now browsing by category


Are Stay-at-Home Orders Decimating Vitamin D Levels?

Reproduced from original article:

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola      Fact Checked


  • Stay-at-home recommendations may have been a bad idea. In New York, 66% of new hospital admissions for COVID-19 were individuals who had been sequestering at home
  • Chinese researchers have noted that a majority of outbreaks in the 320 municipalities reviewed were the result of indoor spread of the disease, with the home accounting for 79.9% of cases
  • It’s well-known that vitamin D is important for innate immunity and that it boosts your immune function against viral diseases. Growing evidence suggests your vitamin D status may also play an important role in the development of COVID-19, as well as the severity of the illness
  • Vitamin D concentrations are lower in patients with positive PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests for SARS-CoV-2, and countries with lower vitamin D levels have higher mortality rates from COVID-19
  • Recent research also shows vitamin D levels are strongly correlated to the severity of the illness experienced

Recent scientific papers have highlighted the role vitamin D may be playing in the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in severe cases. Considering researchers have also shown that SARS-CoV-2 is rapidly inactivated by sunlight,1 areas that are banning people from parks and beaches, are undoubtedly committing a grave error.

Social Distancing Is a Miserably Failed Experiment

Stay-at-home recommendations in general may also have been a bad idea overall. Indeed, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo stated,2 May 6, 2020, that 66% of new hospital admissions for COVID-19 were individuals who had been sequestering at home.

A majority of those cases were also minorities such as African-Americans, who are far more prone to vitamin D deficiency due to their darker skin.3 When Cuomo first heard about it, he said he immediately thought maybe people had been going out in spite of the shelter-in-place order, and maybe taking public transportation.4

In actuality they were all at home where they were supposed to be. Interestingly, Dr. David Katz, president of True Health Initiative and founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, predicted5,6 this would happen.

Chinese researchers have also noted that a majority of outbreaks in the 320 municipalities reviewed were the result of indoor spread of the disease, with the home accounting for 79.9% of cases, followed by transportation at 34%.

According to the authors,7 “All identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk.” As noted in a May 11, 2020, American Thinker article:8

“Very likely, you already instinctively know that the guidelines suggesting that it’s somehow helpful to keep a six-foot space between healthy people, even outdoors, is not based on science, but just an arbitrary suggestion we’ve been conditioned to accept without evidence.

And your gut feeling would be right. There’s a reason that “social distancing ‘wasn’t a buzzword common to the American lexicon prior to 2020. There’s very little science behind “social distancing’ at all. 

‘It turns out,’ Julie Kelly writes9 at American Greatness, ‘as I wrote10 last month, ‘social distancing’ is untested pseudoscience particularly as it relates to halting the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. On its website, the CDC provides no links to any peer-reviewed social distancing studies that bolster its official guidance.’ There’s a reason for the lack of peer-reviewed studies on the CDC website. She continues:

‘The alarming reality is that social distancing never has been tested on a massive scale in the modern age; its current formula was conceived during George W. Bush’s administration and met with much-deserved skepticism.

‘People could not believe that the strategy would be effective or even feasible,’ one scientist told11 the New York Times last month. A high school science project12 — no, I am not joking — added more weight to the concept.

‘Social distancing’ is very much a newfangled experiment, not settled science. And, Kelley writes, the results are suggesting that our ‘Great Social Distancing Experiment of 2020’ will be ‘near the top of the list’ of ‘bad experiments gone horribly wrong.'”


Click here to learn Dr. Mercola's top tips to combat coronavirus

Banning Outdoor Activities — A Disastrous Idea

In the video above, published May 11, 2020, on, Dr. JoAnn E. Manson, professor of medicine and chief of the division of preventive medicine at Harvard Medical School, discusses the protective role of vitamin D against COVID-19.

Manson points out that growing evidence suggests your vitamin D status may in fact play an important role in your risk of developing COVID-19, as well as the severity of the illness. It’s well-known that vitamin D is important for innate immunity and that it boosts your immune function against viral diseases.

Importantly, as noted by Manson, vitamin D also has “an immune modulating effect and can lower inflammation, and this may be relevant to the respiratory response during COVID-19 and the cytokine storm that’s been demonstrated.”

Manson cites evidence from three South-Asian studies showing people with serious COVID-19 infection are far more likely to have insufficient levels of vitamin D compared to those with mild illness. Vitamin D deficient patients had, on average, an eightfold higher risk of serious COVID-19 illness compared to those with sufficient levels.

Harvard Medical School is starting a study to investigate whether vitamin D supplementation lowers the risk of COVID-19 specifically, and/or improves clinical outcomes, but in the meantime, Manson urges people to spend more time outdoors to improve their vitamin D levels through sun exposure, and to optimize their vitamin D levels through food and supplements.

Manson is far from alone in her recommendations. Irish researchers recently published an editorial13 highlighting the role of vitamin D deficiency in severe COVID-19 infections. According to the authors:14

“… the evidence supporting a protective effect of vitamin D against severe COVID‐19 disease is very suggestive, a substantial proportion of the population in the Northern Hemisphere will currently be vitamin D deficient, and supplements, for example, 1,000 international units (25 micrograms) per day are very safe.

It is time for governments to strengthen recommendations for vitamin D intake and supplementation, particularly when under lock‐down.”

Low Vitamin D Linked to Greater SARS-CoV-2 Infection Risk

A May 6, 2020, report15 in the journal Nutrients points out that vitamin D concentrations are lower in patients with positive PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests for SARS-CoV-2. As noted in this report, which retrospectively investigated the vitamin D levels obtained from a cohort of patients in Switzerland:16

“In this cohort, significantly lower 25(OH)D levels were found in PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 (median value 11.1 ng/mL) patients compared with negative patients (24.6 ng/mL); this was also confirmed by stratifying patients according to age >70 years. On the basis of this preliminary observation, vitamin D supplementation might be a useful measure to reduce the risk of infection.”

Low Vitamin D Levels Linked to Increased COVID-19 Mortality

Another May 6, 2020, report,17 published in Aging Clinical and Experimental Research (its prepublication featured in the Daily Mail May 118), found that countries with lower vitamin D levels also have higher mortality rates from COVID-19. According to the authors:19

“The Seneca study showed a mean serum vitamin D level of 26 nmol/L in Spain, 28 nmol/L in Italy and 45 nmol/L in the Nordic countries, in older people. In Switzerland, mean vitamin D level is 23 nmol/L in nursing homes and in Italy 76% of women over 70 years of age have been found to have circulating levels below 30 nmol/L.

These are the countries with high number of cases of COVID-19 and the aging people is the group with the highest risk for morbidity and mortality with SARS-CoV2.”

In the preprint version20 of this paper, the authors concluded: “We believe that we can advise vitamin D supplementation to protect against SARS-CoV2 infection.” In the final version,21 they toned down the recommendation to: “We hypothesize that vitamin D may play a protective role for COVID-19.”

GrassrootsHealth Study

Data22 from a clinical trial by GrassrootsHealth — an organization that we have supported for over 13 years — also reveals a link between vitamin D status and COVID-19 severity.

Mark Alipio — who received no funding for his work — released data from an analysis of 212 people with lab-confirmed COVID-19 and for whom serum 25(OH)D levels were available. Using a classification of symptoms based on previous research, he employed statistical analysis to compare the differences in clinical outcomes against the levels of vitamin D.

Of the 212 people, 49 had mild disease; 59 had ordinary disease; 56 were severe and 48 were critical. In the initial study group of 212 patients (see Table 1 below), 55 had normal vitamin D levels, which Alipio defined as greater than 30 ng/ml; 80 had insufficient levels of 21 to 29 ng/ml and 77 had deficient levels of less than 20 ng/ml.

descriptive statistics

Vitamin D levels were strongly correlated to the severity of the illness experienced. It is important to note that most experts consider 30 ng/ml half of what an optimum vitamin D level should be, which is 60 to 80 ng/ml.

vitamin d covid-19 severity

Of the 49 with mild illness, 47 had normal vitamin D levels. For those of you who are not good with math that means that 96% of the patients with mild illness had “normal” levels of vitamin D. Note again this “normal” level was above 30 ng/mL, and most experts would raise that to 60 ng/mL.

Of the 104 with severe or critical illness, only four had normal levels of vitamin D. That is 4% or the reciprocal of the mild group. How much stronger a correlation could one hope for? Alipio concluded:23

“… this study provides substantial information to clinicians and health policy-makers. Vitamin D supplementation could possibly improve clinical outcomes of patients infected with Covid-2019 based on increasing odds ratio of having a mild outcome when serum (OH)D level increases.”

Vitamin D Protects Against Viral Infections

Indeed, there is strong scientific evidence vitamin D plays a central role in your immune response and your ability to fight infections in general, so there’s little reason to think it wouldn’t provide similar protection against COVID-19.

In this video, Ivor Cummins, biochemist and chief program officer for Irish Heart Disease Awareness, explains how higher levels of vitamin D may reduce your risk of negative outcomes from COVID-19.

He also reviews some of the conditions associated with low vitamin D levels, such as insulin resistance and high levels of inflammation. As discussed in “The Real Pandemic Is Insulin Resistance,” obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease are comorbidities for severe COVID-19, and insulin resistance is the underlying problem in all of these.

As noted in “Vitamin D and the Antiviral State,” a literature review article published in the Journal of Clinical Virology in 2011:24

“Interventional and observational epidemiological studies provide evidence that vitamin D deficiency may confer increased risk of influenza and respiratory tract infection. Vitamin D deficiency is also prevalent among patients with HIV infection.

Cell culture experiments support the thesis that vitamin D has direct anti-viral effects particularly against enveloped viruses. Though vitamin D’s anti-viral mechanism has not been fully established, it may be linked to vitamin D’s ability to up-regulate the anti-microbial peptides LL-37 and human beta defensin 2.”

SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped type of virus,25 which means vitamin D may actually have a direct antiviral effect on it. Future studies will have to confirm that, but in the meantime, there’s absolutely no reason to ignore your vitamin D level. As reported in a recent GrassrootsHealth press release:26

“Vitamin D has several mechanisms that can reduce risk of infections. Important mechanisms regarding respiratory tract infections include:

  • inducing production of cathelicidins and defensins that can lower viral survival and replication rates as well as reduce risk of bacterial infection
  • reducing the cytokine storm that causes inflammation and damage to the lining of the lungs that can lead to pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome

Vitamin D deficiency has been found to contribute to acute respiratory distress syndrome, a major cause of death associated with COVID-19 … To reduce risk of infection, it is recommended that people at risk of influenza and/or COVID-19 consider taking 10,000 IU/day (250 micrograms/day) of vitamin D for a few weeks to rapidly raise 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations, followed by at least 5000 IU/day.

The goal should be to raise 25(OH)D concentrations above 40-60 ng/ml (100-150 nmol/l), taking whatever is necessary for that individual to achieve and maintain that level. For treatment of people who become infected with COVID-19, higher vitamin D doses would be required to rapidly increase 25(OH)D concentrations.”

Bill Gates admits 700,000 people will be harmed or killed by his COVID-19 “solution”

Reproduced from original article:

Bill-Gates-epidemic-vaccine(NaturalHealth365) It’s hard to imagine any billionaire being reckless with his money. Yet for some reason, Bill Gates says he’s willing to throw billions of dollars at corona (CV) vaccine research even though many people believe it will be a complete waste of time and effort.

In a recent interview, Gates also let it slip that what CV vaccine researchers are pushing for is poised to harm hundreds of thousands of people – yet he still wants one available in less than a year and a half. All in the name of protecting public health, right?

ALL HANDS ON DECK: Bill Gates is pumping billions of dollars into vaccine research to “accelerate” drug development

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation says they want there to be a CV vaccine available to the masses within 12 to 18 months. Not suprisingly, Business Insider reports that Gates is funding the construction of at least seven different factories, each testing a different candidate for a novel CV vaccine.

Yet only one or two of these potential vaccine candidates will be selected for further development, while the other candidates – and the factories making them – will be abandoned. This means over 70 percent of his “investment” will be completely wasted.

Gates has said he’s willing to take the hit on this since it will accelerate vaccine development. All that hurry and waste just to get a vaccine out on the market ASAP?  Let’s stop for a moment to consider the skyrocketing unemployment rates and devastating insolvency that millions of people around the world are now facing because of state and federal responses to CV.

If Gates wants to use his tremendous resources to support the public good, you’d think there he could find a more efficient and effective way to do so, rather than building useless infrastructure.

Do NOT ignore the health dangers linked to toxic indoor air.  These chemicals – the ‘off-gassing’ of paints, mattresses, carpets and other home/office building materials – increase your risk of headaches, dementia, heart disease and cancer.

Get the BEST indoor air purification system – at the LOWEST price, exclusively for NaturalHealth365 readers.  I, personally use this system in my home AND office.  Click HERE to order now – before the sale ends.

JAW-DROPPING: Gates acknowledges even flu shots aren’t effective for older adults and issues an (almost) unbelievable warning

Vaccines, of course, are not foolproof nor fully effective even when provided a more appropriate amount of time for research and development.

Gates admits as much in a recent interview with CNBC, where he bluntly states that even the seasonal “flu vaccine isn’t that effective” in older people – the exact population of people who are targeted for the vaccine itself.

Gates also has some brazen things to say about the CV vaccine currently in the pipeline. View the video below to listen for yourself:

We have to ask ourselves:Why does Bill Gates always have a habit of smiling when he talks about people getting hurt?

“We clearly need a vaccine that works in the upper age range because they’re most at risk,” Gates says. Because of this, he suggests the CV vaccine will need to be made more potent (“you have to amp it up”) in order to work for older people – as well as, we presume, all the younger healthy people who will be told to take it, too. And because of this increase in potency, Gates casually estimates that at least 700,000 people will “suffer” from side effects of whatever vaccine gets created.

We know the CV vaccine is going to be propagandized as a “necessary” step in protecting the community and especially its most vulnerable people. Yet from the mouth of one of the loudest, most influential, and wealthiest drug pushers out there, we’re now hearing confirmation that widespread health consequences are certain. All this for a drug that will be rapidly made and furiously pushed out onto the market.

Tell us again the level of cognitive dissonance required to tout this “solution” as safe and effective.

Sources for this article include:

COVID-19: A Leaked Virus Jointly Created by US and China?

Reproduced from original article:

Analysis by André Leu

Why Is Protecting COVID-19 Origin Narrative so Important?

Reproduced from original article:

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola      Fact Checked

Sorry, video not available on this site. To view video, go to original article above, or download video transcript

Visit the Mercola Video Library


  • The manufactured anthrax crisis of 2001 initiated the PATRIOT Act, one of the most severe compromises of our personal freedoms up to that point. Now, the COVID-19 pandemic is being used to take away even more freedoms
  • It appears influential virologists are protecting the narrative that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally, and did not originate from a lab in China or elsewhere, even though their scientific justification for that conclusion is faulty
  • Strong evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 cannot be the result of a natural mutation
  • The National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), under Dr. Anthony Fauci’s leadership, has funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses for about two decades
  • Efforts to develop coronavirus vaccines have failed for two decades, as the vaccines tend to cause paradoxical immune enhancement resulting in damaging and lethal cytokine storms

Dr. Meryl Nass is a physician in Ellsworth, Maine, who in previous interviews has helped us understand the unforeseen consequences of mass vaccination — consequences that could end up impacting public health in a very negative way. Here, she discusses what she’s been working on for decades, and how it relates to this current pandemic.

An outspoken supporter of health freedom, Nass provided scientifically referenced testimony to the Massachusetts legislature, December 3, 2019, when it was considering legislation to eliminate the religious vaccine exemption. This is now more relevant than ever, considering there is talk, worldwide, about implementing more or less mandatory vaccination against COVID-19. In her December 2019 testimony, Nass pointed out that:1

There is no crisis (no epidemic of deaths or disabilities) from infectious diseases caused by lack of vaccinations … The elephant in the auditorium today is Pharma profits …

The pharmaceutical industry has undertaken a very ambitious campaign to legislate away vaccine exemptions in the United States and Canada. France, Italy and Germany have rescinded vaccine exemptions too, suggesting the campaign is worldwide …

It has been claimed that vaccines are, by nature, extremely safe. Yet vaccines are usually injected, bypassing all the body’s natural barriers. Even minute contamination or inadequate microbial inactivation can maim or kill … Vaccines have caused many autoimmune disorders, from Guillain-Barre syndrome to narcolepsy …

Vaccines appear safe because the immediate side effects are usually mild and temporary. Serious vaccine side effects often take weeks or months to surface, and by then it is difficult to know what caused them …

A 2009 European swine flu vaccine (GSK’s Pandemrix) caused over 1,300 cases of severe narcolepsy, mostly in adolescents. This vaccine was linked to narcolepsy because 15 times the usual number of narcolepsy cases suddenly appeared in clinics …

It should be apparent, but isn’t: Government waivers of vaccine liability discourage manufacturers from ensuring that the vaccines they sell are as safe and effective as possible.

The removal of vaccine exemptions, combined with liability waivers for vaccine side effects and recently loosened standards for licensing vaccines, create a highly toxic mix.”

Nass goes on to cite statistics showing why the claim that draconian laws are required to control the “crisis” of vaccine-preventable diseases is false. She also points out that:

“The bedrock expectation of medical ethics is that patients must give informed consent2 for all medical procedures, including vaccines. Informed consent means that patients must be informed about the procedure, have the right to refuse, and may not be coerced to accept it.

Isn’t withholding an education an extreme form of coercion? Without any discussion of its moral or ethical dimensions by media, medical societies or government officials, the requirement for informed consent for medical procedures, including vaccinations, vanishes in the blink of an eye when patients are not allowed the right to refuse.”


In 1992, Nass published a paper3 identifying the 1978-1980 Zimbabwe anthrax outbreak as a case of biological warfare. In 2011, I also interviewed her about the 2001 false flag anthrax attack in the U.S., on the heels of 9/11, and the dangers of the anthrax vaccine.

That manufactured crisis initiated the PATRIOT Act, one of the most severe compromises of our personal freedoms up to that point. Now, it appears they’re using the COVID-19 pandemic to take away even more freedoms.

There’s strong evidence that this is precisely what’s going on. Early in the interview, Nass summarizes our earlier discussion about the anthrax attack, so for a refresher, listen to the interview or read through the transcript. That attack, however, is also what allowed government funds to be allocated toward even more biological warfare research. She explains:

“Congress appropriated a lot of money for bio-terrorism, which is conjoined with pandemic planning. So, the same pot of money that goes into pandemics goes into Biological Defense. Much of it is duly used for research performed in high containment, BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs.

We don’t call it biological warfare, but when you’re designing pathogens to be more virulent than the originals in nature … essentially biological warfare research gets done. Things are called biological warfare if the intent is to create a weapon. It’s called biological defense if the intent is to design a bad bug so you can come up with defenses against that bug.

What has happened is that a lot of money was spent to develop new high containment labs — many, many more high containment labs … about $6.5 billion a year since 2001 has been designated for this biodefense. So, what we wound up with is hundreds of biodefense labs that have to be used and thousands, possibly 15,000, newly trained bio-defense researchers.

So, now we have cadres of people who are experts in coronaviruses or avian flu viruses, Ebola, Lassa, et cetera. And what most of that money … has been spent on, has been researching these pathogens. Even though the money was supposed to be spent on developing countermeasures and stockpiling countermeasures, to a great extent that did not happen …

As a result, we know a lot about highly virulent coronaviruses that have been created in labs around the world as well as in the U.S. and China, and we have absolutely no countermeasures that have been developed for coronavirus.”


Click here to learn Dr. Mercola's top tips to combat coronavirus

Where Did SARS-CoV-2 Originate?

“Like everybody else, I wondered whether this was a natural jump from a bat or some other animal to humans and scratched my head about it,” Nass says. While she’s not a virologist, she does have a three-decade background in biological warfare and is aware of what’s been created in the past, what it takes, where they may be made, and how it has been done.

“So, I remained curious. Then on February 19 online, and in the March 7 print edition, a group of scientists had a “Correspondence” published in The Lancet, and it was a very curious piece to me. It didn’t make sense.

And these were very prominent signatories, including the former head of the National Science Foundation, one of the former top people at CDC, the director of the Wellcome Trust, coronavirus researchers and funders, and other prominent people.

What they said is, ‘We need to quash the rumors that this came from a lab. That is a conspiracy theory and we need to get rid of it. They wrote:

The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.’ 4

So, what this group was doing, in a very short, less than a page-long letter, was calling the possibility that SARS-2 might have come from a lab a conspiracy theory, and conflating any consideration of this possibility with threatening “transparent sharing of data” with China. And we couldn’t interfere with that because we need to work with China to fight the coronavirus …

A couple of weeks later, an article came out in Nature Medicine, which said, ‘Here we have the scientific proof that this did not come from a lab’ …

And this second paper talked about the two things that have been identified by others as the most problematic new genetic segments on SARS-CoV-2 — two sites on the spike RNA, which seem to enhance the tropism and the binding/entry, so it makes it easier for the virus to get into human cells and expands the range of cell types the virus can enter.

And the Nature Medicine authors took these two regions and said: ‘Look, these mutations that are found in the new CoV-2 virus, which are not seen in any of the other coronaviruses anywhere near it genetically, must have come from the wild because these weren’t created in the ways that we virologists would have chosen to create them.’

They said, ‘We already have ways to create these mutations that would leave a lab signature, but there is no lab signature. And furthermore, we decided that based on computer modeling, the receptor binding domain did not use the ideal formulation we predicted. If a geneticist, a virologist, was doing this, they would have used our computer model. They didn’t, and therefore this must have come from the wild.’

Well, that was a really odd argument because it didn’t make any scientific sense. The authors did a lot of hand-waving, but failed to consider that other techniques could have been used to create this virus. Nor did the authors explain how such a virus, so ideally adapted to humans, could have developed in wildlife.

We should understand that those were two highly virulent and surprising mutations that could well have been added to a preexisting coronavirus, by a variety of techniques, including the old passage technique, still used today, which is what Louis Pasteur used to create the first live, attenuated rabies vaccine in 1885.

If you passage a virus through multiple human tissue cultures, or mice that contain, for example, humanized lung tissue, you force the virus to develop mutations that adapt it better and better to the new tissue. If the current coronavirus, as claimed by some scientists and seems borne out clinically, is better adapted to binding to the human ACE-2 receptor than to all known animal ACE-2 receptors, then it either:

1) mutated that way by jumping from wildlife to humans long ago, subsequently optimizing its ACE-2 receptor for humans over a prolonged period of time, or

2) was genetically engineered in a lab to do so, or

3) was passaged through cells with human ACE-2 receptors in order to accumulate the mutations that made it most virulent to humans. 

I believe the same argument holds for the second unique coronavirus mutation, the addition of four amino acids to form a furin (polybasic) cleavage site. This site takes advantage of the human furin enzyme present intra- and extracellularly, which enhances viral entry into human cells and might convey other advantages to the virus.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the first hypothesis, that this virus has been circulating in humans for years. Thus, we are left with hypotheses 2 and 3: Each requires the human hand, only differing by the technique used. In my opinion, it is likely that both techniques (genetic engineering and serial passage) were used to produce the SARS-2 coronavirus, or its laboratory progenitors.”

We Absolutely Have the Know-How to Create SARS-CoV-2

Nass countered Nature Medicine’s narrative in a March 26, 2020, blog post,5 and again in an April 2, 2020, post, in which she wrote:6

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

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

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

  • Exposing microorganisms to chemical or radiological agents that cause high mutation rates and selecting for desired characteristics
  • Passaging virus through a number of lab animals or tissue cultures
  • Mixing viruses together and seeking recombinants with a new mix of virulence factors”

Why Is Protecting the Narrative so Important?

Nass believes the old technique of passage is a likely candidate here. According to Nass, if you take viruses that are ill adapted to the human ACE-2 receptor but are adapted to another animal’s ACE-2 inhibitor, and then passage them in human tissue culture with the human ACE-2 receptor, over time, the viruses will develop improved receptor binding.

“It’s a likely way that this coronavirus might have been produced,” she says. “Anyway, I read that article and I said, ‘This is complete nonsense. I can’t believe Nature Medicine published it.’ And the two groups of authors, the group from The Lancet and the group from Nature Medicine, have consistently referred to each other as they’ve been interviewed since.

Science Magazine did a short piece on The Lancet article. USA Today did a piece on the Nature of Medicine article. And then the head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, Tony Fauci’s boss, wrote a blog post (or somebody wrote it for him) about the spurious Nature Medicine article.

He stated, ‘Now we have the scientific answer. This article in Nature Medicine has put to rest any thoughts that this could be a lab construct. That’s a conspiracy theory. We have no room for conspiracy theories. This is the end of the discussion’ …

Now, the first thing I thought about the Nature Medicine article was, ‘Did these authors actually write it?’ Because it’s such a piece of scientific nonsense than any real scientist reading it, if you can read the language, would not accept it, would dismiss it out of hand. Many other scientists have said exactly this, subsequently.

So, were the Nature Medicine authors asked to place their names on a piece of junk science in order to get it into a high impact journal and create this smoke screen — that “the science proves” (but only to the scientifically illiterate) this is a naturally occurring coronavirus?

There were five authors. I know of a couple of them. One was a virologist named Robert Garry, who I have had some interactions with over the last 22 years, another one was Ian Lipkin. Garry and coauthor Kristian Andersen both worked in Sierra Leone during the Ebola epidemic. 

Garry was principal investigator for a project in Kenema, Sierra Leone before the outbreak started. Ian Lipkin’s group at Columbia University claimed, just last year, to have finally found a bat in west Africa carrying Ebola virus; in other words, this Nature Medicine coauthor’s group produced the long-sought evidence for a natural origin of west Africa’s Ebola epidemic.7

I happened to show the Nature Medicine article to a friend of mine, Ed Hooper, who wrote a well-known book called, ‘The River,’ about the origin of AIDS: How did AIDS jump from monkeys into the human population?

Although many claim that it’s due to Africans eating bush meat (from monkeys), Ed makes a very strong case that HIV made the species jump via oral polio vaccines that were prepared locally, in the Belgian Congo, from the kidneys of various types of monkeys that were locally caught. The vaccine was designed by Hilary Koprowski in the U.S., and given to millions of Africans.

Ed Hooper has put out additional evidence in the intervening 20-plus years since he wrote ‘The River,’ that it’s much more likely that the jump into humans occurred because the oral polio vaccine grown on monkey kidneys was contaminated by monkey viruses, and that those monkey kidneys probably contained the precursor to HIV.

Interestingly, three of these Nature Medicine authors had challenged him on his AIDS origin theory about two decades ago, and now they’re challenging the coronavirus origin theory, which made me wonder, ‘Are these five Nature Medicine authors … repeatedly trotted out by the political medical establishment to try to push false narratives that are politically desirable?”

Compelling Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Is a Lab Creation

May 19, 2020, I reviewed evidence presented in a Medium article8 written by Yuri Deigin, as well as a video presentation of this evidence done by Chris Martenson, Ph.D. If you missed “The Smoking Gun Proving SARS-CoV-2 Is an Engineered Virus,” you may want to review it after you’re done with Nass’ interview.

Both sources go into great scientific depth, explaining why SARS-CoV-2 cannot be the result of a natural mutation. Deigin doesn’t actually suggest that it is manmade, but provides strong evidence that one needs to consider before coming to the conclusion that it’s of natural origin. Nass comments on Deigin’s work:

“[Deigin] did his own research and published a massive discussion of all the coronavirus research that has gone on since 1999 that is relevant to SARS-CoV-2, and he particularly discusses these two mutations: One, the furin cleavage site and the other is the receptor binding area.

He talks about all the research that’s been done on coronaviruses, the different ways you can make these changes, and how changes like what we’re seeing now have in fact been created by coronavirus researchers over the past 20 years. And he analyzes everything very, very finely. It’s like Ed Hooper’s book. He goes in and out and around and discusses every aspect.

When you finish reading that article, you are convinced that it’s almost certain that these two mutations were put there deliberately.

Whether they were done by passage, whether they were done by CRISPR or whether another method was used, scientists did know the implications, in terms of increasing virulence, of both of these mutations. So, I invite you to read that piece.”

Many Nations Funded ‘Gain of Function’ Coronavirus Research

We now know that the National Institutes of Health, under Fauci’s leadership, funded gain-of-function research, or research on how to increase the virulence of pathogens, with coronaviruses for about two decades.

When the White House temporarily suspended U.S. government funding for that kind of research for MERS, SARS and avian flu in 2014, some work may have shifted over to the Wuhan Virology Institute in China and continued anyway. Other similar research, such as Ralph Baric’s at UNC, was given special permission to continue despite the temporary suspension. The funding ban was lifted in 2017. Nass weighs in:

“Coronavirus research, including gain-of-function research over the last 20 years, has been done in many countries in Europe, in many labs in the U.S., in Japan, Singapore, China, Australia and probably other places. And it has often been funded by multiple countries.

So, funders have included the Australian government, different branches of NIH, but primarily Fauci’s NIAID, the National Science Foundation and USAID — surprising because you would think USAID is an aid agency.

There have also been organizations like the EcoHealth Alliance, which have served as pass-throughs for the funding. The NIAID or USAID would give money to the EcoHealth Alliance and then EcoHealth Alliance would dole it out to the BSL-4 lab in Wuhan and other places and would participate with them in research.

Most of the most prominent researchers have worked in multiple countries’ labs, along with foreign colleagues. It’s very complicated. There’s a lot of back and forth. Europe has funded this research too.

So, Dr. Zhengli Shi has worked in the United States and our researchers have worked in China. Nature Medicine coauthor Ian Lipkin has a post in China, and he was an expert who advised the Saudis on MERS, which is a cousin of SARS, and advised the Chinese on the 2003 SARS. He is affiliated with EcoHealth Alliance too.

He was over in China at the beginning of this SARS-2 pandemic. Ed Holmes, a coauthor of the Nature Medicine article, is an evolutionary biologist at Sydney University who also holds a position in China. So, these people work together, and … the Chinese, the Australians, the Europeans and the Americans fund all this work … Some of this research is funded by five different institutes from three or four different countries.

Gain-of-function research has been controversial since it started being openly discussed. In 2014, in the United States, there was a pause on U.S. government funding of gain-of-function research, but only for three organisms: MERS, SARS and avian flu.

Probably this occurred because researchers announced success in creating lethal avian flu viruses that had gained the ability to spread via aerosol. And because, at the same time, there was widespread media reporting on lab accidents in the U.S., especially at CDC’s, NIH’s and the Army’s high containment labs. These accidents had exposed workers at CDC and over 100 other labs to live anthrax spores and live avian flu.

There was a lot of controversy in the scientific literature over gain-of-function. However, even though about 20 research projects were initially paused in 2014, seven were given special permission to continue. Here is what U.S. government scientists wrote about this in 2015:

‘The recent safety lapses at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH that could have resulted in exposure to anthrax and smallpox, respectively, have diminished public confidence in the ability of even high-containment laboratories to mitigate the risk of accidental release of pathogens of potential harm … public tolerance of that risk may be the ultimate determinant of what types of research are allowed to proceed.

… ‘As recent lapses at high profile laboratories have illustrated, there remains the potential that bacterial and viral strains can escape even the most secure environments.’9

At the end of 2017, the pause was removed, new guidelines were issued but not made mandatory, and everybody was allowed to go back and do whatever gain-of-function research they wanted.”

Nass on Mikovits Retrovirus Hypothesis

I recently interviewed Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., a cellular and molecular biologist who suspects SARS-CoV-2 isn’t the actual or sole cause of COVID-19. Rather, she believes the illness is a coinfection of SARS-CoV-2 with a preexisting XMRV gamma retrovirus infection.

One possibility she has raised is that SARS-CoV-2 activates this underlying, latent infection. She supports this thesis with the fact that the cytokine storm signature of COVID-19 is inconsistent with coronavirus, but very consistent with the gamma retrovirus infections she studied.

“What she says is very interesting,” Nass says. “Some of it I think is incorrect and some of it is correct, and there’s so much of it that it’s very hard to separate … Even though she says coronaviruses don’t do X, Y and Z, this is a very new coronavirus. It has some unique features.

What we’ve talked about so far is only relevant to the spike protein, which is only 13% of the genome. We haven’t even begun to explore changes that may have occurred in the rest of the genome. So, I don’t think we have the evidence yet to say that this coronavirus alone can’t do what it seems to be doing …

Some people are saying there are two, three or four small, six to 10 amino acid segments that look like bits of HIV, and they’re inserted in different places. They may have effects on the immune response. I don’t know. I think that information will gradually appear … I think I’ve got to read her book [‘Plague of Corruption’] … and see what the data show …

In my own research, I have found Anthony Fauci to be a hypocritical fraud, who pretends he knows nothing about coronaviruses, [yet] he’s funded over $100 million of coronavirus research out of NIAID. He looks so gentle and he doesn’t give you any details about anything, but he knows a lot of details. So, I hope she confirms my suspicions about Fauci.”

Potential COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers

As discussed in “Fast-Tracked COVID-19 Vaccine — What Could Go Wrong?” COVID-19 vaccines are being fast-tracked, eliminating animal trials and going straight to human trials.

Speaking of Fauci, Moderna was granted a fast-track designation for its mRNA-1273 vaccine by the FDA on May 12, 2020.10,11 This vaccine is sponsored by Fauci’s NIAID, who, echoing Bill Gates’ edicts, has been calling for social distancing and other lockdown measures until a vaccine becomes available. Moderna is currently preparing to enter Phase 2 trials. No results from Phase 1 have been published as of this writing.

“They’re doing human trials of at least two vaccines in the U.S. now. So, I’ll tell you what I know. First of all, the Moderna is an mRNA vaccine. We haven’t had an mRNA vaccine before, so we don’t know what that’s going to do in people.

Therefore, it seems unconscionable to give it to people before you test it in animals, so that you can at least have some idea what the side effects might be …

There [have also been] many [experimental coronavirus vaccines in the past], not just the trials at Galveston with Peter Hotez, where four different types of vaccines against coronaviruses all failed. There have been other vaccine platforms attempted for coronaviruses that also failed.”

In one such study, discussed in my recent interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., ferrets showed an extraordinary good serological antibody response to the vaccine, but when the animals were then exposed to the wild virus, they were overtaken by a cytokine storm response, now known as “paradoxical immune enhancement.” In at least one trial, all the ferrets died.

“Hotez [has stated that] in their animal experiments, the vaccinated animals fared worse when they were exposed to the disease than if they had not gotten the vaccine,” Nass says.

“[In] experiments done in the 1960s, an RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) vaccine [Editor’s note: RSV is similar to coronavirus] … was given to children. Several of the children died — again, with this same cytokine storm problem arising. So, I think this is a vaccine you should tread very lightly with, and it should never have been given to people before it was given to animals.”

COVID-19 Vaccine — Global Experiment Without Precedent

Nass also addresses the issue of how human trials are done, and warns people about joining them without being fully informed about the potential risks. This is particularly pertinent for COVID-19 vaccine trials, considering the lethal failures of such vaccines in the past.

You also need to understand that when you participate in a trial, you are not eligible to receive compensation for any injuries you sustain. As for taking the vaccine once it becomes publicly available, Nass says:

“I’ll just point out that Ralph Baric, the top coronavirus researcher in the United States, at the University of North Carolina, said himself in an interview a couple months ago that vaccines aren’t going to work in the older population for which this disease is most risky …

Having dealt with many people who’ve died or developed chronic illnesses, all sorts of terrible complications from anthrax vaccine and smallpox vaccine, and sometimes other vaccines, I try to do a careful risk-benefit analysis before recommending a vaccine to any patient.

Sometimes I think it makes sense for people to be vaccinated, but their own situation, where they live, their age group, who they’re exposed to, where they’re traveling to are all important factors that would help you to formulate that risk-benefit assessment. And I don’t think vaccines should be looked on as risk-free. They’re clearly not risk-free. Medical interventions should be done thoughtfully …

Another problem … on the FDA website,12,13 there is a page that talks about the problem of growing vaccines in cells14 that may have oncogenes or cancer causing viruses in them, and what research FDA is trying to do to deal with this. So, the FDA acknowledges this serious potential risk from some vaccines… on the FDA website.”

Level 3 and 4 Biosafety Labs Pose Severe Risk to Human Health

The map below was published in the journal Science15 in 2007 and reprinted in Asia Times16 April 6, 2020, showing the proliferation of high-containment labs in the U.S. A USA Today investigation published in 2015 put the number of BSL 3 and 4 labs in the U.S. around 200,17 and Boyle estimates there are about 400 worldwide.18

US biodefense program

In closing, Nass points out there have been many accidental leaks from BSL 3 and 4 labs, causing many deaths. Improperly inactivated vaccines have also claimed many lives.

“Thirty years ago when I was writing papers about the potential risks of biological defense research we had a lot less biological defense research going on. And the risks were significant. Everybody agrees that these labs leak.

I told you there were maybe 600 or more BSL-3s in the United States19 and hundreds of others around the world. There are about 200 reports of lab accidents, mostly exposures of lab personnel to pathogens, in the high-containment labs in the U.S., yearly.20

So, let me actually give you a few examples from a paper by Martin Furmanski, a physician who wrote about lab escapes.21

He pointed out a lab in England. There were several smallpox escapes from that lab to a room below. Two people died. After the second escape happened, I think it was around 1980, the lab director killed himself.

There were huge outbreaks of Venezuelan equine encephalitis. Thousands and thousands of animals and people [were affected] in Latin America, and it turned out to be due to improperly inactivated vaccines. So, the disease they were vaccinating all these livestock for was actually giving them the disease and giving it to humans also. You don’t hear about that.

He points out that the worldwide 1977 H1N1 outbreak … started in China or Russia, probably from long-frozen virus that had been thawed, because that particular strain, H1N1, had not circulated in the world for 21 years, and genetically it looked almost identical to the strains that were around in the late ’40s and 1950s, early ’50s. So that worldwide 1977 flu pandemic was due to a lab escape. 

And Furmanski postulates that the reason the virus was thawed was to do vaccine research because of the fear, in the U.S. in 1976-77, that a deadly swine influenza pandemic might occur … leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy. But fortunately, the virus that circulated was much less deadly than the feared 1918 strain.

[The U.S. government] began a swine flu vaccine program in 1976 after one soldier died at Fort Dix in 1976 of a unique swine flu strain. Frightened that a scenario like the 1918 flu pandemic might emerge, the United States public health agencies got together with the U.S. vaccine manufacturers to create, very rapidly, a swine flu vaccine to save the United States. It was an abysmal failure.

As things progressed, the manufacturers refused to produce vaccine unless the government gave them a waiver of liability for possible vaccine injuries. This they received.

First of all, there was no outbreak. The virus had stopped circulating and disappeared. Had the people at the CDC and HHS been honest with the American public, they would have told them, ‘Hey, there’s no outbreak. We’re just going to cancel the vaccine program. We don’t need it.’ But the vaccine program had developed a life of its own.

Harvey Fineberg co-authored a wonderful book [‘The Swine Flu Affair: Decision-Making on a Slippery Slope’22,23] about the vaccine program, for the National Academy of Sciences, which the subsequent DHHS (then HEW) Secretary, Joseph Califano, had requested.

I recommend it. It’s a fabulous read because Fineberg was working under the Secretary of Health and Human Services, so he was able to interview everybody involved in government who had been part of the program.

He tells you the inside story of what went on during that year. All the infighting, all the different reasons why a vaccine was made for a disease that didn’t exist. And then, [after the vaccine was] given to 45 million Americans, [it was] found to cause Guillain-Barre syndrome, about 30 people died and 4,000 people applied for damages from the federal government.

This was the first time the government gave a liability waiver to vaccine manufacturers. And I think it was what gave them the idea that in the future they could get liability waivers for all their vaccines.”

You can download a free PDF copy of “The Swine Flu Affair” on The National Academies of Sciences website.24 You can also learn more about the failed 1977 swine flu vaccination campaign in “How Does COVID-19 Compare to Spanish Flu?

Vaccine Trial Catastrophe: Moderna Vaccine has 20% ‘Serious’ Injury Rate in High Dose Group

© 22nd May 2020 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc.
Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense.
Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Reproduced from original article:

MAY 22, 2020

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense

Despite Moderna’s cheery press release this week, the clinical trial results for its groundbreaking COVID vaccine could not be much worse.

The vaccine, developed and championed by Anthony Fauci and financed by Bill Gates, used an experimental mRNA technology that the two men hoped would allow rapid deployment to meet President Trump’s ambitious “warp speed” time line. Dr. Fauci was so confident of his shot’s safety that he waived ferret and primate studies (Moderna suspiciously reported no specific health data from its mouse studies). That appears to have been a mistake.
… volunteers developed Grade 3 systemic events defined by the FDA as “Preventing daily activity and requiring medical intervention.”
Three of the 15 human guinea pigs in the high dose cohort (250 mcg) suffered a “serious adverse event” within 43 days of receiving Moderna’s jab. Moderna did not release its clinical trial study or raw data, but its press release, which was freighted with inconsistencies, acknowledged that three volunteers developed Grade 3 systemic events defined by the FDA as “Preventing daily activity and requiring medical intervention.”

Moderna allowed only exceptionally healthy volunteers to participate in the study. A vaccine with those reaction rates could cause grave injuries in 1.5 billion humans if administered to “every person on earth”. That is the threshold that Gates has established for ending the global lockdown.
Moderna’s press announcement heralded ‘Positive Interim Phase 1 findings’. I have forwarded that claim to my colleagues in securities law …
Moderna did not explain why it reported positive antibody tests for only eight participants. These outcomes are particularly disappointing because the most hazardous hurdle for the inoculation is still ahead: challenging participants with wild COVID infection. Past attempts at developing COVID vaccines have always faltered at this stage as both humans and animals achieved robust antibody response then sickened and died when exposed to the wild virus.

Moderna’s press announcement heralded “Positive Interim Phase 1 findings”. I have forwarded that claim to my colleagues in securities law; FTC rules restrict the amount of lipstick public companies may slather on bad donkeys.

Fast-Tracked COVID-19 Vaccine — What Could Go Wrong?

Reproduced from original article:

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola      Fact Checked


  • The COVID-19 vaccine may in fact be the most fast-tracked vaccine ever created in all history, which necessitates the elimination of required safety testing steps, such as animal testing
  • Pfizer in collaboration with BioNTech began human trials in the U.S. of a COVID-19 vaccine on May 11, 2020. If successful, the vaccine could be released as early as September 2020 with an FDA-approved Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
  • Like Moderna and several other competitors, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is using messenger RNA (mRNA) rather than live or attenuated (inactivated) viruses grown in animal cells
  • Previous attempts to create coronavirus vaccines have failed due to coronaviruses triggering production of two different types of antibodies — one that fights disease and one that triggers “paradoxical immune enhancement” that often results in very serious disease and/or death
  • Vaccines that caused paradoxical immune enhancement initially looked very promising as they produced very robust antibody responses. Yet when exposed to the wild virus, ferrets and children became severely ill and many died

Bill Gates — who illegally invests in the industries he gives charitable donations to and promotes a global public health agenda that benefits the companies he’s invested in — claims life cannot go back to normal until we can vaccinate the global population against COVID-19.1,2

And, according to The Rockefeller Foundation’s white paper,3 “National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan,” privacy concerns “must be set aside” so that the infection status of every individual can be accessed and validated before permission is given to entering schools, office buildings, places of work, airports, concert and sport venues and more.

We’re currently being told that we “must” forgo our civil liberties because we might spread a virus to a potentially vulnerable individual. To prevent deaths from occurring by people moving about freely, we’re told we have to stop living.

Yet every single flu season throughout history, people have moved about, spreading the infection around and facilitating the acquisition of natural herd immunity. Undoubtedly, most people who have ever left their house with a cold, stomach bug or other influenza at any point in the past, have unwittingly spread the infection to others, some of which may have ended up with a serious case of illness and some of which may ultimately have died from it.

There is simply no way to prevent such a chain of events in perpetuity. As noted by Attorney General William Barr in an April 21, 2020, interview with Hugh Hewitt,4 “impingements on liberty” were adopted “for the limited purpose of slowing down the spread, that is bending the curve. We didn’t adopt them as the comprehensive way of dealing with this disease.”

Indeed, giving up our civil liberties in an effort to prevent all future deaths from infectious disease is profoundly misguided, and will not work in the long run.

Still, people around the world are being effectively manipulated and brainwashed with carefully honed propaganda derived from massive behavioral surveillance, to put life on hold until there’s a vaccine. Of course, by then, vaccination will likely become mandatory for anyone who wants to return to regular life.

To pull off this global plan of “disease surveillance” (which will eventually be tied to digital finance and identification schemes that are also in the works), those advocating for a “new normal” need a vaccine, and they need it fast, while fears are still dominating the news.

Vaccine Makers Race to Create COVID-19 Vaccine

Safety testing for vaccines typically leaves much to be desired to begin with, but when it comes to fast-tracked pandemic vaccines, safety testing is accelerated and becomes even more inadequate. The COVID-19 vaccine may in fact be the most fast-tracked vaccine ever created in history, which necessitates the elimination of required safety testing steps, such as animal testing.5,6

May 5, 2020, The New York Times reported7 that Pfizer, in collaboration with BioNTech, was scheduled to begin human trials of a COVID-19 vaccine on May 11, 2020 in the U.S. If successful, the vaccine could be released under an FDA-approved Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)8 as early as September 2020 — an unheard-of timeframe for any vaccine development.

Other vaccine makers have announced vaccine candidates will be ready in September as well9 — far sooner than the original 18 months to two years that Gates, Fauci and other authorities initially predicted at the beginning of this pandemic.

April 23, 2020, a dozen healthy German volunteers, aged 18 to 55, received Pfizer’s vaccine candidate, known only as BNT162.10 That trial is expected to eventually be expanded to 200.

Why the elderly, who are the most vulnerable to COVID-19 complications, would be excluded is a question worth asking — especially in light of the paradoxical immune enhancement that coronavirus vaccines are known for. (l’ll cover that in a later section.)

The U.S. trial will include 360 healthy volunteers in the first stage, and as many as 8,000 in the second stage. Volunteers will be divided into four groups, each group receiving one of four variations of the vaccine. The trial is being conducted at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, the University of Maryland School of Medicine, the University of Rochester Medical Center and the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“As soon as pharmaceutical companies can show evidence that a vaccine is effective and has produced no serious harms, they can apply for this kind of approval, which allows doctors to administer the vaccine to those most in need.

But more detailed study results may still be needed to persuade federal regulators to approve a candidate for the broader public,” The New York Times reports.11


Click here to learn Dr. Mercola's top tips to combat coronavirus

COVID-19 Vaccine Will Be Unlike Any Other

Like Moderna and several other competitors, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is using messenger RNA (mRNA) rather than live or attenuated (inactivated) viruses grown in animal cells. Among the vaccine candidates are ones containing uridine-containing mRNA (uRNA), nucleoside-modified mRNA (modRNA) and self-amplifying mRNA (saRNA).12 As explained by The New York Times:13

“… messenger RNA … carries the instructions for cells to make proteins. By injecting a specially designed messenger RNA into the body, the vaccine could potentially tell cells how to make the spike protein of the coronavirus without actually making a person sick.

Because the virus typically uses this protein as a key to unlock and take over lung cells, the vaccine could train a healthy immune system to produce antibodies to fight off an infection … But no vaccine made with this technology for other viruses has ever reached the global market.”

So, not only are we dealing with a novel virus, the mechanics of which is still not thoroughly understood (some experts are now saying it appears to be a genetically engineered virus that attacks the blood14 more so than the lungs, for example), they’re also using a novel RNA-based vaccine that has never been used before.

What could possibly go wrong? In my view — just about everything. It could turn into a global catastrophe the likes of which we’ve never experienced before.

Fast-Tracked Vaccine Could Have Catastrophic Consequences

Sorry, this video is not available on this site. To view video, please go to original article above, or download the Video Transcript:

In my recent interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., he summarized the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began after three SARS epidemics had broken out, starting in early 2002. Two of those three epidemics were lab-created organisms. Chinese, Americans and Europeans all started working on a coronavirus vaccine and around 2012, there were some 30 promising candidates.

As explained by Kennedy, the four best vaccine candidates were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. Kennedy explained what happened next:

“The ferrets had an extraordinarily good antibody response, and that is the metric by which FDA licenses vaccines … They do a serological response [test to] see ‘Did you develop in your blood antibodies to that target virus?’ The ferrets developed very strong antibodies, so they thought, ‘We hit the jackpot.’ All four of these vaccines … worked like a charm.

Then something terrible happened. Those ferrets were then exposed to the wild virus, and they all died. [They developed] inflammation in all their organs, their lungs stopped functioning and they died …

The same thing had happened in the 1960s when they tried to develop an RSV vaccine, which is an upper respiratory illness very similar to coronavirus.

At the time, they did not test it on animals. They went right to human testing. They tested it on I think about 35 children, and the same thing happened. The children developed a champion antibody response — robust, durable.

It looked perfect [but when] the children were exposed to the wild virus, they all became sick. Two of them died. They abandoned the vaccine. It was a big embarrassment to FDA and NIH.”

The Cause Behind Paradoxical Immune Enhancement

What could possibly account for this perplexing outcome? Why did the ferrets die when exposed to the wild virus even though they had a robust antibody response to the vaccine?

As explained by Kennedy, after looking into the matter further, researchers in 2012 discovered that coronaviruses produce not just one but two different types of antibodies — neutralizing antibodies15 that fight the infection, and binding antibodies16 (also known as nonneutralizing antibodies) that cannot prevent viral infection.

Incapable of preventing viral infection, binding antibodies can instead trigger a “paradoxical immune response,” or “paradoxical immune enhancement.” “What that means is that it looks good until you get the disease, and then it makes the disease much, much worse,” Kennedy said, adding:

Coronavirus vaccines can be very dangerous, and that’s why even our enemies, people who hate you and me — Peter Hotez, Paul Offit, Ian Lipkin — are all saying, ‘You got to be really, really careful with this vaccine.’”

Additionally, in my interview with Dr. Meryl Nass that will run May 24, 2020, she notes that Ralph Barric from the University of North Carolina — who collaborated extensively with Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and who is widely noted as one, if not the leading coronavirus virologist in the world — predicted that the vaccine would be an abysmal failure in the elderly who need it the most.

Many of the COVID-19 vaccines currently in the running are using mRNA to instruct your cells to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S protein), in other words, the glycoprotein that attaches to the ACE2 receptor of the cell. This is the first stage of the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into cells.

The idea is that by creating the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, your immune system will commence production of antibodies, without making you sick in the process. But are they in fact checking which of the two types of antibodies this process will produce?

Will injecting mRNA trigger the production of neutralizing antibodies or will it produce binding/nonneutralizing antibodies? Simply checking for antibody response may not suffice.

Vaccine Propagandist Expressed Concerns

Fast-tracking vaccine development has considerable risks. The best case scenario (highly unlikely) is that it will simply be ineffective (which is typically the case for the seasonal influenza vaccine), or, far more likely, it will cause serious side effects (as was the case with the fast-tracked 1976-1977 and 2009-2010 H1N1 swine flu vaccine), or it just might worsen infection rather than prevent it, as has been the case with previous coronavirus vaccines. As reported by Reuters:17

“Studies have suggested that coronavirus vaccines carry the risk of what is known as vaccine enhancement, where instead of protecting against infection, the vaccine can actually make the disease worse when a vaccinated person is infected with the virus.

The mechanism that causes that risk is not fully understood and is one of the stumbling blocks that has prevented the successful development of a coronavirus vaccine …

‘I understand the importance of accelerating timelines for vaccines in general, but from everything I know, this is not the vaccine to be doing it with,’ Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, told Reuters.”

Coming from a staunch pro-mandatory vaccination propagandist like Hotez, that’s really saying something. Needless to say, COVID-19 vaccine makers will be indemnified from financial liability no matter how many casualties a fast-tracked vaccine might cause.

Fast-Tracked Swine Flu Vaccine Caused Genetic Alterations

The H1N1 swine flu of 2009 was the most recent pandemic of note, and it’s well worth remembering what happened with the European fast-tracked vaccine. Europe accelerated its approval process, allowing manufacturers to skip large-scale human trials18 — a decision that turned out to have tragic consequences19 for an untold number of children and teens across Europe.

Over the next few years, the ASO3-adjuvanted swine flu vaccine Pandemrix (used in Europe but not in the U.S. during 2009-2010) was causally linked20 to childhood narcolepsy, which abruptly skyrocketed in several countries.21,22

Children and teens in Finland,23 the UK24 and Sweden25 were among the hardest hit. Further analyses discerned a rise in narcolepsy among adults who received the vaccine as well, although the link wasn’t as obvious as that in children and adolescents.26

A 2019 study27 reported finding a “novel association between Pandemrix-associated narcolepsy and the non-coding RNA gene GDNF-AS1” — a gene thought to regulate the production of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor or GDNF, a protein that plays an important role in neuronal survival.

They also confirmed a strong association between vaccine-induced narcolepsy and a certain haplotype, suggesting “variation in genes related to immunity and neuronal survival may interact to increase the susceptibility to Pandemrix-induced narcolepsy in certain individuals.”

In addition to that, there’s the research28 showing that the H1N1 swine flu vaccine was one of five inactivated vaccines that increased overall mortality, especially among girls.

The Pandemrix debacle should be instructive. No one anticipated a flu vaccine to have genetic consequences, yet it did. Now they’re proposing injecting mRNA to make every single cell in your body produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. How can we possibly think that the long-term ramifications of this will be clear by September?

Safer Vaccines Can Be Made

In my recent interview with Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. is a cellular and molecular biologist, she points out there’s a way to produce a much safer vaccine against COVID-19. Of course, her proposal will never see the light of day or ever be considered.

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

Interferon Type 129,30,31 is a type of beneficial cytokine released by your body as one of its first line of defense against viral infections. In a nutshell, it interferes with viral replication. It’s also been shown to suppress certain types of tumors. As part of your immune system, it digests viral DNA and viral proteins in infected cells while simultaneously protecting noninfected neighboring cells.

Interferon alpha and beta also help regulate your immune response. As noted in a 2018 paper32 on the dual nature of Type 1 and Type 2 interferons, “both antiviral and immunomodulatory functions are critical during virus infection to not only limit virus replication and initiate an appropriate antiviral immune response, but to also negatively regulate this response to minimize tissue damage.”

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

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

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

High-dose glutathione shows promise in addressing respiratory distress in patients with COVID-19

Reproduced from original article:

glutathione-therapy(NaturalHealth365) In some areas across the country, like New York City, even “suspected cases” of COVID-19 aren’t confirmed because of a lack of testing.  Unfortunately, this viral infection can become life-threatening as a result of what’s known as “cytokine storm syndrome.”  The end result can be pneumonia and other complications like acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).  But, as you’ll soon see, glutathione has proven to be a lifesaving antioxidant.

To date, no published “cure” has been found to control the respiratory symptoms and inflammation associated with the virus adequately, other than assisted ventilation and oxygen therapy. However, a new study based upon two patients with dyspnea secondary to coronavirus pneumonia found that glutathione shows significant promise in addressing respiratory distress.

Glutathione to the rescue: New York mom saved when medical-student son takes action

A New York mom – Josephine Bruzzese – was diagnosed with pneumonia but sent home from the hospital as a suspected COVID-19 case because there were no coronavirus tests currently available. She was given hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, and while some symptoms improved, she still had difficulty breathing. In fact, symptoms were so severe that she’d nearly pass out every time she stood up due to shortness of breath.

Josephine’s son, James Bruzzese, is a second-year student at CUNY School of Medicine, called a Lyme Disease specialist the family already knew – Dr. Richard Horowitz.  After James gave him the rundown, Dr. Horowitz suggested that they try giving Josephine glutathione, which is an antioxidant produced by your liver that helps reduce inflammation.

When a viral infection causes a significant amount of inflammation, the body doesn’t have enough of the antioxidant glutathione to keep lung tissue protected.

After a single 2,000mg dose of glutathione, the family saw Josephine improve in just an hour. She was able to get up, take a shower, and continued taking the treatment for five days with no relapse.

The use of all-natural substances show great promise in helping to heal the body

Both James and Dr. Horowitz coauthored a study on treating James’ mother and an additional Manhattan man with glutathione. The second patient who is in his 50s reported that he was given an intravenous infusion of glutathione and saw improvement in breathing symptoms within a half hour of the dose.

According to the study, it’s believed that oral and IV glutathione work to help address the “cytokine storm syndrome” that leads to respiratory distress in patients who have COVID-19 pneumonia.  They also noticed that zinc and vitamin C also may be helpful in reducing the body’s inflammatory response and reducing the production of cytokines.

Although they call for additional randomized controlled trials to further study these novel therapies, the success with the treatment is compelling. It’s additional proof that taking supplements like glutathione, zinc, and vitamin C are worthwhile as the world continues fighting this COVID-19 pandemic.

Stay tuned to NaturalHealth365, because we will have much more news about this topic soon!

Sources for this article include:

Patients low in vitamin D twice as likely to develop severe COVID-19 symptoms, NEW study

Reproduced from original article:

vitamin-D(NaturalHealth365) As we continue to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers are beginning to discover more about this virus. Scientists are uncovering more information about how it works, what options may work best to treat it, and why some individuals are hit harder than others with this viral infection.  One of the biggest issues coming to light is a vitamin D deficiency.

At this point, reports indicate that more than 93,000 people have died of coronavirus within the United States alone, and while we seem to be “flatting the curve,” the numbers continue to rise.  As researchers work to find the best ways to combat the virus, one new study takes a closer look at the correlation between severe vitamin deficiency and COVID-19 related mortality rates.

Severe vitamin D deficiency linked to high Covid-19 mortality rates

A research team, which was led by Northwestern University, took a look at data from clinics and hospitals from Germany, Spain, China, Italy, South Korea, the UK, Switzerland, the United States, France, and Germany. As they looked at this data, they noted that countries that had the highest COVID-19 mortality rates – such as the UK, Italy, and Spain – also had low levels of vitamin D when compared to other countries that weren’t as badly affected.

Many have wondered at the difference in death toll from country to country, and some have hypothesized that it was differences in the age of population, various strains of the virus, testing rates, or even differences in the quality of healthcare that may be responsible. However, what researchers did find was a significant correlation between vitamin D deficiency and a higher mortality rate.

As they analyzed patient data from across the world, they found that there was a link between vitamin D levels and cytokine storm, which is a hyper-inflammatory condition that’s caused when the immune system overreacts. It’s the cytokine storm that can cause damage to the lungs, resulting in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and even death.

How nutrition can alter the effectiveness of our immune system

The reason vitamin D levels likely play a role here is because vitamin D not only enhances the immune system, but it also works to prevent the immune system from becoming overactive. Having healthy vitamin D levels may be able to protect patients who get COVID-19 from the severe complications that occur as a result of cytokine storm.

Do NOT ignore the health dangers linked to toxic indoor air.  These chemicals – the ‘off-gassing’ of paints, mattresses, carpets and other home/office building materials – increase your risk of headaches, dementia, heart disease and cancer.

Get the BEST indoor air purification system – at the LOWEST price, exclusively for NaturalHealth365 readers.  I, personally use this system in my home AND office.  Click HERE to order now – before the sale ends.

In fact, according to the analysis, researchers believe it could cut the mortality rate in half. While it won’t help prevent infection, it may prevent death by reducing complications by those who do contract the virus.

Since too much vitamin D can come with negative side effects, it’s important to avoid taking excessive amounts of this vitamin. However, consider talking to your integrative healthcare provider about getting your vitamin D levels tested, and then, taking a supplement, if needed.

Sources for this article include:

The Smoking Gun Proving SARS-CoV-2 Is an Engineered Virus

Reproduced from original article:

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola      Fact Checked


  • The National Institutes of Health have in recent years funded dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan, China
  • Gain of function research refers to research in which pathogenicity or transmissibility of pathogens is enhanced to make a pathogen more dangerous to humans
  • To gain entry into a cell, the virus must first bind to an ACE2 or CD147 receptor. Next, the S2 spike protein subunit must be proteolytically cleaved. Without this protein cleavage, the virus would be unable to enter
  • There are several enzymes that cleave spike proteins, including plasmin, which also degrades fibrin. When a blood clot is dissolved, a byproduct called D-dimer is created, and many patients with serious COVID-19 infection have elevated D-dimer, which is indicative of blood clots
  • Another protein cleaver is furin, and the presence of a furin cleavage site on SARS-CoV-2 is “the smoking gun” that proves SARS-CoV-2 was lab-created

Since the breakout of COVID-19, a number of scientists have spoken out saying the virus does not appear to have evolved naturally, and those suspicions are only getting stronger.

As reported1 by Newsweek April 28, 2020, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has in recent years funded dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan, China.

This research was backed by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is now heading up the White House pandemic response team. According to Newsweek:2

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

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

As noted by GM Watch,3 “Bolstering the lab escape hypothesis in the eyes of the media is the news that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has updated its assessment of the origin of the COVID-19 virus SARS-CoV-2 to reflect that it may have been accidentally released from a lab in Wuhan due to ‘unsafe laboratory practices.’”

Unfortunately, mainstream media journalists are by and large ignoring the long history of accidental releases of dangerous pathogens from BSL3 and 4 laboratories. Journalist Sam Husseini discusses this history in a May 5, 2020 article in Independent Science News.4

Mainstream media journalists clearly are also not asking enough questions, or the right questions, about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. In his May 4, 2020, video update (above), Chris Martenson,5 who has a Ph.D. in pathology, carefully details the science behind his assertion that SARS-CoV-2 must have undergone laboratory manipulation. The evidence he lays out is close to conclusive, and really would be front-page news if unbiased journalism still existed.

What Is Gain of Function?

As explained by Martenson, gain of function research refers to research in which the pathogenicity or transmissibility of pathogens is enhanced. In other words, pathogens are manipulated in various ways to make them deadlier, and/or allow them to infect humans with greater ease. They also take viruses that are harmless to humans and conduct experiments to make them transmissible to humans.

As noted by Martenson, while this kind of research is justified by saying we need to know how viruses adapt and mutate so we can more easily figure out how to combat them should they gain these functions naturally, there’s not a shred of evidence suggesting we’ve learned anything about how to combat SARS-CoV-2. If we’re not actually learning how to treat illnesses through gain-of-function research, then why are we doing it?


Click here to learn Dr. Mercola's top tips to combat coronavirus

How Viruses Enter Your Cells

Martenson goes on to explain the two-stage process viruses use to gain entry into your cells. This is important, as viruses can only replicate by entering into and infecting a cell.

To gain entry, the virus must first bind to an ACE2 or CD147 receptor on the cell. Next, the S2 spike protein subunit must be proteolytically cleaved (cut). Without this protein cleavage, the virus would simply attach to the receptor and not get any further.

There are several enzymes that can do this job, including plasmin and furin. Plasmin, which is present in your blood, also degrades fibrin — plasma protein that can cause blood clots. When a blood clot is dissolved, a byproduct called D-dimer is created.

As explained in “Might Enzymes Help Blood Clotting Associated With COVID-19?” many patients with serious COVID-19 infection have elevated D-dimer, which is indicative of blood clots.

Martenson also cites the review paper6 “Elevated Plasmin(ogen) as a Common Risk Factor for COVID-19 Susceptibility,” which found that COVID-19 patients who have comorbidities that increase their susceptibility for the illness (i.e., those with high blood pressure, diabetes, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular illness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney dysfunction), tend to have elevated levels of plasmin.

In other words, it’s this elevated plasmin that — at least in part — puts these people at a higher risk for serious COVID-19 infection. In his May 6, 2020, update below, Martenson discusses this clotting problem encountered in many COVID-19 patients. As he points out, COVID-19 is “really more of a blood disorder, a clotting disorder,” than a normal lung infection.

Furin Cleavage Site Is the ‘Smoking Gun’

As mentioned, furin can also cut or cleave the S2 spike protein subunit. Furin is a protein coding gene that activates certain proteins by snipping off specific sections. As explained by Martenson, contrary to other protein-cutting enzymes, furin is very specific about the locations it cuts. What’s more, when arginine is present in the second or third place of the protein sequence, then the efficiency of the cleavage is magnified.

This, he says, is “the smoking gun” that proves SARS-CoV-2 was created in a lab. An excellent, well-written article7 in Medium also addresses this finding and explains why furin cleavage sites are so important for determining whether SARS-CoV-2 is natural or not.

In “Furin, a Potential Therapeutic Target for COVID-19,”8,9 Chinese researchers report that CoV-2 is the only coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. Not even distant relatives of CoV-2 have it, and the coronaviruses that do have it share only 40% of CoV-2’s genome. As reported in this paper:10

“It was found that all Spike with a SARS-CoV-2 Spike sequence homology greater than 40% did not have a furin cleavage site … including Bat-CoVRaTG13 and SARS-CoV (with sequence identity as 97.4% and 78.6%, respectively).

The furin cleavage site ‘RRAR’ in SARS-CoV-2 is unique in its family, rendering by its unique insert of ‘PRRA.’ The furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 is unlikely to have evolved from MERS, HCoV-HKU1, and so on.

From the currently available sequences in databases, it is difficult for us to find the source. Perhaps there are still many evolutionary intermediate sequences waiting to be discovered.”

Mutation Cannot Explain Furin Site in SARS-CoV-2

According to these researchers, the furin cleavage site present in SARS-CoV-2 “is unique in its family” and “is unlikely to have evolved.” In other words, the virus must have been modified somewhere along the way to give it a furin cleavage site, as there’s no apparent source for this virus.

Put another way, there’s no coronavirus out there that is similar enough that SARS-CoV-2 might have evolved or mutated from it.

Martenson does an excellent job of explaining this in his video, so I strongly recommend watching it. Yuri Deigin also does this in his Medium article,11 so if you prefer reading, you can review much of the same data there.

Importantly, both reveal how virologists claiming SARS-CoV-2 is a natural bat coronavirus that jumped to pangolin and then to humans are simply wrong, and the genetic sequence proves it. The furin cleavage site PRRA found in SARS-CoV-2 is NOT found in either bats or pangolins, so it could not have mutated through these animals.

furin cleavage site

The fact that this furin cleavage site is present in SARS-CoV-2 is evidence that it has been inserted (opposed to mutated), and Martenson provides an easy to understand illustration of the difference between a mutation and an insert in his video. It is extremely unlikely that 12 new nucleotide base pairs would all of a sudden emerge from where there was nothing before.

What About the Studies Saying It’s Natural?

Two studies heavily cited by mainstream media as evidence SARS-CoV-2 is a natural mutation that jumped from animal to human include a February 3, 2020, Nature paper,12 which claims SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus of bat origin that then jumped species. However, one of the authors of this paper, Shi Zhengli, was involved in the weaponization of the SARS virus, and therefore has reason to try to cover up any link to such research.

A second paper,13 published in Nature Medicine, March 17, 2020, offers “a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome,” and discusses “scenarios by which they could have arisen.” According to this paper, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”

However, even though they acknowledge SARS-CoV-2 has a polybasic cleavage site (PRRA) that does not exist elsewhere, they fail to explain how these 12 base pairs could have magically been inserted naturally. As noted by Martenson, “whole inserts are not part of the mutation pathway.”

Scientific Community Has Reason to Hide Origin

He goes on to cite several studies showing how scientists around the world have been working on inserting cleavage sites to make coronaviruses more virulent. Clearly, we have the capability to create SARS-CoV-2, and scientists around the world have engaged in such research for many years.

Martenson calls out leading virologist Michael Osterholm who, in a March 10, 2020, interview with Joe Rogan, stated that “we could not have crafted a virus like this to do what it’s doing; I mean we don’t have the creative imagination or the skill set.”

Really? Published research shows we clearly have the technology, know-how and “creative imagination” to create SARS-CoV-2, and Osterholm simply cannot be ignorant of that fact.

Another source you may want to look over is the Project Evidence webpage,14 which lists more information pointing toward a lab-created SARS-CoV-2 than I could possibly cover here. A summary of the evidence can be found toward the bottom of the page under “Conclusion.”

Naturally, there must be people in the scientific community who would now want to cover up any link to such research. Would you want to be responsible for creating, funding or having any association whatsoever with a virus responsible for a pandemic that has killed people, destroyed the world economy and put people out of work around the globe?

Would you want to be found guilty of violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the punishment for which goes up to and includes life in prison? The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 states:15

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

Other Experts Challenge Natural Evolution Claims

Martenson is far from alone in his belief that SARS-CoV-2 was genetically manipulated. An April 27, 2020, GM Watch article16 features professor Stuart Newman, who also believes “genetic engineering may have been involved at some point in the virus’ history.”

According to Newman, a professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College and editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Theory, the argument used to deny that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory construct in the March 17, 2020, Nature Medicine paper mentioned earlier (which stated “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus”) actually points to the exact opposite. GM Watch writes:17

“As Adam Lauring, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School, has noted,18 Andersen’s paper argues that, ‘the SARS-CoV-2 virus has some key differences in specific genes relative to previously identified coronaviruses — the ones a laboratory would be working with. This constellation of changes makes it unlikely that it is the result of a laboratory ‘escape.’’

But Professor Newman says19 that this is totally unconvincing because “The ‘key differences’ were in regions of the coronavirus spike protein that were the subject of genetic engineering experiments in labs around the world (mainly in the U.S. and China) for two decades’ …

In an email interview with GMWatch, Newman … amplified this speculation by noting, ‘The Nature Medicine paper points to variations in two sites of the spike protein of the new coronavirus that the authors claim must have arisen by natural selection in the wild.

However, genetic engineering of one of these sites, the ACE2 receptor binding domain, has been proposed since 2005 in order to help generate vaccines against these viruses (see this paper20). It is puzzling that the authors of the Nature Medicine commentary did not cite this paper, which appeared in the prominent journal Science …

The second site that Andersen et al. assert arose by natural means, a target of enzyme cleavage not usually found in this class of viruses, was in fact introduced by genetic engineering in a similar coronavirus in a paper21 they do cite. This was done to explore mechanisms of pathogenicity.’

Newman said that he does not believe that these changes were deliberately introduced to increase the pathogenicity of any single strain, but that SARS-CoV-2 may have had genetically engineered components in its history before being inadvertently introduced into the human population.”

There Are Many Ways to Manipulate Pathogens

Those who claim the lack of “fingerprints” in the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2 is evidence of natural evolution also fail to take into account methods that do not leave clearly identifiable traces. As noted by Dr. Meryl Nass (my interview with her will be posted May 24):22

“Prior to genetic engineering techniques being developed (1973) and widely used (since late 1970s), more ‘primitive’ means of causing mutations, with the intention of developing biological weapons, were employed …

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

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

  • Exposing microorganisms to chemical or radiological agents that cause high mutation rates and selecting for desired characteristics
  • Passaging virus through a number of lab animals or tissue cultures
  • Mixing viruses together and seeking recombinants with a new mix of virulence factors”

In my opinion, the strongest pieces of evidence so far all point toward SARS-CoV-2 being a laboratory creation. As Martenson asserts, the presence of furin cleavage sites23 makes a clear case for this, as this section of genetic code wouldn’t just emerge by itself by way of natural mutation. How it got released, however, is anyone’s guess.

Can Licorice Reduce the Severity of Coronavirus Infection?

Reproduced from original article:

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola      Fact Checked
May 18, 2020
licorice root and extract


  • Liquiritin is a compound found in licorice root and extract that helps prevent the rapid reproduction of SARS-CoV-2, as demonstrated in the lab
  • It also has anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective properties, but no toxicity, based on animal studies
  • Glycyrrhizin, also found in licorice, was found to be active against SARS-CoV-1 with few toxic effects; it has historically been used against flu and pneumonia
  • It’s also important to wash your hands, stay hydrated, get appropriate levels of vitamin D and maintain proper levels of humidity in your indoor environment

Medicinal plants have been a part of human history since the beginning of recorded time. Many pharmaceutical drugs are the result of isolating a plant compound and replicating it in the lab.1 Through many years of fighting illness and disease, people from all over have learned to rely on medicinal plants for healing.

The World Health Organization reports that many nations are continuing to use and rely on herbal treatments to help provide for health care needs. In 133 nations surveyed, 110 reported using herbal medicines.2 In one U.S. survey in 2007 it was reported that 40% of adults used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies.3

The resurgence of herbal medicine treatments may be driven by an increasing rate of death from all viruses, including influenza4 and SARS-CoV-2.5 Scientists have historically observed medicinal plant use and sought to understand their mechanisms of action. Licorice root offers more than one compound with effects against COVID-19.

Computer Reveals Liquiritin May Be an Effective Antiviral

Liquiritin is a flavanone glycoside6 found in licorice root. Chinese licorice is a flowering plant commonly used in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in combination with other herbs. The root has been used to improve the results of the other ingredients in medicine,7 help reduce the harmful effects and improve the flavor.

But, researchers from Peking University and the Academy of Military Science in China have discovered a compound in licorice root that can do more than just boost the effectiveness of other herbs. They analyzed liquiritin, which they found could help prevent SARS-CoV-2 from rapidly reproducing in the lab.

In search of an antiviral treatment against COVID-19, the researchers found licorice root. The study8 has not yet been peer-reviewed, but has been made public in a preprint paper.9

They noticed that past searches for antiviral therapies appeared to focus mainly on blocking the virus and considered searching for a method that boosted the host’s protective function. The study began with scientists analyzing natural products and FDA-approved drugs.

An artificial intelligence platform called InfinityPhenotype was used to predict the efficacy of 3,682 drugs and natural products against the gene set of SARS-CoV-2, as reported in previous research. During the analysis liquiritin was revealed to have the top score.

Then, results verified in the lab and showed that liquiritin had the ability to obstruct the growth of SARS-CoV-2 in monkey cells10 by mimicking type I interferon. They moved on to test toxicity in mice and found there were no deaths when the animals were treated with high doses for one week. They also acknowledged that liquiritin:11

“… acts as an antioxidant and has antidepressant, neuroprotective, anti-inflammatory and therapeutic effects on heart system diseases. Liquiritin plays a strong protective effect on vascular endothelial cells in myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury model. It can also protect smoking-induced lung epithelial cell injury.”

In conclusion, the researchers wrote:

“Since liquiritin is also one of the main ingredients of compound licorice tablets, we speculate that it is safe. Indeed, it didn’t show toxicity and side effects in two independent experiments. In summary, we suggest that liquiritin should be assessed in human patients suffering from the COVID-19 …

Because type I interferon is responsive to most viruses that infect vertebrate, we expect liquiritin having a broad and potent antiviral function to other viral pathogens, like HBV, HIV and etc.”


Click here to learn Dr. Mercola's ultimate guide to combating coronavirus

Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Licorice Root Compounds

The compounds in licorice root have demonstrated an anti-inflammatory effect in the body and the ability to modulate the immune system. In addition to fighting viral infections, it is also important to support the body’s defenses and reduce respiratory system effects.

For instance, in one literature review of 29 studies, scientists evaluated herbal preparations in the treatment of asthma to improve lung function.12 They found that when the herbal therapies, including licorice root, were used in conjunction with medications, the participants’ asthma outcomes were more improved than when the medications were used alone. Researchers have also studied the anti-inflammatory effects of licorice root extract and wrote:13

“Furthermore, licorice extract inhibited the expression levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-1β and IL-6) in the livers of t-BHP-treated mice models.

This result suggested that mechanistic-based evidence substantiating the traditional claims of licorice extract and its three bioactive components can be applied for the treatment of inflammation-related disorders, such as oxidative liver damage and inflammation diseases.”

The inhibition of proinflammatory cytokines may be an important effect as early studies have demonstrated an increased number of cytokines IL1B, IL6, IL12, IFNγ, IP10, and MCP1 in those with COVID-19.14 Two (IL1B, IL6) are the same cytokines researchers found were inhibited when licorice extract is used.

In an animal study from 2008 liquiritin showed an antidepressant-type effect.15 The research team said the mechanism of action was an increase in norepinephrine and 5-Hydroxytryptamine (serotonin).16 This is interesting since norepinephrine plays an important function in enhancing the expression of COX-2.17 Researchers believe their findings demonstrated:

“… the role of NE [norepinephrine] in CNS inflammation. NE via COX-2 and PGE-2 [prostaglandin] induction may have a protective physiological function rather than being purely detrimental.”

Serotonin is also enhanced with licorice root18 and plays a role in mediating immune cell function.19 For example, it modulates cytokine secretion and can suppress TNFα and IL1B, both important cytokines released in a COVID-19 infection.

Glycyrrhizin: Another Compound With Antiviral Effects

A second compound in licorice root that has demonstrated an effect against SARS-CoV-1 in 2003 is glycyrrhizin. The active compound was discovered in a search for antiviral therapies that may reduce the severity and mortality from the SARS coronavirus infection.

In a study20 published in the Lancet, scientists evaluated antiviral activity in patients with SARS-CoV-1 admitted to Frankfurt University in Germany. After evaluating the result of each of the compounds, they found that glycyrrhizin was the most active in stopping the reproduction of the SARS-CoV-1 virus. They concluded:

“However, although high doses of glycyrrhizin have been used in clinical trials, this compound had few toxic effects compared with the other regimens, and the drug was reported to be clinically effective.”

Results from another study21 showed the antiviral capacity of glycyrrhizin against coxsackievirus A16 and enterovirus 71 responsible for hand, foot and mouth disease. This is a contagious viral infection that children are susceptible to. The extract was used in the lab and showed a dose-dependent ability to block the reproduction of enterovirus 71 and coxsackievirus A16.

Historically, glycyrrhizin was a valuable asset in the treatment of coughs and viral respiratory tract infections in China, India and Greece.22 Current research has shown it to be a formidable antiviral with demonstrated effects against herpes, HIV, hepatitis, influenza and pneumonia. In animal studies glycyrrhizin reduced mortality from herpes encephalitis and influenza A pneumonia.

Licorice Root Has a Long History of Medicinal Use

Licorice is also known as “sweet root” because it’s about 50 times sweeter than regular sugar.23 Topical preparations have been used to treat eczema and other skin conditions. In Eastern and Western medicine, it has been used as an expectorant and to treat common colds.

When the Greek historian Herodotus was in the Black Sea area, after being exiled from Athens,24 he observed how licorice root was used in the Scythian Empire. He suggested it may be useful to the Greeks. Theophrastus advocated use in the 3rd century B.C. in asthma and respiratory diseases. In combination with honey, he suggested it for topical uses on wounds and ulcers.

Between 1400 and 1650, herbalists noted licorice had positive effects in the mouth and discovered different extracts had different potencies. To ensure the same benefits with each plant or extract, it would be necessary to standardize the growth and use of the plant.

Reduce Infection Potential and Support Your Immune System

While it is encouraging that licorice root has demonstrated the potential to positively affect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, you may also seek ways to reduce your potential for getting sick and the severity of the illness if you do get infected. Here are some suggestions:

Hand-washing — Using proper hand-washing techniques can help reduce your risk of a respiratory infection, as proven by the military. They were able to reduce the number of upper respiratory infections by 45% in a class of new recruits.25

Humidity and Hydration — Keeping the room humidity between 40% and 60% can reduce the transmission of viruses and may support your immune system.26 Thomas Pietschmann from the Center for Experimental and Clinical Infection Research explains it this way:27

“Viruses have greater stability at low temperatures. This is similar to food that keeps longest in the refrigerator. On cold and usually dry winter days, the small droplets, together with the viruses, float in the air longer than when the air humidity is high.”

Keeping your body hydrated is another way of protecting your mucus membranes. It has additional benefits as well as I discussed in “This Could Prevent 3 Million Cases of Degenerative Disease.”

Vitamin D — An increasing number of analyses of the data is showing people with adequate levels of vitamin D are experiencing infections with less severity and have lower mortality. You don’t have to go to a lab, but can easily test your vitamin D levels at home.

Vitamin C — This vitamin has a history of reducing the damaging effects of respiratory viruses and is being used by doctors in New York to reduce the mortality rates in people with COVID-19.28

Sleep — Sleep plays an integral role in your immune system and has a curious bidirectional link to your gut microbiome. If you need help getting quality sleep each night, here are my Top 33 tips to optimize your sleep routine.

– Sources and References