Skip to main content
WeLoveTrump.com may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on the site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Shocking Excerpt From RFK Jr.’s New Book Exposes Big Pharma Pressure to Suppress Ivermectin


3,995 views

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health has exposed criminal levels of medical establishment corruption.

The Amazon and New York Times best seller provides a glimpse into the war on health and civil liberties waged by parasitic government bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci.

It also dives into the unimaginable influence pharmaceutical companies have in directing public health policies.

One excerpt from the book highlights the diabolical smear campaign waged against ivermectin.

As I’ve noted, ivermectin has shown tremendous efficacy against COVID-19 in places like Uttar Pradesh (India), Bangladesh, and Japan.

But in the United States, federal regulators, pharmaceutical companies, and mainstream media unleashed a vicious smear campaign against the cheap, repurposed drug.

Despite dozens of statistical analyses showing ivermectin’s benefits, the patent-free treatment earned the label “horse dewormer.”

Under U.S. law, the experimental COVID-19 injections couldn’t gain emergency use authorization if other effective treatments were available.

That explains the widespread censorship campaign against anyone who promoted ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.

An excerpt from RFK Jr.’s book highlights a profound conversation that sheds light on Big Pharma’s influence to discredit ivermectin in the public eye.

The Defender provided background info on the exchange:

The book includes a riveting account of an exchange last January between Dr. Tess Lawrie, director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, and Dr. Andrew Hill, author of a favorable analysis of ivermectin studies.

He had subsequently performed a “neck-wrenching” U-turn on the issue, claiming the studies comprised “low certainty” of value and that more trials were needed.

Lawrie was trying to persuade Hill to participate in and co-author an immediate review of all published ivermectin studies in the medical literature, to be conducted by the eminent Cochrane Network, which uses thousands of volunteers to make high-quality, independent treatment recommendations.

“It was an exciting opportunity,” Kennedy writes. “Under normal circumstances, Hill should have pounced on this chance to serve as lead author with some of the world’s most prestigious researchers. He was nevertheless noncommittal.

Kennedy writes in his book:

“The following week, she spoke to Hill again, this time by Zoom. The Zoom call was recorded.

“Dr Lawrie asked Hill to explain his U-turn on ivermectin, which his own analysis found overwhelmingly effective. ‘How can you do this?’ she inquired politely. ‘You are causing irreparable harm.’ Hill explained that he was in a ‘tricky situation’ because his sponsors had put pressure on him. Hill is a University of Liverpool virologist who serves as an adviser to Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation. He told me his sponsor was Unitaid.

“Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and several countries — France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Brazil, Spain, the Republic of Korea and Chile — to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals for distribution to the African poor.

“Its primary purpose seems to be protecting the patent and intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies — which, as we shall see, is the priority passion for Bill Gates — and to ensure their prompt and full payment. About 63 percent of its funding comes from a surtax on airline tickets.

“The BMGF holds a board seat and chairs Unitaid’s Executive Committee, and the BMGF has given Unitaid $150 million since 2005. Various Gates-funded surrogate and front organizations also contribute, as does the pharmaceutical industry.

“The BMGF and Gates personally own large stakes in many of the pharmaceutical companies that profit from this boondoggle. Gates also uses Unitaid to fund corrupt science by tame and compromised researchers like Hill that legitimizes his policy directives to the WHO.

“Unitaid gave $40 million to Andrew Hill’s employer, the University of Liverpool, four days before the publication of Hill’s study. Hill, a Ph.D., confessed that the sponsors were pressuring him to influence his conclusion. When Dr. Lawrie asked who was trying to influence him, Hill said, ‘I mean, I, I think I’m in a very sensitive position here …’”

Dr. Andrew Hill’s sensitive position was protecting his paycheck that had ties to Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-funded pharmaceutical lobbyists.

Although Dr. Hill found a favorable analysis of ivermectin, publishing his results would not sit kindly with his employer’s financers.

Thus, Dr. Hill performed his U-turn to bash ivermectin and influence public health policy directives at the WHO.

Instead of saving lives by prescribing ivermectin, Andrew Hill wrote this piece in The Guardian:

There were also threats to my scientific reputation on email. I know many other scientists who have been threatened and abused in similar ways after promoting vaccination or questioning the benefits of unproven treatments like ivermectin. If scientists cannot communicate for fear of threats and abuse, how can all the misinformation be controlled?

If we allow this misinformation to be spread unchecked, there is a real danger that people won’t get vaccinated – they will believe that they can take an alternative treatment and be protected, even if there is no real proof. These people could then get infected, hospitalised and even die of Covid. There are so many unvaccinated patients being hospitalised in the UK, when they could have made a different choice with the right information.

Read the entire excerpt courtesy of The Defender:

Here’s the transcript of the conversation between Lawrie and Hill:

Lawrie: Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.

Hill: Well …

Lawrie: This is what I don’t get, you know, because you’re not a clinician. You’re not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80 percent. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s ivermectin.

Hill: There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I say, some people simply …

Lawrie: We are looking at the data; it doesn’t matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with looking at the data and reassuring everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It’s clear. You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today. If we can get the government to buy ivermectin.

Hill: Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that, because you’ve got trials …

Lawrie: It is as simple as that. We don’t have to wait for studies … we have enough evidence now that shows that ivermectin saves lives, it prevents hospitalization. It saves the clinical staff going to work every day and being exposed. And frankly, I’m shocked at how you are not taking responsibility for that decision.

And you still haven’t told me who is [influencing you]? Who is giving you that opinion? Because you keep saying you’re in a sensitive position. I appreciate you are in a sensitive position, if you’re being paid for something and you’re being told [to support] a certain narrative … that is a sensitive position.

So, then you kind of have to decide, well, do I take this payment? Because in actual fact, [you] can see [your false] conclusions are going to harm people. So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this.

I can see the evidence, and I will join the Cochrane team as a volunteer, like everybody on the Cochrane team is a volunteer. Nobody’s being paid for this work.

Hill: I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival.

Lawrie: No, I’m grading my evidence. I’m saying I’m sure of this evidence. I’m saying I’m absolutely sure it prevents deaths. There is nothing as effective as this treatment. What is your reluctance? Whose conclusion is that?

Hill complains again that outsiders are influencing him.

Lawrie: You keep referring to other people. It’s like you don’t trust yourself. If you were to trust yourself, you would know that you have made an error and you need to correct it because you know, in your heart, that this treatment prevents death.

Hill: Well, I know, I know for a fact that the data right now is not going to get the drug approved.

Lawrie: But, Andy — know this will come out. It will come out that there were all these barriers to the truth being told to the public and to the evidence being presented. So please, this is your opportunity just to acknowledge [the truth] in your review, change your conclusions, and come on board with this Cochrane Review, which will be definitive. It will be the review that shows the evidence and gives the proof. This was the consensus on Wednesday night’s meeting with 20 experts.

Hill protests that the U.S. National Institutes of Health will not agree to recommend ivermectin.

Lawrie: Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.

Hill: That’s not something I know about.

Lawrie: Well, all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption and you are being played.

Hill: I don’t think so.

Lawrie: Well then, you have no excuse because your work in that review is flawed. It’s rushed. It is not properly put together.

Lawrie points out that Hill’s study ignores a host of clinical outcomes that affect patients. She scolds Hill for ignoring the beneficial effects of ivermectin as prophylaxis, its effect on speed to testing negative for the virus, on the need for mechanical ventilation, on reduced admissions to intensive care, and other outcomes that are clinically meaningful.

This is bad research … bad research. So, at this point, I don’t know … you seem like a nice guy, but I am really, really worried about you.

Hill: Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation.

Lawrie: No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not, because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth. How can you deliberately try and mess it up … you know?

Hill: It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies.

Lawrie: So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily – up to you? What is, what is the timeline that you’ve allowed for this, then?

Hill: Well, I think . . . I think that it goes to WHO [World Health Organization]and the NIH [National Institutes of Health]and the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] and the EMA [European Medicines Agency]. And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough.

Lawrie: How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good.

Hill: Well, when yours comes out, which will be in the very near future … at the same time, there’ll be other trials producing results, which will nail it with a bit of luck. And we’ll be there.

Lawrie: It’s already nailed.

Hill: No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA.

Lawrie: You’d rather risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent [British National Health Service doctors and nurses] people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying.

These are studies conducted around the world in several different countries. And they’re all saying the same thing. Plus there’s all sorts of other evidence to show that it works. Randomized controlled trials do not need to be the be-all and end-all. But [even] based on the randomized controlled trials, it is clear that ivermectin works. It prevents deaths and it prevents harms and it improves outcomes for people …

I can see we’re getting nowhere because you have an agenda, whether you like it or not, whether you admit to it or not, you have an agenda. And the agenda is to kick this down the road as far as you can. So … we are trying to save lives. That’s what we do.

I’m a doctor and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on ivermectin. Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do.

Lawrie then asks again: Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO?

Hill: It’s Unitaid.

Lawrie: All right. So who helped to … Whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed?

Hill: Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it … Unitaid …

Lawrie: I think that . . . it needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged? Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write?

Hill: Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah.

Lawrie: Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?

Hill: Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t …

Lawrie: So they have a say in your conclusions.

Hill: Yeah.

Lawrie: Could you please give me a name of someone in Unitaid I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?

Hill: Oh, I’ll have a think about who to, to offer you with a name … but I mean, this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance …

Lawrie: Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?

Hill: Yeah … it’s a very strong lobby …

Lawrie: Okay. Look, I think I can see kind of a dead end, because you seem to have a whole lot of excuses, but, um, you know, that to, to justify bad research practice. So I’m really, really sorry about this, Andy.

I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.

Hill: You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.

Lawrie: Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground … You’ve taken a position right to the other extreme calling for further trials that are going to kill people. So this will come out, and you will be culpable.

And I can’t understand why you don’t see that, because the evidence is there and you are not just denying it, but your work’s actually actively obfuscating the truth. And this will come out. So I’m really sorry … As I say, you seem like a nice guy, but I think you’ve just kind of been misled somehow.

Hill promises he will do everything in his power to get ivermectin approved if she will give him six weeks.

Hill: Well, what I hope is that this, this stalemate that we’re in doesn’t last very long. It lasts a matter of weeks. And I guarantee I will push for this to last for as short amount of time as possible.

Lawrie: So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think you will be paid to [make] the stalemate go on?

Hill: From my side. Okay … I think end of February, we will be there, six weeks.’

Lawrie: How many people die every day?

Hill: Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.

Lawrie: Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks … because at this rate, all other countries are getting ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.

Hill: My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum …

Lawrie: You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, “I can see this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion any more, and I’m going to tell the truth.”

Hill: What, I’ve got to do my responsibilities to get as much support as I can to get this drug approved as quickly as possible.

Lawrie: Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All of … everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it.

Hill: Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ.

Lawrie: Yeah. Well, I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.

Kennedy adds that at the conclusion of a Jan. 14 conference on ivermectin, Lawrie declared that had the drug been employed in 2020, “when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end.”

Let’s dig deeper, shall we?

Have you seen this?

Two Separate Doctors Claim OVER 100 Members of Congress Treated With Ivermectin!

Anyone else mad yet?

And today I have a new video to show you.

Someone sent this to me really explaining what Ivermectin is, it’s history and so much more.

They don’t want you to see this which is exactly why I’m sharing it with you.

Watch it here on Rumble:

Remember this disclaimer:

I am not a doctor.  I am not giving you medical advice.  I’m a REPORTER.  I research and I report and I give you the full story open and honestly so YOU can decide.

Now let’s go to another video.

This woman below documented her own journey with Ivermectin on video.

She starts off looking not so good but makes a swift turnaround in just a few days.

This is not me talking, listen to her share and document her own story….

Here is the video from Rumble:

Now let’s talk about the MSM disinformation campaign, which is a nice way of saying “outright lies and propaganda”.

Look, I will give you one disclaimer before we get started:  I am a journalist and not anyone with any medical expertise.  I’m not a doctor and I’m not giving medical advice.  

I’m just presenting you with the results of my research that the MSM really seems to want to hide….

And I know how to do my research.

So let’s start with this:

Now let’s unpack all the lies the MSM has been telling you about Ivermectin.

You would assume based on all the MSM propaganda that Ivermectin is only approved for Horses and not Humans.

The only problem with that?

It’s not true.

Not even close.

Here’s the real truth:

Yes folks, that is a statement taken from PolitiFact’s very own fact-checking page about Ivermectin.

But what they do with their “Face Check” is so insidious….

Here’s how PolitiFact tries to claim that the TRUE statement is still somehow false, watch these mental gymnastics:

This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

It is true that ivermectin was approved by the Food and Drug Administration that year — but not to treat the coronavirus. The drug was approved for strongyloidiasis, a disease caused by a roundworm, and onchocerciasis, or river blindness, which is caused by a parasitic worm.

The drug was approved for humans under the brand name Stromectol, National Geographic reported, and since then it’s been recognized as a safe treatment for several tropical diseases caused by parasites. In 2015, two scientists even won a Nobel Prize for their discovery of ivermectin and its use to treat diseases caused by parasites.

But unlike, say, river blindness, COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus, not by parasites. And as PolitiFact recently reported in a story exploring ivermectin, there’s no conclusive evidence that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19.

The lying and the deception is just so evil, really makes me angry.

If you gave me a full year, I couldn’t come up with all the twists and turns these people take to turn the TRUTH into a lie.

It’s sickening.

But we’re just getting started.

Next come the scare tactics and VERY misleading headlines.

Like this article from WIVB Channel 4 News:

After a recent resurgence in several states, health officials are warning residents to be aware of a dangerous of an unauthorized “treatment” for COVID-19 — often being taken with dangerous consequences.

It’s called ivermectin and it’s used to treat and prevent parasites in animals, the Food and Drug Administration explains. The tablets are not FDA approved for treatment of COVID-19 in humans and isn’t even an anti-viral drug — meaning it has no impact on the coronavirus. And because the large-concentration tablets are intended for large animals, these can be treacherous for humans.

In addition to not being authorized for treatment, there’s no evidence ivermectin treats COVID-19.

“There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. That is wrong.”

FDA
The FDA and several state officials say they’ve seen an uptick in calamitous use of the drugs, particularly tablets used to treat parasitic worms in horses. While ivermectin is approved for humans to treat certain skin conditions (rosacea) and certain external parasites like head lice, the FDA warns this ivermectin is different than the one used in animals.

On Friday, the Mississippi Department of Health was forced to send out a warning to residents about the dangers of the drug after several poisonings.

The Mississippi Poison Control Center said at least 70% of recent ivermectin-related calls are tied to people taking livestock or animal formulations they bought a livestock supply stores or through online markets.

Eighty-five percent of callers had mild symptoms — these include rash, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain — but one person needed evaluation because of how much they’d taken.

More severe dangers of ivermectin ingestion include neurologic disorders, seizures, coma and death.

Use of ivermectin should only be taken if prescribed by a doctor for an FDA-approved use. Regardless of the usage and prescription, the FDA warns ivermectin overdose is still possible. Possible interaction with other medications is also a possibility.

I highlighted the key parts.

A 70% SURGE in Ivermectin Poison Center calls sounds like a lot doesn’t it?

NPR even reports a 245% surge!  Oh my!

Sounds bad until you realize according to NPR that the 245% surge is going from 133 calls to 459 calls….NATIONWIDE!

According to the National Poison Data System (NPDS), which collects information from the nation’s 55 poison control centers, there was a 245% jump in reported exposure cases from July to August — from 133 to 459.

Yes folks, out of 333 MILLION people, there were 459 calls to poison centers.

So 0.00000137% of the population.

And those are just calls.

According to the bold part of the Channel 4 article, 85% of those people who called or had symptoms had MILD symptoms like a rash.

The horror!

According to the article, only ONE person needed a further evaluation.

But is this what you hear in the MSM?

No.

If you listed only to the MSM fear-porn, you’d think we had a crisis of Ivermectin deaths.

The truth is the polar opposite.

Anyone else REALLY tired of being lied to?

It’s why I’m here.

I will continue to shout the truth from the rooftops!

But I’m not done yet.

Did you know that Ivermectin has actually been listed even by the corrupt WHO as one of the most “essential medicines” out there?

It’s true, you can read it right here until they take it down.

But I’m not done yet!

Let’s cut right to the chase and go to a medical journal to see the true toxicity data on Ivermectin in humans.

Seems like something JOURNALISTS should do, don’t you think?

Let’s go to INCHEM.org, the WHO’s own website for “Internationally Peer Reviewed Chemical Safety Information”.

They lay it out in black and white and even a non-medical person like me can understand it.

Now let’s go down to Section 7.2 of their report which is about Toxicity in Humans:

I’m going to bold the key part:

  7.2 Toxicity
       7.2.1 Human data
             7.2.1.1 Adults
                     Amounts approaching the therapeutic doses in 
                     animals (100 to 200 ðg/kg bodyweight) are not 
                     hazardous to humans.  Ingestions of large 
                     quantities (10 to 100 times the animal 
                     therapeutic dosage) may produce symptoms 
                     resembling those observed in animal toxicology 
                     studies at high toxic levels.
                     
                     An adult female accidentally self-injected a 
                     small quantity (approximately 200 ðg/kg) 
                     subcutaneously.  Twelve hours later she 
                     experienced colicky pain with nausea but 
                     recovered within 12 hours (MSD, 1988).
                     
                     Clinical studies of oral ivermectin given in 
                     doses from 2 to 200 ðg/kg (maximum 12 mg) have 
                     shown a pattern of adverse experiences that 
                     included only one serious event (transient 
                     stupor).  The remaining adverse experiences were 
                     considered not serious and were chiefly of the 
                     type expected based on the characteristics of 
                     the underlying disease and the responses seen 
                     after treatment with other microfilaricidal 
                     drugs, except for reports of "depression" (not 
                     psychiatrically tested) in four patients in open 
                     studies (MSD, 1988).
             7.2.1.2 Children
                     A 16-month-old boy weighing 15 kg ingested 
                     approximately 100 to 130 mg of ivermectin (as an 
                     injectable solution).  Ten hours post-ingestion 
                     he had mydriasis in one pupil, with frequent 
                     vomiting, pallor, 35°C temperature, tachycardia, 
                     somnolence and variable blood pressure.  He 
                     developed urticaria the following day, and had 
                     recovered after three days (MSD, 1988).

Let’s start with the very first line: even if you take the ANIMAL dosage, it is “not hazardous to humans”.

Case closed folks.

Seriously, why is this not front page news?

Is it because Ivermectin WORKS and actually treats COVID-19 and they can’t let that happen?

Just asking.

How soon will it be do you think before they take down the WHO website or “edit” it?

Good thing I took screenshots!

Ok, now to address the question everyone is asking: how can I get it?

Here is a new update from the FLCCC, which stands for Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.

From their page “Prevention and Treatment Protocols” I give you the following:

I also highlight their disclaimer:

And then you can TAP HERE to get the full list of doctors who can assist you.

And if that doesn’t work, I have a second source.

Let’s go to America’s Frontline Doctors, who as their name suggests, are on the frontline of this battle.

They took an oath to heal their patients and they believe many of the things the MSM wants to scare you away from may actually help heal you.

Not my words, theirs…..take a look:

From their website:

Tap here to go to their site.


And here is even more, also from America’s Frontline Doctors…..

Here is a graphic that has been circulating:

And now let’s go right to their website….

Here is what they’re calling their Wellness Protocol and it sure seems very normal and common sense to me, how about you?

Then we have their Treatment Options, which again look very reasonable.

Folks, I’m not going to tell you what to do or not do, you have to make up your own mind and consult with your own doctor.

But as a non-medical person, doesn’t this stuff sound like a good idea?

And here it is in a diagram:

I will reiterate here once again what they posted on their website:

THIS IS NOT MEDICAL ADVICE. Every situation is unique and every person must check with his or her own physician, especially if you are taking any other medication.

Good advice.  For everyone.

If you are interested in where to buy some of these items, scroll down and I have links for you to some of the best ones.

Want even more?

Then you need to hear from my friend Chris Burres who joined me last weekend on my show to talk about the power of C60.

No, he’s not saying it treats COVID or cures COVID.

But he is saying it appears to supercharge your immune system and help your body in many different ways…..anyone else interested in that?

Me too, and that’s why I had him on my show.

I had a lot of questions for him about C60 and I found the whole thing fascinating!

Yes, I (Noah) personally take C60 and I’ve been taking it for over a year now.

I first started hearing about it online about a year ago and I did my own research on it to find out what it is, where can I get it, and is it really that good….?

First, let me give you my disclaimer once again in bold font: I’m not a doctor and I’m not giving you medical advice.  I’m not telling you this is going to treat or cure any condition you have.  I’m just telling you what I have personally experienced. 

So here’s what I found.

I found that C60 is a powerful antioxidant often described as the “perfect carbon molecule”.

It’s an antioxidant that has been measured to be 172x more powerful than Vitamin C!  How about that?

Not only is it an antioxidant, but it’s an anti-viral and an anti-bacterial and an anti-inflammatory.

I’ll tell you this….ever since I saw the Deep State going after Carbon and trying to tax carbon emissions with their Al-Gore Carbon Tax, I immediately knew one thing:  I bet Carbon is actually pretty good for you!

Turns out I was right.

Especially the Carbon-60 “perfect carbon molecule.”

So once I learned more about it, I then set out to find where to buy it from the most reputable company.

I found there are a lot of companies selling C60 that might actually be bad for you and toxic, so I found the one that has the highest standards and safest, most continually-tested product out there….and that was C60 Evo.

I’ve been personally taking C60 for over a year and feel amazing so in light of all the health issues plaguing our nation right now, I decided I’d have one of the founders of the company on my show to break all this down.

Chris Burres was kind enough to speak with me today (on a weekend) and I thought it was a WONDERFUL discussion!

I learned a lot myself….

He explains what C60 is, why its discovery won a Nobel prize, and the benefits many people experience when taking it.

I believe in this product so much after using it for a year I asked the company if I could actually become an affiliate and get all of you a discount….

And they agreed!

So watch the video below and then scroll down to grab my code which will get you 10% if you want to try it.

Watch here on Rumble:

To visit their website go to 👉 https://www.c60evo.com/welovetrump/

Use promo code EVNOAH to save 10%.

Backup here on YouTube:

To visit their website go to 👉 https://www.c60evo.com/welovetrump/

Use promo code EVNOAH to save 10%.

Want even more on an immune-boosting health plan?

Look no further than my friend Clif High.

Clif has routinely promoted C60 in the past and here is even more of what he recommends.

Take a look:

If that Tweet gets taken down, here is a screenshot of what he posted:

I’m going to give you my disclaimer once again…..

DISCLAIMER: I’m not a doctor and I don’t practice medicine.

And neither is Clif!

Neither of us is giving you medical advice.

Ok?

Ok.

I’m just reporting on what others have said.

But let’s be honest….I think I can probably do better than the “doctors” like Dr. Fraudci, Dr. Birxx who lie to you and serve you up a big heaping pile of propaganda!

You can probably take whatever they tell you to do and just do the opposite and you’d probably be pretty close to an ideal course of action!

So no, I’m not a doctor, but if being a doctor puts you in the same class as Dr. FRAUDci, then I take not being a doctor as a badge of honor.

I’m a reporter.

I simply report what I hear and see from others.

To paraphrase a once great network: I report, you decide!

But what I can report is that it sure looks like some very basic stuff can drastically help you recover and protect your body going forward!

Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Chaga Mushroom Tea, C60, and of course hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin may be highly effective!

If you scroll down, I have links for you.

And let’s consider the worst case scenario…..taking more vitamins is almost never a bad thing, right?

Your body needs them regardless of what virus is floating around out there.

As long as you don’t take too much of the fat-soluble vitamins, it’s almost NEVER a bad thing to give your body more vitamins.

Now let me give you a little more background on Clif and why he’s making these recommendations….

Watch this video where Clif High explains what the spike protein is actually doing to your body, why it is definitely a bio-weapon, and how each of the items listed above can help:

Here is one more where he goes into even more detail and in this one he talks about the power of C60 and why you need to get some!

Ever since you were a kid, you were told to get your vitamins!

It’s basic advice that was good then and is still good now!

You need large doses of the right kind of Vitamin C, 10-15,000 IU’s of Vitamin D to maintain certain blood levels, and then Clif recommends C60 too.

Watch the interview here from Rumble (they discuss it in the first 10 minutes) and then scroll down for links to where you can get the best of each item:

If you want to follow Clif’s advice, here are some links to the products I like to use.

Unfortunately, I can’t give you a link to NAC on Amazon because Amazon banned it.

One of the oldest and most trusted supplements in the bodybuilding industry and Amazon suddenly banned it right now.

Interesting.

So we go with the rest of the list….

First is Glutathione:

You want to get “Liposomal” Vitamin C, very important.

And in case that sells out, which tends to happen, this is another good Liposomal Vitamin C:

Now on to Vitamin D.

Here is my current favorite and the one I personally take:

And a backup Vitamin D3:

And Chaga Mushroom Tea:

And here is the Zinc Balance:

And we end with C60.

As I mentioned above, I’ve been personally taking C60 for over a year and I have not came down with COVID.  Not saying it treats or prevents COVID, I’m just saying my experience.

Regardless of COVID, I love taking it and have noticed multiple benefits.

Here’s what many people have reported:

C60 is a powerful antioxidant (172x the power of Vitamin C), antiviral, antibacterial and anti-inflammatory.  

I liked it so much I actually contacted the company and got everyone who is reading this a deal.

The company is called C60Evo.

Go to their website here and then be sure to use promo code EVNOAH and you’ll get 10% off your order!

I love this stuff and I think you will too.

Cheers to good health and a big thank you to Clif High for putting out this information!

No, I’m not promising you won’t get COVID, but I am saying that TAKING YOUR VITAMINS and powerful ANTIOXIDANTS is a good idea!

Be smart.

Be safe.

Be healthy!



 

Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

We Love Trump
Thanks for sharing!
Send this to a friend