Are You Experiencing Menopause … or "Thyropause"?
Connecting the Dots
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/12/15/the-menopause-thyroid-solution.aspx
0 Comments
By Dr. Mercola
Iodine is Key for Thyroid Health
Why are Iodine Levels Dropping?
Crying Wolff
The Toxic Halides -- Iodine's Fiercest Competitors
Bromides
Great Resource for Learning More
Getting Your Iodine Levels Up
Tips for Optimizing Thyroid Function
The Future of Natural Thyroid Drugs
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/10/20/signs-symptoms-and-solutions-for-poor-thyroid-function.aspx Major Pharmaceuticals has put out a press release saying that they've been forced to shut down production of all natural desiccated thyroid drugs, a treatment for hypothyroidism that has been in use for over a century. Major received notice from the FDA that their complete line of desiccated thyroid drugs can no longer be manufactured, and that the FDA is pulling the designation that allowed them to sell these drugs. Major is also saying that the FDA is requiring that all manufacturers that wish to continue manufacturing submit an NDA or ANDA (New Drug Application or Abbreviated New Drug Application) for approval. Desiccated thyroid drugs were in use in the early 1900’s, and already on the market when the government regulatory groups to oversee medications were formed, so they never went through the new drug application process. Biotech, Time Cap Labs, and Major are no longer manufacturing natural desiccated thyroid drugs. RLC and Forest are now the last makers of natural desiccated thyroid drugs in the U.S., and their products are unavailable or in short supply in throughout the nation. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/09/19/is-the-fda-poised-to-ban-a-century-old-natural-remedy.aspx March 26, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) tweeted a post against the use of masks for the general public: “If you do not have any respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough, or runny nose, you do not need to wear a medical mask. When used alone, masks can give you a false feeling of protection and can even be a source of infection when not used correctly.”1 About one year later, Twitter is now censoring tweets that call facemasks for COVID-19 into question, citing a violation of Twitter rules.2 In the span of less than one year, how did we go from public health officials advising against masks to them now being considered infallible and not up for debate? “Given that masking of healthy populations for long periods of time is a new policy, it is astounding that the media and scientific journals decided within a matter of months that the efficacy of the practice could not be questioned or studied, nor its adverse effects discussed,” Jeffrey Tucker, editorial director for the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) noted.3 The latest to be silenced was Prashant Bhushan, an advocate-on-record for the Supreme Court of India, a respected human rights attorney with 2.1 million Twitter followers. Prior to its censoring, his tweet recommended reading a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Medical Hypotheses,4 which demonstrates that masks not only are ineffective for blocking the transmission of infectious disease but also that they can cause substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects.5 It’s alarming to say, but as noted by The COVID Blog, “Twenty-something Twitter employees with Starbucks lattes are now the authorities in law and science versus respected, long-time attorneys who have fought corruption their entire lives.”6 What Does the Censored Mask Study Say?The study, written by Baruch Vainshelboim with Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, summarizes scientific evidence on wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era. Four hypotheses are given, with ample scientific support to back them up:7
“Interestingly, 99% of the detected cases with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic or have mild condition, which contradicts with the virus name (severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2),” Vainshelboim notes, pointing out that the initial infection fatality rate of 2.9% was an overestimation based on limited COVID-19 tests that inflated the rate. “This was confirmed by the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from US stating, ‘the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 are similar to those of severe seasonal influenza,’ having a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%,” he added.8 As for the efficacy of face masks, SARS-CoV-2, which is about 1,000 times smaller than face masks’ thread diameter, can easily pass through a mask. A meta-analysis of 39 studies also found “possibly no difference between N95 versus surgical masks and probably no difference between surgical versus no mask in risk for influenza or influenza-like illness” in community settings.9 Physiological and Psychological Effects of MasksBy mechanically restricting breathing, wearing a face mask may lead to a low level of oxygen in the blood (hypoxemia) along with excessive carbon dioxide in your bloodstream (hypercapnia). In turn, Vainshelboim wrote, “Chronic low-grade hypoxemia and hypercapnia as result of using face mask can cause exacerbation of existing cardiopulmonary, metabolic, vascular and neurological conditions.” In addition, wearing a face mask could lead to the following physiological effects:10
Psychological effects were also noted, which include:11
Long-term health consequences are also likely, including:12
Breathing through mask materials, and rebreathing the same air, also poses a high likelihood of self-contamination that could have the end result of suppressing the immune system. Vainshelboim explained:13
Are Masks Just Virtue Signaling?In May 2020, a group of doctors and researchers wrote in a perspective piece published in the New England Journal of Medicine that masks offer little protection outside of health care facilities, except to calm people’s nerves:15 “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” they wrote, and went on to describe masks as playing a “symbolic role” as “talismans” to increase the perception of safety, even though “such reactions may not be strictly logical.” “Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of COVID-19,” they add. Since then, masks have indeed taken on a symbolic role, one that presents an outward visible sign that you’re obeying COVID protocols and are acting as a “moral” COVID citizen. AIER pointed out that this mask orthodoxy is part of what’s driving the rampant censorship online, including by YouTube. “YouTube has taken it upon itself to censor the opinions of esteemed scientists that depart from the orthodoxy on masks. This is not surprising given that masks have become dogma – a visible symbol of compliance and fealty to the medical/political agenda that elevates the coronavirus above all else,” Tucker wrote.16 Calls for Children to Stop Wearing MasksYouTube removed an AIER video that featured a scientific roundtable on COVID. In the video, Harvard professor Martin Kulldorff commented, “Children should not wear face masks. They don’t need it for their own protection and they don’t need it for protecting other people either.”17 According to YouTube, the video was removed because “it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”18 Kulldorff isn’t the only one who’s calling for children to not be masked. Lucy Johnston, health and social affairs editor with the Sunday Express, asked on Twitter, “Why did Govt not trial use of masks in schools to assess benefits vs risks? Two legal cases now show masks causing both mental & physical harm.”19 One such case was launched in the U.K., with two expert reports speaking out against the use of masks for children. The first, a psychology report,20 states that masks are likely to be causing psychological harm to children and interfering with development.21 “The extent of psychological harm to young people is unknown,” the report states, “due to the unique nature of the ‘social experiment’ currently underway in schools, and in wider society.”22 The second report focused on health, safety and well-being. “Figures illustrate that the risk of death from this disease for this age group is negligible,” the report states, continuing:23
German Town Deems School Mask Requirement UnconstitutionalIn Weilheim, Germany, a district court concluded that the mask requirement in schools is unconstitutional and void, immediately removing the order on school premises.24 The ruling was made after experts, including psychology professor Christof Kuhbandner, suggested masks pose a significant risk to children’s mental and physical well-being, and could interfere with development by disrupting nonverbal communication. “Mask mouth,” which increases tooth decay, bad breath and gingivitis, was also cited, as was the ineffectiveness of face masks, with experts stating there is no evidence that face masks reduce the risk of infection from SARS-CoV-2 “at all or even significantly.” Increasingly, people are standing up to the fact that little is known about the long- and short-term risks of masking healthy people. March 30, 2021, Spain’s central Health Ministry announced a new law, published in the Official State Gazette (BOE),25 that would remove the social distancing component, making masks mandatory in all public spaces, even if no one else is around — including when sunbathing at the beach or swimming in the ocean.26 A number of regional governments immediately suggested that they would defy the initial orders, while the tourism industry also criticized the move,27 forcing the health ministry to reconsider, and showing that standing up for what you believe in continues to make a difference. Circling back to the featured Medical Hypotheses paper, Vainshelboim is doing just that, even though taking a position against masks today “involves serious professional risk.” As Tucker wrote, “The paper appears in the midst of an ongoing effort … to normalize and universalize mask wearing, even as many states are repealing their mask mandates with public support. The evidence that doing so has had any effect on the trajectory of the virus is scant at best.”28 from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/28/twitter-censors-peer-reviewed-mask-study.aspx In the "60 Minutes" clip above, Bill Whitaker speaks with Dr. Matt Hepburn, a retired Army infectious disease physician, about a tiny sensor that can be embedded under your skin. Its purpose is to track chemical reactions going on inside your body, which may reveal that you're infected with a virus like COVID-19 or influenza and about to start having symptoms the next day. Hepburn describes it as a "check engine light,"1 which could have tremendous usefulness, for instance, on an aircraft carrier where thousands of sailors live in close quarters. If the sensor gives the signal that you're "sick," even though you have no symptoms, a blood draw could be self-administered, giving you a diagnosis in three to five minutes. "As you truncate that time, as you diagnose and treat, what you do is you stop the infection in its tracks," Hepburn said.2 Admittedly, a sensor that's implanted under your skin has an Orwellian ring to it, which is why Whitaker made the disclaimer, "It's not some dreaded government microchip to track your every move, but a tissue-like gel engineered to continuously test your blood." But in light of the government's recent intrusions on personal liberties and ability to force quarantines on anyone in the name of public safety, even in the absence of illness, isn't that essentially the same thing? Vaccine Coordinator for Operation Warp SpeedTo put this into perspective, consider that Hepburn is the vaccine coordinator for Operation Warp Speed (OWS). OWS, a joint operation between U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD), continues to be shrouded in secrecy but, little by little, information is emerging that long-term monitoring of the U.S. public is part of the plan. At face value, OWS is a public-private partnership that was tasked with producing therapeutics and a fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccine.3 OWS invested an estimated $18 billion primarily in late-stage clinical development and early manufacturing of COVID-19 vaccines, and agreements to purchase at least 455 million doses were made.4 Rather than just ensuring a vaccine is produced and made available for those who want it, however, Moncef Slaoui, the chief scientific adviser for Operation Warp Speed — he's been dubbed the coronavirus vaccine czar5 — said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in October 2020 that the rollout would include "incredibly precise … tracking systems."6,7 Their purpose? "To ensure that patients each get two doses of the same vaccine and to monitor them for adverse health effects."8 In an interview with The New York Times, Slaoui described it as a "very active pharmaco vigilance surveillance system."9 Similar language was reiterated in an October 2020 perspective article published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), written by Slaoui and Hepburn.10 Writing in NEJM, the duo wrote, "Because some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans, the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance strategies."11 In addition to working with OWS, Hepburn is a former program manager for the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), where he oversaw the development of the implantable biosensor shown in the "60 Minutes" clip with its maker, Profusa.12 The sensor allows a person's physiology to be examined at a distance via smartphone connectivity. Profusa is also backed by Google, the largest data mining company in the world. Is Military Leadership and Total Surveillance the Plan?OWS, rather than being directed by public health officials, is heavily dominated by military, technology companies and U.S. intelligence agencies, likening it to a successor for Total Information Awareness (TIA), a program managed by DARPA that sprung up after the 9/11 attacks. At the time, TIA was seeking to collect Americans' medical records, fingerprints and other biometric data, along with DNA and records relating to personal finances, travel and media consumption.13 Hepburn has praised the DOD's role in OWS, calling it "transformative." "One of the most important lessons learned is the value of military leadership," he said during a speech to the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States' virtual annual meeting in December 2020.14 In addition to the vaccine contracts the DOD obtained "in record time that was mutually beneficial" for the vaccine manufacturers, Hepburn told members of the health care community "'to convey a message that these vaccines are safe and efficacious, and that vaccination is important' as a counterpoint to widespread misinformation in the general public about vaccines …"15 Rather than taking over a public health initiative, as it may first appear, Hepburn said the DOD's role in the pandemic was a collaboration not only for Americans but for people globally, and it's set to become the new standard: "[T]his is the new standard for rapid product development, and will apply not only to pandemics but also to develop product for combat health in half the time," he said.16 Stopping Pandemics Before They Begin?In addition to the under-skin sensor, DARPA has been working on other projects, including a customized filter that can be put on a standard dialysis machine to remove COVID-19 from the blood. As blood passes through the machine, the virus is removed, returning only healthy blood back to the body. A critically ill spouse of a military member, known only as "Patient 16," reportedly received the treatment for four days and made a full recovery.17 Other scientists have recovered human antibodies for the 1918 Spanish flu, which they got from people still alive today who had lived through that pandemic. When they infected animals with the 1918 flu virus — yes, they still have it — the antibodies were effective in stopping it.18 Hepburn and his team have also funded research on a simulated Zika virus outbreak, creating a cure in 78 days, while other Pentagon researchers are in the process of creating a vaccine that would work against all coronaviruses, even the common cold. It's currently in clinical trials.19 Injectable Biosensor Seeking FDA ApprovalHydrogel is a DARPA invention that involves nanotechnology and nanobots. This "bioelectronic interface" is part of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines' delivery system. The biochip being developed by Profusa is similar to the proposed COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in that it utilizes hydrogel. The implant is the size of a grain of rice, and connects to an online database that will keep track of changes in your biochemistry and a wide range of biometrics, such as heart and respiratory rate and much more. The technology consists of three components:20 the implanted sensor, a reader placed on the surface of the skin and the software that allows the reader to send the collected data via Bluetooth to your phone or tablet, which in turn can be connected to other online sources such as your doctor's website. As Defense One explained in March 2020:21
Profusa said it intended to seek FDA approval for their tissue-integrating biosensor in 2021,22 and a DARPA-backed study is also underway to measure early signs of influenza via the biosensor technology. The injectable sensors will be used to measure physiological statuses to reveal not only indicators of human response to infection but also "exposure to disease in healthy volunteers."23 A wireless patch that measures tissue oxygen levels would also be used, sending information to a mobile device for real-time data. According to Profusa, the biosensors may detect disease outbreaks, biological attacks and pandemics up to three weeks earlier than current methods.24 It would seem, however, that in order for such sensors to work on a widespread scale, extensive adoption would be required. 24-Hour Monitoring in Exchange for 'Safety'There are glaring privacy and ethical concerns when it comes to rolling out an implantable sensor that will track your every sniffle, even before you reach for a tissue. The information will then be sent digitally to your cellphone, and who will have access? Perhaps an even worse prospect is, what information could potentially be sent the other way — from the sensor into your body? For instance, technology critic Adam Keiper pointed out in The New Atlantis:25
In order to stop a disease outbreak three weeks early, offering a fearful public an illusion of safety, you'd only have to give up your privacy, and submit to being monitored and hooked up to "the cloud," perhaps permanently. If you remember TIA after the 9/11 attacks, you may also remember that it was quickly defunded by Congress after significant public backlash, including concerns that TIA would undermine personal privacy. In the case of OWS and the emerging biosensors, there's little negative press, and media outlets are overwhelmingly supportive of the operation as a way to resolve the COVID-19 crisis and future pandemics. One of my favorite independent journalists, Whitney Webb, put it this way:
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/28/biosensors-may-detect-covid.aspx A few friends have asked my thoughts on the COVID jab(s) so I thought it was time to write an article on the topic. All my friends had not heard most of the details I shared, so I figured you might appreciate hearing some of what I told them. Knowing how contentious this issue is, part of me would rather just write about something else, but I feel like the discussion/news is so one-sided that I should speak up. As I always strive to do, I promise to do my best to be level-headed and nonhysterical. I'm not here to pick a fight with anyone, just to walk you through some of what I've read, my lingering questions, and explain why I can't make sense of these COVID vaccines. Three Ground Rules for DiscussionIf you care to engage on this topic with me, excellent. Here are the rules. I am more than happy to correspond with you if:
If you do respond, and you break any of those rules, your comments will be ignored/deleted. With that out of the way, let me say this — I don't know everything, but so far no one has been able to answer the objections below. So here are the reasons I'm opting out of the COVID vaccine. 1. Vaccine Makers Are Immune From LiabilityThe only industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting from their products are vaccine makers. First established in 1986 with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act,1 and reinforced by the PREP Act,2 vaccine makers cannot be sued, even if they are shown to be negligent. The COVID vaccine makers are allowed to create a one-size-fits-all product, with no testing on sub-populations (i.e., people with specific health conditions), and yet they are unwilling to accept any responsibility for any adverse events or deaths their products cause. If a company is not willing to stand behind their product as safe, especially one they rushed to market and skipped animal trials on, I am not willing to take a chance on their product. No liability. No trust. Here's why: 2. The Checkered Past of the Vaccine CompaniesThe four major companies that are making these COVID vaccines are/have either:
Moderna had been trying to "Modernize our RNA"3 (thus the company name) for years but had never successfully brought any product to market — how nice for them to get a major cash infusion4 from the government to keep trying. In fact, all major vaccine makers (save Moderna) have paid out tens of billions of dollars in damages for other products they brought to market when they knew those products would cause injuries and death — see Vioxx,5 Bextra,6 Celebrex,7 Thalidomide8 and opioids9 as a few examples. If drug companies willfully choose to put harmful products in the market, when they can be sued, why would we trust any product where they have NO liability? In case it hasn't sunk in, let me reiterate: Three of the four COVID vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.
Let me reiterate this point: Given the free pass from liability, and the checkered past of these companies, why would we assume that all their vaccines are safe and made completely above board? Where else in life would we trust someone with that kind of reputation? To me that makes as much sense as expecting a remorseless, abusive, unfaithful lover to become a different person because a judge said deep down they are a good person. No. I don't trust them. No liability. No trust. Here's another reason why I don't trust them: 3. The Ugly History of Attempts to Make Coronavirus VaccinesThere have been many attempts to make viral vaccines in the past that ended in utter failure, which is why we did not have a coronavirus vaccine in 2020. In the 1960s, scientists attempted to make an RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) vaccine for infants. In that study,21 they skipped animal trials because they weren't necessary back then. In the end, the vaccinated infants got much sicker than the unvaccinated infants when exposed to the virus in nature, with 80% of the vaccinated infants requiring hospitalization, and two of them died.22 After 2000, scientists made many attempts to create coronavirus vaccines. For the past 20 years, all ended in failure because the animals in the clinical trials got very sick and many died, just like the children in the 1960s. You can read a summary of this history/science here.23 Or, if you want to read the individual studies you can check out these links:
The typical pattern in the studies mentioned above is that the children and the animals produced beautiful antibody responses after being vaccinated. The manufacturers thought they hit the jackpot. The problem came when the children and animals were exposed to the wild version of the virus. When that happened, an unexplained phenomenon30 called antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), also known as vaccine enhanced disease31 (VED), occurred where the immune system produced a "cytokine storm"32 (i.e., overwhelmingly attacked the body), and the children/animals died. Here's the lingering issue. The vaccine makers have no data to suggest their rushed vaccines have overcome that problem. In other words, never before has any attempt to make a coronavirus vaccine been successful, nor has the gene-therapy technology that is mRNA "vaccines" been safely brought to market but, hey, since they had billions of dollars33 in government funding, I'm sure they figured that out. Except they don't know if they have. 4. The 'Data Gaps' Submitted to the FDA by the Vaccine MakersWhen vaccine makers submitted their papers to the FDA for the emergency use authorization34 (Note: An EUA is not the same as a full FDA approval), among the many "data gaps" they reported was that they have nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame that pesky problem of vaccine enhanced disease. They simply don't know — i.e., they have no idea if the vaccines they've made will also produce the same cytokine storm (and deaths) as previous attempts at such products. As Dr. Joseph Mercola points out:
If that's not alarming enough, here are other gaps in the data — i.e., there are no data to suggest safety or efficacy regarding:
Hard to believe, right? In case you think I'm making this up, or want to see the actual documents sent to the FDA by Pfizer and Moderna for their emergency use authorization, you can check out this36 or this37 respectively. The data gaps can be found starting with page 46 and 48 respectively. For now, let's turn our eyes to the raw data the vaccine makers used to submit for emergency use authorization. 5. No Access to the Raw Data From the TrialsWould you like to see the raw data that produced the "90% and 95% effective" claims touted in the news? Me too. But they won't let us see that data. As pointed out in the BMJ,38 something about the Pfizer and Moderna efficacy claims smells really funny. There were "3,410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group versus 1,816 in the placebo group." Wait, what? Did they fail to do science in their scientific study by not verifying a major variable? Could they not test those "suspected but unconfirmed" cases to find out if they had COVID? Apparently not. Why not test all 3,410 participants for the sake of accuracy? Can we only guess they didn't test because it would mess up their "90-95% effective" claims? Where's the FDA? Would it not be prudent for the FDA to expect (demand) that the vaccine makers test people who have "COVID-like symptoms" and release their raw data so outside, third-parties could examine how the manufacturers justified the numbers? I mean it's only every citizen of the world we're trying to get to take these experimental products. Why did the FDA not require that? Isn't that the entire purpose of the FDA anyway? Good question. Foxes guarding the hen house? Seems like it. No liability. No trust. 6. No Long-Term Safety TestingObviously, with products that have only been on the market a few months, we have no long-term safety data. In other words, we have no idea what this product will do in the body months or years from now — for ANY population. Given all the risks above (risks that ALL pharmaceutical products have), would it not be prudent to wait to see if the worst-case scenarios have indeed been avoided? Would it not make sense to want to fill those pesky "data gaps" before we try to give this to every man, woman and child on the planet? Well, that would make sense, but to have that data, they need to test it on people, which leads me to my next point. 7. No Informed ConsentWhat most who are taking the vaccine don't know is that because these products are still in clinical trials, anyone who gets the shot is now part of the clinical trial. They are part of the experiment. Those (like me) who do not take it, are part of the control group. Time will tell how this experiment works out. But, you may be asking, if the vaccines are causing harm, wouldn't we be seeing that all over the news? Surely the FDA would step in and pause the distribution? Well, if the adverse events reporting system39 were working, maybe things would be different. 8. Underreporting of Adverse Reactions and DeathAccording to a study done by Harvard40 (at the commission of our own government), less than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are actually submitted to the national Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System (VAERS) — read page 6 of the Harvard study.41 While the problems with VAERS have not been fixed (as you can read about in this letter to the CDC42), at the time of this writing VAERS reports43 over 2,200 deaths from the current COVID vaccines, as well as close to 60,000 adverse reactions.
And those numbers don't include (what is currently) 578 cases of Bell's Palsy.44 If those numbers are still only 1% of the total adverse reactions (or 0.8 to 2% of what this study45 published recently in JAMA found), you can do the math, but that equates to somewhere around 110,000 to 220,000 deaths from the vaccines to date, and a ridiculous number of adverse reactions. Bet you didn't see that on the news. That death number would currently still be lower than the 424,000 deaths from medical errors that happen every year (which you probably also don't hear about), but we are not even six months into the rollout of these vaccines yet. If you want a deeper dive into the problems with the VAERS reporting system, you can check this out46 or check this out.47 But then there's my next point, which could be argued makes these COVID vaccines seem pointless. 9. The Vaccines Do Not Stop Transmission or InfectionWait, what? Aren't these vaccines supposed to be what we've been waiting for to "go back to normal"? Nope. Why do you think we're getting all these conflicting messages48 about needing to practice social distancing and wear masks AFTER we get a vaccine? The reason is because these vaccines were never designed to stop transmission OR infection. If you don't believe me, I refer you again to the papers submitted to the FDA I referenced above. The primary endpoint (what the vaccines are meant to accomplish) is to lower your symptoms. Sounds like just about every other drug on the market, right? That's it — lowering your symptoms is the big payoff we've been waiting for. Does that seem completely pointless to anyone but me?
Heck, there are plenty of other things I can do to lower my symptoms that don't involve taking what appears to be a really risky product. Now for the next logical question: If we're worried about asymptomatic spreaders, would the vaccine not make it more likely that we are creating asymptomatic spread? If it indeed reduces symptoms, anyone who gets it might not even know they are sick and thus they are more likely to spread the virus, right? For what it's worth, I've heard many people say the side effects of the vaccine (especially the second dose) are worse than catching COVID. I can't make sense of that either. Take the risk. Get no protection. Suffer through the vaccine side effects. Keep wearing your mask and social distancing. And continue to be able to spread the virus. What? It gets worse. 10. People Are Catching COVID After Being Fully VaccinatedTalk about a bummer. You get vaccinated and you still catch COVID.
In reality, this phenomenon is probably happening everywhere, but those are the ones making the news now. Given the reasons above (and what's below), maybe this doesn't surprise you, but bummer if you thought the vaccine was a shield to keep you safe. It's not. That was never the point. If 66% of health care workers in L.A.56 are going to delay or skip the vaccine, maybe they aren't wowed by the rushed science either. Maybe they are watching the shady way deaths and cases are being reported. 11. The Overall Death Rate From COVIDAccording to the CDC's own numbers, COVID has a 99.74% survival rate.57 Why would I take a risk on a product, that doesn't stop infection or transmission, to help me overcome a cold that has a .26% chance of killing me — actually in my age range it has about a 0.1% chance of killing me (and .01% chance of killing my kids), but let's not split hairs here. With a bar (death rate) that low, we will be in lockdown every year, i.e., forever. But wait, what about the 500,000 plus deaths — that's alarming, right? I'm glad you asked. 12. The Bloated COVID Death NumbersSomething smells really funny about this one. Never before in the history of death certificates has our own government changed how deaths are reported. Why now, are we reporting everyone who dies with COVID in their body, as having died of COVID, rather than the comorbidities that actually took their life? Until COVID, all coronaviruses (common colds) were never listed as the primary cause of death when someone died of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune conditions, or any other major comorbidity. The disease was listed as the cause of death, and a confounding factor like flu or pneumonia was listed on a separate line. To bloat the number even more, both the WHO and the CDC changed their guidelines such that those who are suspected or probable58 (but were never confirmed) of having died of COVID are also included in the death numbers. Seriously? If we are going to do that then should we not go back and change the numbers of all past cold and flu seasons so we can compare apples to apples when it comes to death rates? According to the CDC's own numbers,59 (scroll down to the section "Comorbidities and other conditions") only 6% of the deaths being attributed to COVID are instances where COVID seems to be the only issue at hand. In other words, reduce the death numbers you see on the news by 94% and you have what is likely the real numbers of deaths from just COVID. Even if the former CDC director60 is correct and COVID-19 was a lab-enhanced virus61 (see Reason No. 14 below), a 0.26% death rate is still in line with the viral death rate that circles the planet every year. Then there's this Fauci guy.62 I'd really love to trust him, but besides the fact that he hasn't treated one COVID patient, you should probably know: 13. Fauci and 6 Others at NIAID Own Patents in Moderna's VaccineThanks to the Bayh-Dole Act,63 government workers are allowed to file patents on any research they do using taxpayer funding. Tony Fauci owns over 1,000 patents (see this video for more details64), including patents being used on the Moderna vaccine, which he approved government funding for. In fact, the NIH (which NIAID is part of) claims joint ownership65 of Moderna's vaccine. Does anyone else see this as a MAJOR conflict of interest, or criminal even? I say criminal because there's also this pesky problem that makes me even more distrustful of Fauci, NIAD and the NIH in general. 14. Fauci's on the Hot Seat for Illegal Gain-of-Function ResearchWhat is "gain-of-function"66 research? It's where scientists attempt to make viruses gain functions — i.e., make them more transmissible and deadlier. Sounds at least a touch unethical, right? How could that possibly be helpful? Our government agreed and banned the practice.67 So what did the Fauci-led NIAID do? They pivoted and outsourced the gain-of-function research68 (in coronaviruses no less) to China — to the tune of a $600,000 grant. You can see more details, including the important timeline of these events in this fantastically well-researched documentary.69 Dr. Fauci, you have some explaining to do, and I hope the cameras are recording when you have to defend your actions. For now, let's turn our attention back to the virus. 15. The Virus Continues to MutateNot only does the virus (like all viruses) continue to mutate, but according to world-renowned vaccine developer Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche70 (whom you'll meet below if you don't know him) it's mutating about every 10 hours. How in the world are we going to keep creating vaccines to keep up with that level of mutation? We're not. Might that also explain why fully vaccinated people are continuing to catch COVID?71 Why, given that natural immunity has never ultimately failed humanity, do we suddenly not trust it? Why, if I ask questions like the above, or post links like what you find above, will my thoughts be deleted72 from all major social media platforms? That brings me to the next troubling problem I have with these vaccines. 16. Censorship — and the Complete Absence of Scientific DebateI can't help but get snarky here, so humor me. How did you enjoy all those nationally and globally-televised, robust debates put on by public health officials, and broadcast simultaneously on every major news station? Wasn't it great hearing from the best minds in medicine, virology, epidemiology, economics and vaccinology from all over the world as they vigorously and respectfully debated things like:
Wasn't it great seeing public health officials (who never treated anyone with COVID) have their "science" questioned? Wasn't it great seeing the FDA panel publicly grill the vaccine makers in prime time as they stood in the hot-seat of tough questions about products of which they have no liability? Oh, wait, you didn't see those debates? No, you didn't — because they never happened. What happened instead was heavy-handed censorship of all but one narrative. Ironically, Mark Zuckerberg can question vaccine safety,74 but I can't? Hypocrite? When did the First Amendment become a suggestion? It's the FIRST Amendment75 Mark — the one our founders thought was most important. With so much at stake, why are we fed only one narrative — shouldn't many perspectives be heard and professionally debated? What has happened to science? What has happened to the scientific method of always challenging our assumptions? What happened to lively debate in this country, or at least in Western society? Why does anyone who disagrees with the WHO or the CDC get censored so heavily? Is the science of public health a religion now, or is science supposed to be about debate? If someone says "the science is settled" that's how I know I'm dealing with someone who is closed minded. By definition science (especially biological science) is never settled. If it were, it would be dogma, not science. OK, before I get too worked up, let me say this: I want to be a good citizen. I really do. If lockdowns work, I want to do my part and stay home. If masks work, I want to wear them. If social distancing is effective, I want to comply. But, if there is evidence they don't (masks for example76), I want to hear that evidence too. If highly-credentialed scientists have different opinions, I want to know what they think. I want a chance to hear their arguments and make up my own mind. I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world, but I think I can think. Maybe I'm weird, but if someone is censored, then I REALLY want to hear what they think. Don't you? To all my friends who don't have a problem with censorship, will you have the same opinion when what you think is censored? Is censorship not the technique of dictators, tyrants and greedy, power-hungry people? Is it not a sign that those who are doing the censoring know it's the only way they can win? What if a man who spent his entire life developing vaccines was willing to put his entire reputation on the line and call on all global leaders to immediately stop the COVID vaccines because of problems with the science? What if he pleaded for an open scientific debate on a global stage? Would you want to hear what he has to say? Would you want to see the debate he's asking for? 17. The World's Leading Vaccinologist Is Sounding the AlarmHere is what may be the biggest reason this COVID vaccine doesn't make sense to me. When someone who is very pro-vaccine, who has spent his entire professional career overseeing the development of vaccines, is shouting from the mountaintops that we have a major problem, I think the man should be heard. In case you missed it, and in case you care to watch it, here is Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche,77 explaining:
If you want to see/read about a second, and longer, interview with Vanden Bossche, where he was asked some tough questions, you can check this out.78 If half of what he says comes true, these vaccines could be the worst invention of all time. If you don't like his science, take it up with him. I'm just the messenger. But I can also speak to COVID personally. 18. I Already Had COVIDI didn't enjoy it. It was a nasty cold for two days:
It was weird not being able to smell anything for a couple days. A week later, coffee still tasted a little "off." But I survived. Now it appears (as it always has) that I have beautiful, natural, lifelong immunity79 — not something likely to wear off in a few months if I get the vaccine. In my body and my household, COVID is over. In fact, now that I've had it, there is evidence the COVID vaccine might actually be more dangerous80 for me. That is not a risk I'm willing to take. In SummaryThe above are just my reasons for not wanting the vaccine. Maybe my reasons make sense to you, maybe they don't. Whatever does makes sense to you, hopefully we can still be friends. I for one think there's a lot more that we have in common than what separates us.
Agree or disagree with me; I'll treat you no differently. You're a human just as worthy of love and respect as anyone else. For that I salute you, and I truly wish you all the best. I hope you found this helpful. If so, feel free to share. If not, feel free to (kindly) let me know what didn't make sense to you and I'd be happy to hear your thoughts too. Stay curious and stay humble. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/27/reasons-not-to-get-covid-vaccine.aspx Having gone as far as he can with the World Health Organization’s cover-up, Bill Gates takes another bite at the apple with his corporate-funded investigation into the origins of COVID-19 to cleverly cover up this massive conspiracy with an “official” investigation. While the so-called COVID Commission Planning Group — set up to create and support an investigative commission like that for 9/11 — is advertised as a nonpartisan effort, you really couldn’t come up with a more dangerously biased set of participants. In short, individuals and organizations with some of the most egregious conflicts of interest, and everything to gain by being in charge of analyzing and writing the history of this pandemic, are leading and supporting this effort. This is a classic fox guarding the henhouse scenario. According to the Miller Center, the planning group will lay out the plans for nine separate task forces, each focused on one of the following topics, to lay “the foundation for a future commission to investigate”:1
Philip Zelikow — Chief Investigator for the CabalThe chosen leader of this new planning group is Philip Zelikow, former executive director of the 9/11 Commission2 and a member of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Development Program Advisory Panel.3,4 While Gates may not be a physical member of this planning group, he’s certainly involved indirectly. Of that we can be virtually assured. Zelikow, a former director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, is also a current strategy group member of the Aspen Institute,5 a technocratic hub that has groomed and mentored executives from around the world about the subtleties of globalization. He also directed the Markle Foundation's Task Force on National Security in the Information Age,6 the focus of which has been to make information relating to potential security threats discoverable and accessible to officials without breaking civil liberty laws.7 As reported by the University of Virginia:8
Foundations Backing the COVID CommissionAs reported by the Miller Center,9 the COVID Commission Planning Group includes more than two dozen virologists, public health personas and former government officials, and is backed by four charitable foundations — all of whom have histories revealing them to be part of the technocratic alliance that for years, in some cases decades, have been plotting and planning for the wealth redistribution and global power grab we’re now experiencing. These foundations include: • Schmidt Futures,10 founded by Eric Schmidt, former CEO and executive chairman of Google and Alphabet Inc., which owns the greatest artificial intelligence (AI) team in the world.11 • The Skoll Foundation, founded by Jeff Skoll, a former eBay president, to “pursue his vision of a sustainable world” by catalyzing “transformational social change.”12 It acts as a support organization to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Skoll has funded pandemic preparedness and prevention since 2009 through the Skoll Global Threats Fund, and his movie production company Participant Media produced the movie “Contagion” and Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”13 • Stand Together Foundation, which is part of the Koch Network, founded by Charles Koch. Its primary focus is criminal justice and poverty issues, and it teaches Koch’s “market based management” philosophy to community leaders.14 • The Rockefeller Foundation, which in April 2020 released the white paper,15 “National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan,” laying out a strategic framework clearly intended to become part of a permanent surveillance and social control structure that severely limits personal liberty and freedom of choice. I wrote about this in “Rockefeller Foundation’s Plan to Track Americans.” The tracking system it calls for is eerily similar to that already being used in China, where residents are required to enroll in a health condition registry. Once enrolled, they get a personal QR code, which they must then enter in order to gain access to grocery stores and other facilities.16 The plan also demands access to other medical data. Operation LockstepThe Rockefellers, like Gates, built an empire around health and medicine despite having no medical expertise whatsoever. Their influence is rooted in money, which is spent in self-serving ways. While Rockefeller and Gates are both known as philanthropists, their donations grow their wealth, as the money they spend on “charity” ultimately ends up benefiting their own investments and/or business interests. In addition to the COVID-19 Action Plan document cited above — which doesn’t even try to hide its draconian overreach and intent to permanently alter life and society as we know it — the Rockefeller Foundation also published a 2010 report17 titled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,” in which they laid out their “Lockstep” scenario — a coordinated global response to a lethal pandemic. While the name and origin of the virus differs, the scenario laid out in this document matches many of the details of our present. A deadly viral pandemic. A deadly effect on economies. International mobility coming to a screeching halt, debilitating industries, tourism and global supply chains. “Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers,” the document reads. “In the absence of official containment protocols,” the virus spread like wildfire. In this narrative, the U.S. administration’s failure to place strict travel restrictions on its citizens proved to be a fatal flaw, as it allowed the virus to spread past its borders. China, on the other hand, fared particularly well due to its rapid imposition of universal quarantines of all citizens, which proved effective for curbing the spread of the virus. Many other nations where leaders “flexed their authority” and imposed severe restrictions on their citizens — “from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries of communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets” — also fared well. These and other reports spell out what the ultimate plan actually is. It’s to use bioterrorism to take control of the world’s resources, wealth and people. It’s to use coordinated pandemic response as a justification for wealth redistribution and the resetting of the global financial system. What most fail to realize is that the wealth distribution they’re talking about is not distribution from the wealthy to the poor, even though that’s what they want you to believe. It’s to centralize wealth at the top and eliminate private property rights and private business ownership from the lower and middle classes. The “equitable” living standards they’re talking about is poverty for all but themselves. It’s really crucial to begin to grasp this reality now, before it’s too late. Pieces of a Global PuzzleThe Rockefeller Foundation is also a founding sponsor of The Mojaloop Foundation, set up to “promote digital payments for people outside the financial system, with support from Google and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”18 Right there we have Google, the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, all in one little nonprofit with a heart set on giving poor people access to digital banking using their cellphones. This is probably the three most dangerous nonprofits on the planet, as they are likely the most powerful and committed to global tyranny. All-digital banking using a centralized digital currency is a key component of the Great Reset, so this project has little to do with honest philanthropy and everything to do with making sure everyone can be swept into the digital net, which will include round-the-clock surveillance and tracking of physical location and biological data, a digital ID, along with your health data (including but not limited to vaccination status), banking and, ultimately, a social credit system. All of the pieces needed for the Great Reset are already in place; it’s just a matter of seeing how all the separate pieces fit together. For example, Gavi, the vaccine alliance, set up with funds from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, partnered with the ID2020 Alliance to launch a digital identity program called ID2020.19 Gates also funded the creation of EarthNow, a project involving 500 satellites equipped with machine learning technology to surveil the entire planet with real-time video.20 As one would expect, AI — a Google specialty — is also a key component of this global surveillance plot. COVID-19 — A Launch Pad for the Great ResetAnother key player in the COVID Commission Planning Group is the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. As you may recall, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security co-hosted the pandemic preparedness simulation for a “novel coronavirus,” known as Event 201, in October 2019 along with the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. The event eerily predicted what would happen just 10 weeks later, when COVID-19 appeared. Gates and the World Economic Forum, in turn, are both partnered21 with the United Nations which, while keeping a relatively low profile, appears to be at the heart of the globalist takeover agenda. The World Economic Forum, while a private organization, works as the social and economic branch of the U.N. and is a key driving force behind modern technocracy and the Great Reset agenda. Its founder and chairman, Klaus Schwab, publicly declared the need for a global “reset” to restore order in June 2020.22 Technocratic rule, which is what the Great Reset will bring about, hinges on the use of technology — in particular artificial intelligence, digital surveillance and Big Data collection (which is what 5G is for) — and the digitization of industry, banking and government, which in turn allows for the automation of social engineering and social rule (although that part is never expressly stated). Beyond pandemic preparedness and response, the justification for the implementation of the Great Reset agenda in its totality will be climate change. The Great Reset, sometimes referred to as the “build back better” plan, specifically calls for all nations to implement “green” regulations and “sustainable development goals”23,24 as part of the post-COVID recovery effort. But the end goal is far from what the typical person envisions when they hear these plans. The end goal is to turn us into serfs without rights to privacy, private ownership or anything else. In short, the pandemic is being used to destroy the local economies around the world, which will then allow the World Economic Forum to come in and “rescue” debt-ridden countries. The price for this salvation is your liberty. The Great ResetWhile the New World Order was long derided as a “conspiracy theory” that you’d have to be crazy to believe, the Great Reset, which is simply a rebranding of the same old NWO plan that has been in circulation for well over a decade, is now public fact. Many world leaders have spoken about it in an official capacity, and in June 2020, Zia Khan, senior vice president of innovation at the Rockefeller Foundation penned the article25 “Rebuilding Toward the Great Reset: Crisis, COVID-19, and the Sustainable Development Goals,” reviewing the “social crisis” necessitating the world’s acceptance of a new world order. The article was co-written with John McArthur, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, which is one of several technocratic think-tanks. Keeping in mind what I’ve just said about what the Great Reset is really all about, and the justifications used to implement the theft of wealth and freedom, read how they posit these changes as being in your best interest:
Another article titled “The Great Reset,” written by Jimmy Chang, CFA, for the Rockefeller Capital Management blog, reads, in part:26
Wolves in Sheep’s ClothingThe Great Reset is not some wild conspiracy theory but a publicly released agenda that is moving forward, whether we like it or not. I believe the only way to stop it is through our collective responses to the various pieces and parts of the plan that are being rolled out. They want you to believe that none of the things being introduced have anything to do with each other but, in fact, they are all pieces of the same puzzle. The final image is the inside of a prison cell. It may not be a physical prison. It may be largely digital in nature. It may look like the four walls of your own home. But it’s a prison nonetheless. I believe it would be a tragic mistake to trust Gates, Rockefeller, Google or any of the other players — including Zelikow — that are being brought before us as the saviors of the day. They’re all wolves in sheep’s clothing. To learn more about the hidden power structure running this global reorganization toward authoritarian control, see “Bill Gates Wants to Realize Global Vision in His Lifetime,” “The Great Reset and Build Back Better,” “Technocracy and the Great Reset” and “Who Pressed the Great Reset Button?” Be Part of the AnswerThe good news is, Americans now have a brand-new weapon in our fight for freedom. I recently interviewed Naomi Wolf about her new digital platform, Daily Clout, that will allow citizens to lobby bills to their legislators. Many state legislators are not lawyers, and they don't have lawyers at their beck and call. Daily Clout has hired an attorney who is busy drafting turnkey bills that protect us against the continued erosion of freedom and reestablish rights and liberties. Citizens can now send these model bills to their legislators, knowing that they’ve undergone legal review and are ready to be passed. You can also go even further than that. As explained by Wolf:
To get involved, go to dailyclout.io and sign up to become a paying member or free subscriber. You will then receive an email explaining how to use the Five Freedoms Campaign. Presently, there is a model “no vaccination passports” bill that you can send to your state legislator. There’s a feature called BillCam, where you can see who your state legislator is by entering your zip code. Once you’re a subscriber or member, you’ll get regular updates about happenings around the U.S. and community events. The Great Reset is at our doorstep, and your freedom, and that of future generations, hinges on you getting involved and fighting for it. The Daily Clout platform can be a major help in this regard, as using legislation to preserve and protect our rights and freedoms is far preferable to more violent alternatives or resigning ourselves to the fate prescribed by our globalist would-be “overlords.” from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/27/covid-commission-gates-led-cover-up.aspx By Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH and Lionel Milgrom, Ph.D., RHom, MARH If the common physician, scientist and educated consumer were to believe Wikipedia, they would assume that there is absolutely no research that shows the efficacy of homeopathic medicines in the treatment of any ailment. Furthermore, they would conclude homeopathic medicines are so small in dose, there is literally "nothing" in a homeopathic medicine. And, if you are this gullible and vulnerable to Big Pharma propaganda, then we've got an island to sell you for $24! According to The Washington Post, Wikipedia's article on homeopathy and Jesus Christ are the two most controversial on that website in four leading languages (English, French, German and Spanish). Research Shows Efficacy of Homeopathic MedicineThe fact of the matter is that research showing the efficacy of homeopathic medicines has been published in some of the world's most respected medical journals. Here's a roll call of just a few of them: The Lancet;1 BMJ2,3(British Medical Journal); Chest (the publication of the American College of Chest Physicians);4 Pediatrics (publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics);5 Cancer(journal of the American Cancer Society);6 Journal of Clinical Oncology;7 Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal (publication of the European Society of Pediatric Infectious Diseases);8 European Journal of Pediatrics (publication of the Swiss Society of Pediatrics and the Belgium Society of Pediatrics).9 Would you be shocked to learn that Wikipedia doesn't mention eight of the nine references here? Not only have individual studies found efficacy in homeopathic medicines, but various systematic reviews or meta-analyses have likewise concluded the effects of homeopathic medicines are different to those of a placebo. The newest review of homeopathic research published in Systematic Reviews10 confirmed a difference between the effects of homeopathic treatment and of placebo. In reviewing the "highest quality studies," the researchers found that patients given homeopathic treatment were almost twice as likely to experience a therapeutic benefit as those given a placebo. Further, in reviewing a total of 22 clinical trials, patients given homeopathic remedies experienced greater than 50 percent likelihood to have benefited from the treatment than those given a placebo. Once again, Wikipedia doesn't even mention this new review of clinical research in homeopathy. This important review of clinical research also acknowledged that four of the five leading previous systematic reviews of homeopathic research found a benefit from homeopathic treatment over that of placebo:
And if that wasn't enough, the largest and most comprehensive review of basic science research (fundamental physiochemical research, botanical studies, animal studies and in vitro studies using human cells) and clinical research into homeopathy ever sponsored by a governmental agency was undertaken recently in Switzerland.11 This Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects and specific changes to cells and living organisms. It also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy. Would it puzzle you that this important review of homeopathic research is not even mentioned or referenced by Wikipedia? Homeopathic Conference at the Royal Society of MedicineJuly 14, 2018, we attended a groundbreaking conference in London entitled "New Horizons in Water Science — 'The Evidence for Homeopathy?'" in the hallowed halls of the U.K.'s Royal Society of Medicine. Held at the behest of (Lord) Aaron Kenneth Ward-Atherton, who organized and chaired the event, Ward-Atherton not only is a practicing homeopath and integrated medical physician, but also has been a formal adviser on integrated medicine to a member of the U.K. government's Department of Health and Social Care, and had ongoing support from various peers in the British House of Lords. This conference will no doubt have sent shockwaves around the world, as delegates from over 20 countries listened in awe to two Nobel Laureates (Cambridge physicist Professor Emeritus Brian Josephson and AIDS virus discoverer, Dr. Luc Montagnier) and several world-class scientists of equal academic stature from the U.S., U.K., Israel and Russia. And what they were saying was pure heresy to conventional medicine! As it turns out, research in water science seems to support the notion there is a significant difference between the biological and physical actions of homeopathic medicines and plain ordinary water. We should point out that this special conference did not try to review the body of clinical research (above) that verifies the efficacy of homeopathic medicines, nor did it seek to describe all the basic science studies that show that homeopathic medicines have biological or physical effects. Instead, this conference chose to focus on more fundamental questions: Does the process of remedy production in homeopathy (i.e., dilution and succession — vigorous shaking — of a medicinal substance in water/alcohol) have an effect on the water's long-range structure that is different from simple pure water? And, second, are their sound and plausible explanations for how homeopathic medicines persist in water solutions despite multiple dilutions? Because most physicians and scientists are completely unfamiliar with the fascinating and amazing qualities and abilities of water, their assertions on what is and isn't possible with homeopathic medicines represent an embarrassingly uninformed viewpoint. Such assertions are at best unscientific; at worst, they simply represent sheer ignorance. The best scientists are humble in their assertions due to the fact that they know their knowledge is always limited. The average physician or scientist, however, may tend to arrogance, particularly on those subjects which they actually know nothing about. Biomolecules Communicate Over DistanceBrian Josephson Ph.D., of University of Cambridge, U.K., was the first speaker. He echoed remarks he had made in the magazine New Scientist, saying:
Josephson powerfully critiqued generally accepted theories of how biomolecules react with their substrates. Conventionally, these are thought to "match" like a lock and a key, but only when they are in direct physical contact. Not so, says Josephson. Like his famous predecessor, Jacques Benveniste (who Josephson hosted at Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory back in March 1999), he argues that they can "communicate" over some distance long before they come together, and that such interactions are best described by quantum theory and electromagnetic signaling. Josephson also lambasted those scientists who demand that homeopathic medicines need to get "chemically analyzed." He asserted that applying chemical analysis to homeopathic remedies will tell you no more about their properties than applying chemical analysis to a CD will tell you what music is on it. Chemical analysis is too limited a tool for either. Further, Josephson went on to show some remarkably beautiful photos and videos that provide powerful evidence of how hypersensitive water is to sound. Using an impressive new technology called cymascopy (developed by acoustics engineer John Stuart Reid),12 Josephson was able to demonstrate the incredible influence sound has on water using this technology, producing stunning dynamic wave patterns in water that follow changes in a sound's pitch.13 This video shows dramatically how the dynamic structure of water changes as music is played. And for this to occur, there has to be an ordering of molecules within the water to give it that dynamic structure, what is commonly referred to as a "memory."
Finally, Josephson wryly responded to the chronic ignorance of homeopathy by its skeptics saying, "The idea that water can have a memory can be readily refuted by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments." Physical Properties of Aqueous SystemsNext to speak was Vladimir Voeikov from the Lomonosov Moscow State University in Russia. A world expert on the chemical and physical properties of aqueous systems and their key role in the vital processes of living systems, Voeikov also took aim at critics who scoff at homeopathy's plausibility. He then launched into a description of the extensive and highly detailed work on the biological effects of ultrahigh dilutions (or UHDs) that has been ongoing in Russia since the 1980s. One of the unfortunate side effects of the perennial distrust existing between Russia and the West has been access to research like this, mainly because it has appeared only in Russian (i.e., Cyrillic) journals. Consequently, Voeikov had a lot of ground to make up — which he did in no uncertain terms! And, much to the audience's surprise, it turns out that Benveniste (who in 1988 was so pilloried by scientists, skeptics and the journal Nature, his reputation was trashed and he lost his laboratories and his funding) was by no means the first to suggest that solutions diluted and strongly agitated to the point where there couldn't possibly be any molecules of the original substance left could still exert biological effects. Delving back into the literature, it had been announced around a century before Benveniste. In 1955, a review had already been published into the action of UHDs. Drawing on his and his Russian colleagues' work, Voeikov concluded that conventional ideas of how water dissolves substances is actually incorrect. Until now, when something dissolves in water, its particles were thought to be randomly distributed throughout the solvent. As the solution is continually diluted, these particles simply reduce in number until at a certain dilution (known as the Avogadro limit) they disappear completely. Consequently, if a solution is diluted beyond this limit, as there are apparently no particles left, such UHDs cannot possibly exert any effects, let alone on biological systems. Therefore, homeopathy (which sometimes uses dilutions of substances way beyond the Avogadro limit) must be complete bunkum. So much for conventional thinking. What Voeikov and his colleagues have shown time and again is that the process of homeopathic dilution and agitation, even down past the Avogadro limit (so that no particles are supposed to still be present), does NOT get rid of all the dissolved substance. Instead, microscopically tiny "clumps" of the dissolved substance — known as nanoassociates — remain behind and these are biologically active. What's more, various analytical techniques can be used to track these nanoassociates, and they affect water in many ways that make it different from pure water, e.g., electrical conductivity and surface tension. So, a solution diluted and agitated beyond the Avogadro limit is anything but pure water. Nanoassociates Violate Conventional Laws of BehaviorIf that wasn't enough, Voeikov and his colleagues have shown that so-called ordinary solutions — the kind that we make up every day and that have not been sequentially diluted and agitated as homeopaths do — also contain nanoassociates, violating what has for years been understood as "laws of behavior" prescribed in standard textbooks on aqueous solutions. So, not only are all those skeptics and naysayers going to have to get used to homeopathic dilutions and their effects being real, they will have to completely reassess their understanding of what happens when ANY substance is dissolved in water. Those whose solemn duty it is to rewrite textbooks are going to have a field day! Barely able to catch our breath, we were then treated to one of the most inspirational talks of the whole conference, delivered by Jerry Pollack, Ph.D., professor of bioengineering at Seattle's University of Washington. Pollack is probably best known for his 2014 book, "The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid, and Vapor," in which he outlines in highly readable terms some of his and his team's amazing discoveries about water. Exclusion Zone Water May Have Significant Implications for HomeopathyChiefly, these concern what happens to water when it is in contact with a surface, e.g., a membrane. And for any doubting Thomas out there we should point out that Pollack's amazing discoveries about water have been independently verified many times. It turns out that the water molecules closest to the membrane surface form an almost crystalline alignment that has the effect of excluding any dissolved particles in the water. And these exclusion zones — or EZs, as they are called — have properties that are totally different from the bulk water, and whose consequences will have profound effects not only on our understanding of water, but how we use it. For example, depending on the nature of the membrane surface, charge separation occurs between the EZ layer and the bulk water phase. Pollack showed us how this phenomenon could be used, not only to produce an incredibly simple battery powered only by radiant energy, but how it could be the basis of a water desalination system. At the moment, this last application would need to be scaled up before it could be of any practical use, but if it could, there must surely be a Nobel Prize in the offing. In addition, bearing in mind that blood is mainly water being pumped through tubes of biological membranes, Pollack suggested that the same charge-separating mechanism that powered his radiant energy battery might also assist in pushing our blood through narrow vessels far removed from the pumping action of the heart. If so, such a discovery will have huge ramifications for our understanding of physiology. It turns out that Pollack's semi-crystalline EZs cannot only be separated, they are able to electromagnetically store information in their molecular structure. And, as the preparation of homeopathic remedies also involves water solutions in contact with surfaces, it is quite feasible his new EZ discoveries will have a huge impact on our understanding of water memory and homeopathy. In fact, Pollack asserts that water has a HUGE capacity to store information. Further, he notes that homeopathic process of succussion (vigorous shaking of water in glass) creates increased avenues for EZ water that then creates increased water storage. Classic Homeopathic Methods Optimize Storage of Information in WaterThe founder of homeopathy, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), was both a physician and the author of a leading textbook for pharmacists of his day. His many experiments attempting to reduce the harmful side effects of medicinal substances, led him to a method of dilution and agitation which homeopaths use till this day. Intriguingly, what the new science presented at this conference is telling us is that Hahnemann's method seems to optimize storage of medicinal information within the very structure of water itself! Even after more than 200 years, Hahnemann's discovery of homeopathy and his contributions to medicine and pharmacology are still being uncovered. Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier was introduced to homeopathy and homeopathic research by Benveniste. In a remarkable interview published in Science magazine of December 24, 2010,14 Montagnier expressed support for the often maligned and misunderstood medical specialty of homeopathic medicine.
Montagnier concluded the interview when asked if he is concerned that he is drifting into pseudoscience. He replied adamantly: "No, because it's not pseudoscience. It's not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study." 'Teleportation' EffectsMontagnier's study found that under the right conditions electromagnetic signals can be transmitted from test tubes containing a highly diluted DNA sample to a different test tube containing only water, and that when enzymes which copy DNA molecules are then added to this water, they behave as if DNA molecules are present, producing new DNA molecules.15 This "teleportation" effect of the DNA, from one test tube to another was found to occur only when the homeopathic procedure of sequential dilution, with vigorous shaking of the test tube, was utilized. Also, Montagnier cowrote with several highly-respected scientists another article that was published in a leading scientific journal.16 This article posits quantum effects beyond simple chemistry. Montagnier's studies found that highly diluted DNA from pathogenic bacterial and viral species is able to emit specific radio waves and that "these radio waves [are] associated with 'nanostructures' in the solution that might be able to recreate the pathogen." A writer for New Scientist magazine has asserted that, if its conclusions are true, "these would be the most significant experiments performed in the past 90 years, demanding reevaluation of the whole conceptual framework of modern chemistry."17 While Montagnier's work shows the influence of electromagnetic fields having a biological effect, other researchers at the conference found that nanodoses of the original homeopathic medicine persists in water solutions. Jayesh Bellare of the prestigious India Institute of Technology described his seminal research that was published in Langmuir, a highly-respected journal published by the American Chemistry Society.18 Bellare and his colleagues found that six different homeopathic medicines, all made from minerals (gold, silver, copper, tin, zinc and platinum), that were diluted 1-to-100, six times, 30 times and 200 times, were each found in nanodoses from one of three different types of spectroscopy. Bellare and his team explained that homeopathic medicines are usually made in glass bottles, and the vigorous shaking of the water in these bottles releases nanosized fragments of silica from the glass walls, and the substance being made into a medicine is literally pushed into these floating silica "chips." Then, when 99 percent of the water is poured out, the silica chips cling to the glass walls. The scientists found each of the six minerals persisting in the water no matter how many times they diluted the medicine. When one considers that many of the most important hormones and cell-signaling agents of the body operate at nanodose levels, the nanodoses found in homeopathic medicines may explain how these medicines work. Still further, the fact that nanodoses are much more able to cross the blood-brain-barrier as well as most cell membranes provides additional insight into how and why homeopathic nanodoses can elicit significant and powerful immune responses from the body. Afterword: Stop Press!The day after Ullman's interview with Dr. Joseph Mercola, a very important study on homeopathy was published on the website of one of the world's leading scientific journals, Nature. Nature.com just published a collection of studies that tested different homeopathic potencies of Rhus toxicodendron (also known as Rhus tox and Toxicodendron pubescens, commonly known as poison ivy), including 2X, 4X, 6X, 8X, 12X, 24X and 30X in the treatment of neuropathy in rats.19 Previous research had found that Rhus toxicodendron has significant anti-inflammatory, anti-arthritic and immunomodulatory activities. This new research evaluated antinociceptive (pain-reducing) efficacy of Rhus tox in the neuropathic pain and delineated its underlying mechanism. More specifically, this research found that this homeopathic medicine showed significant antioxidative and anti-inflammatory properties. This study found that homeopathic doses of Rhus tox 24X and 30X had dramatic effects that equaled the results from a known conventional drug, Gabapentin, and did so in much safer doses. Conventional scientists have consistently asserted that these extremely small doses of homeopathic medicines could not have ANY effects, but this study, like an increasing number of other such studies, has proven conventional scientists are wrong. The above described study didn't investigate the influence of water in its study, but it did confirm that homeopathic nanodoses can have powerful biological and clinical effects. DedicationThis article is dedicated to Dr. Peter Fisher, the now-late physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. A graduate of University of Cambridge and a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and the Faculty of Homeopathy, he was a widely published expert in rheumatology and forms of complementary and alternative medicine. Fisher chaired the World Health Organization's working group on homeopathy and was a member of WHO's Expert Advisory Panel on Traditional and Complementary Medicine. He served as clinical director for 18 years and director of research at the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine (formerly the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital) for 22 years. He was also president of the Faculty of Homeopathy and editor-in-chief of the journal Homeopathy (the leading research journal in the field). Fisher was awarded the Polish Academy of Medicine's Albert Schweitzer Gold Medal in 2007. Fisher also served as moderator for the second half of the homeopathic research conference discussed in this article. Besides all of his academic achievements, Fisher had a wicked, dry, even very dry, British sense of humor. He was known to provide scathing critiques of the many uninformed and ill-informed skeptics of homeopathy whose criticisms of homeopathy simply proved their sheer ignorance of the subject. Sadly, August 15, 2018, Fisher was riding his bicycle in London on "drive your bike to work day," and was hit by a truck and killed. Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH, is a certified homeopath who has written 10 books on homeopathy and four chapters in medical textbooks, and who has published 40 books on homeopathy by his colleagues (co-published with North Atlantic Books). He directs Homeopathic Educational Services, a leading homeopathic resource center to help people access homeopathic books, medicines, software and e-courses (www.homeopathic.com). He has also created a special e-course on "Learning to Use a Homeopathic Medicine Kit" (details at https://homeopathicfamilymedicine.com/). He also maintains a homeopathic practice where he "sees" most of his patients via Skype, various video apps, or the simple telephone. Lionel R Milgrom, Ph.D. FRSC FRSA MARH RHom is a registered homeopath who has been a research chemist for 40 years (cofounder of a university anticancer biotech spin-out company) with many publications and a text book to his credit. He has been a practicing homeopath for 20 years. His main research interest these days is in the understanding of homeopathy within both scientific and philosophical contexts, and has published extensively in these areas. He has also published the first volume of an e-book trilogy, "Homeopathy and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed." from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/10/31/water-and-homeopathy.aspx By Dr. Mercola Birth control pills are the most popular form of contraception among U.S. women. They're taken by 16 percent of this population, while just over 7 percent use long-acting reversible forms of contraception, such as a hormonal intrauterine device or implant. What these pills, devices and implants have in common is that they're forms of hormonal birth control — that is, they contain or release synthetic forms of hormones, such as estrogen and progestin (a form of progesterone), which work to prevent pregnancy in various ways. The problem is that these sex hormones also affect mood and other biological processes and artificially manipulating them can lead to many unintended consequences in your body, some of them uncomfortable and some quite serious, including altering your mental health. Birth Control Pills Linked to DepressionResearchers from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark analyzed data from more than 1 million women over a period of 14 years. None of the women, who were between 15 and 34 years of age, had been diagnosed with depression at the start of the study.1 However, the analysis showed that women who used hormonal birth control had a 40 percent increased risk of developing depression after six months compared to women who did not. The risk was greatest among adolescents. The use of hormonal birth control was also associated with subsequent use of antidepressant drugs. Certain types of hormonal contraception had varying risks. Specifically, the use of:
Anecdotal Reports Suggest Hormonal Contraceptives Lead to Mood ChangesLead study supervisor, Dr. Øjvind Lidegaard, a professor at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, told CNN:2
Despite this knowledge, many health care professionals are reluctant to suggest that the risks of hormonal birth control may be too steep for some women, especially those with a history of depression. While scientific validation has yielded some conflicting results, one report in the Oxford Medical Case Reports journal detailed two cases of women with a history of depression who developed depressive symptoms after treatment with hormonal contraceptives (the combined oral contraceptive pill, progestin-only pill and combined contraceptive vaginal ring).3 Case Reports Detail Onset of Depressive Symptoms After Use of Hormonal ContraceptivesIn one case, a 31-year-old woman experienced gradual improvement of her depressive symptoms after she stopped using the vaginal ring. However, "a sudden and acute worsening occurred" shortly after she started using a combined birth control pill. About a month later, she again experienced a worsening of symptoms "almost simultaneously with the initiation of treatment with combined contraceptive vaginal ring." The researchers noted:4
In the second case, a 33-year-old woman developed depressive symptoms shortly after starting a progestin-only birth control pill. Her symptoms disappeared completely within one week of stopping the pill. The researchers concluded:5
Hormonal Contraceptives Are Linked to Glaucoma and Other Health RisksWomen who used oral contraceptives for longer than three years were more than twice as likely to have been diagnosed with glaucoma, a leading cause of vision loss and blindness, according to one study.6 The results were so striking that the researchers recommended women taking the pill for three or more years be screened for glaucoma and followed closely by an ophthalmologist. It might seem unusual that contraceptives could affect your vision, but it's important to understand that there are body-wide repercussions of artificially manipulating your hormones. Most birth control pills, patches, vaginal rings and implants contain a combination of the derivatives of the hormones estrogen and progestin. They work by mimicking these hormones in your body to fool your reproductive system into producing the following effects:
However, your reproductive system does not exist in a bubble. It is connected to all of your other bodily systems, and therefore hormonal contraception is capable of altering much more than your reproductive status. According to one report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 30 percent of women who have used the pill and nearly half of women using other hormonal contraception methods stopped their use due to "dissatisfaction," which was most often caused by side effects.7 Potential health risks include:
The Pill May Be a Libido KillerAbout 15 percent of women taking oral contraceptives report a decrease in libido, likely because they lower levels of sex hormones, including testosterone.8 One study also found seven times the amount of the libido-killing sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) was present in women who took oral contraceptives compared to women who never used the pill. Even though SHBG levels declined in women who had stopped taking the pill, they still remained three to four times higher than they were in women with no history of using oral contraceptives, which suggests oral contraceptives may kill a woman's libido for the long-term. Researchers concluded:9
Synthetic Hormones in Drinking Water May Be Increasing Cancer Rates in MenIt's not only women who are at risk from synthetic hormones contained in hormonal contraceptives. An analysis of data from 100 countries found oral contraceptive use is associated with prostate cancer, which may be due to exposure to synthetic estrogens excreted by women that end up in the drinking water supply.10 While it's been argued that only a small amount of additional estrogen is excreted by a woman using this form of contraception, this "small amount" is compounded by millions of women, many of whom use the pill for long periods of time. Also, synthetic estrogen and progestin does not biodegrade rapidly and is far harder to remove through conventional water purification systems, resulting in greater accumulation in the environment. While this study did not prove cause and effect — that is, it did not prove that environmental estrogen from women's oral contraceptive use causes prostate cancer in men — it did find a significant association between the two that deserves further investigation, especially in light of estrogen's well-established role in a wide range of cancers and the prevalence of hormonal contraceptive use. Non-Hormonal Methods of ContraceptionWomen and men looking for reversible non-hormonal options of contraception may be surprised to learn that there are many options. Conventional health care providers typically steer patients toward the popular hormonal options, but they are far from the only ones. Barrier methods, which work by preventing the man's sperm from reaching the woman's egg, include the diaphragm, cervical cap, sponge and male and female condoms. None of these are foolproof, which is why many couples use them in combination with fertility awareness-based methods. Fertility awareness involves knowing when a woman's fertile period occurs each month, and then avoiding sexual intercourse during (and just prior to) this time (or using a barrier method if you do). When used consistently and correctly, fertility awareness is highly effective at preventing pregnancy; fewer than 1 to 5 women out of 100 will become pregnant using fertility awareness in this manner.11 In order to track fertility, a number of methods can be used by women, including tracking basal body temperature, mucus production, saliva indicators and cervical position. Many women use a combination of methods, and there are also commercially available ovulation monitors that can be used in conjunction with the other methods. Ninety-nine percent of U.S. women of reproductive age have used at least one contraceptive method at some point in their lifetime, with 88 percent choosing hormonal options.12 However, you may be relieved to learn that you don't have to subject yourself to the risks of hormonal contraception, or learn to live with the side effects, in order to take control of your reproductive health. An experienced holistic health care provider can help you choose the best non-hormonal contraception options for you. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/10/20/birth-control-pills-depression.aspx By Dr. Mercola
Environmental Chemicals a Likely Factor
10 Top Offenders that Can Disrupt Your Hormones
New Concern: Metalloestrogens
Tips to Reduce Exposure to Hormone-Disrupting Substances
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/12/19/precocious-puberty.aspx |
Nia Pure NatureThe Provider of premium Quality Health Products To Live Better Lives Archives
March 2022
Categories |