How and what you eat has radically changed over the past few decades with the all-consuming rise of the supermarket. But what price are you paying for this homogenized, cheap and convenient food? This video investigates how supermarkets have affected the food on your plate, and reveals the telltale signs that the food you buy may not have been grown in the way you think.
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/12/25/how-to-avoid-being-fooled-at-the-supermarket.aspx
0 Comments
While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout. The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other alternatives available. In a sane world, the COVID gene therapies would never have gotten an EUA, as there are several safe and effective treatment options available. One treatment that stands out above the others is ivermectin, a decades-old antiparasitic drug that is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medications. What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary. It’s been shown to significantly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro,1 speed up viral clearance and dramatically reduce the risk of death. Gold Standard Review Supports Use of IvermectinDr. Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor, Ph.D., researcher and director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (video above).2 in the U.K., has been trying to get the word out about ivermectin. To that end, she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel3 and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference,4 which was held online, April 24, 2021. Twelve medical experts5 from around the world shared their knowledge during this conference, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.6 Lawrie has published several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looking at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment.”7 Her February 2021 meta-analysis, which included 13 studies, found a 68% reduction in deaths. This is an underestimation of the beneficial effect, because one of the studies included used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the control arm. Since HCQ is an active treatment that has also been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes, it’s not surprising that this particular study did not rate ivermectin as better than the control treatment (which was HCQ). Two months later, March 31, 2021, Lawrie published an updated analysis that included two additional randomized controlled trials. This time, the mortality reduction was 62%. When four studies with high risk of bias were removed during a subsequent sensitivity analysis, they ended up with a 72% reduction in deaths. (Sensitivity analyses are done to double-check and verify results. Since the sensitivity analysis rendered an even better result, it confirms the initial finding. In other words, ivermectin is unlikely to reduce mortality by anything less than 62%.) Lawrie reviewed the February and March analyses and other meta-analyses in an interview with Dr. John Campbell, featured in “More Good News on Ivermectin.” Lawrie has now published her third systematic review. According to this paper, published June 17, 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics:8
World Health Organization Refuses to Recommend IvermectinDespite the fact that most of the evidence favors ivermectin, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they largely rejected it, saying more data are needed. They only recommend it for patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial. Yet, they based their negative recommendation on a review that included just five studies, which still ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths. What’s more, in the WHO’s summary of findings, they suddenly include data from seven studies, which combined show an 81% reduction in deaths. The confidence interval is also surprisingly high, with a 64% reduction in deaths on the low end, and 91% on the high end. Even more remarkable, their absolute effect estimate for standard of care is 70 deaths per 1,000, compared to just 14 deaths per 1,000 when treating with ivermectin. That’s a reduction in deaths of 56 per 1,000 when using the drug. The confidence interval is between 44 and 63 fewer deaths per 1,000. Despite that, the WHO refuses to recommend this drug for COVID-19. Rabindra Abeyasinghe, a WHO representative to the Philippines, commented that using ivermectin without “strong” evidence is “harmful” because it can give “false confidence” to the public.11 Why Ivermectin Has Been CensoredIf you’ve been trying to share the good news about ivermectin, you’re undoubtedly noticed that doing so is incredibly difficult. Many social media companies are banning such posts outright. Promoting ivermectin on YouTube, or even discussing benefits cited in published research, violates the platform’s posting policies. DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., is but one of the victims of this censorship policy. His interviews with medical and scientific experts such as Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung and ICU specialist, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the president and chief medical officer12 of the FLCCC, and Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,13 have been deleted from the platform. The interview with Malone had more than 587,330 views by the time it was wiped from YouTube.14 But why? Why don’t they want people to feel confident that there’s treatment out there and that COVID-19 is not the death sentence they’ve been led to believe it is? The short answer is because ivermectin threatens the vaccine program. As explained by Andrew Bannister in a May 12, 2021, Biz News article:15
The WHO and Drug Companies Are Severely CompromisedThe WHO’s rejection of ivermectin only makes sense if a) you take into account the EUA requirements; and b) remember that the WHO receives a significant portion of its funding from private vaccine interests. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of the WHO after the United States, and The GAVI Alliance, also owned by Gates, is the fourth largest donor. The GAVI Alliance exists solely to promote and profit from vaccines, and for several years, the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, served on the GAVI board of directors.16 As reported by Bannister, Merck, the original patent holder of ivermectin, also has severe conflicts of interest that appear to have played a role in the rejection of ivermectin. He writes:17
FLCCC Calls for Widespread and Early Use of IvermectinIn the U.S., the FLCCC has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19,19,20 and Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202021 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.22 As noted by the FLCCC:23
The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:
In addition to Lawrie’s meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the FLCCC has also published a scientific review28 in that same journal. This paper, “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19,” published in the May/June 2021 issue, found that, based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces “large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.” Ivermectin Significantly Reduces Infection Risk and DeathThe FLCCC also found that when used as a preventive, ivermectin “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19.” In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug. In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take ivermectin. In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater. Only 6.7% of the ivermectin group tested positive compared to 73.3% of controls. According to the FLCCC, “the difference between the two groups was so large and similar to the other prophylaxis trial results that confounders alone are unlikely to explain such a result.” The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality,” which indicate that ivermectin is “effective in all phases of COVID-19.” For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to its residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark. In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%. It’s worth noting that ivermectin’s effectiveness appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world. Additional evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,29 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date. Ivermectin in the Treatment of Long-Haul SyndromeThe FLCCC believes ivermectin may also be an important treatment adjunct for long-haul COVID syndrome. In their June 16, 2021, video update, the team reviewed the newly released I-RECOVER protocol. Keep in mind that ivermectin is not to be used in isolation. Corticosteroids, for example, are often a crucial treatment component when organizing pneumonia-related lung damage is present. Vitamin C is also important to combat inflammation. Be sure to work with your doctor to identify the right combination of drugs and supplements for you. Last but not least, as noted by Kory in this video, it’s really important to realize that long-haul syndrome is entirely preventable. The key is early treatment when you develop symptoms of COVID-19. While ivermectin has a good track record when it comes to prevention and early treatment, it can be tricky to obtain, depending on where you live and who your doctor is. A highly effective alternative that anyone can use, anywhere, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It’s extremely safe and very inexpensive. The biggest cost is the one-time purchase of a good tabletop jet nebulizer. To learn more, download Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” in which he details how to use this treatment. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/30/ivermectin-covid-19-treatment.aspx I. National Institutes of Health (NIH) research1 published June 15, 2021, finds antibody evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the U.S. earlier than previously thought. 1. Why did it take NIH so long to do this experiment, or perhaps to tell us? These antibody tests take only a few minutes to perform. The blood was drawn more than 15 months ago. 2. Why is NIH relying on these two antibodies in nine individuals as evidence of COVID infection, but will not let a single U.S. person use them as evidence of prior infection and immunity?
3. The old excuse that we don’t know how long immunity lasts has been crushed by the data from several studies. Perhaps unsurprisingly, one of avuncular Tony Fauci’s early emails said he expected immunity to be long-lasting. But Americans were told lies to push the vaccine program and keep people frightened of COVID even after they had recovered and were immune. II. “The NIH report states that the CDC testing guidelines early in the pandemic had a narrow focus: Only people who had been in contact with a person confirmed to have an infection, or who had traveled to an area known to have coronavirus transmission, were advised to be tested.”3 1. What The Washington Post fails to make clear is that the test for COVID — the only test permitted to be used by federal agencies — from January 1, 2020, until early March 2020, was grossly inaccurate. CDC knew this. To cover it up, they allowed only a tiny number of people to get tested during this period, virtually restricting testing to those who already had a confirmatory clinical picture. 2. This CDC coverup had terrible consequences, possibly intended. It gave the infection two months to spread through the U.S. and become established via community transmission. 3. By this time, the tracing of contacts to control the epidemic had already been made obsolete. There was way too much unidentified spread happening. Track and trace does not work when most infections are asymptomatic. 4. It is conceivable that CDC keeps claiming that the vast majority of infections have symptoms in order to justify the many billions of dollars travelling through CDC’s hands for the track and trace program,4 which is still active. 5. The program cannot possibly work to control the pandemic at this late stage. The only purpose to use track and trace now is to obtain data on citizens’ social networks. III. Seven of nine persons whose blood tested positive for antibodies were black or Hispanic. Therefore, the authors are concerned about possibly increased susceptibility in minority populations. Aha! Now we know why this story was dribbled out now. To scare black and Hispanic Americans into vaccination. *This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Office of the Director and the National Cancer Institute. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/30/covid-19-infections-in-usa-before-pandemic-declaration.aspx A landmark study by Grandjean, et al.,1 has been published confirming that very low levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy impair the brain development of the child and at a population level may be causing more damage than lead, mercury or arsenic. The study found that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of 0.2 mg/L, which is exceeded four to five times in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities, was enough to lower IQ by one point. The authors stated that even this impact is likely underestimated and:
A urinary fluoride (UF) concentration of 0.2 mg/L is far below what a pregnant woman in a fluoridated community would have, as confirmed by two recent studies. A study of pregnant women in fluoridated San Francisco, California,2 found a mean UF concentration of 0.74 mg/L, and one with participants in fluoridated communities across Canada3 found a mean UF concentration of 1.06 mg/L. Both levels were significantly higher than those found in women in nonfluoridated communities. Grandjean, et al.'s study, published in Risk Analysis, was a benchmark dose (BMD) analysis of the pooled data from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded ELEMENT and MIREC birth cohorts in Mexico and Canada. These are the birth cohorts that were used in the studies that found exposure to low levels of fluoride during pregnancy is linked to cognitive impairment in children.4,5,6,7 A Benchmark Dose is used to identify a dose or concentration that would likely cause a defined amount of harm, in this case a loss of one IQ point. What makes this paper so important is that BMD is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) risk assessment methodology, and the paper’s authors used a one IQ point drop as the adverse effect amount because the EPA has used this same level of IQ loss in their own risk assessments and has recommended use of such a level. It has been well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000. Summed over the whole population we are talking about a loss of billions of dollars of earning ability each year. It is estimated that over 72% of public drinking water systems in America are fluoridated; thus, millions of pregnant women are currently being exposed to levels of fluoride that have the potential to lower their children’s IQ by at least four points and probably more. Moreover, it’s important to point out that in risk assessments using BMD methodology, it’s standard practice to apply a safety factor on top of the calculated BMD in order to determine a safe reference dose (RfD) to protect the whole population (including the most vulnerable) from harm. If that safety factor used was the standard safety margin of 10, to account for the variables in population-wide sensitivity, then the EPA might conclude that any urine fluoride concentration above 0.02 mg/L would be unacceptable and “unsafe.” This is 35 times lower than what the American Dental Association and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend for fluoridated communities. Study Submitted to Judge in Federal Fluoridation LawsuitMichael Connett, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA, has sent a copy8 of this BMD analysis to the judge presiding over the case currently in federal court. The Fluoride Action Network is involved in an ongoing federal lawsuit9 against the EPA seeking to prohibit the deliberate addition of fluoride to drinking water because of its neurotoxicity. A trial was held in June 2020, which featured world-renowned experts10 testifying in court that fluoridation posed a danger on par with lead. At the conclusion, the judge stated that we had presented “serious evidence” that presents “serious questions” about the safety of fluoridation, and said, “I don’t think anyone disputes that fluoride is a hazard.” The judge also noted that the EPA had used an incorrect standard for assessing the available science and offered them a second chance to review it accurately, which they have declined repeatedly. Since last summer, we have also won several legal victories, including rulings against EPA motions to dismiss the case and a recent ruling in April 2021 granting our motion to amend our original 2016 petition to include the latest studies and a more detailed listing of plaintiffs. In the written order,11 the court dismantles the EPA’s arguments one by one, showing that the judge is committed to ensuring that all of the science is considered and remains the focus, which is a very good sign for our side. The ruling also sets a precedent for future environmental cases under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by allowing petitioners to update and amend complaints to include the most up-to-date science during the trial, rather then restart the multiyear petition process over as the EPA attorneys wanted. The court will hold the trial in abeyance until the final National Toxicology Program monograph on fluoride’s neurotoxicity is published possibly later this year. The judge was also awaiting the release of the benchmark dose analysis mentioned above and at least one additional study due out later in 2021. Once all of this new research is available to the court, the judge could potentially hold a second phase of the trial, allowing additional discovery and testimony only on this new evidence. In fact, during the April 22, 2021, status hearing, the judge said this was his preference, and in the court order it is written, "As this Court has indicated, the evolving science warrants reopening of expert discovery and trial evidence." The court order indicated that once the judge has had the opportunity to see the new evidence and hear from both sides, the Fluoride Action Network will be able to resubmit our amended petition to the EPA for what will likely be one last opportunity for their reconsideration before a final ruling is made by the judge. The next court hearing will be August 26, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. (Pacific U.S.). To get additional updates and links to view the hearing, follow FAN on Facebook and Twitter or sign up for our weekly bulletin. For those wanting to catch up on this precedent setting trial, we have several resources available for you. First is a 16-minute video featuring our attorney, Michael Connett, providing a detailed background on the case and trial. Second, we have a 30-minute interview of Connett by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Third, FAN has a comprehensive database of documents, timelines, media coverage and materials about the lawsuit on our website. >>>>> Click Here <<<<< Damning Deposition VideosThe talking point we probably hear the most from proponents at council hearings, and repeated by policy makers, is that government agencies like the CDC and EPA vouch for fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness, and regulate the practice responsibly, so therefore it must be true and we must be wrong. Instead of verifying any of these claims, policy makers have put their blind trust in these agencies. The media outlets, on the other hand, which should be the nation’s watchdog, have suspended their professionalism by not only blindly trusting these agencies, but also by discrediting those opposed to fluoridation. Under oath, representatives from these agencies proved that their mantra of “safe and effective” is only a baseless claim used to promote a failed policy. In this first video, Casey Hannan, the director of the CDC’s Oral Health Division, testifies that the CDC has no data12 establishing the safety of fluoride’s effect on the brain, despite decades of touting the safety of fluoridation for all citizens, including children. In this second video, Hannan admits there is no prenatal or early-life benefit13 from fluoride despite its known neurotoxicity to this same sub-population. In the third video, Joyce Donohue, Ph.D., a scientist from the EPA’s Office of Water, admits that the EPA’s current fluoride risk assessment, and thus fluoridation regulations, are out of date and should be updated14 in response to the collection of studies showing neurotoxicity published over the past several years. These three videos are just a small taste of what was admitted under oath by representatives of the government agencies responsible for protecting the health of Americans. For example, during the trial we also watched a video of CDC’s Hannan agreeing with the finding that “fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain … and increase risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” as well as agreeing with the National Research Council finding that “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the function of the brain and body by direct and indirect means.” FAN will be able to share much more of this video content with you after a ruling is made in the trial, exposing the failure of these agencies to protect the public from overexposure to fluoride. Former NTP Director Warns Parents in Op-EdAlong with the avalanche of new peer-reviewed studies showing harm and the lawsuit exposing government negligence, there has been an ever-growing chorus of warnings to the public and opposition to fluoridation from researchers and public health experts. This includes the former director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health. Toxicologist and microbiologist Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., co-authored an op-ed appearing in Environmental Health News with Christine Till, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada, and Dr. Bruce Lanphear, MPH, a physician, clinical scientist and professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada. Till is a co-author of several significant fluoride studies including the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride neurotoxicity study15 and others finding lowered IQ, increased diagnosis of ADHD and thyroid impairment. She received a leadership award from York University, in part, for this groundbreaking research. Lanphear is also an award-winning researcher who has been a member of two National Academies of Science committees, is a member of the EPA’s Lead Review Panel and is renowned for his research on low-level lead exposure and many other environmental neurotoxins. The op-ed, titled “It Is Time to Protect Kids' Developing Brains From Fluoride,”16 highlights the mounting evidence that fluoride is impairing brain development and compares the response from the public health community to its delayed response to the obvious harm caused by lead. The authors call for the U.S. "to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children," and state:
The op-ed is accompanied by a powerful animated short video17 on the impact of fluoride on brain development produced by Little Things Matter, a nonprofit scientific organization composed of children’s environmental health professionals. Dr. Till was also recently filmed giving an hour-long “must watch” presentation and Q&A on her fluoride neurotoxicity research.18 FAN has compiled quotes19 (and produced a video) from a variety of experts warning about fluoride’s neurotoxicity, as well as a list of opinion pieces and journal articles20 warning of harm. From Womb to TombAn April 2021 study from Sweden found 50% higher rates of hip bone fractures in post-menopausal women in an area with up to about 1 mg/L fluoride in drinking water.21 It also found 10% to 20% higher rates of fractures for all types of bone fractures and for those types commonly associated with osteoporosis. The high-quality cohort study used detailed information from more than 4,000 older Swedish women enrolled starting in 2004 and followed through 2017. Their largest source of exposure was from naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water, at concentrations at or below 1 mg/L. Their total exposures fell within the same range as women living in areas with artificial fluoridation. Concern for fluoride’s effect on bone quality was raised 25 years ago based on animal studies: “[O]ne cannot help but be alarmed by the negative effects of fluoride on bone strength consistently demonstrated in animal models.”22,23 The animal findings prompted human studies. This new Swedish study builds on previous studies that found increased risk of bone fractures in older people with long-term fluoride exposure.24,25,26 It is also consistent with extensive experience from randomized controlled trials (RCT) done in the 1990s that attempted to decrease fracture risk for those with osteoporosis by giving patients relatively high doses of fluoride. Instead of decreasing fracture risk, those studies found increased risk, especially for hip fractures, and the attempts to use fluoride as a medication against osteoporosis have been largely abandoned. Researchers concluded that although fluoride can increase bone mineral density (BMD), it simultaneously decreases bone quality and bone strength, despite the greater density. This ought to have serious implications for the practice of fluoridation. The study’s findings suggest that long-term consumption of fluoridated water may be responsible for 50% or more of the hip fractures experienced by older people. There are about 2 million osteoporotic fractures in the U.S. per year, of which about 300,000 are hip fractures.27 Hip fractures in the elderly are a leading cause of disability and death. “About 30% of people with a hip fracture will die in the following year.”28 “Of those who survive, many do not regain their prefracture level of function. About 50% of patients with hip fractures will never be able to ambulate without assistance and 25% will require long-term care.”29 Water fluoridation may literally be killing older people, taking years off their lives or leaving them confined to wheelchairs. “Treating hip fractures is also very expensive. A typical patient with a hip fracture spends US $40,000 in the first year following hip fracture for direct medical costs and almost $5,000 in subsequent years.”30 Widespread fluoridation in the U.S. might help explain why, “Hip fracture rates among the U.S. population are the highest in the world.”31 Just as with the fluoride neurotoxicity studies that are finally being taken seriously, and funded by government agencies, this new study could help spur more high-quality studies on bone effects of fluoride. But there is already more than enough evidence of risk to the brain, and now to bone health, that there is no justification to continue intentionally adding fluoride to drinking water for the sole purpose of trying to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridation Lobby Is Doubling DownUnfortunately, in response to the abundance of new research, the landmark lawsuit, growing concern in the scientific community and the sustained advocacy and education efforts of FAN, the promoters of fluoridation have doubled-down on their efforts to expand the practice further in an effort to gaslight public officials into believing the practice isn’t on the brink of extinction. The United Kingdom and New Zealand32 are both being threatened with nationwide fluoridation mandates. In the U.K., the fluoridation lobby alongside the health secretary, Matt Hancock, are urging the government to take the power33 over fluoridation from local councils so he can mandate it throughout the country. While this threat is very real, the proposal doesn’t seem to have made much progress since March, but FAN is tracking it and working with U.K. residents to mount opposition. In New Zealand, the government has revived and amended a bill that was introduced in 2016 but lacked enough support for passage. As introduced, the bill would have moved fluoridation decisions from local councils — where they reside presently – to district health boards. However, the current government has amended the language to centralize fluoridation authority even further, by giving full control34 to the director-general of health, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield. Using this process has defied the normal democratic process, with no select committee, community consultation or public input. Supporters of this proposal are trying to pass it into law by the end of the year, at which time local councils (and local taxpayers) will be responsible for all capital and operational costs. While a number of mayors have come out in opposition, as well as citizens and professionals led by Fluoride Free NZ,35 the proposal appears to be moving forward. Learn more in this new video from FAN. The dental lobby is also targeting large cities in North America. This past summer, a coalition led by Delta Dental worked behind the scenes to pressure the city council in Spokane, Washington, to pass a resolution to fluoridate their drinking water, despite the public voting three times to reject fluoridation. Part of their sales pitch was that COVID was presenting an oral health emergency, to which this would be a solution. It was eventually revealed that implementation would take at least five years, making their exploitation of the pandemic to sell their fluoridation chemicals apparent. A local citizens group assisted by FAN, Safe Water Spokane,36 has fought this effort, and as a result the council has tabled their fluoridation resolution and will study the issue for the next year. Click here to learn more about Spokane. Calgary, Alberta, is also being threated with fluoridation despite voting numerous times to reject the practice. After hearing from the O’Brien Institute for Public Health that the practice causes cognitive impairment,37 the cowardly council decided to put the issue to a public vote this October, rather than make a decision. FAN is working with local campaigners Safe Water Calgary38 to ensure the public votes “no” on reintroducing fluoridation chemicals. The CDC has even partnered with private industry, using your tax dollars to develop new fluoridation products39 for rural water systems and private wells to expand the practice to every corner of the country (and likely beyond). We can’t count on the mainstream media or the public health authorities to tell the public or decision makers about what is happening. It’s up to us to make this information go viral! It’s up to us to bring it to our elected leaders and demand action! We need your support more than ever. Please help us get to the finishing line of a world without fluoridation. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/29/low-levels-of-fluoride-can-reduce-iq.aspx Many scientists and medical experts have warned that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is both unnecessary and risky in the extreme. The video above features comments by Peter Doshi, Ph.D., made during a June 10, 2021, public hearing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. Doshi is an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and the senior editor of The BMJ. He has previously pointed out that while Pfizer claims its vaccine is 95% effective, this is the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction — which is far more relevant for public health measures — is actually less than 1%.1 As such, the COVID-19 vaccine is of dubious benefit, to say the least. If you choose to watch the video above I must warn you to stop after Doshi finishes and not view the presentation by Dr. Jacqueline Miller. She’s a paid shill pediatrician and the head of development for infectious diseases at Moderna. The reason I advise this caution is because if you understand reality, you will be shocked at how easily a physician can sell out and sacrifice even her own children in the delusional belief that Moderna’s shot provides any benefit to children. Meanwhile, largely because of irresponsible beliefs and comments like Miller’s, harms are rapidly mounting, which skews the risk-benefit ratio even further. Considering the potential for harm, children should not get the COVID-19 vaccine, Doshi says, citing trial evidence from Pfizer — the very same evidence used to support its emergency use authorization application for 12- to 15-year-olds. In this trial, harms clearly outweighed the benefits. Risk-Benefit AnalysisWhile benefits were rare and short-lived, side effects were common and long-term effects are completely unknown. In the 12-to-15 age group, 75.5% experienced headache, along with a long list of other transient side effects. However, more serious systemic adverse events also occurred in 2.4% of the trial subjects receiving the actual mRNA shot. Now, Pfizer boasted a 100% efficacy rate in this age group. This, Doshi explains, was based on 16 cases occurring in the placebo group, while no cases were recorded in the vaccine group. However, since there were about 1,000 placebo recipients, fewer than 2% of the placebo group actually tested positive for COVID-19.
One of the reasons for why children reap so little benefit from this jab is because a significant portion of American children are already immune and aren’t at risk of infection to begin with. Doshi cites Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data showing an estimated 23% of children under the age of 4 and 42% of those age 5 through 17 have already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection and now have robust and long-lasting immunity. While most side effects in children have been short-lived, at least seven deaths among 12- to 17-year-olds had been reported as of June 11, 2021, as well as 271 events rated “serious.”2 In the long term, there’s really no telling what might happen, and that’s a really important point. As noted by Doshi, during the 2009 swine flu pandemic, narcolepsy didn’t become apparent until nine months after vaccination with the Pandemrix vaccine, and it wasn’t until four months into Israel’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign that heart damage was recognized as a side effect in young men and boys. Cocooning Does Not WorkDoshi goes on to explain why vaccinating children will not likely benefit adults, as claimed. This practice, sometimes referred to as “cocooning,” has never actually been proven. Doshi cites a 2021 BMJ editorial3 in which the authors stressed that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is “hard to justify right now,” seeing how children experience only mild disease and transmission by children is limited, while the possibility of unintended consequences is high.
Doshi points out that even if you believe that a small benefit is better than nothing, you must remember that this is an unproven hypothetical benefit. We would need a proper randomized controlled trial to ascertain whether vaccinating children might actually benefit adults. “We need confirmatory evidence, not just assumptions,” Doshi says. Vaccinating Children to Benefit Adults Is UnethicalHowever, even if vaccinating children were found to reduce infection among adults, we may still not be able to do so. Why? Because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can only authorize the use of a medical product in a given population if the benefit outweighs the risk in that same population. This means that even if adults were to benefit, if children don’t benefit from it themselves, then we cannot authorize the vaccine for children. So, if children reap no benefit, then whether or not vaccinating them might benefit adults is a moot argument. You cannot authorize a drug for use in a population that reaps no benefit. In conclusion, Doshi points out that the FDA has no basis on which to grant COVID-19 vaccines emergency use authorization for children in the first place, as COVID-19 is not an emergency in children. The threat this infection poses to children is negligible and no more serious than that of the common cold or flu. Since demonstrated risks far outweigh demonstrated benefits in children, the vaccines also fail to meet the biologics license application required for ultimate market approval. Already, healthy children have died shortly after the jabs, dozens of cases of heart inflammation have been reported, and Pfizer’s own biodistribution study raises serious questions about the shot’s potential to cause infertility. Last but not least, since there’s no “unmet need,” there’s also no need to rush to approve these injections for children. To be clear, the only way they can even try to justify vaccinating children is by sacrificing them as shields to protect the elderly, which is completely unethical. Children are not harmed by COVID-19 itself, yet they keep using the slogan that “Nobody is safe until everyone is vaccinated,” which simply isn’t true. Carefully Consider the Many RisksWhile long-term effects are unknown, there’s reason to suspect they may be severe. A Pfizer biodistribution study5,6 demonstrates the synthetic mRNA does not stay near the injection site as initially assumed. It is, in fact, widely disseminated in your body within hours of injection. It enters your bloodstream and accumulates in a variety of organs, primarily your spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands and, in women, the ovaries. The spike protein — which we now know is pathogenic and causes disease in and of itself — also travel to your heart, brain and lungs. Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. When that happens, one of several things can occur:
Regardless of the tissue, the spike protein can also impair your mitochondrial function, which is imperative for good health, innate immunity and disease prevention of all kinds. When the spike protein interacts with the ACE2 receptor, it can disrupt mitochondrial signaling, thereby inducing the production of reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. If the damage is serious enough, uncontrolled cell death can occur, which in turn leaks mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) into your bloodstream.8 Aside from being detected in cases involving acute tissue injury, heart attack and sepsis, freely circulating mtDNA has also been shown to contribute to a number of chronic diseases, including systemic inflammatory response syndrome or SIRS, heart disease, liver failure, HIV infection, rheumatoid arthritis and certain cancers.9 The spike protein is also expelled in breast milk, which could be lethal for babies. You are not transferring antibodies. You are transferring the vaccine itself, as well as the spike protein, which could result in bleeding and/or blood clots in your child. All of this suggests that for individuals who are at low risk for COVID-19, children and teens in particular, the risks of these vaccines outweigh the benefits by a significant margin. How Spike Protein Harms Your HealthI’ve written several articles detailing the mechanisms by which the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can decimate your health. For a refresher, see my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., featured in “The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health.” I recently came across yet another paper that describes a very important mechanism that, to my knowledge, is not widely known, despite being published in July 2020. The paper, “Genetic Polymorphisms Complicate COVID-19 Therapy: Pivotal Role of HO-1 in Cytokine Storm,”10 explains that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has a far higher affinity for porphyrin molecules in the cell membrane than ACE-2. Porphyrins are molecules with optical properties. Their ability to absorb light accounts for many of the beneficial health effects of sunlight.11 Porphyrins are also the building blocks of heme, the precursor to hemoglobin, which is necessary to bind oxygen in your blood. According to this paper, porphyrins not only facilitate SARS-CoV-2 invasion into the cell, but they also allow the virus to bind functional hemoprotein within the cell, thereby increasing oxidative stress. When the spike protein bind to porphyrins, it upregulates free heme and iron, which causes oxidation and fuels inflammation. It also increases reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, while decreasing levels of heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) enzymes. HO enzymes degrade heme into free iron, bilirubin (which has antioxidant effects) and carbon monoxide (which is antiapoptotic). As such, the HO system plays a crucial role in cellular defense. The spike protein essentially overwhelms the anti-inflammatory cytoprotection normally offered by HO-1. As dysfunctional porphyrin are no longer capable of making heme, more hemoprotein becomes available for SARS-CoV-2 to bind to, which results in the release of more free iron. As the cycle continues, inflammation builds. Iron released by dying cells also has toxic effects. All of this has devastating consequences for your mitochondria, and, as noted in this paper:12
This explains why obese individuals are at much higher risk. Because their fat cells have fewer mitochondria, they’re less able to counteract the ROS and therefore end up with higher levels of inflammation. The unprecedented outpouring of toxic iron into the body may also help explain why some end up with “long-hauler syndrome” after recovering from COVID-19. Worst of all, since all of this is related to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the COVID shots may also end up promoting cancer, as excess iron is tightly associated with tumorigenesis in multiple human cancer types through a variety of mechanisms, including catalyzing the formation of mutagenic hydroxyl radicals, regulating DNA replication, repair and cell cycle progression, affecting signal transduction in cancer cells, and acting as an essential nutrient for proliferating tumor cells. Do You Have Vaccine Regret?If you’ve already had one or two COVID shots and are now having second thoughts, first, be sure to never have another vaccination again, with any vaccine of any kind. Even if you’re not having discernible symptoms as of yet, you’d be wise to start building your innate immune system. To do that, you need to become metabolically flexible and optimize your diet. I interviewed Dr. Vladimir Zelenko June 23, 2021, and that interview should go live July 4, 2021. We discussed what Dr. Mike Yeadon — a former chief scientist at Pfizer, which is one of the primary manufacturers of COVID shots — believes, which is that those who are vaccinated are already condemned to certain and agonizing deaths. He believes those who have received the injection will die prematurely and three years is a generous estimate for how long they can expect to remain alive. If Yeadon’s projections are true, it changes EVERYTHING. There is no way to know if it is accurate or not, but Yeadon is someone who has serious insights as Pfizer’s former chief scientist. I was a Boy Scout and their motto is to “Be prepared.” Clearly, this is one contingency that needs to be planned for. Zelenko happens to share this belief. We discuss in great detail the strategies that can be used to lower the risk of Yeadon’s predictions coming true. Use time-restricted eating and eat all your meals for the day within a six- to eight-hour window. Avoid all vegetable oils and processed foods. Focus on certified-organic foods to minimize your glyphosate exposure, and include plenty of sulfur-rich foods to keep your mitochondria and lysosomes healthy. Both are important for the clearing of cellular debris, including these spike proteins. You can also boost your sulfate by taking Epsom salt baths. You’ll also want to make sure your vitamin D level is optimized to between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L), ideally through sensible sun exposure. Sunlight also has other benefits besides making vitamin D. To combat the toxicity of the spike protein, you’ll want to optimize autophagy, which may help digest and remove the spike proteins. Time-restricted eating will upregulate autophagy, while sauna therapy, which upregulates heat shock proteins, will help refold misfolded proteins and also tag damaged proteins and target them for removal. It is important that your sauna is hot enough (around 170 degrees Fahrenheit) and does not have high magnetic or electric fields. Other remedies that might be helpful if you’re experiencing side effects from your COVID shot(s) include:
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/29/children-covid-vaccine.aspx
As plastic ages or is exposed to heat or stress, it can release trace amounts of some of its ingredients. Of particular concern are bisphenol-a (BPA), used to strengthen some plastics, and phthalates, used to soften others.
These chemicals are used in hundreds of household items; BPA is in everything from baby bottles to can linings, while phthalates are found in children‘s toys as well as vinyl shower curtains. They enter your body through the food, water and bits of dust you consume, or are simply absorbed through your skin. BPA and phthalates are endocrine disrupters, which mimic hormones. Estrogen and other hormones in relatively tiny amounts can cause vast changes, so researchers worry that BPA and phthalates could do the same, especially in young children. To cut down on your exposure, avoid plastic bottles and toys labeled with the numbers 3 or 7, which often contain BPA or phthalates, and canned foods, especially those with acidic contents like tomatoes. You should also avoid heating plastic in microwaves. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/31/the-terrible-truth-about-plastic-you-never-knew.aspx More than three decades of scientific research suggests that repeatedly telling children that they are especially smart or talented leaves them vulnerable to failure, and fearful of challenges. Children raised this way develop an implicit belief that intelligence is innate and fixed, making striving to learn seem less important than seeming smart; challenges, mistakes, and effort become threats to their ego rather than opportunities to improve. However, teaching children to have a “growth mind-set,” which encourages effort rather than on intelligence or talent, helps make them into high achievers in school and in life. This results in “mastery-oriented” children who tend to think that intelligence is malleable and can be developed through education and hard work. This can be done by telling stories about achievements that result from hard work. Talking about math geniuses who were born that way puts students in a fixed mind-set, but descriptions of great mathematicians who developed amazing skills over time creates a growth mind-set. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/12/22/the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids.aspx More than 80 percent of schools in America use toxic pesticides as a preventative measure, whether it‘s needed or not. from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/16/80-percent-of-schools-are-applying-pesticides.aspx Cancer is a disease of uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells. In 1971,1 President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer with a goal to make a national commitment to find a cure. Chemotherapy has been one of the primary treatments used in cancer with the objective to destroy cancer cells.2 However, chemo is technically a poison. When administered it travels throughout your body and affects every cell, unlike radiation or surgical treatments, which target precise locations.3 Glioblastoma is a specific type of brain cancer that develops from glial cells in the brain.4 It is sometimes referred to as a grade 4 astrocytoma. The tumor is fast-growing, invasive and commonly spreads throughout the brain. According to the Glioblastoma Foundation5 it can result in death as quickly as 15 months after diagnosis. Symptoms of a glioblastoma develop rapidly as the cells grow and fluid around the tumor increases pressure in the brain.6 Some common symptoms include severe headaches, nausea and vomiting. Depending on the location of the tumor, symptoms can include weakness or sensory changes in the face, arms or legs, neurocognitive or memory issues and difficulty with balance. Despite decades of research, researchers have written that the survival rate for individuals with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) has not changed in more than 40 years.7 Thomas Seyfried, who I believe is one of the best cancer biologists in the world, recently published an 80-month case report follow-up on a patient with glioblastoma,8 who has lived far longer than expected. Long-Term Care With Ketogenic Metabolic TherapyWriting in the journal Nutrition & Metabolism in 2007,9 Seyfried and colleagues proposed that restricting calories on a ketogenic diet is an effective alternative means of treating malignant brain cancer. The researchers used an animal model to test the theory and found the method was safe and effective. August 16, 2014, a 26-year-old man presented at University Hospital Plymouth with symptoms of a malignant brain tumor.10 The man refused the recommended standard of care and opted instead to use ketogenic metabolic therapy (KMT). He educated himself on the implementation of the diet despite pressure from health care professionals to use their treatment. He took medication to control the seizures and strictly followed the ketogenic diet, monitoring his glucose and ketones. It took two weeks to enter therapeutic ketosis. A second MRI in January 2015 showed no noticeable progression of the tumor. Serial MRIs every three to five months showed the tumor was growing slowly, quite unlike the natural progression of a glioblastoma. Just over two years later, an MRI showed enough tumor growth that the patient decided to undergo a debulking surgery. Histological analysis showed an invasive astrocytic tumor. The tumor cells had a chance mutation known as IDH1, which improves the length of survival.11 After surgery, the patient continued the ketogenic diet, maintaining his glucose ketone index (GKI) near or below 2.0.12 In October 2018, an MRI showed interval progression after the patient had relaxed his strict adherence to the ketogenic diet. He returned to eating a keto diet that kept his GKI at 2 and included additional interventions such as breathing exercises, stress management and moderate physical training. Over the following 2.5 years and seven MRIs, the tumor showed slow interval progression. As of the time of the case study writing in April 2021, the patient was “active with a good quality of life, except for occasional tonic-clonic seizures and no signs of increased intracranial pressure.”13 This case study is similar to one presented in 201814 of a 38-year-old man with a diagnosis of GBM. In addition to using a calorie-restricted ketogenic diet, this patient also underwent a subtotal tumor resection and used a modified standard of care treatment including epigallocatechin gallate, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, metformin and methylfolate. After nine months of treatment, biomarkers and clinical symptoms indicated the tumor was regressing. At the time of the case study, 24 months after the start of therapy, the patient was in excellent health and showed evidence of significant tumor regression.15 Importance of Glucose and Glutamine to Cancer CellsSeyfried commented in a press release from Boston College:16
The team postulated that the long-term survival of the first patient whose follow-up case study was written at 80 months after diagnosis may have been in part due to the IDH1 mutation17 and KMT, both targeting glycolysis and glutaminolysis essential for GBM growth.18 Glutamine is an amino acid that plays a role in intestinal health. Glucose and glutamine are fermentable fuels in the body. Studies19 have suggested microbial protein fermentation plays a role in generating a range of molecules that may increase inflammation and tissue permeability. Seyfried writes that glucose and glutamine may drive breast cancer growth “through substrate level phosphorylation (SLP) in both the cytoplasm (Warburg effect) and the mitochondria (Q-effect), respectively.”20 In an interview with me, Seyfried describes how cancer cell metabolism is different from normal cell metabolism, changing from respiration to fermentation.21 If you measure oxygen consumption in tumor cells it looks like they are using oxygen to make ATP. However, the mitochondria are abnormal and what Seyfried realized was that the cells were fermenting amino acids, and in particular glutamine. Using an animal model,22 Seyfried and colleagues demonstrated that with a calorically restricted ketogenic diet and a glutamine antagonist, they could reverse disease symptoms and improve animal survival. The strategy also appeared to reduce inflammation, swelling and hemorrhaging. He also suggests that KMT with glutamine targeting may be an effective means of improving overall survival for women with breast cancer.23 This means targeting glucose and glutamine in the treatment of cancer all but eliminates their source of energy and starves the cells, so they can't survive. Why Cancer Is a Metabolic DiseaseWestern medicine has been operating under the theory that cancer is a genetic disease. This rules everything from research funding and treatment to the entire cancer industry. Unfortunately, despite decades of relying on this dogma, it has not led to any significant breakthrough in treatment or prevention. Seyfried and others have advanced the theory that cancer is primarily the result of defective energy metabolism in, and damage to, the cell's mitochondria. Genetic mutations that are detectable in cancer cells are not the primary cause of cellular overgrowth but are rather a downstream effect of defective energy metabolism.24 Research data demonstrate that cancer growth is suppressed when the nucleus from a tumor cell is transferred to the cytoplasm of normal cells with normal functioning mitochondria.25 This tells us that normal mitochondria can suppress cancer growth. Conversely, for cancer cells to proliferate, you must have dysfunctional mitochondria. Seyfried’s research has demonstrated the growth and progression of cancer can be managed using a “whole body transition from fermentable metabolites, such as glucose and glutamine, to respiratory metabolites.”26 These are primarily ketone bodies that are formed when you follow a ketogenic diet. In “Why Cancer Needs To Be Treated as a Metabolic Disease,” I discuss many of the pathways Seyfried notes in his interview with Dr. Peter Attia. Seyfried answers questions about the different types of mitochondrial abnormalities that are found in cancer cells and why cancer cells do not self-destruct. Changing the view of cancer from a genetic disorder to primarily a metabolic disease has a significant impact on the approaches to preventing, treating and managing cancer.27 Healthy Mitochondria Help Prevent CancerSeyfried’s take-home message is that as long as your mitochondrial respiration remains healthy, cancer will not develop. There are several strategies you can use to help keep your mitochondria healthy. Avoiding toxic environmental factors and implementing healthy lifestyle strategies are the primary means of protecting your mitochondria. In fact, this is the sole focus of the metabolic mitochondrial therapy program detailed in my book “Fat for Fuel.” Topping my list of strategies to optimize mitochondrial health, which you can read more about in my book, are:
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/28/role-of-eating-ketogenic-for-glioblastoma.aspx 1 Who is Dr. Robert Malone?
2 Instead of encouraging the open sharing of information, the media and its "fact checkers" have succeeded in using the pandemic to:
3 Why are variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus unlikely to pose a significantly differing or worse risk to people with natural immunity, compared to the original?
4 Despite there being obvious problems with the gene-based COVID-19 "vaccines," scientists are already working on which of the following?
5 The term "net zero" doesn't mean zero emissions, as rich polluters will still be able to:
6 The evidence is now overwhelming that SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic are the result of:
7 Research shows a strong correlation between the rise in celiac disease and which of the following?
from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/28/week-188-health-quiz.aspx |
Nia Pure NatureThe Provider of premium Quality Health Products To Live Better Lives Archives
March 2022
Categories |