Covid vaccine detox protocol

(Article first published 7th December 2024)

Well I guess now I’m on a Naughty List, if I wasn’t already. The official narrative is that the vaccines are “safe and effective” – despite ~70 times as many deaths being reported from them in 2021 vs all other vaccines combined in 2020 – and you deviate from that at your peril. I have an article series in mind showing that, on the contrary, the vaccines are: a) not vaccines, b) worse than the disease, and c) not even the worst aspect of the Covid crisis.

For now, all you need in order to benefit from reading this article is to wonder if barely-tested genetic therapies might possibly have some negative side effects – and if so, what one could do to minimise them.

Contents

First, do no harm

Even ordinary pharmaceutical interventions often have terrific side effects. Anti-depressants can give you heart attacks. Antibiotics ruin your gut flora (and therefore long-term health). Some doctors even claim that prescription drugs are a leading cause of death in and of themselves. What about these extraordinary pharmaceutical interventions?

Remember that a frightening amount of scientific research (and actual regulation of the pharmaceutical companies) is funded by … the pharmaceutical companies themselves. So it can be an expensive, not to say career-ending move to criticise them. For this reason, far less solid research on the risks of the orthodox approach than one would like has been attempted, never mind approved for publication (and still less, promoted in the media).

Nevertheless, it does exist and if you look you can find many studies showing that the Covid vaccines damage the heart, most famously, kill unborn babies, most tragically, and cause cancer, perhaps most terrifyingly. But that’s not all: they can damage pretty much any organ or system you can name, including literally sending you mad.

These few links are not intended to convince anyone of the dangers of the gene therapies. I have a huge stack of studies and testimony from lawmakers and scientists that will do that, if I can ever organise it. And in a few months or years it will be common knowledge anyway. This is just to raise the question in mind for those hypnotised up till now by the corporate media.

It seems to me (and this is as good a time as any to say I’m not a doctor and this is not medical advice) that although there are likely to be many mechanisms of harm, including various kinds of degradation of the immune system, and the response of the virus itself to the “vaccine” (the so-called antigenic sin), the two main ones are: spike protein and DNA contamination.

Spike protein

You probably know that The Virus, like other coronaviruses (variations on flus and colds), uses a “spike” protein to help it infect cells. But you might not have known that this particular spike protein is highly toxic and damages lungs and blood vessels even in the absence of the virus itself. Damage to blood vessels causing stroke is of course what earned them the popular but highly unofficial nickname “clot shots”.

The injectable gene therapies cause the body’s own cells to start manufacturing a similar spike protein. They do this so that the immune system can recognise it and, in theory, more effectively target the virus. Whether the vaccines actually confer any immunity at all is a story for another day.

Officially, the “vaccine” was supposed to stay in the arm muscle where it is injected, and the spike protein it creates should not last very long. Unfortunately, neither of these things are true. The vaccine goes everywhere. The spike protein created by the shots (unlike that created by natural viral infection) can be produced for months or years and may even get integrated into one’s DNA.

Some brands of “vaccine” are worse for you than others, and individual batches appear to be highly variable, but we’re not getting into so much detail here. If you’ve already had one, it’s too late to pick and choose. If you haven’t… don’t! As far as spike protein goes, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna products use mRNA to trick the body’s cells into producing it, while the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca ones use DNA delivered by a modified virus to do the same thing.

The bottom line is that if you’ve had a mild Covid infection with no obvious after-effects, you probably don’t have any spike protein left in your body. But if you’ve had “long Covid” absent vaccination, or, especially, ever had a Covid vaccine, it’s sensible to find out how to break down this unwanted spike protein, which we will do in a moment.

Incidentally, there is a laboratory in Germany that will perform an analysis on request for the presence of spike protein, as well as vaccine mRNA and DNA.

DNA contamination

When the “vaccines” were mass manufactured at Warp Speed, they were, according to, among others, Kevin McKernan, a genomic scientist and former Research Director on the Human Genome Project at MIT, contaminated with large amounts of random DNA fragments from the bacteria used to manufacture them. This has since been confirmed in a 2024 study that showed some vaccines contained up to 500 times more DNA than is allowed. Why does this matter? The lipid nanoparticle delivery mechanism that was repurposed for the Covid RNA treatments was originally designed to get genetic material into the cell nucleus (otherwise, it would not have been much use for gene therapy).

If DNA gets into the cell nucleus, (and there is reason to believe that DNA from the vaccines does do so) it is effectively incorporated into the body’s own genetic code. Damaged DNA can turn off essential processes that ensure clean cell replication and suppress tumours. The body can also start to produce proteins encoded by the foreign DNA. This is, obviously, a massive cancer risk (maddeningly, the “vaccines” were never tested for cancer risk).

And speaking of contamination, the vaccines were also shown through DNA sequencing to contain the notorious carcinogenic SV40 promoter, which “improves the efficiency of nuclear import … [for various gene-carrying plasmids] which do not otherwise have the ability to enter the nucleus.” (emphasis mine).

Not only that, recent research (in chickens, with the implication that it applies to other vertebrates too), links “SV40 infection with malignant development through a novel mutagenic pathway”. In other words, we don’t even know all the ways in which this stuff might give us cancer, and some of them are “novel” – the same psychological trigger word they used on us for the “novel virus” itself and by implication the cruel-and-unusual public health measures that were imposed to deal with it. Remember that in the years to come when “novel” presentations of cancer (in terms of unusually young age of onset and unusually rapid progression) are finally acknowledged and experts are “baffled” as to what’s causing it.

This whole DNA-altering risk is of course officially merely a conspiracy theory and has been enthusiastically shouted down (or “debunked” as they like to say) – even though the authorities have no evidence that the vaccines are safe in this regard. Indeed, as the Hart Group discusses, the European regulators never even inspected the main plant that manufactured Pfizer’s product, so how would they know what’s in it? In general, the US and international regulators seem to have taken the word of the pharmaceutical companies (who literally lie for a living – if you don’t click any other link in this article at least follow that one) for every aspect of the safety of these products.

As far as I can tell, the DNA-altering risk applies to the mRNA therapies (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna), more than the DNA ones (AstraZeneca, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson). However, the latter products could also have carcinogenic effects due to the foreign DNA and the spike protein itself.

Mitigating this risk – of potentially any number of cells producing an unknown amount of unknown DNA, causing a disease which has no simple cure, for which the usual treatments destroy one’s health and often don’t work, and the causes for which aren’t even agreed on – is pretty tough. But for your sake, dear reader, I shall have a go.

Spike protein detox protocols

I’m not a scientist or a doctor. But these guys are: Nicolas Hulscher, Brian C Procter, Cade Wynn, and Peter A McCullough. Dr McCollough, in particular, is a veteran doctor and highly published research scientist, having been at various times a cardiovascular fellow, section chief of cardiology, chief academic and scientific officer, founder and president of the Cardio Renal Society of America, co-editor-in-chief of Cardiorenal Medicine, and editor of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. In short, one of The Experts and a trusted representative of The Science.

Until about 2021. Like many doctors, he noticed vaccine harms, but unlike most, he spoke up about them, and is for that reason now labelled a conspiracy theorist, with the authorised representatives of The Science threatening to strip him of his medical certifications.

If you can't question it, it's not science, it's propaganda

Anyway, these guys published a paper describing a spike protein detox protocol. The paper is rather long and difficult to read, so I shall try to present it simply, and add some comments about the ingredients. Obviously, before considering implementing it, I recommend reading the entire paper and doing your own due diligence. This is not medical advice.

The main protocol

The main protocol is:

Bromelain 500 mg once a day
Nattokinase 2,000 FU (100mg) twice a day
Curcumin 500 mg twice a day

Take for 3-12 months or longer according to how you feel. You can take higher doses after three months if you feel you need it.

How does it work?

The main three ingredients:

Stop spike protein binding to the body’s receptors
Destroy spike protein
Dissolve blood clots
Reduce inflammation and protect the heart

Is it herbal?

Sort of. The three main ingredients (and most but not all of the ingredients in the extended protocol below) are food plant extracts: bromelain is an enzyme from pineapples, nattokinase is an enzyme from fermented soy, and curcumin is the main active ingredient in turmeric. They are all sold widely as health supplements (incidentally, curcumin is supposed to be hundreds of times more bioavailable in the more expensive forms Novasol or LongVida).

Is it safe?

Yes. According to the authors, “doses are far below known limits of safety”.

Turmeric (the main active ingredient of which is curcumin) has been widely used as a cooking ingredient for thousands of years, and as part of Ayurvedic medicine. Curcumin itself is well tolerated up to 8,000mg/day – 16 times the dose recommended in the protocol.
The dose of nattokinase recommended here is about the same as that in a typical portion of natto, a traditional fermented soybean food consumed in Japan for more than a thousand years. Incidentally, the unit for measuring nattokinase is FU, which stands for Fibrin Degradation Unit, literally meaning “clot-reducing” unit. Cool huh.
About 12g of Bromelain can be absorbed per day without major side effects – 24 times the dose recommended in the protocol.

Caveat: blood thinning

These main ingredients – in common with a great many other healthy herbs, spices, extracts and supplements – do thin the blood. This is probably a beneficial effect for most of us, however, if you have any kind of blood disorder, are on any medications, or are scheduled for surgery, you should definitely check with an allopathic doctor.

Extended protocol

Synthetic compounds that act against spike protein listed by the study are:

N-Acetylcysteine (NAC)
Glutathione
Ivermectin

Plant-derived compounds:

Quercetin
Apigenin
Nicotine
Emodin
Fisetin
Rutin
Silymarin

I’m not going to go into each one, except to note that most of the plant-derived ones are commonly taken as supplements for general health and anti-aging. More care with dosages and interactions is probably warranted for these additional substances than for the main three.

So much for spike protein.

DNA contamination protocols

What can you do if your own genes have been weaponised against you? Maybe nothing. There’s a certain amount of random chance / genetic predisposition / karma / bad luck as to who gets sick and who doesn’t, who dies earlier and who later. But our choices are usually thought to play a large part in tilting the odds.

Note: There is some anecdotal evidence from doctors that cancer induced by the Covid vaccines is especially aggressive. In the next few years we will, unfortunately, hear the phrase “turbo cancer” much more often. However, since this is not officially acknowledged yet, and is not researched, it’s not clear how vaccine-induced cancer differs from regular cancer and thus whether and how it might need to be treated differently. Therefore, I’m not going to speculate about any differences.

The usual treatment in the 21st century if you’ve already got cancer is to poison the human and the cancer at the same time and hope that the cancer dies first. And talking about anything else that might help a person with cancer is, in most countries, very illegal. So my first caveat is that nothing in this article is advice, especially not intended to cure cancer, and it is purely educational. All I’m doing here is thinking out loud from first principles and you might be interested enough to take the things mentioned and do your own research on them.

The standard advice for trying not to get cancer in the first place is weak: don’t drink too much alcohol, eat vegetables, and wear sunscreen. I think we can do better.

Who gets cancer?

It is said that the major killer diseases today, including heart disease and stroke, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s are “diseases of civilisation”. So this seems like a good place to start.

The Hadza people of Tanzania are hunter-gatherers. They have low rates of such diseases, especially, they have no colon cancer. This is thought to be because they have many more different strains of bacteria in their digestive system. The importance of gut bacteria for health can hardly be overstated; Hippocrates, the father of Western medicine, said that “All disease begins in the gut.” While this is a topic far too large for us to consider here, suffice it to say that there are definitely things that we can do to increase the diversity and prevalence of beneficial strains of our gut bacteria, which is a foundation of general health.

Over in the Bolivian Amazon, the Tsimane are forager‐horticulturalists. They have higher rates of cancers that are due to infectious agents (modern medicine’s ability to control infection is a wonderful thing), but very low incidence of reproductive cancers. They also suffer much less autoimmune disease, heart disease, and other diseases of civilisation. Why? It’s hard to say for sure. Some lifestyle factors that differ between traditional peoples such as the Tsimane, Hadza, and others, and modern man include:

far less pollution
much greater physical activity (especially walking)
a greater diversity of chemical-free, unprocessed food

These themes will come back again as we go further. For now, the important thing to internalise is that habitat and habit help or harm health.

What causes cancer?

Obvious poisons like asbestos and radiation aside, generic answers like “lifestyle factors” and “genetic predisposition” don’t help us very much. There are several ways to conceptualise what cancer is by grouping what kinds of things predispose one to it, and they are not exclusive. Each lens shows us different ways to (attempt to) be healthy.

Metabolic disease

There are many books by doctors on this topic, including “Cancer is a metabolic disease” by Dr. Thomas Seyfried, a professor at Yale. If this is the case, it means that maintaining mitochondrial health and proper sugar levels is important. We would expect a low-sugar diet and exercise to help.

And in fact, the ketogenic diet specifically has been shown in studies in animals and in humans to help against certain types of cancer (those that especially metabolise glucose and glutamate), however, more study is needed. Unlike the hundred-billion-dollar industry of conventional cancer therapy, there is no money to be made out of the ketogenic diet.

Exercise affects the metabolism, but also pretty much every other system in the body. It’s not surprising, therefore, that:

Strong and consistent evidence exists that higher levels of physical activity reduce the risk of six different cancer sites (bladder, breast, colon, endometrial, esophageal adenocarcinoma, gastric cardia), whereas moderate evidence inversely associates physical activity with lung, ovarian, pancreatic and renal cancer, and limited evidence inversely correlates physical activity with prostate cancer.
– Friedenreich CM, Ryder-Burbidge C, McNeil J. Physical activity, obesity and sedentary behavior in cancer etiology

There are many mechanisms by which exercise protects against cancer. Intense exercise in particular physically breaks apart free-floating cancerous cells through the very fast blood flow, which I think is a wonderful mental image when you don’t feel like going jogging.

Before we move on, big shout out to simple fasting for improving metabolism, fighting obesity, and inducing mitophagy (encouraging old mitochondria to die so that new ones are made).

Malfunction of the immune system

The immune system doesn’t just stop you getting colds and flu. It detects and destroys abnormal cells before they can become cancerous, and also directly attacks cancer cells using T cells, Natural Killer cells, macrophages, and dendritic cells.

Conventional cancer therapies sometimes try to boost the immune system to help it do these things. Some of these therapies can have serious side effects, such as autoimmune disease. Many of them seem promising but have limited applications so far approved. In my random sampling, the resources I found seemed to mainly focus on how to give (presumably patented and profitable) drugs that would alter the immune system. No discussion of why someone’s immune system may not be producing enough of these things fast enough, or what diet and lifestyle factors might make them more efficient.

Now, “making the immune system work better” is a very, very big topic. All I’m going to do right now is throw out a handful of things that are known to help:

Sound nutrition (covered below)
Good quantity and quality of sleep
Certain herbs and medicinal mushrooms
Moderate exercise

Speaking of exercise, I found it interesting that antigen-presenting cells (the dendritic cells mentioned above) perform their anti-cancer signalling by travelling to the lymph nodes. This suggests that good lymph flow would be a factor in fighting cancer (as well as in general health). Indeed, when the lymph system gets chronically blocked, it can often result directly in aggressive cancer. As the lymph system, unlike the blood, does not have its own pulse, it relies to large degree on movement of the limbs to pump the lymph around. One of the best forms of exercise for this is simple walking. Civilised man, alas, does not walk very much anymore.

Emotional trauma and stress

The idea that repressed emotions can cause cancer is the kind of theory that you’d expect from unwashed New-Age confuseniks who think “dreamcatchers” are a thing. And yet, it might actually be true.

Gabor Mate is a medical doctor who worked for decades with families, the addicted, and the dying. His book When The Body Says No uses real life case studies and scientific research to argue that chronic, unacknowledged stress due to childhood trauma (including “small-t” trauma) can cause serious illness including cancer. This is not victim-blaming; it’s just illuminating cause and effect.

I shan’t say any more; if interested one can read the book and decide whether to pursue trauma therapy.

It’s also worth noting that “ordinary” stress, if severe and prolonged enough, can also wreck one’s physical health.

Energetic disturbance

The idea that there are energetic structures in the body is as old as civilisation. Usually, people who have felt internal energy, whether it’s called ki, chi, prana, lung or what-have-you, “believe” and everyone else doesn’t. Which is fine.

The only thing I wanted to say is that some people like to use systems such as reiki or Traditional Chinese Medicine as adjunct therapies for cancer.

Summary of causes

To recap, the different models of cancer we just looked at suggest many levers of healing, all of which have at least some evidence to support them:

Good blood sugar balance
Ketogenic diet
Mitochondrial health
Vigorous exercise
Moderate exercise
Fasting
Sleep
Herbs and medicinal mushrooms
Good lymph flow
Walking
Stress reduction
Trauma therapy
Energy therapies

Malnutrition and cancer

I eat well enough, you may think, so I don’t have to worry about malnutrition. I’m afraid you’re wrong. Almost all of us are deficient in key vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients. Let’s look at just a few.

Magnesium is used throughout the body, for example in over 300 enzymes alone. Magnesium is essential for everything from heart function, sleep, and stress – to preventing cancer: “Low in vivo levels of magnesium .. increases DNA damage“. Magnesium levels in soil (and therefore food) are declining generally, due to erosion and intensive farming. While we’re here, I’ve come to know that different forms of magnesium are good for different things:

Magnesium N-Acetyl Taurinate (not Taurate) for sleep and anxiety
Magnesium Carbonate to relieve constipation
Magnesium Glycinate for general health

Vitamin D is actually a hormone, and is involved in many processes fundamental to health. Especially, it’s vital to the immune system. Not surprisingly, therefore, good levels of Vitamin D are associated with better cancer outcomes including less aggressive cancer. “More studies are needed” of course, partly because many studies use stupidly low levels of supplementation (800 IU? Seriously? I take 5,000 through the winter) or consider too-low levels of Vitamin D in the blood as “adequate” (serum 25(OH)D should probably be > 50 ng/ml and maybe higher) , and partly because scientific research is complicated.

We could go on and talk about the anti-cancer effects of other essential nutrients like Vitamin C, Vitamin E, and others, but you probably get the point. It seems to me that it’s not so much that these few compounds are special (though they are), but that the body simply needs to be properly resourced to fight off serious illness, which means getting more than the bare minimum Recommended Daily Allowance (which amounts are set very low) of all essential nutrients. Many other nutrients might turn out to have specific anti-cancer properties if we researched them intelligently.

Sunlight

I’ve put sunlight under malnutrition because I consider it an essential nutrient like vitamins. Briefly, exposure to real light (outdoor sunlight) supports mood, sleep and cognition, creates hundreds of chemicals in our bodies (not just the famous Vitamin D) that support the immune system, and overall avoiding the sun is “a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking“.

But doesn’t the sun cause skin cancer? That’s what they tell you, but it is not that simple. Firstly, sunlight exposure helps create chemicals that protect us from cancer, for example, increasing levels of alpha melanocyte-stimulating hormone. Secondly, skin cancer has increased a lot over the last century, while we spent less and less time in the sun and used more and more sunscreen (which includes toxic chemicals).

Even if we reduce the vast and profound effect of the sun on human health to merely Vitamin D generation, there is scientific support to say “advising the public to seek regular moderate sun exposure finds good support in the scientific literature as a means of lowering cancer mortality“.

Special anti-cancer compounds

There are many chemicals present in foods that we can’t count as “essential nutrition” but that do act against cancer. For example, sulforaphane, a fragile chemical found in useful amounts in broccoli sprouts, has “favorable anticancer activity [which] provides a new direction for the prevention or treatment of various cancers“. Another example: In one study, manuka honey was as good against certain kinds of breast cancer as the standard drug tamoxifen in vitro (“in glass”, meaning in a sample outside the body), as well as being extremely effective in vivo (“within the living, meaning in an animal or human body)”. There are probably a lot more if you have time to look.

Much as I love examples from food, the very strongest compounds do seem to be pharmaceutical drugs. In this case, there are two promising drugs in particular, which have been in use in humans and animals for many decades. They have a good safety profile and are very powerful. Why are they not more popular? They are out of patent, which means generic versions can be manufactured without paying licensing fees. If doctors were to prescribe old, safe, cheap drugs, instead of new, expensive drugs that come with side-effects that then require more drugs, the pharmaceutical companies, and the hospitals, medical practises, and lawmakers aligned with them would lose revenue.

Ivermectin

If your first feeling when you read the word “ivermectin” was negative, you have been psychologically programmed. If you associate this “horse dewormer” primarily with anti-vax Trump-supporting conspiracy theorists who drink bleach to get rid of Covid… this is not your own thought – you got it from the mainstream media.

At the height of the Covid panic, ivermectin was proposed by a number of doctors as a treatment for Covid. The media immediately responded by painting it as merely a dangerous drug for animals. Famously, the FDA posted a tweet, now deleted, that said “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

While it would take too much space and time to sort through the conflicting claims as to Ivermectin’s effectiveness against Covid (although there’s some reason to believe that it is effective), the fact that the corporate media, who take tens of billions of dollars a year from pharmaceutical corporations in advertising, covered it in such a one-sided and emotionally sticky way is telling. If ivermectin were widely used, tested, and found to be effective in preventing or treating Covid, then there would be no legal basis for the emergency authorisation of the lucrative Covid “vaccines” (in US law, they had to be the only option available).

While it is true for ivermectin and in general that humans should take human-sized doses of drugs rather than those meant for a full-grown horse, ivermectin is actually very safe. It’s been in use in humans for over 30 years, which is enough time for unexpected long-term side-effects to be seen – there aren’t any. In the correct dose, ivermectin has a good safety profile. So, let’s approach this repurposed drug with an open mind.

Ivermectin, for which its discoverers were given a Nobel Prize, has been called a “wonder drug”, as in the 2017 study “Ivermectin: enigmatic multifaceted ‘wonder’ drug continues to surprise and exceed expectations“. This study describes how the diseases that ivermectin is tested against successfully have expanded from the original parasitic worms to include multiple tropical diseases, asthma, neurological disease, several serious viruses, some bacterial infections – and cancer.

Several studies have shown that ivermectin has promise as a treatment for colorectal cancer, breast cancer, bile duct cancer, and others.

The incredible range of anti-cancer activity is well summarised by this 2021 study: “Ivermectin has powerful antitumor effects, including the inhibition of proliferation, metastasis, and angiogenic activity, in a variety of cancer cells …. ivermectin promotes programmed cancer cell death, including apoptosis, autophagy and pyroptosis. Interestingly, ivermectin can also inhibit tumor stem cells and reverse multidrug resistance and exerts the optimal effect when used in combination with other chemotherapy drugs.”

Fenbendazole

Believe it or not, fenbendazole is another deworming drug, this time not approved for any use in humans. In animals and in cells, studies have shown that fenbendazole “effectively eliminates cancer cells while exhibiting no or acceptable minimal toxicity to normal cells“.

Dr Makis, a nuclear medicine and cancer specialist, elaborates 12 anti-cancer mechanisms of Fenbendazole, summarising several studies. There are also some interesting case studies in humans showing complete recovery from very difficult cancers.

Despite all this, you cannot get fenbendazole or ivermectin from your doctor to treat or prevent cancer, because the bureaucrats have not approved it for that purpose.

Clinical trials are a great way to check if drugs really can do what we think or hope they can do. But they can also be a lethal barrier to drugs being approved, if no-one is willing or able to fund the enormous costs, financial and political, of running them.

Bringing it all together

I wrote this section on cancer from first principles, researching it as I went along. Now that I come to the very end, I find a paper, published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine in 2024, called Targeting the Mitochondrial-Stem Cell Connection in Cancer Treatment: A Hybrid Orthomolecular Protocol.

This is a protocol proposed by 16 doctors and health researchers for preventing and treating cancer. It includes Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Zinc, Ivermectin, Fenbendazole, 6-diazo-5-oxo-L-norleucine, fasting, ketogenic diet, exercise, and oxygen therapy. The authors give mechanisms and scientific references for why these things are known or thought to be effective against cancer individually and together – and why they are considered free from harmful side-effects.

As you’ve no doubt noticed, this overlaps quite considerably with the things we’ve already discussed, which I take to mean that we were on the right track from the beginning.

Conclusion

With the election of Donald Trump as US president, his nomination of RFK, Jr to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, and the establishment of a Department of Governmental Efficiency, many bureaucratic obstacles to progress in health in the United States and countries influenced by her (not to mention many incentives to actively harm and gaslight the populace), are set to be swept away. Much of what I’m saying in this article will likely change from conspiracy theory and fringe science to criminal proceedings and cutting-edge treatment in the next months and years.

In the meantime, just as intelligent people have been forced to stop relying on the corporate media and try to figure out for themselves what is true and what not, we are also forced to Do Our Own Research to stay or become healthy, whether we like it or not. In this effort, thinking from first principles, and a healthy scepticism combined with open-mindedness, are our best friends.

Whatever you decide to do with this information, I wish you the best of health.