Superspreader of Truth
You can quote several words to match them as a full term:
"some text to search"
otherwise, the single words will be understood as distinct search terms.
ANY of the entered words would match
9 min read

Superspreader of Truth

August 19, 2022, The New York Times (NYT) published the documentary "Superspreader," featuring yours truly, on FX and Hulu (both of which are owned by Disney).
Superspreader of Truth

I posted my initial response in "NYT Smears Me Again With Classic Orwellian Doublespeak" that same day.

NYT Smears Me Again With Classic Orwellian Doublespeak

The first episode of "The New York Times Presents" hit piece series featured Elon Musk,1 so it seems I'm in esteemed company.

1

Much Ado About Nothing

The NYT clearly went through a lot of trouble, trying to dig up dirt from anyone they could find from my past — some going back 40 years, to my medical school days — who would be able to share some tidbit with which they could discredit me with. But, it seems they came up empty handed: After a year of investigation, they couldn't come up with anything.

And, consider for a moment, what kind of scandal would a team of reporters in one year be able to craft about you, after sifting through decades of your life, reaching out to hundreds of your former associates and classmates in search for any piece of negative feedback they could find?

Everyone has made mistakes in life, and I am no exception. That said, I'm proud to realize that, despite their best efforts, they ended up with a nothing-burger production. If you are not hypnotized by their propaganda, the production is actually quite complimentary. Surprisingly, they showed two people who claimed I saved their lives.

I can only guess at the NYT's budget and number of personnel dedicated over the past two years to inflict as much damage as possible, yet there was so little to reveal, the NYT producers and editors spent the vast majority of the show interviewing themselves about me!

All the other interviews were with people who don't actually know me. For example, one was with a Chicago journalist who interviewed me once — 13 years ago. Two classmates from med school, whom I haven't seen since, also described their impressions.

The takeaway from the program is that my integrity is in question because I run a successful supplement company. Here is the description from the show:

"Are you hesitant to get a COVID vaccine? This doctor opposes them. If you agree, he has some pet supplies he wants to sell you. Meet Dr. Mercola, perhaps the most influential spreader of COVID vaccine misinformation online."

"Are you hesitant to get a COVID vaccine? This doctor opposes them. If you agree, he has some pet supplies he wants to sell you. Meet Dr. Mercola, perhaps the most influential spreader of COVID vaccine misinformation online."

So, if you have questions about the COVID shot (which I answer for free), you'll end up buying my pet supplies? This bizarre advertisement is a great example of the NYT's deranged thinking.

Who Paid for This Hit Piece?

I haven't watched conventional television since I got rid of my cable nearly a decade ago, and this was a great reminder of why I avoid it. In the first commercial break, the funding for this program became quite clear. Hard Seltzer alcohol, Pop Tarts, Taco Bell — and to top it off, highly questionable SUPPLEMENTS!

The same networks so highly critical of how I fund my free information outreach is promoting Nutrafol hair growth formula and Nugenix Total T "for men's vitality." And if the Nugenix testosterone booster isn't enough, you can combine it with the Nugenix Thermal Fat Incinerator!

The irony of criticizing me for selling the highest quality nutritional supplements and biodynamic organic foods that address the foundational cause of disease rather than pander to cosmetic problems, while they themselves promote ultraprocessed junk food, booze, fast food and questionable supplements is hardly lost on anyone paying attention.

It's also worth noting that the top institutional owners of The NYT are The Vanguard Group and BlackRock Inc., which combined have ownership in nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms, and through their investment holdings secretly wield monopoly control over all industries — including media.

Why Sell Supplements?

I am a big believer in nutrition as you know. All primary efforts to improve your health begin with good food. Supplements, meanwhile, are just that — a supplement to a high-quality diet. Everyone's diet is different, and everyone's ability to access quality food is different.

Food has become less and less nutritious, and people supplement according to these fluctuations. I am no exception. Some things, like vitamin D, omega 3 and magnesium can be measured, and while doctors may have different ideas about what is optimal versus what is deficient, ultimately it's been proven that nutritional supplements clearly can improve deficiencies.

Not every supplement is right for every person, as people have different health goals. These individual needs create a wide breadth of supplementation choices, and I am proud to have spent over 20 years developing each and every product I carry.

I provide a source of income for hundreds of families, and we make every effort to provide our employees with a healthy and comfortable environment, and make the work enjoyable. While the NYT would like to shame me for this, I am proud of it, as it has taken a lifetime of work and collaboration with others to build what we have now.

No one can stay in business without income, and most media companies have but two options: Take on advertisers or sell something. Mainstream media make their money from advertisers. The ads for junk food, booze and fad supplements that ran during the "Superspreader" program helped pay for that critique.

Advertisers Control Content

The problem with advertisers is that they end up controlling your content. Even though media management and editors will deny it, if advertisers don't want you to speak about certain issues that might adversely impact their business, all they have to do is threaten to pull their ads. At that point, you have to make a decision: Ditch the truth, or ditch your income.

Early on, I decided I could not tolerate having anyone dictating what I could or could not report on, so I opted to develop high-quality branded products that I believe in, frequently use myself and stand behind.

The sale of these products allows us to independently fund research, publish free content, defend our rights and share the truth without external influence. My interviews with experts, which can run up to two hours, also have zero advertising breaks, which I believe makes for a better program.

In short, selling high-quality products has enabled me to be a true superspreader of health, truth and freedom, and I will never apologize for that. It has also allowed me to donate millions of dollars to nonprofit organizations that are working to make the world a healthier, less toxic place for everyone, whether you've ever heard of me or not.

Interesting Timing

Interestingly, one week before the "Superspreader" program aired, in which they're trying to portray me as a spreader of dangerous COVID misinformation, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reversed all of its COVID-19 guidelines, thereby proving my position on COVID correct.

The CDC's guidelines now correspond to what I've been saying all along. I (and many others who have been speaking out) were just way ahead of the CDC. So, who's really guilty of spreading COVID misinformation for the past two years? The ones who were telling the truth from the start, or the ones who, for years, got it wrong and only now, finally, admit it?

CDC Vindicates 'Misinformation Spreaders'

For example, the CDC is now suddenly advocating for taking personal responsibility and making decisions based on personal risk:2

2

"People can use information about the current level of COVID-19 impact on their community to decide which prevention behaviors to use and when (at all times or at specific times), based on their own risk for severe illness and that of members of their household, their risk tolerance, and setting-specific factors ..."

"People can use information about the current level of COVID-19 impact on their community to decide which prevention behaviors to use and when (at all times or at specific times), based on their own risk for severe illness and that of members of their household, their risk tolerance, and setting-specific factors ..."

Individual risk assessment and risk-based countermeasures are both something we "misinformation spreaders" have called for from the beginning. The risk is not identical for all; hence, risk reduction strategies should not be uniformly applied. Finally, two and a half years late, the CDC agrees.

It now mirrors The Great Barrington Declaration and recommends focused protection, meaning protecting those "at particularly high risk ... because of older age, disability, moderate or severe immunocompromise, or other underlying medical conditions."3

3

A long list of doctors and scientists have been defamed for saying precisely what the CDC is now advocating.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and his former boss, Dr. Francis Collins, then-director of the National Institutes of Health, even went so far as to orchestrate a coordinated attack to discredit the previously well-respected authors of the Barrington declaration,4 which the CDC is now acknowledging as having presented the best route forward. The CDC is also giving up on discrimination based on COVID jab status:5

4 5

"CDC's COVID-19 prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person's vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur ..."

"CDC's COVID-19 prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person's vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur ..."

They even admit that "persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection," and therefore are not to be treated any differently than someone who has received the COVID jab.

The old rules for testing and isolation are also out the window and now only apply to those who are symptomatic, which is what we've been saying is the only reasonable course of action all along.

Why Expose Government and Corporate Corruption?

The NYT, in its "Superspreader" video documentary, also accuses me of "paranoia about government." A few years ago, that probably would have resonated with most viewers, but after two-plus years of COVID tyranny, I believe people are starting to wake up to the reality that I've been warning about all these years.

Government and private corporations collude to suppress information about your health. The reason it's so difficult to find truthful health information is because regulatory agencies have been captured by the very industries they're supposed to regulate, and media is controlled by those same interests as well.

That includes Google, which controls over 95% of the internet searches in the world, colluding with the government and Big Pharma, and removing the vast majority of natural medicine truth tellers from their search results. This has radically limited your access to helpful health information.

If you believe those who collude to keep the truth from you, you'll believe vaccinations are safe and effective for everyone, synthetic food additives are harmless, electromagnetic field radiation (EMF) has no biological impact whatsoever, drugs are the sole treatment option if you're sick, nutrition has no impact on health and disease, unnatural environments are A-OK, pesticides in food are safe and all calories are created equal.

I could go on, but you get the gist. Who benefits from these faulty beliefs? The industries that make money from selling all those dangerous and health-destroying products, of course. And, if you believe all those lies and still don't feel well, what's the answer? There is none because, according to the powers that be, you're doing all the right things.

At the end of the day, what we have here is a classic case of accusing the opposition of what they themselves are doing. They're misleading you to eat and live in a way that will destroy your health, which makes them money, all while trying to destroy anyone who points out there are safe, simple and effective ways to avoid all those traps.

So, the reason why I venture into issues of politics and corruption in some of my articles is because this collusion between government and corporate entities ultimately have a severe impact on your health and your ability to stay healthy.

My Feedback Has Been Repeatedly Ignored

Before and during the production of "Superspreader," I had a series of correspondences with the NYT — some over planned hit pieces and some specifically for this documentary. I declined an on-camera interview, seeing no benefit in it.

But I did provide rebuttals to their inflammatory questions, none of which were included or addressed in their program, or in any of the NYT's other hit pieces, for that matter. This is why it is best to avoid interacting with media that have an obvious agenda as they will cut anything you say or write that does not fit into their preplanned story.

They are absolutely not on a quest to find the truth. Their only agenda is to discredit. So, in closing, here are those email exchanges.

Email Exchange 1 Email Exchange 2 Email Exchange 3 Email Exchange 4

Email Exchange 1 Email Exchange 2 Email Exchange 3 Email Exchange 4

Read the full article at the original website

References: