A new study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology proves what we “conspiracy theorists” have been saying all along about the COVID-19 shots: They cause symptoms leading to COVID-19 diagnoses rather than prevent them.
The study, Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States, was conducted by S. V. Subramanian, who is affiliated with Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, and also the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
The study looked at data from 68 countries and 2947 counties in the U.S.
Vaccines currently are the primary mitigation strategy to combat COVID-19 around the world. For instance, the narrative related to the ongoing surge of new cases in the United States (US) is argued to be driven by areas with low vaccination rates.
A similar narrative also has been observed in countries, such as Germany and the United Kingdom [2]. At the same time, Israel that was hailed for its swift and high rates of vaccination has also seen a substantial resurgence in COVID-19 cases.
We investigate the relationship between the percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases across 68 countries and across 2947 counties in the US.
They used COVID-19 data provided by the Our World in Data for cross-country analysis, available as of September 3, 2021.
For the county-level analysis in the US, they utilized the White House COVID-19 Team data, available as of September 2, 2021.
Comparing countries with various rates of percentages of their population fully vaccinated for COVID-19, they found that “countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.”
At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1).
In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.
Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days.
The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.
Likewise, in the U.S. the counties with the highest vaccination rates have the highest incidents of COVID-19 cases.
Across the US counties too, the median new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people in the last 7 days is largely similar across the categories of percent population fully vaccinated (Fig. 2).
Notably there is also substantial county variation in new COVID-19 cases within categories of percentage population fully vaccinated. There also appears to be no significant signaling of COVID-19 cases decreasing with higher percentages of population fully vaccinated (Fig. 3).
Of the top 5 counties that have the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifies 4 of them as “High” Transmission counties.
Chattahoochee (Georgia), McKinley (New Mexico), and Arecibo (Puerto Rico) counties have above 90% of their population fully vaccinated with all three being classified as “High” transmission.
Conversely, of the 57 counties that have been classified as “low” transmission counties by the CDC, 26.3% (15) have percentage of population fully vaccinated below 20%.
Read the full study here. You might want to download the pdf version, as these kind of studies proving Big Pharma and Government health agencies such as the FDA and CDC are lying to people, tend to be “retracted” once they are published.
COVID-19 vaccines not only offer no benefits, they are killing and injuring people, which is why so many dissenting doctors and scientists today call them “bioweapons.”
“It is now apparent that these products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required while an independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of the harms, which the UK Yellow Card data suggest includes thromboembolism, multi-system inflammatory disease, immune suppression, autoimmunity and anaphylaxis, as well as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE).” Tess Lawrie, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12
Question – Have the mRNA vaccines been tested on animals?
Answer – Yes, they have.
Question – Were the animal trials successful?
Answer – Yes and no.
Yes, the experiments on mice showed that a low dose of the vaccine induces a robust antibody response to the infection.
But, no, the antibodies were not able to attack the spike protein from a different strain of the virus.
Question – I’m not sure what that means? Do you mean that the vaccine DOES provide some limited protection from the original (Wuhan) virus, but does not necessarily provide protection from the variants?
Answer – That’s right, but it’s a bit more complicated than that because– as the virus changes — the antibodies that helped to fight the original virus can actually enhance the “infectivity” of the variant. In other words, vaccine-generated antibodies can switch-sides and increase the severity of the illness. Simply put, they can make you sicker or kill you. Scientists have known this for a long time. Check out this clip from a 2005 research paper:
“A jab against one strain might worsen infection with others….
In the.. study, Gary Nabel of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.. injected mice with spike protein from a SARS virus taken from a human patient infected in early 2003. They then collected the antibodies the animals produced.
In lab experiments, they showed that these antibodies were unable to attack spike protein from a different strain of SARS, isolated from a patient infected in late 2003…. The team next tested whether the antibodies would attack spike proteins from two SARS strains isolated from civets, from which the virus is thought to have originally jumped into humans. In this case, they found hints that the antibodies actually boosted the ability of the virus to infect cells. …
The results show that the virus changes over time, so that a strain that crops up in one outbreak might be quite different from that in a later outbreak. “This virus is not standing still and we need to take this into account,” Nabel says.
This raises the prospect that a vaccine against one strain of SARS virus could prove ineffective against others. Worse, a jab against one strain might even aggravate an infection with SARS virus from civets or another species. “It’s obviously a concern,” Nabel says..
This would not be the first case where exposure to one strain of a virus can worsen infection with another.” (“Caution raised over SARS vaccine”, Nature )
Question – I’m still confused. Can you summarize what they’re saying?
Answer – Sure. They’re saying that scientists have known for nearly two decades that vaccines narrowly aimed at just one protein are bound to fail. They’re saying that the spike protein is highly-adaptable and capable of changing its shape to survive. They’re saying that vaccines aimed at the spike protein will inevitably produce variants that evade vaccine-generated antibodies. They’re saying that by narrowing the vaccine’s focus to the spike protein alone, the drug companies have ensured that previously helpful antibodies will do an about-face, allow the virus to enter healthy cells, replicate at will, and cause sickness or death. They are saying that the current crop of vaccines is in fact perpetuating the pandemic. And–since the science has been clear for the last 16 years– we can add one more observation to the list, that is, that the current approach to mass vaccination is neither haphazard, slapdash or random. It is intentional. The vaccination campaign managers are deliberately ignoring the science in order to sustain a permanent state of crisis. Science is being manipulated to achieve a political objective.
Question – I think you’re exaggerating, but I’d like to get back to the animal trials instead of arguing politics. As you probably know, the reports in the media do not square with your analysis, in fact, all of the articles in the MSM say the animal trials were a rousing success. Here’s a short blurb that I found today that confirms what I’ve been saying:
“… vaccination of nonhuman primates with the mRNA vaccine induced robust SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity and notably, rapid protection in the upper and lower airways….” (Covid-19, NIH.gov)
Question – Are you suggesting the authors are lying?
Answer – No, they are not lying. They’re just not telling you the whole truth, and you need to know the whole truth so you can make an informed decision. The vaccines DO provide some (temporary) protection. We don’t dispute that. They also trigger a strong immune response. We don’t dispute that either. But what difference does it make? Let me explain: Let’s say, you have a really bad head cold so you take a new medication that you think will relieve the pain. And–sure enough– an hour after taking the pills– Presto — your congestion and headache are completely gone. That’s fantastic, right? Wrong, because what you fail to realize is that the medication is laced with slow-acting strychnine that kills you three days later. Do you still think it was a good idea to take the medication?
Of course, not. And the same rule applies to these vaccines which do, in fact, boost your antibodies and provide some fleeting “immunity”. But they can also kill you. Don’t you think that should be factored in to your decision? Keep in mind, people have died 3, 4, 5 weeks after inoculation without any prior warning. Many of them might have even been bursting with antibodies, but they’re still dead. Can you see the problem?
Question – Okay, but there’s still this matter about the animal trials. The media says that the drug companies performed the animal trials and they were successful. Do you disagree with that?
Answer – They were not successful and the “fact checkers” that were hired to discredit vaccine critics like me, have deliberately mischaracterized what happened in the trials. For example, here’s a typical “fact checker” article titled “COVID-19 vaccines did not skip animal trials because of animal deaths” by Reuters. Here’s an excerpt:
“Posts claiming that COVID-19 vaccine producers skipped animal trials due to the animals in those trials dying are false. Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, which have been granted emergency authorization use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States, all conducted animal trials and had no significant safety concerns to report.”
Sounds reassuring, right? But then they say:
“Due to time constraints and the urgency to find a vaccine for COVID-19, Moderna and Pfizer did receive approval to run animal testing and early trials on humans at the same time, as opposed to fully completing animal trials before moving on to human trials. This, however, does not mean animal trials were skipped or that the safety of the vaccines were compromised.”
Let me see if I got this straight: The drug companies were in such a hurry that they conducted their minimalist animal trials at the same time as their human trials (which is unprecedented) and then rushed the results to the FDA so they could be rubber stamped and waved through under the Emergency Use Authority?
Is that how it went down?
Yes, it is.
But if they were rushed through in a couple months, then the “fact checkers” are tacitly admitting that there is no long-term safety data. And there IS no long-term safety data, nor is there any attempt to disprove the research from the earlier trials where the ferrets, mice and other animals died following injection of mRNA vaccines. They don’t deny it, they just ignore it as if sweeping it under the rug will make it all go away. Here’s a clip from the research paper that Reuters refers to in its article:
“We demonstrate that the candidate vaccines… respectively—induce strong antigen-specific immune responses in mice and macaques….Both (vaccines) protected 2–4-year-old macaques from challenge with infectious SARS-CoV-2, and there was reduced detection of viral RNA in immunized macaques as compared to those that received saline.” (Note–We’ve already acknowledged that the vaccines do produce a strong immune response. Here’s more:)
“Neutralizing GMTs declined by day 56 (35 days after dose 2), consistent with the contraction phase; however, they remained well above the GMT of the human sera panel. The duration of the study was not long enough to assess the rate of decline during the plateau phase of the antibody response.” (“BNT162b vaccines protect rhesus macaques from SARS-CoV-2”, Nature )
Can you see what’s going on? The trial was only 56 days-long, in fact, none of the animal trials exceeded 56 days. Think about that for a minute. The reason the animals died in prior trials is because they were exposed to a mutated version of the (wild) virus that eventually killed them. That’s how ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement) works. It doesn’t happen overnight and it doesn’t happen in 56 days. It takes much longer than that for a mutated version of the virus to emerge and reinfect the host. The drug companies know that. They’re not stupid. So the fact that the animals mounted a strong immune response is completely irrelevant. We KNOW they mounted a strong immune response. We also know they died some months later when a different strain of the virus emerged. Bottom line: The production of antibodies does not mean a drug is safe.
The obvious purpose of the trials was to get the vaccines over the finish-line before anyone figured out what was going on. It’s the same reason why the drug companies “unblinded” their human trials after the vaccines got the green light from the FDA. Shortly after the trials were concluded, the people in the placebo arm were allowed to get vaccinated.
Why would they do that? Why would they vaccinate the people who willingly allowed themselves to be guinea pigs for the sake of public health, only to vaccinate them shortly after, thus, eliminating any chance of finding out what the long-term safety issues might be? It makes no sense, does it?
Take a look at this short clip from the British Medical Journal whose scientists are equally bewildered:
“The (drug) companies say they have an ethical obligation to unblind volunteers so they can receive the vaccine. But some experts are concerned about a “disastrous” loss of critical information if volunteers on a trial’s placebo arm are unblinded…
Although the FDA has granted the vaccines emergency use authorization, to get full license approval two years of follow-up data are needed. The data are now likely to be scanty and less reliable given that the trials are effectively being unblinded.
Consumer representative Sheldon Toubman, a lawyer and FDA advisory panel member, said that Pfizer and BioNTech had not proved that their vaccine prevents severe covid-19. “The FDA says all we can do is suggest protection from severe covid disease; we need to know that it does that,” he said.
He countered claims, based on experience with other vaccines, six weeks of follow-up was long enough to detect safety signals. Six weeks may not be long enough for this entirely new type of “untested” [mRNA] vaccine, Toubman said.
Goodman wants all companies to be held to the same standard and says they should not be allowed to make up their own rules about unblinding. He told The BMJ that, while he was “very optimistic” about the vaccines, “blowing up the trials” by allowing unblinding “will set a de facto standard for all vaccine trials to come.” And that, he said, “is dangerous.”
Do you like his choice of words: “blowing up the trials”? Do you think it is a fair description of what the drug companies did?
Yes, it is.
And what possible motive would the drug companies have to blow up the trials? I can see only two possibilities:
They think their vaccine is so terrific, it will save the lives of many of the people in the placebo group.
They expect a high percentage of the people in the vaccine group to get either severely sick or die, so they want to hide the evidence of vaccine-linked injury.
Which is it?
You know the answer. Everyone watching this farce knows the answer.
Question – Okay, so let’s cut to the chase: Are the vaccines are safe or not?
No, they are not safe. The way we decide whether a drug is safe or not is by putting it through a rigorous process of testing and clinical trials. After the testing, the data is passed on to physicians, statisticians, chemists, pharmacologists, and other scientists who review the data and make their recommendations or criticisms. That didn’t happen with the Covid vaccines, in fact, all the normal standards and protocols were suspended in the name of “urgency”. But many believe that the “urgency” was manufactured to push through vaccines that would never have been approved on their own merits. All you have to do is look through the vaccine injury data (VAERS) and you’ll see this is the most lethal medical intervention of all time and, yet, the public health experts, the media and the government keep crowing that they’re “safe and effective”. It’s nonsense and the drug companies know it’s nonsense which is why they reject all liability for the people that are going to be killed by these “poison-death shots.”
Do you know what goes on inside your body after you are injected with one of these “gene based” vaccines?
Once the vaccine enters the bloodstream it penetrates the cells that line the blood vessels forcing them to produce spike proteins that protrude into the bloodstream like millions of microscopic thorns. These thorns activate blood platelets which trigger blood clotting followed shortly after by an immune response that destroys the infected cells thus weakening the vascular system while draining the supply of killer lymphocytes. In this way, the vaccine launches a dual attack on the body’s critical infrastructure causing widespread tissue damage throughout the circulatory system while leaving the immune system less able to fend off future infection.
Now if you think you can have a long-and-happy without a functioning circulatory system, then none of this matters. But if you’re bright enough to realize that wreaking havoc on your vascular system is the fast-track to the graveyard, then you’ll probably understand that injecting these “poison-death shots” is a particularly bad idea.
By the way, it’s a real stretch to call these hybrid injections, “vaccines”. They have about as much in common with a traditional vaccine as a python does with a coffee table. Nothing. The “vaccine” moniker was chosen in order to shore-up public confidence, that’s all. It’s part of a marketing strategy. There is no real similarity. The majority of people trust vaccines and see them as a shining example of medical achievement. The drug companies wanted to tap into that trust and use it for their own purposes. That’s why they called it a “vaccine” instead of “gene therapy” which more accurately describes ‘what it does.’ But–like we said– it’s just a marketing strategy.
Have you ever wondered how the drug companies were able to roll out their own-individual vaccines just weeks apart from each other? That’s a pretty good trick, don’t you think; especially since vaccine development typically takes from 10 to 15 years. How do you think they managed that? Here’s an excerpt from an article which provides a little background on the topic:
“The virus behind the outbreak that began in Wuhan, China, was identified on Jan. 7. Less than a week later — on Jan. 13 — researchers at Moderna and the NIH had a proposed sequence for an mRNA vaccine against it, and, as the company wrote in government documents, “we mobilized toward clinical manufacture.” By Feb. 24, the team was shipping vials from a plant in Norwood, Mass., to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in Bethesda, Md., for a planned clinical trial to test its safety.” (“Researchers rush to test coronavirus vaccine in people without knowing how well it works in animals”, Stat )
Got that? “The virus broke out in Wuhan… on Jan. 7, and less than a week later Moderna had a proposed sequence for an mRNA vaccine against it???
Really? Is that the same Moderna that had been playing-around with mRNA for over a decade but was never able to successfully bring a vaccine to market?
Yep, the very same company. Here’s more:
“And by Feb. 24, the team was shipping vials from a plant in Norwood, Mass??”
Wow! Another Covid miracle! You almost get whiplash watching these companies crank out their “wonder drugs” at record-breaking speed.
Keep in mind, there’s a very high probability that the virus was man-made, (In other words, it’s a bioweapon.) and the people who have been implicated in the funding and creation of that bioweapon are also closely aligned with the big drug companies that have produced the antidote in record time that has already netted tens of billions of dollars in profits for a drug for which there was no reliable animal testing, no long-term safety data, and no formal regulatory approval.
So I’ll ask you again: Doesn’t that all sound a bit suspicious?
Is it really that hard to see the outline of a political agenda here? After all, aren’t the drug companies working with the regulatory agencies that are working with the public health officials that are working with the media that are working with the corrupted politicians that are working with the Intel agencies that are working with the meddling globalist billionaires that are working with the giant private equity firms that oversee the entire operation pulling the appropriate strings whenever needed?
It sure looks like it.
And, don’t the tectonic social changes we’ve seen in the last year have more to do with a broader scorched-earth campaign launched by the “parasite class” against the rest of humanity than they do with a fairly-mild virus that kills mainly old and frail people with multiple underlying health conditions?
Right, again. In fact, many have noticed the cracks in the pandemic artifice from the very beginning, just as many have pointed out that the virus-meme is just the mask behind which parasites continue to conduct their global restructuring project. In short, it’s all about politics; bare-knuckle, take-no-prisoners NWO politics.
Answer – You’ve asked a number of questions about the animal trials, but none about the biodistribution and the pharmacokinetics studies that were done at the same time. Why is that? (Note--Pharmacokinetics; “the branch of pharmacology concerned with the movement of drugs within the body.”)
Question– I didn’t know there were any. Did the media report on them?
Answer – No, they didn’t. They completely ignored them, even though they were produced by Pfizer and provide essential information about where the substance in the vaccine goes in the body, in what amounts, and for how long. By knowing how the drug is distributed, it is possible to make educated assumptions about its effect on the organs and other tissue. In other words, these studies are invaluable. The Doctors for Covid Ethics have done extensive research on the studies and written a report titled “The Pfizer mRNA vaccine: pharmacokinetics and toxicity”. Here’s a few excerpts that help to illustrate the dangers of the vaccines:
“As with any drug, a key consideration for the toxicity of the COVID mRNA vaccines is where exactly in the body they end up, and for how long they will stay there. Such questions, which are the subject of pharmacokinetics, are usually thoroughly investigated during drug development. Initial studies on pharmacokinetics and also on toxicity are carried out in animals… this document has rather far-reaching implications: it shows that Pfizer—as well as the authorities that were apprised of these data— must have recognized the grave risks of adverse events after vaccination even before the onset of clinical trials. Nevertheless, Pfizer’s own clinical trials failed to monitor any of the clinical risks that were clearly evident from these data, and the regulatory authorities failed to enforce proper standards of oversight. This dual failure has caused the most grievous harm to the public….
What do Pfizer’s animal data presage for biological effects in humans?
Rapid appearance of spike protein in the circulation.
Toxicity to organs with expected high rates of uptake, in particular placenta and
lactating breast glands
Penetration of some organs might be higher with the real vaccine than with this
luciferase model… The rapid entry of the model vaccine into the circulation means that we must expect the spike protein to be expressed within the circulation, particularly by endothelial cells. ( Endothelial – The thin layer of cells lining the blood vessels) We have seen before that this will lead to activation of blood clotting through direct activation of platelets and also, probably more importantly, through immune attack on the endothelial cells…
Summary
Pfizer’s animal data clearly presaged the following risks and dangers:
blood clotting shortly after vaccination, potentially leading to heart attacks, stroke, and venous thrombosis
grave harm to female fertility
grave harm to breastfed infants
cumulative toxicity after multiple injections
With the exception of female fertility, which can simply not be evaluated within the short period of time for which the vaccines have been in use, all of the above risks have been substantiated since the vaccines have been rolled out—all are manifest in the reports to the various adverse event registries. Those registries also contain a very considerable number of reports on abortions and stillbirths shortly after vaccination, which should have prompted urgent investigation. […]
Of particularly grave concern is the very slow elimination of the toxic cationic lipids. In persons repeatedly injected with mRNA vaccines containing these lipids… this would result in cumulative toxicity. There is a real possibility that cationic lipids will accumulate in the ovaries. The implied grave risk to female fertility demands the most urgent attention of the public and of the health authorities.
Since the so-called clinical trials were carried out with such negligence, the real trials are occurring only now—on a massive scale, and with devastating results. … Calling off this failed experiment is long overdue. Continuing or even mandating the use of this poisonous vaccine, and the apparently imminent issuance of full approval for it are crimes against humanity.” (“The Pfizer mRNA vaccine: pharmacokinetics and toxicity”, Doctors for Covid Ethics )
Don’t you think people are entitled to know what the government wants to inject into their bodies? Don’t you think they have a right to know how it will effect their immune systems, their vital organs and their overall health? Don’t you think they have the right to decide for themselves which drugs they will take and which they will refuse to take?
Forcing someone to take a drug he does not want, is not just wrong. It’s un-American. Which is why people should reject vaccine mandates as a matter of principle. They are an attack on personal liberty, the foundation of our constitutional system. It’s a principle worth dying for.
As for the mass vaccination campaign, it is the most maniacally-genocidal project ever concocted by man. There’s simply no way to calculate the amount of suffering and death we are about to face for trusting people whose policies were obviously shaped by their undiluted hatred of humanity. As German microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi said:
“In the end, we’re going to see mass illness and deaths among people who normally would have had wonderful lives ahead of them.”
By Calvin Luther Martin | Principia Scientific International | October 18, 2021
Proposed pathology protocol for death after Covid vaccination, in addition to routine studies given the circumstances of death.
“After” means any time after a Covid vaccination. If the person has had this vaccination, these autopsy studies should be done.
Blood plasma tests:
SARS-CoV-2 antibodies
SARS-CoV-2 antibody, nucleocapsid
SARS-CoV-2 semiquantitative total antibody, spike
The above two tests are bundled in the SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Profile, Nucleocapsid and Spike, from LabCorp, test 160236. The spike antibody test will be positive after either vaccination or natural disease. The nucleocapsid antibody test will be positive only after natural disease.
The sample is serum or plasma, stored at room temperature for up to 14 days or frozen for up to 28 days.
Gross pathology:
Examination for presence of thrombus in large and medium-sized blood vessels.
Evidence for embolic, thrombotic or hemorrhagic phenomena in brain, eyes, GI tract, skin, uterus, and other organs.
Tissue-level microscopic studies:
Paraffin-embedded blocks of the following tissues should be provided to the independent pathologist, as well as already-made H&E-stained tissue slides when available:
Heart muscle with blood vessels.
Lung parenchyma with blood vessels.
Salivary glands.
Samples of large and medium-sized arteries.
Samples of peripheral nerves.
In the case of known symptoms before death, consider also the following tissues:
Dystonic reaction: basal ganglia of the brain.
Memory problems:
Paralysis: spinal cord and peripheral nerves.
By taking a large number of thin slides (thousands), a German pathologist was able to discover scattershot lymphocytic infiltrates in all the organs, including brain, that might have been missed using standard techniques and using only several slides per organ.
Ask the person doing the post-mortem to furnish you with digital images of everything and anything of interest. Namely, gross tissues showing disease, microscopy images of disease or abnormality, etc.
Show these to your physician or some other physician whom you trust. If you can’t find a physician you trust, then post these images in the social media or provide them to bloggers and other non-mainstream media for them to post and discuss.
Dr. Paul Alexander advocates for a complete change over of pandemic responders; to fire those who have failed us, stop shifting the blame to the public who have done their part, and elect qualified experts.
Rebel News: Telling the other side of the story. https://www.RebelNews.com for more great Rebel content.
YouTube is censoring conservative and independent voices. We don’t know how long we have left on YouTube. But you’ll always be able to find us at https://www.RebelNews.com
Unlike almost all of our mainstream media competitors, Rebel News doesn’t receive any government funding. We rely on our generous audience to help keep us reporting.
Please consider supporting Rebel News by making a donation, purchasing a RebelNews+ subscription, shopping in our online store, or any of the other methods below:
Propagandists work so hard to manufacture our consent for the status quo even as more and more people, including extremely influential ones, begin questioning whether we’re being deliberately deceived about everything.
The mass media have become so blatantly propagandistic that US intelligence operatives are now openly employed by news outlets they used to have to infiltrate covertly.
NATO and military institutions are studying and testing new forms of mass-scale psychological manipulation to advance the still-developing science of propaganda.
A transparently fake “whistleblower” is being promoted by the US political/media class to manufacture support for more internet censorship and shore up monopolistic control for institutions like Facebook who are willing to enforce it.
The powerful work so hard at such endeavors because they understand something that most ordinary people do not: whoever controls the dominant narratives about the world controls the world itself.
Power is controlling what happens; absolute power is controlling what people think about what happens.
If you can control how people think about what’s going on in their world, if you can control their shared how-it-is stories about what’s happening and what’s true, then you can advance any agenda you want to. You’ll be able to prevent them from rising up against you as you steal their wealth, exploit their labor, destroy their ecosystem and send their children off to war. You can keep them voting for political institutions you own and control. You can keep them from interfering in your ability to wage wars around the world and sanction entire populations into starvation to advance your geostrategic goals.
This status quo of exploitation, ecocide, oppression and war benefits our rulers immensely, bringing them more wealth and power than the kings of old could ever dream of. And like the kings of old, they are not going to relinquish power of their own accord, which means the only thing that will bring an end to this world-destroying status quo is the people rising up and using the power of their numbers to end it.
Yet they don’t rise up. They don’t because they are successfully propagandized into accepting this status quo, or at least into believing it’s the only way things can be right now. Imperial narrative control is therefore the source of all our biggest problems.
And they’re only getting more and more aggressive about it. More and more forceful, less and less sly and subtle in their campaign to control the thoughts that are in our heads.
Many of those who have this realization see it as cause for despair. I personally see it as cause for hope.
They work so hard to manufacture our consent for the status quo because they absolutely require that consent; history shows us that rulers do not fare well after a critical mass of the population has turned against them. And they’re working harder and harder to manufacture that consent, even as extremely influential people begin questioning whether we’re being deliberately deceived about everything.
They used to look like someone using a bucket to bail out water from a leaky boat. Now they look like someone treading water, barely managing to get their mouth and nose high enough to take gasps of air.
They’re working harder and harder because they need to.
The fact that the propagandists have to work so hard to keep our society this insane means the natural gravitational pull is toward sanity. They have to educate us into crazier and crazier ways of thinking from the moment we go to school until we die, because otherwise we’ll collectively awaken and shake off their shackles.
It takes a lot of educating to keep us this stupid.
You think you’re struggling? You should see the people trying to manufacture consent for a status quo that is both plainly insane and self-evidently unsustainable. They’re the ones doing all the heavy lifting in this struggle. They’re the ones fighting gravity.
Hope is not a popular position to take in a world that is being abused, exploited and being driven mad by manipulative sociopaths. Which is understandable.
But I just can’t help it. I look at how hard they are struggling to keep the light from bursting in and driving out the darkness, and I can’t help but think, “Those poor bastards can’t keep that up much longer.”
British spies played a part in the mass murder of Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) members in the 1960s, urging locals, including army generals, to “cut out” the “communist cancer,” declassified papers have revealed.
The Indonesian Army’s brutal clampdown on the PKI in 1965 and 1966 is considered to be one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century. Between 500,000 and three million supporters of the Communist Party were slaughtered, according to various estimations.
Declassified Foreign Office documents, which were recently released by Britain’s National Archives and seen by The Guardian newspaper, indicate that the UK isn’t without fault in those shocking events.
The British Foreign Office had always denied the country’s involvement in the brutal clampdown on those blamed of communist links in Indonesia.
But it turns out that London focused its propaganda machine on the founding Indonesian President Sukarno and his communist backers over the leader’s stern opposition to the Federation of Malaya, which the UK thought should unite its former colonies in the region.
Tensions between the PKI and the Indonesian military had been mounting since the early 1960s, with the president struggling to balance the rivaling forces. The army-sponsored massacre of communists began after a failed coup attempt by the supporters of Sukarno within the army ranks on October 1, 1965.
Several months before that, a team of specialists from the Foreign Office’s Information Research Department (IRD) had already been deployed in Singapore to produce black propaganda to undermine Sukarno’s rule, according to The Guardian. The failed coup only made it easier for the propagandists to influence their intended audience, which included anti-communist politicians and Indonesian army generals.
The propaganda was shared through an Indonesian-language newsletter, which was said to have been the work of Indonesian immigrants, but was actually issued by British specialists in Singapore. Within a year, some 28,000 copies of the newsletter had been published. The UK also funded a radio station, which Malaysians had been broadcasting into Indonesia.
Shortly after the massacre of the communists by the military began, the British-produced newsletter called for “the PKI and all communist organisations” to “be eliminated.” It claimed that Indonesia will remain in peril “as long as the communist leaders are at large and their rank and file are allowed to go unpunished.”
“Procrastination and half-hearted measures can only lead to… our ultimate and complete destruction,” the authors of the pamphlet warned their readers.
The killings allegedly intensified across the Indonesian archipelago in the weeks following the publication of the newsletter, with The Guardian insisting that “there can be little doubt that British diplomats became aware of what was happening.” The UK spies in the region had all the means to intercept Indonesian government communications and monitor the movement of its military, according to the paper.
One of the newsletters, released during the clampdown on the communists, had praised “the fighting services and the police” for “doing an excellent job.” The British propagandists compared the PKI to Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan in the pamphlet, and insisted that “the work started by the army must be carried on and intensified.”
Moreover, a letter from Norman Reddaway, one of the leading propagandists working in Singapore, to the British ambassador in Jakarta revealed the UK’s strategy “to conceal the fact that the butcheries have taken place with the encouragement of the generals.” He wrote that such an approach should’ve been taken in the hope that the generals would “do us better than the old gang.”
The Foreign Office experts and Indonesian generals were “singing in harmony,” Reddaway insisted in another declassified document. He also celebrated the British propaganda for being able to abolish Sukarno’s opposition to the Federation of Malaya project at “minimal cost” and within just half-a-year.
What Reddaway described as “the old gang” was completely crushed by the bloody events of the mid-1960s. President Sukarno was arrested in 1967 and died three years later under house arrest.
He was overthrown by General Suharto, who had been leading the Indonesian Army. Suharto then ruled Indonesia until 1998, enjoying political and economic support from the West. Transparency International (TI) labeled him the most corrupt politician in modern history in 2004, claiming that he embezzled between $15 billion and $35 billion during his time in office.
Documents that were declassified in the US in 2017 revealed that Washington also not only had “detailed knowledge” of the massacre of communists in Indonesia, but provided “active support” for those actions.
A Yale University study described the slaughter ordered by Suharto as an “absolutely essential cleaning out,” detailing the killing of from “50 to 100 PKI members” every night by civilian anti-communist groups with the “blessing” of the military.
The announcement that the Biden Administration has cleared two more Guantanamo Bay detainees for transfer is a hopeful sign in as much that two men have surpassed one hurdle on the way to freedom. But don’t be fooled, they may not see the light of day outside the barbed wire and concrete of the Cuban island for years. And if they do, it will most likely be in a foreign country not of their own choosing, with government monitors awaiting them. And if they are sent to the United Arab Emirates, it could be the next stop to an even greater hell.
Simple question: What kind of constitutional republic are we that supports federal measures that detain other human beings without charge for 20 years and then, when they are “cleared” to go, insist they must be released to a foreign government that agrees to treat them as criminals furthermore?
According to the New York Times, Sanad Yislam al-Kazimi and Assadullah Haroon Gul, of Yemen and Afghanistan respectively, cannot go back to their native countries because of obvious security concerns. Al-Kazimi is likely to go to neighboring Oman, which has taken some 30 repatriations over the years, and Gul’s fate is up in the air.
The Biden Administration has released but one Guantanamo Bay prisoner since he took office. But even then, the process for Abdul Latif Nasser’s release began during the Obama administration. Nasser, 56, who was never charged with a crime, actually got to return to his home country of Morocco, though he was subsequently put under investigation there, too.
So who is left? According to the Times, there are 39 detainees at the prison (which Obama had pledged to close during his time) today. Al-Kazimi and Assadullah now join 10 others of that number who are cleared to go but awaiting repatriation. Another 15 are not charged but are considered “law of war” prisoners and not cleared (news flash: supposedly we are not “at war” anymore — or are we? Apparently it is fungible). That includes Abu Zubaydah, who was waterboarded 83 times upon his capture nearly 20 years ago and still hasn’t been charged (and is still awaiting a ruling as to whether his detention is lawful). There are 10 who are awaiting trial (including the so-called 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four cohorts), and two already convicted. No one has any confidence that those trials will go anywhere soon, given the issues over torture evidence and the convoluted nature of the system. Meanwhile, as of 2019, each prisoner at GTMO has cost the U.S. taxpayers $13 million a year.
The military tribunal system is broken and many argue that it should have never been stood up after 9/11. It was illegal from the beginning, and efforts to “legalize” it only managed to keep it open. As we know, access to due process means one thing in America and another at Guantanamo Bay.
But yes, let’s talk about the “rules based order” some more. Biden may say his hands are tied by Congress, which won’t let him release prisoners anywhere near U.S. territory, or be tried in U.S. courts. But the fact is the interagency Periodic Review Board that clears the prisoners is under Executive Branch purview and the president should have some authority to expedite the processes and or/loosen the restrictions and conditions placed on potential host countries. Unfortunately, aside from the dense legal and administrative thicket, the stigma built up around these men has rendered them radioactive — who knows who will take them if given the right opportunity. They have been stripped of their humanity and their native lands, and to the American government they are nothing but a cost and legal burden. How long will it be before we forget why they are even there?
Laos is a sparsely populated country of less than three million people that was never a threat to the United States. Yet from 1964 to 1973, the United States military dropped more than two million tons of bombs on Laos during 580,000 bombing missions — equal to a planeload of bombs every 8 minutes, 24 hours a day, for 9 years – making Laos the most heavily bombed country per capita in history. The United States dropped more bombs on Laos than it dropped on Germany and Japan during World War II.
These bombings were part of a secret war in Laos to support the Royal Lao government and to interdict supplies to southern Vietnam along the Ho Chi Minh trail. The bombings destroyed many villages, killed 50,000 civilians, and displaced hundreds of thousands. During this massive destruction, the American government insisted that it was not bombing Laos.
“Fighting the War in Southeast Asia, 1961-1973”; US Air Force historians; National Security Archive; April 9, 2008; https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSA…
Experimental and include new untested genetic technology. Hence these drugs only have provisional approval and are not full approved for use in humans.
The vaccines are not safe. Millions of injuries have been recorded by global government regulators including – anaphylaxis, thrombosis, and coagulation disorders (blood clots), infertility, heart problems (myocarditis and pericarditis), neurological damage (cognitive decline), strokes, paralysis, convulsions, seizures and well over 100,000 deaths.
There are on average more deaths per day due to the COVID vaccines than to COVID-19 disease itself.
The vaccines are ineffective – they do not prevent you getting or dying from COVID-19 disease, and they do not prevent transmission of the virus in the community. Hence, they are a drug and not a ‘vaccine’ under the WHO’s definition of a vaccine.
They have only been tested to see if they reduce the symptoms and not to see if they prevent disease.
They are unnecessary because 99.9% of people under 70 develop immunity through mild or asymptomatic infection. Our immune system develops natural herd immunity in the community through this exposure and the most detrimental action that any government can take is to quarantine healthy asymptomatic people. This hinders the control of infectious diseases in the community. Hence, Sweden did not lockdown its population and the WHO did not provide any evidence that asymptomatic people were a risk to the community in March 2020 when they used this strategy for the first time in history.
The injection is not specific for COVID-19 disease and the synthetic spike protein that is produced by our cells upon exposure to any coronavirus is toxic to the human body. This includes the development of autoimmune diseases, blood clots and infertility.
Did you see this information reported in the mainstream media? No. Welcome to 2021 where the medical-industry uses framed and manipulated statistics, emotional labels, and anecdotal evidence in the mainstream media to inform you about any drug that they have labelled a ‘vaccine.’
The removal of both scientific evidence and balanced discussion of vaccines in the media has occurred over decades, and we now have a situation where labels and biased information are being used to manipulate your thinking about these drugs. Drugs that are being mandated for HEALTHY people in genetically diverse populations.
This fraudulent promotion of a medical intervention was cemented in 2009 when a government board was set up in Australia to regulate doctors on the “accepted” science for vaccine promotion.
In other words, this board controls the knowledge doctors can promote on vaccines and it influences the design and promotion of government vaccination policies. This board has the power to de-regulate doctors and health professionals who make a different risk assessments of vaccines to that provided by this government regulatory board.
Medication for healthy people affects their quality of life and it is doctors who are trained to assess the medical literature for risks and benefits. The AHPRA board has a serious conflict of interest in the regulation of doctors’ knowledge on vaccines, and doctors cannot speak the truth to power if they can lose their livelihoods for doing so.
The risks of vaccines associated with our genetics are now being described as “antivaccination material” and doctors are threatened with de-registration by AHPRA for providing this medical literature to their patients. This includes contraindications to vaccines that have been practiced for 40+ years but have now been arbitrarily removed.
Hence, doctors are now violating the first principle of medicine because they cannot promote their patients best interest first. That is, drugs/vaccines must be given to individuals with advice regarding their own individual circumstances and genetics. This is a key factor in health outcomes with respect to drugs and when this is violated doctors are no longer promoting health in the community. They are promoting sickness and death because many illnesses are linked to our family history and genetics.
The Australian government has now indemnified doctors to give these experimental injections to their patients – injections that are documented to cause serious known and unknown harm in patients. Taxpayers (we) will be paying for our doctors to inflict this harm (and death) on patients without fully informed consent due to government mandates that remove our jobs and right to travel if we refuse.
Over the last few decades doctors have been “educated” in pharma-funded medical schools with industry-funded science. They are taught that anyone who discusses the ingredients of vaccines (drugs) or the serious risks of vaccines, is an “antivaxxer” and a “conspiracy theorist”. This same opinion is provided to the public in the corporate-sponsored mainstream media to denigrate any scientific discussion of the risks of these drugs that are given to healthy people.
Mainstream media has always been a tool to manipulate public behaviour and when the US Congress removed liability from pharmaceutical companies for any harm caused by any drug labelled a “vaccine” in 1986 (because they were paying millions of dollars in compensation for deaths and injuries), this enabled big pharma to minimise the risks of these drugs and to exaggerate the benefits (“life-saving products”) – without providing evidence for these claims.
In 2021 this dismissive ridicule by authorities reached a new low when the Western Australian Premier, Mark McGowan, disrespectfully told ~5,000 WA parents and grandparents at a rally opposing mandatory jabs for jobs, to “Grow a brain” and he stated that “this is about medicine and saving lives”. This statement by this Premier is simply untrue when you ignore the genetics of the population.
High school science students can tell the Premier that a mandatory drug/vaccine, in a genetically diverse population, will cause death and sickness in a significant proportion of the population. Mark McGowan should be removed from his role as Premier for his contempt for the people he serves and for putting the public’s lives are risk with false health information.
Politicians, media, and doctors are using labels to convey a ‘belief’ about vaccines and to stigmatise critical thinking, and this is done without providing any supportive evidence for the implied meanings the words are given. This strategy has been used to support the expansion of national vaccination programs from 1986 – 2021.
Since 1986 ‘beliefs’ that are not evidence-based have been promoted by the media, politicians and doctors by using the following words to promote public health policy:
Vaccines – drugs that have ‘rare’ side-effects and are ‘necessary to control infectious diseases.’ Both claims are untrue.
Infectious diseases – re-labelled as ‘vaccine-preventable diseases’ since 1986 to imply that they can be prevented with a vaccine.
Vaccination programs – falsely labelled as ‘immunisation programs.’ It is known that many vaccinated people do not get immunity after a vaccine is given and they still get the disease.
Catch-Up Schedules – They are not catch-up schedules because most older Australians did not have these vaccines and were never at risk from these diseases.
Antivaxxer – a derogatory term used to describe an educated parent/professional that discusses the risk-benefit analysis of vaccines or ingredients of vaccines. Knowledge of these criteria are necessary to promote ‘healthy’ outcomes from vaccines, yet they are ridiculed.
Conspiracy Theory – derogatory term used to dismiss the serious conflicts of interest in every aspect of global health policy designed by the WHO/GAVI alliance and national vaccination policies designed by governments.
This is a political situation, and it is the influence of corporate money in the political and economic decisions of governments that has led to doctors, governments and the media collaborating to commit a serious crime against their populations by falsely advertising an experimental genetic technology as a ‘vaccine’.
People, including health professionals, are walking into their own deaths and illnesses, due to the false and misleading health information that is being provided by the powerful medical-industry complex to politicians.
This corporate health model has monopolised doctors, industry-funded research institutions, politicians, and the mainstream media to educate the public with ignorance about the risks of vaccines. A situation described as agnotology in the academic literature and if doctors were not gagged by AHPRA (their government/corporate regulatory board) it would not have been possible to violate their medical ethics and commit this crime against humanity that will destroy the genetic fabric of society.
October 14th is the 10th anniversary of the drone killing of Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, a 16 year old born in Colorado and killed in Yemen. He perished as part of Obama’s crackdown on terrorist suspects around the world. His father, who was also an American citizen, was killed two weeks earlier by another drone strike ordered by Obama.
I wrote a piece condemning Obama’s assassination program for Christian Science Monitor in 2011, “Assassination Nation: Are There Any Limits on President Obama’s License to Kill?” I derided the Obama administration’s claim that the president possessed a “right to kill Americans without a trial, without notice, and without any chance for targets to legally object…. Killings based solely on presidential commands radically transform the relation of the government to the citizenry.”
Readers responded by calling for my assassination. My article mentioned an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit pressuring the Obama administration “to disclose the legal standard it uses to place US citizens on government kill lists.” “Will R.” was indignant: “We need to send Bovard and the ACLU to Iran. You shoot traders and the ACLU are a bunch of traders.” (I was pretty sure the ACLU was not engaged in international commerce). “Jeff” took the high ground: “Hopefully there will soon be enough to add James Bovard to the [targeted killing] list.” Another commenter—self-labeled as “Idiot Savant”—saw a grand opportunity: “Now if we can only convince [Obama] to use this [assassination] authority on the media, who have done more harm than any single terror target could ever dream of … ”
Here’s riff I did on Obama’s assassination program in 2013:
The Obama administration yesterday leaked out its confidential legal paper on killing Americans to NBC News. Obama’s legal wizards decided that the Fifth Amendment’s pledge that no citizen shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” is invalid in cases of imminent attack by terrorists.
Though this might sound reasonable, the memo proceeds to craft a totally bogus notion of “imminent.” But, as John Glaser notes at Antiwar.com, “The memo refers to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than what has traditionally been required, like actual intelligence an ongoing plot against the US. ‘The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,’ the memo states, contradicting conventional international law.”
In a January 2017 USA Today piece, I urged Trump to open the files on Obama’s killings:
Administration lawyers defeated lawsuits by the ACLU, The New York Times, and others seeking disclosure of key legal papers on how the president became judge, jury and executioner. A Trump administration could disclose the memos and white papers without endangering anything other than the reputation of the soon-to-be former president and his policymakers.
Didn’t happen. The Trump administration could have exposed vast numbers of abuses by the Obama administration the same way that Obama (partially) opened the files on some of President George W. Bush’s torture policy and other atrocities. But as usual, the Trump team blew the opportunity.
As a result, Obama can pirouette as a champion of civil liberties while the horrendous precedents he set continue to endanger Americans and anyone else in the world in the vicinity of people suspected of bad thoughts by the U.S. government.
In an August 21, 2021, newsletter,1 Dr. Michael Murray discussed the use of quercetin for respiratory infection symptoms. In November 2020, he’d suffered a “very mild and brief bout of COVID-19.”
He also recounts an anecdotal story of a friend who developed suspicious respiratory symptoms. His friend had been taking a number of supplements said to offer protection, but was still feeling awful.
As it turns out, the one thing he’d not taken was quercetin, and as soon as he did, that same day, his symptoms started to dissipate. This experience, Murray says, “is consistent with the results from two clinical trials” that were recently published.
Quercetin seems to be a safe, far less expensive, and easier-to-obtain and it works by a similar mechanism, driving zinc into the cells to stop viral replication.
Statistical Improvement in Clinical Outcomes
In the first study,2 42 COVID-19 outpatients were divided into two groups. One group of 21 patients received standard medical therapy consisting of analgesics and an antibiotic (acetaminophen 500-milligram (mg) to 1,000-mg dose if body temperature was higher than 37.5 degrees C — 99.5 F — with a maximum daily dosage of 3 grams, and 500 mg azithromycin for three consecutive days).
The other group of 21 patients received standard therapy plus the equivalent of 600 mg of quercetin per day (divided into three doses) for seven days, followed by another seven-day course of 400 mg of quercetin per day (divided into two doses).
The quercetin was used with sunflower lecithin, which has been demonstrated to increase absorption in the gut by as much as 20 times, compared to pure quercetin formulations.
The main outcomes being evaluated were virus clearance and symptoms. After one week of treatment, 16 of the 21 patients in the quercetin group tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 and 12 reported that all symptoms had diminished.
In the standard care group, only two tested negative and four had partially improved symptoms. By the end of Week 2, the five remaining patients in the quercetin group tested negative. In the standard care group, 17 of the 19 remaining patients tested negative and one had died.
“These results are impressive and hopefully additional studies will be conducted on hospitalized patients to see how quercetin might be helpful in more severe cases,” Murray wrote in his newsletter.
Can Quercetin Reduce Hospitalizations and Deaths?
The second study3 — a prospective, randomized, controlled and open-label trial — gave 152 COVID-19 outpatients a daily dose of 1,000 mg of quercetin for 30 days to evaluate its adjuvant effects in the treatment of early symptoms and the prevention of severe infection. According to the authors:
“The results revealed a reduction in frequency and length of hospitalization, in need of non-invasive oxygen therapy, in progression to intensive care units and in number of deaths. The results also confirmed the very high safety profile of quercetin and suggested possible anti-fatigue and pro-appetite properties.
QP (Quercetin Phytosome®) is a safe agent and in combination with standard care, when used in early stage of viral infection, could aid in improving the early symptoms and help in preventing the severity of COVID-19 disease. It is suggested that a double-blind, placebo-controlled study should be urgently carried out to confirm the results of our study.”
Mechanisms of Action
As noted in the first study4 above, quercetin was chosen based on the fact that it has antiviral, anti-blood clotting, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, all of which are important in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the second study, more detailed mechanisms of action are reviewed. According to the authors:5
“SARS-CoV-2 proteases, like 3-chymotrypsin-like protease (3CLpro), papain-like pro-tease (PLpro), RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, spike (S)protein and human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (hACE2) are considered possible targets for developing effective anti-COVID-19 drugs.
Recently, molecular docking studies have suggested the possible binding interaction of quercetin with the 3CLpro, PLpro, and S-hACE2 complex. Some recent results, obtained by biophysical techniques, appear to support the results of the molecular docking studies.
Quercetin, a flavonol not naturally present in the human body, is the most abundant polyphenol in fruits and vegetable and is widely used as a dietary supplement to boost the immune system and promote a healthy lifestyle.
Quercetin is characterized by three crucial properties: antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory. The combination of these actions allows quercetin to be a potential candidate to support all unhealthy conditions where oxidative stress, inflammation and immunity are involved.”
Initially, quercetin gained attention because it’s a zinc ionophore, meaning it shuttles zinc — which has well-known antiviral effects — into your cells just like the drug hydroxychloroquine.
Some proposed the primary reason hydroxychloroquine and quercetin worked was because of this feature. Of course, you also had to take zinc along with either of them. To effectively act as a zinc ionophore, the quercetin also needs vitamin C.
Since then, other studies, including the two reviewed here, have shown quercetin has other actions that make it useful against SARS-CoV-2 as well. As reported by Murray in his newsletter:
“In particular, quercetin exerts significant inhibition on the binding of specific spike proteins to ACE-2 receptors, thereby blocking the ability of the virus to infect human cells. Quercetin has also been shown to directly neutralize viral proteins the are critical in the replication of SARS-CoV-2.”
In some studies, quercetin has also been shown to inhibit the release of inflammatory cytokines, which could help alleviate infection-related symptoms and suppress excessive inflammatory responses from occurring. Its antioxidant effects may also help prevent tissue damage caused by scavenging free radicals, thereby aiding in the recovery process of viral infections.6
Quercetin’s Antiviral Properties
Quercetin’s antiviral properties have been attributed to three main mechanisms of action:
Inhibiting the virus’ ability to infect cells
Inhibiting replication of already infected cells
Reducing infected cells’ resistance to treatment with antiviral medication
For example, research7 funded by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), published in 2008, found it lowers your risk of viral illness such as influenza and boosts mental performance following extreme physical stress, which might otherwise undermine your immune function and render you more susceptible to infections.
Here, cyclists who received a daily dose of 1,000 mg of quercetin in combination with vitamin C (which enhances plasma quercetin levels8,9) and niacin (to improve absorption) for five weeks were significantly less likely to contract a viral illness after bicycling three hours a day for three consecutive days, compared to untreated controls. While 45% of the placebo group got sick, only 5% of the treatment group did.
Quercetin Works Against Many Common Viruses
Before the COVID-19 pandemic struck, several studies had highlighted quercetin’s ability to prevent and treat the common cold and seasonal influenza.10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 By attenuating oxidative damage, it also lowers your risk of secondary bacterial infections,19 which is actually the primary cause of influenza-related deaths.
Importantly, quercetin increases mitochondrial biogenesis in skeletal muscle, which suggests part of its antiviral effects are due to enhanced mitochondrial antiviral signaling.20 Quercetin also works against other viruses, as demonstrated in the following studies:
•A 1985 study found quercetin inhibits infectivity and replication of herpes simplex virus type 1, polio-virus type 1, parainfluenza virus type 3 and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).21
•A 2016 animal study22 found quercetin inhibited mouse dengue virus and hepatitis virus.
•Other studies have confirmed quercetin’s power to inhibit both hepatitis B23 and C24 infection.
•A March 2020 study25 found quercetin provides “comprehensive protection” against Streptococcus pneumoniae infection, both in vitro and in vivo, primarily by neutralizing pneumolysin (PLY),26 one of the toxins released from pneumococci that encourages S. pneumoniae infection to blossom in the first place.
Streptococcus pneumoniae is responsible not only for pneumonia, but can also be involved in some ear and sinus infections, meningitis and certain blood infections.27 As reported by the authors of this study:28
“The results indicated that quercetin significantly reduced PLY-induced hemolytic activity and cytotoxicity via repressing the formation of oligomers.
In addition, treatment with quercetin can reduce PLY-mediated cell injury, improve the survival rate of mice infected with a lethal dose of S. pneumoniae, alleviate the pathological damage of lung tissue and inhibit the release of cytokines (IL-1β and TNF-α) in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid.
Considering the importance of these events in antimicrobial resistant S. pneumoniae pathogenesis, our results indicated that quercetin may be a novel potential drug candidate for the treatment of clinical pneumococcal infections.”
How Quercetin Combats Inflammation and Boosts Immunity
Aside from its antiviral activity, quercetin is also known for boosting immunity and combating inflammation. As noted in a 2016 study29 in the journal Nutrients, mechanisms of action include (but is not limited to) the inhibition of:30
Lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) production in macrophages. TNF-α is a cytokine involved in systemic inflammation, secreted by activated macrophages, a type of immune cell that digests foreign substances, microbes and other harmful or damaged components
LPS-induced mRNA levels of TNF-α and interleukin (IL)-1α in glial cells, which results in “diminished apoptotic neuronal cell death”
The production of inflammation-producing enzymes
Calcium influx into the cell, which in turn inhibits pro-inflammatory cytokine release, as well as histamine and serotonin release from intestinal mast cells31
According to this paper, quercetin also stabilizes mast cells, has cytoprotective activity in the gastrointestinal tract, and “a direct regulatory effect on basic functional properties of immune cells,” which allows it to inhibit “a huge panoply of molecular targets in the micromolar concentration range, either by down-regulating or suppressing many inflammatory pathways and functions.”32
Bioavailability
While quercetin does have potent antiviral effects, in order for it to work effectively you need sufficiently high dosages to raise the level of quercetin in your body’s tissues. The relatively low absorption rate of quercetin is why a sunflower lecithin formulation was used.
Research33 published in the July-December 2021 issue of the Journal of Natural Health Products Research, found a quercertin matrix has the same total absorption rate as quercetin phytosome — and higher peak blood levels.
“Since both of these forms of quercetin produce similar blood levels, they should produce the same effects at equal dosages based upon quercetin content,” Murray wrote in his newsletter, adding:
“My dosage recommendation as part of a nutritional supplement program to support immune function is 250 mg twice daily.
And in patients with active Infection, my recommendation is … six capsules twice a day providing a total of 3,000 mg of quercetin. This high dosage should be taken for at least 10 days and then reduced to a maintenance dosage of 250 mg twice daily …
[This] high dosage may not be necessary. But my dosage calculations are based upon likely tissue concentrations needed to exert the strongest antiviral effects. And given the safety of quercetin, there is no harm at this level.”
Protocol Using Quercetin
One doctor who early brought quercetin into the limelight was Dr. Vladimir Zelenko. As hydroxychloroquine became difficult to obtain, Zelenko switched to recommending quercetin instead, as it’s readily available as an over-the-counter supplement. For a downloadable “cheat sheet” of Zelenko’s protocol for COVID-19, visit VladimirZelenkoMD.com.
Other Health Benefits of Quercetin
There are also other lesser known benefits and uses for quercetin, including the prevention and/or treatment of:34
High blood pressure35,36
Cardiovascular disease37
Obesity38 and metabolic syndrome39 (a cluster of conditions including high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high triglyceride levels and fat accumulation around the waist that raise your risk for Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke)
Certain kinds of cancer, in particular leukemia, and to a lesser degree breast cancer40
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)41
Gout42
Arthritis43
Mood disorders44
Aluminum-induced neurodegenerative changes, such as those seen in Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).45
Longevity, thanks to its senolytic benefits (clearing out damaged and worn-out cells)46,47
Research has also highlighted quercetin’s epigenetic influence and ability to:48
Interact with cell-signaling pathways
Modulate gene expression
Influence the activity of transcription factors
Modulate microRNAs
MicroRNAs used to be considered “junk” DNA. But far from being useless, research has revealed so-called “junk” DNA is actually microRNA and plays a crucial role in regulating genes that make the proteins that build your body.
The microRNA function as “on/off” switches for the genes. Depending on the microRNA input, a single gene can code for any of more than 200 protein products. Quercetin’s ability to module microRNA may also help explain its cytotoxic effects, and why it appears to improve cancer survival (at least in mice).
The Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) is a premier forum for governments, global corporations and international entrepreneurs. Founded in 1971 by engineer and economist Klaus Schwab, the WEF describes its mission as “shaping global, regional and industry agendas” and “improving the state of the world”. According to its website, “moral and intellectual integrity is at the heart of everything it does.”
The WEF has been involved in the coronavirus pandemic in several ways.
First, the WEF was, together with the Gates Foundation, a sponsor of the prescient “Event 201” coronavirus pandemic simulation exercise, held in New York City on October 18, 2019 – the same day as the opening of the Wuhan Military World Games, seen by some as “ground zero” of the global pandemic. China itself has argued that US military athletes may have brought the virus to Wuhan.
Second, the WEF has been a leading proponent of digital biometric identity systems, arguing that they will make societies and industries more efficient, more productive and more secure. In July 2019, the WEF started a project to “shape the future of travel with biometric-enabled digital traveler identity management”. In addition, the WEF collaborates with the ID2020 alliance, which is funded by the Gates and Rockefeller foundations and runs a program to “provide digital ID with vaccines”. In particular, ID2020 sees the vaccination of children as “an entry point for digital identity.”
Third, WEF founder Klaus Schwab is the author of the book COVID-19: The Great Reset, published in July 2020, which argues that the coronavirus pandemic can and should be used for an “economic, societal, geopolitical, environmental and technological reset”, including, in particular, advancing global governance, accelerating digital transformation, and tackling climate change.
Finally, the WEF has been running, since 1993, a program called “Global Leaders for Tomorrow”, rebranded, in 2004, as “Young Global Leaders”. This program aims at identifying, selecting and promoting future global leaders in both business and politics. Indeed, quite a few “Young Global Leaders” have later managed to become Presidents, Prime Ministers, or CEOs (see below).
During the coronavirus pandemic, several WEF Global Leaders and Global Shapers (a junior program of the Global Leaders) have played prominent roles, typically promoting zero-covid strategies, lockdowns, mask mandates, and ‘vaccine passports’. This may have been a (largely failed) attempt to protect public health and the economy, or it may have been an attempt to advance the global transformation agenda outlined above, or perhaps both.
In this regard, some notable Young Leaders include Jeffrey Zients (US White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator), Stéphane Bancel (CEO of Moderna), Jeremy Howard (founder of influential lobby group “Masks for All”), Leana Wen (zero-covid CNN medical analyst), Eric Feigl-Ding (zero-covid Twitter personality), Gavin Newsom (Governor of California, selected in 2005), Devi Sridhar (British zero-covid professor), Jacinda Ardern (Prime Minister of New Zealand), French President Emanuel Macron (selected one year prior to his election in 2017), Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, German Chancellor Angela Merkel (selected back in 1993), German Health Minister Jens Spahn, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (a leading proponent of ‘global vaccine passports’).
To get a full overview of their members, see Global Leaders for Tomorrow and Young Global Leaders on WikiSpooks (a Wiki focusing on covert power structures) as well as the official Young Global Leaders website. For an overview of some notable members in politics and the media, see below.
In conclusion, the Davos World Economic Forum has indeed been involved in the strategic management of the coronavirus pandemic, with a major emphasis on using the pandemic as a catalyst for digital transformation and the global introduction of digital identity systems.
Digital Identity: The vision of the World Economic Forum (WEF, 2018)
WEF “Young Global Leaders”
An overview of some WEF Young Global Leaders (2005-2021) and Global Leaders for Tomorrow (1993-2003) in politics and the media. The list is not exhaustive.
Jeffrey Zients (White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator since 2021, selected in 2003), Jeremy Howard (co-founder of lobby group “masks for all”, selected in 2013), California Governor Gavin Newsom (selected in 2005), Pete Buttigieg (selected in 2019, candidate for US President in 2020, US secretary of transportation since 2021), Chelsea Clinton (Clinton Foundation board member), Huma Abedin (Hillary Clinton aide, selected in 2012), Nikki Haley (US ambassador to the UN, 2017-2018), Samantha Power (US ambassador to the UN, 2013-2017, USAID Administrator since 2021), Ian Bremmer (founder of Eurasia Group), Bill Browder (initiator of the Magnitsky Act), Jonathan Soros (son of George Soros), Kenneth Roth (director of “Human Rights Watch” since 1993), Paul Krugman (economist, selected in 1995), Lawrence Summers (former World Bank Chief Economist, former US Treasury Secretary, former Harvard University President, selected in 1993), Alicia Garza (co-founder of Black Lives Matter, selected in 2020), Stéphane Bancel (Moderna CEO).
Media
CNN medical analyst Leana Wen (selected in 2018), CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta, Covid Twitter personality Eric Feigl-Ding (a ‘WEF Global Shaper‘ since 2013), Andrew Ross Sorkin (New York Times financial columnist), Thomas Friedman (New York Times columnist, selected in 1995), George Stephanopoulos (ABC News, 1993), Lachlan Murdoch (CEO of Fox Corporation).
Technology and Social Media
Microsoft founder Bill Gates (1993), former Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer (2000-2014, selected in 1995), Amazon founder Jeff Bezos (1998), Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page (2002/2005), former Google CEO Eric Schmidt (2001-2017, selected in 1997), Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales (2007), PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel (2007), eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar (1999), Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg (2009), Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (2007).
Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand
Professor Devi Sridhar (a leading ‘zero covid’ proponent, selected in 2020/21), former British Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (both selected in 1993), BBC World Service journalist Dawood Azami, Lynn Forester de Rothschild (co-owner of The Economist), Nathaniel Rothschild (son of Lord Rothschild), historian Niall Ferguson (selected in 2005), William Hague (Foreign Secretary, 2010-2014), Charles Allen (CEO of ITV, 2004-2007; Chairman of EMI, 2008-2010).
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (since 2017, selected in 2014), Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland (selected in 2001; former managing director of Reuters). Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a WEF participant, but is not a confirmed Young Global Leader.
Germany
Chancellor Angela Merkel (selected in 1993, 12 years before becoming Chancellor), current Health Minister Jens Spahn and former Health Ministers Philipp Roesler and Daniel Bahr, current co-chair of the Green Party and failed Chancellor candidate Annalena Baerbock (selected in 2020), former co-chair of the Green Party Cem Özdemir (selected in 2002), media mogul and Axel Springer CEO Mathias Doepfner (selected in 2001), talk show host Sandra Maischberger, late Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor Guido Westerwelle (1997), former German President Christian Wulff (selected in 1995, 15 years before becoming President), Reto Francioni (former CEO of Deutsche Boerse).
European Union
EU Commission Presidents Jose Manuel Barroso (2004-2014, selected in 1993) and Jean-Claude Juncker (2014-2019, selected in 1995), French President Emanuel Macron (since 2017, selected in 2016), former French President Nicolas Sakozy (2007-2012, selected in 1993), Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi (2014-2016, selected in 2012), former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar (1996-2004, selected in 1993), Klaus Regling (CEO of the European Financial Stability Mechanism since 2012), Guy Verhofstadt (former Belgian Prime Minister, Chair of the Brexit Steering Group), Danish Minister for the Environment Lea Wermelin, Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin, former Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb, and Mark Leonard (founding director of the Soros-funded European Council on Foreign Relations).
Switzerland
Natalie Rickli (Director of Health of the Canton of Zurich, selected in 2012), former Presidents of the Swiss National Council Christa Markwalder (selected in 2011) and Pascale Bruderer-Wyss (selected in 2009), Geneva politician Pierre Maudet (selected in 2013), NZZ media group CEO Felix R. Graf (selected in 2007), former Swiss Justice Minister Ruth Metzler (selected in 2002), former Swiss television CEO Roger de Weck (2011-2017, selected in 1994), former UBS CEOs Peter Wuffli (selected in 1994) and Marcel Rohner (selected in 2003), former Credit Suisse CEO Tidjane Tiam (1998).
Video Annex
1) Bill Gates demanding “digital immunity proof” in March 2020
2) Edward Snowden warning of the “destruction of rights” (March 2020)
“Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda,” is the fourth vaccine-related documentary by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. It tells the story of an intentional infertility vaccine program conducted on African women, without their knowledge or consent.
While it’s been brushed off as a loony conspiracy theory for years, there’s compelling evidence showing it did, in fact, happen, and there’s nothing to prevent it from happening again. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 