Note: What follow are the opinions of Leslie Manookian, which do not necessarily reflect those of the Weston A. Price Foundation. For further information, see lesliemanookian.com.
HILDA LABRADA GORE: Leslie Manookian is the writer and producer of the 2011 documentary The Greater Good. We are having this conversation at a time when there is much confusion and concern as well as lockdowns and quarantines. Words that we never used before have become a part of our daily vocabulary. Leslie addresses the big picture related to the coronavirus, giving us context and helping us wrap our heads around the nature of the virus. She also dispels the myth of the asymptomatic carrier and explains why—although a vaccine is unlikely to be of any help—health authorities, politicians and Bill Gates are accelerating a vaccine’s development nonetheless. Finally, Leslie uncovers the many conflicts of interest that exist between those who are touting the benefits of vaccination and those who stand to benefit from its widespread distribution. Leslie, what is your assessment of our current situation?
LESLIE MANOOKIAN: I think that it’s been massively overhyped in the media and by certain political factions as well. While I do think that it’s real, it’s important to understand that there is a difference between something being real and something being catastrophic. The response has been as though this illness is a giant catastrophe. To begin, I think that it is important to understand that there are seven different types of coronavirus that infect human beings. Four of them are benign and three of them are SARS (which we first saw in the early 2000s), MERS (which was about five years ago) and now SARS-CoV-2. Coronavirus has been around for decades. It is generally associated with common colds and other respiratory infections. The idea that it is dangerous is new—literally in the last two decades—which is kind of peculiar.
HG: Some people identified as having the coronavirus are labeled as asymptomatic. It made me think that maybe it is benign—that you have it, but it is not bad for us—but no one seems to want to agree with me. They say that being “asymptomatic” means you are a carrier and you can infect someone else.
LM: Let’s consider how the immune system works. If a bug were all that was required to make us sick or kill us, we would all be sick or dead. None of us would be alive today. Let’s pick this apart. Roughly one-third of the population carries staph on their skin and in their noses. If all that matters is that you are exposed to it and that is going to cause infectious disease, why don’t all those people have staph infections? And why are they not infecting everyone else? It is because our immune system is made up of this huge microbiome—bacteria, viruses and all sorts of things. Generally, experts say, if 80 percent of our microbiome is beneficial, it keeps the other 20 percent in check. The problem is when the bad guys start to multiply and become more than 20 percent.
What causes that to happen? One cause is bad diet—a diet lacking in vitamins A, D and K2, which boost our immune system so much. It is a diet lacking real vitamin C (not the lab-made stuff) and vitamin E. We Weston Pricers know how important nutrition is. Other factors are maintaining or managing low stress levels and getting adequate sleep and exercise. We have to have all those things to keep our immune system healthy. It is when we don’t pay attention to those things that we see a proliferation of the “bad guys” and open ourselves up to getting sick from the stuff that is already there. It doesn’t jump out of somewhere and get us. It is there, but we are not susceptible to it when our immune system is robust.
One area where I think the media are overhyping is telling people they are asymptomatic carriers. I don’t think that is correct or appropriate. These people’s immune systems have recognized the virus, dealt with it and they’re done with it—without symptoms. And from what I understand, in Britain there is a team of scientists who are challenging the ones putting out all the fear. They believe that the virus has been in Britain for months longer than thought and that half the population has already had it or been exposed to it. They are just not susceptible to it. The implications of that are radical. What it means is that the vast majority of people—and I am talking tens of millions of people—have already been exposed without even knowing it. So, are we appropriately addressing this situation? The CDC is saying that in California, the virus was there as early as December 20th. That would mean that it has been circulating in the U.S. since sometime in mid-December.
People in my family had it in February, before it was supposedly in my state. Of course, I don’t know for sure, but if you look at what the CDC and other health authorities are saying—that this has been a really horrible flu season way back before coronavirus was supposedly ever here—my point is that CDC is now acknowledging that the coronavirus was circulating in California as early as December 20th or even before. If that is the case, then millions of people had it before any measures were put in place. Yet, we didn’t have millions of people getting sick or dying. We did have a bad flu season. I can speak to that personally. I am saying that it is a perfect example of how people don’t know they have had it because they have been exposed and their immune system dealt with it fine.
This is all based on the scientific literature. I have written about several of these things on my website, greatergoodmovie.org. The first one was specifically about the coronavirus and what we know about it. I also point out that we carry staph and many other organisms said to be pathogenic. Another point is that the only testing we give at this point to determine whether someone is sick or exposed is highly subjective. It is called the PCR test. It does not tell us whether we have millions of replicating viruses in our body. We don’t know that.
HG: Dr. Tom Cowan was on a previous podcast and addressed the subject of the test. He said that it is a surrogate test. Even the man who invented the PCR test said that it should not be used to identify viruses as contagious. And yet, that is how we are trying to use it.
LM: Exactly. And that is what is being rolled out. I think the media are really hyping this, yet the tests being used don’t tell us what we are being told that they tell us. Now the media are pushing new antibody tests that hopefully will tell us what we want to know, which is who has been exposed and developed antibodies and therefore isn’t susceptible anymore. Yet even those antibody tests are not black and white, and there is a reason for that. Because we know from tetanus and other pathogens that someone can have sky-high antibodies and not be immune, or have no antibodies and be immune. In the case of measles vaccines, we know that 10 percent of people who get vaccinated are what we call “non-responders.” They never mount an antibody response. Now that doesn’t mean that their body is not immune to it, it just means that they don’t have what some scientists have decided is the key criterion to look at in the blood to see whether someone is immune. That is not necessarily immunity—because you can have no antibodies and still be immune. The subject of immunity is much more complex than what the media are suggesting.
HG: If I am understanding you correctly, I may have had the coronavirus already and didn’t know it; I was asymptomatic because my immune system was strong. Should I be staying home because I might pass it on to someone, or is that a fallacy?
LM: I believe this idea that millions of people are asymptomatic is a fallacy. I think that what has actually happened is that their body has been exposed to the virus, recognized it, dealt with it, and it is not a problem. So, I think that this is another way that they are frightening people. I think that some of the health authorities are not being straightforward with people. The fact that Britain is now saying that half the population may have been exposed but they are not all sick proves that.
HG: I heard Dr. Anthony Fauci say that if enough people got infected with it, we would have herd immunity. But he said we don’t want that.
LM: Dr. Fauci did say that. I think it is a very telling remark. He and his sponsors (the main one being Bill Gates) don’t want many people to have had it and develop herd immunity naturally. Why do you think that would be? Because they want to mass vaccinate everybody; they both have said, “no mass gatherings until mass vaccination.” To me, it is one of the reasons they have pushed so hard on a lockdown. They don’t want people who are not susceptible to get it, be exposed to it and develop antibodies—there would be no market for their vaccine.
HG: What you are saying is challenging most of our understanding about why there is a lockdown. Most of our information is telling us we are on lockdown to safeguard the public health and to flatten the curve.
LM: I think “flattening the curve” is the absolute wrong thing to do. There are many scientists and doctors who are coming out saying that. The reason for that is based on what I talked about with respect to Britain and California. Millions more people have been exposed but have not actually developed symptoms. It is not that they are asymptomatic, but that their immune system just took care of it. They were capable of fighting it off and don’t have any issue with it. I have read that 99 percent of the people who actually get it and have symptoms actually respond fine without any kind of medical intervention. I am not downplaying those people who are susceptible and become ill or have died, but it is only a very tiny minority, especially those who have a comorbidity or who are elderly. I am simply questioning whether or not the reaction to this has been commensurate with the risk. I don’t believe that is the case.
HG: Even Fauci’s numbers have gone down. At first, wasn’t he saying millions of Americans would get sick? And now he is saying thousands. He has modified his predictions, but yet there is this talk about “flattening the curve” and extending the lockdown and social distancing.
LM: Let’s talk about “flattening the curve.” What we now know from Britain and California is that this is more contagious than we expected, meaning that more people have been exposed to it, and it is less deadly than expected. From the early numbers, they were saying 8 and 10 percent case fatality rate, and then they said 3 to 4 percent from China. Dr. Fauci has written in the New England Journal of Medicine that the true case fatality rate is probably closer to 0.1 percent, which is nothing more serious than a flu. The question is, why is he saying that in private in the medical field, yet he is spreading fear in the public domain? I think that is a really important question that people need to ponder.
Second, we need to understand that the people who are driving and controlling the narrative in the media often have a horse in the race. If you look at the first major models that came out, they were released from Imperial College London, and this is the model that says over two million Americans and five hundred thousand British could die. That information was spread all over the media. Imperial College takes money from the Gates Foundation. The man who wrote the model, Neil Ferguson, walked it back several weeks later saying, “Well actually, I don’t think it is going to be that bad.”
When he testified in front of Parliament he said, “Actually, in Britain, we think that the death rate isn’t going to be five hundred thousand; it probably will be twenty thousand people, and more than half of those would have died anyway this year.” In other words, he was off by a factor of fifty. Yet, no one is pushing back except Oxford University. A team of Oxford epidemiologists said they thought Ferguson’s numbers were grossly exaggerated and that the assumptions were wrong. Ferguson actually sits on committees at the World Health Organization (WHO), which also takes huge money from the Gates Foundation.
HG: To play the devil’s advocate, let’s say that Neil Ferguson was simply mistaken. He has no horse in the race but just made some erroneous assumptions and backpedaled because he realized he was wrong. Is that a possibility, too?
LM: If that were the case, why didn’t everybody stop the lockdown? Why did they move forward? And here is another thing. I don’t think I fully completed the idea of “flattening the curve,” and whether or not that is a good thing. The best thing you can do with an illness that is not particularly dangerous is to have everybody get it. Because if everybody who is not at risk gets it, it actually provides true herd immunity and protects those who are at risk. You have the elderly, those with diabetes, those with heart problems and others who are at risk self-isolate. Take care of them. Let everybody else get it, and then they are protected. Wouldn’t that be the best thing to do? No drugs, no vaccines, no risk to them. But you need a lot of fear to sell vaccines. That is what happens. Frighten people—and they will take it, demand it and even beg for a vaccine. Following up on your point about Fauci, what he said about not wanting people to develop herd immunity lets the “cat out of the bag.” He doesn’t want herd immunity to develop in the population. Now why would that be? Because they want a vaccine. He is developing one of Gates’ vaccines in his own group at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which has accepted one hundred million dollars from Gates.
HG: How did Gates become involved?
LM: Twenty years ago, Microsoft was the subject of major antitrust lawsuits in both the U.S. and Europe. The company was dragged into court in front of the Federal Trade Commission and the European Trade Commission for its anti-competitive practices. It was threatened with being broken up because Bill Gates is reputed to be a very mercenary businessman. He did things that were incredibly anti-competitive. He was operating as a monopoly and trying to put any competition out of business. The U.S. government was going to break up Microsoft, but instead, Microsoft only got a small fine—I think it was three or four hundred million dollars. Gates was forced to step down as CEO, but he stayed on as chairman of the board. Interestingly, within a year or two, he started doing all of this philanthropic work. That was when the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation really began, and he started putting billions and billions of dollars into it. I don’t know what is in it now—at a minimum, sixty billion dollars, but it may be more like eighty or ninety billion dollars.
I think that the timing of Gates’ recent resignation from the Microsoft board and from the board of Berkshire Hathaway (which is Warren Buffett’s organization) is very interesting. It’s also interesting that Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who founded Google, stepped down from Google in January. A lot of CEOs have stepped down in the last few months.
HG: What do you make of that?
LM: I don’t know. I am not even going to speculate. I find it very peculiar with respect to Larry Page and all these others. With respect to Bill Gates, I think it is very clear that he wants to work on his pet project, which is vaccinating the population. That is his true objective.
HG: And the truth is, most people have heard of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation but don’t know what they are about. There is actually a history—and it is not a pretty one—of what he has been doing with forced vaccinations in India and in African countries. But what I have heard him saying right now about our situation in the U.S. is that he thinks sooner or later we will have to have some kind of “certificate” proving that we have either had the coronavirus and dealt with it or proving that we have had a vaccination.
LM: Let me break it down for you. The Gates Foundation started the Gavi Alliance, which is a global alliance for vaccines. The foundation gave Gavi seven hundred fifty million dollars to get going and has given them several billion dollars since then. Between 2016 and 2019 alone, the Gates Foundation gave Gavi one and one-half billion dollars. The Gates Foundation funds vaccine makers all over the world. The Gates Foundation gave one hundred million dollars to the NIH and over thirteen million dollars to the CDC. They gave over two hundred million dollars to the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2018 alone. The Gates Foundation and Gavi are in the top four of all donors in the entire world to the WHO. The U.S. is the number one donor (at roughly two hundred eighty million dollars); the Gates Foundation is number two at two hundred twenty-nine million (which is just for 2018 alone). The UK is just behind the Gates
Foundation. Then I believe Gavi is next (at about one hundred fifty million dollars) and then Germany; or maybe Germany comes right before Gavi. Bill Gates has given so much money to the WHO that he gets rights that only voting member countries get.
He has tremendous influence. The same guy who wrote the model at Imperial College in London sits on all these different boards at the WHO, modeling things and creating these plans for pandemic preparedness. There is a very big tangled web here. This is going to freak people out, but Gates literally buys the media. In the first decade of the 21st century, Gates gave a billion dollars to the media—just gave it to them.
HG: Most of us think that journalists are impartial. Maybe we know that pharmaceutical companies place ads to support the news programs, but he literally gave money to the media?
LM: He gave, and he gives. What is interesting is nobody is reporting about it anymore. The Seattle Times published an amazing article in February 2011. I want to read what they wrote because it is so jaw-dropping. Not only does the Gates Foundation give the media money—a billion dollars over one decade—and not only is the money earmarked for reporting on specific pet interests of theirs, but listen to this: “To garner attention for the issues it cares about, the Foundation has invested millions in training programs for journalists. It funds research on the most effective ways to craft media messages.” They are literally training journalists to write things the way they want them to be written. I am going to keep going: “Gates-backed think tanks turn out media fact sheets and newspaper opinion paper pieces. Magazines and scientific journals get Gates money to publish research and articles. Experts coached in Gates-funded programs write columns that appear in media outlets from The New York Times to the Huffington Post, while digital portals blur the line between journalism and spin.” It is just incredible what is happening in our country, and people have no idea. That was in just the first decade. This has not stopped, it is continuing.
HG: This helps me understand why so many media outlets use the same lines, repeating certain phrases. I feel like I am in the book 1984.
LM: It is totally 1984. There are talking points that have been written by the Gates Foundation and by Gates-funded journalists, Gates-funded doctors and Gates Foundation-funded researchers. The Gates Foundation gives money to MIT, to the Wuhan Lab of Virology and the Wuhan CDC to develop vaccines. It gives money everywhere. People have to understand that this foundation has more money than the GDP of most countries. Think about that. They are immense. And everybody wants some of those dollars, and so they are willing to blur the lines a lot.
HG: Let’s say some people think that vaccines are our hope, that they are the best way to protect all of us from deadly pathogens and viruses. What would you say to those people?
LM: I will make a couple of points. First of all, we don’t know everything that happens in the body when vaccines are injected. We do know that no dose of mercury is safe; but there has never been a proven safety study done showing that “X” amount is safe to inject into human infants. And the same is true for aluminum. The vaccine makers have never demonstrated how much is safe. The FDA has never made them do it. It is just assumed that these things are safe. So, we don’t know much. We don’t know whether the combination of all the vaccines that are given is safe. We don’t know whether the whole vaccine schedule that is recommended by the CDC is safe. None of those things have been studied. There are so many questions about it. On top of that, we have a “vaccine court” in the U.S. that recognizes that vaccines injure and kill some recipients. We have a federal law that set up the vaccine court. We have a seventy-five-cent tax on every vaccine administered in this country to compensate those who are injured.
Here is what we do know. We do know that vaccines are dangerous. We do know that they kill people. We do know that there is a table of compensable adverse events that is run by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. That table of compensable events lists things like death, arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, seizures, brain damage, inflammation of the brain and so many other things. The point is that there is so much evidence that vaccines are harmful, at least to many. And some scientists and doctors would argue that they are harmful to everyone, even if people don’t recognize the problems caused. There are no adequate safety studies, and the mounting science shows that we need to be exercising far more caution.
HG: It may be that the message is not getting out to people because the media are being controlled by those who have a vested interest in making money from pharmaceuticals.
LM: There are so many conflicts of interest today between the Gates Foundation, academia, medical journals, the media, global and domestic health organizations and others. It is extremely difficult for the average person to ferret out the truth. You cannot rely on the mainstream media if you want to get to the bottom of this. You have to go to the alternative media—for example, the Weston A. Price Foundation or greatergoodmovie.org and our Facebook page.
And there is one other thing that we do know, which has been scientifically demonstrated. We know that even if you inject only an antigen, like a measles or chickenpox antigen—so that none of the other adventitious agents that are usually in vaccines are there—that antigen alone is enough to overwhelm the immune system and cause immune system “dysregulation,” meaning that the immune system is in an unstable place where it cannot right itself and then overreacts to all sorts of things. If just injecting the antigen can undermine the immune system, why would you ever want to inject a vaccine? How is that ever going to be the solution to boosting your immunity? We want a healthy, intact immune system. We don’t want an immune system that has been compromised by antigens or toxins. I just don’t think that vaccination is ever the answer based on the science that is available today.
HG: We will definitely suggest that people check out your movie. Of course, there are also resources on westonaprice.org about vaccinations, and we have done other podcasts with you and Tom Cowan on the subject because it is important to give people another perspective. As we wrap up, I want to ask you this: If each person did only one thing to support their immune system, what would you recommend they do?
LM: There are two things they should do to support their immune system. First, eat a Weston Price diet with adequate fat-soluble vitamins A, D and K2. Supplement with whole-food vitamins and, obviously, cut out all of the processed foods—processed flours and oils and things that are so bad for us. Second, find a health freedom movement or health freedom organization in your state. I fear we are going to lose our right to decide how we keep ourselves healthy if we don’t stand up, and stand up now. Go online and use a search engine and search for “health freedom [your state].” In Idaho, it is Health Freedom Idaho.
HG: You are saying we should advocate for health freedom; otherwise, our right to take care of our bodies as we see fit is in jeopardy.
LM: Without a doubt. Gates, Fauci and others—like Henry Kissinger, and the Prime Ministers of Australia and Canada—have been calling for mandatory vaccines. They want to make this whole program mandatory. They have a very frightening plan to do it. They want to make sure that you have a certificate of vaccination—or antibody test—but they want to push for the certificate of vaccination. They also have other things in mind, like they want to microchip everybody. That microchip would provide you with a global digital ID, so that every human on the planet can be tracked. That digital ID would be linked to your vaccination records, your medical records and other things. This is about control. This is about a global police state, and these people are pushing it. Gates is funding this microchipping technology. He is also funding a micro-patch vaccine, and it is being tested. It is one of the tests that is underway—a micro-patch vaccine that you stick on the skin, and it releases not only the antigens and the vaccine into you, but it also releases little dye particles that are invisible to the naked eye but visible with an app on a smartphone that can be read with infrared. This will be a way of tracking you.
So, just think about where this goes. They are saying “no mass gatherings without mass vaccinations.” They are saying “our world will never be the same.” “People need to get used to working from home.” They are trying to introduce digital currencies all over the world. They are saying that paper currency is dangerous and dirty, and that the virus can live on it. This is about fearmongering because they want you to accept the idea that you will live at home, separated from society, and only buy things on Amazon—literally—using your digital currency or your credit cards. They don’t want you to be able to go into town and use paper money. This is where this is going. And so just think about this. You want to go to church? You have to scan your arm to make sure you have got the vaccine; they want to see it. You want to go to a concert? Scan your arm; scan your microchip; produce your certificate of vaccination. You want to go to the grocery store, the post office or on an airplane? And the people who don’t comply will be barred from normal life. That is where this is going. I don’t mean to frighten people, but I think it is imperative that people wake up to what agenda is behind the scenes. They are putting it out there if you go and search for this. I have written about it on my blog; please go check it out: greatergoodmovie.org (the News and Views tab). That will get you going, and there are links in all those articles. This is the world that they envision—where you do not participate in society unless you have acquiesced to their whims to vaccinate you for Covid-19. But don’t think it will stop there. It will include the flu and other diseases. That is where this is really going, in my view. I think that is one of the reasons they have stirred up so much fear—because politicians and other authorities have admitted that you can achieve much more when the populace is afraid than you could under normal circumstances.
HG: This is shocking, and I hope people will dig deeper. The Weston A. Price Foundation is committed to getting this information out. We want people to dig deeper, look at the links and do their own research. Before we finish, what do we know about the coronavirus vaccine right now?
LM: There are a bunch in the works. You asked me earlier why vaccination isn’t the best answer to this. I said we want to build up immunity to this, and there are problems with vaccines in general. But the problems with coronavirus vaccines are particularly terrifying, and they are very specific to respiratory vaccines. Fifty years ago, they did studies on RSV, which is a respiratory disease, and tried to develop a vaccine for that. The studies or trials were so dangerous that two children died, and the vaccines caused a pathogenic “enhanced immune response” in the recipients. Then, after SARS in 2003, they started working on a vaccine for that and used four vaccines that they believed were the best candidates to study. When they injected these into lab animals, the animals all developed antibodies, and they thought “fantastic, they had a really healthy, robust immune response.” But then when they exposed the animals to wild coronavirus, they had horrific results. The animals had full-body inflammation. They had lung infections, lung inflammation and death. Health authorities said to the people running the trials that these obviously were not good candidates for human trials. So they stopped; they completely backed off. Thus we have two cases where we have seen really bad outcomes in studying the immune response in trials of respiratory vaccines. The ones in 2002-2003 specifically for SARS were in animal models. But what is happening now with the coronavirus vaccines is different. There are seven to ten that are being studied quite seriously, and two are already in Phase 1 trials—Fauci has fast-tracked them, and they are bypassing animal studies and injecting them directly into humans without doing that preliminary process in animals.
Given that the last two showed really horrific responses in animals, why would you want to do that in human beings? It is very scary. Bill Gates has said “we are going to need to send these vaccines out all over the world, but we are going to need government indemnity before we do that.” Meaning that they want global governments to make sure that Gates and vaccine makers have no financial or legal risk. They want to be indemnified against all risk before they send these vaccines all over the world. That alone should give every person pause.
It is important for people to understand that with these respiratory vaccines, vaccines provoke a heightened immune response that can be lethal, and we don’t understand it well. Interestingly, some of the biggest vaccine proponents in the U.S.—such as Peter Hotez (a vaccine developer in Texas) and Paul Offit (a vaccine developer and patent holder at the University of Pennsylvania)—are actually exercising caution and warning people to be cautious. They are trying to slow down this bus, but they don’t seem to be having much success. The reason for that, I believe, is that they don’t want to see these vaccines come out and injure or kill a ton of people because then that would threaten their childhood vaccine program. Because it is not going to reflect well on any vaccine if these coronavirus vaccines cause tons of harm.
One other thing that we didn’t talk about is that states that did not lock down have had better outcomes and fewer hospitalizations and infections than states that did lock down. I think, as time goes on, we will see that this was gross overreaction. Again, not to minimize anyone who got sick or died from it, but it is just that we don’t want the cure to be worse than the disease. You don’t want to kill the patient to cure the disease. Seventeen million people have lost their jobs in just three weeks. [Editor’s note: As of May 21, 2020, new unemployment claims had reached 38.6 million.] In the week prior to the shutdown of the economy, two hundred eighty thousand people lost their jobs that week, just to put it in context. What they have unleashed on us is truly draconian. We are going to enter a global recession that we may not come out of for years, and some people are saying a depression. And if it was unwarranted—which is what the data are pointing to more and more—then wow, just wow.
HG: Yes, I am speechless myself. It is clear that we shouldn’t take all the information we are getting at face value; there is more to the story. Thank you—you have given us a lot to think about.
WE’VE BEEN CENSORED! HERE’S WHAT WE CAN DO TO GET AROUND IT
It was only a matter of time before we got censored! Our content bucks the status quo in so many ways. We already knew that search engines and social media platforms had methods to change search results and shift algorithms to hide alternative health content, but we were still taken aback when our podcast interview with Dafna Tachover, senior attorney of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), was pulled from YouTube. The topic? 5G.
YouTube had released a statement in April that they would censor content equating the coronavirus with 5G. But this particular episode did not do that. As a matter of fact, Dafna actually clearly stated that CHD had not found sufficient evidence to link 5G to the outbreak of the coronavirus.
Bewildered, we looked into next steps to reinstate our show. And only two episodes later, we were censored again. Our podcast with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., was also removed from YouTube! The topic? Vaccinations.
Here’s our suggestion to get around this unprecedented censorship:
1) Listen to both of the censored episodes and share them widely with friends and family. The podcasts are still available on our website, Apple podcasts, and other podcast platforms (like Pandora, Spotify, tunein, GooglePlay, Stitcher, etc.).
Wise Traditions podcast #244 “Evidence against 5G” with Dafna Tachover
Wise Traditions podcast #246 “Vaccine Facts Few Know About” with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
2) Make a gift of any size to help us explore other platforms so that this health and life-saving information is not kept from people. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram are not the only options. We are looking into new places that value the unhindered exchange of ideas.
Thank you for your support! We must keep up the fight. We see censorship as a sign that we are doing something right.
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Summer 2020