The Grotesque Bird Flu Scam and How to Actually Treat Colds and Flus

How the cruelty and mismanagement we are seeing with avian influenza is directly reflected within the practice of medicine

Story at a Glance:

•A massive industry exists to protect us from pandemics. Unfortunately, this industry is largely a grift which receives billions for failed cures, routinely suppresses competing therapies that could end pandemics and frequently causes the pandemics it is supposed to prevent.

•This industry routinely engages in cruel and completely unnecessary animal experimentation (which often then shapes the mentality of modern medical practices). Because of this, one group has recently been able to shift this longstanding cruelty by connecting it to the immensely wasteful spending which often accompanies that research.

•The current “war against bird flu” embodies many of the major problems in the pandemic prevention industry, as over the last few years, we’ve spent billions of dollars killing over a hundred million birds, but all this has accomplished is significantly raising the price of eggs.

•While viruses are typically treated as being “incurable” by modern medicine, many highly effective, frequently over the counter, and unpatentable treatments exist for viral illnesses that have been used for over a century (including for some of the most severe and “incurable” ones). This article will review those therapies and how they can both be used for severe illnesses and to rapidly eliminate common viral conditions (e.g., flus and colds).

In late 2019, I predicted that COVID-19 would turn into a disaster. I told many of my colleagues, who all thought I was crazy and simultaneously were confused by these remarks as I was typically the dissenting voice against getting worked up over the annual “pandemic.” While many things at work by late 2019 suggested this could happen, the primary reason I was willing to put my reputation on the line to claim this was due to the media coverage surrounding the pandemic.

Specifically, it’s a longstanding tradition for both the media and federal health apparatus to massively hype up each potential “pandemic,” but in the case of COVID (called Sars-Cov-2 at the time), the exact opposite happened. There was a consistent push to downplay it (e.g., “it’s just a flu bro” flooded the internet at that time) to the point many of my colleagues who typically got the most up in arms about (minor) infectious diseases laughed me off when I suggested COVID was something to be concerned about.

All of this was a red flag to me as I initially could not believe the pandemic industrial complex would be silent when the pandemic they had been waiting decades for finally arrived. Then, once it became very clear (from reports circulating on the internet in Dec 2019) that COVID was very different and actually had a high likelihood of causing a true pandemic, I inferred that only two things could explain why it was being suppressed—either it was known that it would turn into a huge problem and health authorities wanted time to prepare for it before the public panicked, or they wanted it to spread under the radar as much as possible so it could turn into an actual global disaster.

In my eyes, there are four central reasons why pandemics are always hyped up:

•They give federal agencies (e.g., the CDC) a way to justify their necessity and get Congressional funding (which is most likely the primary motivation).

•The ideal content for the media are things that emotionally agitate and hook viewers but do not challenge any vested interests that do not want to be exposed (e.g., major media advertisers like the pharmaceutical industry). Fear-mongering about the next pandemic hence is an excellent way to sustain those companies.

•A multibillion-dollar industry has been created around pandemic preparedness (e.g., lots of virology research and making vaccines) that succeeds because it has no accountability for abjectly failing to prevent pandemics. In turn, hyping up pandemics is vital for this industry.

•Tackling many of the real health issues facing our country requires confronting the vested interests responsible for those issues existing (e.g., pharmaceutical companies) and addressing the underlying causes of chronic illnesses in the country—all of which is a lot of work and gets a lot of pushback. In contrast, having an aggressive and drastic top-down response to an infectious disease takes relatively little effort to do and allows the government to present the facade of safeguarding our health.

As such, we will constantly see “pandemics” that are hyped up by the media and typically are accompanied by mass slaughtering of livestock along with a variety of aggressive sales pitches for that year's vaccine and in certain years, Tamiflu as well. Inevitably however, in one way or another, the whole thing ends up being a scam (e.g., the pandemic never materializes or the therapies for it don’t really work).

Note: as I show here, Tamiflu is a scam, as despite governments having spent billions stockpiling it, there is no evidence it works (but significant evidence it frequently has side effects).

The Biodefense Industry

In a previous article, I discussed the unscrupulous “biodefense” industry, which regularly cultivates bioweapons in labs to “protect” us from them. Before COVID-19, this industry had been under great scrutiny as many within the scientific community were worried its actions could lead to a catastrophic lab leak. However, once SARS-CoV-2 leaked, the entire scientific establishment chose to double down on this research and label any insinuation lab leaks could occur “a conspiracy theory” and “a danger to science.”

For example, in 2012 the notorious Peter Hotez secured a 6.1 million grant from the NIH to develop a SARS vaccine with the stated aim of responding to any “accidental release from a laboratory,” some of which was then used to fund GoF research conducted by the leader of the Wuhan lab in 2017 (a link to paper can be found here). Once the Wuhan lab leak happened however, Hotez, not surprisingly, made a 180° pivot and since then has repeatedly condemned anyone suggesting a connection between COVID-19 and the Wuhan lab’s bat research (which he funded to “prevent” a pandemic).

However, while the bioweapons industry (with the slavish support of the mainstream media) has done everything it can to defend its public image, COVID woke too many people up to what was going on. There is now significant pushback against bioweapons research and the lucrative (but consistently ineffective) countermeasures the industry uses to protect us from pandemics.

Unfortunately, because of how much money exists in Biodefense, the industry will continue to fight for it, regardless of how much public pushback it receives. For example, over the last two years, we waged a successful campaign to sink the WHO’s horrific pandemic treaty, which was primarily designed to give the industry a blank check to do whatever it wants (to the point we are now withdrawing from the WHO). Recently I highlighted the immense public protest in Colorado against establishing a (lavishly NIH-funded) bat lab there to study dangerous viruses—which in large part was due to that lab having already had numerous safety accidents and the citizens of Fort Collins not wanting to become the next Wuhan.

This highlights the major problem with Biodefense. Beyond it largely being a grift that fails to stop pandemics (as the therapeutics it brings to market inevitably prioritize profitability rather than safety or efficacy), it frequently creates the pandemics it is supposed to prevent.

This is because the industry will frequently infect animals with dangerous pathogens along with pathogens that are modified to be more dangerous (which is done under the logic those modifications could occur naturally, so we need to be prepared for them by first having lab models to test against—despite the fact those dangerous mutations almost never occur naturally). The infected animals in turn, are used to both study how each disease behaves and to develop a variety of therapies for it which can then be used if a real pandemic ever breaks out.

More specifically, when you consider all the potential opportunities for infection and how often lab animals “won’t behave” (e.g., fight back), it’s relatively challenging to prevent lab leaks from happening. For example, when I covered the Fort Collins lab, which is one of the NIH’s premier biodefense research facilities (and hence one of the least likely labs to have lab leaks), I highlighted a long list of lab accidents (all of which are compiled here). FOIA documents showed these accidents occurred 1-3 times a month, often involving dangerous pathogens, and could have resulted in someone developing a severe infection and transmitting it to a community—many of which were caused by lower-paid, less-trained and overworked employees doing the grunt work of experimenting on infected animals.

This suggests lab leaks are a common occurrence (especially since much of the riskiest research is conducted out of sight in countries like China), which has been demonstrated by:

•A recent Lancet publication that surveyed the published literature between 2000-2021 and was able to identify 309 documented lab infections, 16 lab escapes, and several deaths—which is quite striking given that most lab leaks are unlikely to be reported (especially as the industry has come under more scrutiny).

•The Cambridge Working Group estimated in 2014 that potentially dangerous lab leaks occur, on average, two times each week in the US alone, and by 2018 this number had risen to an average of four times per week.

Furthermore, many of these lab leaks are quite consequential such as:

This is demonstrated by the fact many major lab leaks have happened (along with many more we have likely never heard of). Some of these include:

• In 1950, the US Navy covertly sprayed harmful bacteria in the San Francisco Bay Area, causing infections and fatalities. Those bacteria then became endemic in the area.

• Numerous fatal lab leaks involving smallpox and anthrax occurred in the US, UK, and Soviet Union.

• Lyme disease emerged next to a US government facility that was weaponizing the same bacteria.

• The 1977 H1N1 influenza pandemic being traced back to a lab leak.

• The 2001 Anthrax attacks in the US being linked to a weaponized strain found only in bioweapons labs.

• Numerous SARS lab leaks having occurred since 2002, some of which led to broader outbreaks (hence why Hotez applied for his vaccine grant).

• A strong case can be made that Ebola and monkeypox outbreaks originated from lab leaks.

• The SV-40 virus which was known to have links to kidney disease and cancer contaminated the polio vaccines (likewise evidence suggests that this happened with HIV).

• Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) actually emerged from chimpanzee research activities.

• Numerous disastrous veterinary pandemics have emerged from leaks.

This slide came from part of Meryl Nass’s work to expose the pandemic industry.

In short, a good case can be made that, like many other industries which depend upon “solving” a problem, Biodefense will never solve the problem (as doing so would put it out of business) and instead is likely to make the problem worse (as this secures more funding).

Note: the pandemic preventing research Fauci directed actually had repeatedly identified hydroxycholoroquine as a promising SARS treatment, but once COVID-19 came out, Fauci (and the pandemic prevention industry) actively sabotaged it (so that hydroxychloroquine could not compete with the unsafe and ineffective but highly profitable novel therapies being brought to market).

Vivisection

I believe one of the most socially disruptive (and hence controversial) viewpoints to hold is that animals have a significant degree of consciousness as so many societal institutions depend upon exploiting and harming animals to function (and hence could not operate if society granted animals something akin to “human rights”). Conversely, I also believe that it’s impossible to eliminate all suffering that conscious beings experience (e.g., nature can often be quite brutal), so in my eyes, the key thing to focus on is unnecessary and excessive cruelty (e.g., beyond it being unhealthy, for ethical reasons I will never eat factory farmed meat).

Note: the best proof I have ever seen that animals can exhibit human consciousness and emotions was this story of an orangutan [which can be watched here] who was raised as a human until the researchers got nervous over the degree of sentience he was showing (as he’d been trained in sign language) and stripped him away from his adopted mother, with both of them suffering a heartbreak that lasted for decades. Likewise, I frequently observe the same techniques that resolve emotional traumas in humans, can correct behavioral issues in pets (who if you spend significant amounts of time become hard to believe aren’t sentient).

One of the major sources of extreme and unnecessary animal cruelty is the animal research industry, which sacrifices over 100 million animals each year, frequently in extremely horrific ways that have no scientific value whatsoever. While we have become largely desensitized to animal experimentation, as the anti-vivisectionists showed, it didn’t actually used to be that way. Vivisection (first used in 1707) for reference meant:

Vivisection (from Latin vivus 'alive', and sectio 'cutting') is surgery conducted for experimental purposes on a living organism, typically animals with a central nervous system, to view a living internal structure. The word is, more broadly, used as a pejorative catch-all term for experimentation on live animals, by organizations opposed to animal experimentation, but the term is rarely used by practicing scientists.

The history of vivisection is inseparable from that of medical science…Since the nineteenth century, laboratory experimentation has become the gold standard of academic medicine, shaping not only its approach to solving problems, but also doctors' moral conduct and education. To experimentalists, it was axiomatic that medical science must be objective, rational, and dispassionate: if its advancement required the infliction of pain on laboratory animals, then it was unprofessional, even unethical, to allow squeamishness or sentiment to get in the way. Thus there arose a tension in medicine between the scientific spirit of cool indifference to suffering and the clinical tradition of compassion and caring. When the Continental fashion for vivisection first touched Britain in the 1820s, many doctors chose to distance themselves from it for the sake of their reputation, and the few who did undertake it felt the need to defend a choice that seemed at odds with the ethos of their profession.

Note: it’s beyond the scope of this article, but documented examples of human vivisection throughout history also exist (and likewise, there is an almost endless list of absolutely abhorrent sanctioned animal experiments that continues into the present day).

As vivisection gradually came into vogue, the French physiologist François Magendie (1783-1855) brought the issue to the forefront and engaged in a variety of vivisections he believed were justified based on the benefit and knowledge they gained would ultimately bring to humanity. Many at the time viewed his work as cruel and unnecessarily torturous (e.g., once anesthesia was discovered, he refused to use it in his classes), and records exist of him being seen by his colleagues as a sadist who frequently conducted experiments devoid of value. François’s actions were so abhorrent they led to one member of parliament labeling him a “disgrace to society” and numerous laws against animal cruelty being passed.

As animal testing became more popular (e.g., America’s animal testing centers opened in the 1860s and 1870s), many at the time could see that what was happening was wrong. A few organizations formed to protest it have persisted to this day (e.g., England’s in 1875 and America’s in 1883).

Note: one of the things I find remarkable looking back upon this was how quickly the antivivisectionist idea went viral, which speaks to how strongly people resonated with it (as things like the mass media typically are what facilitate ideas to rapidly spread through society did not yet exist). Similarly, society at that time had a dramatically higher acceptance of cruel things being done to human beings (e.g., slavery was still legal), but despite that they could still recognize vivisection went far beyond what was ever acceptable.

The antivivisectionists quickly clashed with vivisectionists, and a series of political battles ensued that over the decades gradually resulted in a variety of animal rights laws being passed that reduced but by no means eliminated the practice.

One of the things I find the most noteworthy about this period was the disdain with which many of the leading medical professionals addressed the vivisectionists in the journals of the time. This, in turn, I believe went hand in hand with the fact those individuals would frequently proudly publish unethical human experiments they’d performed on living subjects who typically lacked the ability to refuse to participate in them (e.g., orphaned children, developmentally disabled adults or prisoners) and complain about the activists who were trying to stop their human experimentation.

This in turn touches upon one of the most important points the anti-vivisectionists raised—many of the cruel (and often unnecessary) practices in modern medicine arose from the mentality that gave rise to vivisection, so a good case can be made it is in our own interest to eliminate this malignant foundation modern medicine rests upon.

Note: while antivivisectionist groups still exist, the concept has largely faded from memory and become another forgotten side of medicine, something I consider remarkable and view as a testament to how effectively the medical system and mass media have conditioned us to compartmentalize these actions and view them as “normal.” This I believe goes hand and hand with the increasing disconnection from our world and those around us that is being facilitated by modern technology.

The White Coat Waste Project

In my eyes, there are three effective arguments to be made against animal experimentation in general, and specifically the biolab research involving dangerous natural (or artificial) pathogens:

•It’s cruel (to the point most people would not support it if they understood what was actually happening).

•It’s often quite dangerous (e.g., the lab leaks).

•It’s quite costly and often a massive waste of money.

This third point is particularly important, as while sadists always exist, I believe the primary reason this cruel reckless research persists (and why state governments staunchly defend it despite local communities continually protesting it) is the substantial federal grants that subsidize the research. For instance, the Colorado University constructing the bat lab (which has received 393 million dollars from the NIH since 2014) received a 6.7 million dollar NIH grant for the lab.

Likewise, I’ve previously covered an immensely unpopular initiative in Hawaii (“controlling” wild mosquito populations by routinely releasing hundreds of millions of lab-modified mosquitos that leave unpleasant bites) that continues to be scaled up despite significant public protest against it (and no evidence of efficacy or ecological safety—all of which is detailed further here). Like the Colorado Lab, the state government has been extremely secretive about what’s actually going on (which has thus required FOIA’s) and Hawaii has aggressively defended the program in court. In my eyes, this is entirely due to the U.S. Department of Interior having committed over 33 million dollars to the program (e.g., 14 million from here, 16 million from here and 3 million from here).
Note: I am now very hopeful DOGE will continue to make headway in shutting down these highly unpopular and harmful grifts.

In turn, while it’s often a lost cause to stop this juggernaut, one of the most effective approaches I have seen to stop all of this is to effectively blend all three points together (as that way, parts of the message appeal to individuals on both sides of the political spectrum). One newcomer, the White Coat Waste Project (WCW) has been very savvy in identifying politically persuasive tactics to shut down animal testing:

As much of the United States entered COVID lockdowns in April 2020, a tiny group that campaigns against federal funding for animal experiments spotted an opportunity. WCW sprung into action, persuading DailyMail to run a story saying the US government had funded the [Wuhan] lab. Then all hell broke loose.

WCW has focused on the fact we waste approximately 20 billion dollars a year conducting cruel and unnecessary (and often dangerous) experiments on animals and many of the horror stories that have swept through the media (and closed some of the crueler Federal labs) originated from the WCW’s work. For example, they just made national headlines at a recent Congressional hearing that highlighted many of the absurd, cruel, and pointless animal experiments the NIH was funding (most of which were approved by Fauci) that included at least 241 million being spent on extremely dubious transgender animal experiments. Since this hearing effectively synopsized many of the major issues in the animal research field and made a compelling case for defunding much of it, I clipped it for this article:

Note: one of the most important points WCW highlighted is that most of this money doesn’t go to the experiments themselves (e.g., 92% in one case), but rather to the sponsoring institutions. As such, a good case can be made that the primary reason this highly questionable research is conducted is because it creates the cover for an untraceable slush fund.

Lastly, one of the primary reasons such an urgent focus has been directed towards avian influenza has been due to the fear it could “jump to humans and cause a pandemic.” Many (myself included) believe if this happens, it will most likely be due to the gain of function experiments being conducted on avian influenza that will allow it to jump to humans (which as the WCW recently showed, we’ve already spent over a million dollars on in China).

Pumping and Dumping Vaccines

The annual flu vaccines have a rather poor track record as:

•It is frequently used for the “wrong” strain (which leads to the vaccine being much less effective). This is particularly problematic, as if the immune system is hyper-primed to target the wrong antigen, it is less able to respond to a different naturally occurring one (and as a result, numerous datasets have shown the influenza vaccine frequently increases one’s risk of catching influenza or another viral respiratory illness).

•The existing (likely biased) evidence shows you have to vaccinate around 100 people to prevent one minor case of influenza, while the vaccine does not prevent influenza transmission, and does not affect influenza hospitalizations or deaths.
Note: I and many colleagues have observed patients who end up in the ICU for influenza typically were vaccinated that year.

•At best, it has prevented influenza rates from increasing alongside a growing population:

Given this poor efficacy, the real risk of side effects from the vaccines (e.g., one large study found 37.8% of influenza vaccine recipients with an existing heart condition had an adverse reaction and 1.1% of recipients had a severe reaction), it’s quite questionable if America is making a good investment buying 150 million influenza vaccine doses each year.

However, the industry feels differently. This is because one of the most common grifts in this industry is to hype up the danger of a new disease, then have a new biotech company present a “cure” (or vaccine) for the disease and offer a large number of shares that Wall Street eagerly buy up (spiking the price).

Once this spike happens, the original owners of the Biotech company will liquidate their existing shares (making a lot of money), after which, the stock typically crashes (as the product does not work).

Note: likely because of the major issues with the annual flu shots, RFK Jr. recently suspended the CDC’s annual campaign to promote the flu shot.

Lastly, it should be noted many of the deaths attributed to the flu are likely due to other causes (as hospitals are incentivized to attribute deaths to the flu even if there is minimal evidence it was the cause of death). As I show in this article, despite flu having been the main focus of the CDC for decades, to my great surprise, no one actually knows how deadly the flu is (although most estimates are far less than 1 in 1,000 cases).

“Managing” Bird Flus

In his memoir from being on White House Coronavirus Task Force in 2020, Washington outsider Scott Atlas MD showed that America’s dysfunctional COVID response was due to Anthony Fauci and his friend Deborah Birx (both of whom had a poor track record managing pandemics and an atrocious degree of scientific literacy) forcing America to re-enact their “zero HIV policy” (which was not applicable to a virus that spread through the air rather than through unprotected sex).

To do this, she (and Fauci) advocated for testing everyone as frequently as possible for COVID-19, and then using those (often false) test results to justify masking and lockdowns, despite those test results having no correlation to COVID-19 hospitalization rates. In contrast, any way to treat COVID-19 before it became a severe infection was relentlessly attacked (e.g., consider the media dogpile on Trump’s hydroxychloroquine remarks). Anytime Atlas moved the task force to a more sane policy (e.g., prioritizing protecting the elderly who were actually dying from COVID), it was attacked by Birx or Fauci and then sabotaged by the media.

With bird flu, a similar testing mentality exists (as the positive cases justify more interventions), so it should come as no surprise that Birx has not only been given national airtime to advocate for testing, but has gone so far as to advocate for testing all cows for bird flu.

Since poultry have fewer rights than humans, to “stop the spread” each time bird flu is suspected to have entered a facility (e.g., due to a positive PCR test), a rapid cull will be conducted, and at this point, 159 million birds (77.5% of which were egg-laying chickens) have been culled to stop the current bird flu. While there is some justification for this (as tightly packed flocks can suffer high rates of death from the virus sweeping through) many strongly disagree with this approach as:

•The evidence that it works is quite limited (e.g., it took until 2024 for a systematic review to be published, which found the mass culling is as effective as simply vaccinating flocks).

•The existing evidence shows that culling (of both infected flocks and those in the vicinity) can provide short-term reductions in bird flu cases. Still, it cannot stop epidemics (e.g., the current one has been going on since 2020) as wild birds continually transmit the virus between flocks (and reinfect flocks). Conversely, over the long term, it worsens things (e.g., see this study) as it increases the genetic susceptibility of the flocks to avian influenza (rather than selecting for the birds that survived and imparting genetic resistance to the flocks).

•Animals that are not at risk of bird flu (e.g., free-range chickens not living in tightly packed indoor buildings) are also being culled.
Note: as I show here, a very strong case can be made that virtually all the infectious disease deaths vaccines “prevented” were actually due to people having atrocious living conditions where diseases spread like wildfire as all of those diseases (including ones we never vaccinated for) disappeared once public sanitation was improved (and before the vaccines being introduced).

•Since the government always likes to scapegoat raw milk producers (despite it being much cleaner and healthier for consumers), many locations (e.g., California) have used this “emergency” to outlaw the sale of raw milk (despite farmers providing routine tests showing the virus is not in the milk), thereby devastating the industry and creating a national shortage.

•Mass culling is quite cruel (and reflective of how much in the same way vivisection is often favored, veterinary medicine will often default to simply euthanizing animals).
Note: I strongly empathized with Peanut the Squirrel’s recent unnecessary death. This was because when I was much younger, I found an injured squirrel I could eventually get to trust me enough that it let me hold it, after which I promptly brought it to a nearby wildlife rehabilitation center. Once there, they took the animal, then told me it would be euthanized (as “the squirrel had to be suffering immensely or it would have never have let me hold it”) and then escorted me out of the building when I advocated for rehabilitating it myself if they weren’t willing to (after which I felt horrible for a long time for having violated the trust that squirrel placed in me).

It has caused American egg prices to surge roughly 2.5 times. In contrast, Mexico—a nation with high egg consumption that avoids the aggressive culling practices standard in the U.S.—has not seen a similar increase.

Fortunately, these issues (particularly the sustained increase in egg prices have caused the Trump administration to reconsider the current approach.

Addressing Bird Flu

Presently, the USDA has the authority to cull any herd where bird flu is suspected (and do so in an “emergency” manner which waives the ethical safeguards that exist to protect animal welfare—often resulting in the birds being severely injured but not killed and then requiring a second culling method to be used) and then partially compensate farmers for the costs of this.
Note: currently, 1.46 billion dollars have been spent on culling compensation. This USDA money (which has fairly few strings attached) disproportionately went to the largest agricultural producers whose stocks have since soared (resulting in them building more poultry facilities along the migratory bird routes that thus are at high risk of subsequent bird flu outbreaks).

In contrast, I believe the following approaches should be seriously considered.

1. Farmers, especially those raising their birds in healthier conditions, should have the option to allow bird flu to sweep through their flocks and select for the birds that survive.

2. There should be incentives (e.g., subsidies) that support raising birds in cleaner and less tightly packed conditions (as there birds are much more resistant to the spread of bird flu) rather than funneling that money to the large corporations that keep their birds in unhealthy conditions which encourage the spread of disease.

3. For over a century, it has been recognized that exposing poultry to ultraviolet light reduced their likelihood of dying and increased their productivity (while many unnatural artificial lights did the opposite). Likewise, it’s well known that ultraviolet light effectively inactivates various pathogens, including viruses.

For this reason, one of the most effective ways to stop viral pandemics is to simply put (safe) UV lights indoors as this rapidly disinfects the air (or surfaces) and hence stops the spread of viruses (which in turn makes it highly frustrating a variety of easy to deploy UV light systems were never used to stop the spread of COVID-19—while we locked the country down and deployed a variety of disruptive and mostly ineffective methods to slow the spread).

Note: even when not all of a virus is inactivated, immense benefit still results as susceptibility to a virus is largely determined by the infectious dose (as with smaller ones, the immune system has time to develop a robust response to it, whereas with larger ones, the host frequently gets overwhelmed before it can develop a robust immune response).

As such, I believe the most sensible approach to managing bird flu is to simply put UV lighting into chicken farms, an approach which fortunately is now beginning to be looked at as the existing approach has clearly failed.

Lastly, in addition to directly killing viruses, UV light generates ozone gas (which is directly germicidal). This suggests ozone (or another dilute disinfecting oxidative therapy such as chlorine dioxide or misted hydrogen peroxide) could potentially stop the spread of avian influenza. However, to the best of my knowledge, while this approach has been shown to work in farms for a variety of other non-viral infections and in the lab for avian influenza^1,2,3 I do not know of any research where a diffused oxidative therapy (disinfectant) has been used to prevent the spread or severity of avian influenza in a flock.

Note: one of the most remarkable facts about COVID-19 was that after leaving the White House, Deborah Birx became the chief medical officer for a Texas company which used UV light to generate oxidative molecules from water that disinfected the air inside buildings.

Treating Bird Flu

One of the key concerns with bird flu (and a key why so much money has been given out in grants to “contain” it) is that it could transfer to humans.
Note: if this does happen, it will most likely result from the gain of function experiments currently being done to cause avian influenza to jump from birds to mammals).

This in turn, is being used to drum up the fear that everything must be done to contain bird flu and simultaneously to urgently develop a vaccine for when it jumps to humans (as many Biotech companies are eagerly waiting to pump and dump that vaccine once human infections start and the media hypes them up).

However, if we take a step back, it’s essential to consider that all of this is funded on one fundamental assumption—that viruses cannot be cured, and hence that everything we can possibly due to prevent them (e.g., vaccines) is where our focus must lie.

In reality, however, this is incorrect; over the years, many effective antiviral therapies have been developed. However, in almost all cases, those therapies are not specific to individual viruses and cannot be monetized like antibiotics (of which many unique ones exist, and of which, specific ones are needed for differing infections). Thus, if one of these therapies entered widespread use, it could destroy the vast market for “managing” viral diseases.

This is why very few people know:

•Dozens of studies over the decades (many of which were compiled in this book) show that vitamin D is more effective at preventing influenza than flu shots. Similarly, there is still very little discussion within the medical field over all the data showing that vitamin C improves flu-like illnesses.

•The same therapies many of us (myself included) initially used to successfully treat COVID had also previously been used to treat the 1918 Influenza, HIV and Ebola—all of which at the time were considered to be virtually incurable (along with many other challenging infections like viral pneumonias).

•A variety of reliable therapies exist for treating cases of flu and colds which in many cases can also be used for far more severe infections.

Conversely however, I rarely use the “throw lots of supplements” at a flu approach as we’ve found it’s fairly hard to tell how much many of them actually help. For that reason, in the final part of the article, I will cover some of the approaches that we have found over the decades to be the most effective for addressing viral illnesses (most of which are easily accessible).