Facebook Labels Canning and Gardening Groups as Too Prepared

In July 2020, Facebook announced they would add labels to posts from politicians “to protect the election and promote healthy civic engagement.”1 The labels were supposed to identify content Facebook thought was inflammatory, misinformation or lies, without removing the post. Why Facebook felt they should “moderate” free speech that was not incendiary or promoted violence is a question for another time. According to left-leaning Media Matters for America,2 while the media giant continues to use labels on posts, a study of Trump's posts found that those that were labeled as possible misinformation had significantly more interactions than those that were not labeled. In other words, the labels appeared to engage more readers. Facebook began testing a new label in July 2021. These labels don’t just identify potential “misinformation,” but go even further to prompt readers — asking if their friends are becoming extremists.3 Historically, extreme ideas have proven to advance society or drag it back into the Dark Ages. Consider: Book burning by the Nazis to ensure the next generation did not have access to thoughts contrary to Hitler4 The idea that humans can fly, leading to the Wright brothers inventing the airplane That electricity could be harnessed, with visionaries like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison working to find ways to have light in the dark That the medical establishment didn’t entertain the idea of handwashing to stop the spread of disease until 20 years of data showed the practice lowered rates of infection5 The thread that runs through these extreme ideas is that censorship influences the way society thinks and therefore changes the outcome. Had the German people been allowed to think for themselves, an entire country may not have been swayed by the propaganda of one man. If the medical community were open to the idea that their behavior was killing people, they may have saved thousands. Of course, there are extreme ideas that should not be entertained. People will never be able to fly without assistance or walk into fire without protection. Yet, without censorship, these ideas die a natural death. It’s only through debate and sharing information that the truth wins out. And the truth is the only foundation on which society can realistically and confidently continue. Facebook Labels Gardeners as Possible Extremists CNN reported that Facebook prompts are being shown to some individuals, cautioning them that they may know someone who is becoming an extremist. Other prompts are letting people know they've been exposed to extremist content. This is part of Facebook's Redirect Initiative.6 Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone told CNN:7 "This test is part of our larger work to assess ways to provide resources and support to people on Facebook who may have engaged with or were exposed to extremist content or may know someone who is at risk. We are partnering with NGOs and academic experts in this space and hope to have more to share in the future.” In the past, Facebook has been criticized for not acting on content that encourages people toward violence. Yet, these warnings are also attached to posts sharing information about seemingly innocuous subjects, like buying food. According to CNET:8 “One of the alerts, shared on Twitter, asks: ‘Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist? We care about preventing extremism on Facebook. Others in your situation have received confidential support.’ Another alert reads: ‘Violent groups try to manipulate your anger and disappointment. You can take action now to protect yourself and others.’” As an image saved on archive.is from Reddit shows,9 Facebook is labeling those selling home-grown beef as “too prepared.” Compare the extremist views of preparedness to the Forbes10 report August 17, 2021, that the Taliban would have control of the Afghan social media accounts. However, it doesn’t stop there. Twitter posts are reporting screenshots of canning and gardening groups that are also being asked, “Are you concerned that someone you know is too prepared? We care about preventing extremism on Facebook. Others in your situation have received confidential support.” In other words, Facebook is labeling people who are preparing their food supply as potential extremists, but in August 2021, the social giant was fine with extremist groups like the Taliban taking over Afghan social media accounts.11 Twenty-four hours later, though, Reuters12 reported Facebook had a ban on the Taliban posting on the social media platform. According to vice president of content policy Monika Bickert:13 “They will not be allowed while they are prescribed by the U.S. law and even if they were not prescribed by U.S. law, we would have to do a policy analysis on whether or not they nevertheless violate our dangerous organizations policy.” Bickert is referring to the fact that the U.S. has soft-pedaled their stanc

Facebook Labels Canning and Gardening Groups as Too Prepared

In July 2020, Facebook announced they would add labels to posts from politicians “to protect the election and promote healthy civic engagement.”1 The labels were supposed to identify content Facebook thought was inflammatory, misinformation or lies, without removing the post.

Why Facebook felt they should “moderate” free speech that was not incendiary or promoted violence is a question for another time. According to left-leaning Media Matters for America,2 while the media giant continues to use labels on posts, a study of Trump's posts found that those that were labeled as possible misinformation had significantly more interactions than those that were not labeled.

In other words, the labels appeared to engage more readers. Facebook began testing a new label in July 2021. These labels don’t just identify potential “misinformation,” but go even further to prompt readers — asking if their friends are becoming extremists.3 Historically, extreme ideas have proven to advance society or drag it back into the Dark Ages. Consider:

  • Book burning by the Nazis to ensure the next generation did not have access to thoughts contrary to Hitler4
  • The idea that humans can fly, leading to the Wright brothers inventing the airplane
  • That electricity could be harnessed, with visionaries like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison working to find ways to have light in the dark
  • That the medical establishment didn’t entertain the idea of handwashing to stop the spread of disease until 20 years of data showed the practice lowered rates of infection5

The thread that runs through these extreme ideas is that censorship influences the way society thinks and therefore changes the outcome. Had the German people been allowed to think for themselves, an entire country may not have been swayed by the propaganda of one man. If the medical community were open to the idea that their behavior was killing people, they may have saved thousands.

Of course, there are extreme ideas that should not be entertained. People will never be able to fly without assistance or walk into fire without protection. Yet, without censorship, these ideas die a natural death. It’s only through debate and sharing information that the truth wins out. And the truth is the only foundation on which society can realistically and confidently continue.

Facebook Labels Gardeners as Possible Extremists

CNN reported that Facebook prompts are being shown to some individuals, cautioning them that they may know someone who is becoming an extremist. Other prompts are letting people know they've been exposed to extremist content. This is part of Facebook's Redirect Initiative.6 Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone told CNN:7

"This test is part of our larger work to assess ways to provide resources and support to people on Facebook who may have engaged with or were exposed to extremist content or may know someone who is at risk. We are partnering with NGOs and academic experts in this space and hope to have more to share in the future.”

In the past, Facebook has been criticized for not acting on content that encourages people toward violence. Yet, these warnings are also attached to posts sharing information about seemingly innocuous subjects, like buying food. According to CNET:8

“One of the alerts, shared on Twitter, asks: ‘Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist? We care about preventing extremism on Facebook. Others in your situation have received confidential support.’

Another alert reads: ‘Violent groups try to manipulate your anger and disappointment. You can take action now to protect yourself and others.’”

As an image saved on archive.is from Reddit shows,9 Facebook is labeling those selling home-grown beef as “too prepared.” Compare the extremist views of preparedness to the Forbes10 report August 17, 2021, that the Taliban would have control of the Afghan social media accounts.

However, it doesn’t stop there. Twitter posts are reporting screenshots of canning and gardening groups that are also being asked, “Are you concerned that someone you know is too prepared? We care about preventing extremism on Facebook. Others in your situation have received confidential support.”

In other words, Facebook is labeling people who are preparing their food supply as potential extremists, but in August 2021, the social giant was fine with extremist groups like the Taliban taking over Afghan social media accounts.11 Twenty-four hours later, though, Reuters12 reported Facebook had a ban on the Taliban posting on the social media platform. According to vice president of content policy Monika Bickert:13

“They will not be allowed while they are prescribed by the U.S. law and even if they were not prescribed by U.S. law, we would have to do a policy analysis on whether or not they nevertheless violate our dangerous organizations policy.”

Bickert is referring to the fact that the U.S. has soft-pedaled their stance on the group as they are not on the U.S. State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.14 Since the U.S. has not classified them as terrorists, they can enter negotiations15 with a group whose actions historically have been less than trustworthy.16,17,18

Facebook’s definition of extremist ideas apparently conforms to the ideologies of the World Economic Forum (WEF), of which Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder and CEO of Facebook, is a member.19

For example, while some consider a guaranteed basic income paid by the government to all citizens as radical and dystopian, according to a charismatic presentation Zuckerberg made during a commencement speech at Harvard,20 moving the economic platform of the world to universal basic income is not an extremist move.

Instead, it’s something to be explored and tested. As reported by the WEF, Zuckerberg explained that “too few people had the opportunity to try out new ideas — like building his world-conquering platform.”21 This is in line with the WEF’s mission to reinvent the future22 by resetting the global economic platform.23

Facebook Activities Called to Question in Early 2019

In late 2018, PBS’s “Frontline” released a two-part film called “The Facebook Dilemma,”24,25 in which James Jacoby investigated the influence the social media giant had over the democracy of nations, and the lack of privacy parameters that allowed for tens of millions of users’ data to be siphoned and used to influence U.S. elections.

During 2019 Bloomberg26 reported Facebook was transcribing bits of audio they had recorded from users’ phones. This explained how many were seeing targeted ads after just speaking about a product or service out loud. Further research revealed even more disturbingly, Android apps were taking screen shots of your smartphone and sending the information to third parties.27

According to The Guardian,28 in 2018 Facebook had 40 journalists who worked as fact checkers located across the globe. They were split in their opinion about their fact-checking relationship with Facebook. The Guardian quoted one who said:29

“Why should we trust Facebook when it’s pushing the same rumors that its own fact checkers are calling fake news? It’s worth asking how do they treat stories about George Soros on the platform knowing they specifically pay people to try to link political enemies to him? Working with Facebook makes us look bad.”

Some journalists spoke with a reporter from The Guardian, who said they told him,30 “Facebook’s hiring of a PR firm that used an antisemitic narrative to discredit critics — fueling the same kind of propaganda fact checkers regularly debunk — should be a deal-breaker.”

The allegations into Facebook's PR activities came after the European Parliament called for a privacy audit when it was revealed that Facebook allowed Cambridge Analytica to misuse 87 million users’ data to influence election results.31 The breach cost Facebook a mere $643,000 for the role it played, which they paid to the U.K.'s Information Commissioner's office.

Facebook's reported revenue for the first quarter in 2021 was $26.17 billion, up 48%, due in part from higher-priced advertising.32 Although the fine was a drop in the bucket when compared against Facebook's revenue, it was the maximum possible penalty that could be imposed under the Data Protection Act 1998. Under the new laws passed in 2018, the maximum fine could have been $22 million.33

The reporter from The Guardian wrote that one of the fact checkers, Brooke Binkowski, shared how Facebook influenced their work, sometimes to protect their advertisers, writing:34

“... it appeared that Facebook was pushing reporters to prioritize debunking misinformation that affected Facebook advertisers, which she thought crossed a line: 'You’re not doing journalism any more. You’re doing propaganda.'”

This is inline with current activities, since extremist content that shares preparedness, self-reliance, and evidence-based data about viral spread, masking or shot programs may have an impact on the push toward the “Great Reset.”

Facebook's Prepandemic Campaign Against Vaccine Information

Facebook's campaign against people sharing information about vaccination programs had grown in strength even before the COVID-19 genetic therapy shot program. As I reported in early 2019, it was likely driven to protect the interests of their pharmaceutical advertisers.35,36,37

While many believe vaccination programs are not lucrative, consider Pfizer's Prevnar 13 vaccine, which is supposed to protect against common strains of pneumonia and made three times more money than Viagra in 2015.38

The rising profits from Prevnar 13 in 2015 were thanks to the U.S. government’s recommendation to start using it in adults over 65, and not just in children.39 As noted in the Financial Times,40 “… the success of Prevnar shows [vaccines] can be as lucrative as any drug.” So, if you have forums on Facebook sharing true experiences about vaccine side effects, you can see why Pfizer wouldn’t want those comments left there.

When you have a profitable business, you want to promote sustained growth. This means nurturing and protecting your products and services. That's normal in the world of business. What is not normal is enlisting the government to mandate the use of your product while simultaneously preventing sharing bad reviews that impact sales or force you to improve the safety or effectiveness of the product.

So, what was happening in the vaccine industry before 2020 has continued during the pandemic. The push to censor negative press about vaccines on Facebook has been outright shocking. The justification is that “misinformation” prevents people from making sound medical decisions.

It's the same justification being used by Facebook to label any information about the COVID vaccine41 as false or cautions people planting their own gardens against “extremist thoughts,” while offering “confidential support.”42

Government Asking Social Media to Ban Research

Christina Parks, Ph.D., has her degree in cellular and molecular biology. In this short video she testifies before the Michigan House on Bill 4471, which seeks to prohibit vaccinations as a condition of employment in Michigan. You likely have read or heard the information she shares about COVID, flu and DTap vaccines if you’ve been reading my newsletter.

Yet, the science she's quoting is the very information that Facebook, and the U.S. government would like to ban from social media sites. To manipulate and influence your behavior, it is essential that you do not understand the science behind viral pathogens and the vaccines that hope to control those infections — and that means stopping you from learning scientific truths by any means possible.

July 16, 2021, during a White House briefing43 press secretary Jen Psaki admitted that the Biden Administration is alerting social media companies to posts and accounts that the White House believes is peddling “misinformation” about COVID injections. This is illegal and a violation of First Amendment rights. During the briefing she cited the “Disinformation Dozen” report released by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).44,45

The report claims that 65% of anti-vaccine content on Facebook and Twitter comes from 12 individuals, including me. After this “disinformation” report was virally spread, the truth was revealed in an August 18, 2021, report from Bickert at Facebook, setting the record straight, and in the process demolished the CCDH’s claims. The report revealed:46

“In fact, these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they’ve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.”

As the image on Reddit47 aptly demonstrates, Facebook now promotes the idea that growing food and buying food from farmers may make you “too prepared.” They will warn your friends they have been exposed to extremist ideas and can receive confidential support to ensure they don’t follow suit.

Source : Mercola More   

What's Your Reaction?

like
0
dislike
0
love
0
funny
0
angry
1
sad
0
wow
0

Next Article

Dr. Peter McCullough: The State of COVID Treatment

The video above,1 featuring cardiologist, internist and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, is packed with sound logic, data and action steps that have the potential to turn the pandemic around — if only more people would listen. Recorded at the Andrews University Village Church in Berrien Springs, Michigan, August 20, 2021, this presentation deserves to be heard, and I urge you to listen to it in its entirety. It will make you question why a key aspect of care — early treatment — has been missing from the pandemic. McCullough, editor of two medical journals who has published 650 peer-reviewed papers, said this has been the first time in his career when he saw medical providers not offering early treatment for a disease. Early COVID Treatment Saves Lives The standard of care for COVID-19 has been to withhold treatment until a person is sick enough to be hospitalized. It typically takes two to three weeks for someone with COVID-19 to get sick enough to be hospitalized, and during that time early treatment can be lifesaving. The rationale was that there have been no large, randomized trials conducted to know which treatments are safe and effective, but as McCullough said, "We can't wait for large randomized trials … Something got in the minds of doctors and nurses and everyone to not treat COVID-19. I couldn't stand it." He and colleagues worked feverishly to figure out a treatment — why didn't national health organizations do so also? "Our government and other governments, and the entire world, has not lifted a finger to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death anywhere," McCullough said, pointing out the irony: "If there was a kid with asthma, would we let the kid wheeze and choke for two weeks before the kid has to go to the hospital? No, we give the child medications. We don't have randomized trials for every single thing that we do."2 McCullough and colleagues realized that there are three major phases to COVID-19. It starts with virus replication, which then triggers inflammation, or a cytokine storm. This, in turn, leads to blood clotting. If enough micro blood clots form in the lungs, a person can't get enough oxygen and dies. It's a complex process, and no single drug is going to work to treat it, which is why McCullough uses a combination of drugs, as is done to treat HIV, staph and other infections. Only about 6% of doctors' decisions in cardiology are based on randomized trials. "Medicine is an art and a science, it takes judgment. What was happening is, I think out of global fear, no judgement was happening," McCullough said,3 referring to doctors' refusal to treat COVID-19 patients early on in the disease process. Doctors Threatened for Treating COVID-19 Around the world, the unthinkable is happening: Doctors are being threatened with loss of their license or even prison for trying to help their patients. French doctor Didier Raoult suggested, early on, putting up a tent to try to treat covid-19 patients. He was put on house arrest. He has promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which initially was available over the counter — until France made it prescription only.4 In Australia, if a doctor attempts to treat a COVID-19 patient with HCQ, they could be put in prison. "Since when does a doctor get put in prison to try to help a patient with a simple generic drug?" McCullough said. In South Africa, he added, a doctor was put in prison for prescribing ivermectin. In August 2020, McCullough's landmark paper "Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection" was published online in the American Journal of Medicine.5 The follow-up paper is titled "Multifaceted Highly Targeted Sequential Multidrug Treatment of Early Ambulatory High-Risk SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19)" and was published in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine in December 2020.6 It became the basis for the home treatment guide. While some physician organizations have stepped up and are treating COVID-19 patients, "The ivory tower today still is not treating patients. The party line in my health system is, do not treat a COVID-19 patient as an outpatient. Wait for them to get sick enough to be admitted. Because my health system … follows the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control, period." Conditioned to Wait for an Injection With no hope of early treatment, McCullough believes that most people became conditioned to wait for an injection. "We became conditioned, after about May or so, to wear a mask, wait in isolation and be saved by the vaccine. And wait for the vaccine. And all we could hear about is the vaccine." The injections were developed, but they're different than any prior vaccines and have been losing effectiveness while causing an unacceptable number of serious injuries and deaths. For comparison, in 1976, a fast-tracked injection program against swine flu was halted after an estimated 25 to

Dr. Peter McCullough: The State of COVID Treatment

The video above,1 featuring cardiologist, internist and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, is packed with sound logic, data and action steps that have the potential to turn the pandemic around — if only more people would listen.

Recorded at the Andrews University Village Church in Berrien Springs, Michigan, August 20, 2021, this presentation deserves to be heard, and I urge you to listen to it in its entirety. It will make you question why a key aspect of care — early treatment — has been missing from the pandemic.

McCullough, editor of two medical journals who has published 650 peer-reviewed papers, said this has been the first time in his career when he saw medical providers not offering early treatment for a disease.

Early COVID Treatment Saves Lives

The standard of care for COVID-19 has been to withhold treatment until a person is sick enough to be hospitalized. It typically takes two to three weeks for someone with COVID-19 to get sick enough to be hospitalized, and during that time early treatment can be lifesaving.

The rationale was that there have been no large, randomized trials conducted to know which treatments are safe and effective, but as McCullough said, "We can't wait for large randomized trials … Something got in the minds of doctors and nurses and everyone to not treat COVID-19. I couldn't stand it." He and colleagues worked feverishly to figure out a treatment — why didn't national health organizations do so also?

"Our government and other governments, and the entire world, has not lifted a finger to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death anywhere," McCullough said, pointing out the irony: "If there was a kid with asthma, would we let the kid wheeze and choke for two weeks before the kid has to go to the hospital? No, we give the child medications. We don't have randomized trials for every single thing that we do."2

McCullough and colleagues realized that there are three major phases to COVID-19. It starts with virus replication, which then triggers inflammation, or a cytokine storm. This, in turn, leads to blood clotting. If enough micro blood clots form in the lungs, a person can't get enough oxygen and dies. It's a complex process, and no single drug is going to work to treat it, which is why McCullough uses a combination of drugs, as is done to treat HIV, staph and other infections.

Only about 6% of doctors' decisions in cardiology are based on randomized trials. "Medicine is an art and a science, it takes judgment. What was happening is, I think out of global fear, no judgement was happening," McCullough said,3 referring to doctors' refusal to treat COVID-19 patients early on in the disease process.

Doctors Threatened for Treating COVID-19

Around the world, the unthinkable is happening: Doctors are being threatened with loss of their license or even prison for trying to help their patients. French doctor Didier Raoult suggested, early on, putting up a tent to try to treat covid-19 patients. He was put on house arrest. He has promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which initially was available over the counter — until France made it prescription only.4

In Australia, if a doctor attempts to treat a COVID-19 patient with HCQ, they could be put in prison. "Since when does a doctor get put in prison to try to help a patient with a simple generic drug?" McCullough said. In South Africa, he added, a doctor was put in prison for prescribing ivermectin.

In August 2020, McCullough's landmark paper "Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection" was published online in the American Journal of Medicine.5

The follow-up paper is titled "Multifaceted Highly Targeted Sequential Multidrug Treatment of Early Ambulatory High-Risk SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19)" and was published in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine in December 2020.6 It became the basis for the home treatment guide.

While some physician organizations have stepped up and are treating COVID-19 patients, "The ivory tower today still is not treating patients. The party line in my health system is, do not treat a COVID-19 patient as an outpatient. Wait for them to get sick enough to be admitted. Because my health system … follows the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control, period."

Conditioned to Wait for an Injection

With no hope of early treatment, McCullough believes that most people became conditioned to wait for an injection. "We became conditioned, after about May or so, to wear a mask, wait in isolation and be saved by the vaccine. And wait for the vaccine. And all we could hear about is the vaccine."

The injections were developed, but they're different than any prior vaccines and have been losing effectiveness while causing an unacceptable number of serious injuries and deaths. For comparison, in 1976, a fast-tracked injection program against swine flu was halted after an estimated 25 to 32 deaths.7

According to McCullough in the video, if a new drug comes on the market and five deaths occur, the standard is to issue a black box warning stating the medication may cause death. With 50 deaths, the product is pulled from the market, he says. Now consider this: The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database showed that — for all vaccines combined before 2020 — there were about 158 total deaths reported per year.

By January 22, 2021, there were already 182 deaths reported for COVID-19 injections, with just 27.1 million people vaccinated. This was more than enough to reach the mortality signal of concern to stop the program, McCullough said.

"We've already crossed the line of concern January 22. And if there was a data safety monitoring board — I know, because I do this work — we would have had an emergency meeting and said, wait a minute, people are dying after the vaccine. We've got to figure out why."8

It's standard to have an external critical event committee, an external data safety monitoring board and a human ethics committee for large clinical trials — such as the mass COVID-19 injection program, but these were not put into place.

"This is something we've never seen in human medicine — a new product introduced and just going full-steam ahead with no check on why people are dying after the vaccine," McCullough said. On two occasions, the CDC and FDA — in March and in June — reviewed the data and said none of the deaths are related to the vaccines. "I think this is malfeasance," he stated.

Fast-forward to July 30, 2021, and VAERS data showed 12,366 Americans have died after a COVID0-19 injection.9 In an analysis of COVID-19 vaccine death reports from VAERS, researchers found that 86% of the time, nothing else could have caused the death, and it appears the vaccine was the cause.10

The Spike Protein Is Dangerous

Your body recognizes the spike protein in COVID-19 jabs as foreign, so it begins to manufacture antibodies to protect you against COVID-19, or so the theory goes. But there's a problem. The spike protein itself is dangerous and known to circulate in your body at least for weeks and more likely months11 — perhaps much longer — after the COVID jab.

In your cells, the spike protein damages blood vessels and can lead to the development of blood clots.12 It can go into your brain, adrenal glands, ovaries, heart, skeletal muscles and nerves, causing inflammation, scarring and damage in organs over time. McCullough also believes that the spike protein is present in donated blood, and they've notified the Red Cross and the American Association of Blood Banking.

Messenger RNA (mRNA) platforms have been under study for years, in most cases being designed to replace a defective gene, which could potentially be used for cancer or heart failure treatment, for example.

In November 2020, however, Pfizer, in a joint venture with Germany-based BioNTech, announced that their mRNA-based injection was "more than 90% effective" in a Phase 3 trial.13 This does not mean that 90% of people who get injected will be protected from COVID-19, as it's based on relative risk reduction (RRR).

The absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the jab is less than 1%. "Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the jab, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a jab, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs," researchers wrote in The Lancet Microbe in April 2021.14

McCullough believes the mass injection campaign is an incredible violation of human ethics, in part because no one should be pressured, coerced or threatened into using an investigational product.

No attempts have been made to present or mitigate risks to the public, such as giving it only to people who really need it — not to low risk groups like children and young people and those who are naturally immune to COVID-19 due to prior infection. "I think this is the most disturbing thing," he said.

The Injections Don't Stop COVID-19, Can Be Deadly

The CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) posted online July 30, 2021, details an outbreak of COVID-19 that occurred in Barnstable County, Massachusetts — 74% of the cases occurred in fully vaccinated people.15

Indiscriminate vaccination is driving mutations, as the virus is mutating wildly to evade the injections. Their effectiveness, too, is rapidly waning. A study published in medRxiv, using data from the Mayo Clinic Health System, revealed that during periods of Alpha and Delta variant prevalence, Moderna's injection was 76% effective while Pfizer's effectiveness was only 42%.16

A little-known fact is that Moderna's jab has three times the dose of Pfizer's, but, curiously, health officials aren't even discussing this or giving the public updates on which of the three injections work "best." The narrative is simple and straightforward — get an injection, any injection.

Yet, as McCullough noted, the virus has mutated, and the vaccines aren't working the way health officials had hoped: "The vaccines don't stop COVID-19, at least not completely, and they're not a shield against mortality."17

Similar to VAERS, the U.K. maintains a "Yellow Card" reporting site to report adverse effects to vaccines and medications.18

Tess Lawrie, whose company The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy has worked with the World Health Organization, analyzed U.K. Yellow Card data and concluded that there's more than enough evidence to pull the injections from the market because they're not safe for human use. The report stated:19

"It is now apparent that these products in the blood stream are toxic to humans. An immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required whilst a full and independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of the harms, which the UK Yellow Card data suggest include thromboembolism, multisystem inflammatory disease, immune suppression, autoimmunity and anaphylaxis, as well as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE)."

Early Treatment Is Crucial

McCullough is trying to get the word out about the importance of early treatment of COVID-19. Early ambulatory therapy with a sequenced-multidrug regimen is supported by available sources of evidence and has a positive benefit-to-risk profile to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death.

At 53:40 in the video, you can view McCullough's early treatment regimen, which initially includes a nutraceutical bundle. While you're recovering at home, open your windows and get plenty of fresh air and ventilation in your home.

If symptoms persist or worsen, he recommends calling your doctor and demanding monoclonal antibody therapy. The treatment progresses to include anti-infectives like HCQ or ivermectin, antibiotics, steroids and blood thinners.

If your doctor refuses to treat COVID-19 in the early stages, find a new one and/or visit a telemedicine clinic that will help, as "the prehospital phase is the time of therapeutic opportunity."

McCullough is among a growing number of experts who believe COVID-19 injections are making the pandemic worse. They "have an unfavorable safety profile and are not clinically effective, thus they cannot be generally supported in clinical practice at this time."

Logically, this is clear, but McCullough believes we're dealing with a mass psychosis that is preventing people from seeing the light. "The whole world is in a trance," he said, adding:20

"Things are getting disturbingly out of control and it's in the context of the virus. It is clear … we are in a very special time in the history of mankind. Whatever is going on, it is the entire world … every human being in the world. It appears to have a program.

The program … is happening to promote as much fear, isolation, suffering, hospitalization and death in order to get a needle in every arm, at all costs. That is what's going on, and no one in this room can disagree."

Source : Mercola More   

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.