By Anna Von Reitz
By Anna Von Reitz
By Anna Von Reitz
According to conservationists and wildlife experts, the plan to vaccinate the global population against COVID-19 will have a devastating environmental impact, as one of the vaccine ingredients, squalene, is made from shark liver oil.
To satisfy a global supply of squalene-containing vaccines, an estimated half-million sharks would have to be slaughtered. At present, five COVID-19 vaccine candidates are using squalene as an adjuvant to boost the immune response to the vaccine and elicit higher antibody titers.1,2,3
Added to the more than 3 million sharks already killed for their livers each year, the added demand could push certain shark species, such as gulper and basking sharks that are particularly rich in squalene, to the brink of extinction.4 According to the New Zealand Herald:5
“British pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline uses shark squalene in its adjuvant, which is used in flu vaccines. In May, GSK said it would manufacture a billion doses of the adjuvant for potential use in COVID-19 vaccines.
About 3,000 sharks are required to make 1 ton of squalene. Estimates from California-based group Shark Allies suggest that immunizing everyone in the world with one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine containing squalene would require about 250,000 sharks, depending on the quantities used. This doubles to half a million if two doses are required, as researchers say is likely.”
The conservationist group Shark Allies6 has launched a Change.org petition7 calling for a ban on shark-derived squalene in COVID-19 vaccines. As noted in the petition, which is addressed to several regulatory agencies around the world, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the British Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the European Medicines Agency and the National Medical Products Administration in China, as well as all vaccine makers:8
“The supply chain has never been tested at the scale that a coronavirus vaccine would demand. There is also very little quality control and transparency in the shark squalene industry. In a nutshell, exploiting sharks for a key vaccine ingredient that can be derived from more sustainable and reliable non-animal alternatives is a detrimental and destructive approach.”
Shark Allies points out that shark liver squalene has no “magical” properties that cannot be replaced by other, more sustainable botanical sources such as yeast, algae, olive oil, palm oil, amaranth oil and wheat germ oil.9,10
At least one company has developed a synthetic version of the adjuvant,11,12 made from fermented sugar cane rather than shark liver, but while that would safeguard sharks, it opens yet other questions surrounding safety.
No synthetic squalene is currently approved for use in vaccines, but the Silicon Valley company Amryis, which has been producing synthetic squalene for the cosmetics industry, is now trying to get the product approved by the FDA for use in vaccines, and it’s already in negotiations with three vaccine makers.13
Squalene, a hydrocarbon oil, is used as an adjuvant in some vaccines. One commonly used squalene-based adjuvant, MF59, is an emulsion formulated with squalene, polysorbate 80, sorbitan trioleate, trisodium citrate dehydrate, citric acid monohydrate and water.14 As noted in a 2014 paper,15 “The individual components of the MF59 adjuvant are not immunostimulatory, but the emulsion is.”
The purpose of a vaccine adjuvant is to enhance (turbo charge) your immune response to the vaccine. Adjuvants cause your immune system to overreact to the introduction of the organism you’re being vaccinated against. As noted in the 2014 paper, “MF59 as a Vaccine Adjuvant: A Review of Safety and Immunogenicity”:16
“Its mechanism of action is not fully understood, but enhancement of the interaction between the antigen and the dendritic cell seems to be involved. When used with seasonal influenza vaccines, an increase occurs in the hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers against some, but not all, seasonal vaccine influenza strains …
Data suggest that MF59 exerts it immunostimulatory effect by engaging the muscle fibers and mononuclear cells to produce a local environment that is conducive to the attraction of effector cells and differentiation of monocytes to DCs [dendritic cells].”
As reported in “Coronavirus Vaccine Will Bypass Safety Testing,” squalene-containing H1N1 vaccines distributed in Europe during the 2009 swine flu pandemic were found to cause narcolepsy, a very rare and disabling neurological disorder characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness.
About 70% of narcolepsy cases also involve cataplexy17 — the sudden loss of voluntary muscle control — along with vivid hallucinations and total paralysis at the beginning or end of the narcoleptic attack.
One of the H1N1 vaccines causatively linked to narcolepsy was GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix vaccine, which was licensed by European government regulators and sold in a number of European countries (but not in the U.S.). The Pandemrix package insert18 actually stated that “somnolence,” although not narcolepsy per se, was a known potential side effect of the vaccine.
Thanks to the public pushback instigated by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), which opposed the fast-tracked licensure of squalene adjuvants in swine flu vaccines under the Emergency Use Authorization Act, none of the H1N1 vaccines distributed in the U.S. contained squalene.
The danger with allowing questionable vaccine ingredients to be used in emergency vaccines is that once it’s been used in one vaccine, vaccine makers can then use it in other vaccines without having to go through the rigorous approval process that would normally be required.
A squalene-containing vaccine for the U.S. market ended up being approved19 in 2013, though, during the H5N1 bird flu pandemic. It was the first adjuvanted influenza vaccine approved for the U.S. market, and it used the same problematic squalene adjuvant that was widely used in other countries during the 2009 swine flu pandemic.
In 2002, researchers found20 military personnel exhibiting symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome had antibodies to squalene, sparking concerns that the mysterious condition might be caused by squalene-containing anthrax vaccine.
An investigation revealed the problem was indeed limited to a specific batch of anthrax vaccine, one that contained squalene adjuvant, but subsequent investigators downplayed the link, as low titers of antisqualene antibodies were also detected in the blood of healthy individuals, and the titer levels didn’t change after they were injected with a squalene-adjuvanted vaccine.21
Other studies raising questions about squalene-adjuvanted vaccines include a 2001 meta-analysis22,23 of 20 clinical trials, which found MF59-adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine (Fluad) had a riskier safety profile than nonadjuvanted flu vaccine.
Over the course of three years, 1% to 8% of seniors who received MF59-adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccine experienced systemic adverse events, compared to zero to 7% in the nonadjuvanted flu vaccine group. “MF59 as a Vaccine Adjuvant: A Review of Safety and Immunogenicity” also notes that:24
“In 2009, Pellegrini et al. published an analysis that encompassed the aforementioned 20 trials in addition to 44 other trials. These were heterogeneously designed trials in terms of age group (infant to elderly), study design (controlled and uncontrolled), duration of observation (3 weeks to >12 months) and the antigen used (pandemic or interpandemic influenza).
These trials included 20,749 subjects who received at least one dose of MF59-adjuvanted vaccine, and 7,526 subjects who received nonadjuvanted influenza vaccine.
Subjects who received MF59-adjuvanted vaccine were more likely to develop local reactions such as pain, erythema, induration and warmth (risk ratio [RR] of 1.71), and systemic reactions including myalgia, fatigue, headaches and malaise (RR: 1.33) in the first 3 days post-vaccination, when compared to those who received nonadjuvanted vaccines.”
While evidence is scarce, some studies have highlighted the possibility of squalene causing autoimmune problems such as arthritis and lupus when injected. As noted in one 2004 study:25
“Adjuvant oils such as … squalene (MF59) have been used in human and veterinary vaccines despite poor understanding of their mechanisms of action. Several reports suggest an association of vaccination and various autoimmune diseases, however, few were confirmed epidemiologically …
We have reported that a single intraperitoneal injection of the adjuvant … squalene induces lupus-related autoantibodies to nRNP/Sm and -Su in non-autoimmune BALB/c mice.
Induction of these autoantibodies appeared to be associated with the hydrocarbon’s ability to induce IL-12, IL-6, and TNF-?, suggesting a relationship with hydrocarbon’s adjuvanticity. Whether this is relevant in human vaccination is a difficult issue due to the complex effects of vaccines and the fact that immunotoxicological effects vary depending on species, route, dose, and duration of administration.
Nevertheless, the potential of adjuvant hydrocarbon oils to induce autoimmunity has implications in the use of oil adjuvants in human and veterinary vaccines as well as basic research.”
Similarly, a 2000 study26 published in the American Journal of Pathology demonstrated a single injection of squalene into rats triggered “chronic, immune-mediated joint-specific inflammation,” i.e. rheumatoid arthritis. The researchers concluded their findings raise questions about the role of adjuvants in chronic inflammatory diseases.
A more recent study,27 published in 2017, also reported that hydrocarbon oils such as squalene induce and enhance arthritis in genetically susceptible rats. Injecting hydrocarbon oil adjuvants also resulted in:
According to the authors:
“This study shows the arthritogenicity of hydrocarbon oils is associated with their adjuvant properties with implications to not only arthritis research but also other diseases and medical applications such as vaccines in which oil adjuvants are involved …
Within 1 hour after injection, the injected adjuvants spread rapidly and reached different organs with high selectivity for lymph nodes and rather few oil droplets were distributed to joints.
At the lymph nodes, oil adjuvants lead to both local and systemic reaction including hyperplasia and an increased level of acute phase protein such as ?1-acid glycoprotein (AGP) in the blood … We showed that … T cells in vivo primed with … adjuvants such as hexadecane and squalene can also transfer arthritis.”
The authors of that 2017 study28 also address the issue of squalene adjuvants in vaccines, specifically, noting the use of vaccine adjuvants has been “associated with the elevated production of cytokines such as IFN-? and IL-17.”
The challenge vaccine makers face is to maximize immunogenicity (the ability to provoke an immune response) while minimizing reactogenicity (the unwanted property of creating adverse reactions, especially immunological responses) “and the risk of developing any ‘adjuvant-induced’ autoimmune or chronic degenerative disorders, such as narcolepsy or Gulf War syndrome,” the researchers note. They also point out that:
“It is known that oil adjuvants induce tissue damage and cell death at the injection site leading to the production of damage-associated-molecular patterns (DAMPs) and inflammasome activation. Here we demonstrated that different adjuvants exert different extent of boosting effect on antigen-specific recall response and antibody production.
The fact that adjuvants induce arthritis only in genetically susceptible strains and autoimmune disorders occurring only in genetically susceptible individuals shows adjuvant induction of autoimmune diseases is partly determined by genetic factors.
In future, it will be beneficial to investigate if these genetic factors, some of which have been identified by animal studies in our group, also determine whether particular individuals with certain genetic profiles carry a higher risk of developing any adverse reactions upon adjuvant-based vaccination.”
Returning to where we started, with the issue of half a million sharks being culled for their liver oil now that several COVID-19 vaccine candidates are using squalene adjuvant, let’s hope an alternative is made available to prevent this massacre.
However, let’s not confuse this with the notion that botanical squalene might be safer. While it would be noble to safeguard our shark stocks, switching to a botanical source of squalene adjuvant is unlikely to result in a safer vaccine.
Despite the mainstream narrative that the vaccine will save us from devastation, nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of a vaccine is to catalyze your immune system to produce a protective response. The problem with the Warp Speed produced vaccine, with virtually all the safety stops removed, is that the risks far outweigh any benefits.
This is particularly true in light of the many well researched ways to improve immune function by improving your metabolic health using simple strategies like time-restricted eating and avoiding all industrially processed seed oils, both of which will decrease insulin resistance and upregulate your immune response.
Vitamin D is another powerful synergistic therapy that will reduce your risk for COVID-19 far greater than any unproven vaccine that is a ticking time bomb with its squalene adjuvant and accelerated production schedule that eliminates years of important safety testing.
Beyond Meat is one of a handful of companies flooding the market with plant-based burgers and other fake meat products, billing them as a healthy, environmentally friendly alternative.
But before you fall for the marketing hype, be aware that these ultraprocessed junk foods are anything but natural, and Beyond Meat has even signed an agreement with the Jiaxing Economic & Technological Development Zone (JXEDZ) with plans to start producing its “beef,” “pork” and “chicken” products in China.1
China, meanwhile, is notorious for its rampant food safety issues, including problems with illegal additives and contamination.2 It’s because China has these problems that a recent opinion piece in Food Safety News3 is so relevant when it comes to Beyond Meats being manufactured in China.
The piece talks about the lack of transparency in food companies’ disclosure of food safety violations to the FDA. So, if chemical contamination and other problems are occurring with other types of food and you’re not hearing about it, who’s to say the same thing won’t happen with Beyond Meats and its lab-created products from China?
Jiaxing, the Chinese city where Beyond Meat plans “to design and develop manufacturing facilities in the JXEDZ, including a state-of-the-art production facility to manufacture plant-based meat products including beef, pork and chicken under the Beyond Meat brand in China,” also happens to be the city where some 16,000 dead pigs were dumped into the Huangpu river, creating a toxic soup that threatened water supplies in 2013.4
In a news release, Beyond Meat CEO Ethan Brown shared the company’s enthusiasm for the newfound partnership with China:5
“We are delighted and confident that after several months of productive and collaborative discussions, we will partner with the JXEDZ to develop two production facilities, including one of the world’s largest and technologically advanced plant-based meat factories.
We are very impressed by the capabilities and vision of the JXEDZ and they are the ideal partner for us in this vitally important country and market.”
Production is expected to begin on a trial basis within months while full-scale operations are slated for early 2021. The question is whether U.S. consumers will receive the news of Beyond Meat being made in China with the same fervor.
As Food Safety News put it, “It remains to be seen how American consumers will respond. When USDA permitted China to process chickens raised and slaughtered in the U.S., Canada and Chile, thousands of American consumers protested because of China’s dismal reputation for food safety.”6
Beyond Meat has also stated that “China is a critical part of Beyond Meat’s long-term growth strategy,”7 and in April 2020 they launched three Beyond Beef products in Chinese Starbucks shops.8 The brand is growing steadily, with total revenue increasing from $16.2 million in 2016 to $87.9 million in 2018.9 It’s expected that its revenue will continue to rise, reaching $358 million in 2020.
Beyond Meat cites human health as one of its driving missions that will be achieved by shifting from animal to plant-based meat.10 But it’s widely known that ultraprocessed foods are the enemy of good health, even increasing the risk of premature death by 62% if eaten in quantities of more than four servings daily.11
What makes Beyond Meat an ultraprocessed product? According to the NOVA Food Classification system, designed by the Center for Epidemiological Studies in Health and Nutrition, ultraprocessed foods are:12
“[I]ndustrial formulations made entirely or mostly from substances extracted from foods (oils, fats, sugar, starch, and proteins), derived from food constituents (hydrogenated fats and modified starch), or synthesized in laboratories from food substrates or other organic sources (flavor enhancers, colors, and several food additives used to make the product hyper-palatable).”
A hallmark of ultraprocessed foods is their long ingredient lists. Beyond Burger’s patties contain 22 ingredients. Among them are expeller-pressed canola oil, pea protein isolate, cellulose from bamboo, modified food starch and methylcellulose13 — hardly “health” foods. To morph these ingredients into a patty that resembles meat requires significant processing.
Even registered dietician Emily Gelsomin, a senior clinical nutrition specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said to the Harvard Health Blog, “Even though legumes are sourced for protein in the branded meatless options, their health benefits are somewhat blunted by the high degree of processing involved.”14
Beyond Meat certainly doesn’t want to highlight the heavily processed nature of its fake food, so on its FAQ pages where it explains how they “rebuild meat,” it’s stated:15
“Protein, fat, minerals, carbohydrates, and water are the five building blocks of meat. We source these building blocks directly from plants. Using heating, cooling, and pressure, we create the fibrous texture of meat from plant-based proteins.
Then, we mix in fats, minerals, fruit and vegetable-based colors, natural flavors, and carbohydrates to replicate the appearance, juiciness, and flavor of meat.”
Impossible Foods is another leader in the fake meat industry and one of Beyond Meat’s top rivals. Its website also suggests its plant-based meat is better for you and the planet,16 even though the products resemble nothing found in nature. In fact, Impossible Foods holds 14 patents, with at least 100 more pending.17
The patents, which were uncovered by Seth Itzkan, environmental futurist and co-founder and co-director of Soil4Climate, include the following and offer proof of the unnatural nature of these fake foods; truly natural foods cannot be patented.18
Patent No. 10287568 — Methods for extracting and purifying nondenatured proteins
Patent No. 10273492 — Expression constructs and methods of genetically engineering methylotrophic yeast
Patent No. 10172380 — Ground meat replicas
Patent No. 10172381 — Methods and compositions for consumables
Patent No. 10093913 — Methods for extracting and purifying non-denatured proteins
Patent No. 10039306 — Methods and compositions for consumables
Patent No. 10087434 — Methods for extracting and purifying nondenatured proteins
Patent No. 9943096 — Methods and compositions for affecting the flavor and aroma profile of consumables
Patent No. 9938327 — Expression constructs and methods of genetically engineering methylotrophic yeast
Patent No. 9833768 — Affinity reagents for protein purification
Patent No. 9826772 — Methods and compositions for affecting the flavor and aroma profile of consumables
Patent No. 9808029 — Methods and compositions for affecting the flavor and aroma profile of consumables
Patent No. 9737875 — Affinity reagents for protein purification
Patent No. 9700067 — Methods and compositions for affecting the flavor and aroma profile of consumables
Patent No. 9011949 — Methods and compositions for consumables
While you may assume that the allure of a plant-based burger applies most to vegans and vegetarians, research from market research firm NPD Group suggests that 95% of those who bought plant-based burgers were meat eaters.19
“Plant-based burgers allow consumers to substitute without sacrifice. They get the ‘burger’ experience while assuaging their need for more protein and social concerns,” Darren Seifer, NPD Group food and beverage industry analyst, said in Market Watch.20
NPD Group’s report added that 18% of the U.S. adult population is also trying to add more plant-based foods into their diet, presumably for the health benefits, but adding a processed plant-based meat substitute is not the same as adding more vegetables. It seems many meat eaters are being misled when they purchase meatless burgers, as they think they’re doing their health and the environment a favor.
Impossible Foods even claims that they have a better carbon footprint than live animal farms and hired Quantis, a group of scientists and strategists who help their clients take actions based on scientific evidence, to prove their point.
According to the executive summary published on the Impossible Foods website, their product reduced environmental impact between 87% and 96% in the categories studied, including global warming potential, land occupation and water consumption.21 This, however, compares fake meat to meat from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which are notoriously destructive to the environment.
“The pretense that this wealth-concentrating march of the software industry into the food sector is in any way good for people or the environment is predicated on a comparison with only the worst aspects of animal agriculture,” Itzkan said.22
A healthier and more sustainable choice to the typical CAFO burger would be to choose beef from grass fed cows. White Oak Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia, which produces high-quality grass fed products using regenerative grazing practices, commissioned the same analysis by Quantis and published a 33-page study showing comparisons of White Oaks Pastures emissions against conventional beef production.23
While the manufactured fake meat reduced its carbon footprint up to 96% in some categories, White Oaks had a net total emission in the negative numbers as compared to CAFO produced meat.
Further, grass fed beef from White Oak Pastures had a carbon footprint that was 111% lower than a typical U.S. CAFO and its regenerative system effectively captured soil carbon, which offset the majority of emissions related to beef production.24
It’s worth noting, too, that the Impossible Burger, which is made from GMO soy, contains Roundup ingredient glyphosate and its breakdown product AMPA,25 at levels of 11.3 parts per billion — that’s 11 times higher than the glyphosate found in the Beyond Meat Burger.26 Impossible Foods’ scientists also fed leghemoglobin to rats for 28 days to determine the risk of allergic reaction or toxicity.
In plants, leghemoglobin is the protein that carries heme, an iron-containing molecule. Originally, Impossible Foods harvested leghemoglobin from the roots of soy plants, but deemed that method unsustainable. Instead, they turned to genetic engineering, which they use to insert the DNA from soy plants into yeast, creating GE yeast with the gene for soy leghemoglobin.27
Dana Perls, from Friends of the Earth, pointed out that the rats exhibited alterations in blood chemistry after being fed leghemoglobin, which the company did not follow up on.28
Consumer Reports senior scientist Michael Hansen added that there are no long-term studies of soy leghemoglobin in humans, even though the process to make it creates at least 45 other proteins as byproducts, which are also consumed and in need of further evaluation.29 Even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has raised concerns over the soy leghemoglobin in the Impossible Burger being a possible human allergen.30
On the other hand, grass fed animal products are better for the environment and public health. Levels of cancer-fighting conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), for instance, increase by two- to three-fold when cattle are grass finished as opposed to grain finished.31
The ratio of dietary fats is also healthier in grass fed beef,32 which is a whole food, not an ultraprocessed junk food. If you’re interested in saving the planet and supporting your health, skip the fake meat alternatives trying to disguise themselves as health foods and opt for real food that’s being raised the right way instead.
By Anna Von Reitz
By definition, there is one (1) Oregon Assembly, made up of all the people who live inside the State borders. [It’s the same way in all other States.]
By Anna Von Reitz
Time frame between September 19th and October 4th was the moment of peak darkness for the surface of this planet. There were absolutely brutal attacks on many of the key Lightworkers and Ligthwarriors that sometimes led to physical consequences. On the global scale, there was also an outbreak of war between Azerbaijan and Armenia:
Situations are now slowly expected to improve, but there is a new peak of war in Low Earth Orbit that is expected to precipitate towards the surface of the planet on October 9th as increased violence among members of the surface population, and as violence from the Cabal towards the surface humanity.
Therefore the Light Forces are asking everybody who feels so guided to join the Flower of Life meditation at the exact moment of Mars Pluto square on October 9th at 1:09 pm UTC:
The dark forces appear to be far too successful in their plans for the second wave lockdowns, therefore the Light Forces are asking everybody who feels so guided to participate in daily meditation at 9:30 pm UTC to counteract these lockdowns:
A full situation update will be posted on this blog at some point after October 9th when situations are expected to improve and some intel can finally be released.
Victory of the Light!
What Happened: A group of Canadian doctors in the province of Ontario have come together and written an open letter to Ontario premier Doug Ford. The letter is signed by 20 doctors and professors of medicine from faculties at the University of Toronto, McMaster University and the University of Ottawa and from hospitals such as Sick Kids. The letter was sent to ford on September 27th, and it argues against a return to lockdown measures as a way to tackle rising COVID-19 cases.
The letter reads as follows:
We are writing this letter in support of the government’s plan to use a tactical localized approach, rather than sweeping new lockdown measures, to deal with the increasing COVID case numbers in Ontario.
Lockdowns have been shown not to eliminate the virus. While they slow the spread of the virus, this only lasts as long as the lockdown lasts. This creates a situation where there is no way to end the lockdown, and society cannot move forward in vitally important ways including in the health sector, the economy and other critically important instrumental goods including education, recreation, and healthy human social interactions.
In Ontario the increase in cases at this time are in people under 60 years of age who are unlikely to become very ill. At the peak of the pandemic in Ontario in mid-April, 56 per cent of cases were in ?60 year olds, now in Sept only 14 per cent of cases are in ?60 year olds. In Ontario and other parts of the world, such as the European Union, increasing case loads are not necessarily translating into unmanageable levels of hospitalizations and ICU admissions. This is not a result of a lag in reporting of severe and fatal cases. While we understand the concerns that these cases could spill into vulnerable communities, we also need to balance the actual risk. As the virus circulates at manageable levels within the community, we need to continue the gains we have made in the protection of the vulnerable in long-term care and retirement institutions, and continue to educate other people about their individual risk, so that they can observe appropriate protective measures.
Lockdowns have costs that have, to this point, not been included in the consideration of further measures. A full accounting of the implications on health and well-being must be included in the models, and be brought forward for public debate. Hard data now exist showing the significant negative health effects shutting down society has caused. Overdoses have risen 40 per cent in some jurisdictions. Extensive morbidity has been experienced by those whose surgery has been cancelled, and the ramifications for cancer patients whose diagnostic testing was delayed has yet to be determined. A huge concern is the implication of closure of schools, and the ongoing reluctance we have seen in the large urban centres of sending children back to the classroom due to safety concerns. Global data clearly now show that children have an extremely low risk of serious illness, but they are disproportionately harmed by precautions. Children’s rights to societal care, mental health support and education must be protected. This cannot be achieved with ongoing or rotating lockdown.
The invitation and involvement of other health experts to advise the government’s response beside individuals in Public Health and Infectious Diseases in addition to leaders in the business, securities and arts communities is essential. We also call for increased open debate, in the public forum, that hears voices from outside the medical and public health communities, in order to consider all points of view from society. This is a fundamental principle upon which democratic societies are built. All stakeholders should have an equal right to participation in public discourse when it comes to setting such fundamental and sweeping societal interventions.
All have the right to feel their voices have been heard, and moreover to ensure factual credible data is openly debated, in contrast to the personal and political slants that have had apparent significant impacts on the management of the virus to date.
Our society has borne enormous pain over the past six months. It’s time to do something different.
To view a list of the doctors and professors who signed the letter, you can click here.
Why This Is Important: Doctors, scientists and infectious disease experts all over the world have been opposing the measures that’ve been recommended by the World Health Organization since the beginning of this pandemic. There are thousands of them, yet the narrative they share often seems to be criticized by big media, and their thoughts, research and opinions have been heavily censored.
Michael Levitt, Nobel Laureate for Science and Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus. He stated his opinion that “the level of stupidity going on here is amazing” when it comes to COVID lockdown measures.
A chemistry professor at the University of Waterloo has distributed a course outline to students, saying his in-class exams aren’t mandatory “because of the COVID fake emergency.” Palmer is not the only academic from the prestigious university to make noise regarding this issue. Ronald B. Brown, Ph.D., from the School of Public Health and Health Systems at the University of Waterloo recently stated that the COVID-19 fatality rate is the “worst miscalculation in the history of humanity.” Brown is currently completing his second doctorate degree, this time in epidemiology at the University of Waterloo. Not long ago, Brown published a paper in Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, titled “Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation.”
A report published in the British Medical Journal has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus.
More than 500 doctors and scientists in Germany have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19. They oppose the measures that have been taken by governments.
At the beginning of the pandemic, multiple professors from Stanford criticized the World Health Organization for creating unnecessary fear and hysteria.
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history is also part of Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned above and has also expressed the same thing, multiple times early on in the pandemic all the way up to today.
Implementation of the current draconian measures that are so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. – Bhakdi. You can read more about him here.
The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%. You can read more about that and access their resources and reasoning here.
The CDC also released new infection/fatality estimates that also has many people and experts calling into question the severity of the virus, this was well after John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old. It turns out he was right.
The examples above are a few out of many.
Perception Manipulation: Donal Trump was recently blasted by mainstream media for urging citizens not to fear covid or “let it dominate your life.” Any thought, by anybody no matter who it is that paints COVID in a non-harmful seems to be either completely ignored by the mainstream media or acknowledged and then ridiculed.
Has this become a politicized virus? Why have other treatments and therapies that have shown success, been recommended and documented in peer-reviewed scientific literature been ignored and shunned?
For example, A study published last month in “frontiers in immunology” strongly suggests the combined administration of Vitamin C & Quercetin for COVID-19 patients. Yet fact-checkers and mainstream media share a different perspective, although not with the correct context.
Another recently published study in Global Advances In Health & Medicine has emphasized how effective vitamin C may be for COVID-19, and how effective it is for viral infections in general. They also recommend nutritional interventions given the history of vaccine failure for viral infections.
Again, these are just a few examples out of many, and in those articles you will find cases of COVID patients completely recovering with these treatments, and more.
Is it because Bill Gates and others have been constantly telling us that ‘things won’t go back to completely normal until we get a vaccine?’ Why has there been so much controversy regarding dying from COVID, as opposed to dying with COVID?
The Takeaway: Why do we live in a world where we are pitted against each other simply for what we believe? Why are perspectives regarding this pandemic being heavily censored and criticized despite the fact that they come from credible sources? Why are government health authorities always made out to be correct, and why is the citizenry forced into actions recommended by governments despite the fact that many don’t agree that they are in our own best interest?