Published Jul. 25, 2023, 4:55 p.m. ET | Updated Jul. 26, 2023
Chase bank cancellation letter to Natural Health Partners.
Editor’s note: This story was updated to include a response from Chase.
Lydia Nusbaum co-authored this report.
CAPE CORAL, Fla. (FLV) – Employees of a Florida-based retail health company said JP Morgan Chase Bank suddenly terminated their personal and company bank accounts without an explanation.
One of the employees believes the account shutdowns were politically motivated and due to their employer’s controversial stance on COVID-19.
Another Mercola Market employee said the sudden decision to close her account is creating additional hurdles to help send money to her husband who is bedridden with dementia in the Philippines.
The owner of Mercola Market, Dr. Joseph Mercola, has criticized of COVID-19 vaccines and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Responding to the report, Chase told Florida’s Voice Wednesday that the accounts weren’t closed for political “affiliations.”
“For privacy reasons, we can’t discuss customer relationships, but we don’t close accounts because of political affiliations, and we didn’t do so in this case,” they said.
Mercola Marketsells specialty beverages, food, supplements and other health items. A store is located in Cape Coral.
On July 13, Mercola Market, along with the CEO, CFO and some of their family members, all received similar letters from Chase Bank saying “[they] have decided to close” their individual personal and business accounts.
The letters obtained by Florida’s Voice did not provide a reason why the accounts were suddenly closed. Florida’s Voice reached out to Chase Bank for a response.
A voicemail from a Chase representative to CEO Steven Rye said the reason for closing his personal and wife’s accounts can’t be disclosed “for legal reasons.”
However, Rye believes his the accounts were suddenly shut down because of Dr. Joseph Mercola’s opinions on COVID-19.
“I believe they cancelled all of the accounts because of Dr. Mercola’s (our employer) opinions,” Rye told Florida’s Voice. “He has carried a contradictory view throughout the COVID narrative and co-authored the best selling book The Truth About COVID-19 which exposed the likelihood that this virus was engineered in a laboratory funded by the NIH.”
Rye said he was told his children would not be able to carry accounts with Chase Bank in the future.
“It’s just hard to believe that your family, your wife, your kids can’t have a bank account because of the opinions of your employer and they’ve never done anything wrong,” Rye said. “We all have completely clear records.”
A voicemail from a Chase Bank representative urged Rye to submit paperwork for their accounts to be reconsidered.
“We are going to try because you’re a good client of our institution,” the Chase representative said in a voicemail.
In an email from Chase to Rye Monday, a representative said he is “still trying to figure out what is going on.”
Amalia Legaspi, the CFO of Mercola Market, said both her personal and her son’s personal accounts were canceled. Her son is using the accounts to pay for college expenses.
“I received the letter during weekend and I was surprised that we received the same letters for business accounts with exact wordings,” Legaspi said.
Legaspi’s joint checking account with her husband, who has dementia and is bedridden in the Philippines, was also closed. She uses the account to send money for his medical needs and said she is not allowed to open another bank account in his name.
“I have to provide all the legal documentations including notarized physicians affidavit from the Philippines to prove that my husband is incapable of handling his finances and request the Federal to directly deposit the pension to my own personal account,” Legaspi said.
With regards to the company’s accounts, she said Chase will not give them a reason for the closure to protect the privacy of their clients.
Dr. Mercola said he published articles about the benefits of vitamin D, zinc and quercetin to boost the immune system. He also published testimony from a nurse who claimed patients were being “intentionally killed on ventilators.”
The FDA also sent a letter to Dr. Mercola telling him to take “immediate action” to address “violations” in the letter regarding supplement products the doctor said would aid in COVID-19, calling them “unapproved new drugs” that are “misbranded.”
Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in May to prohibit financial institutions from denying or canceling services based on political or religious beliefs.
July 5, 2023, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, an expert clinical pathologist, and colleagues published a systematic review of autopsy findings in people who died after receiving a COVID shot on The Lancet journal’s preprint server
The autopsy review found that 62.5% to 73.9% of post-jab deaths were likely caused by the injection
Preprints with The Lancet pulled the study in less than 24 hours
The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) also rejected the paper, as did the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The preprint server medRxiv and others also refused to post it
Belgian researchers report that two doses of the Pfizer mRNA COVID jab induced lethal “turbo cancers” in a mouse. Two days after receiving its second dose, one of the 14 injected mice (7%) died suddenly. No clinical signs of illness were present before its abrupt death. Upon post-mortem examination, the mouse was found to have lymphoma in several organs, including the heart, liver, kidneys, spleen and lungs
July 5, 2023, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, an expert clinical pathologist, and several other colleagues published a systematic review of autopsy findings in people who died after receiving a COVID shot on The Lancet journal’s preprint server.1
Disturbingly, but not surprisingly, they concluded that 62.5% to 73.9% of post-jab deaths were likely caused by the injection. Previous autopsy reviews have also concluded that the mRNA COVID jabs are a causative factor in sudden cardiac deaths.2
Nearly Three-Quarters of Post-Jab Deaths Caused by the Shot
As explained by the authors:3
“The aim of this systematic review is to investigate possible causal links between COVID-19 vaccine administration and death using autopsies and post-mortem analysis … We searched for all published autopsy and necropsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination up until May 18th, 2023.
We initially identified 678 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. Three physicians independently reviewed all deaths and determined whether COVID-19 vaccination was the direct cause or contributed significantly to death.
The most implicated organ system in COVID-19 vaccine-associated death was the cardiovascular system (53%), followed by the hematological system (17%), the respiratory system (8%), and multiple organ systems (7%). Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases.
The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days. Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration. A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination …
Among adjudicators, there was complete independent agreement (all three physicians) of vaccination causing or contributing to death in 203 cases (62.5%). The one necropsy case was judged to be linked to vaccination with complete agreement …
The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, their mechanisms, and related excess death, coupled with autopsy confirmation and physician-led death adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death in most cases.”
The Lancet Censors Paper
As has so often been the case over these past three years, the journal didn’t waste time censoring the paper. Preprints with The Lancet pulled it within 24 hours,4 stating “the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.”5 In what way? They don’t say. As noted by McCullough, the methodology is as standard as it gets. Will Jones at the Daily Sceptic adds:6
“A number of the authors of the paper are at the top of their fields so it is hard to imagine that the methodology of their review was really so poor that it warranted removal at initial screening rather than being subject to full critical appraisal. It smacks instead of raw censorship of a paper that failed to toe the official line …
Dr. Clare Craig, a pathologist and co-Chair of the HART pandemic advisory group, says that in her view the approach taken in the study is sound. She told the Daily Sceptic:
‘The VAERS system … is designed to alert to potential harms without necessarily being the best way of measuring the extent of those harms. Quantifying the impact of deaths can be done by looking at overall mortality rates in a country.
However, this is imperfect as a deficit of deaths would be expected after a period of excess deaths, making the accuracy of any baseline dubious. An alternative approach of auditing such deaths through autopsy is sound.
There may be a bias [in the study] towards reporting the autopsies of deaths where there was evidence of causation and the likelihood of causation might be exaggerated by that bias. For example, 19 of the 325 deaths were due to vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) but these reports may be overrepresented because of the regulators’ willingness to acknowledge such deaths.
Nevertheless, it is important that attempts are made to quantify the risk of harm and censorship of these attempts, rather than open scientific critique, does nothing to help reassure people.”
Prior to this, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) had also rejected the paper, as had the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). NEJM rejected it within a few days, and JAMA within about an hour of submission. The preprint server medRxiv and others also refused to post it.
In the video above, Naomi Wolf with Daily Clout interviewed McCullough about the censoring of his paper. According to McCullough, overnight, while the paper was still on the Preprint server, downloads of the paper were in the hundreds per minute, demonstrating there’s a clear demand for this information.
The paper is currently only available for download on the preprint server Zenodo.7 Ironically, by pulling the paper off the server, The Lancet magnified its existence, as news of the censorship went viral on social media.
Mechanisms of Action
In the featured Daily Clout interview, McCullough explains the jab’s mechanisms of action that appear to be responsible for a majority of post-jab heart-related deaths. The first is myocarditis (heart inflammation). The other is progression of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
In myocarditis, the electrical current can no longer conduct smoothly through the heart muscle, causing an abnormal heart rhythm. This abnormal heart rhythm can then lead to sudden cardiac death. This is one of the primary reasons behind many athletic deaths, where players have died on the field.
In a letter to the editor of the Scandinavian Journal of Immunology published in late 2022,8,9 McCullough compared the pre- and post-COVID jab cardiac death rates among athletes, finding that before the jab, there were an average of 29 cardiac-related deaths among pro athletes per year.
After the rollout of the jab, which was mandated on players, it shot up to 283 per year — a 10-fold increase. And, in many cases, players have no prior symptoms. Wolf points out that lipid nanoparticles have been found to damage electrical conduction in the myelin sheath, so why would it not also damage electrical conduction in the heart? It makes sense that it would.
McCullough adds that when lipid nanoparticles are taken up by human somatic cells — nonreproductive cells, found in the heart and other internal organs — it causes syncytia formation where cell membranes fuse together.
And, because the heart prefers lipids over glucose for fuel, it may preferentially take up lipid nanoparticles, more so than other tissues. On top of that, exercise increases blood flow, which draws more lipid nanoparticles to the heart.
He also cites research showing there are two primary periods of sudden cardiac death: during exercise and between 3 AM and 6 AM. The common factor between these two is adrenaline. Adrenaline surges during exercise and in the natural waking process. If you have myocarditis, this adrenaline surge can be enough to trigger sudden cardiac death.
Shining a Light on Possible Treatments
As noted by Wolf, by clearly identifying how the COVID jab is killing people, McCullough’s paper also helps shed light on potential treatments. The spike protein produced by your body in response to the mRNA shot is the primary culprit that needs to be degraded and eliminated.
The enzymes in your body that would normally do this job are unable to degrade the synthetic spike protein, but there are products that can get the job done. McCullough refers to Japanese research that found nattokinase can be very helpful in this regard. However, lumbrokinase is a much stronger fibrinolytic enzyme and would likely work better.
Bromelain, an enzyme derived from pineapple stems, also works, McCullough says, as does curcumin, the active ingredient in turmeric. We also know that both hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin aid in the elimination of spike protein.
As noted by McCullough, it’s interesting that while the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the spike protein produced by the mRNA jab are synthetic and wholly unnatural, most of the best remedies are turning out to be all-natural compounds.
Reprehensible Medical Censorship
At the end of the interview, McCullough says that if the current censorship trend continues, medical history may well state that the COVID shots are perfectly safe, even though there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary — evidence that was never allowed to be seen.
In a three-part series for TrialSite News, published in 2021, investigative journalist Sonia Elijah reviewed how scientific journals were censoring the science on COVID. July 7, 2023, she published a follow-up based on the most recent censoring of McCullough’s paper:10
“This is just another example of a paper with findings, not fitting in with the ‘very good safety profile of the COVID-19 vaccines,’ being expelled from a prominent journal,” she writes. “Dr. McCullough commented exclusively for TrialSite about this highly concerning issue. This is what he said:
‘This act of medical censorship occurred after the paper met all the criteria for listing on the Lancet PrePrint Server and appears to be triggered by very heavy worldwide interest and rapid downloading of the paper.
This speaks to the importance of our findings as the largest summary of autopsies after COVID-19 vaccination. Elsevier and Lancet are trying to suppress critical scientific observations on COVID-19 vaccine safety. Their actions are reprehensible.’
My own research11 in analyzing the Periodic Safety Update Reports compiled by Pfizer for the European Medicines Agency revealed damning data. As of June 2022, 161 children have died shortly after taking the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
What is even more shocking is that an overwhelming majority of autopsies were not performed or followed up by the pharmaceutical behemoth … This is why McCullough et al.’s study is so key because there is an incredible lack of laboratory data and post-mortem information on these post-vaccine deaths …
This begs the all-important question — has this scarcity been carefully orchestrated to prevent sufficient evidence of a causal association of COVID-19 vaccines with the reported deaths?”
Case Report of mRNA Jab-Induced Turbo Cancers
In related news, Belgian researchers report that two doses of the Pfizer mRNA COVID jab induced lethal “turbo cancers” in a mouse. Two days after receiving its second dose, one of the 14 injected mice (7%) died suddenly. No clinical signs of illness were present before its abrupt death.
Upon post-mortem examination, the mouse was found to have lymphoma in several organs, including the heart, liver, kidneys, spleen and lungs. The case report, published in Frontiers in Oncology May 1, 2023, noted:12
“Two days following booster vaccination (i.e., 16 days after prime), at only 14 weeks of age, our animal suffered spontaneous death with marked organomegaly and diffuse malignant infiltration of multiple extranodal organs (heart, lung, liver, kidney, spleen) by lymphoid neoplasm.
Immunohistochemical examination revealed organ sections positive for CD19, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, and c-MYC, compatible with a B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma immunophenotyped …
Given the paucity of data on the long-term safety of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, it is vital that clinicians and scientists report any adverse event to establish potential correlations.
Our case adds to previous clinical reports on malignant lymphoma development following novel SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. Interestingly, we are the first to report a B-LBL subtype …
Although strong evidence proving or refuting a causal relationship between SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination and lymphoma development or progression is lacking, vigilance is required, with conscientious reporting of similar cases and a further investigation of the mechanisms of action that could explain the aforementioned association.”
Resources for Those Injured by the COVID Jab
Aside from autopsy assessments, case reports of harms and various other studies, things like job statistics, disability claims, life insurance claims and all-cause mortality statistics also tell us that the COVID jabs are having a devastating effect.13 All have skyrocketed since the introduction of these COVID jabs.
If you got one or more jabs and suffered an injury, first and foremost, never ever take another COVID booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your body.
The same goes for anyone who has taken one or more COVID jabs and had the good fortune of not experiencing debilitating side effects. Your health may still be impacted long-term, so don’t take any more shots.
When it comes to treatment, it seems like many of the treatments that worked against severe COVID-19 infection also help ameliorate adverse effects from the jab. This makes sense, as the toxic, most damaging part of the virus is the spike protein, and that’s what your whole body is producing if you got the jab.
As mentioned earlier, eliminating the spike protein is a primary task to prevent and/or address post-jab injuries. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine bind to and facilitate the removal of spike protein. According to McCullough, nattokinase, bromelain and curcumin also help degrade the spike protein.
For a comprehensive treatment plan, see the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) I-RECOVER protocol. It’s continuously updated as more data become available, so be sure to download the latest version straight from the FLCCC website at covid19criticalcare.com.14
Here is the lnk for the Video with Dr. Meryl Nass:
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The World Health Organization is laying the foundation to take control over all aspects of everyone’s lives, across the world, under the auspice of “biosecurity”
A new organization called Door to Freedom is being set up as a one-stop shop where everyone can learn what the plan is and what we can do to stop it. Door to Freedom also hopes to align freedom organizations around the world to act in concert to get the word out more widely
The global cabal that is trying to seize control over the world have access to loads of capital, but they’re also using our tax dollars. The U.S. government has spent some $5 trillion on the pandemic response. Much of that money went to bribe media, hospitals, influencers, churches, medical groups and other social organizations to push the official narrative
Current laws give immunity to a lot of bad actors, including the Federal Reserve, the Bank of International Settlements, everybody who works for the WHO and the UN, federal government employees as well as many private organizations. Vaccines and their manufacturers are also indemnified
We need to pass new laws that eliminate all of these indemnifications, so that we can retroactively take them to court for the crimes they’ve committed
In this video, I interview repeat guest Dr. Meryl Nass, who has a monthly podcast with journalist James Corbett on Children’s Health Defense (CHD) TV. Their show is focused on the implementation of the World Health Organization’s efforts to install global tyranny with respect to health and global governance.
In this interview, Nass explains how the WHO is being set up as a central governing body for the world, and what we can do to stop it. She also details the price she’s paid for taking a stand against the false COVID narrative and offering early treatment.
Sacrificial Lamb
Nass was one of the doctors who, during the COVID pandemic, offered patients early treatment in Maine and Maryland. As a result, her medical license was suspended and the medical board forced her to undergo psychiatric evaluation. Apparently, in the present era, doctors who think saving lives is more important than following unscientific medical advice created by bureaucrats is considered insanity. She comments:
“This whole pandemic, and the takeover of the world by ‘elites, (global cabal)’ has been orchestrated primarily through fear, and one thing that’s necessary is to make doctors cooperate. To do that, the best way is to scare them, and the best way to scare them is to threaten their medical licenses …
In July and August of 2021, there were national news reports of several doctors who were prescribing ivermectin and [who] were being investigated, but none of them actually lost their licenses.
Apparently, this was not enough to stop doctors from prescribing ivermectin, and in states where it was allowed, hydroxychloroquine. These are both licensed drugs and the federal government had no legal authority to take them off the menu.
Licensed doctors could prescribe licensed drugs, as could nurse practitioners, PAs [physician’s assistants], et cetera. Neither one had a black box warning, neither one was a controlled substance. They were both safe, and they both had been used for a number of decades.
So, instead, it had to be done through the states — because states regulate medical practice in the U.S., and pharmacy practice — so, about 30 states issued either guidelines or rules to pharmacists and doctors telling them whether they could prescribe these drugs and under what circumstances.
That had happened in early 2020. In my case, the board got an anonymous complaint against me saying I was spreading misinformation — another charge that the government really needed to control people on. They couldn’t have the truth coming out about COVID, the drugs, the vaccines, and about this whole takeover.
So, they created this baloney concept of ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation’ and ‘malinformation’ and pretended that it was the law, that people who spread misinformation could be charged, and had to stop. A whole huge system was created within the federal government to surveil our online presence and go after people [who went against the narrative].
So, I was accused, initially, not of using these drugs, because I used them legally, but of spreading misinformation. And I think that the feds were looking for an excuse to really scare doctors … I was fairly well known.
So they went after me and said, ‘Not only are we investigating you, but we find, even before an investigation goes forward, even before any hearing, before the medical board even gets to see you and you get to say one word to them, we’ve decided that you are such a danger to the people of Maine, we must immediately suspend your license.’ They did that on January 12, 2022.”
Kangaroo Court
Nass has not been able to practice medicine since. Before the first hearing, the state medical board tried to get her to plea bargain and surrender her license voluntarily. She refused. By then, she was already working with CHD, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who founded CHD, offered to pay for her legal defense.
Of course, before the first hearing, they realized they couldn’t possibly take Nass to court for misinformation. After all, the First Amendment allows her to say whatever she wants. So, they dropped the misinformation charges and charged her with using medications off-label instead — only, that’s perfectly legal as well.
So, they dropped that charge, and instead argued she’d been speaking ill of the COVID vaccines. But that wasn’t a winning strategy either, because, of course, they didn’t want to defend the shots in court.
“So, basically, they went through my records and they tried to find little piddly things, like my records weren’t neat enough. I had been doing telemedicine and I hadn’t written down the vital signs for a patient, things like that,” Nass says.
“So in the hearings that have gone on so far, we’ve managed to shoot down all of those charges. There’s nothing substantive, there’s nothing left for them. In fact, the attorney general didn’t even question my last witness, who was Harvey Risch, an emeritus professor and M.D., Ph.D., from Yale, who blew apart the part-time ER doctor’s testimony that I hadn’t done things correctly.
So, that’s where we are. They don’t have a case, so what they want to do instead is drag this out forever, which will do two things that are good for them: One, prevent me from being able to say I won my case and get national attention for that, because they managed to put me in the national news when they took my license;
No. 2, they want to cost Children’s Health Defense a whole lot of money by just dragging it out, and it doesn’t cost them anything to drag it out. They’ve got the assistant attorney generals who are already working for the state managing the case.
Somebody up there is pulling the strings and figured out how to make this as painful as possible for myself and CHD. Well, I want to assure them that it’s not painful at all because we’ve had up to 180,000 people watching each hearing in real time.
CHD and Epoch Times have streamed every one, so everyone has been able to see what kind of kangaroo court this is, and the state of Maine has a black eye already. So let’s go forward. Let’s give them some more black eyes.”
Most Doctors Are Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Unfortunately, threatening a doctor’s medical license is an exceptionally effective way to ensure compliance, and an effective coercion to follow the rules even though they are wholly unlawful. The reason for this is simple economics. Most doctors owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans, and unless they’re independently wealthy, they can’t afford to go into private practice.
That means they work as an employee for a hospital or big clinic, where the rules are being set by hospital administrators. In addition to that, medical education is wholly captured by Big Pharma, and has been for the last 100 years. As such, medical students are being brainwashed from Day One. On top of that, you have peer pressure.
“We’re in the middle of a war,” Nass says. “It’s a war about who gets control of people, and doctors just happened to be a necessary chess piece for them. By doing this to me and others, the state has been very successful at getting most doctors to keep their mouth shut and go along, and comply with what they want.”
Indeed, it takes enormous courage and commitment to patient welfare to buck a system that has all these built-in pressures. In my estimate, perhaps only 5% of the 1 million doctors in America took a stand against the COVID tyranny.
“More than 75% of doctors are employed by somebody else, and that means they don’t have a say,” Nass explains. “If they’re employed by a hospital, the hospital bean-counters said, ‘Look, everybody who comes in is getting remdesivir, that’s it, if they’re admitted with COVID.’ And they can’t fight back.
There was so much money involved that people who tried to fight back lost their jobs. And this was what hospitals and employers were told to do by government and so-called ethicists like Art Caplan. You fire people and then everybody else goes along. So that’s what happened.
The other thing is … you can’t expect someone to believe something if their salary depends on their not believing it. So there’s that. The peer pressure is huge, for several reasons. One is malpractice. If you don’t go along with everybody else, you are liable for malpractice if your patient doesn’t do well.
So if I give someone hydroxychloroquine for COVID and they wind up dying, I can be sued for malpractice because I wasn’t following the standard of care. But if I gave them remdesivir and they die, I was following the standard of care, and I can’t be sued for that.
These are terrible things. This means that the entire profession has been pushed — through these rules and standards — to do things wrong. And all of this was probably thought of, or even planned, long ago, so that it would be relatively easy to control all the doctors.”
The Global Takeover Is Well Underway
As noted by Nass, most of you who are paying attention will have noticed that all kinds of crazy things are now happening all at once. We were mandated to get fast-tracked “vaccines” that turned out to be both ineffective and extremely dangerous, and even though the proverbial cat is now out of the bag, government is still trying to pressure people into taking additional boosters.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has authorized vaccine manufacturers to make a third, bivalent, version of the mRNA shot, to be rolled out in the fall in combination with the flu shots.
“Why would that be, when everyone knows that after a few weeks, [the shots] make you more susceptible to get the disease, as well as have heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, et cetera, and sudden death?” Nass asks.
We’re also facing the rollout of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and an international digital vaccine passport. We also know that the U.S. government was funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to design more lethal coronaviruses. Why did they do that? To what end?
We’ve also seen stupendous changes within our school system. Transgender ideology now trumps everything else. We’ve seen a rapid growth of online schooling and the lowering of educational standards at all levels, all while using the right pronoun has become incredibly important.
We’ve also seen a radical shift away from true environmentalism in favor of a “green” agenda that forces the poor and middle class to lower their standard of living while the wealthy profit. The fact is, the destruction of our environment and the raping of underdeveloped countries for their natural resources was done by the same globalists that now blame all of these problems on the public.
“What’s going on now is that the ‘elites’ (global cabal) have somehow gained control of enough pieces of our culture and our education system, and certainly our mass media and government, to roll out these cultural concepts and convince people of their validity,” Nass says.
“The elites have decided — they’ve got the ability now, through surveillance, through control of media and control of governments — to take over much of the world. The simplest and most legal way for them to do that, without having to fight wars, is to take over public health, and wrap the rest of the world into public health.
So public health is not just between you and your doctor. Public health now involves wild animals … They want to control the interactions of humans and wild animals.
They also want to control what happens with our livestock … so, livestock have become part of health. Ecosystems have also become part of health, and so has everything else. The name for this is ‘One Health.’
The WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) — the world organization on animal health — and the UN Environmental Program, are all pushing for these things to be part of One Health and public health.
This didn’t happen by chance. It’s a scheme … funded by the Rockefeller Foundation around 2009. Many U.S. federal agencies are supposed to be using the One Health approach. This means that health problems have to be solved with a whole committee of people, not just doctors, not just veterinarians, but you need the ecologists, the plant pathologists, the livestock people, et cetera.
Everybody has to work together. But that’s not enough. You also have to throw in the police. You also have to throw in governments and legislators and everyone else into this concept of One Health.”
As noted by Nass, One Health is already enshrined in U.S. law in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), so there’s no question that U.S. agencies are all on the same track as the WHO.
Who’s Part of the Global Cabal?
In the interview, Nass goes on to name some of the organizations that are part of the global cabal that is reworking society for their own aims. Named players include the Rhodes organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and Chatham House, which is the equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations in the U.K.
All these groups, and many more, are linked to each other. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger cofounded the Trilateral Commission and was a Rhodes scholar and member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Kissinger selected Klaus Schwab to create the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 1971, and they’ve been working together ever since.
In 1993, the WEF founded a Young Global Leaders program to groom international heads of state. Today, Germany, France, Canada, Finland and other countries are led by graduates of this program.
“It’s not exactly a secret society, but Klaus Schwab and his group have managed to identify people who would go along with their program,” Nass says. “I suspect these are people who are not the most intelligent, who lack imagination and are very obedient.
Therefore, they have been convinced that climate change is a dire emergency, and that they need to take extraordinary measures to deal with it — even if they have to reduce the population, even if they have to reduce our standard of living, even if they have to impose 15-minute cities, get rid of air travel and … eat bugs.”
How the WHO Is Being Set Up as the Central Authority
As explained by Nass, from its inception in 1948, the WHO has been an organization that transferred money from wealthier countries to poorer countries to help them with health problems like tuberculosis, AIDS and malaria.
During the COVID pandemic, the WHO and diplomats from member countries decided that a comprehensive pandemic treaty was necessary. The justification was that COVID had been mismanaged, hence we need a central decision-maker.
“Of course, what was never said is that things were managed so poorly because most countries were following the WHO advice, which was absolutely awful,” Nass says.
If this pandemic treaty goes through, either a regional epidemic or global pandemic would authorize the WHO to step in and dictate how the matter should be addressed. WHO members are also working on amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs), which would strip member nations of their sovereignty to make health-related decisions.
And, recall that “health” is being redefined to include all aspects of life, under the already existing One Health paradigm. As Nass explains:
“What has been proposed is that either a regional director-general or the WHO director-general can simply declare a public health emergency of international concern, or the potential for a public health emergency of international concern.
Once they make that declaration, all these powers would then accrue to the director-general of the WHO, if it’s for all countries, or if it’s regional, to that regional director-general.
That person could then say, ‘OK, medicines in your country need to be shipped to this other country.’ Intellectual property on how to make vaccines need to go away. Let’s say Abbott has a vaccine to combat whatever it is. They have to now give the recipe to Rwanda so they can make that vaccine in their own country and use it for their own people.
They can close borders. The WHO director-generals could basically take control of anything. If they say, ‘Oh, people are getting this from animals,’ they can stop contact with animals, stop you eating chicken or whatever, because One Health has taken jurisdiction over ecosystems.
The entire planet is ecosystems, and that’s part of One Health. Animals and plants are also part of One Health. So, they can tell you what to eat, they can tell you where to go and where not to go. They can lock you in your home. They can put masks on you, they can mandate vaccinations — if these [IHR] amendments and the pandemic treaty are passed.
They’re still being negotiated. The final versions are not out. But we have certainly criticized and analyzed the early versions, and they will be voted on next May [2024], and could potentially go into force on a provisional basis. The treaty could go into force almost immediately.”
How These Instruments Alter the WHO’s Existing Authority
In many ways, it seems the WHO was already exercising these powers, or at least attempting to, during the COVID pandemic. So, how do these two instruments — the IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty — alter their existing authority? Nass explains:
“There are existing international health regulations and they’ve been in existence since at least 1969 … Although the WHO claims that part of the IHRs that exist right now are binding, they aren’t binding. So, countries followed them, but there was no legal requirement for them to do so.
The International Health Regulations stated very clearly that the way they were to be carried out was with ‘full respect for freedom of persons’ dignity and human rights.’ In the new version that is being negotiated, they have struck that out. There is no longer a need to respect human rights, dignity or freedom of persons.
And, they have specifically said that these new regulations will be binding on countries, and countries are required to have a focal point that is required to carry them out and report back to the WHO how they’ve been carried out.
There are additional new provisions that countries are required to perform surveillance of their populations. They want you to think this is surveillance of only bacteria or surveillance of only social media, but it’s both. So, the WHO could require people to be swabbed in your country, whether or not they’re crossing a border.
Say there’s an outbreak. Everybody has to line up and get swabbed to see if they’re infected with X. And animals have to be surveilled as well, because they’re looking for pathogens that have the potential to be become pandemics. So that is supposed to happen.
Now, there’s a huge problem with that, and that is, you can always find viruses that have the potential to become pandemics … So, if you start surveilling for them, you’re going to find them, which means that would allow the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency anytime he or she wants.
The other surveillance is they require countries to surveil their social media and mainstream media, and censor anything that goes against the public health messaging of the WHO. So this is big. This is huge.”
Is Global Tyranny an Inevitability?
While it may seem there’s no way to derail this proverbial bullet train, Nass remains optimistic. “This is a dystopian future that actually is not good for anybody. Even the people who want it are going to find it’s not good for them either,” Nass says.
Now, the global cabal that is trying to seize control have access to essentially unlimited capital. But they’re also using our tax dollars. As noted by Nass, the U.S. government has spent some $5 trillion on the pandemic response.
“That’s our money, not theirs,” she says, “and a lot of that money, most likely, went to bribe media.” Hospitals were also paid to go along with the narrative, as were celebrities, churches, medical groups and other social organizations.
“These very wealthy people do not want to spend their own money to take over the world. They want to spend our money or put us in debt. But are these expenditures justified and legal?
If we get governments of people who are responsive to normal life, we can investigate where that money went. What are these public officials doing? We can put them on trial, and we can probably even claw back a lot of this money.
Now, to do that might require some new laws, but if we had really good people in office — like Bobby Kennedy — we could potentially create the laws, very quickly, that will allow us to try government officials and others, heads of media, et cetera, if they’re doing things that are against the law.”
Why We Need New Laws
The reason we need new laws is because current laws give immunity to a lot of bad actors, including the Federal Reserve, the Bank of International Settlements, everybody who works for the WHO and the UN, and federal government employees as well as many private organizations.
Vaccines and their manufacturers are also indemnified. We need to pass new laws that eliminate all these indemnifications, so that we can retroactively take them to court for the crimes they’ve committed.
“This whole thing goes against the principles of the Constitution, the principles of natural law. This is a dystopian nightmare that was figured out by some very clever people in public relations and in consulting groups. We know the French government paid something like €1 billion or €2 billion to McKinsey to help manage the pandemic response.
So we can identify organizations that have brought these things on us and go after them. We also need to tell our members of Congress, our parliamentarians, and legislators, we don’t want this dystopia. Government doesn’t give us rights. We have rights. We are giving government authority. Government doesn’t have authority and own us. We own the government.
We’ve been led to believe that it’s the other way around, but it isn’t. And we can fix all this. There are about 50 members of Congress already who have signed on as co-sponsors to HR79 [the WHO Withdrawal Act1]. We need to get out of these international organizations.
The UN is trying to do something similar. The WHO was simply pulled in because there was an opportunity to gain control legally through the WHO because of the way its constitution exists, because of several Supreme Court cases, et cetera, there was an ability to use the WHO. The cabal may try to use other international organizations or other means to gain control.
But look, there’s a few thousand of them. There’s 8 billion of us. This is like a million to one. We can beat them. We don’t have to go along with any of it. If everybody says no, if the police don’t enforce, if the Army doesn’t enforce, it’s not going to happen. So people just need to realize what’s going on.”
Door to Freedom
To that end, Nass is working with a new organization called Door to Freedom. Their website, which will launch shortly, will contain all the relevant WHO and UN documents, criticisms of those documents, and both long and short explanations of what’s going on.
It’ll be a one-stop shop where everyone can learn what the plan is and what we can do to stop it. Door to Freedom also hopes to align freedom organizations around the world to act in concert to get the word out more widely.
Personally, I’m skeptical about the likelihood of winning this battle through legislative efforts because this cabal has been working on this plan for decades, if not centuries. So, they already have everything buttoned up, or close to it. Perhaps someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could get it done, but it will take a small miracle to get him into office as well.
What I do hold out hope for is that public resistance will block attempts of implementation. So, the key, I think, is to educate people. Henceforth, most of the day-to-day choices you make will take the world either closer to freedom, or closer to slavery, so it’s crucial to understand where we are, where the cabal intends to take us, and how they intend to get us there.
That way, you can make decisions and take actions that will move us in the opposite direction. Door to Freedom will be able to help you understand all of that, so please bookmark doortofreedom.org, and check back regularly.
The World Health Organization has finally gotten around to declaring the popular artificial sweetener aspartame a potential carcinogen
The ruling comes from sources with WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who said aspartame will be listed as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in July 2023
I’ve been warning about aspartame’s cancer-causing potential since 2010, so you can see just how long this danger has been known
For over a decade, researchers have been warning of aspartame’s neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity, stating reevaluation of aspartame consumption is “urgent and cannot be delayed”
A 2022 large-scale cohort study found people who consumed higher levels of artificial sweeteners had higher risk of overall cancer compared to non-consumers
The World Health Organization has finally gotten around to declaring the popular artificial sweetener aspartame a potential carcinogen.1 I warned about aspartame’s cancer-causing potential on my site over 25 years ago, in my best-selling book, “Sweet Deception: Why Splenda, NutraSweet, and the FDA May Be Hazardous to Your Health,” in 2006, and in an article I wrote for The Huffington Post.2 It’s since been deleted — but you can see just how long this danger has been known.
The ruling comes from sources with WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who said aspartame will be listed as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in July 2023.3 Additional findings from the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization’s Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), which is in the process of updating its aspartame risk assessment, are also expected.4
Donald Rumsfeld’s Hand in Aspartame’s Approval
JECFA has vouched for aspartame’s safety for decades, stating since 1981 that it’s safe when consumed within accepted daily limits.5 It was 1981 when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved aspartame.6 At the time, the late Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. secretary of defense, was chairman of G.D. Searle, aspartame’s manufacturer, and he was reportedly instrumental in its approval.
At a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, the FDA had refused to approve aspartame due to concerns that it could induce brain tumors.7 The late John Olney, a renowned neuroscientist who tried to prevent aspartame’s approval, also wrote a letter to the Board of Inquiry in 1987, warning of aspartame’s neurotoxicity, including the potential for brain tumors and damage to children’s brains.8 As reported by Rense.com:9
“The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld … vow to ‘call in his markers,’10 to get it approved.
On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision.
It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.
Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle.”
Aspartame’s Cancer Link Known for Decades
Despite aspartame’s approval, by 1987 a series of investigative reports raised concerns that the chemical’s approval was mired by conflicts of interest, poor quality industry-funded research and revolving-door relationships between the FDA and the food industry.11
By 1996, a team with the department of psychiatry at Washington University Medical School questioned whether increasing brain tumor rates had an aspartame connection. “An exceedingly high incidence of brain tumors” has been identified in aspartame-fed rats compared to rats not fed aspartame, they explained, adding:12
“Compared to other environmental factors putatively linked to brain tumors, the artificial sweetener aspartame is a promising candidate to explain the recent increase in incidence and degree of malignancy of brain tumors.”
Then, in 2006, a study led by Dr. Morando Soffritti, a cancer researcher from Italy who’s the head of the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, found that, even in low doses, animals were developing several different forms of cancer when fed aspartame.13
That year, the team concluded aspartame was a “multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake” and stated a reevaluation of aspartame consumption was “urgent and cannot be delayed.”14
A 2007 follow-up study confirmed the findings of aspartame’s “multipotential carcinogenicity,” even at doses close to the acceptable daily intake for humans. Further, it also demonstrated that when lifespan exposure beginning in utero was assessed, aspartame’s “carcinogenic effects are increased.”15 In 2010, Soffritti and colleagues again warned that aspartame was a carcinogenic agent in rats and mice.16
Research Supporting Aspartame’s Carcinogenicity Is Widespread
These studies were only the beginning of the evidence showing aspartame’s cancer-causing potential. In 2012, Harvard researchers published a study in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which found:17
“In the most comprehensive long-term epidemiologic study, to our knowledge, to evaluate the association between aspartame intake and cancer risk in humans, we observed a positive association between diet soda and total aspartame intake and risks of NHL [non-Hodgkin lymphoma] and multiple myeloma in men and leukemia in both men and women.”
Adding further concerns over aspartame’s safety, U.S. Right to Know reported:18
“In a 2014 commentary in American Journal of Industrial Medicine,19 the [Cesare] Maltoni [Cancer Research] Center researchers wrote that the studies submitted by G. D. Searle for market approval ‘do not provide adequate scientific support for [aspartame’s] safety.
In contrast, recent results of life-span carcinogenicity bioassays on rats and mice published in peer-reviewed journals, and a prospective epidemiological study, provide consistent evidence of [aspartame’s] carcinogenic potential.’”
A 2020 study further supports the Ramazzini Institute’s (RI) original findings, revealing a statistically significant increase in total hematopoietic and lymphoid tissue tumors (HLTs) and total leukemias and lymphomas in female rats exposed to aspartame.
“After the HLT cases re-evaluation, the results obtained are consistent with those reported in the previous RI publication and reinforce the hypothesis that APM [aspartame] has a leukemogenic and lymphomatogenic effect,” the researchers explained.20
Again in 2021, a review of the Ramazzini Institute data further confirmed that aspartame is carcinogenic in rodents. The researchers noted that their findings “confirm the very worrisome finding that prenatal exposure to aspartame increases cancer risk in rodent offspring. They validate the conclusions of the original RI studies.”21
In response, they called on national and international public health agencies to reexamine aspartame’s health risks, particularly prenatal and early postnatal exposures.22
WHO Warns Against Artificial Sweeteners for Weight Control
Aspartame’s cancer link is especially concerning given its prevalence in diet foods and drinks. Aspartame is used in 1,400 food products in France and more than 6,000 products around the globe. The chemical is commonly found in food products such as sugar-free gum, diet drink mixes and sodas, reduced-sugar condiments and tabletop sweeteners, including Equal and NutraSweet.26
Its high level of sweetness — 200 times greater than sugar27 — and low calories makes it popular among people looking to make their drinks and meals sweeter without the calories of a comparable amount of sugar.
But, in addition to labeling the artificial sweetener as possibly carcinogenic, in May 2023, even the beyond-corrupted WHO released a guideline advising not to use non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) for weight control because they don’t offer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children.28
Previously, WHO conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that revealed “there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance, or if they are linked to other long-term health effects at intakes within the ADI.”29
The systematic review also suggested “potential undesirable effects from long-term use of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults.” Even cancer was called out in analysis, which included 283 studies and found artificial sweeteners are linked to an increased risk of:30
Obesity
Type 2 diabetes
High fasting glucose
All-cause mortality
Cardiovascular events
Death from cardiovascular disease
Stroke
High blood pressure
Bladder cancer
Preterm birth and possible adiposity in offspring later in life
Further, according to the WHO study:31
“Mechanisms by which NSS as a class of molecules might exert effects that increase risk for obesity and certain NCDs [non-communicable diseases] have been reviewed extensively and include interaction with extra-oral taste receptors, possibly with alteration of the gut microbiome.
Because sugars and all known NSS presumably elicit sweet taste through the TAS1R heterodimeric sweet-taste receptor, which has been identified not just in the oral cavity but in other glucose-sensing tissues, it is not surprising that such a group of vastly different chemical entities could be responsible for similar effects on health.”
One of the latest GMO Frankenfoods is Piggy Sooy, a soybean genetically engineered to contain pig protein. One or more undisclosed pig genes are spliced into conventional soya to create a soybean with 26.6% animal protein
Moolec, the U.K.-based company that developed Piggy Sooy, is also working on developing a pea plant that produces beef protein. The company claims these transgenic hybrids will provide similar taste, texture and nutritional value as meat, without the high cost of cultured or lab-grown meat alternatives
June 21, 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture authorized the sale of cell-cultivated chicken from Good Meat and Upside Foods. Both plan on rolling out their synthetic chicken to “high-end” restaurants across the U.S. first, while they scale up production
Researchers have discovered that CRISPR-Cas gene editing wreaks havoc in the plant genome, causing several hundred unintended genetic changes to occur simultaneously “in a catastrophic event” that ripples across large parts of the genome
Because these changes are impossible to predict, gene edited plants cannot be assumed safe without extensive testing
As expected, more and ever-wilder transgenic foods are being produced. Among the latest is Piggy Sooy, a soybean genetically engineered to contain pig protein.1,2 According to Moolec, the U.K.-based company that developed this latest Frankenfood, pig genes were spliced into conventional soya to create a soybean with 26.6% animal protein.
The exact pig genes used is a trade secret. As a result of this genetic engineering, the interior flesh of the soybean is also a rosy flesh color. The company is also working on developing a pea plant that produces beef protein. Moolec claims these transgenic hybrids will provide similar taste, texture and nutritional value as meat, without the high cost of cultured or lab-grown meat alternatives. According to New Atlas:3
“Farmers will raise the plants via conventional agricultural practices. Once the beans have been harvested and processed — again, via conventional techniques — their proteins will go into meat substitutes and other products …
As is the case with lab-grown pork, it is hoped that commercial adoption of Piggy Sooy could ultimately eliminate the raising and slaughtering of pigs, along with the associated ethical and environmental concerns.
‘Moolec has developed a unique, successful, and patentable platform for the expression of highly valuable proteins in the seeds of economically important crops such as soybeans,’ says the company’s chief science officer, Amit Dhingra.
‘This achievement opens up a precedent for the entire scientific community that is looking to achieve high levels of protein expression in seeds via molecular farming.’ There’s currently no word on when foods containing the proteins may be available to consumers.”
US Authorizes Cultured Chicken
Lab-grown chicken is also heading toward our plates. June 21, 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) authorized the sale of cell-cultivated chicken — meaning chicken meat grown from stem cells in a bioreactor — from Good Meat and Upside Foods.4,5
Both plan on rolling out their synthetic chicken to “high-end” restaurants across the U.S. first, while they scale up production. In addition to these two, more than 100 other companies are also working on different iterations of cultured meat, from cell-based ground beef and 3-D printed steak and fish (see video above), to synthetic foie gras and cultured seafood.
If you care about your health, I have but one recommendation. Stay clear of all these lab-grown concoctions. I don’t even want to call them food. There’s simply no telling how they may affect your health, and no one is studying it either. It could be decades before the effects become evident, and by then it may be far too late to roll things back.
On the one hand, the know-how of how to grow and raise real food might be lost. On the other, we might lose the ability to grow real food because there won’t be any unadulterated seeds left to work with unless we break open the doomsday seed vault at the North Pole.6
Gene Editing Causes Chaos in the Genome
As reported by GMWatch in June 2023, researchers have discovered7 that CRISPR-Cas gene editing ends up wreaking havoc in the plant genome:8
“Recent scientific findings have revealed chromothripsis-like effects after the application of CRISPR/Cas gene editing in the genome of tomatoes … Chromothripsis refers to a phenomenon in which often several hundred genetic changes occur simultaneously in a catastrophic event. Many sections of the genetic material can be swapped, recombined, or even lost if this occurs …”
Importantly, the same catastrophic cascades of gene swaps, recombination and loss also occurs in mammalian and human cells in response to gene editing. Actually, that’s been known for some time.
This is the first time they’ve found that CRISPRthripsis occurs in gene edited plants as well, and the unintended genetic alterations not only occur far more frequently than previously suspected, but they also occur across large parts of the genome.
Gene Edited Plants Cannot Be Regarded as Safe
As explained by Test Biotech:9
“… when both strands of DNA are cut, as is typically the case with the CRISPR/Cas, the ends of the chromosomes can lose contact with each other. If the repair of the break in the chromosomes fails, the severed ends can be lost, restructured or incorporated elsewhere.
Chromothripsis otherwise seems to be relatively rare in plants. CRISPR/Cas applications can frequently result also in changes at genomic sites that are particularly well-protected by natural repair mechanisms. The risks cannot generally be estimated, so they must be investigated thoroughly in each and every case …
The recent findings shed new light on the alleged ‘precision’ of gene scissors: although the new technology can be used to target and cut precise locations in the genome, the consequences of ‘cutting’ the genome are to some extent unpredictable and uncontrollable.
Plants obtained from new genetic engineering (New GE) cannot, therefore, be regarded as safe per se, and need to be thoroughly investigated for risks. Without exact genomic analyses, chromothripsis can be easily overlooked. It is, for example, not unlikely that it also occurred in plants obtained from New GE that were already deregulated in the US.”
Precision in Gene Editing Is Overrated
Those in favor of gene editing frequently stress the fact that it’s far more precise than natural breeding, the insinuation being that precision assures we only get the desired changes, nothing more and nothing less. But that’s clearly not true.
Precision does not guarantee safety, because hundreds of unintended genetic changes can occur from a single alteration, and unintended genetic rearrangements and/or the disruption of gene expression, in turn, can result in:
Alterations in the biochemical composition of the plant (or animal tissue)
Production of novel toxins
Production of novel allergens
Europe Seeks to Deregulate CRISPR Edited Plants
At present, the U.S. has no specific regulations for gene edited plants. The same regulations that apply for conventional crops apply for GMOs.10
That said, in late May 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on “Pesticides and Exemptions of Certain Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) Derived from Newer Technologies,”11,12 which now requires GMO developers to submit data showing that plants that have been gene edited to resist pests are harmless to other components of the ecosystem, don’t contain pesticide levels beyond those found in conventional crops, and won’t cause negative health effects in consumers.
For years, Europe has had rather stringent restrictions on GMO plants, but they’re now seeking to deregulate as well. As reported by Test Biotech:13
“Attempts are currently being made in Europe to largely deregulate plants obtained from CRISPR/Cas applications. According to leaked documents, the EU Commission plans to give companies permission to release New GE plants into the environment and to market their products after only a short period of notification.
Similar to the USA, the proposed criteria exempting them from mandatory risk assessment would not require any investigation of unintended genetic changes, e.g. chromothripsis.
The new regulation would not only be applicable to plants used in agriculture, but also would allow the release of wild plants with no in-depth risk assessment. Testbiotech is warning that the planned deregulation and large scale releases of New GE organisms could threaten natural resources needed by future generations.”
Lab-Made Meats Are Ultraprocessed Junk Food
Between genetically altered produce and lab-created meats, we’re getting close to not having many real, unadulterated whole food options left. Importantly, many meat alternatives fall into the category of ultraprocessed foods, which we already have far too much of.
In 2018, Friends of the Earth (FOE), a grassroots environmental group, released a report that posed critical questions about the trend toward synthetic biology. In it, they stressed the highly processed nature of these products:14
“Various ‘processing aids’ are employed to make some of these products, including organisms (like genetically engineered bacteria, yeast and algae) that produce proteins, and chemicals to extract proteins.
For example, chemicals like hexane are used to extract components of a food, like proteins (from peas, soy, corn etc.) or compounds (from genetically engineered bacteria) to make xanthan gum … disclosure of these ingredients is not required.
Other processing aids (e.g. bacteria, yeast, algae), including those that are genetically engineered to produce proteins, are also not currently required to be disclosed on package labeling. The lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess the inputs and impact of their use.”
Can We End the Tyranny of Ultraprocessed Food?
In a June 2023 Wired article, Dr. Chris Van Tulleken, an expert in infectious diseases and author of “Ultra-Processed People: Why Do We All Eat Stuff That Isn’t Food … and Why Can’t We Stop?” made a heartfelt plea to policymakers and doctors to protect public health by leading the fight for real food:15
“Diet-related disease — which includes obesity, heart attack, strokes, cancer, and dementia — is the leading cause of early death in the UK. Driving it is a set of industrially processed products … known formally as ultraprocessed food (UPF).
This type of food is usually wrapped in plastic and has additives that you won’t find in a typical kitchen. In the US and the UK, we get on average 60% of our calories from UPF products like pizza, bread, breakfast cereals, biscuits, and nutritional drinks …
UPF is a byproduct of a complicated financial system that involves repurposing waste from animal food into human food.
To solve this problem, the first thing we need to do is include in the official UK guidance about nutrition the information that ultraprocessed foods are associated with weight gain and diet-related diseases, and that the recommendation for people is to avoid these foods.”
Unfortunately, while an admirable call to action, I don’t foresee governments issuing guidance to avoid ultraprocessed foods anytime soon, seeing how many countries, especially the U.S., are all-in on transitioning the entire food system to one that is wholly, or close to wholly, made up of genetically engineered and processed fare.
It’s part of the technocratic takeover known as The Great Reset. By replacing real animal foods with patented lab-made alternatives, globalists will have unprecedented power to control the world’s population. It’ll also grant them greater control over people’s health.
It’s well-known that the consumption of ultraprocessed food contributes to disease,16 and the benefactor of ill health is Big Pharma. The processed food industry has spent many decades driving chronic illness that is then treated with drugs rather than a better diet.
We’re now looking at more ultraprocessed foods being rolled out in the name of combating climate change, so don’t hinge your hopes on legislators. The financial and geopolitical forces against them are enormous. No, I believe the real power resides with each and every one of us. We need to ensure real food still has a place in the marketplace by spending our money on it and leaving all the processed and genetically engineered food on the store shelves.
The World Health Organization and their “One Health” approach are coming for the world’s food systems, aiming to meld them with health and medical fields
The outcome will be food tokens, medically tailored meals and prescription food programs that dictate what you eat
Part of this is a new “food is medicine” agenda, which is being put in place to ultimately screen, track and control people through food, according to investigative journalist Corey Lynn
The Rockefeller Foundation, the American Heart Association and Kroger have already partnered to develop and launch the Food is Medicine Research Initiative, which includes programs like produce prescriptions and medically tailored meals
Expect that as the Food is Medicine initiative ramps up, you’ll hear more about the “necessity” of bioengineered food, lab-grown meat and insects for “good” human health and to protect the planet
The World Health Organization and their “One Health” approach are coming for the world’s food systems, aiming to meld them with the health insurance and medical fields. The outcome will be food tokens, medically tailored meals and prescription food programs that both dictate what you eat and have the power to impose penalties if you stray too far off course.
“How do you get people to break? Control their food and money,” investigative journalist Corey Lynn explains. “What is the weapon? Controlling your identity through digital means. The smart phone, QR codes, digital identities, biometrics, AI, and chips are all weapons being used against humanity.”1 You can listen to Corey discuss this on Spotify by going to her channel Dig It! Episode #189.2
Are Food Tokens in Your Future?
It was October 2022 when the WHO announced its One Health Joint Plan of Action, launched by the Quadripartite, which, in addition to WHO, consists of the:3
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH, founded as OIE)
“The Quadripartite will join forces to leverage the needed resources in support of the common approach to address critical health threats and promote the health of people, animals, plants and the environment,” according to a WHO press release.4
Echoing this statement, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated that “a transformation of the world’s food systems is needed urgently, based on a One Health approach that protects and promotes the health of humans, animals and the planet.”
Part of this is a new “food is medicine” agenda, including from the White House,5 which isn’t nearly as holistic as it sounds. Instead, “food is medicine” is the phrase “being used to campaign, launch programs, change policies and financing, aggregate data, tie the health care industry in with the food supply, and ultimately screen, track and control people through food,” Lynn says.6
It’s a smokescreen, under which more people will be ushered into the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC), and similar initiatives so digital food tokens can be implemented. This allows for the tracking and control of people’s food purchases.
A number of big names have recently joined in the push to increase SNAP enrollment, including Google, which intends to make it easier to find out eligibility and apply for the program.
Other partners include Instacart, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food Industry Association. Benefits Data Trust is also working to help facilitate the enrollment of college students into SNAP, Medicaid and the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides help to obtain internet access.
Again, these seemingly altruistic plans have an ulterior motive — surveillance and control. “Food, health care and internet may seem like a wonderful free benefit, until a college student tries to get their first cheeseburger, doesn’t get the Covid jab, or puts out ‘misinformation’ on the internet,” Lynn says. “Watch how quickly it’s all taken away. It’s like making a deal with the Devil.”7
It’s All a Trap
Once you’re locked into receiving food tokens, you’ve fallen into their trap. Who’s “their”? Lynn has previously described key organizations pulling strings behind the scenes, allowing them to “operate as ghosts without transparency or accountability.”8 These powerful organizations enjoy unrestricted privileges and layers of immunity, allowing them to exert control over the globe.
“These aren’t just ordinary organizations,” Lynn explains. “They happen to be the prime organizations that run the new world order globalists’ agendas against humanity, and they have hundreds of NGOs working with and through them.”9 The roll-out of “healthy eating tokens” isn’t just a possibility.
They’ve already been woven into key propaganda pieces, like this 2018 image below from the Illinois Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Task Force:10,11 “Whereas this example may be reflective of a welfare applicant,” Lynn says, “make no mistake, this is the goal all states are trying to accomplish for all people, not just those on welfare.”12
Pitfalls of White House’s $8 Billion Commitment
In line with WHO’s One Health, the White House laid out a Fact Sheet detailing its “transformational vision for ending hunger and reducing diet-related disease by 2030 – all while closing disparities among the communities that are impacted most.”13
The initiative intends to invest in “new businesses and new ways of screening for and integrating nutrition into health care delivery,” along with devoting at least $2.5 billion to startup companies “pioneering solutions to hunger and food insecurity.” Another $4 billion is earmarked for “philanthropy that improves access to nutritious food, promotes healthy choices and increases physical activity.”
Here again we have the smoke-and-mirrors effect, which masks the integration of food and health as a means to enact broad policies of control. As Lynn reports:14
“A helping hand is always nice, until it has ulterior motives. Sure, physical activity for all and the reduction of sugar in food items are both welcome approaches, but the rest of this agenda is not in the best interest of human beings.
The problem is, when reviewing this Fact Sheet it may seem like a good idea, just as while reviewing a single white paper from the WEF [World Economic Forum] could even sound like it has the potential to be a good thing.
However, when one takes the Fact Sheet with countless white papers, websites, funding, and other internal documents and puts it all together — it paints quite a different story. They know full well that most people won’t gather all of the pieces of the puzzle so they won’t be able to see the reality of the situation and discern the true agenda. That’s why it is so critical to do just that.”
The White House intends to work with a long list of private organizations to reach its goals. The American Heart Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Joint Commission, National Grocers Association, Food Industry Association and the Rockefeller Foundation are among them.
Globalists Team Up to Tell You What to Eat
The Rockefeller Foundation, the American Heart Association and Kroger have already partnered to develop and launch the Food is Medicine Research Initiative.15 It includes programs like produce prescriptions and medically tailored meals,16 which sound good in theory. But entities like the Rockefeller Foundation aren’t looking to further the reach of small farmers producing real, healthy food.
Consider the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which was launched in 2006 with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. With strategies centered on promoting biotechnology and chemical fertilizers, AGRA’s influence significantly worsened the situation in the 18 African nations targeted by this “philanthropic” endeavor. Hunger under AGRA’s direction increased by 30% and rural poverty rose dramatically.17
The Green Revolution is another Rockefeller Foundation-funded conversion of natural farming to a system dependent on chemicals, fossil fuels and industry. You can expect that under this Food is Medicine initiative, genetic engineering, lab-grown meat and, eventually, insects will take center stage. Plus, it’s another tool for integrating food under health care, so you can ultimately be tracked with one digital health passport. Lynn says:18
“Of course food is medicine, but that’s not the true intention of this initiative. By integrating food under medicine just imagine how this will change the landscape of the control mechanisms being put in place under the guise of health care.
This isn’t the only avenue the Rockefeller’s are using to orchestrate this shift in food control. They are also one of the major funders of the Center for Good Food Purchasing, along with W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Panta Rhea Foundation, Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, and the 11th Hour Project — the grant-making vehicle of the Schmidt Family Foundation — former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
The stated goal of this “Center” is to manage the Good Food Purchasing Program, which is all about getting institutions to convert over to their “supply chain transparency from farm to fork and shift towards a values-based purchasing model.”
Converting schools, hospitals, and public administrations is a strong goal, for starters. They’ve established standards, certifications, and a point system as the first of its kind and are building local and national partners as quickly as they built the website.”
Meanwhile, they’re rolling out Food is Medicine courses at hospitals and universities in order to indoctrinate health care providers into this plan. Among the training will be “screening for nutrition” and instruction on how to refer patients to their community nutrition resources, likely along with education on the “benefits” of gene-edited foods and fake meat.19
What Happens if You Veer From Their Prescribed Diet?
Expect that as the Food is Medicine initiative ramps up, you’ll hear more about the necessity of bioengineered food, lab-grown meat and insects for “good” human health and to protect the planet. It’s important to share knowledge with your circle about the pitfalls of these foods and why traditional whole foods are truly what your body needs.
If the powers-that-be take control of the food supply and dictate what people can and can’t eat, humanity is threatened. Envision a world in which your weekly groceries are only released if you’ve met certain requirements, and even then, those groceries are made up of what they ration for your use.
“Imagine if one refuses to eat bugs — they may not receive proper health care,” Lynn says. “Or what happens if one refuses to go on the food token program and only eat as instructed? Did they just lose their ability to receive health care? … What happens if edible vaccines hit the market and they try to make it mandatory as part of one’s diet?”20
To fight back, continue to source food from small, local sources instead of multinational corporations — and pay for your food with cash. As Lynn reports:21
“Just as with their other agendas that all tie into this one, the narrative control is being piped out by universities, medical associations, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and many others to bring a whole new outlook on what a nutritional diet should look like to prevent disease.
It’s as though a complete overhaul is being done on what’s ‘good’ for human beings to ingest, and gene-edited produce, insects, and cultured cells seem to be the top priority.
This may seem like a slow burn, but they are clicking multiple pieces of the structure into place simultaneously, and when that burn finally reaches inside people’s homes, in their cabinets, fridge, and wallets, it will be too late to rollback all of the policies and regulations that have locked into place.”
Since I was very young, I noticed a minority of people “got it” and could see through the current lie everyone else was falling for. Being like this can be incredibly isolating, so I tried to seek these people out and connect them. As time went forward, the question we all asked was, “What makes certain people be awake?”
Note: “Awake” was the best word we could ever find to describe this characteristic. This is somewhat frustrating because it is still not the correct word and because “awake” is also used by countless spiritual groups to gratify the participants and nothing more.
From looking into this question, we concluded depending on how strict the criteria you used, between 1-10% of the population was “awake.”
Interestingly, a market research study found 10% of the population was self-directed (meaning to sell them things, you had to justify the product on its merits), while 90% were not and bought products based on being repeatedly told to buy them. I was shown this study years ago, and I believe MIT or Harvard conducted it, but I could never find it.
Similarly, some meditation schools do not promote themselves (hence why few know of these faiths). This is because those schools felt that only the previously mentioned 10% had the necessary self-direction to complete their practices, and it was unlikely they would be among those who were persuaded into joining the faith rather than having sought it out of their own accord.
When I discussed this topic with Pierre Kory, he told me that his experience has been that, at most, only 10% of doctors were capable of non-algorithmic thinking and real problem-solving — which became quite challenging for him because his job was to train the next generation of ICU doctors.
Similarly, he found when he ordered consults, around 90% of specialists (irrespective of the specialty) would repeat a standardized algorithm back to him for the patients he had already seen more times than he could count. Conversely, only 10% could actually think about the case and provide valuable insights that assisted Kory in developing a treatment plan for a challenging patient.
As the previous example illustrates, when exploring this question, we often found being awake did not correlate with intelligence; many extremely intelligent but unawake people who often “just don’t get it” roam the earth.
Conversely, there are many remarkably perceptive individuals that could not succeed whatsoever within the conventional academic paradigm. Sadly, our educational system, which we trust with developing the young minds that can advance our society into the future, rather than addressing this trend, has increasingly discouraged critical thinking and replaced it with algorithmic thought and blind deference to authority.
This, amongst other things, has been reflected in a progressively declining quality of applicants to medical schools and the residency training that follows medical school.
In college, I attempted to prove to one friend that awake people were not as rare as they thought, and afterward, I shared my “successes” with my friend and was told, “Those people aren’t awake; you just replaced their programming with something a bit closer to the truth.” That stuck with me. I then began to notice this issue all around me.
For example, I would see many groups dedicated to an (often alternative) cause and realize that many members had adopted the group either because they wanted to conform to their peers or to look good to the world around them. Because of this, those members will typically abandon the principles the group stands for once the group no longer benefitted them.
Another way to put it is that people often say they sincerely care about things, but when you break it down, there is no integrity or substance behind those words.
This is a common critique of some of the newer spiritual movements and many aspects of the holistic health field (e.g., many of the health influencers you see on Instagram). However, this same issue also applies in a lot of other areas, many of which are encapsulated by this meme recently shared by Elon Musk.
Consider these examples:
•Most of the current left idolizes and continually references Martin Luther King. Yet, they do the exact opposite of what MLK advocated for — non-violent protest, harmony between different races, and not judging each other by the color of their skin — by continually trying to fracture and define people by their identities.
Then, in the name of “equity,” policies that create significant animosity between those groups are pushed for. One of the most amazing things about this is that the U.S. military, after World War 2, put out a remarkable message on the subject that warned us to be immensely wary of anyone doing what we now see everywhere around us:
•Many liberals who grew up protesting Vietnam have spent their lives being identified as “anti-war.” Trump was the first president since Carter who did not start any new wars (even when Assad crossed the red line for allegedly gassing his own people [later proven to be a lie] — an instance when many other presidents would have begun a war).
Furthermore, Trump also ended longstanding military conflicts we had been involved in. Despite this, very few “anti-war” liberals supported his policies, and instead, the majority of the Democratic party is now entirely behind the military-industrial complex.
•Physicians who claim to identify with supporting the Hippocratic oath and treating all patients equally complied with extremely questionable hospital policies for managing COVID-19.
For example, they would not provide repurposed pharmaceuticals to patients requested by both the patient and family members — even when the patient was otherwise expected to die, and despite there being cases where lawsuits forced the treatment to be provided, and the patients survived.
Worse still (mirroring some of what happened in Nazi Germany), there was widespread discrimination in the medical field against the unvaccinated that clearly and unambiguously violated the tenets of medical ethics.
•Many religious leaders chose to abandon their faith’s teachings by complying with the COVID-19 and vaccine narratives. Similarly, many Christians, including the doctor mentioned below, were disgusted by how many fellow members of their faith in medicine abandoned its principles to discriminate against the unvaccinated.
•Many people in the “holistic” health field who espouse the importance of never putting any toxins or unnatural things (e.g., GMOs) into your body and believe in the healing power of nature aggressively pushed for the COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
Sadder still, I saw cases of left-wing physicians who were immensely distrustful of vaccines because they specialized in treating childhood vaccine injuries, nonetheless got the COVID-19 vaccine, admitted they developed a significant complication from it, and even now are still pushing for masking.
Similarly, I saw numerous institutions teaching dedicated to alternative schools of medicine (e.g., naturopathic medicine) whose founders, and many of who followed in their footsteps, felt very strongly about not vaccinating, yet these leading institutions of their respective professions forcefully mandated the vaccines on both their students and employees.
Mattias Desmet and Mass Formation
One of the best explanations I have seen to explain the disaster we watched unfold over the last few years what Mattias Desmet’s mass formation hypothesis, which essentially describes how, under the right conditions, a collective crowd consciousness can form that approximately 95% of the population complies with.
I expressly endorse Desmet’s theory because he touches upon many aspects of totalitarian states that are very difficult for those who did not witness them firsthand to appreciate. Furthermore, much of what Desmet describes cuts to the core of so many issues in society that are imperative for us to address as soon as possible, and his perspectives, detailed later in the interview, match much of the life philosophy that many awake individuals I know all independently arrived at.
Half a year ago, Desmet sat down with Tucker Carlson and gave one of the best interviews I have seen in my lifetime, where he explained his hypothesis. I recently rewatched that interview as part of an intervention for someone struggling to leave a cult.
I did this after I realized almost all of Desmet’s points also applied to the victim’s experience, and it ended up being one of the key things that got through to that individual (I share that to highlight how broad the applicability of the interview was).
I would specifically like to share one quotation from this interview that I believed heavily influenced Tucker Carlson’s final speech:
“Tucker: This is one of the most amazing conversations I’ve ever had. And I’m so grateful that you’re here. I feel like you’re speaking directly to our country. What is the difference between the people who go along, which is the majority, it sounds like, and the smaller percentage who decide, “No, I’m going to say what I believe is true no matter what.” What makes people decide to take one path or the other? And can you predict it ahead of time?
Desmet: No, you can’t. From the 19th century onwards, from the moment the psychologists have been studying the phenomenon of mass formation, it has been remarked and observed time and time again that every time a mass emerges in a society, there is a small group who doesn’t go along with it.
But the small group is extremely diverse and heterogeneous and nobody seems to know what connects these people, which characteristic these people share, but in one way or another, they all make this fundamental decision, a decision that cannot be reduced to anything else.
They make this decision to choose for truth speech instead of choosing the easy way and going along with the narrative for everybody believes in, but which of which everybody actually knows that it is utterly absurd and unethical.”
Tucker Carlson’s Final Speech
Tucker Carlson was abruptly fired from Fox News shortly after he aired a segment criticizing the media’s crimes against the American people with the COVID-19 vaccines and its complicity with the War in Ukraine.
After his last broadcast, immediately before his unexpected firing, he gave an address at the Heritage Foundation’s 50th anniversary, within which he touched on a question many of us have asked since COVID-19 began.
“I would say two things that I think we’re thinking about. The first is, you look around, and you see so many people break under the strain, under the downward pressure of whatever this is that we’re going through.
And you look with disdain and sadness as you see people you know become quislings, you see them revealed as cowards, you see them going along with a new, new thing, which is clearly a poisonous thing, a silly thing, saying things they don’t believe because they want to keep their jobs.
If there’s a single person in this room who hasn’t seen that through George Floyd and COVID and the Ukraine War, raise your hand. Oh, nobody? Right. You all know what I’m talking about.
The herd Instinct is very strong impulse. And you’re so disappointed in people. You are. And you realize that the herd instinct is maybe the strongest instinct. I mean, it may be stronger than the hunger and sex instincts, actually. The instinct, which again, is inherent to be like everybody else and not to be cast out of the group, not to be shunned.
That’s a very strong impulse in all of us from birth. And it takes over, unfortunately, in moments like this, and it’s harnessed, in fact, by bad people in moments like this to produce uniformity. And you see people going along with this, and you lose respect for them. And that’s certainly happened to me at scale over the past three years.
I’m not mad at people; I’m just sad. I’m disappointed. How could you go along with this? You know it’s not true, but you’re saying it anyway. Because I’m paid to predict things, I try and think a lot about what connects certain outcomes that I should have seen before they occurred.
And in this case, there is no thread that I can find that connects all of the people who’ve popped up in my life to be that lone, brave person in the crowd who says, “No, thank you.”
You could not have known who these people are. They don’t fit a common profile. Some are people like me. Some of them don’t look like me at all. Some of them are people I despised on political grounds just a few years ago.”
Tucker’s words echo a speech from Peter Gøtzsche, a remarkable physician who has dedicated his career to be one of the leading voices speaking out against the crimes of the pharmaceutical industry. In this talk, Gøtzsche describes what he believes drives a minority of the population to break from the herd and take on a great deal of risk to do the right thing:
Note: A common critique Tucker Carlson received was that he would not cover controversial subjects his audience wanted him to cover and, therefore, could not be trusted. My own read was that he was engaging in a delicate balancing act of saying the most he could without losing the ability to continue having an impact. This is a situation almost every awake individual repeatedly finds themselves in, regardless of the industry (e.g., I regularly see it throughout medicine).
Interestingly, Tucker recently admitted this was the case when he announced his plans for an uncensored production on Twitter — as did RFK Jr., who shared that his friend, the CEO of Fox News, very much wanted to air content discussing vaccine safety but could not due to 70% of the network’s revenue coming from pharmaceutical advertising (something only the United States and New Zealand allow).
As I have learned more about those who spoke out against COVID-19, I’ve realized, despite being in different fields and holding different values, the fundamental ways we all think are very similar, and I believe I would have followed a similar path to many of them had I entered their profession instead of medicine.
Similarly, while many caved to the COVID-19 (and vaccine) narrative, none of my mentors ever did. Many of them, in fact, are lifelong liberals who are in complete disbelief at what their party and peers now support (e.g., the current war policy). Because of this, what they had in common may be able to provide some valuable answers to what made some stand up over the last few years.
My Mentors
I have been fortunate to have been mentored by a few remarkably talented physicians. In turn, I have often wondered what set them apart from their peers, and in all instances, I found the following to be true:
They were “awake” individuals (which is also why they were willing to open up to me).
They did not rely on social proof to make decisions (I suspect this tendency increases with age, as that was my experience).
They tried to remain invisible and not publicly promote themselves (e.g., most of them still do not have websites).
They were very perceptive and frequently utilized this capacity in conjunction with their intuition and vast medical knowledge to practice medicine.
They had a spiritual faith (most commonly Christianity) they held a deep conviction in following.
They had a deep commitment to morality.
Note: Morality is another subject that I believe essentially boils down to those who follow it because they want to be moral versus those who follow it for convenience. The former are willing to suffer to do what they feel is right and put a lot of thought into the proper ways to handle difficult situations.
The latter are typically looking for ways to manipulate the existing rules of ethics to get what they want. This is a major problem in medicine, and I recently shared a court case against a doctor who forcefully vaccinated two teenagers that illustrates many of the shortcomings in the current model of medical ethics.
Dr. James Miller
A reader I’ve corresponded with for the last year reached out to me to share what happened to him, and since I felt people needed to hear, I offered to publish it. Dr. Miller has a powerful story, and the primary purpose of the rest of this article is to provide the context to further appreciate the importance of what he is sharing.
Dr. Miller’s story went viral and aired on Fox News for the whole country to see a few days later. There Dr. Miller did a remarkable job articulating its key points in the 5 minutes that were allotted to him:
Dr. Miller worked as a trauma surgeon (something very difficult to do, which requires a significantly larger investment than the typical path doctors follow to enter practice). During COVID-19, he saw that everyone, including colleagues he’d trusted for years, had lost their minds and were following a COVID-19 narrative that was at odds with reality.
Once the vaccines entered the market, he saw discrimination begin against the unvaccinated, which went against every principle of medical ethics he had been taught and had never seen throughout his career.
Eventually, he got fed up with the cruelty he was seeing and decided to start a free clinic because many of the unvaccinated patients abandoned by the medical system were suffering greatly and sometimes dying. Because he did this, he was retaliated against and eventually had to flee the state so he would not permanently lose his medical license. Three things stand out about Dr. Miller’s story.
The personality traits that drove him to do what he did are very similar to those I have observed in many of my mentors listed in the previous section. So, if you want to get an appreciation for them, Dr. Miller’s interviews are the best examples I can provide.
Dr. Miller provides an excellent example of what we all expect from physicians and what we, as the public, should encourage them to be.
Dr. Miller’s experiences help to explain what drove physicians to not conform to the COVID-19 and vaccine narrative. I will also note that friends of other (now famous) doctors who have stood against the vaccines have told me that those doctors shared many of the same motivations Dr. Miller did.
In every era, remarkable individuals appear who can see what no one before them saw. They then create a variety of innovations from their observations that significantly advance humanity and have the internal strength to bring their message to the world regardless of the persecution they receive for doing so.
I believe these individuals represent the awake individuals found within the strictest cut-off for the definition and that their nature is a quality some people are born with that is entirely independent of how they were raised.
The best metaphor I have seen for this is how individuals deal with trauma. Most people who have traumatic childhoods are scarred by that experience for life (e.g., even the CDC acknowledges the severe and lifelong impacts of childhood trauma).
Yet, every once in a while, I meet someone who had a truly horrific childhood, that without any outside help, somehow has gotten completely past what happened to them and is a remarkably compassionate individual who accomplishes a great deal during their lifetime. In cases like these, I can only interpret that capacity as being something the individual was born with.
Note: Since trauma tragically is such a common issue, I attempted to compile my thoughts on the subject and approaches I have found helpful for dealing with it here.
Psychological Fulcrums
Over the last month I’ve worked on this article, I kept coming back to the same question — what causes some people to resist a mass formation? Saying someone is “awake” describes a commonly shared characteristic but still is a cop-out — saying someone was intrinsically resistant to falling for the narrative doesn’t explain why they didn’t fall for it. Today one of the answers finally came to me.
When I was in middle school and high school, I noticed many of the things people found meaning in life from were ultimately just them experiencing brief highs from dopamine rushes inside their brains. While that rush is classically associated with things like cocaine, it also holds for attaining any expectation one has held, and since our entire marketing system is built around fulfilling expectations, this comes up a lot.
In my case, once an expectation was fulfilled, I never experienced those rushes. Because of this, more and more, I only saw the whole process as a series of brief highs that would fade away and have nothing of substance behind them. Since I lacked the “high” to make life seem real and meaningful, it forced me to do a lot of thinking about what type of life purpose and focus I could pursue that would feel real and meaningful — which was very difficult.
Note: The above image shows a 2-dimensional fulcrum. The concept I am aiming to illustrate is in 3+ dimensions, but I am using this image because the concept is difficult to show in higher dimensions.
A fulcrum in this context is defined as the point which supports a system and the system organized around. One of my realizations in my early search for meaning and purpose in life was that almost every person’s mind had to have a “fulcrum” to support it, and if a fulcrum was not present, the mind could not function. Because of this, if people had the choice between a bad fulcrum or no fulcrum, they would always choose the bad psychological fulcrum.
The thing that initially clued me into this was a few discussions with peers where I sought to understand why they so fanatically clung to dysfunctional ideologies, and in each case, I heard the same story:
“I was in a very bad place in life where I felt hopeless and as though my life had no meaning, then I was introduced to [the adopted ideology] by a very charismatic and intelligent individual who proved* to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that [the ideology] was true.
I became overjoyed there as finally a purpose and meaning to my life, and ever since then I’ve dedicated myself to promoting this ideology.”
*in each case I looked at, the “proof” was very questionable.
From these events, I realized the individual lacking an existing psychological fulcrum while simultaneously being unwilling to do the difficult work to develop their own made them extremely vulnerable to adopting whatever psychological fulcrum was forced upon them. This brings me to one of my all time favorite quotes (which has many variations and authors it has been attributed to):
“If you don’t stand for something, you fall for anything.”
Each of the well-known COVID dissidents I had gotten to know, beyond being an “awake” individual, as James Miller demonstrated in his interviews, also had, for one reason or another, a strongly developed psychological fulcrum before the pandemic began.
This lies in contrast to much of the population, who, instead of following a clear purpose they chose for themselves, move through life in a walking daze and adopt whatever (often corporate-sponsored) psychological fulcrum society forces upon them.
As the years have gone by, this has become a larger and larger issue because each of the anchors which previously gave us purpose and meaning (a strong community, a traditional family, a faith, regularly being outside, etc.) have been systematically dismantled so individuals desperate for a psychological fulcrum will readily adopt the one fed to them.
This is especially a problem in medicine — the conditioning we undergo to adopt the allopathic ideology as our identity is difficult for anyone who has not experienced it firsthand to appreciate — and I believe this is a key reason so few doctors questioned the narrative.
Closing One’s Mind
In a recent article, I discussed my perspectives on developing a healthy relationship with one’s emotions and which of the many treatments out there actually improve mental health. In the article, I argued that our culture’s critical mistake is the widespread tendency to intellectualize or constrict our emotions rather than choosing to accept and experience them.
That contraction prevents the emotion from being able to exit one’s body. Instead, the emotion is patterned into the body and, eventually, one’s unconscious mind, where it exerts a profound but invisible influence over their life. In many cases, those individuals will move through life in the same disconnected walking daze observed in individuals who lack their own psychological fulcrum and likewise easily fall prey to malicious external influences.
Trapped emotions cause many other issues, too, such as significantly worsening one’s moment-by-moment experience of life, compelling people to make self-sabotaging decisions their rational mind would never support, and disconnecting the individual from experiencing life. For all of these reasons, oppressive governments seeking to control the public always encourage this emotional suppression.
At the same time, wise individuals throughout the ages have continually reechoed the refrain that their fellow human beings needed to stop closing down their hearts.
The most common reasons why we habitually contract our emotions are the discomfort of experiencing the emotion (especially if it is painful) and the strain our awareness (particularly within the heart) is placed under when its reality is expanded to something outside of its familiar comfort zone.
For example, consider the psychological impact of having to both accept everything you thought you knew for over a decade was wrong and no longer knowing where to go or what to trust. Because of the difficulty in doing that, many will instead choose to follow the crowd and adopt its psychological fulcrum instead of taking on the responsibility of developing and maintaining their own.
In the same manner we contract the feelings within our hearts, as the previous example shows, we also contract the thoughts within our minds. In my own experience, I’ve found that while many crave the comfort of contracted thoughts and emotions, awake individuals typically do the opposite — although, in many cases, that unwillingness to contract exists only in one of the two but not the other.
If we again circle back to Dr. Miller’s story, it should be clear that he had developed a psychological fulcrum that was independent of his identity as an M.D. and that he had a mind that was not willing to contract or allow him to close his eyes to what he saw going on before him.
Note: His mental resistance to contraction is likely what drove him to create a strong psychological fulcrum in the first place. Conversely, many of his peers did share this trait, and even though they knew what they were participating in was wrong (either on a conscious or subconscious level), they still went along with it and, in many cases, embraced the mass formation being fed to them.
One of Desmet’s most important observations about mass formations is that their dissolution depends if enough awake individuals who resist the narrative are also willing to speak out against it. This cuts to the core of why stories like Dr. Miller’s are so important to share, as by inspiring others to do the same, they go a long way to creating the population-wide immunity we need to prevent future mass formations from occurring.
Furthermore, Desmet highlighted what is possibly the most important part of this story. Throughout history, in the most challenging situations, where almost everyone is pulled into a mass formation and committing abhorrent actions that create deep conflicts within hearts and minds, something very interesting happens to those who nonetheless take the risk to speak out with the truth.
They are filled with a strength they cannot explain that allows them to persevere through the darkest situations imaginable, and beyond Desmet’s claim, this occurs, I have also witnessed it in many, including some of the well-known figures in this movement.
I believe this observation is because much of our internal strength depends upon having a lack of internal contractions, which in turn requires you to be free of internal conflict by following the path you know in your heart to be right (which is also something spiritual systems throughout the ages have realized). Remember:
“If you don’t stand for something, you fall for anything.”
Conclusion
I believe that many of the problems we face now are due to a crisis of consciousness that allows people to be easily misled and a widespread loss of faith that has removed the anchors that could be relied upon to keep us from drifting astray.
In recent articles, I’ve tried to present solutions for a few of the common issues I’ve observed that hinder our ability to see what is in front of us, come together and then effectively work against the darkness that has entered our world. In addition to those mentioned previously in this article, those have included:
Letting go of your need to be right and covet information or truths that make one feel superior to their peers. Beyond creating division between people who should be supporting each other, this coveting blinds you from being able to see what is directly in front of you.
Tolerating ambiguity and accepting that until you fully understand something (which can border on impossible), there will always be contradictions with what you “know.”
Recognizing how we selectively edit out much of the world around us, especially when we are confronted with an excessive amount of information — something which characterizes the modern age. Many of the things we need to see around us are only visible to those who can operate without these filters.
Throughout my time observing awake individuals, I’ve noticed many traits, are consistently seen within their minds, and as best as I could I tried to list them throughout this article.
Although some of these capacities are challenging to develop, I believe much in the same way we can restore the critical anchors of life (e.g., following a faith, having genuine human connections, being connected to your body rather than an electronic screen), many of them can also be developed if it is clear what is being aimed for and our priority is to promote the greatest good.
A Note From Dr. Mercola About the Author
A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I’m grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.
Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact CheckedMay 31, 2023Link for Video of Sucharit Bhakdti dscussing this issue: https://rumble.com/v2owij0-why-the-covid-mrna-vaccines-are-actually-dna-gene-therapies-that-must-be-re.html
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project — has discovered massive DNA contamination in the mRNA COVID shots, including simian virus 40 (SV40) promoters
SV40 has been linked to cancer in humans, including mesotheliomas, lymphomas and cancers of the brain and bone. In 2002, the Lancet published evidence linking polio vaccines contaminated with SV40 to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. According to the authors, the vaccine may be responsible for up to 50% of the 55,000 Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases diagnosed each year
The level of contamination varies depending on the platform used to measure it, but no matter which method is used, the level of DNA contamination is significantly higher than the regulatory limits in both Europe and the U.S. The highest level of DNA contamination found was 30%
The finding of DNA means the mRNA COVID shots may have the ability to alter the human genome
Even if genetic modification does not occur, the fact that you’re getting foreign DNA into your cells poses a risk in and of itself. Partial expression could occur, or it might interfere with other transcription translations that are already in the cell. Cytoplasmic transfection can also allow for genetic manipulation, as the nucleus disassembles and exchanges cellular components with the cytosol during cell division
In the video1 above, Dr. Steven E. Greer interviews microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project2 — and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi about the DNA contamination McKernan’s team has found in the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA shots.
As it turns out, spike protein and the mRNA are not the only hazards of these injections. McKernan’s team have also discovered simian virus 40 (SV40) promoters that, for decades, have been suspected of causing cancer in humans, including mesotheliomas, lymphomas and cancers of the brain and bone.3 The findings4,5,6,7 were posted on OSF Preprints in early April 2023. As explained in the abstract:8
“Several methods were deployed to assess the nucleic acid composition of four expired vials of the Moderna and Pfizer bivalent mRNA vaccines. Two vials from each vendor were evaluated … Multiple assays support DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDAs 10ng/dose requirements …”
As noted by Greer,9 this means that governments and drug companies “have misled the world to a far greater extent than previously known.” If these findings are correct, it would also mean that “the so-called ‘vaccines’ are actually altering the human genome and causing permanent production of the deadly spike protein,” and this internal production of spike protein would, in turn, “trigger the immune system to attack its own cells,” Greer says.
In the interview, McKernan explains how the DNA contaminants found in the COVID jabs can result in the genetic modification of the human genome, and Bhakdi reviews how and why the shots can trigger autoimmune diseases.
Background: What Is SV40?
In 2002, the Lancet published10 evidence linking polio vaccines contaminated with SV40 to Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. According to the authors, the vaccine may be responsible for up to half the 55,000 Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases diagnosed each year.
How did this simian (monkey) virus get into the human population? According to the late Dr. Maurice Hilleman, a leading vaccine developer, Merck inadvertently unleashed the virus via their polio vaccine.11 It’s unclear exactly when SV40 was eliminated from the polio vaccine. The timing also varies from country to country. For example, SV40-contaminated polio vaccines were administered in Italy as recently as 1999.12
As reported in a Lancet book review of “The Virus and the Vaccine: The True Story of a Cancer-Causing Money Virus, Contaminated Polio Vaccine and the Millions of Americans Exposed”:13
“By 1960, scientists and vaccine manufacturers knew that monkey kidneys were sewers of simian viruses. Such contamination often spoiled cultures, including those of an NIH researcher named Bernice Eddy, who worked on vaccine safety … Her discovery … threatened one of the USA’s most important public-health programs …
Eddy tried to get word out to colleagues but was muzzled and stripped of her vaccine regulatory duties and her laboratory … [Two] Merck researchers, Ben Sweet and Maurice Hilleman, soon identified the rhesus virus later named SV40 — the carcinogenic agent that had eluded Eddy.
In 1963, U.S. authorities decided to switch to African green monkeys, which are not natural hosts of SV40, to produce polio vaccine. In the mid-1970s, after limited epidemiological studies, authorities concluded that although SV40 caused cancer in hamsters, it didn’t seem to do so in people.
Fast forward to the 1990s: Michele Carbone, then at NIH, was working on how SV40 induces cancers in animals. One of these was mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the pleura thought in people to be caused mainly by asbestos. The orthodoxy held that SV40 didn’t cause human cancers.
Emboldened by a 1992 NEJM paper that found DNA ‘footprints’ of SV40 in childhood brain tumors, Carbone tested human mesothelioma tumor biopsies at the National Cancer Institute: 60% contained SV40 DNA. In most, the monkey virus was active and producing proteins.
He published his results in Oncogene in May, 1994, but the NIH declined to publicize them … Carbone … moved to Loyola University. There he discovered how SV40 disables tumor suppressor genes in human mesothelioma, and published his results in Nature Medicine in July, 1997. Studies in Italy, Germany, and the USA also showed associations between SV40 and human cancers.”
mRNA COVID Jabs Contaminated With Double-Stranded DNA
With that background, let’s get back to McKernan’s findings, which in addition to the featured video are also discussed in Daniel Horowitz’s podcast above. In short, his team discovered elevated levels of double-stranded DNA plasmids, including SV40 promoters (DNA sequence that is essential for gene expression) that are known to trigger cancer development when encountering an oncogene (a gene that has the potential to cause cancer).
The level of contamination varies depending on the platform used to measure it, but no matter which method is used, the level of DNA contamination is significantly higher than the regulatory limits in both Europe and the U.S., McKernan says. The highest level of DNA contamination found was 30%, which is rather astounding.
As explained by McKernan, when using a typical PCR test, you’ll be considered positive if the test detects the SARS-CoV-2 virus using a cycle threshold (CT) of about 40. In comparison, the DNA contamination is detected at CTs below 20.
That means the contamination is a million-fold greater than the amount of virus you’d need to have in order to test positive for COVID. “So, there’s an enormous difference here with regards to the amount of material that’s in there,” McKernan says.
In his Substack article,14 he also points out that people who argue that double-stranded DNA and viral RNA is a false equivalency because viral RNA is replication competent, are wrong.
“The majority of the sgRNA you are detecting in a nasal swab in your nose is NOT REPLICATION COMPETENT as shown in Jaafar et al.15 It is just an RNA fragment that should have lower longevity in your cells than dsDNA contaminating fragments,” he writes.
In that Substack article, McKernan has also copied a 2009 study discussing how DNA in vaccines can cause cancer and highlighted the most relevant parts. It’s a helpful resource if you want to learn more.
Quality Control Is Sorely Lacking
As for how SV40 promoters ended up in the mRNA shots, it appears to be related to poor quality control during the manufacturing process, although it’s unclear where in the development SV40 might have sneaked in. Quality control deficiencies may also be responsible for the high rate of anaphylactic reactions we’ve been seeing. McKernan tells Greer:
“It’s in both Moderna and Pfizer. We looked at the bivalent vaccines for both Moderna and Pfizer and only the monovalent vaccines for Pfizer because we didn’t have access to monovalent vaccines for Moderna. In all three cases, the vaccines contain double-stranded DNA contamination.
If you sequence that DNA, you’ll find that it matches what looks to be an expression vector that’s used to make the RNA … Whenever we see DNA contamination, like from plasmids, ending up in any injectable, the first thing people think about is whether there’s any E. coli endotoxin present because that creates anaphylaxis for the injected.
And, of course … there’s a lot of anaphylaxis going on, not only on TV but in the VAERS database. You can see people get injected with this and drop. That could be the background from this E. coli process of manufacturing the DNA …”
Regulatory Agencies Knew There Was a Contamination Problem
In a May 20, 2023, Substack article,16 McKernan points out that Pfizer itself submitted evidence to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) showing sampled lots contained vast differences in the levels of double-stranded DNA contamination.
The arbitrary limit for dsDNA that the EMA came up with was 330 nanograms per milligram (ng/mg). Data submitted to the EMA by Pfizer shows sampled lots had anywhere from 1 ng/mg to 815 ng/mg of DNA. McKernan adds:17
“This limit likely did not consider the potency of this dsDNA contamination if it was packaged in an LNP [lipid nanoparticle]. Packaged dsDNA is more potent as a gene therapy. We now know this DNA is packaged and transfection ready.18 Even lower limits should be applied if the DNA is packaged in transfection ready LNPs …
Even with Pfizer being able to cherry pick the data they provided to the EMA for 10 lots, they see a 1 to 815ng/mg variance. If you were to expand this study to 100 or 1000 lots, you’d likely see another order or two of magnitude variance.”
Double-Stranded DNA May Integrate Into Your Genome
The presence of double-stranded DNA also brings up another major concern, and that is the possibility of genomic integration.
“At least on the Pfizer side of things, it has what’s known as an SV40 promoter. This is an oncogenic virus piece. It’s not the entire virus. However, the small piece is known to drive very aggressive gene expression.
And the concern that people, even at the FDA, have noted in the past whenever injecting double-stranded DNA, is that these things can integrate into the genome,” McKernan says.
While McKernan’s paper does not present evidence of genome integration, it does point out that it’s possible, especially in the presence of SV40 promoters:19
“There has been a healthy debate about the capacity for SARs-CoV-2 to integrate into the human genome … This work has inspired questions regarding the capacity for the mRNA vaccines to also genome integrate. Such an event would require LINE-1 driven reverse transcription of the mRNA into DNA as described by Alden et al.
dsDNA [double-stranded DNA] contamination of sequence encoding the spike protein wouldn’t require LINE-1 for Reverse Transcription and the presence of an SV40 nuclear localization signal in Pfizer’s vaccine vector would further increase the odds of integration.”
Manifold Risks
That said, even if genetic modification does not occur, the fact that you’re getting foreign DNA into your cells poses a risk in and of itself, McKernan says. For example, partial expression could occur, or it might interfere with other transcription translations that are already in the cell.
Bhakdi also points out that the SV40 promoters do not need to be present in the nucleus of the cell for problems to occur. Cytoplasmic transfection can, in and of itself, allow for genetic manipulation, because the nucleus disassembles and exchanges cellular components with the cytosol during cell division.
In addition to having DNA floating around and causing potential problems, the RNA in the COVID jab is also modified to resist breakdown. “So, we have TWO versions of the spike protein floating around that can persist longer than anticipated,” McKernan says, and the spike protein, of course, is the most toxic part of the virus that can cause your body to attack itself.
Both McKernan and Bhakdi are adamant that ALL mRNA “vaccines” must be immediately stopped, whether for human or animal use, due to the magnitude of the risks involved.
In the video above,20 Yusuke Murakami, a professor at Tokyo University, expresses alarm over the finding of SV40 promoters in the COVID jabs. The interview is in Japanese but has English subtitles. I’ve included it because I think he does a good job of putting the problem into layman’s terms:
“The Pfizer vaccine has a staggering problem,” Murakami says. “This figure is an enlarged view of Pfizer’s vaccine sequence. As you can see, the Pfizer vaccine sequence contains part of the SV40 sequence here. This sequence is known as a promoter.
Roughly speaking, the promoter causes increased expression of the gene. The problem is that the sequence is present in a well-known carcinogenic virus. The question is why such a sequence that is derived from a cancer virus is present in Pfizer’s vaccine.
There should be absolutely no need for such a carcinogenic virus sequence in the vaccine. This sequence is totally unnecessary for producing the mRNA vaccine. It is a problem that such a sequence is solidly contained in the vaccine.
This is not the only problem. If a sequence like this is present in the DNA, the DNA is easily migrated to the nucleus. So it means that the DNA can easily enter the genome. This is such an alarming problem.
It is essential to remove the sequence. However, Pfizer produced the vaccine without removing the sequence. That is outrageously malicious. This kind of promoter sequence is completely unnecessary for the production of the mRNA vaccine. In fact, SV40 is a promoter of cancer viruses.”
Resources for Those Injured by the COVID Jab
The more we learn about the COVID jabs, the worse they appear. While they suck as vaccines, they’re truly masterful bioweapons, as they’re capable of destroying health in any number of ways, through myriad mechanisms.
If you got one or more jabs and are now reconsidering, first and foremost, never ever take another COVID booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your body. Even if you haven’t experienced any obvious side effects, your health may still be impacted long-term, so don’t take any more shots.
If you’re suffering from side effects, your first order of business is to eliminate the spike protein that your body is producing. Two remedies that can do this are hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Both of these drugs bind and facilitate the removal of spike protein.
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has developed a post-vaccine treatment protocol called I-RECOVER. Since the protocol is continuously updated as more data become available, your best bet is to download the latest version straight from the FLCCC website at covid19criticalcare.com21 (hyperlink to the correct page provided above).
For additional suggestions, check out the World Health Council’s spike protein detox guide,22 which focuses on natural substances like herbs, supplements and teas. To combat neurotoxic effects of spike protein, a March 2022 review paper23 suggests using luteolin and quercetin. Time-restricted eating (TRE) and/or sauna therapy can also help eliminate toxic proteins by stimulating autophagy.
Shorter telomeres are said to indicate increased risk of premature death; longer telomere length has therefore been assumed to represent health and longevity
Research published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) revealed long telomeres are linked to cancer and clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), a blood disorder
Shorter telomere length is linked to degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease, while longer telomere length is associated with increased cancer risks
Cells with long telomeres accumulate mutations, promoting tumors that might otherwise be prevented via normal telomere shortening processes
Rather than relying on telomere length as a measure of longevity or disease, harness the power of lifestyle strategies to slow the aging process and improve your health span
Telomeres are repetitive nucleotide sequences at the end of each chromosome. Sometimes compared to the plastic tip on a shoelace, telomeres help protect DNA, preserving chromosome stability and preventing “molecular contact with neighboring chromosomes.”1
Evidence suggests telomere length may predict morbidity and mortality, with shorter telomeres linked to an increased risk of premature death.2 Longer telomere length has therefore been assumed to represent health and longevity, but the link is controversial. New research suggests, in fact, that telomeres’ link to aging may have been wrong all along.3
Is Telomere Attrition a Hallmark of Aging?
The idea that telomere length serves as a marker of aging has become scientific dogma. Writing in the journal Cell, researchers described telomere attrition as one of the hallmarks of aging that lead to most age-related disorders.4 Telomeres, they noted, are especially vulnerable to age-related deterioration, and telomere shortening occurs during the normal aging process in humans and animals, such as mice.
When DNA damage occurs at telomeres, it leads to persistent harm and “deleterious cellular effects including senescence and/or apoptosis.”5
Further, the team explained, when telomerase, a key maintenance mechanism of telomere length, is deficient in humans, it’s associated with premature disease development, including those involving loss of regenerative capacity in tissues, such as pulmonary fibrosis, dyskeratosis congenita and aplastic anemia.6 According to the Cell study:
“Genetically-modified animal models have established causal links between telomere loss, cellular senescence and organismal aging. Thus, mice with shortened or lengthened telomeres exhibit decreased or increased lifespan, respectively. Recent evidence also indicates that aging can be reverted by telomerase activation.
In particular, the premature aging of telomerase-deficient mice can be reverted when telomerase is genetically reactivated in these aged mice.
Moreover, normal physiological aging can be delayed without increasing the incidence of cancer in adult wild-type mice by pharmacological activation or systemic viral transduction of telomerase. In humans, recent meta-analyses have indicated a strong relation between short telomeres and mortality risk, particularly at younger ages.”
Risks Revealed for Short or Long Telomeres
Just because short telomeres have been linked to aging and disease, it doesn’t mean long telomeres have the opposite effect. In fact, research published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) revealed long telomeres are linked to cancer and clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) — a blood disorder.7
“Short telomeres were thought to be bad — people with premature aging syndromes had short telomeres — so, by analogy, long telomeres were thought to be good,” study author Dr. Mary Armanios, professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, told The New York Times. “And the longer the better.”8
Previous research by Armanios, who also directs the telomere center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and colleagues revealed, however, that the reality is much more complicated. While short telomere length (TL) was linked to disease, longer telomere length increased the risk of cancers, including lung, melanoma and glioma.9
“The upper threshold that increases the risk of these cancers is not known, but these recent findings add significant warning to the oversimplified interpretation of short TL being linked to aging and long telomeres to youth,” they concluded in 2018. It seemed that having either very short or very long telomeres may be a risk factor for disease.
Researchers with UCSF School of Medicine and Stanford echoed this sentiment in 2020, revealing that shorter telomere length is linked to degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease, while longer telomere length is associated with increased cancer risks.10
“Genetically determined long and short telomere length are associated with disease risk and burden of approximately equal magnitude,” they concluded.
Long Telomeres Linked to Cancer, Disease
The NEJM study involved 17 people with a POT1 genetic mutation, known to not only lengthen telomeres but also increase cancer risk. The study participants ranged in age from 7 to 83 and had a variety of tumors, ranging from benign uterine fibroids to melanoma. They also had significantly longer telomeres than the average population — 90% longer in 13 participants and 99% longer in nine.11
While six of the participants had some signs of youth, including no gray hair even in their 70s, many had high rates of clonal hematopoiesis-related mutations. The mutations are linked to the development of blood and other cancers, and existed at much higher rates than expected in the general population.
One participant had cells with 1,000 mutations per clone, which the researchers believe began when the person was just 4 years old. “The long telomere length allowed the blood cell propagation since then,” Armanios said.
The research suggests long telomeres are leading to CHIP and giving more time for cancer-causing mutations to develop. According to Armanios:12
“Our findings challenge the idea that long telomeres protect against aging. Rather than long telomeres protecting against aging, long telomeres allowed cells with mutations that arise with aging to be more durable … Cells with very long telomeres accumulate mutations and appear to promote tumors and other types of growths that would otherwise be put in check by normal telomere shortening processes.”
Telomere shortening, for instance, is said to represent a “major measurable molecular characteristic of aging of cells in vitro and in vivo,” which may have developed as a mechanism to protect against tumors in long-lived species.13
Is DNA Methylation a Better Measure of Your Biological Age?
It’s possible to determine your biological age, as opposed to your chronological age, by measuring your DNA methylation, and in head-to-head comparisons, DNA methylation is significantly more correlated to the aging process than telomeres.
DNA methylation is the silencing of gene transcription. Your genes have promoter sites at the beginning of the DNA strand, and methylation is measured at those sites. The level of methylation at the promoter site correlates to the degree of expression of that particular gene.
Ryan Smith is the founder of TruDiagnostic, a commercial testing system that measures DNA methylation. What’s being measured is not your ability to methylate or not methylate. Rather, it measures the actual expression of your DNA. And, contrary to conventional genetic testing like 23andMe, which is done once, DNA methylation can be measured multiple times as the actual expression of your DNA is alterable and changes over time.
DNA methylation is a better marker of disease risk and health span than telomere length, Smith said during our 2022 interview.
“If you were to make sure that the telomere length never decreased in a cell, you’d still see methylation-related biological aging. If you made sure that the methylation age was reset, you would still see telomere length aging. So, there’s two separate processes.
In a recent review, they actually looked at twins and tried to ascribe how much of the difference in their aging process was affected by these different markers. They said right around 2% of the variance in phenotypic aging was due to telomere length, whereas right around 35% of that was based on these epigenetic methylation clocks.
So, while they both might be important, we definitely would think that the DNA methylation clocks are significantly better.”
Antiaging Strategies That Work
While measuring your rate of aging, or biological age, is intriguing, harnessing the power of lifestyle strategies to slow the aging process and ward off disease can improve your health span and quality of life. Simple antiaging strategies you can implement today include:
•Vitamin D optimization — Ideally, you want to maintain a blood level of 60 ng/mL to 80 ng/mL. Smith cited an interventional trial in which overweight participants reduced their biological age by 1.8 years on average, taking just 4,000 IUs of oral vitamin D a day for 16 weeks.
•Optimize your metabolic flexibility — Core strategies include time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting, and eating a diet high in healthy fats and low in refined carbs to optimize your insulin sensitivity. Also, eat your last meal each day at least three hours before bed.
•Get regular exercise and daily movement — In one study, among 1,481 older women included in the study, those who sat the longest were, on average, eight years older, biologically speaking, than women who moved around more often.14
Another study touted exercise as a “possible cure” for the declines in mitochondrial biogenesis and mitochondrial protein quality commonly seen with aging. Not only did exercise training reverse or lessen age-associated declines in mitochondrial mass, but it also “decreased the gap between young and old animals in other measured parameters.”15
•Stress management — According to Smith, people who meditate or engage in other stress-reduction strategies on a regular basis tend to age at a slower rate than those who don’t.
•Limit consumption of unsaturated fats — Omega-6 linoleic acid (LA) is particularly harmful. It’s highly susceptible to oxidation, causing oxidative stress, and can remain in your cells for up to a decade. So, you want to eliminate vegetable/seed oils, which are high in LA.
In terms of supplement options, glycine is a powerful longevity enhancer that’s inexpensive and has a pleasant, slightly sweet taste. Research shows glycine extends lifespan in worms, mice and rats while improving health in models of age-related disease.16
If there were any doubt about its importance, consider that collagen — the most abundant protein in your body17 — is made mostly of glycine. It’s also a precursor to glutathione, a powerful antioxidant that declines with age. To gain all of glycine’s healing potential, doses of 10, 15, or 20 grams a day may be necessary. I personally take three teaspoons of it a day.
Collagen is also an outstanding source of glycine. You can boost your collagen intake by making homemade bone broth using bones and connective tissue from grass fed, organically raised animals. But remember, there’s no magic potion to stop the aging process.
Methods that claim to stop aging by lengthening your telomeres appear to be misguided. And if your telomeres are too long — or too short — it could be indicative of disease. The fact remains that the best longevity benefits come from leading a comprehensively healthy lifestyke.
National vaccine policy recommendations in the U.S. are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.
It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being seriously threatened.
Not only are lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws, but global political operatives lobbying the United Nations and World Health Organization are determined to take away the human right to autonomy and protection of bodily integrity.
We must take action to defend our constitutional republic and civil liberties, including the right to autonomy, in America. That includes reforming oppressive mandatory vaccination laws and stopping the digital health ID that will make vaccine passports a reality for us, our children and grandchildren if we don’t take action today.
Signing up to use the free online Advocacy Portal sponsored by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state and federal legislators on your smartphone or computer so you can make your voice heard.
NVIC will keep you up to date on the latest bills threatening to eliminate — or expand — your legal right to make vaccine choices and give you guidance about what you can do to support or oppose those bills. So, please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.
I encourage you to visit the four websites of the National Vaccine Information Center, at www.NVIC.org, a nonprofit charity that has been educating the public about the need to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths since 1982. The information you get on their websites is fully referenced and will help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your community:
NVIC.org — This website was established in 1995 and is the oldest and largest consumer operated website publishing information on diseases and vaccines on the internet. Learn about vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths and the history and current status of vaccine science, policy, law and ethics in the U.S. on more than 2,000 web pages.
NVICAdvocacy.org — This communications and advocacy network, established in 2010, is your gateway to taking action to protect your right to make vaccine choices where you live.
TheVaccineReaction.org — This weekly journal newspaper published by NVIC since 2015 is dedicated to encouraging an “enlightened conversation about vaccination, health and autonomy.”
MedAlerts.org — This is a user-friendly search engine for the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) established under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and sponsored by NVIC since 2006. Search for descriptions of vaccine injuries and deaths reported to VAERS on this popular website.
Find a Doctor Who Will Listen and Care
If your doctor or pediatrician refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, coercion and refusal to provide medical care to someone declining one or more doses of government recommended vaccines is a violation of the informed consent ethic.
Unfortunately, it is becoming routine among members of the medical establishment to be reluctant to share vaccine decision-making power with patients and parents of minor children, especially during the aggressive push for all Americans to get COVID shots.
There are doctors out there who respect the precautionary and informed consent principles, so take the time to locate a doctor who treats you with compassion and is willing to listen and respect the health care choices you make for yourself or your child.
