Boost your immune system with vitamin D during the pandemic

(Natural News) The Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to infect millions around the world. Since the first wave of the pandemic, experts have been hard-pressed to develop potential cures for the rapidly spreading disease. That said, the online statistics portal Statista reported that as of May 19, 2020, over 1.9 million people of the 4.9 million confirmed…

Chinese startup develops smart glasses to check for coronavirus symptoms… but do they work?

(Natural News) To help efforts to screen for symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19) infection, a Chinese startup has developed augmented reality glasses that lets wearers “see” a person’s temperature. Developed by a company called Rokid, the T1 smart glasses use a frame-mounted thermal camera to measure people’s temperatures from a distance, even while they’re moving. “Apart from…

‘Plandemic’ Documentary

The 26-minute documentary “Plandemic,” part 1, by Mikki Willis, features Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., a cellular and molecular biologist1 whose research showed that many vaccines are contaminated with gammaretroviruses, thanks to the fact that they use viruses grown in contaminated animal cell lines.

Mikovits suspects COVID-19 may in fact be a type of vaccine-derived or vaccine-induced retroviral infection, and she’s undoubtedly qualified to comment on this disease because of her groundbreaking research on retroviruses.

In other words, she believes SARS-CoV-2 merely serves to activate or wake up a dormant XMRV infection, which then causes the symptoms of COVID-19. Work done by Mikovits between 2009 and 2011 suggested 25 million to 30 million Americans were carriers of XMRVs and other gammaretroviruses.

Seeing how that estimate is over a decade old, that number is now likely to be far higher. In my view, her hypothesis is an interesting one that should warrant further investigation.

Censorship and Discrediting Campaign Is in Full Swing

As expected, this film is being censored from all mainstream media networks, including, of course, YouTube. To get around the censorship, Willis is asking people to download, share and upload on other sites as they please.

That there’s an upswell of public awareness is evidenced by the fact that Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are all said to be “struggling” to quell the tidal spread of the film. As reported by CNET:2

“Two simple searches on YouTube on Friday morning found nine copies of the video, with a combined 295,000 views. After CNET contacted YouTube with links to the copies, all but one were removed for violating community guidelines.”

The rise of public awareness is also evidenced by the fact that Mikovits’ latest book, “Plague of Corruption,”3 released April 14, 2020, rose to become a No. 1 best-seller within the first week. In it, she names names, and one of them is Dr. Anthony Fauci, the much-beloved leader of the White House’s pandemic response team. It’s not surprising then that the discrediting campaign against her and Willis is equally robust.

It will likely be difficult to ignore such attempts. A quick online search May 12, 2020, for “Plandemic” returns not a single link to a positive review or commentary in the first dozen pages. So, before you’re persuaded by those who have skin to lose in this game, I urge you to look into her story for yourself. Watch the film and read her book. 

What Are Human Gammaretroviruses?

The reason Mikovits’ career was destroyed was because she and her colleagues discovered that vaccines can spread gammaretroviruses that in turn can trigger diseases such as chronic fatigue syndrome,4 certain kinds of autism, cancers, leukemias and lymphomas. 

Gammaretroviruses5 are viruses that can cause cancer, leukemia and immune deficiencies in various animals. As explained in a 2011 paper on gamma retroviruses:6

“Retroviruses are evolutionary optimized gene carriers that have naturally adapted to their hosts to efficiently deliver their nucleic acids into the target cell chromatin, thereby overcoming natural cellular barriers …

Retroviral vectors are fascinating and efficient delivery tools for the transfer of nucleic acids. As a hallmark, all retroviruses are capable of reverse transcribing their single stranded RNA genome into double stranded DNA, which will be stably integrated into the host cell genome.

As highly evolved parasites they act in concert with cellular host factors to deliver their nucleic acid into the nucleus, where they exploit the host cell’s machinery for their own replication and long-term expression occurs.”

The key take-home here is that retroviruses are “integrated into the host cell genome,” and infection can result in “long-term expression.” In other words, once they’re in your body, they can remain dormant, only to reactivate when conditions are favorable.

In this regard, they’re quite different from your average virus that, when you’re exposed, invades your cells, replicates and causes symptoms, and is eventually eliminated from your body through your immune response.

In 2009, Mikovits and her team discovered and isolated the first human gammaretrovirus family of retroviruses, known then as XMRVs. XMRV stands for “xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus.” Xenotrophic refers to viruses that only replicate in cells other than those of the host species. So, XMRVs are viruses that infect human cells yet are not human viruses.7

Safer Vaccines Can Be Made

Many critics paint Mikovits as your average “anti-vaxxer,” failing to address one of her key points, which is that safe vaccines can be made, so why use dangerous ones?

She proposes a novel vaccine for viruses like SARS-CoV-2 that involves alpha interferon, small amounts of the virus and peptide T, which would block the interaction of the virus and keep your T cells from getting infected.

Unlike conventional vaccines, which are mostly injected, this would be oral and would only stimulate antibody humoral responses. Her version would also cause innate cellular immunity from the T cells. As Mikovits explained in my recent interview with her, featured in “Could Retroviruses Play a Role in COVID-19?”:

“I was part of the team that first used the immune therapy, a purified Type 1 interferon alpha, as a curative therapy for a leukemia. That research has proceeded for decades, [yet] the Food and Drug Administration said, ‘You can’t use that in preventing coronaviruses from jumping from animals [to humans].’

[Type 1 interferon] is a simple food. It’s a simple spray. We have it on the shelf now, made by Merck, [yet] Merck discontinued its use. Why would you do that if that was the frontline … prevention? Interferon alpha is your body’s own best antiviral against coronaviruses and retroviruses.”

Understanding Interferons

Interferon Type 18,9 is a type of beneficial cytokine released by your body as one of its first lines of defense against viral infections. In a nutshell, it interferes with viral replication. It’s also been shown to suppress certain types of tumors. As part of your immune system, it digests viral DNA and viral proteins in infected cells while simultaneously protecting noninfected neighboring cells.

Interferon alpha and beta also help regulate your immune response. As noted in a 2018 paper10 on the dual nature of Type 1 and Type 2 interferons, “both antiviral and immunomodulatory functions are critical during virus infection to not only limit virus replication and initiate an appropriate antiviral immune response, but to also negatively regulate this response to minimize tissue damage.”

Like Mikovits, Dominic Chan, a Doctor of Pharmacy who recently updated an article on interferon on, proposes using interferons against COVID-19. The earlier version of this article, written by Eni Williams, Pharm.D. and Ph.D., before she died in 2017,11 says:12

“Interferons modulate the response of the immune system to viruses, bacteria, cancer, and other foreign substances that invade the body. Interferons do not directly kill viral or cancerous cells; they boost the immune system response and reduce the growth of cancer cells by regulating the action of several genes that control the secretion of numerous cellular proteins that affect growth …”

She goes on to list a number of interferons that are commercially available, including Intron-A (interferon alfa-2b), Betaseron (interferon beta-1b) and many more. In April 2020, Chan added:

“Interferon beta-1a, currently in use to treat multiple sclerosis, and interferon alfa-2b are both under investigation as potential treatments for people with COVID-19 coronavirus disease …

Interferon Beta 1a, specifically, activates macrophages that engulf antigens and natural killer cells (NK cells), a type of immune T-Cell … The theory is, interferon may be able to make the immune system stronger by turning on dormant parts and directing them toward the defense against SARS-CoV-2’s assault.”

One of Mikovits’ primary treatment recommendations for COVID-19 is interferon 1 alpha, sold under brand names such as Alferon and Roferon, to shut down the replication of RNA viruses, including retroviruses and coronaviruses.

She believes it might be beneficial to take twice a day for the duration of known exposure. Although a 1 milliliter bottle of Alferon costs between $600 and $700,13,14 one only needs small amounts and a bottle can treat 1,000 people for a week.

It’s worth noting the warnings, however. According to Chan, if you already have flu-like symptoms and take interferons, the symptoms are likely to get worse before they get better, as your immune system ramps up. “If someone is already on a ventilator and symptoms are about to overwhelm them, giving them an interferon-based medicine could be catastrophic,” he says.

Flu Vaccination May Increase Risk of Coronavirus Infection

In the film, Mikovits cites a paper15 published in the January 10, 2020, issue of the Vaccine journal, which found you’re 36% more likely to get coronavirus infection if you got the influenza vaccine in 2017 or 2018. As noted in this study, titled “Influenza Vaccination and Respiratory Virus Interference Among Department of Defense Personnel During the 2017-2018 Influenza Season”:

“Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference. Test-negative study designs are often utilized to calculate influenza vaccine effectiveness.

The virus interference phenomenon goes against the basic assumption of the test-negative vaccine effectiveness study that vaccination does not change the risk of infection with other respiratory illness, thus potentially biasing vaccine effectiveness results in the positive direction.

This study aimed to investigate virus interference by comparing respiratory virus status among Department of Defense personnel based on their influenza vaccination status. Furthermore, individual respiratory viruses and their association with influenza vaccination were examined.”

Interestingly enough, while seasonal influenza vaccination did not raise the risk of all respiratory infections, it was in fact “significantly associated with unspecified coronavirus (meaning it did not specifically mention SARS-CoV-2) and human metapneumovirus” (hMPV).

Those who had received a seasonal flu shot were 36% more likely to contract coronavirus infection and 51% more likely to contract hMPV infection than unvaccinated individuals.16

Looking at the symptoms list for hMPV17 is also telling, as the main symptoms include fever, sore throat and cough. The elderly and immunocompromised are at heightened risk for severe hMPV illness, the symptoms of which include difficulty breathing and pneumonia. All of these symptoms also apply for COVID-19.

Again, if you’ve been barraged with articles telling you “Plandemic” is a “hoax” and that Mikovits is a disgraced researcher whose work has been “debunked,” please, do your own research. Some truths are hard to swallow, but they’re crucial if we care about our own, let alone public, health.

If you want to see my excellent interview with Judy that is three times as long as the above video, you can view the video below.

Do We Know if Asymptomatic Carriers Spread Coronavirus?

Coronaviruses are a common infection in people and animals. To date, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention believes the main mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2 is from person to person, specifically through respiratory droplets.1 These are most often produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes.

However, the virus may also be aerosolized when a person speaks. Experts believe that the louder you speak, the more likely it is you’ll spit. Although transmission has not been tracked to objects and surfaces, the CDC recommends cleaning and disinfecting frequently used objects in your home.

It is estimated that the most contagious period is when a person is sickest and symptomatic. The length of time an individual remains sick is specific to an individual situation such as their age, vitamin D levels and immune system. Although it may be possible to catch the virus by touching a surface and then touching your mouth, nose or eyes, it doesn’t live long on surfaces.

The CDC estimates the likelihood of transmission from food products or packaging is low. Additionally, any virus on food is killed during cooking and preparation. Experts hope that higher temperatures and humidity levels during the summer months will slow the spread of the virus.

Can You Spread COVID-19 Without Having Symptoms?

January 30, 2020, an article was published in The New England Journal of Medicine2 in which the author proposed the transmission of COVID-19 is possible from an asymptomatic carrier.

The writers reported a 33-year-old businessman had met with his business partner from Shanghai between January 19 and 22, 2020. January 24, 2020, the businessman developed a fever and productive cough. The next evening, he felt better and went back to work January 27.

The writers reported the partner had been “well with no signs or symptoms of infection, but had become ill on her flight back to China, where she tested positive for 2019-nCoV on January 26.” From this case study they theorized the virus could be transmitted from asymptomatic carriers.

While some infections spread from asymptomatic individuals, there is not enough evidence yet to suggest that COVID-19 does. But, as it turns out, in their zeal to get the paper published, the researchers did not speak with the partner from Shanghai before publication. They relied on information from the people with whom she met who said she “did not appear to have any symptoms.”3

Unfortunately, this information has been quoted often, has made many headlines and may have had an impact on public health guidelines. In fact, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told journalists,4 “There’s no doubt after reading [the NEJM] paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring. This study lays the question to rest.”

Accurate Information Needed for Public Health Policy

Looking into the matter further, Germany’s public health agency, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), sent a letter with accompanying information to set the record straight. RKI did speak with the woman on the phone, and she reported she did have symptoms while in Germany.

The Health and Food Safety Authority from Bavaria was also on the phone call. Science reports one of the authors spoke with the Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority and asked if the information shared from the woman required a correction to the article. He was assured it did not.

Yet, as Science reports, RKI did not agree and sent a letter to The New England Journal of Medicine, the World Health Organization and European partner agencies with the information.

Some experts were charitable in their description of what happened, such as an epidemiologist from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who called it a “poor choice” and assumed it “was an overstretched group trying to get out their best idea of what the truth was quickly, rather than somebody trying to be careless.”5

Others were not quite so forgiving, such as the Public Health Agency of Sweden, which the Science Chronicle reported updated their website’s FAQ page with the following information:6

“The sources that claimed that the coronavirus would infect during the incubation period lack scientific support for that analysis in their articles. This applies, among other things, to an article in NEJM that has subsequently proven to contain major flaws and errors. Statements by the Chinese authorities on infectiousness during the incubation period lack sources or other data to support it.”

False Positive Tests in People Who Recovered

South Korea tested 263 people who had recovered from COVID-19, yet who tested positive again in the days and weeks after full recovery.7 The information shone a light on questions of whether people could get reinfected or if the infection could be reactivated.

However, the scientist who leads the clinical committee for emerging disease control believes the test detected dead virus fragments and not a live virus. The committee believes there is little reason to think individuals could be reinfected or that an infection could be reactivated.

This, of course, would have a significant impact on global efforts to contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The individuals were tested with a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test used to diagnose COVID-19 and to trace the genetic material of the virus.

This test does not delineate between fragments taken from dead cells or from a live virus. Scientists are finding the dead fragments from SARS-CoV-2 can take months to clear after an individual has recovered from the infection and thus can lead to false positives with a PCR test.

The committee confirmed an earlier finding that patients who seem to have a repeat infection have little to no contagiousness. This is likely from the results of testing identifying dead cell fragments and not the live virus. Oh Myoung-don, who leads the Central Clinical Committee for Emerging Disease Control, said:8

“The process in which COVID-19 produces a new virus takes place only in host cells and does not infiltrate the nucleus. This means it does not cause chronic infection or recurrence.”

How long the virus is infectious will be key to determining public health policy regarding the amount of time quarantine for an infected person should be recommended. Bloomberg9 reports past studies had shown those who were severely ill remain infectious longer than those who may have had a mild illness.

PCR Does Not Test for Live Viruses

The types of testing used to determine if someone has COVID-19 is a rapidly evolving process. The timeline began on January 11 when scientists from China posted the genome of the novel coronavirus. One week later Germany had produced a diagnostic test.

By the end of February, the WHO sent tests to nearly 60 countries, but the U.S. refused.10 This slowed the release of a test that might have helped track the spread of the virus. The initial efforts in the U.S. were fraught with challenges. The first tests developed by the CDC didn’t work and the FDA did not create an avenue for medical centers to produce their own tests.

The first coronavirus tests were PCR tests that work by essentially photocopying molecules to magnify small segments of DNA material.11 This allows scientists to map the DNA, detect the presence of bacteria or viruses and diagnose genetic disorders. When used for SARS-CoV-2, it can identify the presence of the genetic material from the virus, but not whether the virus is currently living.

PCR testing for COVID-19 was done by inserting a swab through the nose to the nasopharyngeal area where the nose and throat meet. The swab is rotated for 15 seconds and then the procedure is repeated in the other nostril to ensure an adequate sample is obtained.12

However, in taking steps to speed testing, the FDA changed their recommendations in mid-April so samples could be collected inside the nose instead of the pharyngeal area.13 Additionally, they also are allowing sample collection by patients themselves, and storage using saline solution instead of being stored in a viral transport medium, which is in short supply.

What Else May Be Holding Up Testing?

Two of the bottlenecks to having enough testing available have been a shortage of PCR machines and appropriate swabs. Cotton swabs cannot be used since cotton is a plant and has its own DNA that would contaminate the test.

In mid-April, months after other countries had been testing their citizens in mass numbers, the FDA opened the door for different types of swabs to be used. The FDA commissioner released a statement congratulating the administration for its action:14

“This action today demonstrates the ingenuity that results from FDA working in partnership with the private sector. The Trump Administration has been working side-by-side with our industry partners to fight this pandemic, and today is a great example of that work.”

Another advancement in testing came when Abbott Laboratories produced a rapid test, which they made available throughout the U.S. and which was distributed by the federal government. CNN reports the lab has instructed health care professionals not to use viral transport media for the samples intended for the ID NOW device.15

This device tests one swab at a time and can complete a test in as quickly as five minutes. The customer should only use swabs that have not been placed in any solution. When the viral transport media is used, the device produces false negatives.

Clinical pathologists from Cleveland Clinic tested five systems, processing approximately 200 samples. They found that when used correctly, the ID NOW detected only 84.4% of the positive specimens. The CDC16 has also developed a blood test which looks for antibodies. These antibodies are specific proteins your body produces in response to an infection.

People who have had COVID-19 have antibodies in the blood that indicate they’ve had an immune response to the infection. Despite the presence of antibodies, the CDC is still unsure if these provide immunity to a second exposure or how high the antibody titer must be to provide protection.

United Nations Warns Don’t Issue Immunity Passports

At the end of April, the WHO was still unsure if those who have recovered from COVID-19 will have enough antibodies to protect them from the second infection. The United Nations has warned governments around the world against issuing any immunity passports or risk-free certificates.

Governments hope these documents can be used to allow free travel throughout the world, demonstrating that those who carry them are not a risk to others. Taking a more conservative approach, WHO released a statement:17

“Some governments have suggested that the detection of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could serve as the basis for an ‘immunity passport’ or ‘risk-free certificate’ that would enable individuals to travel or to return to work assuming that they are protected against re-infection. There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.”

At the time of the April 25, 2020, press release from the WHO, Chile had announced they would begin handing out health passports after screening individuals who had developed antibodies so they could go back to work. In a news report May 6, 2020, on NBC News, Chili’s Ministry of Health continued to stand by their decision.18

They announced they would be issuing certificates in the form of a QR code to those who had been clear of symptoms of the virus for 14 days. In Germany, experts are conducting swab tests numbering nearly 100,000 per day in the hope of providing certificates to those who test negative.

Italy is also issuing licenses to people with antibodies and China is moving ahead with a similar system. Glenn Cohen is a bioethicist from Harvard University who is concerned that some may look to counterfeit practices to get an immunity badge. He told NBC News:19

“I’m really worried about the diverting of resources which are finite to cracking down on the black market rather than have these resources aimed at the interventions that are most efficacious in curbing infection and helping people survive.”

Will COVID-19 Public Policies Split Up Families?

Despite years of laboratory research, animal studies, human trials and evaluation of evidence, vaccines have unanticipated negative health effects. The Health Resources and Services Administration reports1 “The United States has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history.” Yet, in 10 years of reporting to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5,564 cases for injury were brought before the vaccine injury court.

This does not represent the thousands of other injuries and deaths from vaccines reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — only those brought before a judge. And, in case reports and studies, even more injuries have been reported. For example, in 1989 a measles vaccine was rolled out in Africa. It wasn’t long before some noticed it doubled the mortality from other diseases in young girls, yet it wasn’t withdrawn until 1992.2

During the 1990s researchers Dr. Peter Aaby and Christine Stabell Benn were studying the effects of vaccines on mortality and came to the shocking conclusion that five of the nine vaccines studied clearly increased mortality from other conditions.3 Then, when they examined a tenth vaccine — an antimalarial vaccine that appeared to offer between 18% and 36% protection against malaria — they found that it also increased overall mortality by 24%.

In January 2020, a military study4 was released showing personnel who had received a flu vaccine had a 36% increased risk of contracting a coronavirus (before COVID-19) and human metapneumovirus. Additionally, the vaccine was not consistently beneficial against flu viruses.

This study also demonstrated the flu vaccine protected against other types of respiratory pathogens. So, while it increased the risk to some, it reduced the risk to others — and neither was planned in years of research and development, which demonstrates how difficult it is to predict results.

Unfortunately, those who get their health information from mainstream media may have believed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who spoke with CBS News in 2019.5 He flatly denied vaccines can cause injury or death. This is not just a case of misinforming the public: It’s an outright lie based on reflection of evidence from thousands of court cases.

These facts are important since each of these vaccines was developed over years of testing and study, not in mere months.

Some anticipate that the first vaccine for COVID-19 will be available by fall 2020, just nine to 10 months after the disease reached the U.S. Since vaccine safety protocols are measured in years and not months, it is more important than ever to take control of your health when it comes to deciding whether you want to take a COVID-19 vaccine that’s only been studied a few months.

The Law Changes on Governor’s Orders

Within the U.S., the governor of California issued the first shelter-in-place order March 19, 2020.6 He called the situation “fluid” and “open-ended,” which is how much of the world is currently functioning.7 Shelly Luther, a salon owner from Dallas, Texas, understands the fluidity of the circumstances all too well.

She was recently sentenced to seven days in jail after violating a stay-at-home order by opening her salon. Her case gained national attention after she was requested several times to close. When she was before Judge Eric Moyé, he told her he would consider a lighter sentence if she apologized for what he characterized as her “selfish” behavior.8 She was later released after the Supreme Court of Texas intervened and ordered it.9

In an interview with Fox News10 Luther outlined the precautions she and her stylists took with each client, all of which maintained hygiene and social distancing. Distancing was only broken when the stylist was close enough to cut the client’s hair.

Luther spent two days in jail before the court intervened and the governor of Texas modified the executive orders to eliminate jail time.11 Until the modification was published, those who didn’t obey the order could have been jailed up to 180 days. (I should note that governors have the power to declare a state of emergency under which they can issue orders that invoke legislation pertinent to the state.)

The National Law Review answered the question about the legalities of being made to close businesses and stay home in New Jersey, which is slightly different from some other states as New Jersey has an additional Emergency Health Powers Act that authorizes greater control. However, while not many states have this legislation, it can be enacted across the U.S. if each state deems it necessary:12

“The same law allows the State to ‘[r]equire the vaccination of persons as protection against infectious disease;’ and although the vaccine cannot be ‘administered without obtaining the informed consent of the person to be vaccinated,’ the state may require quarantine for “persons who are unable or unwilling to undergo vaccination …” N.J.S.A. § 26:13-19.”

In simple language, the state has the power. As interpreted by National Law Review:

“So, can the government shut down your business and make you stay home? Yes. And they can vaccinate you, quarantine you, and are immune from suit for doing any of those things.”

Freedom of Speech Doesn’t Include All Groups

If the freedom to choose or refuse vaccination created controversy in other years, the coming months and years will likely see an escalation of this. Individuals and groups who refuse vaccination are crucified in the court of public opinion, while those who question the safety and efficacy of the shots are mocked.

The argument for mandatory vaccination is the notion that vaccines can achieve “herd immunity.” That theory is based on the claim that if enough people are vaccinated against an illness, it can no longer spread, including among a small minority who may not have been vaccinated. The only issue is that this is a only a theory, and one that doesn’t work for vaccines. You can read why in my previous article, “Why Herd Immunity is a Hoax.”

Australia’s national rugby league star Bryce Cartwright could be banned this season if he refuses a flu shot. Once the COVID-19 vaccine is in full production and distribution, the careers of many professional athletes may come into question if teams demand their players get vaccinated.

Cartwright and his wife have chosen not to vaccinate themselves or their children, for which they have come under attack in the media. In notably biased coverage of the situation, the Daily Mail cleverly juxtaposed “admitted” with “misguided,” altering the assumption a reader may make in reading the statement:13

“Mrs Cartwright admitted to followers in an Instagram Q & A last year that convincing her husband to see the what she misguidedly believes are the ‘harms of vaccination’ …”

The Seattle Times14 reported the result of surveys from Morning Consult indicate not everyone is interested in getting jabbed with a coronavirus vaccine. The results showed that if a vaccine were available, 14% would not get it and 22% aren’t sure.

In both cases, the highest numbers are in the 35- to 44-year-old age range.15 Additionally, Republicans and political independents are more likely than Democrats to refuse the vaccine. Overall, 64% say they will get a vaccine when it’s available. More concerning is the result showing that at the time of the survey, 80% of those over 65 would get a vaccine.

Health Care Is the New Warfare

Recently, Cartwright’s wife Shanelle took to Instagram to defend her husband’s beliefs, succinctly writing:16 “It might not be relevant to you now, but bet your bottom dollar this will be the new normal if we don’t stand up now.”

The battle lines are being drawn now, before the vaccine comes to market, fueled in part by increasing fear. In early March, just as it was evident the novel coronavirus would spread across the U.S., one family experienced just how much life could be disrupted.

Two parents with seven children, who recently moved to Kentucky, entered a bank to open a joint account.17 Five of the youngest children had to go into the bank with them. When they returned home, they were surprised by a law enforcement officer and a child protective services worker waiting for them on their doorstep.

The parents learned an anonymous complaint had been called in to Child Protective Services. The tipster said a mother, five children and a man who wasn’t their father were in public and the children had bruises on their arms, which looked like they had been roughly grabbed.

Yet, when the family arrived home, the police confirmed the man was their father, the family had seven children (not five) and they were all wearing long sleeves, making it impossible to see bruising. The family presumes the call came from the bank since the report got the number of children wrong and the bank employees had been fearful of the children.

No Evidence, but the State Can Keep the Case Open

One of the boys was made to take off his shirt to look for bruising. The male investigator attempted to get the girls to take off their shirts as well, but when the mother objected, he agreed to have them roll up their sleeves. None of the allegations of abuse that were filed were substantiated in the home, but the story doesn’t end there.

Without evidence on the children and finding the man was their father, the state still allowed investigators to continue to poke around the home and question the children. Even without corroborating evidence, the state can take an additional 45 days to close their unsubstantiated case.

Novak Djokovic, the No.1 ranked tennis player and winner of 17 Grand Slam singles titles, has also expressed concern over taking the coronavirus vaccine.18 Should the vaccine be required, he is unsure what he’ll decide to do but is clear he doesn’t want to be forced to take something.

Yet, unless things change, laws like the one in New Jersey may make mandatory vaccinations required someday. Taking the potential effects another step, parents who do not consent to vaccinate their children may be accused of abuse and have their children taken from their home.

Human Vaccine Testing Begins Years Earlier Than Normal

Vaccines usually take years to develop, going first through laboratory cell tests, then animal studies before finally being used in human clinical trials. However, testing and development of the vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 has been put on a fast track, bypassing steps other vaccines undergo to reduce the number of potentially dangerous side effects.

According to reports, Pfizer has begun human testing on healthy volunteers a mere five months after China revealed they had a problem with COVID-19.19 Along with their German pharmaceutical partner BioNTech, Pfizer announced the vaccine may be ready as early as September. April 29, 2020, BioNTech revealed 12 participants had been vaccinated since April 23, 2020.20

The participants in the human trial will be given doses ranging from 1 mcg to 100 mcg for the researchers to find the optimal dose on which to do further testing. BioNTech named the vaccine BNT162, and added “In addition, the safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine will be investigated.”

In other words, researchers are unsure of the safety of the vaccine, which the company estimates will be given to 200 people aged 18 to 55 years in the first trial. Pfizer released their first quarterly report for 2020, in which they discussed their plans for releasing the vaccine with BioNTech, saying:21

“The two companies plan to jointly conduct clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccine candidates initially in Europe and the U.S., across multiple research sites.

The companies estimate that there is potential to supply millions of vaccine doses by the end of 2020, subject to technical success of the development program and approval by regulatory authorities, and the potential to rapidly scale up the capacity to produce hundreds of millions of doses in 2021.”

While it’s estimated that the greatest number of people willing to take the vaccine are over 65, no initial testing for safety and efficacy is initially planned for that group. Statistics show that 60% of U.S. adults have at least one chronic disease and 40% have two or more.22 Chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes can alter the effectiveness of the vaccine or make it more dangerous.

The New Normal Needs New Strategies

The type of vaccine in development for coronavirus uses messenger RNA, which is different from traditional vaccines. Moderna Therapeutics, a pharmtech company focused on messenger RNA drug development, released a white paper in 2017.

They predicted that mRNA and DNA vaccines can be developed more quickly than traditional vaccines, which are created, tested and manufactured in four to seven years as compared to 10 to 15 years for traditional vaccines. They also wrote:23

“As with all new vaccines, time is needed to establish the level and duration of immunogenicity and the safety profile of mRNA vaccines in larger, more diverse populations.”

In other words, the same company that focused only on mRNA drug development that had four of the six mRNA vaccines in clinical trials in 2017, believes time is required to establish the safety and effectiveness of this type of vaccine development. Yet, these are the types of vaccines currently in human testing five months after China told the world about SARS-CoV-2.

As this situation continues to unfold, it is necessary now more than ever to take control of your health. Here are several recent articles that offer suggestions to support your immune system, address fear of the unknown and give you strategies to think globally but act locally to protect your health.

About the Confederation….

By Anna Von Reitz

The Articles of Confederation were in place from 1781 to 1860 and functioned just fine.

The States of America formed under the Articles of Confederation created a “Confederation” that functioned in commercial venues and established their own businesses doing business as, for example, The State of New York. These were commercial enterprises called “confederated states”. Today, we would call them subsidiaries or maybe franchises. 
Anyway, the were NOT overcome or undermined by the Constitutions, much less “replaced” by the Constitutions which is the drivel we were taught when I was in school. 
What ended the States of America confederation was the schism we all know about, the Secession of the Southern Members of that Confederation, however, even that is grossly misrepresented by our “educational” system, because we are taught that the key issue that drove the split was slavery. 
As the Southern States records prove, the actual cause of the problem was Parliament’s investment in Egyptian Cotton Plantations. 
The British were developing industrialized textile factories to produce among other things, cotton cloth. They were importing most of their cotton from the colonies and as their own industrial capacity and demand for their products increased, the demand for cotton and the price that the Southern Plantation owners could charge for their cotton also increased, causing a situation like a mini-OPEC cartel in the cotton market.

To get themselves out of this bind, the Brits invested in starting new cotton plantations, most notably in Egypt, but also in India, and running competition with the American growers. 
This in turn inspired Northern States of States to get into the market for cloth production, as in this country they could undersell British cotton cloth because they were already here and didn’t have to ship cotton all the way to Britain and then ship the cloth all the way back.

When the Egyptian cotton crops failed for a series of years in a row, the American producers saw their chance to increase their prices again, but by that time, the Northern industrialists that were depending on cheap Southern cotton prices for their profit margins had an ax to grind, too, so they joined with the Brits against the Southern Plantation cotton producers, and cynically used the growing Abolitionist movement as the excuse for their mercenary concerns.

When the Southern States of States who were members of the original Confederation complained and tried to offer a compromise that would have continued to sell cheap cotton to the Northern States of States and upped the price to the British to make up the difference, British sympathizers refused, which then cast the Northern States of States in the light of traitors to their own country.

By the time the schism actually occurred, the Southern States of States were further inflamed by Northern claims that they couldn’t Secede from the Confederation, because it had proposed to be a “perpetual Union”– to which the South replied that it was supposed to be a union of mutual interest, in which the States of States supported each other in issues of commercial interest, not a union in which some members benefited themselves at the expense of other members without willingness to compromise. 
So from all sides considered, there were four major bones to pick — (1) Cotton, cotton, and cotton; (2) British Sympathizers in the North; (3) the right to secede and leave behind business relationships that hadn’t lived up to their promises; (4) slavery —- and the least of these, on both sides, was slavery.

Time has proven that the Southern States of States were legally and lawfully correct in their position, just as Jefferson Davis said, and indeed, proved that they were, but, they were no match for the devious economic powers from Europe backing their Northern brethren, and the Northern States of States though greedy enough, were no match, either. 
In the final analysis, the Pontiffs of the Holy Roman Empire and the British Monarchs used this in-house pissing match as an excuse to divide and conquer the members of the original American Confederation. At the end of the hostilities, the Southern States of States were ruinated and the Northern States of States were bankrupt, leaving the Pope and the British Monarchs free to play their self-interested commercial and banking games.

The Europeans and their American cronies killed the one man with enough knowledge to thwart their plans, demeaned and ridiculed Andrew Johnson, who effectively prevented the worst of the predatory actions they intended to unleash here —- and skated on. 
They allowed those Americans in Congress who were basically loyal to this country to set up some plans for reconstructing the States of America confederation, but at the end of the day, they substituted British Territorial “States of States” for the original American States of States as a “temporary emergency measure” while our government was in “abeyance”. 
To the average American the only visible change is that the new British Territorial organizations were called by names styled like this: the State of Oregon, the State of Michigan, the State of Florida….. and the original American counterparts operated under names styled like this: The States of Oregon, The State of Michigan, The State of Florida. 
The only visible difference, in other words, was the change from “The” to “the”. Most people never knew that any change occurred, and the public wasn’t told, either.

And the Reconstruction lay dormant all these years, still waiting to be done, because nobody told the Americans that it still needed to be done. Those who knew were too busy making money by siphoning off the value of American money, labor, and natural resources. Those who didn’t know, were simply out of luck. 
The bulk of The Reconstruction Acts are still standing, fully intact. The Confederation of the States of America has never been restored, and the actual States and People competent to do the work of the Reconstruction were deliberately mischaracterized so as to obstruct any efforts on their part to get the job done.

Thanks to decades of hard work by many, many Americans, all of this has been delved out and finally and fully understood, so that we have been able to overcome the self-interested obstruction of our erstwhile Trustees, to correct the “presumed” change of our political status to that of British Territorial subjects, and to call the actual States of the Union to assemble and take care of business — including the Reconstruction.

Go to: and make some happier history.


See this article and over 2400 others on Anna’s website here:

To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website. 
How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

Bill Gates and Intellectual Ventures Funds Microchip Implant Vaccine Technology

by Celeste McGovern, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated more than $21 million towards developing a vaccine technology that uses a tattoo-like mechanism which injects invisible nanoparticles under the skin that is now being tested in a vaccine against the virus that causes COVID-19 The microneedle technology is also being wed to […]