Today's Health | Everyday Health
View | Green Cultured
Green Cultured Cannabis College, liscensing in the medical marajuana proffession, APPLY TODAY!
View | VitaminWorld
Vitamin World is a vitamin and supplement company selling both in retail stores as well as online direct to consumers.
Vitamin World believes that nutrition starts at the source and wellness has always been their passion.
Mercola Natural Health Articles
This article was previously published January 25, 2021, and has been updated with new information.
Knowledge is power. So is ownership, including land ownership. Did you know that Bill Gates is America's top farmland investor? This short video reveals many of the global strategies Gates has been using to influence your health and the food supply.
Through his founding of the second-largest technological company in the world,1 Gates has developed financial and influential relationships with powerful organizations responsible for many global decisions that affect your life.
Subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, his movements have grown a massive financial empire and expanded his ability to create change to support his goals. Gates is also a supporter of the "Great Reset" that promises "social cohesion, fairness, inclusion and equality,"2 while allowing elite billionaires to practice strategies that grew his and other billionaires' wealth by 26% during the pandemic in 2020.3
In other words, while supporting Marxist principles to spread the wealth — so by 2030 you can say, "I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy and Life Has Never Been Better"4 — he is enjoying the fruits of his labor by accumulating more wealth and property, a decidedly different approach to the Great Reset he promotes.
Put plainly, the political and ideological foundations of Marxism have once again surfaced, and in some arenas, are celebrated. However, it's vital to remember that unlike Walgreens' advertising campaign featuring a picture-perfect town of "Perfect,"5 Marxist philosophy has created tyranny and was responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million people in the last century, as aptly described by James Bovard in USA Today.6
History is studied and shared so the mistakes of the past are not repeated. However, it’s evident there are many who have forgotten, or never learned, what resulted behind the Iron Curtain from implementing the socialist principles which now underpin The Great Reset.
The Great Reset or Fourth Industrial Revolution has strong supporters among wealthy technocrats who will not redistribute their own wealth, but will only continue to grow their financial empires as the rest of the world suffers. Indeed, 2020 has only been a taste of what could come as more people lose their jobs and financial security, while those controlling the event become wealthier.
Bill Gates Is Now the Biggest Farmland Owner
The Land Report announced that multibillionaire Bill Gates currently holds the title as America's biggest private farmland owner. He owns 242,000 acres, nearly 52,000 more than the next largest farmland owner.7 To put this in perspective, 52,000 is equal to 39,325 football fields, including the end zones.8 His farmland (approximately 378.125 square miles) would rank in total land mass as the eighth largest city in the U.S. in 2010.9
It was Eric O'Keefe from the Land Report10 who ferreted out the story after reading that 14,500 acres of choice farmland in Benton County, Washington, had been sold for $171 million, or nearly $12,000 per acre. O'Keefe describes the area as "some of the richest farmland in the Lower 48," that "savvy investors have been plowing millions of dollars into."11
Although the seller was listed as John Hancock Life Insurance, the buyer was reported as a limited liability company from Louisiana. Digging deeper and engaging their research team, he discovered the paper trail led to a company managed by Michael Larson, manager of the Gates' personal portfolio and much of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for the last 25 years.
Larson primarily uses Cascade Investment LLC as the entity through which he manages their personal portfolio. O'Keefe details the sequence in which the land changed hands over 10 years. The largest single block of farmland was quietly acquired by Cascade in 2017, one year after it was purchased by a Canadian firm.12
The sale was revealed in the Canadian firm's quarterly statement, in which they reported offloading $520 million in farmland offered in a single block. An investigative journalist ultimately found the half-billion-dollar sale led to Cascade Investment LLC.
Gates Is Not the Largest Individual Landowner
Gates owns a substantial amount of land, for a total of 268,894 acres if you count his transitional and recreational properties. But, he's not the only billionaire who tops the Land Report list. Stewart and Lynda Resnick, co-founders of Wonderful Company, come in at No. 2, owning 190,000 acres. They use their farmland to support their food products, such as Wonderful Pistachios and Wonderful Halos Mandarin oranges.13
Gates also is not the largest individual landowner overall, as that spot goes to John Malone, chairman of the board at Liberty Media Corporation and former chief executive officer for Tele-Communications Inc.14 Malone owns 2.2 million acres of forest and ranch land; media Mogul Ted Turner owns 2 million across eight states.15
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is also heavily invested in land, coming in the 25th spot at 420,000 acres located mostly in Texas.16 The remaining list is filled with recognizable names, including the King Ranch, Ford family and the Kennedy Memorial Foundation.17
In addition to farmland, Cascade Investment has purchased 24,800 acres of transitional property west of Phoenix, which is poised for city expansion projected to include: “up to 80,000 homes; 3,800 acres of industrial, office and retail space; 3,400 acres of open space; and 470 acres for public schools."18
Cascade also bought 1,234 recreational acres, making the land Gates owns through just Cascade Investment LLC at 268,984 acres. Separate from the Gates’ personal holdings is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has no ties to Cascade, but does have a farmland initiative called Gates Ag One, which19
"… aims to speed up efforts to provide smallholder farmers in developing countries, many of whom are women, with access to the affordable tools and innovations they need to sustainably improve crop productivity and adapt to the effects of climate change."
What Is the Leading Harvest Standard?
Although Cascade Investment has declined to make any comment on the quiet transactions through the Canadian company, they have come out in support of sustainable farming. One of the entities owned by Cascade, Cottonwood Ag Management, is an initial member of Leading Harvest, a nonprofit organization formed to advance:20
"… sustainable agriculture, providing assurance programs comprised of standards, audit procedures, training and education, and reporting and claim offerings that are optimized for flexibility, scalability, and impact."
As O'Keefe describes it, the goal is to create a "sustainability standard that can be implemented across the greatest swath of agricultural acreage."21 Yet, while this goal is commendable, they remain words on paper without a substantive foundation.
In other words, according to the organization, they do not offer farmers guidance to achieve the goal, only the formation of a certification program to audit the farmers' results.22 In their publication, they describe the program:23
"It does not prescribe practices necessary to conform with the Standard; rather, it provides family farmers and farm managers the flexibility to select best practices for sustainable outcomes. This approach allows for adaptation across crops and geographies, recognizing that even a single crop can require unique management strategies in different regions.
An outcome-based approach recognizes that prescribing the same processes and metrics across geographies can be ineffective. By encouraging farmers to innovate new approaches and apply best management practices suited for their crops and consistent with regional best practices, management results are improved, and greater sustainability outcomes are achieved."
In other words, instead of guidance and standards for how the farmer achieves sustainability and protects the future of farming, they created a certification for farmers to demonstrate their participation in developing practices where the end result meets their standard — do the ends justify the means?
Gates Seeking Sustainable Energy in All the Wrong Places
Gates has been calling for sustainable energy and a reduction of carbon emissions for over a decade.24 At one point in a 2010 TED talk, he questioned if we need another Manhattan Project to discover a renewable and safe energy source.
If you don't remember, the Manhattan Project was the code name given to an operation aimed at discovering a functional nuclear weapon,25 that resulted in a bomb being dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. When asked how he would deal with climate change skeptics, he said:26
"The main problem we have here — it's kind of like with AIDS: You make the mistake now, and you pay for it a lot later. And so, when you have all sorts of urgent problems, the idea of taking pain now that has to do with a gain later, and a somewhat uncertain pain thing."
Gates spoke about climate change and the technological advancements that may be necessary in an interview with a journalist from The Atlantic in 2015. The journalist recorded this response:27
"Yes, the government will be somewhat inept," he said brusquely, swatting aside one objection as a trivial statement of the obvious. "But the private sector is in general inept. How many companies do venture capitalists invest in that go poorly? By far most of them."
Gates Calls Plant-Based and Lab-Grown Meat Sustainable
While Gates may not think highly of the government or entrepreneurs, he does believe that plant-based and lab-grown meat alternatives are healthy and sustainable. Historically, some of the decisions from the Gates Foundation haven’t been focused on the environment but, rather, cloaked in rhetoric that appears environmentally friendly.
For example, despite a lack of consensus on GMO safety,28 in 2010 the Gates Foundation aligned itself with Monsanto and Cargill. They invested nearly $23 million in 500,000 Monsanto shares.
Subsequently, a South African watchdog group discovered the Gates Foundation had also invested $10 million in Cargill to "develop the soya value chain,"29 which The Guardian wrote probably meant the "big time introduction of GM soy in southern Africa."30
In 2010, The Guardian also reported that Gates had funded research to develop machines that would spray seawater into the clouds with the goal of increasing the ability to reflect sunlight into space, and therefore reduce global warming. The move triggered a call for a global ban on geoengineering experiments from the ETC Group and a comment from co-executive director Jim Thomas:31
"We knew Microsoft was developing cloud applications for computers but we didn't expect this. Bill Gates and his cloud-wrenching cronies have no right to unilaterally change our seas and skies in this way."
Not to be deterred by naysayers, eight years later in 2018 Gates agreed to help fund experiments for Harvard scientists, who proposed to spray the stratosphere with calcium chloride to help slow the Earth's warming.32
In keeping with past decisions, Gates also supports plant-based and lab-grown meat alternatives,33,34 which are riddled with patented chemicals and genetically engineered ingredients. Seth Itzkan from Soil4Climate, characterizes one fake-meat product this way:35
"Impossible Foods should really be called Impossible Patents. It’s not food; it’s software, intellectual property — 14 patents, in fact, in each bite of Impossible Burger with over 100 additional patents pending for animal proxies from chicken to fish. It’s iFood, the next killer app. Just download your flavor. This is likely the appeal for Bill Gates, their über investor."
Presumably, his support of chemical food, reminiscent of the DuPont slogan "Better things for better living through chemistry,"36 is to reduce carbon emissions. However, as has been documented and covered in other articles I’ve written, regenerative farming practices are better for the land, the animals and your health.
Your Health Depends on Whole Food
Convinced that their method of producing chemical-based food reduces the carbon footprint, Impossible Foods hired Quantis to give them scientific evidence.37 According to the executive summary published on their website, their product reduces the environmental impact between 87% and 96% in the categories Quantis studied, including global warming potential, land occupation and water consumption.
However, Quantis compared fake meat production against CAFOs, which are notoriously destructive. On the other hand, White Oak Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia, practices true sustainable, regenerative farming and produces high-quality, grass fed products.
White Oak Pastures commissioned the same analysis, by the same company, which showed they had a net total emission in the negative numbers.38 It's also worth noting that the Impossible Burger is made from GMO soy containing glyphosate.
Your health and longevity are dependent on providing your body with necessary nutrients from whole food. It's simply impossible to be sustained by synthetic chemicals, toxic GMO grains contaminated with pesticides and fake meat. Regenerative farming practices can provide whole food and can have a positive impact on the environment.
Imagine the powerful influence Gates could have on the environment and the country if he would move his massive acreage into regenerative farming practices. This could raise the quality of food the land produces and demonstrate sustainable practices that can be followed around the world.
Instead, it appears that financial motivations are helping to drive environmental decisions to support his personal goals. As I’ve discussed in other articles, the movement to develop fake food is lucrative. However, you can protect your health and your future by starting with a few simple guidelines that include always choosing organic foods, buying from local farmers and never eating processed foods of any sort.
In the video above retired nurse lecturer John Campbell, Ph.D., reports on a comparative analysis of molnurpirivir and ivermectin published in the Austin Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics.1 The first is Merck's new antiviral drug and the second is the much vilified and maligned2,3 antiparasitic drug used in humans since 19874 and approved for human use in the U.S. in 1996.5,6
Campbell compares the efficacy, safety and cost using available data for ivermectin published in peer reviewed studies and the first interim data for molnupiravir published by Merck. Molnupiravir, also known as EIDD-2801/MK-44827 has data published as early as October 2019 that showed it was a clinical candidate for monotherapy in influenza viruses.8
And yet, Merck's investigation into the oral antiviral medication against SARS-CoV-2 was not logged with Clinical Trials until October 5, 2020.9 While Gilead raced to release remdesivir, posting their first clinical trial February 5, 2020,10 Merck appeared to be slow off the mark. Gilead suspended or terminated the early trials for remdesivir. The reasons given included:
- "The epidemic of COVID-19 has been controlled well at present, no eligible patients can be recruited."11
- "The epidemic of COVID-19 has been controlled well in China, no eligible patients can be enrolled at present."12
The advantage molnupiravir has over remdesivir is that it is administered orally and can be used for early treatment in an outpatient setting. However, as we review the comparison between the drugs, it's important to remember that the early data on molnupiravir has been published in a press release.13
How Do Ivermectin and Molnupiravir Stack Up Against COVID-19?
In the video Campbell reviews a paper published in the Austin Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics14 that was a chemical comparison of the pharmacological effects of molnupiravir and ivermectin. Looking at the two ways science uses to develop new treatments when a new condition arises,15 Campbell explains the first is to create a new drug and the second is to repurpose medications used for other conditions.
For example, aspirin originally was used to treat fever. Once it became evident that it was also effective against pain, doctors began recommending it to relieve headaches and other minor aches and pains. Subsequently, it was found that aspirin was an effective antiplatelet, as well, and this function was added to the known uses for aspirin.
According to the paper,16 Ivermectin is the "most studied, 'repurposed' medication globally, in randomized clinical trials, retrospective studies and meta-analysis." Ivermectin is an FDA-approved, broad spectrum antiparasitic17 with known anti-inflammatory properties.18
As Campbell reviews, an in vitro study19 demonstrated that a single treatment with ivermectin effectively reduced viral load 5,000 times in 48 hours in cell culture. By comparison, Merck claims molnupiravir is a broad-spectrum antiviral that is active against the Gamma, Delta and Mu SARS-CoV-2 variants.20
The data in the comparison paper show molnupiravir is more potent in-vitro than ivermectin,21 which means it needs less drug to work with a lower tissue concentration.22 The amount of time the maximum drug dose is found in the serum is one to 1.75 hours for molnupiravir and four to six hours for ivermectin.
Interestingly, the half-life for Merck's drug is seven hours and the half-life for ivermectin is 81 to 91 hours. This is the amount of time it takes for your body to reduce the active ingredients in the drug by half. Campbell also reviews the following factors:
• Safety — No matter how well a drug works, if it's not safe for use, it cannot be effective. Offering some examples of how ivermectin's safety compares to other drugs, according to Campbell23 the global database of the World Health Organization, VigiBase, recorded 5,593 adverse events from ivermectin after 3.7 billion doses were administered to humans.
For comparison, VigiBase recorded 136,222 adverse events for amoxicillin and 165,479 for ibuprofen. At this time there is no VigiBase data available for molnupiravir, so no comparisons can be made for that drug yet. To take the example one step further, an outside look at acetaminophen adverse events shows that this drug (aka Tylenol) is many times more dangerous than ivermectin.
In the U.S. alone24 the National Institutes of Health's STATPearls manual reports that there are 2,600 hospitalizations, 56,000 emergency room visits and 500 deaths each year for acetaminophen overdoses as of July 2021. And, the drug is the second leading cause of liver transplantation worldwide and the leading cause of transplantation in the U.S.
• Efficacy — According to interim data from Merck,25 molnupiravir reduced hospitalizations or deaths by 50% in 385 participants who had at least one risk factor associated with poor disease outcome. A meta-analysis of 15 trials26 that included 2,438 participants demonstrated that ivermectin could reduce the risk of death by 62%.
According to an ongoing collection from published data,27 across all studies ivermectin is 86% effective prophylactically, 66% effective in early treatment and 36% effective in late treatment. By comparison, a Cochrane review of the literature28 that Campbell references in the video found the data did not determine if ivermectin leads to more or less infections, worsened or improved infection, or increased or decreased unwanted events.
• Cost — According to a Forbes report,29 the raw material for the active pharmaceutical ingredients in molnupiravir costs about $2.50 per treatment. The cost of manufacturing the product would be $20, which is 35 times less than the price set by Merck of $700 per treatment. Additionally, Forbes reports that initially the drug will be purchased using federal funds.
According to the treatment protocol by the FLCCC,30 ivermectin is dosed at 0.4 to 0.6 mg/kg of body weight per dose once daily for five days. For an average person 160 pounds (72.5 kg), the dose is 29 mg to 43.5 mg per day for five days.
The average cost for 30 tablets of 3 mg of ivermectin in the U.S. can run as high as $108 or as little as $29.72 with a drug discount program — a fraction of molnupiravir's prices.31
Peer Reviewed Study May Answer Molnupiravir Questions
As I mentioned, according to the data released by Merck, molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% as compared to the placebo group.32 According to the numbers in their study, 28 people in the intervention group died or were hospitalized by Day 29 while 53 in the placebo treated group were hospitalized or died.
Merck did not identify the placebo in either their press release33 or in the Clinical Trials data.34 Dr. James Lyons-Weiler also evaluated the results of the trial and asked some very pertinent questions, such as:35
• Why were patients taking a placebo allowed to die?
"When there is a vast amount of published research on clear winners are the early treatment protocols as described by the medical authorities on the matter? Merck and NIH allowed 14.1% of people in the control arms to develop severe COVID-19 and die with no treatment. None. Just placebo.
How did the NIH and the FDA let this happen in the face of the evidence of efficacy of early treatment? How could they? Because that's the standard of care for early COVID-19: go home, incubate, get sick, and die if you must. But don't call us until you are seriously ill."
• Why are the number of participants low? — When the study was first listed on Clinical Trials36 the team initially anticipated 1,450 patients in a parallel phase 2/3 randomized, placebo-controlled study. This changed May 25, 2021, to 1,850 participants anticipated.37
At the completion of the study when they were no longer recruiting participants, they reported data on 762 participants in the press release38 from 173 locations. What happened to the data from the rest of the participants?
• Why was the second study for hospitalized patients terminated? — A second study39 was ongoing during the same time period for hospitalized patients, having started October 5, 2020, and last updated September 9, 2021.
They anticipated enrolling 1,300 patients but terminated the study for "business reasons" after enrolling 304. What happened to cause the company to close this arm of the study after enrolling so few patients and what happened to the data?
Lyons-Weiler is a senior research scientist at the University of Pittsburgh.40 He also listed the numerous exclusion criteria for participants in the study and went on to write:41
"If, by any stretch of reason, FDA approval is made using the one interim analysis of (potentially) cherry-picked data in a cherry-picked study published as a press release without peer review, ignoring the data from the study not mentioned at all- their guidance should carry restrictions disallowing the use of the drug on or by patients in all of the excluded groups, including those who are hospitalized.
If by some miracle the rules on full reporting are enforced for the buried molnupiravir trial, the identified data from the trials need to be audited to make sure patients with an undesirable outcome under one trial were not excluded because they were enrolled in another trial focused on studying that same outcome. That would point to more scientific chicanery, and we've all had more than enough of that."
CBS News42 reports that Merck has asked U.S. regulators for emergency use authorization for the drug against COVID-19. The decision could come in just a few weeks and "The FDA will scrutinize company data on the safety and effectiveness of the drug, molnupiravir, before rendering a decision." It is hoped the FDA has access to all the data.
Do We Really Need a Vaccine and a Treatment?
Although Campbell adamantly defends the need for both a vaccine and treatment,43 he also points to diseases such as the bubonic plague for which we have adequate treatment but do not have a vaccine,44 even for areas of the world where it may have greater incidence.45
Campbell also believes that if there is a good quality antiviral medication, there would be less of an impact from COVID in countries where the vaccine rollout is patchy.
And yet, data show that the number of confirmed cases of COVID in countries where much of the population is unvaccinated is not higher than in countries where nearly 100% have been given the jab. For example, as of October 13, 2021, according to the CNN COVID-19 vaccination tracker46 and the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center:47
|Country||Vaccination Rate||Infections||Population48||% Population Infected|
|United Arab Emirates||84.3%||737,890||9,890,402||7.4%|
In the past, according to the CDC's definition, a vaccination program used a product that "stimulates a person's immune system to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease."49 But today, CDC's new definition says vaccines are only meant to "stimulate the body's immune response against diseases."50 You'll note that the new definition says a vaccine isn't responsible for stimulating the immune system or protecting against any specific illness.
According to COVID-19 statistics from the CDC,51 people over 65 carry the greatest burden of mortality. In 2020 this population accounted for 80.7% of deaths and thus far in 2021 this age range accounts for 71.2% of deaths in the U.S. However, these percentages are highly skewed since, to date, large populations of people are not offered or treated with successful protocols.
This begs the question: How high has the CDC and FDA allowed the death rate to go by suppressing effective treatments that are readily available and economical?
Prophylaxis and Early Treatment May Not Require Medication
While ivermectin has demonstrated it is a useful strategy, it's not my primary recommendation. You don't necessarily need prescribed medication to help prevent, and in the early treatment of, COVID-19.
I believe your best option to fighting the onset of any disease is to optimize your vitamin D level, as your body requires this for a wide variety of functions, including a healthy immune response.52,53 Then, for early treatment, or after you've been exposed to someone with COVID, I recommend using nebulized hydrogen peroxide treatment.54
This treatment is inexpensive, highly effective, can easily be done at home and is completely harmless when you're using the low (0.04% to 0.1%) peroxide concentration recommended. In the video below I demonstrate how to make a low concentration of hydrogen peroxide at home and how to use your nebulizer. You'll find my interviews with Dr. Thomas Levy55 and Dr. David Brownstein56 about this treatment on Bitchute.
MyRecipes: Editor's Picks
Save the seeds when you carve a fresh pumpkin, toast them, and use them for snacking or as a crunchy salad topping.
This homemade pork bolognese sauce should be served over cooked fettuccine and takes less than 15 minutes to prepare.
Set out a fiendish spread of appetizers and beverages when you host the annual Halloween costume party.
With a few low-fat baking tricks, our healthy pumpkin bread recipe shaved 33 percent of the calories and more than half the fat from the original recipe.
Marge Perry compares the amount of caffeine found in chocolate to a cup of coffee in this episode of Ask the Expert.