Category: Dr. Mercola’s Censored Library

• Make Sunsets, a startup company with primary offices in Mexico, claims to have released two balloons with sulfur particles in April 2022, which they hope exploded and released the particles in the stratosphere

• Without monitoring devices, the company is unsure of what happened to the balloons, but claims the sulfur they released will offset a substantial amount of warming in 2023

• The idea was inspired by weather changes after major volcanic eruptions spewed ash into the atmosphere and the weather temporarily shifted; experts call the actions of Make Sunsets “wildly premature,” noting it isn’t possible to estimate the potential consequences that could unilaterally alter the climate

• The CEO, Luke Iseman, didn’t appear to believe that transparency or governance is required when manipulating the environment, making a move he called provocative and geoengineering activism, without public engagement, scientific scrutiny or approval from government authorities or scientific agencies

• Not all experts agree on the degree to which warming has changed Earth’s climate, but as we have learned in the last three years, without honest disagreement and debate, the science community cannot contribute to policies that govern how medicine or technology is implemented to protect humanity

Since the beginning of human history, man has sought to control his environment. What started with building shelters and fences, has grown to controlling the weather. Make Sunsets, a startup company with primary offices in Mexico, claims to have released two weather balloons with sulfur particles in April 2022 in the state of Baja California, Mexico

located on the Baja California Peninsula, bordering the U.S.

The term is geoengineering, which describes manipulating the weather by either removing carbon dioxide to prevent it from trapping heat in the lower atmosphere or reflecting sunlight back into space, also called solar geoengineering. Advances in technology and an increasing understanding of meteorological processes have led scientists to discover ways to control the weather.

According to Live Science,

projects are currently in place to increase rainfall, remove carbon dioxide and prevent extreme weather events. While extreme weather varies from country to country, manipulating the weather may have unknown consequences that can precipitate the end of life as we know it on our planet.

A 2012 paper

article published in Nature concludes that from the perspective of environmental ethics, manipulating the environment through geoengineering is a poor choice. While it is a widely held belief that humans should minimize the impact they have on the planet, other options should be pursued with potentially much less risk.

Short-term manipulation of the environment began during the Vietnam War when the U.S. Army used cloud seeding to prolong the monsoon season in Vietnam, destroying roads and flooding rivers.

When this was publicized, the European Modification Convention banned weather manipulation as a military tactic.

In 2008, China used a program to control the weather during the Beijing Olympics, ensuring that rain fell before events like the opening ceremony. According to the BBC,

the technique is routinely used in China to increase rainfall in drought-stricken areas. The U.K. has a checkered history using cloud seeding when in 1952, 35 people during flooding that was linked to RAF rain-making experiments, although nothing was proven.

One startup company, Make Sunsets, and its CEO, Luke Iseman, is pushing to privatize an infant industry with little science to back the recent release of sulfur particles into the atmosphere. But, let’s back that up just a little since Iseman is not certain that the particles were actually released.

According to what he told MIT Technology Review,

the weather balloons contained a few grams of sulfur dioxide but no monitoring equipment. Iseman estimated how much helium it would take to launch the balloons into the stratosphere and then expected they would burst under pressure to release the particles.

However, without monitoring equipment on board, it’s not clear what happened to the balloons. Thus far, the company has claimed to raise $750,000 from two investors, and neither firm responded to the MIT Technology Review reporter before the article was published December 24, 2022.

Iseman claims the first two balloons launched months before Make Sunsets was incorporated in October 2022. Yet, general information about the company claims it also offers “carbon removal solutions to avoid excessive use of fossil fuels, enabling governments and companies to use geoengineering schemes for reducing environmental depletion.”

These are big claims for a fledgling company.

They may be explained by Iseman’s acknowledgment that his efforts are partly entrepreneurial and partly an act of geoengineering activism. He believes that making these moves could drive public debate and push scientific experiments and data gathering forward.

Before branching out on his own into the geoengineering space, Iseman was the director of hardware at Y Combinator, a technology startup accelerator company that participated in the launch of Airbnb, Doordash, Dropbox and Stripe.

The company claims to use reusable balloons, yet also claims it does not know what happened to the first two balloons that were launched in April 2022. They go on to claim that “we’ve already launched our first clouds, and we’ll offset a substantial amount of warming in 2023!”

despite not knowing if the first balloons launched released the payload.

In the explanation of how they know this process will work, Make Sunsets uses a simple explanation for a complex subject, writing, “We’re copying nature: the clouds you see in the sky use the same process and have been studied for years.”

The thin level of scientific information on the website that promotes a complex strategy may be better explained by Iseman’s comment, “We joke slash not joke that this is partly a company and partly a cult.”

But a better explanation may be that the company plans to monetize its efforts.

While speaking to MIT Technology Review, Iseman said, “What I want to do is create as much cooling as quickly as I responsibly can, over the rest of my life, frankly.” However, later he added that the company plans to send as much sulfur into the atmosphere in 2023 “as we can get customers to pay us” for.

The company claims that for every gram of sulfur particles they send into the stratosphere, it’s enough to offset the effect of one ton of carbon over one year. Their plan to monetize this strategy is to sell $10 cooling credits for every gram of particles.

Shuchi Talati is a scholar in residence at American University in Washington, D.C. According to MIT Technology Review, she is forming a nonprofit focused on governance and justice in solar geoengineering. Talati is critical of both the monetization efforts and the company’s scientific claims.

Based on current science, she believes that no one can represent such a specific outcome at this stage of the research. “What they’re claiming to actually accomplish with such a credit is the entirety of what’s uncertain right now about geoengineering,” she says. David Keith is one of the leading experts on solar geoengineering and is troubled by any effort to privatize the technology, including selling credits. In 2018 he expressed his fears of privatization, saying:

“… commercial development cannot produce the level of transparency and trust the world needs to make sensible decisions about deployment. A company would have an interest in overselling, an interest in concealing risks.

Solar geoengineering is not cleantech. It’s not a better battery or wind turbine. It’s a set of technologies that might allow humanity to alter the entire climate. As much as possible, it needs to be owned and controlled by transparent democratic institutions. It requires global governance.”

And, as Big Pharma has demonstrated in the past decades, commercial development without transparency leads to corruption.

It appears that Iseman doesn’t believe that transparency or governance is required. That assumption can be made based on his actions. According to MIT Technology Review,

the launches from Mexico occurred without public engagement, scientific scrutiny or approval from government authorities or scientific agencies in Mexico, the U.S. or any other country.

Researchers who have spent decades studying the technology are deeply troubled that the company has moved forward with implementation and is attempting to commercialize the industry at this early stage. Yet, some investors who have reviewed the proposals believe it’s not a serious scientific effort or a credible business.

Instead, it may be an effort to grab attention and stir up controversy, which Iseman confirmed. While he thinks this move may make him look like a James Bond villain, he believes “It’s morally wrong, in my opinion, for us not to be doing this.”

However, while Iseman appears to want to drive science forward at a faster rate, some experts believe that it could have the opposite effect. Janos Pasztor is the executive director of the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative. He sent an email to MIT Technology Review, writing:

“The current state of science is not good enough … to either reject, or to accept, let alone implement. To go ahead with implementation at this stage is a very bad idea.”

The concept of geoengineering is simple and based on an idea that was inspired by the side effects of major volcanic eruptions. As volcanoes spew ash into the atmosphere, it can lead to temporary shifts in the climate. One notorious shift occurred in 1816, which is called “the year without a summer.”

It was more than a century later that scientists understood a volcanic eruption in the Indian Ocean one year earlier had sent large amounts of ash into the upper atmosphere that shrouded the globe and blocked the sun. It resulted in severe crop failure, food shortages and famine.

Pasztor stresses that the actions taken by Make Sunsets underscore the urgency to establish oversight and clear rules for responsible geoengineering and determine under what conditions individuals and groups can move forward.

In fact, the company’s actions have played into some long-held fears that an individual or company with no knowledge or the implications for the consequences could unilaterally alter the climate since the technology is relatively cheap and simple.

This seems to describe Iseman’s own characterization of the motives behind Make Sunsets since he believes a radical approach is necessary to spur what he perceives as a slow movement to address climate change. However, the narrative appears inconsistent.

On the one hand, Iseman states that moving ahead with these controversial actions could help drive public debate and move science forward, implying he understands that his actions are premature.

Yet, in the FAQs on the Make Sunsets website, he claims that others from academia have tried to accomplish what he is doing but were “canceled due to well-intentioned but misguided activism and patent disputes.”

He also claims to be able to offset substantial warming in 2023.

It should come as no surprise that Bill Gates is heavily involved in funding geoengineering. His first foray occurred in 2010

when he funded research that developed machines to spray seawater into the clouds with the goal of increasing the ability to reflect sunlight into space. This triggered a call for a global ban on experiments.

Since at least 2012,

Gates has funded climate scientist lobbying efforts to advance geoengineering and in 2018

he agreed to fund experiments for Harvard scientists who proposed spraying the stratosphere with calcium chloride to slow the Earth’s warming by blocking out the sun. He remains heavily invested in climate modification that not only could destabilize the climate system, but be weaponized against people by controlling rainfall and drought.

Although many environmental scientists agree global warming is occurring, it’s worth noting that not all agree on the degree to which climate change has occurred. The late Robert M Carter, a research professor at James Cook University Queensland and the University of Adelaide in South Australia, was one of those scientists.

Carter died in 2016 but penned an incisive article in 2009 in which he outlined 10 facts he believed about climate change and argued against 10 global warming myths. The data pertain to the period prior to 2009 when he wrote the article, which was republished in November 2022. Some of his assertions include:

• Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.4°C over the same period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artifacts.

• On both annual (one year) and geological (up to 100,000 years) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

• Climate change is a nonlinear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.

As we have learned in the past three years, without honest disagreement and debate, the science community is unable to contribute to policies that govern how medicine or technology is implemented to protect humanity. What is not needed are individuals who garner financial backing for simple solutions to complex problems without regard for the potential consequences.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

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

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

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

• Technocracy is an economic ideology built around totalitarian rule by unelected leaders that got its start in the 1930s, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation’s economic problems

• The word comes from the word “techn,” which means “skill,” and the god “Kratos,” which is the divine personification of power. A technocrat is someone who exercises power over you on the basis of their knowledge

• Evidence of technocratic rule has also become evident during the pandemic. The censoring and manipulation of medical information is part and parcel of the social engineering part of this system

• The medical technocracy has lied to us about several things, starting with the risk of death from COVID-19. Based on deaths per capita, the global average death rate for COVID-19 is 0.009%. The average person’s chance of surviving this disease is 99.991%

• Evidence that the technocratic fear propaganda is working can be seen in a recent poll, which found Millennials believe 2% of their generation will die from COVID-19

ℹ️ From Dr. Joseph Mercola

Since COVID-19 first entered the scene, exchange of ideas has basically been outlawed. By sharing my views and those from various experts throughout the pandemic on COVID treatments and the experimental COVID jabs, I became a main target of the White House, the political establishment and the global cabal.

Propaganda and pervasive censorship have been deployed to seize control over every part of your life, including your health, finances and food supply. The major media is a key player and has been instrumental in creating and fueling fear.

I am republishing this article in its original form so that you can see how the progression unfolded.

The Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

lecture above, given August 16, 2020 in Las Vegas, Nevada, features Dr. Lee Merritt, an orthopedic spinal surgeon with a medical practice in Logan, Iowa.

In her presentation, she discusses how geopolitical power can be swayed in the absence of an identifiable army or declared war. She talks about the cognitive dissonance we’re currently facing, when what we’re told no longer corresponds with known facts or logical thinking.

And she reviews how medical technocrats — the so-called medical experts and political leaders who have turned the world upside-down in response to COVID-19 — have been 100% wrong about everything they’ve been telling us.

They’ve been wrong about the initial risk assessment, testing, preventive measures, mask wearing and social distancing. They’ve conflated “cases” or positive tests with the actual illness. They’re also guilty of errors of omission — not telling us what medical doctors and scientists know to be helpful.

“I can give you the benefit of the doubt when you’re wrong about one or two things, but when you’re wrong 100% of the time, consistently, that is not by accident,” Merritt says. “They should have come up with something that was in our best interest if they really cared about us.”

Merritt credits her understanding of technocracy to reading Patrick Wood’s book, “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation.” Wood is also the editor in chief of Technocracy News & Trends. I recently interviewed Wood. His interview is featured in “The Pressing Dangers of Technocracy.”

As explained by Wood and Merritt, technocracy is an economic ideology built around totalitarian rule by unelected leaders. It got its start in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation’s economic problems. At the time, it looked like capitalism and free enterprise were going to die, so they decided to invent a new economic system from scratch.

They called this system “technocracy.” The word comes from the word “techn,” which means “skill,” and the god “Kratos,” which is the divine personification of power. As explained by Merritt, a technocrat is someone who exercises power over you on the basis of their knowledge.

“Based on deaths per capita, the death rate for COVID-19 is 0.009%. That means the average person’s chance of surviving this disease is 99.991%.”

As an economic system, technocracy is resource-based. Rather than basing the economic system on pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand, the technocratic system is instead based on energy resources. In a nutshell, under this system, companies would be told what resources they’re allowed to use, when, and for what, and consumers would be told what to buy.

Former President Obama’s implementation of economic fines for those unwilling or unable to purchase health insurance could be viewed as an example of this system, in which you do not have the freedom to choose whether you want to buy a service or not. Your only choices are to purchase that which is mandated, or pay a fine.

The technocratic system also involves, indeed requires, social engineering, which relies on massive data collection and the use of artificial intelligence. Technocrats have silently and relentlessly pushed this agenda forward ever since those early days in the ‘30s, and signs of its implementation are becoming increasingly visible.

Evidence of technocratic rule has also become evident during the pandemic. The censoring and manipulation of medical information are part and parcel of the social engineering part of this system.

In her lecture, Merritt reviews several lies we’ve been told by the technocratic elite, starting with the actual risk of death. Based on deaths per capita, the death rate for COVID-19 is 0.009% (709,000 people have died from or with COVID-19 around the world, and the global population is 7.8 billion). That then means the average person’s chance of surviving this disease is 99.991%.

The area with the highest death rate, New York, has a death per capita rate of 0.17%, yet Dr. Anthony Fauci publicly lauded New York for its excellent COVID response. This is just one example that has caused cognitive dissonance, as praising the area with the highest death rate (even if low overall) as having one of the best responses simply isn’t logical.

Ironically, five of the six countries with the lowest death rates (ranging between 0.00003% and 0.006%) did very little in terms of pandemic response; they didn’t shut down or order people to stay home.

Yet, we’re told these measures are absolutely necessary, and must continue, perhaps indefinitely. This too creates massive cognitive dissonance, as it goes against all logic. If an action doesn’t result in an observable benefit, it simply doesn’t make sense to continue, let alone claim that was and is necessary.

Furthermore, instead of comforting everyone and opening the world back up when the death toll started falling, the narrative suddenly shifted focus to “cases,” meaning people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 — regardless of whether they had symptoms. More cognitive dissonance, as the primary measure of disease threat is its lethality.

As noted by Merritt, since ancient times, a “case,” medically speaking, has referred to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness.

Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, “case,” has been completely and arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of viral RNA. “That is not epidemiology. That’s fraud,” Merritt says.

What’s more, most of the tests used have no benchmarks, meaning we don’t know what the rates of false positives and false negatives are. And, many areas are tacking on extra “cases” when someone tests positive and relays that they’ve been around other people. Again, “that’s fraud,” Merritt says.

Evidence that the technocratic propaganda is working can be seen in a recent poll by Harvard, Oxford and Universita Boconi, which found Millennials believe 2% of their generation will die from COVID-19. “That’s 10,000 times more than the reality,” Merritt says. “It’s just completely out of proportion to reality.”

Lie No. 2 is about the benefits of mask wearing. “It’s not scientifically sound, so why are we doing it?” Merritt asks. It’s “just a symbol of submission.” As noted in her slide show, “The strongest argument for mask wearing is it sounds good. The strongest argument against mask wearing is it doesn’t work at all.”

Alongside that quote is a photo of a man’s face covered in dust particles after sawing sheetrock wearing a Class II medical earloop facemask, with the caption, “Each particle of sheetrock dust is 10 microns. Coronavirus is 0.125 microns. Any questions?”

The coronavirus is nearly 100 times smaller than sheetrock dust. In other words, surgical masks cannot and do not block the coronavirus (or any other virus for that matter). Surgical mask boxes are even printed with the warning that the mask “will not provide any protection against COVID-19 or other viruses,” and “does not reduce the risk of contracting any disease or infection.”

Ditto for medical N95 respirator masks, as they only block particles larger than 0.3 microns. N95 masks are used in hospital settings to protect against tuberculosis, as the TB virus is 3 microns. You must, however, wear the correct size, it must be properly fitted to your face, and you must follow certain procedures when putting it on and removing it to prevent cross contamination.

OSHA respirators, used by construction workers and other industries, also screen down to 0.3 microns, but they are equipped with a one-way valve. So, it only screens the air coming in, not the air going out. So, you’re in no way protecting others when wearing such a mask.

Merritt also discusses a publication in PNAS, “Identifying Airborne Transmission as the Dominant Route for the Spread of COVID-19,”

in which the authors purport to support mask wearing by looking at New York City as a model. According to Merritt, she has serious concerns about this study, as it doesn’t control for the No. 1 factor that reduces infectivity, namely humidity.

The higher the humidity, the lower the infectivity rate. The paper also has “all these bizarre references,” Merritt says, “that have absolutely nothing to do with the precursors of anything you would look at to do this kind of research.”

What’s more, at least one of the authors listed, Yuan Wang, has no medical background whatsoever. He’s in the division of planetary and geological sciences at Cal Tech.

The graph showing that infectivity in New York City was reduced when mask wearing was mandated also matches the natural downslope seen in Sweden (which had no lockdown or mask mandate) as the infection ran its course. In no way does it prove that mask wearing actually prevents infection. “This is a very sophisticated made-up fraud, I think,” Merritt says.

She also reviews other publications in the medical literature showing masks do not protect against viral infections — including a May 2020 review by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention itself, which I wrote about in “WHO Admits: No Direct Evidence Masks Prevent Viral Infection.” In that review, the CDC concluded that masks did not protect against influenza in non-health care settings.

Merritt also cites studies showing there’s no difference between surgical masks and medical N95 masks. For a better understanding of the science, she recommends reading Denis Rancourt’s paper,

“Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Policy.” I’ve also interviewed Rancourt, who has a Ph.D. in physics, about his findings, which you can find in “Masks Likely Do Not Inhibit Viral Spread.”

The suspicion that masks are little more than suppression muzzles also gains strength by the fact that lawmakers are exempting themselves and certain categories of workers from their mask mandates.

Two examples given in Merritt’s lecture is the D.C. mask mandate, which exempts lawmakers and government employees. In Wisconsin, the Governor has exempted all politicians from the mask order. If masks truly worked, wouldn’t these workers be prime candidates for wearing masks everywhere to prevent them from getting ill and dying?

The third lie Merritt reviews is the 6-foot social distancing rule. Thirty-four minutes into the lecture, you’ll find a fascinating video from a study

published March 26, 2020, in JAMA Insights, demonstrating the particle emissions occurring when sneezing. In this study, they showed emissions can reach 23 to 27 feet (7 to 8 meters) — a far cry from the 6-foot distance we’re told will keep everyone safe.

Lie No. 4, which Merritt believes is the biggest one of all, is that lysosomotropic agents (drugs that acidify the lysosome) such as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine don’t work. Fauci has repeatedly stated that these drugs either don’t work, that there’s insufficient evidence, or that the evidence is only anecdotal.

Yet the National Institutes of Health itself published research

in 2005 showing chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread, actually having both prophylactic and therapeutic benefits. As the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is a part of the NIH, since 1984, Fauci should be well aware of these findings.

As for what the motive might be for suppressing the use of hydroxychloroquine, despite all the evidence showing it works quite well when used early in the course of treatment, Merritt points to a 2006 study

in the Virology Journal, titled “In Vitro Inhibition of Human Influenza A Virus Replication by Chloroquine.”

That study delivered “overwhelming proof that chloroquine inhibited influenza A,” Merritt says. Now, if an inexpensive generic drug can prevent influenza infection, then what would we need seasonal influenza vaccines for?

Another paper,

“Effects of Chloroquine on Viral Infections: An Old Drug Against Today’s Diseases?” published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases in 2003, discussed the potential of chloroquine against a range of viral diseases.

So, not only might we have an inexpensive remedy that can fight the flu, it might be useful against many other diseases as well. In short, were these drugs to be recognized for their antiviral benefits, they could disrupt the drug industry to a significant degree. Is that why they’re suppressed and vilified?

Merritt also reviews Dr. Vladimir Zelenko’s clinical experience with hydroxychloroquine, which you can read more about in “How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created.” Of course, the media vilified Zelenko rather than applauding his remarkable successes against COVID-19.

Even more egregiously, Merritt notes, was the fact that a Baltimore federal prosecutor actually started an investigation into Zelenko based on his statement that hydroxychloroquine is FDA approved. “It is FDA approved,” Merritt says. “You don’t go back once things are FDA approved to get reapproval for a new indication.”

Doctors have always had the ability to prescribe drugs off-label for other conditions once they’ve been approved by the FDA, which is precisely what doctors have been doing with hydroxychloroquine. But now all of a sudden, that common (and perfectly legal) practice is portrayed as controversial, unethical and/or illegal.

There’s also the clinical experience of French microbiologist and infectious disease expert Didier Raoult, founder and director of the research hospital Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection,

who reported

that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin — administered immediately upon diagnosis — led to recovery and “virological cure” in 91.7% of patients.

Merritt also reviews the fraudulent science that has been used to suppress hydroxychloroquine use, referring to these studies as “a new level of fake papers.” In one instance the authors pulled the data set out of thin air. They made it up.

Yet these fraudulent papers were published in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine, two of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. It’s worth asking how that could happen. As noted by Merritt, what we’re told and what’s borne out by facts simply don’t add up.

Hydroxychloroquine costs $10 to $20 for a course of treatment, is already FDA approved, has minimal side effects and has been shown to cut the death rate by 50% when given early in the treatment of COVID-19.

Yet Fauci is pushing the use of remdesivir,

an intravenous drug for late-stage severe COVID-19 infection that costs $3,600, has been shown to cause severe side effects in 60% of patients, and doesn’t reduce the death rate. It merely reduces the recovery rate by an average of 31%, or four days.

Merritt believes the reason we’re not embracing hydroxychloroquine is because it could demolish the $69 billion vaccine industry. That alone is enough of a motive to warrant a cover-up, she notes.

The drug could also eliminate one of the most powerful leverages for geopolitical power that the technocrats have, namely biological terrorism. If we know how to treat and protect ourselves against designer viruses, their ability to keep us in line by keeping us in fear vanishes.

Last but not least, Merritt reviews lies of omission — facts that would have saved lives had they been promoted. This includes data showing that higher vitamin D levels reduce both the severity of COVID-19 infection and the mortality. So, who benefits from the suppression of data and information that can save lives and the promotion of medical lies?

According to two investigators, John Moynahan and Larry Doyle, Bill Gates negotiated a $100 billion contact tracing contract with Democratic Congressman Bobby L. Rush — who also introduced HR 6666, the COVID-19 TRACE Act — six months before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, during an August 2019 meeting in Rwanda, East Africa.

The U.S. government has also purchased 100 million doses of a COVID-19 vaccine still under development by Pfizer and BioNTech. As noted by Merritt, we keep seeing how drug companies fund working groups on diseases, and then when the disease breaks out, those same drug companies make billions in profit.

But aside from profit, Merritt is convinced there’s another reason behind the illogical pandemic responses we’re seeing. She points out how in a few short months, we’ve been dramatically shifted from a state of freedom to a state of totalitarianism. And the way that was done was through the technocratic mechanisms of social engineering, which of course involves psychological manipulation.

Merritt reviews psychiatry professor Albert Biderman’s work on psychological manipulation and his “chart of coercion,” all of which can be clearly related to the COVID-19 response:

• Isolation techniques — Quarantines, social distancing, isolation from loved ones and solitary confinement

• Monopolization of perception — Monopolizing the 24/7 news cycle, censoring dissenting views and creating barren environments by closing bars, gyms and restaurants

• Degradation techniques — Berating, shaming people (or even physically attacking) those who refuse to wear masks or social distance, or generally choose freedom over fear

• Induced debility — Being forced to stay at home and not be able to exercise or socialize

• Threats — Threatening with the removal of your children, prolonged quarantine, closing of your business, fines for noncompliance with mask and social distancing rules, forced vaccination and so on

• Demonstrating omnipotence/omniscience — Shutting down the whole world, claiming scientific and medical authority

• Enforcing trivial demands — Examples include family members being forced to stand 6 feet apart at the bank even though they arrived together in the same car, having to wear a mask when you walk into a restaurant, even though you can remove it as soon as you sit down, or having to wear a mask when walking alone on the beach

• Occasional indulgence — Reopening some stores and restaurants but only at a certain capacity, for example. Part of the coercion plan is that indulgences are always taken away again, though, and they’re already saying we may have to shut down the world again this fall

Merritt packs a lot of information into her hour-long presentation, so I hope you take the time to view it. Aside from what I’ve already summarized above, she also reviews:

• The influence of the World Health Organization and its largest funder, Bill Gates, and his many connections to the drug and vaccine industries, digital economy and digital tracking technologies

• The curious similarities between the Gates-funded Event 201 and current world events

• The consistent failures to create coronavirus vaccines in the past, as all trials revealed the vaccines caused paradoxical immune enhancement, which made the disease more lethal. You can learn more about this in “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Explains Well-Known Hazards of Coronavirus Vaccines”

• Fauci’s conflicts of interest

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

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

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

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

• Between the documentation obtained through a recent lawsuit against the White House and the Twitter files released by Elon Musk, it’s become quite clear that every facet of the U.S. government, including its intelligence agencies, are involved in illegal and unconstitutional censorship

• We now have proof that the FBI has been acting as the key instigator and implementer of the government’s illegal censorship of Americans. The FBI has also actively interfered in multiple elections — all while inventing the narrative that foreign nations were interfering

• Twitter has worked hand in hand with the U.S. Department of Defense to aid U.S. intelligence agencies in their efforts to influence foreign governments using fake news, computerized deepfake videos and bots

• The Twitter files also reveal members of Congress have a direct line to Twitter and have had accounts suspended on their behalf and content removed at their whim

• Discovery documents from a lawsuit against the White House filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana show at least 67 federal employees across more than a dozen agencies are also engaged in illegal censorship activities. This includes aides to President Biden, who pressured social media companies to change their policies to fit White House demands for censorship

Between the documentation obtained through a recent lawsuit against the White House and the Twitter files released by Elon Musk, it’s become quite clear that every facet of the U.S. government, including its intelligence agencies, are involved in illegal and unconstitutional censorship.

In the video above, Fox News host Tucker Carlson interviews independent journalist Matt Taibbi, who has spent weeks sifting through the released Twitter files and reported on the contents.

Importantly, we now have proof that the FBI has been acting as the key instigator and implementer of the government’s illegal censorship of Americans’ political and medical views. The agency has also, on a regular basis and for unknown purposes, asked Twitter to reveal the location of specific Twitter users, such as actor Billy Baldwin.

What’s more, internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memos, emails and documents show the DHS has worked on expanding its influence over tech platforms for years, so, government censorship is not something that came about in response to the COVID crisis. Nor is the censorship limited to COVID or public health information in general.

Evidence shows the FBI has actively interfered in multiple elections — all while inventing the narrative that foreign nations were doing the interfering.

As noted by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., these kinds of activities are “the biggest threat to our constitutional democracy today.”

As just one example, we now know the FBI plotted to quench the Hunter Biden laptop story well before the first report about it was published. In collaboration with Twitter, Facebook and the Aspen Institute, the FBI held a tabletop exercise to practice the shaping of the media’s coverage of a potential “hack and dump” operation involving Hunter Biden material.

As reported by the New York Post:

“[The] drill was put into practical use weeks later, when The Post broke the news about Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop — which was either ignored or downplayed by most mainstream news outlets and suppressed by both Twitter and Facebook.”

There’s also evidence showing the FBI has been shielding Hunter Biden and working with social media to censor bad press about him as far back as 2018.

That job was probably made easier by the fact that reportedly former FBI agents work at both Twitter and Facebook.

For example, Jim Baker spent three decades with the FBI before becoming Twitter’s head lawyer,

and Facebook employs no less than 115 “former” employees of the FBI, CIA, NSA and other intelligence agencies, most of whom now work in Facebook’s content moderation department.

Disturbingly, we now also have evidence showing that while Twitter insisted it was cracking down on covert government propaganda accounts, they only tracked down and banned foreign government-affiliated propaganda while working hand in hand with the U.S. Department of Defense to aid U.S. intelligence agencies in their efforts to influence foreign governments using fake news, computerized deepfake videos and bots.

As reported by The Intercept:

“Behind the scenes, Twitter gave approval and special protection to the U.S. military’s online psychological ops. Despite knowledge that Pentagon propaganda accounts used overt identities, Twitter did not suspend many for around two years or more. Some remain active …

In 2017 a U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) official sent Twitter a list of 52 Arab language accounts ‘we use to amplify certain messages.’ The official asked for priority service for six accounts, verification for one and ‘whitelist’ abilities for the others.”

Whitelisted accounts have a “validated” status similar to that of the blue check mark, which ensures they are promoted in searches. These accounts also don’t get shadow-banned or limited by other means. Adding insult to injury, the FBI has been using taxpayer dollars to pay Twitter for their censorship and propaganda services — more than $3.4 million between October 2019 and February 2021 alone.

The FBI has not acted alone, however. Far from it. The Twitter files reveal members of Congress have a direct line to Twitter and have had accounts suspended on their behalf and content removed at their whim. As reported by MSN:

“… Taibbi … reported that Twitter ‘received an astonishing variety of requests from officials asking for individuals they didn’t like to be banned.’ An example he shared was one sent in November 2020 by [Rep. Adam] Schiff’s office, who contacted Twitter hoping the tech giant would take action regarding ‘alleged harassment from QAnon conspiracists’ against Schiff’s staff, including aide Sean Misko.

‘Remove any and all content about Mr. Misko and other Committee staff from its service — to include quotes, retweets, and reactions to that content,’ the request to Twitter read. ‘Suspend the many accounts, including @GregRubini and @paulsperry, which have repeatedly promoted false QAnon conspiracies.'”

Other government leaders have been less clandestine in their censoring operations. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, for example, wrote an open letter to Amazon demanding they ban my book, “The Truth About COVID-19.”

Similarly, two state attorneys general, Letitia James and William Tong, publicly threatened social media companies with legal ramifications if they refused to censor the “Misinformation Dozen.” President Joe Biden also publicly called on social media platforms to ban my accounts. But it gets worse.

Discovery documents from a lawsuit against the White House

filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana (Eric Schmitt and Jeff Landry) show at least 67

federal employees across more than a dozen agencies are engaged in these kinds of illegal censorship activities. This includes officials from:

• The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) Election Security and Resilience team

• Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Intelligence and Analysis

• The FBI’s foreign influence taskforce

• The Justice Department’s (DOJ) national security division

• The Office of the Director of National Intelligence

• White House staff (including White House lawyer Dana Remus, deputy assistant to the president Rob Flaherty and former White House senior COVID-19 adviser Andy Slavitt)

• Health and Human Services (HHS)

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

• National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)

• The Office of the Surgeon General

• The Census Bureau

• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

• The State Department

• The U.S. Treasury Department

• The U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Consultants from the strategic communications and marketing firm Reingold

were also hired to manage the government’s collusion with social media in this intentional effort to violate our Constitutional right to free speech.

In a January 8, 2023, op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Jenin Younes and Aaron Kheriaty reviewed a series of emails between White House digital media director Rob Flaherty and a Facebook executive, illustrating how the White House pressured the company to censor and remove vaccine content even though Facebook itself characterized the material as “often-true content:”

“Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media. Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty … and social-media executives prove the companies put COVID censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White House — not voluntarily.”

Flaherty also demanded Facebook limit the spread of viral content on WhatsApp, a private messaging app with broad reach among “immigrant communities and communities of color.” In the end, Facebook acquiesced to all of Flaherty’s demands to prevent the spread of vaccine hesitancy and control political speech. As noted by Younes and Kheriaty:

“President Biden, press secretary Jen Psaki and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy … publicly vowed to hold the platforms accountable if they didn’t heighten censorship. On July 16, 2021, a reporter asked Mr. Biden [about] his ‘message to platforms like Facebook.’

He replied, ‘They’re killing people.’ Mr. Biden later claimed he meant users, not platforms, were killing people. But the record shows Facebook itself was the target of the White House’s pressure campaign.”

Flaherty also had Google in his crosshairs, and accused YouTube of “‘funneling’ people into vaccine hesitancy,” adding that this concern was “shared at the highest (and I mean the highest) levels of the White House.”

“These emails establish a clear pattern,” Younes and Kheriaty write. “Mr. Flaherty, representing the White House, expresses anger at the companies’ failure to censor COVID-related content to his satisfaction. The companies change their policies to address his demands. As a result, thousands of Americans were silenced for questioning government approved COVID narratives.

Two of the Missouri plaintiffs, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, are epidemiologists whom multiple social-media platforms censored at the government’s behest for expressing views that were scientifically well-founded but diverged from the government line — for instance, that children and adults with natural immunity from prior infection don’t need COVID vaccines …

The First Amendment bars government from engaging in viewpoint-based censorship. The state-action doctrine bars government from circumventing constitutional strictures by suborning private companies to accomplish forbidden ends indirectly.

Defenders of the government have fallen back on the claim that cooperation by the tech companies was voluntary, from which they conclude that the First Amendment isn’t implicated. The reasoning is dubious, but even if it were valid, the premise has now been proved false.

The Flaherty emails demonstrate that the federal government unlawfully coerced the companies in an effort to ensure that Americans would be exposed only to state-approved information about COVID-19. As a result of that unconstitutional state action, Americans were given the false impression of a scientific ‘consensus’ on critically important issues around COVID-19.”

Taken together, the revelations from the Twitter files and this lawsuit clearly demonstrate that most, if not all, aspects of the U.S. government have been secretly weaponized to undermine and circumvent the Constitutional rights of the people.

“It’s much more serious than what I thought at the beginning.” ~ Matt Taibbi

As noted by Taibbi in his Fox News interview:

“This is not a partisan story. It’s a story about the architecture of the intelligence community and law enforcement getting its hands on speech, and on the ability of people to communicate with one another through platforms like Twitter and Facebook. And they’re doing this in a very profound way — it’s much more serious than what I thought at the beginning …”

While the danger we’re in as a nation is far more dire than anyone suspected, there is some good news. A new select committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan, has been launched to investigate the weaponization of government, the politicization of the FBI and the DOJ’s investigation into and harassment of parents who spoke out against COVID mandates, critical race theory and the sexualization of their children at school board meetings. As reported by The Post Millennial:

“This investigative panel will demand emails and correspondence between the Biden administration and big tech companies, and follows the massive revelations that came to light through the recent release of the Twitter files. Newly minted House Speaker Kevin McCarthy … was asked to form the committee as part of the negotiations that brought him to power …

The probe into communications between tech giants and President Biden’s aides will look for government pressure that could have resulted in censorship or harassment of conservatives — or squelching of debate on polarizing policies, including the CDC on COVID …”

While it’s likely that government personnel and agencies will try to ignore the committee’s requests for information, the committee does have subpoena power, and hopefully will not be too timid to use it.

Unfortunately, since the GOP does not control the Senate, it’s unlikely they’ll be able to pass any new laws based on the committee’s findings. That said, legislation to penalize government censorship has already been introduced, and you can help push it forward by asking your representatives to support it.

The Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act

(HR.8752), introduced by three Republican House Representatives on the House Oversight and Reform, Judiciary, and Commerce committees, including Jordan, is specifically aimed at preventing federal employees from using their positions to influence censorship decisions by tech platforms.

The bill would create restrictions to prevent federal employees from asking or encouraging private entities to censor private speech or otherwise discourage free speech, and impose penalties, including civil fines and disciplinary actions for government employees who facilitate social media censorship.

While the U.S. Constitution clearly forbids government censoring and restricting free speech, HR. 8752 could be a helpful enforcement tool — and we clearly need enforcement, seeing how more than a dozen agencies are flouting the Constitution and have done so for years. People might tend to think twice, though, when they know there’s a personal price to pay.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

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

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

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

• In an apparent senseless move, U.S. authorities extended a ban into the country for a select few who arrive by air, but not on ships or overland. The shot doesn’t prevent infection or transmission but not taking it will stop Novak Djokovic, 21-time Grand Slam tennis champion, from playing in two key U.S. tournaments

• Djokovic has natural immunity after completely recovering from a SARS-CoV-2 infection, which in turn increases his risk of adverse events from the shot, but the Biden administration insists noncitizens and nonimmigrants receive the shot to enter the country

• The rules allow unvaccinated immigrants who arrive by land, sea or air, unvaccinated citizens who travel outside the country to return home and unvaccinated diplomats to name a few; yet, if protecting public health were the intent, the ban would include everyone

• Djokovic belongs to a unique population of individuals whose bodies are highly-tuned machines, capable of performing at levels most of us only dream about and who are dying at unprecedented rates since 2021, an increase measured at 1,696% higher than athletes from 1966 to 2004

• These decisions have not made sense on many levels. The sheer number of athletes who have died is just one indication of the danger involved

Many people who refused the gene therapy jab have lost their jobs, standing in the community, military status and even family relationships. In the sports arena, world-class tennis player and 21-time Grand Slam champion Novak Djokovic has forfeited his eligibility to play in key tournaments, again.

Djokovic will likely miss the Indian Wells and Miami Open, since U.S. travel authorities have extended the shot requirement for non-U.S. nationals to enter the country.

Djokovic has natural immunity, after having had COVID-19.

According to Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, cardiac surgeon and patient advocate, there is a “clear and present danger” for individuals who have had the infection and subsequently get the injection.

He has repeatedly warned the FDA that naturally infected individuals’ responses to the injections are reactivated by the injection, and can trigger a significant inflammatory response in areas where viral antigens are present.

Especially at risk are the endothelium or interlining of the blood vessels, lungs and brain. Researchers explain:

“Some people who have recovered from COVID-19 might not benefit from COVID-19 vaccination. In fact, one study found that previous COVID-19 was associated with increased adverse events following vaccination with the Comirnaty BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer–BioNTech). In addition, there are rare reports of serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.”

As it currently stands, the CDC continues to push universal injections without regard to past infection status. As far as they’re concerned, natural immunity is not adequate, which is not the case in Switzerland where, as The Lancet reports, citizens who can show a positive PCR test in the past 12 months after an active infection are considered as equally protected as those who took the shot.

This is only one aspect of the controversy around the COVID-19 shot. While vaccines have always been controversial, the topic reached a fever pitch in 2021, when it became sacrilegious to speak out or even question the safety and efficacy of this gene therapy jab. Investigative journalist Paul Thacker calls it “the Great Vaccine Scare — hysteria about any and all vaccine criticism.”

While Djokovic’s decision to reject the jab may have had a significant impact on his tennis career, he says his choice is reflective of his lifestyle. “… the principles of decision making on my body are more important than any title or anything else,” he told the BBC. “I’m trying to be in tune with my body as much as I possibly can.”

He has always been a great student of wellness, well-being, health [and] nutrition, he said.

So, his decision not to take the shot was influenced by the positive impact he experienced with his athletic performance by changing other things in his life, like his diet and sleeping patterns.

As it is, unless the CDC backs down, Djokovic will not be able to enter the U.S. until after April 10, 2023.

He experienced a similar circumstance in early 2022, when he traveled to Australia for the Australian Open. At the time, he submitted the required documentation to request an exemption.

The initial medical exemption was submitted anonymously, and it was approved by two independent panels. His travel documents included an error, which Djokovic said was not an intentional error. He told the BBC:

“So actually, what people probably don’t know is that I was not deported from Australia on the basis that I was not vaccinated, or I broke any rules or that I made an error in my visa declaration. All of that was actually approved and validated by the Federal Court of Australia and the Minister for Immigration.”

Yet, many in the mainstream media reported Djokovic was deported,

kicked out of the country

or asked to leave because he was not vaccinated.

Instead, Djokovic told the BBC:

“The reason why I was deported from Australia was because the Minister for Immigration used his discretion to cancel my visa based on his perception that I might create some anti-vax sentiment in the country or in the city, which I completely disagree with.”

Djokovic didn’t play in the U.S. Open in August 2022, again because he refused to accept a gene therapy experiment in his body.

He has spent more time ranked No. 1 than anyone else in the history of the Association of Tennis Professionals, but admirably chose to miss the U.S. Open to protect his right to make decisions about his body.

According to the CDC, the U.S. requires proof of vaccination for COVID-19 if people enter the country by air. Specifically, the CDC writes

“Requirement for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for air passengers [is] required for non-U.S. citizen[s], nonimmigrant passengers arriving from a foreign country to the United States by air.”

This begs the question, what about people walking and driving across the border or arriving on ships? According to the CDC, they don’t count, as some noncitizens are exempt from this requirement and natural immunity is not one of the criteria.

For example, some of the exemptions include:

• Individuals from Ukraine who are part of Uniting for Ukraine program

• U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, U.S. lawful permanent residents and immigrants

• Diplomats or people on official government business

• Children under 18 years

• Documented medical contraindications or “certain” vaccine trials

• Humanitarian or emergency exception

• Valid visas from foreign countries with limited vaccine availability

• Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, spouses and their children

• Persons whose entry is in the national interest

Interestingly, the CDC uses two definitions — you are “fully vaccinated,” or your vaccinations are “up to date,” and they don’t mean the same thing. According to the description for U.S. citizens,

you are “up-to-date” with your shots “when you have completed a COVID-19 vaccine primary series and got the most recent booster dose recommended for you by CDC.” This includes:

• If you have completed your primary series — but are not yet eligible for a booster — you are also considered up to date.

• If you become ill with COVID-19 after you received all COVID-19 vaccine doses recommended for you, you are also considered up to date. You do not need to be revaccinated or receive an additional booster.

However, for noncitizens entering the U.S. by air, the requirements are much more specific.

You are only considered fully vaccinated at:

• 2 weeks (14 days) after your dose of an accepted single-dose vaccine or after your second dose of an accepted 2-dose series

• 2 weeks (14 days) after you received the full series of an accepted COVID-19 vaccine (not placebo) in a clinical trial

• 2 weeks (14 days) after you received 2 doses of any “mix-and-match” combination of accepted COVID-19 vaccines administered at least 17 days apart

Consider what just these three regulations governing who can enter the country and under what conditions could mean to your travel plans:

• Exempted people traveling into the U.S. do not have to quarantine, which means the CDC expects that while they didn’t get the shot, they likely aren’t a risk if they aren’t sick.

• Travelers must be fully vaccinated but do not need boosters, which means travelers meet a definition of “fully vaccinated” but are not “up to date” on their shots. Since it’s known that the efficacy of the shot wanes significantly after six months, the regulations must mean that it’s only necessary to have gotten the shot and not necessary to be “protected” against the virus.

• You may not make a connecting flight in a U.S. airport if you have not been “fully vaccinated,” which must mean that public health experts believe noncitizen, nonimmigrant individuals carry a greater risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2 than citizens and immigrants.

Djokovic belongs to a unique population whose bodies are highly tuned machines, capable of performing at levels most of us only dream about. These are professional athletes, whose workday consists of aerobic and anaerobic activities, strength training and technical work, to reach the top of their field.

Unfortunately, these are some of the same people that sports enthusiasts have watched die very publicly on television, or who sadly have not reached a professional status, but succumbed in high school. And, while “fact checkers”

deny the idea that the COVID-19 gene therapy shot has anything to do with higher rates of death in athletes, data tell a different story.

A full investigation into the number of athletes who have died since the release of the COVID shot was published in April 2022 by The Exposé.

The investigative team compared the death rate to a 2006 study

using data from 1966 to 2004, during which they recorded 1,101 sudden deaths in athletes engaged in competitive sports.

The researchers found the average monthly number of deaths in athletes from 1966 to 2004 was 2.35. But there was a meteoric rise in the average number of deaths from January 2021 to April 2022 — on average 20 deaths per month early on, building up to 42 deaths every month, with an astounding 92 deaths in March 2022.

These numbers are even more disturbing when you consider that the shot rollout was not as extensive in some countries during the first year. Had every country received the same number of injections, this data suggests the rise in the worldwide rate of death in athletes would have been more significant.

However, as the data have shown, the rate is continuing to rise, by 1,696%. The researchers estimate that if the numbers continue to rise on the current trajectory, the rate of death in athletes could tragically increase by 4,120%.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

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

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

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

• Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently stated that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a biosafety level 4 lab in Wuhan, China

• According to Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, BSL 3 and 4 labs must be banned to prevent a catastrophe

• Serious safety breaches have been identified at laboratories working with the most lethal and dangerous pathogens in the world

• In October 2014, a U.S. moratorium on experiments on coronaviruses that might make the viruses more pathogenic and/or easy to spread among humans took effect. The moratorium was lifted at the end of December 2017

• Despite the U.S. moratorium, Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the NIAID, allowed coronavirus gain-of-function experiments to continue because they had begun before the moratorium was put in place. The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 calls for fines and/or up to life in prison for anyone involved in the creation of a bioweapon

The idea that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a bioweapons laboratory is gaining traction. May 3, 2020, The New York Times reported

that during an ABC “This Week” interview Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had stated “the coronavirus originated in a lab in Wuhan.” Pompeo also accused China of covering up the leak.

“Mr. Pompeo, the former C.I.A. chief and one of the senior administration officials who is most hawkish on dealing with China, said that ‘there’s enormous evidence’ that the coronavirus came from the lab, though he agreed with the intelligence assessment that there was no indication that the virus was man-made or genetically modified,” The New York Times writes.

Now, if you’ve been following this newsletter, you’ve likely seen my interviews with bioweapons expert Francis Boyle and molecular biologist Judy Mikovits, both of whom have cited evidence that strongly points toward SARS-CoV-2 being a laboratory creation. So, the assessment that there’s “no indication” that the virus has been modified seems dubious at best. Most likely, we’re not just dealing with scientific interpretations here, but with political games as well.

As noted by Boyle — professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of the book, “Biowarfare and Terrorism,”

who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 — what’s needed is a ban on biosafety level (BSL) 3 and 4 labs.

Time and again, serious safety breaches have been identified at laboratories working with the most lethal and dangerous pathogens in the world.

For example, in 2014, six glass vials of smallpox virus were accidentally found in a storeroom in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s lab at the National Institutes of Health.

It was the second time in one month mishandling of potential deadly infectious agents was exposed. One month before this shocking discovery, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

realized as many as 84, and possibly 86, of its scientists had been exposed to live anthrax.

The live pathogen had been sent from another, higher-security facility, which failed to follow biosafety protocols. The anthrax sample was supposed to have been inactivated prior to transfer, but for a variety of reasons it wasn’t dead on arrival.

The next year, in 2015, the Pentagon realized a Dugway Proving Ground laboratory had been sending incompletely inactivated anthrax (meaning it was still live) to 200 laboratories around the world for the past 12 years. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report

issued in August 2016, incompletely inactivated anthrax was sent out on at least 21 occasions between 2003 and 2015.

Asia Times

lists several other examples as well, as does a May 28, 2015, article in USA Today

and an April 11, 2014, article in Slate magazine.

In 2017, the BSL 4 lab on Galveston Island was hit by a massive storm and severe flooding, raising questions about what might happen were some of the pathogens kept there to get out.

As recently as 2019, the BSL 4 lab in Fort Detrick was temporarily shut down after several protocol violations were noted.

In October 2014, a U.S. moratorium on experiments on coronaviruses that might make the viruses more pathogenic and/or easy to spread among humans took effect.

The ban came on the heels of “high-profile lab mishaps” at the CDC and “extremely controversial flu experiments” in which the bird flu virus was engineered to become more lethal and contagious between ferrets. The goal was to see if it could mutate and become more lethal and contagious between humans, causing future pandemics. However, the federal moratorium on lethal virus experiments in the U.S. was lifted at the end of December 2017.

In 2015, researchers announced that in their labs they had created a hybrid coronavirus similar to that of SARS that was capable of infecting both human airway cells and mice.

The NIH had allowed the controversial research to proceed, despite the moratorium, because it had begun before the moratorium was put in place — a decision criticized by Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at Pasteur Institute in Paris, who pointed out that “If the [new] virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory.”

Others, such as Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers University, agreed, saying “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk.”

In 2017, Tim Trevan, a Maryland biosafety consultant, expressed concern about viral threats potentially escaping the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory.

As reported by The Washington Post

and Business Insider,

diplomatic cables sent in 2018 also warned about “possible safety breaches at a lab in Wuhan.”

Backing dangerous coronavirus research was none other than Dr. Anthony Fauci, who now leads the White House pandemic response team. As reported by Newsweek, April 28, 2020:

“Just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases [NIAID], the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.

Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.”

According to Newsweek,

the NIAID research in question was conducted in two parts. The first, which began in 2014 and ended in 2019,

focused on “understanding the risk of bat coronavirus emergence.” Initial findings

were published in Nature Medicine in 2015.

The program, which had a budget of $3.7 million, was led by Wuhan virologist Shi Zheng-Li and sought to catalogue wild bat coronaviruses. As noted by Boyle in our interview, it also involved U.S. scientists from the University of North Carolina and Harvard.

The second phase began in 2019 and included additional surveillance of coronaviruses along with gain-of-function research to investigate how bat coronaviruses might mutate to affect humans. This second phase “was run by EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit research group, under the direction of president Peter Daszak, an expert on disease ecology. NIH canceled the project Friday, April 24, 2020” Newsweek reports, adding:

“The project proposal states: ‘We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.’

In layman’s terms, ‘spillover potential’ refers to the ability of a virus to jump from animals to humans, which requires that the virus be able to attach to receptors in the cells of humans. SARS-CoV-2, for instance, is adept at binding to the ACE2 receptor in human lungs and other organs.

According to Richard Ebright, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers University, the project description refers to experiments that would enhance the ability of bat coronavirus to infect human cells and laboratory animals using techniques of genetic engineering. In the wake of the pandemic, that is a noteworthy detail.”

Fauci also defended and promoted gain-of-function research on bird flu viruses a decade ago, saying such research was worth the risk because it allows scientists to prepare for pandemics.

In reality, this kind of research does not appear to have improved governments’ pandemic responses.

If anything, it’s a curious coincidence that the very viruses undergoing gain-of-function research are the ones causing pandemics. As noted in an interesting April 24, 2020, Salon article

written by independent journalist and analyst for the Institute for Public Accuracy Sam Husseini, dangerous pathogens are made even more so in laboratories around the world, and the COVID-19 pandemic really “exposes the threat of a biowarfare arms race.”

“Regardless of the source of this pandemic, there is considerable documentation that a global biological arms race going on outside of public view could produce even more deadly pandemics in the future,” Husseini writes, adding:

“Governments that participate in such biological weapon research generally distinguish between ‘biowarfare’ and ‘biodefense,’ as if to paint such ‘defense’ programs as necessary. But this is rhetorical sleight-of-hand; the two concepts are largely indistinguishable.

‘Biodefense’ implies tacit biowarfare, breeding more dangerous pathogens for the alleged purpose of finding a way to fight them. While this work appears to have succeeded in creating deadly and infectious agents, including deadlier flu strains, such ‘defense’ research is impotent in its ability to defend us from this pandemic.”

Husseini goes on to discuss a widely-cited study

published March 17, 2020, which claims to disprove a lab origin for SARS-CoV-2. He writes:

“That journal article,

titled ‘The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,’ stated unequivocally: ‘Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.’

This is a subtly misleading sentence. While the scientists state that there is no known laboratory ‘signature’ in the SARS-Cov-2 RNA, their argument fails to take account of other lab methods that could have created coronavirus mutations without leaving such a signature.”

One way to manipulate viruses without genetically engineering them per se is by growing them in a series of animal tissues. This is a process used in vaccine development to speed up evolution of the virus. As explained by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in our recent interview, the way they accelerate evolution of bat coronaviruses is by taking it from the anus of the bat and replicating it in animal tissue such as pangolin kidney tissue.

Next, the grown viruses are placed on feral monkey kidney cells, followed by mouse brain tissue. Each time you transfer the virus to another animal tissue, you increase the risk of zoonotic animal virus contamination in addition to mutations. According to Kennedy, six years of evolution can be accomplished in a matter of days using this accelerated evolution process. Through this process, extremely viral forms of the virus can be rapidly created. Husseini also points out that:

“… there is also the question of conflict of interest in the Nature Medicine article. Some of the authors of that article, as well as a February 2020 Lancet letter

condemning ‘conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin’ … have troubling ties to the biodefense complex, as well as to the U.S. government.

Notably, neither of these articles makes clear that a virus can have a natural origin and then be captured and studied in a controlled laboratory setting before being let loose, either intentionally or accidentally — which is clearly a possibility in the case of the coronavirus.”

Mainstream media are now trying to squash conversations about the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was man-made by insisting scientists wouldn’t have chosen a harmless coronavirus to work with. Live Science, for example, tried debunking the man-made virus theory, saying:

“Scientists have studied how SARS-CoV differs from SARS-CoV-2 — with several key letter changes in the genetic code. Yet in computer simulations, the mutations in SARS-CoV-2 don’t seem to work very well at helping the virus bind to human cells.

If scientists had deliberately engineered this virus, they wouldn’t have chosen mutations that computer models suggest won’t work. But it turns out, nature is smarter than scientists, and the novel coronavirus found a way to mutate that was better — and completely different — from anything scientists could have created …”

Similarly, a Scripps Research press release

states that, “If someone were seeking to engineer a new coronavirus as a pathogen, they would have constructed it from the backbone of a virus known to cause illness.”

Meanwhile, a recent article

in the Great Game India Journal of Geopolitics & International Relations points out that Radiotelevisione Italiana exposed China’s coronavirus work in a November 2015 broadcast, raising serious questions about the ethics involved. An English transcription of the Italian broadcast reads, in part:

“Chinese scientists have created a pulmonary super virus from bats and mice … It is a group of Chinese researchers attaching a protein taken from bats to the SARS virus, Acute Pneumonia, derived from mice. The output is a super coronavirus that could affect man.

It remains closed in laboratories and it is only for study purposes, but is it worth the risk — creating such a great threat only for examination purposes? …

Here is an experiment in China, in which a group of scientists has managed to develop a chimera — an organism modified by attaching the surface protein of a coronavirus found in bats of the common species called the Great Horseshoe Bat, to a virus that causes SARS in mice, although in a non-fatal form.

It was suspected that the protein could make the chimeric hybrid organism suitable for affecting humans, and the experiment confirmed it.

It is precisely this molecule, called SHCO14, that allows the coronavirus to attach itself to our respiratory cells and to trigger the syndrome. According to researchers, the two organisms, the original and even more so the engineered one, can infect humans directly from bats, without going through an intermediate species like the mouse …”

In Great Game India’s “COVID-19 Files,”

you can find data exploring the origin of SARS-CoV-2 from five different angles, including epidemiological investigations, virus gene comparisons, cross-species infection research, intermediate hosts and findings from the Wuhan lab.

Dr. Meryl Nass — who in 1992 published a paper

in which she identified the 1978-1980 Zimbabwe anthrax outbreak as a case of biological warfare — also isn’t buying the all-natural argument. In an April 2, 2020, blog post, she wrote:

“Why are some of the U.S.’ top scientists making a specious argument about the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2? … Prior to genetic engineering techniques being developed (1973) and widely used (since late 1970s), more ‘primitive’ means of causing mutations, with the intention of developing biological weapons, were employed …

They resulted in biological weapons that were tested, well-described, and in some cases, used … These methods can result in biowarfare agents that lack the identifiable signature of a microbial agent constructed in a lab from known RNA or DNA sequences.

In fact, it would be desirable to produce such agents, since it would be difficult to prove they were deliberately constructed in a lab. Here are just a few possibilities for how one might create new, virulent mutants:

1. Exposing microorganisms to chemical or radiological agents that cause high mutation rates and selecting for desired characteristics

2. Passaging virus through a number of lab animals or tissue cultures

3. Mixing viruses together and seeking recombinants with a new mix of virulence factors”

As noted by the National Review,

getting to the bottom of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is indeed important if we want to prevent a similar pandemic to erupt in the future.

“If it originated from a person eating bat or pangolin at a wet market, then we need to take steps to ensure that bat and pangolin consumption and trade stops …” the National Review writes.

“Bat guano is used as fertilizer in many countries, and that guano can be full of viruses … If this is the source of the virus, we need to get people to stop going into caves and using the guano as fertilizer …

In a strange way, the ‘lab accident’ scenario is one of the most reassuring explanations. It means that if we want to ensure we never experience this again, we simply need to get every lab in the world working on contagious viruses to ensure 100 percent compliance with safety protocols, all the time.”

Many are unaware of just how many BSL 3 and 4 labs there are in the world. According to the National Review,

BSL 4 laboratories are found in the U.S., China, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, The Czech Republic, France, Gabon, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United Kingdom.

In testimony

about high-containment biosafety laboratories presented to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in October 2007, Keith Rhodes, chief technologist at the Center for Technology and Engineering, points out that BSL4 labs in the U.S. increased from five to 15 between 2001 and 2007 alone, and that no one is actually responsible for tracking the proliferation of BSL 3 and 4 labs in the U.S. or determining the risks associated with them.

On top of that there are dozens more BSL 3 laboratories. The map below was published in the journal Science

in 2007 and reprinted in Asia Times

April 6, 2020, showing the proliferation of high-containment labs in the U.S. A USA Today investigation published in 2015 put the number of BSL 3 and 4 labs in the U.S. around 200,

and Boyle estimates there are about 400 worldwide.

As long as we are creating the risk, the benefit will always be secondary. By taking dangerous pathogens and making them even more lethal through gain-of-function research, scientists and those who fund them are playing a high-risk game of Russian Roulette.

Any scientific or medical gains made from such research pales in comparison to the incredible risks involved. This sentiment has been echoed by others in a variety of scientific publications.

Considering the potential for a massively lethal pandemic, I believe it’s safe to say that BSL 3 and 4 laboratories pose a very real and serious existential threat to humanity. U.S. biowarfare programs employ some 13,000 scientists,

all of whom are hard at work creating ever-deadlier pathogens, while the public is simply told to trust that these pathogens will never be released, either involuntarily or voluntarily.

Historical facts tell us accidental exposures and releases have already happened, and we only have our lucky stars to thank that none have turned into pandemics taking the lives of millions. Considering safety breaches at these labs number in the hundreds, it’s only a matter of time before something really nasty gets out. Consider the ramifications if a souped-up Ebola or Spanish flu were to get out, for example.

Regardless of the exact method behind its creation, it seems clear to me that SARS-CoV-2 has been modified and that its origin is being covered up by responsible parties. Why the cover-up? In short, to avoid life behind bars. The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 states:

“Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States.”

With sufficient evidence, many researchers and public health authorities stand to spend the rest of their lives behind bars, which is the penalty that the Anti-Terrorism Act calls for. This is why it is vital that we initiate immediate actions to start closing BSL 3 and 4 laboratories that are working with the most lethal pathogens known to man and prosecuting those involved in biowarfare-related research.

If we fail to start this process soon, and simply wait until something worse escapes, the COVID-19 pandemic will seem like a walk in the park and we could approach death rates more similar to the Spanish flu of 1918 or even the bubonic plague that wiped out 60% of Europe.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

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

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

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

• Over the past two years (2021 and 2022), more than 1,650 professional and amateur athletes have collapsed due to cardiac events and 1,148 of them proved fatal

• Damar Hamlin, a 24-year-old Buffalo Bills football player went into cardiac arrest on live television after being tackled during a January 2, 2023, game against the Cincinnati Bengals. Team trainers and emergency medical staff performed CPR for more than nine minutes, which saved his life

• Whether the COVID jab played a role in what happened to Hamlin is impossible to know for sure, but Dr. Peter McCullough suspects it may have played a role — provided he actually got the shot

• A condition called commotio cordis is known to occur in baseball when a player is hit hard on the breastbone, thereby causing cardiac arrest. There are approximately 20 to 30 such cases each year, but never in pro football. In McCullough’s view, commotio cordis can likely be ruled out. The more likely cause for Hamlin’s cardiac arrest, he believes, is hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), or abnormal thickening of the heart muscle, which is the primary cause for athletes suffering cardiac arrest

• During exercise, adrenaline is pumping, and when the heart is damaged this adrenaline rush is what triggers the cardiac arrest. This helps explain not only the death of athletes on the field, or people dying while jogging, but also why so many are dying in their sleep, because adrenaline is released between 3 a.m. and 6 a.m., as your body readies to wake up

With every passing day, the list of people suffering tragic consequences from the COVID mRNA shots grows longer. As of December 23, 2022, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) had received 33,334 reports of post-jab deaths, 26,045 cases of myocarditis and 15,970 heart attacks.

Many of these people and their stories have remained hidden from public view as social media have universally censored these stories. As a result, people who only read mainstream media are largely unaware of the damage being done. However, there is a population of people whose injuries and deaths have been far more public.

Over the past two years (2021 through 2022), more than 1,650

professional and amateur athletes have collapsed due to cardiac events and 1,148

of them proved fatal. In his book “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022,”

Edward Dowd writes extensively about the anomalous number of deaths now occurring among athletes, which, despite “fact checkers” best efforts to dismiss it as “normal,”

is anything but.

More than likely, you’ve heard that Damar Hamlin, a 24-year-old Buffalo Bills football player went into cardiac arrest on live television after being tackled during a January 2, 2023, game against the Cincinnati Bengals.

Team trainers and emergency medical staff performed CPR for more than nine minutes, which saved his life. After initially being placed in a medically-induced coma, Hamlin was reportedly on the mend within a week.

Whether the COVID jab played a role in what happened to Hamlin is impossible to know for sure. Looking at the replays, it’s clear he took a very severe hit right to the chest right before his collapse, and this certainly could have caused the heart attack. At bare minimum, it’s not unheard of. Former Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker had a similar incident in 2017, as did hockey legend Chris Pronger in 1998.

On the other hand, it’s also not inconceivable that the COVID jab — if Hamlin was in fact “vaxxed” — could have affected his heart, thereby playing a contributing role. We now know the COVID shot is associated with a significantly elevated risk of myocarditis, which in turn raises the risk of sudden cardiac death in contact sports.

While the NFL enforced strict COVID jab rules for employees who have contact with players, the players and coaches were not subject to mandates.

That said, 95% of players did get the shot, according to the NFL league.

In a January 4, 2023, Children’s Health Defense interview, Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist and internist, reviewed what could have happened in Hamlin’s case. As noted by McCullough, a condition called commotio cordis (Latin for “agitation of the heart”) is known to occur in baseball when a player is hit hard on the breastbone, thereby causing cardiac arrest. There are approximately 20 to 30 such cases each year.

However, no such case has ever occurred in 100 years of pro football. Football players have padding that protects the breastbone, so in McCullough’s view, commotio cordis can likely be ruled out. The more likely cause for Hamlin’s cardiac arrest, he believes, is hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), or abnormal thickening of the heart muscle, which is the primary cause for athletes suffering cardiac arrest.

The reason why HCM is the No. 1 cause of cardiac arrest in professional athletes is because it causes few if any symptoms and often goes undiagnosed. Professional athletes undergo extensive medical evaluation and cardiovascular screening

before being given the green-light to play, and they also constitute the healthiest segment of society in general,

so most heart problems are ruled out before they ever enter the field.

“The elephant in the room,” however, according to McCullough, is the COVID jab. Before these shots were rolled out, the average number of cardiac arrests in all European soccer and football leagues combined was 29 per year. Since the advent of the COVID shots, 1,598 European pro athletes have suffered cardiac arrest, giving us a comparative annual tally of nearly 800. Of those 1,598 cardiac arrests, 1,101 were fatal.

McCullough detailed these and other stats in a December 17, 2022, letter to the editor of the Journal of Scandinavian Immunology. The paper was co-authored by Panagis Polykretis, Ph.D., a researcher at the Institute of Applied Physics, which is part of the Italian National Research Council.

McCullough and Polykretis have been, and still are, calling for a proper investigation of these deaths.

McCullough and Polykretis suspect COVID jab-induced myocarditis is the explanation for this otherwise inconceivable increase in cardiac arrests among athletes, and McCullough believes it also tops the list of potential reasons for Hamlin’s cardiac arrest, considering 95% of NFL players had received the jab as of March 2022.

McCullough cites research showing about 2.5% of COVID jab recipients sustain heart damage, 90% of them being men. And, in about half of all jab-related myocarditis cases, there are no symptoms to alert you there might be a problem. As explained by McCullough, myocarditis causes scarring on the heart, and it is this scarring that causes an abnormal electrical rhythm (ventricular tachycardia) and sudden adult death syndrome.

There are now more than 200 scientific papers on jab-related myocarditis. A January 2023 study

in the European Journal of Pediatrics found high levels of circulating spike protein in 16 male high school students hospitalized with myocarditis induced by the shots, which again suggests the spike protein your body produces is a key pathogenic factor.

McCullough explains in greater detail how the shot may have triggered Hamlin’s cardiac arrest: During play, adrenaline is pumping, and when the heart is damaged this adrenaline rush is what triggers the cardiac arrest.

This helps explain not only the death of athletes on the field, or people dying while jogging, but also why so many are dying in their sleep, because adrenaline is released between 3 a.m. and 6 a.m., as your body readies to wake up.

Whatever caused Hamlin’s cardiac arrest — and hopefully a careful medical investigation after his recovery will clarify what happened — there’s no doubt that athletes in general are dying in far greater numbers now than ever before.

“The number of athletes who ‘died suddenly’ between January 2021 and April 2022 was 1,696% above the historical monthly norm between 1966 and 2004 — 42 per month compared to just 2.35 per month.”

In related news, a November 2022 report

by The Exposé showed the number of athletes who “died suddenly” between January 2021 and April 2022 was 1,696% above the historical monthly norm

between 1966 and 2004 — 42 per month compared to just 2.35 per month.

The following graph illustrates the rise in recorded athlete collapses and deaths between January 2021, the month the COVID shots started to roll out, and April 2022.

As noted by The Exposé:

“In all between Jan 21 and April 22, a total number of 673 athletes were known to have died. This number could, however, be much higher. So that’s 428 less than the number to have died between 1966 and 2004. The difference here though is that the 1,101 deaths occurred over 39 years, whereas 673 recent deaths occurred over 16 months …

The yearly average number of deaths between 1966 and 2004 equates to 28. January 2022 saw three times as many athlete deaths than this previous annual average, as did March 2022. So this is obviously highly indicative of a problem.

The 2021 total equates to 394 deaths, 14x higher than the 1966 to 2004 annual average. The Jan to April 2022 total, a period of 4 months, equates to 279 deaths, 9.96x higher than the annual average between 1966 and 2004.

However, if we divide the 66 to 04 annual average by 3 to make it equivalent to the first four months’ worth of deaths in 2022, we get 9.3 deaths. So in effect, by April 2022, deaths among athletes were 10x higher than the expected rate …

[B]etween 1966 and 2004. the monthly average number of deaths equates to 2.35. But between January 2021 and April 2022, the monthly average equates to 42. This is an increase of 1,696%.”

A nearly 1,700% increase in sudden cardiac-related death among athletes is inexplicable unless you take the experimental COVID jabs into account. Research

published in November 2021 found inflammatory markers — signs of cardiovascular damage — rose dramatically after the second COVID shot, and the risk of heart attacks and other heart-related problems more than doubled in the months following these injections. 

Pre-jab, patients had an 11% five-year risk of heart attack. Post-jab, that risk rose to 25%, a 227% increase in risk. As reported by The Exposé, other statistics also reveal heart damage has become ubiquitous among those who got one or more mRNA jabs:

“Acute cardiac failure rates are now 475 times the normal baseline rate in VAERS. Tachycardia rates are 7,973 times the baseline rate. Acute myocardial infarction is 412 times the baseline rate.

The rates of internal hemorrhage, peripheral artery thrombosis, and coronary artery occlusion are all over 300 times the baseline rate … It doesn’t take a genius to work out that COVID-19 vaccination is the reason the monthly average number of athlete deaths was 1,700% higher than the expected rate by April 2022.”

In late December 2022, Steve Kirsch also published data showing the shots are a public health disaster.

According to the results of a survey Kirsch conducted, “sudden death” was the No. 1 cause of death in 2021 and 2022 among Americans under 65 who had received the COVID shot.

The second and third causes of death in this group were cardiac-related death and cancer respectively. Importantly, the incidence of turbo-charged cancer among the jabbed was also significant, and myocarditis killed more than COVID-19.

Among the unjabbed, the primary cause of death for people 65 and younger in 2021 and 2022 was hospital treatment for COVID. Incidences of sudden death, pulmonary embolism and turbo-charged cancers were all low, and there were no unknown causes of death, nor any myocarditis deaths. Kirsch summarized the three most stunning differences between the jabbed and unjabbed as follows:

1. “Sudden death rates are off the charts for the vaccinated cf. unvaccinated for those <65 … It's the #1 cause of death for this age group …

2. Myocarditis as a cause of death is registering now for both age ranges but only for the vaccinated …

3. Cardiac issues as a cause of death in vaccinated young people (<65) are significantly elevated vs. their unvaxxed peers."

While we cannot make any definitive statements about what caused Hamlin’s cardiac arrest, one thing that is not in doubt is that immediate and ongoing CPR is what saved his life. Nine minutes is a long time to give CPR, and most people will simply give up after two or three minutes. Hamlin’s case is proof positive that sometimes you need to give CPR for an extended period of time.

As many who got the experimental COVID shots will have some level of heart damage that raises their risk of cardiac arrest and sudden death, the need for CPR know-how is only going to grow. So, please, learn CPR. It could be the difference between life and death of someone you love. Also, consider investing in an automated external defibrillator (AED) for your home and/or office.

These machines are lightweight and battery operated. Sticky pads with sensors are attached to the chest and those electrodes send information to the computer inside the machine.

The AED computer will analyze the heart rhythm to determine if electric shock is needed. If required, the machine uses voice prompts to tell you what to do and when to do it. AED machines are safe to use and there are no reports of them harming bystanders or users or, of delivering inappropriate shocks.

When an individual suffers a cardiac arrest, the heart immediately stops beating. This means there is no blood being pumped to the body or brain. At this time it is critical for bystanders to:

1. Call emergency services (dial 911 in the U.S.)

2. Begin CPR

3. Apply the nearest automated external defibrillator (AED)

If you don’t have formal training, 911 dispatchers can give you specific instructions on using an AED and performing CPR until paramedics arrive. While you may hesitate, being afraid you could hurt the victim, at this time the person is clinically dead and can’t get any worse. Bystander CPR and AED can only help.

For cardiac arrest, CPR and treatment with an AED as needed (while awaiting emergency services) significantly increase the potential for survival and, importantly, lower the risk of permanent disability. It is now believed Hamlin has a good chance of neurological recovery, which would not have been possible had it not been for the fact that he received CPR for more than nine minutes.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

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

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

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