed can’t, end them, as it’s the vaccinated who are facilitating the emergence of vaccine-evading variants. The real answer is natural herd immunity, as natural immunity protects against most variants and not just one.

To be on the safe side, I recommend considering yourself “high-risk” for severe COVID if you’ve received one or more shots, and implement known effective treatment at the first sign of a respiratory infection.

Options include the Zelenko protocol,39 the MATH+ protocols40 and nebulized hydrogen peroxide, as detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper41 and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” Whichever treatment protocol you use, make sure you begin treatment as soon as possible, ideally at first onset of symptoms.

All Organ Donors and Recipients Must Be Vaccinated

Your kidneys are essential to filter excess water and waste from your blood.1 Chronic kidney disease (CKD) can lead to dialysis and the need for a kidney transplant to live. One woman in Colorado recently learned that the University of Colorado Health System’s policy change meant she was no longer eligible for a kidney transplant.2

Conditions that damage your kidney and decrease their function are called chronic kidney disease.3 Chronic kidney disease is divided into stages.4 The higher the stage, the greater the damage to the kidneys. Stages range from Stage 1 indicating mild kidney damage to Stage 5, which is just before complete failure.

Dialysis is needed when a person reaches Stage 5 kidney failure.5 This process helps the body eliminate waste products, salt and extra water, and helps control blood pressure. Dialysis is done in a dialysis unit or at home, depending upon the process used. However, without a kidney transplant, the average life expectancy on dialysis is between five and 10 years.

For the majority of people, a kidney transplant is the best option. Although it is not a cure for kidney disease, it can improve the quality and length of life.6 The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) maintains the list of individuals who need any type of organ transplant, including a kidney transplant.

On average, people wait three to five years for a kidney transplant. In some areas, it can be even longer. The wait time is dependent on blood type and history of blood transfusions or transplants.

Leilani Lutali’s situation became public when Colorado state Rep. Tim Geitner published the letter that Lutali received from UCHealth denying the transplant. Geitner posted a copy of the letter on Twitter without Lutali’s identifying information saying, “UCHealth denies lifesaving treatment — kidney transplant — to El Paso County resident. See my FB live post @timgeitnercolorado”7

Unvaccinated Woman Denied Direct Kidney Transplant

Lutali met her kidney donor, Jaimee Fougner, at a Bible study. In August 2021, Lutali confirmed with UCHealth that a COVID shot was not required, but by September 28, 2021, she learned she would be denied the lifesaving transplant because she and her donor were unwilling to get the shot.

In an interview with CBS,8 we learn that Lutali has already had COVID and Fougner cannot get the shot for religious reasons, in what the news anchor called the “latest example of someone facing severe consequences after refusing to get vaccinated for COVID.”

Despite thousands of deaths and disabilities9 resulting from the vaccine, another newscaster quoted UCHealth, saying,10 “The hospital system says that keeping people from dying unnecessarily is kind of the point.”

Hospitals have routinely placed conditions on organ transplants, hoping to extend the life of those who receive the organ. Some of these requirements include stopping smoking, avoiding alcohol, changing eating habits or taking certain vaccinations.11 However, with the COVID shot, Lutali clearly expresses her concern that it’s still new and there are many questions about how it would affect her health.12

Interestingly, the hospital also requires the donor to be vaccinated. They reason that a living donor could pass a COVID infection to the recipient after testing negative.13 And yet, according to government officials, anyone vaccinated can pass COVID to anyone else.14 Therefore, using the hospital’s reasoning, it does not track that the donor must also be vaccinated.

Lutali is receiving a direct donation and is not taking a kidney from the transplant waiting list. According to the Department of Health Resources and Services Administration,15 there are currently 106,729 people on the waiting list and 17 people will die every day waiting for an organ transplant.

It is worth noting that while government officials and hospitals continue to call the shot a vaccine, it does not meet the definition of a vaccine by the CDC before 2021. Until September 1, 2021, the definition was:16

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed in the nose.”

However, just days after the FDA approved the Pfizer shot,17 September 1, 2021, the CDC changed the definition of a “vaccine” to:18

“A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”

As you may have noticed, in this latest iteration, a vaccine is a “preparation” that:

  • No longer directly stimulates the immune response, but is used to stimulate the system
  • Does not produce immunity
  • Stimulates the immune response against diseases, not against a specific disease
  • No longer protects a person from the disease

Data Show Transplant Deaths Related to Comorbid Conditions

9 News reported that the hospital released a statement saying,19 “… studies indicate the mortality rate for transplant recipients who test positive for COVID ranges from 18% to 32%, compared to a 1.6% mortality rate among all people who have tested positive.”

After a kidney transplant, patients must take anti-rejection drugs that have a significant impact on their innate immune system.20 Children and adults are prescribed a combination of immunosuppressant medications that must be taken for as long as the kidney transplant is working.

These drugs have serious side effects, including an increased risk for all infections.21 They also increase the risk for influenza infection. However, while past research has demonstrated influenza vaccination may reduce the risk of flu after a kidney transplant,22,23,24 UCHealth has not mandated a flu vaccine, only a COVID shot.

One literature review25 found the overall mortality rate from COVID-19 was 20% for those who had received a transplant. However, the median age range of the patients was 66 years and the participants had other comorbid conditions often related to severe disease, including high blood pressure, diabetes, malignancy and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In one prospective cohort study26 in France, 5% of the participants were diagnosed with COVID. Again, the mortality rate was 24% with comorbidities that included obesity, diabetes, asthma and chronic pulmonary disease. A third study27 enrolled 1,073 patients with a mean age of 60 years who had either a kidney transplant or were on dialysis.

Mortality was associated with older age in transplant patients, and with age and frailty in those on dialysis. Interestingly, one study28 found factors strongly associated with mortality from COVID after a kidney transplant were demographic, clinical and social determinants, such as age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, education and socioeconomic status.

Religious Exemption Based on Use of Aborted Fetal Cells

Fougner cannot get the shot for religious reasons, supported by the announcement in February 2021 by the New Orleans Archdiocese in which they stated the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was “morally compromised as it uses the abortion-derived cell line in development and production of the vaccine as well as the testing.”

While the Archdiocese recommended avoiding the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, it did not have the same concerns for Pfizer and Moderna. However, other clergy disagree since abortion-derived cell lines were used in lab testing for all the vaccines. This debate has a long history that centers on using HEK293 cells that were harvested from an aborted fetus in the early 1970s.29

This is the moral dilemma that is at the basis for most religious exemptions for the vaccine. Several fact-checkers including PolitiFact,30 The Associated Press31 and Snopes32 have labeled this claim as false because the fetal cells are not directly in the vaccine.

However, as it turns out the fact-checkers relied on semantics when, technically, fetal cells are used during the production of certain vaccines. Several of the cell lines commonly used in vaccine development that originated from aborted fetuses include:

  • HEK29333 — human embryonic cell line originally derived from kidney tissue obtained from a female fetus aborted in the Netherlands in 1972
  • MRC534 — human embryonic cell line originally derived from the lung tissue of a 14-week-old male fetus aborted in 1966
  • PER.C635 — human embryonic cell line originally derived from the retina of an 18-week-old male fetus aborted in the Netherlands in 1985
  • WI3836 — human embryonic cell line originally derived from the lung tissue of a 12-week-old female fetus aborted in 1961

Some critics of abortion-derived cell lines have claimed that since the vaccines literally do not contain abortion-derived cells, the entire claim is false. In other instances, fact-checkers claim the cell lines are not original, as in the statement made in an archived article from The Washington Post,37 but rather a clone.

However, the claim that the cells are clones of the original is like saying your 20-year-old or 40-year-old body is no longer your body since all the cells are copies of those when you were a baby. They are, in essence, a clone of the original.

Yet, there is virtually no difference between cells that grow and multiply in a petri dish and those that grow and multiply in your body during your lifetime. If the cells in your body are still you, then the cells in the petri dish are still those of the original aborted fetus.

It has become apparent that fact-checkers are trying to dissuade people from having a public conversation about the ethics of using abortion-derived cell lines to produce and test vaccines.

How Many Deaths Attributed to Disease or Lack of Treatment?


So how many deaths could there be that are attributable to disease or lack of treatment? The answer to this question is unknowable. At the start of 2020, doctors scrambled to find treatments that would be effective against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. If you have been reading my newsletter, you know that I have interviewed several of these experts, including Dr. Vladimir Zelenko,38,39 who has been successfully treating his patient population with hydroxychloroquine and zinc.

In the video above you can see Dr. Peter McCullough’s early treatment regimen at minute 53:40 that includes a nutraceutical bundle, progressing to monoclonal antibody therapy, antiinfectives like hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, antibiotics, steroids and blood thinners.

You have also heard from Front Line care doctors, including Dr. Paul Marik who is a critical care doctor at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in East Virginia. Marik was one of the founding critical care doctors who formed the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC)40 early in the pandemic.

In each case, the experiences of these physicians have demonstrated treatment protocols that have severely reduced the mortality rate in those treated. Yet, physicians who chose to use these protocols or institute early treatment for their patients experienced the unthinkable — they were being threatened with the loss of their medical license for trying to help.41,42

Hospitals were sued to use ivermectin, and the decisions were reversed.43 Without hope of early or effective treatment, the public was being conditioned to wait for a vaccination. Since the U.S. rollout of the vaccine in December 2020,44 through October 1, 2021, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System45 has recorded:

  • 16,310 deaths
  • 75,605 hospitalizations
  • 17,619 life-threatening adverse events
  • 30631 severe allergic reactions
  • 23,712 permanent disabilities.

Approved Drugs May Be Deadly

Instead of using drugs with a low side effect profile, the FDA46 approved the use of remdesivir October 22, 2020. Remdesivir is an antiviral drug that’s a nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor.

According to the National Institutes of Health,47 the drug is approved for hospitalized adult and pediatric patients 12 years and older and has emergency use authorization for hospitalized pediatric patients younger than 12 years.

This treatment protocol is not recommended by the World Health Organization that published a conditional recommendation against remdesivir November 20, 2020, which they have not rescinded.48 They stated, “there is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients.”49

What is important to note is that remdesivir, the only recommended treatment protocol in the U.S., has significantly damaged kidney function in past studies50,51 and has not been used yet in COVID vaccine clinical trials for patients with kidney damage.52

I recommend that you proactively work to support your immune system using strategies evidence has demonstrated reduces your risk of severe disease. Should you get sick at home, there are several early treatment protocols you may consider that do not require prescription.

If you have had an organ transplant or other underlying medical condition, check with your health care professional, or a physician familiar with early treatments and your health condition. You may find a list of telemedicine doctors at Aesthetic Advisor53 or the FLCCC.54 Take care to share your current medical history and ensure the drugs being prescribed are safe for your situation.

Secret Documents Reveal FDA’s Attack on Ivermectin

In early September 2021, Oklahoma’s KFOR news ran a falsified story about emergency rooms being overrun with patients who had overdosed on horse ivermectin.1 Other mainstream media followed suit — all incorrectly referring to ivermectin as a dangerous veterinary drug.

In the real world, ivermectin is a human drug that has been safely used by 3.7 billion people since the early 1990s.2 In 2016, three scientists received the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for their discovery of ivermectin against parasitic infections in humans.3 It’s also on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines.4

There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to disparage ivermectin as a “horse dewormer” that only a loony person would consider taking. Yet that’s what mainstream media have done, virtually without exception.

When comedian and podcast host Joe Rogan revealed5 he’d treated his bout of COVID-19 with ivermectin and other remedies — fully recovering within three days — NPR reported Rogan had taken “ivermectin, a deworming veterinary drug that is formulated for use in cows and horses,” adding that “the Food and Drug Administration is urging people to stop ingesting” the medication, saying animal doses of the drug can cause nausea, vomiting and in some cases severe hepatitis.6

Sanjay Gupta Admits CNN Lied

CNN, among many others, also reported on Rogan’s use of “horse dewormer.” In mid-October 2021, Rogan interviewed CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta, grilling him on why CNN would outright lie about his use of ivermectin.

“It’s a lie on a news network,” Rogan said, “and it’s a lie that they’re conscious of. It’s not a mistake. They’re unfavorably framing it as a veterinary medicine …

Don’t you think a lie like that is dangerous … when they know they’re lying? They know I took medicine [for humans] … Dude, they lied. They said I was taking horse dewormer. It was prescribed to me by a doctor, along with a bunch of other medications.”

Gupta finally relents and agrees that ivermectin should not be called horse dewormer. When asked, “Does it bother you that the news network you work for out and out lied about me taking horse dewormer?” Gupta replied, “They shouldn’t have said that.”

When asked why they would lie about such an important medical issue, Gupta replied “I don’t know.” Gupta also admits he never asked why they did it, even though he’s their top medical correspondent.

FDA Attacks Ivermectin

While CNN and mainstream media are certainly at fault for spreading disinformation here, they got the idea from a supposedly reputable source — the FDA. In an August 21, 2021, tweet,7 the FDA linked to an agency article warning against the use of ivermectin, saying “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

This blatantly misleading post seeded the lie that then spread across mainstream media. In an article posted on RESCUE with Michael Capuzzo substack, two independent investigative health journalists, Mary Beth Pfeiffer and Linda Bonvie, detail how the FDA’s anti-ivermectin campaign began:8

“Within two days, 23.7 million people had seen that Pulitzer-worthy bit of Twitter talk. Hundreds of thousands more got the message on Facebook, LinkedIn, and from the Today Show’s 3 million-follower Instagram account.

‘That was great!’ declared FDA Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock in an email to her media team. ‘Even I saw it!’ For the FDA, the ‘not-a-horse’ tweet was ‘a unique viral moment,’ a senior FDA official wrote to Woodcock, ‘in a time of incredible misinformation’ …

When CNN retweeted ‘not-a-horse,’ FDA was gleeful. ‘The numbers are racking up and I laughed out loud,’ wrote FDA Associate Commissioner Erica Jefferson in one email … There was one problem, however. The tweet was a direct outgrowth of wrong data — call it misinformation — put out the day before by the Mississippi health department.

The FDA did not vet the data, according to our review of emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and questions to FDA officials. Instead, it saw Mississippi, as one email said, as ‘an opportunity to remind the public of our own warnings for ivermectin.’”

The now infamous tweet was born out of a single sentence in a Mississippi poison control health alert, which stated that “At least 70% of the recent calls have been related to ingestion of livestock or animal formulations of ivermectin purchased at livestock supply centers.” The problem? That wasn’t accurate either.

Much Ado About Nothing

As it turns out, the real percentage of recent calls to poison control related to veterinary ivermectin was 2%, not 70%. In an October 5, 2021, correction, the Mississippi health department clarified that it wasn’t 70% of all poison control calls that involved veterinary ivermectin, it was 70% of all ivermectin-related calls.9

In absolute numbers, there were six such calls, and four of those calls actually related to livestock accidentally receiving the drug. Investigation by Pfeiffer and Bonvie also revealed that between July 31 and August 22, 2021, 40%, 10 of 24 ivermectin-related calls to the Mississippi poison control center were mere requests for information, which is a common occurrence.

“Without question, people should not take drugs made for animals, given issues of dosing and medical oversight, to name just two. That much is clear,” Pfeiffer and Bonvie write.10

“But in hopping on the Mississippi bandwagon, the FDA … turned ivermectin, which doctors and health ministers in several countries say has saved many from covid-19, into a drug to be feared, human form or not.

This highly effective bait-and-switch began last March with a webpage, to which the FDA tweet linked, that conflates the two ivermectins. On one hand, the FDA tells of receiving ‘multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention’ after taking the animal product.

On the other, it describes the fate awaiting people who take large amounts of any ivermectin, ending a long list with ‘dizziness, ataxia, seizures, coma and even death.’

The medical literature,11 nonetheless, shows ivermectin to be an extremely safe medicine … Last March, a safety review12 of ivermectin by a renowned French toxicologist could not find a single accidental overdose death in the medical literature in more than 300 safety studies of the drug over decades.

The study was performed for MedinCell, a French pharmaceutical company … Since 1992, twenty deaths have been linked to inexpensive, off-patent ivermectin, according to a World Health Organization drug tracker called VigiAccess …

So how big was the surge that FDA described as ‘multiple’? Four, an agency spokesperson said just after the page went up. Three people were hospitalized, but it wasn’t clear if that was for COVID itself.

When pressed for details, FDA cited privacy issues, and said in an email, ‘Some of these cases were lost to follow up.’ This is how government gets away with some whoppers, and with the media’s help.”

Ivermectin Is Safe; Remdesivir, Not so Much

According to VigiAccess, the World Health Organization’s drug tracker, a total of 20 deaths have been linked to ivermectin since 1992.13 Compare that safety profile to remdesivir, the primary drug used by hospitals across the U.S. against COVID-19.

Since the spring of 2020, VigiAccess has received 7,491 adverse events in all attributed to remdesivir, including 560 deaths, 550 serious cardiac disorders and 475 acute kidney injuries.14

The question is why remdesivir is being used at all, with the World Health Organization recommending15 against it and a new Lancet study16 finding “no clinical benefit.” Could it be that Fauci is involved with the fraud? Pfeiffer and Bonvie write.17,18

“The other question is why ivermectin is not. The FDA tweet arrived just as ivermectin prescriptions were soaring, up twenty-four-fold in August from before the pandemic.

These were legal prescriptions written by doctors who, presumably, had read the studies, learned from experience, and decided for themselves. Indeed, 20 percent of prescriptions are written off-label,19 namely for other than an approved use.

The effort to vilify ivermectin broadly has helped curb the legal supply of a safe drug. That’s what drove people to livestock medicine in the first place.”

State AG Calls Out Medical Establishment for Misinformation

In better news, in early October 2021, the Nebraska Department of Health asked Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson to issue a legal opinion on the off-label use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.

October 15, 2021, Peterson issued a legal opinion20,21 stating health care providers can legally prescribe these medications for off-label use for the treatment of COVID, provided they have informed consent from the patient.22 The only causes for disciplinary action are failure to obtain informed consent, deception and/or prescribing excessively high doses.

Peterson concluded that, based on the available evidence, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin “might work for some people.”

He highlighted studies demonstrating the safety and benefits of these drugs against COVID-19, as well as the shocking scientific fraud that led to worldwide shunning of hydroxychloroquine, and the cherry-picking and exclusion of data in studies that are critical of ivermectin. He also pointed out how illogical it is to discourage early treatment.

“Allowing physicians to consider these early treatments will free them to evaluate additional tools that could save lives, keep patients out of the hospital, and provide relief for our already strained healthcare system,” Peterson wrote.23,24

Peterson also called out the FDA and Dr. Anthony Fauci on their hypocrisy, detailing how the FDA and National Institutes of Health seeded confusion by issuing contradictory guidance. The NIH has taken a neutral position to ivermectin, which Peterson “clearly signaled that physicians should use their discretion in deciding whether to treat COVID-19 patients with ivermectin.”

NIH officials, however, have ignored the agency’s official position. At the end of August 2021, Fauci “went on CNN and announced that ‘there is no clinical evidence’ that ivermectin works for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19,’ and that ‘there is no evidence whatsoever’ that it works,” Peterson writes, adding:

“Yet this definitive claim directly contradicts the NIH’s recognition that ‘several randomized trials … published in peer-reviewed journals’ have reported data indicating that ivermectin is effective as a COVID-19 treatment.”

AG Blames FDA for Seeding Confusion

Peterson goes on to review the FDA’s behavior with respect to ivermectin:

“The FDA has similarly charted a course of confusion. In March 2021, the FDA posted a webpage entitled ‘Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Great or Prevent COVID-19.’

Although the FDA’s concern was stories of some people using the animal form of ivermectin or excessive doses of the human form, the title broadly condemned any use of ivermectin in connection with COVID-19.

Yet there was no basis for its sweeping condemnation. Indeed, the FDA itself acknowledged on that very webpage (and continued to do so until the page changed on September 3, 2021) that the agency had not even ‘reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or prevent COVID-19.’

But without reviewing the available data, which had long since been available and accumulating, it is unclear what basis the FDA had for denouncing ivermectin as a treatment or prophylaxis for COVID-19.”

Peterson also highlights the fact that while the FDA claims ivermectin “is not an antiviral (a drug for treating viruses),” on another FDA webpage they list a study in Antiviral Research that “identified ivermectin as a medicine ‘previously shown to have broad-spectrum antiviral activity.”

“It is telling that the FDA deleted the line about ivermectin not being ‘anti-viral’ when it amended the first webpage on September 3, 2021,” Peterson writes.

He also points out that while the FDA now claims off-label use of drugs “can be very dangerous,” and that this is why they don’t recommend ivermectin for COVID, doctors routinely use drugs off-label, and ivermectin has a well-established safety record.

So, “it is inconsistent for the FDA to imply that ivermectin is dangerous when used to treat COVID-19 while the agency continues to approve remdesivir despite its spottier safety record,” Peterson writes.

AG Puts Professional Associations Under the Microscope

Peterson also questioned the stance of professional associations such as The American Medical Association, American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, which in September 2021 issuing a joint statement25 opposing the use of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID outside of clinical trials.

Their statement, Peterson points out, relied on the FDA’s and CDC’s “suspect positions,” and a statement by Merck, in which they opposed the use of the drug due to a “concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.”

“But Merck, of all sources, knows that ivermectin is exceedingly safe, so the absence of safety data in recent studies should not be concerning to the company,” Peterson writes, adding:

“Why would ivermectin’s original patent holder go out of its way to question this medicine by creating the impression that it might not be safe? There are at least two plausible reasons.

First, ivermectin is no longer under patent, so Merck does not profit from it anymore. That likely explains why Merck declined to ‘conduct clinical trials’ on ivermectin and COVID-19 when given the chance.

Second, Merck has a significant financial interest in the medical profession rejecting ivermectin as an early treatment for COVID-19. [T]he U.S. government has agreed to pay [Merck] about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment [molnupiravir], if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators.

Thus, if low-cost ivermectin works better than, or even the same as molnupiravir, that could cost Merck billions of dollars.”

Another excellent article26 detailing the FDA’s questionable actions, and Merck’s incentives to disparage their old drug, ivermectin, was published by the American Institute for Economic Research.

“While we can all be happy that Merck has developed a new therapeutic that can keep us safe from the ravages of Covid-19, we should realize that the FDA’s rules give companies an incentive to focus on newer drugs while ignoring older ones,” David Henderson, a senior fellow with AIERS, writes.27

“Ivermectin may or may not be a miracle drug for Covid-19. The FDA doesn’t want us to learn the truth. The FDA spreads lies and alarms Americans while preventing drug companies from providing us with scientific explorations of existing, promising, generic drugs.”

Early Treatment Is Crucial

There’s no doubt that many have died unnecessarily due to our health authorities’ incomprehensible decision to discourage all prevention and early treatment of COVID-19. As noted by many doctors, early treatment is absolutely crucial for preventing hospitalization, death and long-term side effects of the infection.

There are several proven protocols to choose from at this point, including the following. Whichever treatment protocol you use, make sure you begin treatment as soon as possible, ideally at first onset of symptoms.

  • The Zelenko protocol28
  • The MATH+ protocols29
  • Nebulized hydrogen peroxide, as detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper30 and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery

Ivermectin vs. Merck’s New Antiviral, Molnupiravir

In the video above retired nurse lecturer John Campbell, Ph.D., reports on a comparative analysis of molnurpirivir and ivermectin published in the Austin Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics.1 The first is Merck’s new antiviral drug and the second is the much vilified and maligned2,3 antiparasitic drug used in humans since 19874 and approved for human use in the U.S. in 1996.5,6

Campbell compares the efficacy, safety and cost using available data for ivermectin published in peer reviewed studies and the first interim data for molnupiravir published by Merck. Molnupiravir, also known as EIDD-2801/MK-44827 has data published as early as October 2019 that showed it was a clinical candidate for monotherapy in influenza viruses.8

And yet, Merck’s investigation into the oral antiviral medication against SARS-CoV-2 was not logged with Clinical Trials until October 5, 2020.9 While Gilead raced to release remdesivir, posting their first clinical trial February 5, 2020,10 Merck appeared to be slow off the mark. Gilead suspended or terminated the early trials for remdesivir. The reasons given included:

  • “The epidemic of COVID-19 has been controlled well at present, no eligible patients can be recruited.”11
  • “The epidemic of COVID-19 has been controlled well in China, no eligible patients can be enrolled at present.”12

The advantage molnupiravir has over remdesivir is that it is administered orally and can be used for early treatment in an outpatient setting. However, as we review the comparison between the drugs, it’s important to remember that the early data on molnupiravir has been published in a press release.13

How Do Ivermectin and Molnupiravir Stack Up Against COVID-19?

In the video Campbell reviews a paper published in the Austin Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics14 that was a chemical comparison of the pharmacological effects of molnupiravir and ivermectin. Looking at the two ways science uses to develop new treatments when a new condition arises,15 Campbell explains the first is to create a new drug and the second is to repurpose medications used for other conditions.

For example, aspirin originally was used to treat fever. Once it became evident that it was also effective against pain, doctors began recommending it to relieve headaches and other minor aches and pains. Subsequently, it was found that aspirin was an effective antiplatelet, as well, and this function was added to the known uses for aspirin.

According to the paper,16 Ivermectin is the “most studied, ‘repurposed’ medication globally, in randomized clinical trials, retrospective studies and meta-analysis.” Ivermectin is an FDA-approved, broad spectrum antiparasitic17 with known anti-inflammatory properties.18

As Campbell reviews, an in vitro study19 demonstrated that a single treatment with ivermectin effectively reduced viral load 5,000 times in 48 hours in cell culture. By comparison, Merck claims molnupiravir is a broad-spectrum antiviral that is active against the Gamma, Delta and Mu SARS-CoV-2 variants.20

The data in the comparison paper show molnupiravir is more potent in-vitro than ivermectin,21 which means it needs less drug to work with a lower tissue concentration.22 The amount of time the maximum drug dose is found in the serum is one to 1.75 hours for molnupiravir and four to six hours for ivermectin.

Interestingly, the half-life for Merck’s drug is seven hours and the half-life for ivermectin is 81 to 91 hours. This is the amount of time it takes for your body to reduce the active ingredients in the drug by half. Campbell also reviews the following factors:

Safety — No matter how well a drug works, if it’s not safe for use, it cannot be effective. Offering some examples of how ivermectin’s safety compares to other drugs, according to Campbell23 the global database of the World Health Organization, VigiBase, recorded 5,593 adverse events from ivermectin after 3.7 billion doses were administered to humans.

For comparison, VigiBase recorded 136,222 adverse events for amoxicillin and 165,479 for ibuprofen. At this time there is no VigiBase data available for molnupiravir, so no comparisons can be made for that drug yet. To take the example one step further, an outside look at acetaminophen adverse events shows that this drug (aka Tylenol) is many times more dangerous than ivermectin.

In the U.S. alone24 the National Institutes of Health’s STATPearls manual reports that there are 2,600 hospitalizations, 56,000 emergency room visits and 500 deaths each year for acetaminophen overdoses as of July 2021. And, the drug is the second leading cause of liver transplantation worldwide and the leading cause of transplantation in the U.S.

Efficacy — According to interim data from Merck,25 molnupiravir reduced hospitalizations or deaths by 50% in 385 participants who had at least one risk factor associated with poor disease outcome. A meta-analysis of 15 trials26 that included 2,438 participants demonstrated that ivermectin could reduce the risk of death by 62%.

According to an ongoing collection from published data,27 across all studies ivermectin is 86% effective prophylactically, 66% effective in early treatment and 36% effective in late treatment. By comparison, a Cochrane review of the literature28 that Campbell references in the video found the data did not determine if ivermectin leads to more or less infections, worsened or improved infection, or increased or decreased unwanted events.

Cost — According to a Forbes report,29 the raw material for the active pharmaceutical ingredients in molnupiravir costs about $2.50 per treatment. The cost of manufacturing the product would be $20, which is 35 times less than the price set by Merck of $700 per treatment. Additionally, Forbes reports that initially the drug will be purchased using federal funds.

According to the treatment protocol by the FLCCC,30 ivermectin is dosed at 0.4 to 0.6 mg/kg of body weight per dose once daily for five days. For an average person 160 pounds (72.5 kg), the dose is 29 mg to 43.5 mg per day for five days.

The average cost for 30 tablets of 3 mg of ivermectin in the U.S. can run as high as $108 or as little as $29.72 with a drug discount program — a fraction of molnupiravir’s prices.31

Peer Reviewed Study May Answer Molnupiravir Questions

As I mentioned, according to the data released by Merck, molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% as compared to the placebo group.32 According to the numbers in their study, 28 people in the intervention group died or were hospitalized by Day 29 while 53 in the placebo treated group were hospitalized or died.

Merck did not identify the placebo in either their press release33 or in the Clinical Trials data.34 Dr. James Lyons-Weiler also evaluated the results of the trial and asked some very pertinent questions, such as:35

Why were patients taking a placebo allowed to die?

“When there is a vast amount of published research on clear winners are the early treatment protocols as described by the medical authorities on the matter? Merck and NIH allowed 14.1% of people in the control arms to develop severe COVID-19 and die with no treatment. None. Just placebo.

How did the NIH and the FDA let this happen in the face of the evidence of efficacy of early treatment? How could they? Because that’s the standard of care for early COVID-19: go home, incubate, get sick, and die if you must. But don’t call us until you are seriously ill.”

Why are the number of participants low? — When the study was first listed on Clinical Trials36 the team initially anticipated 1,450 patients in a parallel phase 2/3 randomized, placebo-controlled study. This changed May 25, 2021, to 1,850 participants anticipated.37

At the completion of the study when they were no longer recruiting participants, they reported data on 762 participants in the press release38 from 173 locations. What happened to the data from the rest of the participants?

Why was the second study for hospitalized patients terminated? — A second study39 was ongoing during the same time period for hospitalized patients, having started October 5, 2020, and last updated September 9, 2021.

They anticipated enrolling 1,300 patients but terminated the study for “business reasons” after enrolling 304. What happened to cause the company to close this arm of the study after enrolling so few patients and what happened to the data?

Lyons-Weiler is a senior research scientist at the University of Pittsburgh.40 He also listed the numerous exclusion criteria for participants in the study and went on to write:41

“If, by any stretch of reason, FDA approval is made using the one interim analysis of (potentially) cherry-picked data in a cherry-picked study published as a press release without peer review, ignoring the data from the study not mentioned at all- their guidance should carry restrictions disallowing the use of the drug on or by patients in all of the excluded groups, including those who are hospitalized.

If by some miracle the rules on full reporting are enforced for the buried molnupiravir trial, the identified data from the trials need to be audited to make sure patients with an undesirable outcome under one trial were not excluded because they were enrolled in another trial focused on studying that same outcome. That would point to more scientific chicanery, and we’ve all had more than enough of that.”

CBS News42 reports that Merck has asked U.S. regulators for emergency use authorization for the drug against COVID-19. The decision could come in just a few weeks and “The FDA will scrutinize company data on the safety and effectiveness of the drug, molnupiravir, before rendering a decision.” It is hoped the FDA has access to all the data.

Do We Really Need a Vaccine and a Treatment?

Although Campbell adamantly defends the need for both a vaccine and treatment,43 he also points to diseases such as the bubonic plague for which we have adequate treatment but do not have a vaccine,44 even for areas of the world where it may have greater incidence.45

Campbell also believes that if there is a good quality antiviral medication, there would be less of an impact from COVID in countries where the vaccine rollout is patchy.

And yet, data show that the number of confirmed cases of COVID in countries where much of the population is unvaccinated is not higher than in countries where nearly 100% have been given the jab. For example, as of October 13, 2021, according to the CNN COVID-19 vaccination tracker46 and the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center:47

Country Vaccination Rate Infections Population48 % Population Infected
Portugal 86.4% 1,075,639 10,196,709 10.5%
United Arab Emirates 84.3% 737,890 9,890,402 7.4%
Spain 79% 4,977,448 46,754,778 10.6%
Ireland 74.6% 404,514 4,937,786 8.1%
United States 55.8% 44,455,949 331,002,651 13.4%
Russia 39.9% 7,687,559 145,934,462 5.2%
Romania 29% 1,365,788 19,237,691 7%
Indonesia 21.1% 4,228,552 273,523,615 1.5%
India 19.6% 33,985,920 1,380,004,385 2.4%
Vietnam 16.4% 843,281 97,338,579 0.86%
Bangladesh 11.1% 1,562,958 164,689,383 0.9%
Iraq 7.1% 2,024,705 40,222,493 5%
Kenya 1.9% 251,248 53,771,296 0.4%
Sudan 1.3% 38,827 43,849,260 0.088%

In the past, according to the CDC’s definition, a vaccination program used a product that “stimulates a person’s immune system to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”49 But today, CDC’s new definition says vaccines are only meant to “stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”50 You’ll note that the new definition says a vaccine isn’t responsible for stimulating the immune system or protecting against any specific illness.

According to COVID-19 statistics from the CDC,51 people over 65 carry the greatest burden of mortality. In 2020 this population accounted for 80.7% of deaths and thus far in 2021 this age range accounts for 71.2% of deaths in the U.S. However, these percentages are highly skewed since, to date, large populations of people are not offered or treated with successful protocols.

This begs the question: How high has the CDC and FDA allowed the death rate to go by suppressing effective treatments that are readily available and economical?

Prophylaxis and Early Treatment May Not Require Medication

While ivermectin has demonstrated it is a useful strategy, it’s not my primary recommendation. You don’t necessarily need prescribed medication to help prevent, and in the early treatment of, COVID-19.

I believe your best option to fighting the onset of any disease is to optimize your vitamin D level, as your body requires this for a wide variety of functions, including a healthy immune response.52,53 Then, for early treatment, or after you’ve been exposed to someone with COVID, I recommend using nebulized hydrogen peroxide treatment.54

This treatment is inexpensive, highly effective, can easily be done at home and is completely harmless when you’re using the low (0.04% to 0.1%) peroxide concentration recommended. In the video below I demonstrate how to make a low concentration of hydrogen peroxide at home and how to use your nebulizer. You’ll find my interviews with Dr. Thomas Levy55 and Dr. David Brownstein56 about this treatment on Bitchute.


Chinese Defector Reveals COVID Origin

Today, we continue our discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic and its origin with a fascinating guest who has been a leader exposing the corruption and fraud with respect to the origin of the virus. Li-Meng Yan is both an M.D. and Ph.D., with specific training in coronaviruses. She escaped from China’s influence while in Hong Kong to the United States to warn us of what she believes is a massive cover-up.

Yan went to medical school, followed by a Ph.D. program in ophthalmology. The school where she got her Ph.D. was originally a military medical university, which helps explain some of her personal network. She has contacts in both civilian and military research laboratories and hospitals in mainland China.

After finishing her studies, she decided to pursue research. For two years, she worked in an ophthalmology lab in the University of Hong Kong, where she researched stem cells, drugs and artificial tissue development. She was then invited to join the lab of professor Malik Peiris.

Yan’s husband had worked with him and Peiris was impressed with Yan’s skillset. She jumped at the chance to learn more about emerging infectious diseases. She worked with Peiris for five years, until she escaped to the U.S. in April 2020.

“I worked on the influenza virus, universal influenza vaccine development, and then focused on the SARS-CoV-2 after the outbreak,” she says.

SARS-CoV-2 Was Made in a Chinese Military Lab

At the end of December 2019, Yan’s supervisor, Dr. Leo Poon, who is also an emerging infectious disease expert with the World Health Organization, assigned her to conduct a confidential investigation into a mysterious new pneumonia-like infection.

Colleagues and friends at universities and hospitals around China gave her information, which she forwarded to Peiris and Poon. They did not follow up on it, however, which she says “shows that they want [to] help China to cover it up.”

In January 2020, Poon asked her to look into whether the raccoon dog, a civet cat-like animal, which was a host for the original SARS virus, might also be an intermediary host for SARS-CoV-2. Yan’s research, however, was indicating that the virus did not come from nature. Poon warned her to keep silent or “you will be disappeared.”

According to Yan, SARS-CoV-2 was made in a Chinese military lab. The Third Military Medical University in Chongqing, China, and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command in Nanjing, had discovered a bat coronavirus called ZC45. The discovery of ZC45 was published in early 2018.

“If you compare this virus genome and the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome, you will realize [this is the] smoking gun,” Yan says. She’s convinced that ZC45 was used as a template and/or backbone to create SARS-CoV-2.

In mid-May 2020, shortly after she’d left Hong Kong, the journal Nature published a paper1 Yan had co-written, detailing the pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden hamsters. This experiment showed SARS-CoV-2 primarily spreads via aerosol.

In mid-September 2020, Yan published an open access paper2 on Zenodo, in which she and her two co-authors laid out the evidence and their theory for SARS-CoV-2 being manmade.

Almost immediately, four “reviewers” of her work denounced it as being an “opinion” piece that was “flawed” and not scientifically in line with currently accepted knowledge of the origin of the virus. One reviewer3 said, “The manuscript attempts to refute our current understanding of the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Briefly, the consensus is that SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonosis and originated in bats with perhaps an intermediate host before spilling over into humans.”

A year later, in 2021, numerous indicators4,5 show that dismissing the lab leak hypothesis was premature and there is no “consensus” of a zoonosis origin.

Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by The Intercept6 also point directly to a lab origin, so much so that the WHO’s director general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, called for a new investigation into it, writing in the October 13, 2021, edition of the journal Science,7 “A lab accident cannot be ruled out until there is sufficient evidence to do so and those results are openly shared.”

The Escape From China

Initially, Yan had released information via an American YouTube blogger that was very popular in China. By the end of April 2020, a colleague warned Yan she was at risk of being “disappeared.” That’s when she decided to flee to the U.S. Luckily, she already had a valid visa. Her husband was deeply opposed to her leaving, as you might imagine. She explains:

“I didn’t know it would happen like [it did]. From January to April [2020], I didn’t tell him what I had done. I tried to protect him, because at that time, in Hong Kong, there were a lot of people fighting against government for democracy and freedom. They can get disappeared easily.

But if their family don’t know what they have done, it’s kind of safe for the family. That’s why I tried to protect him. But when I heard that I need leave, I tried to bring him with me. He’s not Chinese. He’s from Sri Lanka. When I told him, he was outraged, which was really not like him. He warned me, saying ‘We can go nowhere. They are everywhere. We can do nothing.'”

Her husband even threatened to have her killed if she left. The next two weeks were a dangerous time for Yan. Her husband kept her under surveillance, and she developed a sudden heart problem. The day before she left, she went for a checkup. She had a resting heart rate of 130, which is a sign of sinus tachycardia.

Yan suspects foul play, saying the Chinese government prefers to “disappear” people by making it look like a natural death. “Like this virus,” she says. According to Yan, infections and heart attacks are common strategies used to get rid of dissenters. Yan also suspects her husband may have been helping them.

Fortunately, since entering the U.S., the attacks have been relegated to discrediting her and ruining her reputation. “For example, they created thousands of fake accounts on social media, using at least seven languages, to spread [lies about me] and attacks to discredit me,” she says.

According to Yan, this has been verified by FireEye, a cybersecurity company that also does work for American intelligence agencies. Her family, who are in mainland China, friends and even alumni are also under strict surveillance by the Chinese government, she says.

Vindication

While the whole world denied the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was manmade for over a year, in recent months, the truth has finally entered the mainstream. A number of reporters have wrestled with excuses, trying to justify or explain away their long-held denials.

“Last year in July, when I was first on Fox News, I told them the WHO and the CCP are corrupted and are in the cover-up together,” Yan says. “At that time, it was a bombshell. Now, most people realize [the virus] is not from nature. That is a very good turning, and I keep helping other people to realize the evidence.

I explain to them the CCP’s style and the evidence. Now, I see that even some mainstream media are starting to talk about the possibility of [it being a] bioweapon. I think it is very encouraging. Because people need to realize that China is using this virus together with their misinformation campaign and propaganda to attack all over the world.”

Who’s Running the Show?

While the Chinese military may be responsible for the physical creation of the virus, there’s ample evidence showing the U.S. funded at least some of the research that resulted in this pandemic.

The flow of money from Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the EcoHealth Alliance run by Peter Daszak and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is well-documented. Ralph Baric, Ph.D., at the University of North Carolina has also conducted research that appears to have been applied to SARS-CoV-2.

The sequence of events is confusing, however, and it’s unclear just who is the real string-puller in all of this. When asked what her take is, and who she believes might be running the show, Yan replies that even without American funding, China certainly would still have managed to create this virus.

“The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) … they are a giant octopus and they have tentacles. The brain is the CCP. Those scientists, especially the military scientists and coronavirus experts [such as] my previous supervisor, Dr. Malik Pieris, they are the ones that had the real evil ideas.

They enjoy it, and they want to command this knowledge … Even China cannot use their tentacles … if they cannot use infiltration to get your money, they will still manage to get your technology and do it in China. That’s the key point. The money from American taxpayers, it looks a lot. Yes, it’s millions [of dollars]. However, compared to the money donated by the Chinese government, it’s just a very small piece …

They developed this virus and other things in their unrestricted bioweapons program. They want to destroy Americans’ economic and social order, destroy your civilization. [While the virus has attacked worldwide], they always list America as a primary enemy and the biggest problem.

So, when they show you this kind of propaganda, through TikTok and other social media [where Chinese citizens] tell you, ‘Oh, in China we control the outcome and it’s good, and we love our government.’ American people will feel, ‘Yeah, maybe we should give up our democracy and turn to try communism.’ That’s all they want to do.”

Chinese Data Collection

Since the start of the pandemic, it’s been near-impossible to determine how many Chinese have actually been affected. According to Yan, the CCP will only release data that benefits itself.

“Chinese people all know not to trust any data that comes from our government,” she says. “They don’t do statistics. They just sit there. Whatever data they want, they write it down. That’s how they [produce] data.”

According to Yan, the CCP has been using the converse strategy used in the U.S. and elsewhere. Rather than inflate case numbers, they’ve been suppressing them. One way they’ve been doing this is by delaying diagnosis, so deaths are not listed as COVID-19 deaths.

“It’s totally opposite,” she says. “For example, in America, once a person has been diagnosed with COVID, even if they later died of some other problem, they still will be [counted] as a COVID case.

But in China, they can use a ventilator to make the patient survive until the test comes out negative. They have thousands of ways to handle it. Importantly, they also gave early treatment, including hydroxychloroquine and other drugs.”

According to Yan, military scientists in China have also filed a patent to use hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. “That made them earn the top anti-COVID award by Chairman Xi last year,” she says. Hydroxychloroquine is also sold over the counter in China, so it’s easy to get a hold of. She believes part of the reason why the death toll in the U.S. has been so high is because hydroxychloroquine was suppressed and censored.

Is There a Connection Between the COVID Shots and the CCP?

The COVID-19 pandemic has clearly been capitalized upon by greedy drug companies, and the suppression of early treatment drugs appears to have been an intentional strategy to make the COVID shot — which is turning out to be extraordinarily hazardous to your health — the only alternative. How does the COVID “vaccine” tie into the theory that SARS-CoV-2 is a CCP bioweapon? Yan says:

“Definitely there is a clear connection between the vaccine and the CCP’s strategies … Some people … try to explain that the vaccine will kill people, and therefore it is another bioweapon. But this is not an accurate reason. First China released the virus they developed in the military labs. This virus doesn’t have a high death rate … That’s why I called it an unrestricted bioweapon. It looks like it’s natural occurring.

Once you realize something is wrong, they use misinformation and denial to confuse you. So, when China released it — and China controls the scientific community to spread misinformation, and censored [information] to let people believe it’s come from nature — what will people do?

They will think about drugs, the drugs they already have. The other way is a vaccine, because people are educated to accept a vaccine can end a pandemic.

In this case, useful drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are so cheap. How could they use this to earn huge profits? The CCP also had a lot of stock shares from Pfizer, Moderna and other big pharmaceutical companies. Check the money they put in … And then big pharmaceutical companies, they all say, ‘OK, now we can use this chance to make money.'”

Clearly, many who support and push the COVID shot know full well that they’re bound to cause health problems. Yan herself was asked to work on a COVID vaccine but she declined after looking into the available science. No coronavirus vaccine has ever been released, despite scientists working on it for two decades.

The reason? The vaccines cause too many injuries. They’re lethal. Yan did not believe these problems could be overcome for SARS-CoV-2. Peiris himself discovered antibody-dependent enhancement during efforts to develop a vaccine against the original SARS virus. Still, when money is being thrown at scientists, they’re usually not going to turn it down.

Vaccine Passports Will Usher in a Social Credit System

Of course, the COVID shots and the vaccine passports also fit into the CCP agenda by making the whole world accept and adopt the CCP’s social control system. The vaccine passports are clearly designed to usher in a social credit system like they have in China. And with that, you get 24/7 digital surveillance and an unbelievable amount of control over every single person.

As explained by Yan, in China, the digital surveillance system is so advanced, if your phone GPS shows you were near an infected person, you are automatically ordered into isolation.

What’s more, if parents or grandparents fail to get the COVID shot, the family’s children are barred from school, even if they got the shot. Every aspect of life is linked together through this system, so a poor social credit score will also have financial ramifications, and will dictate if, where and how you’re allowed to travel.

Yan points out that Americans, being unaware of the Chinese surveillance system, don’t understand that by agreeing with vaccine mandates and passports, they are saying yes to a total surveillance system that will dictate their entire lives. They’re also saying yes to being guinea pigs for an endless stream of questionable vaccines.

“Once you support mandate for two doses, then you have to support for the booster, and then support 60 boosters, 199 boosters. It [will be] endless,” she says. “And you’ll be tied into this [social] credit system you built.”

China Wants World Dominance by 2035

According to Yan, China’s goal is to achieve world dominance by 2035. With that aim in mind, they’ve spent decades developing unrestricted bioweapons. With COVID-19, they’re well on their way.

“They want to use all this to overcome the world, and America is their primary enemy,” Yan says. “So we have to stand up for the future, for our next generations. We cannot keep silent. This will be the last chance we have to fight against such communist evil plans, and to save all of us. And, most importantly, we have to all work together to stop the next pandemic or attack that comes out of China …

[Just look at] what’s happening in Hong Kong now. In two years, from 2019 until now, China destroyed the systems of law, democracy and freedom in Hong Kong. They also enacted national security laws. Basically, they own your privacy. They own your freedom, and you are forced to listen to them.

There is no reason they can’t do whatever [they want] to you. Basically, you are a slave living in a modern society. No doubt, once China overcomes America, it will be the same here, and maybe worse because they will have other technology at that time.”

When asked what actions Yan believes we need to take to resist and derail this plan, she says:

“I want Americans to know that, first, adults should realize the evilness of Communism, Maoism, Marxism, no matter what name it changes to … And once you realize that, speak out about it, because they are using propaganda to brainwash people, to brainwash the kids.

Also, you must let your policymakers, legislators, know this. I’m a foreigner, but you are an American citizen. You can vote, so you must let them understand the importance and push them to do something. Don’t believe the Chinese government and don’t give any mercy to the CCP.

Also, you have to update your own system. Study the weakness in your whole system, [the weakness that allows them] to divide America. Once you do all these things, hold them accountable and don’t let them do more. That’s the end of the pandemic.”

You can follow Yan on Twitter for frequent updates and breaking information. Her only authentic Twitter account is @Dr.LiMengYan1.

Chinese Defector Reveals COVID Origin

Today, we continue our discussion of the COVID-19 pandemic and its origin with a fascinating guest who has been a leader exposing the corruption and fraud with respect to the origin of the virus. Li-Meng Yan is both an M.D. and Ph.D., with specific training in coronaviruses. She escaped from China’s influence while in Hong Kong to the United States to warn us of what she believes is a massive cover-up.

Yan went to medical school, followed by a Ph.D. program in ophthalmology. The school where she got her Ph.D. was originally a military medical university, which helps explain some of her personal network. She has contacts in both civilian and military research laboratories and hospitals in mainland China.

After finishing her studies, she decided to pursue research. For two years, she worked in an ophthalmology lab in the University of Hong Kong, where she researched stem cells, drugs and artificial tissue development. She was then invited to join the lab of professor Malik Peiris.

Yan’s husband had worked with him and Peiris was impressed with Yan’s skillset. She jumped at the chance to learn more about emerging infectious diseases. She worked with Peiris for five years, until she escaped to the U.S. in April 2020.

“I worked on the influenza virus, universal influenza vaccine development, and then focused on the SARS-CoV-2 after the outbreak,” she says.

SARS-CoV-2 Was Made in a Chinese Military Lab

At the end of December 2019, Yan’s supervisor, Dr. Leo Poon, who is also an emerging infectious disease expert with the World Health Organization, assigned her to conduct a confidential investigation into a mysterious new pneumonia-like infection.

Colleagues and friends at universities and hospitals around China gave her information, which she forwarded to Peiris and Poon. They did not follow up on it, however, which she says “shows that they want [to] help China to cover it up.”

In January 2020, Poon asked her to look into whether the raccoon dog, a civet cat-like animal, which was a host for the original SARS virus, might also be an intermediary host for SARS-CoV-2. Yan’s research, however, was indicating that the virus did not come from nature. Poon warned her to keep silent or “you will be disappeared.”

According to Yan, SARS-CoV-2 was made in a Chinese military lab. The Third Military Medical University in Chongqing, China, and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command in Nanjing, had discovered a bat coronavirus called ZC45. The discovery of ZC45 was published in early 2018.

“If you compare this virus genome and the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome, you will realize [this is the] smoking gun,” Yan says. She’s convinced that ZC45 was used as a template and/or backbone to create SARS-CoV-2.

In mid-May 2020, shortly after she’d left Hong Kong, the journal Nature published a paper1 Yan had co-written, detailing the pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden hamsters. This experiment showed SARS-CoV-2 primarily spreads via aerosol.

In mid-September 2020, Yan published an open access paper2 on Zenodo, in which she and her two co-authors laid out the evidence and their theory for SARS-CoV-2 being manmade.

Almost immediately, four “reviewers” of her work denounced it as being an “opinion” piece that was “flawed” and not scientifically in line with currently accepted knowledge of the origin of the virus. One reviewer3 said, “The manuscript attempts to refute our current understanding of the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Briefly, the consensus is that SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonosis and originated in bats with perhaps an intermediate host before spilling over into humans.”

A year later, in 2021, numerous indicators4,5 show that dismissing the lab leak hypothesis was premature and there is no “consensus” of a zoonosis origin.

Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by The Intercept6 also point directly to a lab origin, so much so that the WHO’s director general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, called for a new investigation into it, writing in the October 13, 2021, edition of the journal Science,7 “A lab accident cannot be ruled out until there is sufficient evidence to do so and those results are openly shared.”

The Escape From China

Initially, Yan had released information via an American YouTube blogger that was very popular in China. By the end of April 2020, a colleague warned Yan she was at risk of being “disappeared.” That’s when she decided to flee to the U.S. Luckily, she already had a valid visa. Her husband was deeply opposed to her leaving, as you might imagine. She explains:

“I didn’t know it would happen like [it did]. From January to April [2020], I didn’t tell him what I had done. I tried to protect him, because at that time, in Hong Kong, there were a lot of people fighting against government for democracy and freedom. They can get disappeared easily.

But if their family don’t know what they have done, it’s kind of safe for the family. That’s why I tried to protect him. But when I heard that I need leave, I tried to bring him with me. He’s not Chinese. He’s from Sri Lanka. When I told him, he was outraged, which was really not like him. He warned me, saying ‘We can go nowhere. They are everywhere. We can do nothing.'”

Her husband even threatened to have her killed if she left. The next two weeks were a dangerous time for Yan. Her husband kept her under surveillance, and she developed a sudden heart problem. The day before she left, she went for a checkup. She had a resting heart rate of 130, which is a sign of sinus tachycardia.

Yan suspects foul play, saying the Chinese government prefers to “disappear” people by making it look like a natural death. “Like this virus,” she says. According to Yan, infections and heart attacks are common strategies used to get rid of dissenters. Yan also suspects her husband may have been helping them.

Fortunately, since entering the U.S., the attacks have been relegated to discrediting her and ruining her reputation. “For example, they created thousands of fake accounts on social media, using at least seven languages, to spread [lies about me] and attacks to discredit me,” she says.

According to Yan, this has been verified by FireEye, a cybersecurity company that also does work for American intelligence agencies. Her family, who are in mainland China, friends and even alumni are also under strict surveillance by the Chinese government, she says.

Vindication

While the whole world denied the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was manmade for over a year, in recent months, the truth has finally entered the mainstream. A number of reporters have wrestled with excuses, trying to justify or explain away their long-held denials.

“Last year in July, when I was first on Fox News, I told them the WHO and the CCP are corrupted and are in the cover-up together,” Yan says. “At that time, it was a bombshell. Now, most people realize [the virus] is not from nature. That is a very good turning, and I keep helping other people to realize the evidence.

I explain to them the CCP’s style and the evidence. Now, I see that even some mainstream media are starting to talk about the possibility of [it being a] bioweapon. I think it is very encouraging. Because people need to realize that China is using this virus together with their misinformation campaign and propaganda to attack all over the world.”

Who’s Running the Show?

While the Chinese military may be responsible for the physical creation of the virus, there’s ample evidence showing the U.S. funded at least some of the research that resulted in this pandemic.

The flow of money from Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the EcoHealth Alliance run by Peter Daszak and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is well-documented. Ralph Baric, Ph.D., at the University of North Carolina has also conducted research that appears to have been applied to SARS-CoV-2.

The sequence of events is confusing, however, and it’s unclear just who is the real string-puller in all of this. When asked what her take is, and who she believes might be running the show, Yan replies that even without American funding, China certainly would still have managed to create this virus.

“The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) … they are a giant octopus and they have tentacles. The brain is the CCP. Those scientists, especially the military scientists and coronavirus experts [such as] my previous supervisor, Dr. Malik Pieris, they are the ones that had the real evil ideas.

They enjoy it, and they want to command this knowledge … Even China cannot use their tentacles … if they cannot use infiltration to get your money, they will still manage to get your technology and do it in China. That’s the key point. The money from American taxpayers, it looks a lot. Yes, it’s millions [of dollars]. However, compared to the money donated by the Chinese government, it’s just a very small piece …

They developed this virus and other things in their unrestricted bioweapons program. They want to destroy Americans’ economic and social order, destroy your civilization. [While the virus has attacked worldwide], they always list America as a primary enemy and the biggest problem.

So, when they show you this kind of propaganda, through TikTok and other social media [where Chinese citizens] tell you, ‘Oh, in China we control the outcome and it’s good, and we love our government.’ American people will feel, ‘Yeah, maybe we should give up our democracy and turn to try communism.’ That’s all they want to do.”

Chinese Data Collection

Since the start of the pandemic, it’s been near-impossible to determine how many Chinese have actually been affected. According to Yan, the CCP will only release data that benefits itself.

“Chinese people all know not to trust any data that comes from our government,” she says. “They don’t do statistics. They just sit there. Whatever data they want, they write it down. That’s how they [produce] data.”

According to Yan, the CCP has been using the converse strategy used in the U.S. and elsewhere. Rather than inflate case numbers, they’ve been suppressing them. One way they’ve been doing this is by delaying diagnosis, so deaths are not listed as COVID-19 deaths.

“It’s totally opposite,” she says. “For example, in America, once a person has been diagnosed with COVID, even if they later died of some other problem, they still will be [counted] as a COVID case.

But in China, they can use a ventilator to make the patient survive until the test comes out negative. They have thousands of ways to handle it. Importantly, they also gave early treatment, including hydroxychloroquine and other drugs.”

According to Yan, military scientists in China have also filed a patent to use hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. “That made them earn the top anti-COVID award by Chairman Xi last year,” she says. Hydroxychloroquine is also sold over the counter in China, so it’s easy to get a hold of. She believes part of the reason why the death toll in the U.S. has been so high is because hydroxychloroquine was suppressed and censored.

Is There a Connection Between the COVID Shots and the CCP?

The COVID-19 pandemic has clearly been capitalized upon by greedy drug companies, and the suppression of early treatment drugs appears to have been an intentional strategy to make the COVID shot — which is turning out to be extraordinarily hazardous to your health — the only alternative. How does the COVID “vaccine” tie into the theory that SARS-CoV-2 is a CCP bioweapon? Yan says:

“Definitely there is a clear connection between the vaccine and the CCP’s strategies … Some people … try to explain that the vaccine will kill people, and therefore it is another bioweapon. But this is not an accurate reason. First China released the virus they developed in the military labs. This virus doesn’t have a high death rate … That’s why I called it an unrestricted bioweapon. It looks like it’s natural occurring.

Once you realize something is wrong, they use misinformation and denial to confuse you. So, when China released it — and China controls the scientific community to spread misinformation, and censored [information] to let people believe it’s come from nature — what will people do?

They will think about drugs, the drugs they already have. The other way is a vaccine, because people are educated to accept a vaccine can end a pandemic.

In this case, useful drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are so cheap. How could they use this to earn huge profits? The CCP also had a lot of stock shares from Pfizer, Moderna and other big pharmaceutical companies. Check the money they put in … And then big pharmaceutical companies, they all say, ‘OK, now we can use this chance to make money.'”

Clearly, many who support and push the COVID shot know full well that they’re bound to cause health problems. Yan herself was asked to work on a COVID vaccine but she declined after looking into the available science. No coronavirus vaccine has ever been released, despite scientists working on it for two decades.

The reason? The vaccines cause too many injuries. They’re lethal. Yan did not believe these problems could be overcome for SARS-CoV-2. Peiris himself discovered antibody-dependent enhancement during efforts to develop a vaccine against the original SARS virus. Still, when money is being thrown at scientists, they’re usually not going to turn it down.

Vaccine Passports Will Usher in a Social Credit System

Of course, the COVID shots and the vaccine passports also fit into the CCP agenda by making the whole world accept and adopt the CCP’s social control system. The vaccine passports are clearly designed to usher in a social credit system like they have in China. And with that, you get 24/7 digital surveillance and an unbelievable amount of control over every single person.

As explained by Yan, in China, the digital surveillance system is so advanced, if your phone GPS shows you were near an infected person, you are automatically ordered into isolation.

What’s more, if parents or grandparents fail to get the COVID shot, the family’s children are barred from school, even if they got the shot. Every aspect of life is linked together through this system, so a poor social credit score will also have financial ramifications, and will dictate if, where and how you’re allowed to travel.

Yan points out that Americans, being unaware of the Chinese surveillance system, don’t understand that by agreeing with vaccine mandates and passports, they are saying yes to a total surveillance system that will dictate their entire lives. They’re also saying yes to being guinea pigs for an endless stream of questionable vaccines.

“Once you support mandate for two doses, then you have to support for the booster, and then support 60 boosters, 199 boosters. It [will be] endless,” she says. “And you’ll be tied into this [social] credit system you built.”

China Wants World Dominance by 2035

According to Yan, China’s goal is to achieve world dominance by 2035. With that aim in mind, they’ve spent decades developing unrestricted bioweapons. With COVID-19, they’re well on their way.

“They want to use all this to overcome the world, and America is their primary enemy,” Yan says. “So we have to stand up for the future, for our next generations. We cannot keep silent. This will be the last chance we have to fight against such communist evil plans, and to save all of us. And, most importantly, we have to all work together to stop the next pandemic or attack that comes out of China …

[Just look at] what’s happening in Hong Kong now. In two years, from 2019 until now, China destroyed the systems of law, democracy and freedom in Hong Kong. They also enacted national security laws. Basically, they own your privacy. They own your freedom, and you are forced to listen to them.

There is no reason they can’t do whatever [they want] to you. Basically, you are a slave living in a modern society. No doubt, once China overcomes America, it will be the same here, and maybe worse because they will have other technology at that time.”

When asked what actions Yan believes we need to take to resist and derail this plan, she says:

“I want Americans to know that, first, adults should realize the evilness of Communism, Maoism, Marxism, no matter what name it changes to … And once you realize that, speak out about it, because they are using propaganda to brainwash people, to brainwash the kids.

Also, you must let your policymakers, legislators, know this. I’m a foreigner, but you are an American citizen. You can vote, so you must let them understand the importance and push them to do something. Don’t believe the Chinese government and don’t give any mercy to the CCP.

Also, you have to update your own system. Study the weakness in your whole system, [the weakness that allows them] to divide America. Once you do all these things, hold them accountable and don’t let them do more. That’s the end of the pandemic.”

You can follow Yan on Twitter for frequent updates and breaking information. Her only authentic Twitter account is @Dr.LiMengYan1.

Facial Recognition Software to Police Pandemic Rules

If you’re told to quarantine in Australia, don’t expect officials to take your word that you’re staying home. Travelers who return to South Australia, one of the country’s six states, are being forced to download an intrusive app that uses facial recognition and geo-location to make sure you quarantine in your home.

Residents will be randomly contacted by the app to provide proof of their identity and location. They’ll have 15 minutes to respond, and if they don’t, or their location doesn’t match up with where they’re supposed to be, police will be at their doorstep.

“We don’t tell them how often or when, on a random basis they have to reply within 15 minutes,” Premier Steven Marshall said. Adding, chillingly, “I think every South Australian should feel pretty proud that we are the national pilot for the home-based quarantine app.”1

Prison State Is Here: App Tracks Your Whereabouts

Right now, the app is part of a pilot program, with Australian officials testing just how far they can go to enforce their COVID-19 quarantine rules. Developed by tech firm Genvis Pty Ltd in 2020, the app is part of Genvis’ G2G suite of services, which were developed in partnership with the Western Australia Police Force.2

It started with the introduction of a QR code-based travel permit system that was used to manage travel restrictions that took effect March 2020. Since then, Genvis states on their website, it has “evolved into a comprehensive platform that powers much of Western Australia’s COVID response in support of the state’s elimination strategy.”3

This includes a G2G Pass, a “border management solution” that manages all travel into Western Australia, along with its G2G Now app, which they say has “helped more than 95,000 people quarantine at home in W.A. since September 2020.” As for how it works, Genvis states:4

“The app uses facial recognition to confirm the identity of people in quarantine and location services to verify their location. A full-scale quarantine management solution, G2G Now saves significant police resources and is an Australian first.”

In addition to “border management” and “quarantine management,” Genvis and the Western Australia Police Force seem to have a solution for all of their prison state needs, including:5

  • COVID test registrations
  • Real-time app-based reporting
  • Exposed worker declarations

The oppressive G2G suite of products is being used not only by the Western Australia Police Force but also by the Northern Territory government and the Tasmanian government.6

Selfies Required to ‘Keep Communities Safe’

When prompted by the app, users must snap a selfie within the 15-minute timeframe, at their specified home quarantine address, lest police come knocking on their door. This is all to “keep communities safe,” Kirstin Butcher, Genvis chief executive, told Reuters. “You can’t have home quarantine without compliance checks … You can’t perform physical compliance checks at the scale needed to support (social and economic) reopening plans so technology has to be used.”7

The move is being pitched as an improvement to the requirement that all international arrivals spend two weeks quarantining at a hotel under police watch, but confining a person to their home who has not committed a crime, and monitoring them with the threat of police force, is not something typically done in a free society.

“While the recognition technology has been used in countries like China, no other democracy has been reported as considering its use in connection with coronavirus containment procedures,” Reuters reported.8 However, this could easily change and could quickly morph into an app to monitor your whereabouts for all types of purposes.

It’s already starting. September 17, 2021, President Biden added measles to the list of quarantinable communicable diseases, meaning if you’ve been exposed, you could be required to quarantine.9 What other diseases will be added to the list, and what measures approved to enforce Americans remaining in their homes?

One of Genvis’ other projects is Milli, a “home safety smartphone app,” also built in collaboration with the Western Australia Police Force, that “analyses live home security camera feeds detecting people and vehicles.” If an “event” happens, an alert is sent to a user’s smartphone so they can “quickly review the information and take action if necessary.”10

The Milli app is in use in Western Australia, reportedly as a tool to reduce family and domestic violence. But it’s not hard to see how this invasive technology could easily be used for other types of monitoring and surveillance, with extreme violations to privacy. Many have voiced concerns over Genvis’ products, including the G2G Now app.

“I’m troubled not just by the use here but by the fact this is an example of the creeping use of this sort of technology in our lives,” Toby Walsh, a professor of Artificial Intelligence at University of NSW, told Reuters. “Even if it works here … then it validates the idea that facial recognition is a good thing. Where does it end?”11

When Is Australia no Longer Free?

Australia has faced some of the tightest restrictions during the pandemic, and people are growing weary of having their personal liberty taken away in the name of safety. When a curfew was announced in the state of Victoria, scholar John Lee was asked if he thought it went too far, to which he responded, “To put this in context, federal and state parliaments sat during both world wars and the Spanish Flu, and curfews have never been imposed.”12

In New South Wales, the military has been used to enforce lockdowns, which have persisted for months, and when protests occurred, people were fined and arrested. Writing in The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf explained that Australia appears to have entered a police state and questions at what point it can no longer be called a free country:13

“Australia is undoubtedly a democracy, with multiple political parties, regular elections, and the peaceful transfer of power.

But if a country indefinitely forbids its own citizens from leaving its borders, strands tens of thousands of its citizens abroad, puts strict rules on intrastate travel, prohibits citizens from leaving home without an excuse from an official government list, mandates masks even when people are outdoors and socially distanced, deploys the military to enforce those rules, bans protest, and arrests and fines dissenters, is that country still a liberal democracy?

Enduring rules of that sort would certainly render a country a police state. In year two of the pandemic, with COVID-19 now thought to be endemic, rather than a temporary emergency the nation could avoid, how much time must pass before we must regard Australia as illiberal and unfree?”

People Are Protesting the Orwellian Policies

In Melbourne, people took to the streets in protest after being locked down in their homes for more than 220 days. In addition to schools and businesses being closed, residents have been subjected to curfews and confined to their homes for all but essential travel and exercise.

The protestors were met with police forces responding as though they were at war; protesting has also been outlawed, with dissenters risking arrest and fines of $5,000 or more.14 International media has largely ignored the growing protests and police state in Australia, while Australian media tend to favor the government narrative.

One Australian woman who attended the protests told KRWG media on the condition of anonymity, “I want my freedoms and democracy back, I want parliament to be open, I want discussion, I want full disclosure, I want dissenting voices to be heard. I came here from a communist country when I was 5, so yes I’m a true blue Aussie, but I also have that other background of what my parents escaped from.”15

At protests in Sydney over the summer, with residents in the midst of a months-long lockdown, police were also called in for enforcement and government officials called on individuals to report people who weren’t obeying social distancing rules.16

Outside of Sydney, protestors were increasingly taking to city centers to call for freedom and the truth. At an earlier protest in Melbourne, a banner read, “This is not about a virus. It’s about total government control of the people.”17 Multiple arrests were made at the Sydney protests, with police stating that crowds “broke through barriers and threw plastic bottles and plants.”18

In New South Wales, law enforcement stated that while they supported free speech and peaceful assembly, “the protest was a breach of public health orders.”19 About 5,000 people also demonstrated against COVID measures in Athens, Greece, with banners stating, “Don’t touch our children.”20

Protests have also occurred in England over the NHS Covid app, which notifies you if you’ve been in close contact (defined as within six feet for 15 minutes or more) with someone who tested positive for COVID.

If you’re unvaccinated and get notified, you’re supposed to self-isolate for 10 days since the last contact with the positive person. If you don’t self-isolate after being notified, you can be fined £1,000 ($1,390) or more.21 In early August, the NHS changed how the app worked, notifying people of close contacts in the last two days instead of five, after so many people were “pinged” that it was pushing food producers, retailers and supply chains near the breaking point.22

Tech Tyranny Is Increasing

A national security state isn’t only occurring in Australia. Measures toward authoritarian control and mass surveillance have been increasing worldwide, and in the U.S., Silicon Valley and the national security state are now fused, according to one of my favorite independent journalists, Whitney Webb.23

The decades-long wars against domestic dissidence have always involved technology such as databases, and now it’s progressing to technology such as facial recognition apps. Webb wrote about “tech tyranny” at the start of the pandemic, revealing that a document from the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) — acquired through a FOIA request — said changes were needed to keep a technological advantage over China:24

“This document suggests that the U.S. follow China’s lead and even surpass them in many aspects related to AI-driven technologies, particularly their use of mass surveillance.

This perspective clearly clashes with the public rhetoric of prominent U.S. government officials and politicians on China, who have labeled the Chinese government’s technology investments and export of its surveillance systems and other technologies as a major ‘threat’ to Americans’ ‘way of life.’”

As in Australia, many of the steps to implement the program are being promoted as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response, in the name of public safety. NSCAI is not only a key part of The Great Reset’s fourth industrial revolution, but also promotes mass surveillance, online-only shopping and the end of cash while noting that “having streets carpeted with cameras is good infrastructure.”25

With increased surveillance comes loss of freedom, which is why people around the world should continue to peacefully rebel against technologies that threaten their liberties.

Dr. Mercola’s 2021 Biohacking Lecture

My absolute favorite event to speak at is Dave Asprey’s Biohacking event. He was kind enough to allow me to run my presentation at this year’s event in Orlando. To say it was beyond fantastic is a serious understatement. I learned so much and had a chance to personally connect with over 1,000 people. It was beyond great.

In my video above, I review how COVID gene therapy injections will almost assuredly be granted emergency use authorization for children and babies before this year is over, despite having been linked to serious blood disorders and heart inflammation. Third booster shots have already been rolled out in the U.S. for those older than 65 and anyone at high risk for exposure due to their profession.

We’re also facing vaccine mandates around the country, and vaccine passports are being implemented in certain areas. I predict it won’t be long before a social credit system is rolled out as well, which will be tied together with the vaccine passports and a digital economy.

While times are dire, I firmly believe that, in the end, we will win and sanity will be restored. Unfortunately, things may get a whole lot worse before they get better. With that in mind, what can you do? How can you prepare? How do we keep fighting the good fight for freedom?

Take Control of Your Health

“Take control of your health” has been my catchphrase since I started this website, and right now, that is perhaps the best advice anyone can follow. You need to stay healthy and out of the hospitals.

One of my top recommendations for safeguarding your health at this time is to optimize your vitamin D level. In my lecture, I show a graph that clearly illustrates the correlation between higher vitamin D levels and your risk of dying from COVID-19. At a level of 17 ng/mL, the death rate is nearly 100%. At a level of 35 ng/mL, which is still below the ideal minimum of 40 ng/mL, the death rate is near zero.

Similarly, your vitamin D level is also strongly correlated with COVID-19 severity. In one study, cited in the lecture, 96% of critical and severe cases had low vitamin D levels (below 29 ng/mL) and 93% of moderate cases were deficient. Meanwhile, 98% of those with mild cases had a vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or higher.

The evidence for vitamin D in COVID-19 is so compelling, I wrote a paper1 on it together with William Grant, Ph.D., and Dr. Carol Wagner, which was published in the peer-review journal Nutrients at the end of October 2020. The paper is titled “Evidence Regarding Vitamin D and Risk of COVID-19 and Its Severity.”

Vitamin D and Your Risk for COVID

As noted in our paper, dark skin color, increased age, preexisting chronic conditions and vitamin D deficiency are all features of severe COVID disease, and of these, vitamin D deficiency is the only factor that is readily and easily modifiable.

You may be able to reverse chronic disease, but that typically takes time. Optimizing your vitamin D, on the other hand, can be achieved in just a few weeks, thereby significantly lowering your risk of severe COVID-19.

In our paper, we review several of the mechanisms by which vitamin D can reduce your risk of COVID-19 and other respiratory infections, including but not limited to the following:2

  • Reducing the survival and replication of viruses3
  • Reducing inflammatory cytokine production
  • Maintaining endothelial integrity — Endothelial dysfunction contributes to vascular inflammation and impaired blood clotting, two hallmarks of severe COVID-19
  • Increasing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) concentrations, which prevents the virus from entering cells via the ACE2 receptor — ACE2 is downregulated by SARS-CoV-2 infection, and by increasing ACE2, you also avoid excessive accumulation of angiotensin II, a peptide hormone known to increase the severity of COVID-19

Vitamin D is also an important component of COVID-19 prevention and treatment for the fact that it:

  • Boosts your overall immune function by modulating your innate and adaptive immune responses
  • Reduces respiratory distress4
  • Improves overall lung function
  • Helps produce surfactants in your lungs that aid in fluid clearance5
  • Lowers your risk of comorbidities associated with poor COVID-19 prognosis, including obesity,6 Type 2 diabetes,7 high blood pressure8 and heart disease9

Other Health Benefits of Vitamin D

Aside from its benefits against infections, vitamin D also has many other health benefits through both direct and indirect activities. Among its direct actions are:

  • Reducing DNA damage
  • Improving central nervous system functions
  • Improving cognition and depression
  • Reducing risk of cardiovascular disorders, including heart attacks and strokes

Indirectly, vitamin D also:

  • Improves your mitochondrial function
  • Reduces obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes
  • Improves autoimmunity

Through these direct and indirect actions, plus its ability to control oxidative stress, vitamin D helps to both facilitate healthy aging and prevent pulmonary diseases, falls, cancer and sarcopenia (age-related muscle loss).

How to Optimize Your Vitamin D

While most people would probably benefit from a vitamin D3 supplement, it’s important to get your vitamin D level tested before you start supplementing. The reason for this is because you cannot rely on blanket dosing recommendations. The crucial factor here is your blood level, not the dose, as the dose you need is dependent on several individual factors, including your baseline blood level.

Data from GrassrootsHealth’s D*Action studies suggest the optimal level for health and disease prevention is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL, while the cutoff for sufficiency appears to be around 40 ng/mL. In Europe, the measurements you’re looking for are 150 to 200 nmol/L and 100 nmol/L respectively.

I’ve published a comprehensive vitamin D report in which I detail vitamin D’s mechanisms of action and how to ensure optimal levels. I recommend downloading and sharing that report with everyone you know. A quick summary of the key steps is as follows:

1. First, measure your vitamin D level — One of the easiest and most cost-effective ways of measuring your vitamin D level is to participate in the GrassrootsHealth’s personalized nutrition project, which includes a vitamin D testing kit.

Once you know what your blood level is, you can assess the dose needed to maintain or improve your level. If you cannot get enough vitamin D from the sun (you can use the DMinder app10 to see how much vitamin D your body can make depending on your location and other individual factors), then you’ll need an oral supplement.

2. Assess your individualized vitamin D dosage — To do that, you can either use the chart below, or use GrassrootsHealth’s Vitamin D*calculator. To convert ng/mL into the European measurement (nmol/L), simply multiply the ng/mL measurement by 2.5. To calculate how much vitamin D you may be getting from regular sun exposure in addition to your supplemental intake, use the DMinder app.11

Vitamin D Serum Level

3. Retest in three to six months — Lastly, you’ll need to remeasure your vitamin D level in three to six months, to evaluate how your sun exposure and/or supplement dose is working for you.

Take Your Vitamin D With Magnesium and K2

It’s strongly recommended to take magnesium and K2 concomitant with oral vitamin D. Data from nearly 3,000 individuals reveal you need 244% more oral vitamin D if you’re not also taking magnesium and vitamin K2.12

What this means in practical terms is that if you take all three supplements in combination, you need far less oral vitamin D in order to achieve a healthy vitamin D level.

Vitamin D Dose-Response

The Importance of Exercise

Another foundational health principle is physical exercise. I’ve been exercising for nearly 50 years now, and I recently set a new personal record, at the age of 67. In 2021, I was able to deadlift 400 pounds.

I’m not saying you need to be able to lift hundreds of pounds, but strength training in general, even if using light weights, is absolutely crucial for optimal health and only becomes more so as you age. The reason for this is because strength training helps you avoid frailty.

Many don’t realize that frailty is lethal. Frailty is an umbrella term that encompasses several age-related clinical conditions involving deterioration of strength and malfunctions in the body, which then makes you more vulnerable to disease and hampers recovery from illness. I am very familiar with this as both my parents died from frailty.

According to Chinese research13 published in August 2021, 59.9% of seniors aged 65 to 79 in China had signs of pre-frailty, while 95% of centenarians (those older than 100) were frail. As noted by the authors:

“Both pre-frailty and frailty were associated with the increased risk of multiple adverse outcomes, such as incident limited physical performance, cognitive decline and dependence, respectively.

Frail males were more vulnerable to the risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.3 …) compared with frail females (HR = 1.9 …). The strongest association between frailty and mortality was observed among the young-old (HR = 3.6 …).

Exhaustion was the most common domain among patients with pre-frailty (74.8%) or frailty (83.2%), followed by shrink (32.3%) in pre-frailty and low mobility (83.0%) in frailty. Inactivity among females aged 65–79 years showed the strongest association with the risk of mortality (HR = 3.50 …).”

The Case for Blood Flow Restriction Training

The most profound and effective type of strength training I know of is called blood flow restriction (BFR) training. It was invented in 1966 in Japan, and introduced in the U.S. in 2010.

BFR involves exercising your muscles using no or very light weights while partially slowing arterial inflow and modifying venous outflow in either both proximal arms or legs using thin elastic pneumatic (inflatable) KAATSU bands.14

By modifying the venous blood flow, you create a relatively hypoxic (low oxygen) environment in the exercising muscle, which in turn triggers a number of physiological benefits. One of the reasons I’m so passionate about BFR training is because it has the ability to prevent and widely treat sarcopenia (skeletal muscle loss) like no other type of training.

Importantly, it allows you to use very light weights, which makes it suitable for the elderly and those who are already frail or recovering from an injury. And, since you’re using very light weights, you don’t damage the muscle and therefore don’t need to recover as long.

While most elderly cannot engage in high-intensity exercise or heavy weightlifting, even extraordinarily fit individuals in their 60s, 70s and 80s who can do conventional training will be limited in terms of the benefits they can achieve, thanks to decreased microcirculation. This is because your microcirculation tends to decrease with age.

With age, your capillary growth diminishes, and capillary blood flow is essential to supply blood to your muscle stem cells, specifically the fast twitch Type II muscle fiber stem cells. If they don’t have enough blood flow — even though they’re getting the signal from the conventional strength training — they’re not going to grow and you’re not going to get muscle hypertrophy and strength.

BFR, because of the local hypoxia created, stimulates hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha and, secondarily, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which acts as “fertilizer” for your blood vessels. VEGF allows your stem cells to function the way they were designed to when they were younger.

The hypoxia also triggers vascular endothelial growth factor, which enhances the capillarization of the muscle and likely the veins in the arteries as well. Building muscle and improving blood vessel function are related, which is why BFR offers such powerful stimulus for reversing sarcopenia.

In short, BFR has a systemic or crossover training effect. While you’re only restricting blood flow to your extremities, once you release the bands, the metabolic variables created by the hypoxia flow into your blood — lactate and VEGF being two of them — thereby spreading this “metabolic magic” throughout your entire system.

You can learn more about KAATSU by viewing the video below. You can get most of the benefits by purchasing inexpensive bands like this on Amazon. If you are hardcore like me, you can go all out and get the best that many professional athletes use. For a limited time, you can get 10% off the KAATSU band by using this link: www.kaatsu.com/go/NVIC

The Power of Time-Restricted Eating

A third biohack that will put your health on the right track is intermittent fasting or time-restricted eating, where you eat all your meals for the day within a six- to eight-hour window. It’s a powerful intervention for reducing insulin resistance, restoring metabolic flexibility and losing excess body fat.

Aside from old age, obesity — which is often rooted in insulin resistance — has been identified as one of the primary risk factors for being hospitalized with COVID-19. It doubled the risk of hospitalization in patients under the age of 60 in one study,15 even if the individual had no other obesity-related health problems. A French study16,17 also found obese patients treated for COVID-19 were more likely to require mechanical ventilation.

One hypothesis for why obesity is worsening COVID-19 has to do with the fact that obesity causes chronic inflammation.18 Having more proinflammatory cytokines in circulation increases your risk of experiencing a cytokine storm. Remarkably, as illustrated in my lecture, 42.4% of Americans are now obese, not just overweight. Compare that to the obesity rate 115 years ago, which was 1.2%.


Benefits of NAD+

You’ll also want to make sure you’re eating at least three hours before bedtime. One of the reasons for this advice is because avoiding late-night eating will increase your nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) levels, which are important for a variety of bodily functions. Sirtuins, so-called longevity hormones, are also dependent on NAD+.

It will also have a negative impact on your nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) level, which is essentially the true cellular battery of your cell and has the reductive potential to recharge your antioxidants. The largest consumer of NADPH is the creation of fatty acids.

If you’re eating close to bedtime, then you’re not going to be able to use the NADPH to burn those calories as energy. Instead, they must be stored some way. To store them, you have to create fat, so you’re basically radically lowering your NADPH levels when you eat late at night because they are being consumed to store your extra calories by creating fat.

Aside from avoiding late-night eating and snacking, the best way to raise your NAD+ level is — intense resistance exercise! Exercise such as BFR training raises the rate limiting enzyme for remaking NAD+, NAMPT. Merely by exercising very intensely, you can raise your NAD+ level by 20 to 30 times more than using precursors.

The problem, though, is that most are unwilling to train this hard. I have found that BFR training is highly effective for increasing NAD+ levels, which is why I rarely use precursor supplementation.

Avoid This Dangerous Fat

Another super-simple biohack that can add years to your life is to avoid one of the most dangerous foods in the modern diet, namely the omega-6 fat linoleic acid (LA). Dietary fats are a crucial component of a healthy diet, but the devil’s in the details and the type of fats you choose can make a world of difference.

LA makes up the bulk — about 80% — of the omega-6 consumed and is the primary contributor to nearly all chronic diseases. Nothing will destroy your health faster than excess LA, which acts as a metabolic poison. To avoid this dangerous fat, you’ll want to cut down, avoid or eliminate:

  • Conventionally raised chicken and pork
  • Processed seed oils such as corn oil, soybean oil, sunflower and canola oil, as well as most olive oils and avocado oils
  • All processed foods, including virtually all restaurant sauces
  • Virtually all seeds and nuts
  • Virtually all pastries unless butter is substituted for vegetable oil

Seed oils, all of which contain double-digit percentages of LA,19 have been linked to heart disease, gastrointestinal diseases such as irritable bowel disorder, inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, certain cancers20 and even COVID-19.

A compelling report21 in the journal Gastroenterology showed a person’s unsaturated fat intake is associated with increased mortality from COVID-19, primarily by promoting life-threatening organ failure. On the bright side, they suggested early treatment with inexpensive calcium and egg albumin might reduce rates of organ failure and ICU admissions.

Since diet-related comorbidities are responsible for 94% of all COVID-19-related deaths,22 taking control of your diet is a simple, commonsense strategy to lower the risks associated with this infection. To determine how much LA you’re getting from your diet, use a nutritional calculator such as Cronometer.

With everything going on in the world and with all the threats now facing us, there’s never been a better time to grab the proverbial bull by the horns and start to safeguard and build your health. The biohacks I review in my lecture are deceptively simple ways to do that without spending a fortune.

Sign up NOW for Next Year’s Event at a GREAT Discount

September 15 through 17, 2022 — just short of one year from now — the eighth annual BioHacking Conference will take place in Beverly Hills, California. Secure your spot at the 2022 conference by registering online right now.

register now

>>>>> Click here <<<<<

Between now and September 15, 2022, you can get 40% off your attendance fee, plus another $100 discount if you use the discount code MERCOLA.

Normally, these links provide affiliate commissions, but I assure you that I do not earn a penny from your registration. I asked Dave to give my commissions to YOU so you would be more likely to attend, as I believe it is one of the best health events out there for serous health students. Planned speakers at the 2022 conference include yours truly, Dave Asprey, Dr. Caroline Leaf, Dr. Stephen Sinatra and Charlie Engle.

Ivermectin for Colorectal Antitumor Properties

Your colon, which is also known as the large intestine, plays an incredibly important role in your health. As part of the digestive tract, bacteria in the colon are responsible for the final breakdown of food material before it passes into the rectum and is excreted through the anus.1

New evidence published in Frontiers in Pharmacology show the antiparasitic medication ivermectin may have a new application in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC).2 Researchers are hopeful this may have a positive impact on colon cancer deaths. Colon cancer is the third leading cancer diagnosis and third cause of cancer death in the U.S.3

According to data from the National Cancer Institute,4 an estimated 149,500 new cases of colorectal cancer will be diagnosed in 2021 and an estimated 52,980 people will die. This represents 7.9% of all new cases of cancer diagnosed in 2021 and 8.7% of all cancer deaths.

There are modifiable risk factors associated with colorectal cancer.5 For example, lifestyle factors over which you have control that reduce your risk of colorectal cancer include your diet, alcohol consumption, activity level, weight and history of smoking.

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization,6 concluded that processed meat could cause colorectal cancer in humans and classified it as a Group 1 carcinogen. According to the WHO, this means:

“… there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.”

Ivermectin Shows Promise in Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

Wrongly vilified as a “livestock drug” by the media in the treatment of COVID-19 with “scant evidence it works,”7 researchers have found a new use for this Nobel Prize-winning medication.8 As the research team wrote in the published study, although CRC is the third most common cancer worldwide, it still lacks effective therapy.9

Past research has demonstrated that ivermectin also has anti-inflammatory, antitumor and antiviral properties. To test the influence ivermectin may have on colorectal cancer cells, the team used cancer cell lines SW48010 and SW1116.11 Both are epithelial cell lines from the large intestine in humans.

The researchers12 used multiple tests to determine cell viability and apoptosis after exposure to ivermectin. They also measured reactive oxygen species levels and cell cycle. To explore the effect on proliferation, the researchers used different concentrations of ivermectin on the cultured cells and found cell viability decreased in a dose-dependent and time-dependent manner.

The ivermectin also altered cell morphology, demonstrating a decrease in cells after just 24 hours and a loss of their original shape. Cultured cells were also exposed to concentrations of ivermectin after which cell viability and apoptosis were measured. The researchers found an increase in apoptosis indicating a dose-dependent effect.

Additionally, the researchers measured the activity of Caspase-3 that plays a vital role initiating apoptosis. They found that ivermectin increases Caspase 3/7 activity in both cell lines in a dose-dependent manner.

This information supports past studies that have suggested ivermectin has anticancer activity against cancers of the digestive system, reproductive system, brain, respiratory system, hematological and breast. The researchers concluded the data demonstrated:13

“… ivermectin may regulate the expression of crucial molecules … Therefore, current results indicate that Ivermectin might be a new potential anticancer drug for treating human colorectal cancer and other cancers.”

Current Colorectal Tumor Treatments Are Invasive and Damaging

The potential use of ivermectin in the treatment of colorectal cancer, or other cancers, offers great hope since current treatments are often invasive and damaging. Ivermectin has been prescribed successfully in humans for 40 years14 with a known side effect profile. This includes drowsiness, headache, mild skin rash, nausea, diarrhea and dizziness.15

The American Cancer Society’s16 current recommendations for treatment of colorectal cancer are based on the stage of disease at diagnosis. The treatments can include surgery, chemotherapy, radiation and targeted therapies. Targeted drugs work differently from chemotherapy and have different side effects, which can include high blood pressure, fatigue, mouth sores, bleeding and low white blood counts.17

Unfortunately, these are the best treatments that Western medicine currently has to offer people with colorectal cancer. Following chemotherapy or ionizing radiation, it is not uncommon to develop a secondary cancer after cellular damage from the treatment.18

For example, after chemotherapy, acute myelogenous leukemia is one of the most common types of cancer to develop. After radiation treatments, a solid tumor can develop near the margin of the irradiated field. Bone and soft tissue sarcomas are the most common.

Help Protect Your Gut Against Colon Cancer

There are several steps you can take to help protect yourself against colon cancer. Research published in Pharmaceutical Research19 suggested that only 5% to 10% of all cancer cases are due to genetic defects, while the rest are linked to environment and lifestyle factors.

The researchers estimated that of the environmental and lifestyle factors that contribute to cancer related deaths, nearly 30% are due to tobacco, 35% are related to diet and 20% are related to infections. The remaining 15% can be due to lack of physical activity, stress and environmental pollutants. Some of the lifestyle factors that can help reduce your risk colon cancer include:

Eating more fiber — Dietary fiber is associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer, specifically colorectal adenomas and distal colon cancer.20 By eating more whole foods, such as fruits and vegetables, you’ll naturally be eating more fiber from the best source.

Optimizing your vitamin D level — A vitamin D deficiency is a risk factor for colorectal cancer.21 One study22 showed people with higher blood levels of vitamin D were less likely to develop colorectal tumors. It’s important to monitor your vitamin D levels to ensure you stay within a healthy range.23

Avoiding processed meats — These include pastrami, ham, bacon, pepperoni, hot dogs, some sausages and hamburgers preserved with salt or chemical additives. The nitrates found in processed meats are frequently converted into nitrosamine,24 which are clearly associated with an increased risk of certain cancers.

Exercising — There is evidence that regular exercise can significantly impact and reduce your risk of colon cancer.25,26,27 Exercise helps drive down insulin levels and it has also been suggested that apoptosis is triggered by exercise.28 Exercise also improves circulation of immune cells which improves the efficiency of your immune system.

Maintaining a normal weight and control belly fat — According to one NIH study,29 obesity is more closely associated with colon cancer than diet. Hyperinsulinemia, which occurs in type 2 diabetes, and linked to obesity, is an important factor in the development of colon cancer.30

According to the National Cancer Institute,31 results from the NHANES in 2011 to 2014 nearly 70% of people in the U.S. over 20 were overweight or obese. It’s not just how much weight you carry, but where it’s carried. One study32 showed that visceral fat has a positive association with the prevalence of colorectal cancers. The prevalence increased significantly as the measurement of visceral fat increased.

Limiting alcohol and eliminating smoking — Although smoking is more frequently associated with lung cancer, research has shown there is a link between smoking tobacco and a greater risk of colon cancer.33 Data published in 2020,34 demonstrated a dose-dependent relationship between cigarette smoking and CRC.

Alcohol intake is also associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancers. One study35 found a differentiation between the types of alcohol and the effect on the colon and rectum. Another published in 2018,36 found the relationship between excess alcohol intake was linked not only to the alcohol but also to the predisposition to a poor diet low in fiber.

Eating garlic — There is evidence demonstrating garlic can kill cancer cells in vitro. Several studies have analyzed the effects that dietary garlic may have on the development of colorectal cancer. One study37 did not find a significant reduction in risk.

A second published in January 2020,38 did find evidence that garlic could reduce the risk of CRC. One study39 published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology revealed the odds of getting CRC were 79% lower in those who a diet high in allium vegetables, which include garlic, leeks and onions.

Optimizing Mitochondrial Health Lowers Metabolic Disease Risk

In 2016, Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D., was the recipient of my Game Changer Award for his work on cancer as a metabolic disease. Later, his work was heavily featured in Travis Christofferson’s excellent book “Tripping Over the Truth: The Metabolic Theory of Cancer.”

In November 2018,40 Dr Peter Attia, who focuses interviewed Seyfried in a detailed discussion about why cancer cells grow and how conventional medicine has it mostly wrong when it comes to treatment. During the interview Seyfried talked about important principles in cancer treatment including biopsies, surgical intervention, radiation and chemotherapy.

As I have discussed in the past,41 Seyfried and others have shown cancer is primarily a metabolic disease and that normal mitochondria can suppress cancer growth. In other words, for cancer cells to proliferate, they must have dysfunctional mitochondria. Seyfried’s research demonstrates cancer can be managed when you move from using glucose and glutamine for fuel to primarily ketone bodies in a ketogenic diet.

The take-home message from Seyfried’s work is keeping your mitochondria healthy significantly reduces the risk for any type of cancer. By primarily avoiding toxic environmental factors and implementing healthy lifestyle strategies you can reduce the risk of mitochondrial dysfunction. This is the sole focus of the program detailed in my book “Fat for Fuel.” Topping my list of strategies to optimize mitochondrial health are:

Cyclical nutritional ketosis — The divergence from an ancestral diet, including the prevalence of processed and unnatural foods replete with added sugars, net carbs and industrial fats, is responsible for most of the damage to your mitochondria. A foundational strategy to optimize health is to eat the right fuel.

Calorie restriction — By limiting the amount of fuel available to your body, you reduce mitochondrial free radical production. Calorie restriction is consistently shown to have many therapeutic benefits.

Meal timing — When you eat late in the evening, your body stores the energy instead of using it. This creates a buildup of ATP and ultimately an excessive amount of free radical formation.

Normalizing your iron level — High levels of iron enhances oxidation and creates reactive oxygen species and free radicals. Contrary to popular belief, excess iron is more prevalent in the population than iron deficiency. Fortunately, this is very easy to address.

Simply checking your iron level with a serum ferritin test will reveal if your level is high. You can correct high levels by donating blood two or three times a year to maintain a healthy level.

Exercise — In addition to the evidence discussed above related to colorectal cancer, exercise also upregulates PCG1 alpha and Nrf2. These are genes that promote mitochondrial efficiency, helping them to grow and divide if actively. Simply put, by increasing the energy demand on yourself during physical activity, it signals your body to create more mitochondria to meet the energy demand.