This story is about the hubris of conquest and genetic modification. Let's start with the ugly. The richest people of the world, as well as their loyal servants from the World Economic Forum, are on the Genetic Modification team. According to the World Economic Forum, "the evolution of gene testing and gene editing will drive the future of healthcare."
They really can't sleep at night knowing that they have not yet stuck their fingers into every nook and cranny of the human body and efficiently monetized them! Here is a technical video from 2016 on "Harnessing Gene Editing for Multiple and Permanent Genetic Changes."
I don't know ... somehow I am not excited. Besides, all of this sounds suspiciously like Manifest Destiny 2.0.
In February 2022, Chile passed a law prohibiting employers to discriminate against genetically impaired employees. The bill was "initiated on a motion by the Honorable Senator Mr. Alejandro Navarro Brain." In response, a lot of people in the freedom community started asking questions. Does somebody expect a great increase in the number of genetically impaired people? Why? Here is the law (translated):
"Article 1. — No employer may condition the hiring of workers, their permanence or the renewal of their contract, or the promotion or mobility in their employment, to the absence of mutations or alterations in their genome that cause a predisposition or a high risk of a pathology that may manifest itself during the course of the employment relationship, nor require for such purposes any certificate or examination that allows verifying that the worker does not have mutations or alterations of genetic material in his human genome that may lead to the development or manifest in a disease or physical or mental abnormality in the future."
"Article 2. — The worker may express his free and informed consent to undergo a genetic test, in accordance with the provisions of article 14 of Law No. 20,584, as long as it is aimed at ensuring that he meets the physical or mental conditions necessary and suitable to carry out work or tasks classified as dangerous, with the sole purpose of protecting their life or physical or mental integrity, as well as the life or physical or mental health of other workers.
If these exams are required by the employer, the latter must assume the cost of it. Likewise, if there is a current employment relationship, the time used to carry out said exams will be understood as worked for all legal purposes."
"Article 3. — Health establishments and laboratories that carry out this type of examination, as well as employers who access this information, must adopt all the security measures prescribed in Law No. 20,584 and in Article 12 of Law No. 20,120, in order to protect the privacy of the worker and guarantee confidential handling of the data. The worker will always have the right to access the information revealed by a genetic test."
The law was published in the official gazette on February 16, 2022. The jury on why this law had to pass is still out. For background on the GMO industry in Chile, here is a "GMO-positive" analysis from 2016.
We, human beings of the 21st century, are bombarded with poisons every step of the way — and we are kind of on our own with this. Our air is polluted. Our water is filled with contaminants (speaking of, as a tangent, the water coming out of my tap in New York City is a little rusty ... go figure). Our food, unless we are super vigilant and can afford organic (and even then) contains God knows what. Glyphosate is everywhere, and so are "forever chemicals."
Plus, on a daily basis, we deal with emotional stress, geoengineering-derived toxicity (about geoengineering, here and here), electromagnetic pollution ... seriously, it's a miracle that we are still around, given that our wealthy are treating us like roaches!
And now, we have a new ambitious player in the area of messing with our bodies! Meet the biological bandit, the novel injections! As we all know, the COVID injections are designed to turn our bodies into factories producing spike proteins (in the words of the CDC, "harmless pieces").
At no point in known history have our bodies been asked to grow foreign spikes on the surface of our cells — so this is frankly kind of creepy. There is a reason why our instincts naturally go against Frankenstein initiatives and untested products. It's because they are Frankenstein and untested!
Case in point: were those products maybe tested for important things like genotoxicity? Let's ask the trustworthy insert for the trustworthy FDA-approved product, Comirnaty. It says the following:
"COMIRNATY has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or impairment of male fertility." Oh. But at least, it is not really genetic modification because it doesn't change our actual DNA, right?
First of all, let me point out that the scientists are still discovering new connections and even organs in the human body (here, here, and here), so any knowledge they have is conditional, and real scientists are humble and cautious. The arrogant ones may puff their cheeks all day — but it doesn't mean that they really know how thing work, in a finite manner.
So, in the case of eliminating the possibility of DNA damage, even if the regulators were pure and honest, and if they were truly following the also pure and honest scientists, their statement about the novel product not impacting human DNA is only a "good faith" opinion, as of this second. After all, the product is novel!
Lo and behold, here is dr. Paul Alexander's analysis of the study called, "Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line."
Quoting the abstract: "Preclinical studies of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2, developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, showed reversible hepatic effects in animals that received the BNT162b2 injection. Furthermore, a recent study showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells."
As Dr. Alexander notes poignantly, "the failure is that the vaccine companies did not study this in clinical trial. We have no idea in the human model as we have no idea in everything as to the safety of these vaccines and the short, medium, and long-term effects. We have no idea if persons who have taken these vaccines will not have autoimmune disease or be severely ill, or have severe side effects, or even die from the vaccines, in the future."
And here is analysis by Mikolaj Raszek, PhD, in Canada. Dr. Raszek looked at the Australian Pfizer data, i.e. "Nonclinical Evaluation Report for BNT162b2 [mRNA] COVID-19 vaccine (COMIRNATYTM)," submitted in January 2021.
To sum up my answer to the question as to whether COVID injection may alter human DNA, we have no idea. And yet so many people are forced to take them — like cattle (which is not to say that it is right to treat cattle in this manner, it is also wrong).
Many of us remember how Monsanto sued different farmers after Monsanto's toxic products contaminated the farmers' crops. The corporate giant claimed that the farmers had illegally used their patented products. (I'd say, this is emotional and intellectual abuse, who even wants their products).
Which brings us to today — and the legal analysis by the disabled rights attorney Todd Callender who has looked at a U.S. Supreme Court case from 2013, and it led him to believe that this case could have far-fetching legal implications for the recipients COVID injections.
"Each human gene is encoded as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which takes the shape of a "double helix." Each "cross-bar" in that helix consists of two chemically joined nucleotides. Sequences of DNA nucleotides contain the information necessary to create strings of amino acids used to build proteins in the body. The nucleotides that code for amino acids are "exons," and those that do not are "introns."
Scientists can extract DNA from cells to isolate specific segments for study. They can also synthetically create exons-only strands of nucleotides known as composite DNA (cDNA). cDNA contains only the exons that occur in DNA, omitting the intervening introns."
"Respondent Myriad Genetics, Inc. (Myriad), obtained several patents after discovering the precise location and sequence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, mutations of which can dramatically increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancer.
This knowledge allowed Myriad to determine the genes' typical nucleotide sequence, which, in turn, enabled it to develop medical tests useful for detecting mutations in these genes in a particular patient to assess the patient's cancer risk. If valid, Myriad's patents would give it the exclusive right to isolate an individual's BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and would give Myriad the exclusive right to synthetically create BRCA cDNA.
Petitioners filed suit, seeking a declaration that Myriad's patents are invalid under 35 U. S. C. §101. As relevant here, the District Court granted summary judgment to petitioners, concluding that Myriad's claims were invalid because they covered products of nature. The Federal Circuit initially reversed, but on remand in light of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U. S. ___, the Circuit found both isolated DNA and cDNA patent eligible."
"Held: A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring."
According to Todd Callender, who was interviewed by Corona Investigative Committee, the document holds that the use of mRNA for modification of the genome results in a synthetic genome that belongs to the patent holder. Therefore, if we follow that line of legal logic, it is possible to conclude that using mRNA to modify human cells can result in said cells (and living beings) owned by the patent holder.
As of this moment, there is still no clarity and no official legal conclusion as to whether this interpretation will apply — but given how crazy the past two years have been, and how brazenly the bulldozer has been proceeding so far, nothing seems off limits. Also this:
And we are at it, let's also look at the concept of "DNA storage."
All this fits in perfectly with the "blue ocean" business model that creates new markets out of thin air.
I wrote about this in detail in a 2021 article about the war on natural immunity and ability — but the gist is that eroding natural health and natural defenses (whether accidentally or on purpose) turns us into loyal customers who have to subscribe to the "artificial immunity" service for the rest of our lives, however long it lasts. Sucks for us but very good for business!
And where does the money come from, assuming that the citizens are all half-alive and can barely provide for themselves? Well, the money could come, for example, from the virtual digital "press" owned by the central bank, who would fund the "noble" companies providing the artificial immunity services to the people in the name of "public health" ... You know the drill.
It's all for our own good! In this case, the citizens would exist as mere excuses for the companies to make money. Which, to be fair, has been the case for a while, just in a way that was hidden from many of us — until two years ago.
The end result would look very much like the Monsanto arrangement where living forms are modified to depend on purchased products, while remaining in an increasingly toxic environment. I don't know about you, but I already feel bad for the crippled GMO tomato, and I certainly don't want to turn into something similar.
Let's look at the existential picture. Where does all this cluelessness, arrogance, greed, and cruelty come from?
Human beings do a lot of unintelligent and self-destructive things out of fear (I've done it, I am no exception, definitely no finger pointing here). Fear of missing out (and thus being humbled by rivals) is important motive in our culture.
I think that, philosophically speaking, today's unhealthy hunger for conquering nature and scanning every nook and cranny for "goodies" — and then squeezing every drop of juice out everything, and then tossing it out — is driven by a spiritual void, by the lack of joyful faith, by the fear of being existentially vulnerable, intellectually unsophisticated, and emotionally unimportant.
After all, even the most egregious greed covers up for a spiritual void since we don't really need to own everything in the world to be happy. It's like, "If I leave even a drop of valuable goods on the side of the road for someone else to grab them, I'll feel so stupid! And they will sure judge me! And I am afraid of that so I'd rather just take it."
Right now, we are living in times of very ripe and internalized fear and peer pressure but initially, to shake the people off their axis, it had to come with violence, which is something that all of our ancestors experienced at different points.
Here is a non-GMO-related story that really moved me several years ago, and stuck with me. It was told by the Dagara elder Malidoma Some, who, sadly, passed away last year (and I just learned about it, so I am very shocked and sad).
As a young child, Malidoma Some was kidnapped by priests into a mission boarding school, which he fled as a teen, and then had to undergo a lot of things in order to heal. He then moved to America and dedicated his life to help westerners understand the centuries-tested wisdom of his people.
One of his stories stuck in my mind. He wrote about how the missionaries who came to his village tempted the farmers. The missionaries promised to buy the crops from the farmers if the farmers bought the fancy fertilizes from the missionaries. Some of the farmers got tempted and bought the fertilizes.
The missionaries' fertilizers "made the land angry," and the crops didn't grow. And so those farmers found themselves in debt to the Jesuits for the fertilizers, and without the yields. And from being indebted, they were more vulnerable to the demands of the missionaries.
This sounds very similar to the behavior of Monsanto, leading to farmer suicides in countries like India (a fact so egregious that the establishment had to "debunk" it).
Similar things were unfortunately done in the Americas, too, as a part of the intentional policy of building outposts around Indian territory to seduce and corrupt the people on the "reservations" (what a word, if you really think about it). The well-documented strategy was designed to steal more land from the Native people — who were already greatly perturbed by the violence of the "great reset" that had been handed to them by the Europeans.
The plan was to sell them goods "on credit," and put them in so much debt that they would let go of more their land. The final goal was for the Native people to "own nothing and be happy" (yes, the original American great reset, and we really need to come to terms with how similar it is to the great reset of today, which is still in early stages.
I believe with great passion that in order for us to win this victory and to stop the bulldozer, we need to tackle the underlying spiritual and spiritual malaise, or else the bulldozer will keep coming at us in different ways. Being spiritually honest and brave, and working toward healing after centuries of abuse, are the challenges of our generation, and perhaps of many generations to come.
Bottom line, we are free people. We never belonged to the great resetters, just like the people who came before us never belonged to the great resetters of their time.
And there is no need to scan every nook and cranny of bodies, looking for money. Unmonetized bodies are free bodies. So I pray that we the people start pedaling toward honesty and wisdom so that we can heal.
To find more of Tessa Lena's work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.
An animal study published in May 2022, found a time-restricted and calorie-restricted diet could lengthen life.1,2 There are several approaches to fasting. Intermittent fasting is a way of restricting the time during which you consume food. However, it does not necessarily mean that you are also restricting calories over a 24-hour period.
For example, intermittent fasting generally implies that you restrict eating food during certain hours of the day and do not eat at night. The approach you use may depend on your daily circumstances. At first, you might be nervous about restricting food intake to certain hours during the day. However, if you approach it gradually, your body gets used to it and it's very doable.
A common method of intermittent fasting is to eat during four to eight hours of the day and fast for the remaining 16 to 20 hours. This is popular since you’re already fasting while you're sleeping. You can extend the overnight fast by skipping breakfast or you may choose to eat breakfast and skip dinner.
Some people do this type of fasting daily, while others practice two to four times a week. The more consistently you use it, the less you'll feel hungry at the mealtime you choose to skip. Another approach to intermittent fasting is to cap your calorie intake two days a week at 500 calories. You pick whatever two days you want, as long as the days you choose are not back-to-back.
Another method is to water fast for 24 hours once a week. This can lead to symptoms of headaches, irritability and fatigue, which are triggered by the release of toxins. For this reason, I don't recommend multiday water fasting any longer, as most have inefficient detox systems and it could lead to more harm than good.
Researchers from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in the featured study began with the premise that calorie restriction can prolong life. Yet, they also knew that the exact mechanisms the body uses to accomplish this are poorly understood. Using an animal model, they found restricting calories by 30% could extend the animals’ lifespan by 10%.3,4
However, when they combined calorie restriction with intermittent fasting, aligning the hours of feeding with the animals’ circadian rhythms, they could extend the lifespan by 35%. This was apparently independent of the animal's body weight and did not result in weight loss.
The researchers wrote that calorie restriction and intermittent fasting helped reduce genetic expression associated with inflammation which could ameliorate age-related changes.5 The scientists found that it is not as much about what was consumed but rather when the mice consumed it.
The animals were fed a healthy diet and were only fed during the night as they are nocturnal animals. Because humans spend most of their waking hours during the day, the authors suggested they should restrict their intake to daylight hours.6
The animals were tracked over four years and the researchers found that by restricting calories and only feeding at night, the mice could live an extra nine months over the typical two-year lifespan. Joseph Takahashi, lead author in the study, is a molecular biologist whose interest was in untangling the issues that surround time-restricted eating plans.
The results of the study have suggested that there are positive effects on health and longevity, even if the mice did not lose weight. The scientists believe that restricting calories and meal timing could positively affect the tendency toward inflammation and metabolic dysregulation that is common as mice age.7
The featured study evaluated the effect of calorie restriction and timed feedings on longevity. This study found a smaller effect with just calorie restriction. Past research has also demonstrated that calorie restriction can activate autophagy8 and suppress mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR),9 both of which are critical to health and longevity.
Autophagy is a process in which cells in your body are recycled. Very basically, it prevents the accumulation of worn-out cellular parts. Autophagy is activated when the body undergoes nutrient starvation and energy deprivation.10
A two-year study published by Yale University11 engaged 200 participants who were split into two groups. One group was asked to reduce their total caloric intake by 14% for two years. The researchers’ aim was to analyze if caloric restriction benefited humans in the same way that past animal studies had shown a positive response.
One of the ways that immunity was monitored was by analyzing the thymus gland, located behind the sternum and in front of the heart. The researchers used MRI imaging in participants who had limited their caloric intake and found that the gland was producing more T cells at the end of the two years than it was at the beginning of the study. After further analysis, the team found the changes were in the tissue microenvironment of the thymus gland and not the T cells.
The data also revealed “remarkable changes” in gene expression of fat tissue that were maintained through the end of the study.12 Autophagy promotes cell survival and facilitates homeostasis. Studies have also shown that it helps promote cell death, which is a necessary part of survival.
While it has been studied extensively in eukaryotic cells, researchers13 are also finding that deregulated autophagy may also contribute to neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease and Parkinson's disease. Other observations have hypothesized that it may play a significant role in psychiatric disorders such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.
Analysis of cellular structures14 during aging found that the process decreases with age, which worsens age-associated diseases. Scientists theorize that proper autophagy activity could extend longevity. Other studies15 have shown that upregulating autophagy can reduce the protein aggregates that contribute to neurodegenerative disorders and may be a method of modulating age-related diseases and longevity.
In addition to the lengthened lifespan demonstrated in the featured study, other research has shown that restricting the time in which you eat can have significant benefits to your overall health. For example, as you age, the production of metabolites leucine, isoleucine and ophthalmic acid decline. However, with fasting, individuals have higher levels of these metabolites.
Takayuki Teruya, the first author of the paper, commented that these particular metabolites are connected to muscle maintenance and antioxidant activity and may help increase longevity.16 The results of the study suggest that fasting has a “rejuvenating effect.”17 A second study18 showed the combination of intermittent fasting with carbohydrate restriction could improve weight loss.
Two groups of women were randomly selected to consume one of two breakfast choices. The remaining foods in their daily diet were identical. The group ate between 1300 and 1500 calories each day and at the end of the study, those eating a restricted carbohydrate breakfast experienced a 7.7-pound greater weight loss as compared to the control group.
Researchers are also considering autophagy a viable way to treat disease. A 2012 paper19 noted that in addition to playing a role in homeostasis, it is involved in neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, metabolic condition and infectious diseases and is likely dysregulated in the same disorders.
Research also finds that fasting improves insulin sensitivity in the body, may reverse diabetes and can support your weight management efforts when combined with exercise. Research presented in 201920 was based on the fasting prayer practices of Muslims during Ramadan.
The study engaged 14 healthy individuals who routinely fasted 15 hours a day over 30 days. Biomarkers indicated that fasting improved insulin sensitivity and reduced the adverse effects of a high glucose diet. An editorial written in The BMJ21 by noted research scientist James DiNicolantonio, Pharm.D., looked at several studies that found repeated episodes of fasting induced cell growth of pancreatic cells in mouse models.
According to other research,22 intermittent fasting could drastically reduce a woman's risk of breast cancer. The group used three separate animal studies and found time-restricted feeding reduced tumor growth and delayed the development of breast cancer tumors.
Two of the pathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's Disease are amyloid-beta plaques and neurofibrillary tangles formed by aggregates of tau protein. In one paper, scientists wrote about neurodegenerative disorders of aging.23
“They are often called proteinopathies owing to the presence of misfolded and aggregated proteins that lose their physiological roles and acquire neurotoxic properties. One reason underlying the accumulation and spread of oligomeric forms of neurotoxic proteins is insufficient clearance by the autophagic-lysosomal network. In other words, they occur when there’s insufficient autophagy occurring in your body.”
Autophagy dysfunction has been identified in several neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric disorders and diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s Disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Huntington’s disease.24
Several studies have also demonstrated that time-restricted eating helps prevent memory loss and improve cognition.25,26 Fasting may also help lower high blood pressure. One study27 of 174 participants with blood pressure higher than 140/ 90 underwent an interventional medically supervised water-only fast for an average of 10 to 11 days.
Before the fast started, their diet was limited to fruits and vegetables. Following the fast, the researchers found that 89% had blood pressure under 140/ 90, which was the cutoff for high blood pressure at the time of the study. The average reduction was a large jump of 37/13. Those who experienced the greatest impact were also those who had the highest blood pressure.
In this hour-long interview with Dave Asprey, author of "Fast This Way: Burn Fat, Heal Inflammation, and Eat Like the High-Performing Human You Were Meant to Be,” we discuss some of the myths around fasting and simple hacks that he's discovered that make the process easier.
One of his favorite ways to increase levels of a satiety hormone that makes you feel full longer is coffee. He uses Bulletproof Coffee, which is mycotoxin free. These toxins can be present in small amounts in coffee and affect inflammation by increasing your hunger. He also recommends adding MCT oil to the coffee, which raises ketones four times more than coconut oil. Other hacks include:
This article was previously published June 3, 2019, and has been updated with new information.
Summer and sunshine-filled days are upon us and, with that, increased calls for the use of sunscreen. Unfortunately, most sunscreens contain toxic ingredients that are easily absorbed through your skin and can jeopardize your health.
The good news is you can support healthy skin and protect it from ultraviolet damage from the inside. Scientists have identified several nutrients that have UV protective activity which can reduce your risk of sunburn sand related skin damage. Here, I'll review the top contenders: astaxanthin, lycopene and beta carotene, vitamins D and E, and epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG).
Astaxanthin is one of nature's most potent antioxidants, has been shown to offer significant protection against UV radiation damage by acting as internal sunscreen. It has very strong free radical scavenging activity that protects your cells, organs and body tissues from oxidative damage.
Astaxanthin is produced by the microalgae Haematococcus pluvialis when its water supply dries up, forcing it to protect itself from ultraviolet radiation. Astaxanthin is essentially the algae's survival mechanism. It is this "radiation shield" that explains how astaxanthin can protect you from similar radiation, thereby helping prevent skin photo-aging and wrinkles. As noted in a 2010 study:1
"Repetitive exposure of the skin to UVA radiation elicits sagging more frequently than wrinkling, which is mainly attributed to its biochemical mechanism to up-regulate the expression of matrix-metalloproteinase (MMP)-1 and skin fibroblast elastase (SFE)/neutral endopeptidase (NEP), respectively.
In this study, we examined the effects of a potent antioxidant, astaxanthin (AX), on the induction of MMP-1 and SFE by UVA treatment of cultured human dermal fibroblasts …
UVA radiation elicited a significant increase in the gene expression of MMP-1 as well as SFE/NEP (to a lesser extent) which was followed by distinct increases in their protein and enzymatic activity levels …
These findings indicate that, based on different effective concentrations of AX, a major mode of action leading to the inhibition elicited by AX depends on inhibition of UVA effects of the reactive oxygen species-directed signaling cascade, but not on interruption of the IL-6-mediated signaling cascade. We hypothesize that AX would have a significant benefit on protecting against UVA-induced skin photo-aging such as sagging and wrinkles."
A second paper,2 "Cosmetic Benefits of Astaxanthin on Human Subjects" published online in 2012, noted a combination of 6 milligrams taken internally with 2 milliliters per day of topical astaxanthin led to "significant improvements" in skin wrinkling, age spots and skin elasticity, texture and moisture content by week eight.
When it comes to UV radiation protection, astaxanthin specifically helps protect against UV-induced cell death. Unlike topical sun block, astaxanthin does not actually block UV rays, so it doesn't prevent UVB from converting into vitamin D in your skin; it simply protects your skin against damage. This protective effect is so potent studies even show it helps protect against:
Cyanotech Corporation funded a study5 through an independent consumer research laboratory to measure the skin's resistance to both UVA and UVB light, before and after astaxanthin supplementation. After taking 4 mg of astaxanthin per day for two weeks, subjects showed a significant increase in the amount of time necessary for UV radiation to redden their skin. According to the authors:6
"Results ranged from over 50% more energy needed to burn the skin on some subjects to little or no effect on some subjects. The average of all subjects was approximately 20% more energy, a statistically significant improvement."
Animal studies lend further evidence to astaxanthin's effects as an internal sunscreen. For example, in a 1998 in vitro study7 using fibroblasts from rat kidneys, beta-carotene, lutein and astaxanthin were all found to protect against UVA-induced oxidative stress, "with astaxanthin exhibiting superior protective properties."
Another study demonstrated the UV protective properties of other carotenoids: lutein and zeaxanthin. Here, lutein and zeaxanthin were found to provide a fourfold increase in protection when taken internally, and a sixfold increase when used topically as well as internally.8,9
Many athletes report astaxanthin allows them to stay in the sun for longer periods of time without feeling ill and without burning. Less burning also means lower skin cancer risk.
For general skin health and protection against the sun, a daily dose of 4 mg is likely sufficient, although if you're an outdoorsman or athlete who exercises outdoors on a regular basis, you may want to consider a dose between 8 mg and 12 mg/day, at which you'll also start reaping benefits in exercise performance and recovery.
Lycopene also acts as an internal sunscreen, although it's not nearly as protective as astaxanthin. A study10,11 published in 2001 found tomato paste helped protect fair-skinned individuals with a tendency to burn rather than tan.
Nineteen men and women with fair complexions, blue eyes and light-colored hair were instructed to add either 10 grams of olive oil or a combination of 10 grams of olive oil plus 40 grams of tomato paste (about 5 tablespoons or half a small can) to their daily diet.
Previous work by this research team had shown cooking improves the bioavailability of lycopene in tomatoes;12 hence the use of tomato paste in this study. The oil further facilitates your body's uptake of the nutrient.
During the 10-week trial, the researchers periodically tested the participants' tolerance to sunlight by irradiating a small patch of skin on their backs with a sun lamp, to see how long it took for reddening (erythema) to occur.
The olive oil only group experienced no change in tolerance over the course of the study, but those who ate oil and tomato paste combo experienced 40% less reddening at the end of the 10 weeks compared to the first four weeks.
According to the authors, "The data demonstrate that it is feasible to achieve protection against UV light-induced erythema by ingestion of a commonly consumed dietary source of lycopene."13 Similarly, a 2008 systematic review14 of feeding studies evaluating the effectiveness of beta carotene for the protection against sunburn concluded that:
"… (1) beta-carotene supplementation protects against sunburn and (2) the study duration had a significant influence on the effected size. Regression plot analysis revealed that protection required a minimum of 10 weeks of supplementation with a mean increase of the protective effect of 0.5 standard deviations with every additional month of supplementation.
Thus, dietary supplementation of humans with beta-carotene provides protection against sunburn in a time-dependent manner."
If you're like most people, you've probably fallen for the misguided advice from most dermatologists and public health officials to stay out of the sun to avoid skin cancer.
Unfortunately, total sun avoidance is inadvisable, as it can actually increase your risk rather than lower it. In a nutshell, the vitamin D your body produces in response to UVB radiation helps protect against melanoma. As noted in one Lancet study:15
"Paradoxically, outdoor workers have a decreased risk of melanoma compared with indoor workers, suggesting that chronic sunlight exposure can have a protective effect."
Optimizing your vitamin D through sensible sun exposure can also help protect against many internal cancers, the death tolls of which are far greater than melanoma. Vitamin D is also crucial for the prevention of many chronic diseases, and has been shown to be an important criteria for longevity.
For example, a Swedish study16 published in 2014, which followed 29,518 middle-aged to older women for up to 20 years, found women who avoided sun exposure and tanning beds were twice as likely to die over the course of the study. The researchers attributed this finding to the protective influence of vitamin D. As noted by the authors:
"We found that all‐cause mortality was inversely related to sun exposure habits. The mortality rate amongst avoiders of sun exposure was approximately twofold higher compared with the highest sun exposure group, resulting in excess mortality with a population attributable risk of 3%."
The key is to optimize your vitamin D level while avoiding sunburn, as sunburn is the factor that raises your risk of skin cancer (including squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma and melanoma). As noted in one 2009 paper on vitamin D synthesis versus cancer development:17
"Concerning MM [malignant melanoma], numerous epidemiologic investigations analysing solar UV-exposure parameters have consistently reported an association between the development of MM and short-term intense UV-exposure, particularly burning in childhood.
It has been convincingly demonstrated by many investigators, that the incidence of MM increases with decreasing latitude towards the equator. However, in contrast to short-term intense exposure, more chronic less intense exposure has not been found to be a risk factor for the development of MM and in fact has been found in several studies to be protective."
Another vitamin that helps prevent sun-related skin damage is vitamin E, especially when combined with vitamin C.18 An article19 on Oregon State University's Micronutrient Information Center website discusses the many functions of vitamin E in skin, noting that "vitamin E can absorb the energy from UV light. Thus, it plays important roles in photoprotection, preventing UV-induced free radical damage to skin."
Food is your best source of vitamin E, since food contains a combination of the eight types of vitamin E. If you're using a supplement, there are key considerations that need to be heeded. Synthetic vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) is derived from petrochemicals and has known toxic effects.
Natural vitamin E includes a total of eight different compounds, and having a balance of all eight helps optimize its antioxidant functions. These compounds are divided into two groups of molecules as follows:
Tocopherols are considered the "true" vitamin E, and many claim it's the only kind that has health benefits. Part of the problem with tocotrienols is that they simply haven't received as much scientific attention. In my view, it's safe to assume you would benefit from a balance of all eight and not just one.
Synthetic vitamin E supplements typically include only alpha-tocopherol, and research20,21 published in 2012 concluded that synthetic alpha tocopherols found in vitamin E supplements provided no discernible cancer protection while gamma and delta tocopherols found in foods do help prevent colon, lung, breast and prostate cancers. Bear in mind that a supplement will not actually tell you it's synthetic, so you have to know what to look for on the label.
I strongly recommend avoiding synthetic vitamin E supplements as they've been shown to have toxic effects in higher amounts and/or over the long term. Synthetic vitamin E has also been linked to an increased tumor progression and accelerated lung cancer in mice.22
So, if you opt for a supplement, make sure you're getting a well-balanced all-natural vitamin E supplement, not a synthetic one. Also look for a supplement that is free of soy, soybean oil derivatives and genetically engineered (GE) ingredients (some of the most common GE ingredients found in supplements are derivatives of corn, soy and cotton seed). And, be sure to take your vitamin E with another antioxidant for it to work optimally.23
According to the Linus Pauling Institute, severe vitamin E deficiency rarely occurs in humans, evenly though earlier research indicated that it was highly prevalent.24 Researchers at Linus Pauling said.25
“This contrasts with the data from dietary surveys that suggest vitamin E inadequacy in the US is widespread.
Discrepancies may be due to a number of factors, including underreporting of fat and fat-soluble vitamin intake, inaccuracies in the food composition database that lists nutrient values of foods, and/or lack of correction of circulating vitamin E concentrations to lipid concentrations. Some have questioned whether the nutritional requirement of vitamin E needs to be reevaluated.”
According to the National Institutes of Health26 the recommended dietary allowances for vitamin E are:
|0–6 months||4 mg||4 mg|
|7–12 months||5 mg||5 mg|
|1–3 years||6 mg||6 mg|
|4–8 years||7 mg||7 mg|
|9–13 years||11 mg||11 mg|
|14+ years||15 mg||15 mg||15 mg||19 mg|
Foods with the highest sources of vitamin E include sunflower seeds, almonds, peanut butter and wheat germ oil. One reason vitamin E, as well as other nutrient deficiencies occur is that most people eat a primarily processed food diet, which tends to be lacking in vitamin E and other important nutrients.
Moreover, following a low-fat diet can have the undesirable side effect of lowering your vitamin E level, as your ability to absorb the vitamin E present in the foods you eat or supplements you take is then impaired. Since vitamin E is fat-soluble, taking it with some healthy fat, such as coconut oil or avocado, will increase its bioavailability.
The antioxidant epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), found in green tea, has also been shown to prevent genetic damage in skin cells exposed to UV radiation. The study,27 published in The Journal of Nutrition in 2011, found women who drank a beverage with green tea polyphenols (total catechin content 1,402 mg) reduced their risk of sunburn compared to controls. As reported in this study:
"Skin photoprotection, structure, and function were measured at baseline (wk 0), wk 6, and wk 12. Following exposure of the skin areas to 1.25 minimal erythemal dose of radiation from a solar simulator, UV-induced erythema decreased significantly in the intervention group by 16 and 25% after 6 and 12 wk, respectively.
Skin structural characteristics that were positively affected included elasticity, roughness, scaling, density, and water homeostasis … In summary, green tea polyphenols delivered in a beverage were shown to protect skin against harmful UV radiation and helped to improve overall skin quality of women."
To boost the benefits of green tea further, add a squirt of lemon juice to your cup. Research28 has demonstrated vitamin C significantly increases the amount of tea catechins available for your body to absorb. The addition of 30mg of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to 250 ml of tea boosted EGCG recovery to 56% to 76%, while normally less than 20% of green tea catchins remain post-digestion.
Another study29 published in 2012 confirmed plant polyphenols in green tea "exhibit significant antioxidant, chemopreventive, and immunomodulatory effects in protecting the skin," noting that:
"UVA radiation is far more abundant (90%) and penetrates much deeper into the epidermis and dermis of the skin. It is weakly absorbed by DNA but reacts with other nonDNA chromophores that lead to the formation of ROS which damage DNA, proteins, and lipids in the skin.
Singlet molecular oxygen produced by UVA targets DNA base guanine producing 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanine (8-odHG) which is an important marker of oxidative stress … Additionally, stress signals created by UVR [ultraviolet radiation] trigger protective signaling responses in the cell membrane, nucleus, and mitochondria that lead to cell cycle arrest or apoptosis.
Chronic and excessive UVR exposure overwhelms and depletes these cutaneous defense mechanisms. Therefore, compounds with antioxidant and cell repair potential are promising additions to our sun protection armamentarium …
Topical application of EGCG in a hydrophilic ointment demonstrated better photoprotective properties versus oral consumption in mice … Earlier studies using topical and orally consumed GTPP [green tea polyphenols] in mice decreased UVR-induced carcinogenesis, by inhibiting the activity of chemical tumor initiators and promoters …
Photoaging is caused by chronic UV exposure. In vitro studies using cultured human skin fibroblasts pretreated with GTPP showed a decrease in hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)-induced ROS … As discussed in this paper, GTPPs have important antioxidant, immunomodulatory, and photoprotective functions.
Their ability to modulate critical biochemical functions through topical and oral formulations makes GTPPs a promising candidate for chemoprevention and treatment of disease."
One of the most important strategies to radically lower your risk of sunburn will be to decrease the amount of seed oils and processed foods as they contain large amounts of seed oils. These seed oils are loaded with omega-6 fats, specifically linoleic acid (LA). Most people don't realize that sunburn is a result of the UV rays damaging the highly perishable LA that is embedded in the cell membranes of your skin from your diet.
If you have very low LA in your diet your skin cells have much less of this easily damaged fat in the cell membranes of your skin and thus it will not be able to be damaged from the UV in sunlight. However it is important to understand that it takes years of a low LA diet to reduce the LA content in your body as its half life is on the order of years, not a day or two like it is with carbs.
As you can see, there are many ways to improve your skin's ability to withstand the sun's rays, thereby allowing you to get the benefits without adding much risk. As mentioned, the key to preventing skin damage and skin cancer is to avoid burning.
As soon as your skin starts turning the lightest shade of pink (which will be relative, depending on your base skin color), it's time to get out of the sun or put on protective clothing. A wide-brimmed hat to protect your face is advisable at all times. A majority of your vitamin D production comes from exposing large areas of your body — not your face.
Topping the list of nutrients that protect your skin from sun damage is astaxanthin. Taking somewhere between 4 mg and 12 mg daily can allow you to spend far more time outdoors without risking a sunburn. Just remember — it will take a few weeks before the effects become apparent, so start early.
That said, optimizing your vitamin D and taking natural vitamin E can further add to your body's natural sun protection, as can drinking green tea or taking an ECGC supplement.
This article was previously published August 8, 2019, and has been updated with new information.
Cilantro and coriander seed are names identifying the two stages of development of the plant genus Coriandum sativum. Cilantro refers to the initial leafy stage of the life cycle. Once the plant goes through its flowering stage and seeds begin to develop, it becomes known as coriander seed.1
So, coriander is unique in that it's both an herb (the leaves) and a spice (the seeds). In this article, the term Coriandum sativum refers to both parts of the plant equally. When a specific part of the plant is discussed, the terms cilantro and coriander or coriander seed will be used.
Cilantro is known to be rich in dietary folate and ascorbic acid (vitamin C),2 and may help detoxify heavy metals like mercury, arsenic, cadmium and lead.3 Recent research4,5 has also found cilantro leaf contains a potent potassium channel-activating anticonvulsant, suggesting it may benefit those suffering epileptic seizures. As explained in this paper, published in the July 2019 issue of The FASEB Journal:6
"Neuronal voltage-gated potassium channel subfamily Q (KCNQ) dysfunction can cause severe epileptic encephalopathies that are resistant to modern anticonvulsants.
Here we report that cilantro (Coriandrum sativum) … is a highly potent KCNQ channel activator. Screening of cilantro leaf metabolites revealed that one, the long-chain fatty aldehyde (E)-2-dodecenal, activates multiple KCNQs, including the predominant neuronal isoform … and the predominant cardiac isoform …
(E)-2-dodecenal also recapitulated the anticonvulsant action of cilantro, delaying pentylene tetrazole-induced seizures … The results provide a molecular basis for the therapeutic actions of cilantro and indicate that this ubiquitous culinary herb is surprisingly influential upon clinically important KCNQ channels."
In other words, cilantro activates specific potassium channels responsible for regulating electrical activity in your brain, thereby reducing seizure activity. Lead investigator Geoff Abbott, Ph.D., professor of physiology and biophysics at the UCI School of Medicine, told Newswise:7
"Specifically, we found one component of cilantro, called dodecenal, binds to a specific part of the potassium channels to open them, reducing cellular excitability.
This specific discovery is important as it may lead to more effective use of cilantro as an anticonvulsant, or to modifications of dodecenal to develop safer and more effective anticonvulsant drugs.
In addition to the anticonvulsant properties, cilantro also has reported anticancer, anti-inflammatory, antifungal, antibacterial, cardioprotective, gastric health and analgesic effects. And, the best part is it tastes good!"
Coriander seed and coriander seed essential oil have also been linked to a wide range of health benefits. For example, as noted by the American Botanical Council, the seeds have been used to treat dysentery, bronchitis, anxiety and insomnia.8
A topical ointment made from coriander seed may also provide relief for arthritis and rheumatism pain, an effect attributed to its anti-inflammatory effects.9 The primary active ingredient in coriander seed is linalool, responsible for coriander's pleasant smell. Linalool, and thus coriander seed, have been shown to:10
Prevent oxidative damage in the liver, heart, kidneys and brain
Improve diabetes management by improving insulin response and protecting against pancreatic islet damage; lowering glucose levels and postprandial glycemia
Improve memory and learning
Protect against neurological disease by reducing memory deficits and oxidative stress in the brain
Reduce pain by inhibiting pain response
Inhibit microbial growth, including fungal infections affecting the skin and infections caused by Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, S. haemolyticus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Listeria monocytogenes.11 According to a review in Alternative and Complementary Therapies:12
Topically, coriander seed essential oil has demonstrated effectiveness for the treatment of impetigo (a contagious skin infection caused by staph or strep bacteria), chronic wound care and acute outbreaks of herpes simplex13
In India, coriander seed is used in the treatment of rheumatic fever and reproductive problems such as spermatorrhea (spontaneous, involuntary ejaculation) and leucorrhea (vaginal infection).14 Studies have also found the seeds to have aphrodisiac properties.15
According to a 2016 review in Nutrition Today,16 "Coriander oil and linalool lack toxicity, which has led to the assessment that the essential oil is considered safe as a food additive at levels currently approved for use."
The dosage used in traditional medicine is said to be 1 gram to 5 grams of coriander seed powder three times a day, or between 14 and 71 milligrams, three times a day, for a 154-pound person.17 Coriander seed tea can also be made using 4 grams to 30 grams of seed in about 3.5 ounces of boiling water (100 milliliters).18
According to Nutrition Today,19 "Adverse effects associated with any historical use of coriander seeds and leaves in traditional medicines have not been documented, although a case report from Iran described endocrinotoxicity in a woman who had taken approximately 200 mL of a 10% leaf extract for seven consecutive days."
According to one review of the medicinal benefits of Coriandum sativum:20
"Coriander is used in the preparation of many household medicines to cure bed cold, seasonal fever, nausea, vomiting, stomach disorders and also used as a drug for indigestion, against worms, rheumatism and pain in the joints.
Many of [the] healing properties of coriander can be attributed to its exceptional phytonutrients and hence, it is often referred to as [a] storehouse for bioactive compounds."
Areas of use for Coriandum sativum listed by the American Botanical Council include:21
Yet another paper,22 "Cilantro — Culinary Herb or Miracle Medicinal Plant?" published in Alternative and Complementary Therapies, cite research showing Coriander sativum being useful in the treatment of:
"… digestive disorders, respiratory and urinary disorders, anxiety and insomnia, allergies, amoebic dysentery, burns, coughs, cystitis, dizziness, edema, hayfever, headaches, hemorrhoids, rashes, urethritis, urinary tract infections, urticarial, and vomiting. In Morocco, coriander is used to treat … diabetes and dyslipidemia."
Cilantro tends to be either loved or hated. Those who cannot stand it will often say it tastes like soap, and researchers investigating the matter have found there's a genetic component23,24 responsible for this divergent taste experience. I happen to be one of those who doesn't tolerate it.
As reported by HuffPost,25 scientists have determined that cilantro haters have olfactory receptor and taste receptor genes that "pick up on the smell of aldehyde chemicals" found in both cilantro and soap.
Research26 published in the journal Flavor claims 21% of east Asians, 17% of Caucasians, 14% of people of African descent, 7% of south Asians, 4% of Hispanics and 3% of Middle Easterners dislike cilantro.
If you like the taste of cilantro, you're in luck, considering its many health benefits. For the richest flavor experience and to avoid pesticide residues, opt for organic cilantro. Look for fresh cilantro with vibrant green leaves, without indicators of spoilage or yellow discoloration.
Fresh cilantro can last for a week in the refrigerator, and maybe even longer if you follow the storage tips outlined by The Spruce:27
To prepare cilantro for cooking, make sure the leaves have been thoroughly dried, and have a sharp ceramic knife ready. The book, "Rick Bayless Mexican Kitchen," suggests the following steps for chopping cilantro:28
Avoid using a dull knife or over-chopping cilantro as this can "bruise" the herb and cause its flavor to spill onto the chopping board. Ideally, try adding cilantro raw or near the end of the cooking process. The leaves are very fragile, so adding the cilantro last will retain its delicate flavor and texture. Cilantro can hold its own ground in terms of flavor and does not need additional flavoring.
Well, the COVID jab pushers have had to resort to all sorts of obfuscation to hide the fact that the injections don't work, and now they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel of excuses. According to a recent Reuters report,1 "Increased contact among vaccinated people can give the false impression that COVID-19 vaccines are not working."
This irrational explanation has been levied in response to studies showing COVID-jabbed individuals are getting infected at higher rates than the unjabbed, and there are many such studies.
"These studies are likely to involve statistical errors, particularly if they did not account for different contact patterns among vaccinated versus unvaccinated people," Korryn Bodner, a research associate in infectious disease modeling in Toronto, told Reuters. Bodner is the first author of a preprint study2 posted on medRxiv at the end of April 2022.
Bodner's claim is that those who got the jab may be more likely to throw caution to the wind and mingle with others, hence getting infected more frequently, while the unjabbed may be more cautious because they know they're vulnerable. This rationale is dubious at best, considering:
a) The unvaccinated have continuously been accused of not taking COVID seriously and going about their lives as normal
b) Those who have taken the jab are, by and large, a far more fearful lot; they tend to listen to the "authorities" and take all of their advice to heart, which would include avoiding large gatherings and close one-on-one interactions without wearing a face mask
Check out the following story, reported by Anchorage Daily News:3
"Arianne Bennett recalled her husband, Scott Bennett, saying, 'But I'm vaxxed. But I'm vaxxed,' from the Washington hospital bed where he struggled to fight off COVID-19 this winter ... Bennett went to get his booster in early December after returning to Washington from a lodge he owned in the Poconos, where he and his wife hunkered down for fall.
Just a few days after his shot, Bennett began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, meaning he was probably exposed before the extra dose of immunity could kick in. His wife suspects he was infected at a dinner where he and his server were unmasked at times ...
'He was absolutely shocked. He did not expect to be sick. He really thought he was safe,' Arianne Bennett recalled. 'And I'm like, 'But baby, you've got to wear the mask all the time. All the time. Up over your nose.'"
Within days of his third dose, he got a serious case of COVID. Yet they blame it on hypothetical exposure to an apparently healthy food server. This kind of irrational reasoning is prevalent among those who got the jabs and who keep going back for more as they are part of the 30% of the population that have been completely brainwashed.
To reiterate what I've explained since 2020, asymptomatic spread is likely to be so rare as to be nonexistent.4 It was a lie perpetuated to drive up fear and prop up rising "case" rates that didn't really exist. It's basic virology that you cannot transmit a virus unless you have a "hot" infection, and if you have an active, transmissible infection, you have symptoms. The symptoms are a sign that your body's defenses are kicking in to rid itself of the live virus.
No symptoms, no transmission. So, unless the server was feeling sick and went to work anyway, the simplest explanation for Bennett's demise was the shot itself. And if the server was sick, the fact that Bennett got so ill suggests the shot is ineffective, even at two doses.
The pro-pharma shills want you to believe there are so many confounding variables, we can't possibly draw any conclusions from data showing the shots don't work. Yet looking at data from a wide spectrum of sources, all show the same alarming trends. What "confounding factor" could possibly account for ALL of them being misinterpreted?
Reuters5 does note that Bodner's simulations "do not prove that this type of bias affected studies of vaccine effectiveness versus the Omicron variant." What it does show, according to Bodner, is that "even if vaccines work, increased contact among vaccinated persons can lead to the appearance of the vaccine not working."
In other words, this is a hypothesis that has yet to be proven. Her modeling suggests it COULD make the jabs appear ineffective IF those who got the jab actually behave very differently from the unjabbed.
But again, it's highly unlikely that the unvaccinated are avoiding exposure by steering clear of close contacts and crowds to a greater degree than those who got the jab. It's far more reasonable to suspect that the shots don't work.
On a side note, Bodner's study was funded by the Canada COVID-19 Immunity Task Force.6 This task force is housed at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and McGill University is a long-term recipient of grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.7,8,9,10
Based on data from around the world, it seems clear that the COVID gene transfer injections are not working. In fact, they're having the opposite effect of what you'd expect from a real vaccine. According to a Washington Post analysis of state and federal data,11 in September 2021, when Delta was most prominent, 23% of those who died from COVID in the U.S. had received the jab.
In January and February 2022, when Omicron started dominating, that percentage jumped to 42%. In December 2021 and January 2022, just under half of all the COVID patients in intensive care at Kaiser Permanente's hospital system in Northern California had also received one or more shots.12
Many argue that Omicron was more contagious than Delta, hence the higher death toll. But Omicron was also far milder than Delta, so why would the jabbed die at a higher rate from a less lethal variant than a more lethal one?
One attempt at an explanation is that the fatalities are now occurring primarily among the elderly. Nearly two-thirds of those who died from COVID during the Omicron wave were 75 and older. During the Delta wave, 75-year-olds and older accounted for just one-third of the deaths.13
But that was the case from the beginning, and it still doesn't answer the question: Why would old people be more likely to die from a milder virus than a more serious one? To answer that question, the injection pushers revert back to the argument of waning potency. Two-thirds of those who died in January and February 2022 did not have a booster shot. According to Anchorage Daily News:14
"Experts say the rising number of vaccinated people dying should not cause panic in those who got shots, the vast majority of whom will survive infections. Instead, they say, these deaths serve as a reminder that vaccines are not foolproof and that those in high-risk groups should consider getting boosted and taking extra precautions during surges."
So, in other words, the jab only works for a handful of months, and then you have to take another. And another. And another. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,15 the first two doses wear off after five months, necessitating a third dose, and the third dose wears off in just four months, at which time you're supposed to get dose No. 4.
Israeli data16 show the effectiveness of shot No. 4 in preventing severe disease declines by 56% in just seven weeks. So, it appears the protection you get from the shots keeps getting shorter with each dose. Meanwhile, data show the shots can render you increasingly susceptible to all manner of infection and disease, through a wide variety of mechanisms.
Among such data is a preprint study17 posted on medRxiv April 19, 2022, which found adult participants in Moderna's COVID jab trial who got the real injection, and later got a breakthrough infection, did not generate antibodies against the nucleocapsid — a key component of the virus — as frequently as did those in the placebo arm.
Curiously, placebo recipients produced anti-nucleocapsid antibodies twice as often as those who got the Moderna shot, and their anti-nucleocapsid response was larger regardless of the viral load. As a result of this reduced antibody response, those who got the jab may be more prone to repeated COVID infections. As reported by The Defender:18
"[T]he authors found that using the presence of anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies to determine whether a person was exposed to SARS-CoV-2 will miss some infections. Thus, the sensitivity of this kind of test, when applied to vaccinated individuals, is not ideal.
However, there are more important implications19,20 of these findings ... Specifically, the study implies that the reduced ability of a vaccinated individual to produce antibodies to other portions of the virus may lead to a greater risk of future infections in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated.
It is important to note that this is not just another argument for the superiority of natural immunity. Rather, this is evidence suggesting that even after a vaccinated person has a breakthrough infection, that individual still does not acquire the same level of protection against subsequent exposures that an unvaccinated person acquires.
This is a troubling finding, and something investigators conducting the Moderna vaccine trial likely knew in 2020."
These findings are corroborated by data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. It publishes weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance data, including anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels. The report21 for Week 13, issued March 31, 2022, shows that COVID-jabbed individuals with breakthrough infections have lower levels of these antibodies — a finding they attributed to the protective benefit of the shot:
"These lower anti N responses in individuals with breakthrough infections (post-vaccination) compared to primary infections likely reflect the shorter and milder infections in these patients."
However, this interpretation is likely flawed, because less severe infection is associated with lower viral load, and as the study above demonstrated, the "vaccinated" have lower anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels than the unvaccinated at all viral load levels, but especially so at the lowest viral loads. As noted by The Defender:22
"This is one of the most significant findings of the study because it overturns the heretofore unchallenged idea that decreased seroconversion in the vaccinated is due to less severe infection in this population — which is a benefit provided by the vaccine.
However, this new study shows that even at low viral loads, the unvaccinated are more likely to seroconvert than those who are vaccinated. In fact, the difference in seroconversion rates is the greatest at lowest viral loads. The decrease in conversion rates is not a result of a benefit from the vaccine. It is a consequence of it."
The Defender also reviews other U.K. data showing the COVID case rate is three to four times higher among those who have received a booster shot, compared to the unvaccinated. This is true for all age groups with the exception of children under 18:23
"What could explain such a large increase in infection rates among the boosted? Interestingly, the authors ... warn that the unvaccinated may have contracted COVID-19 prior to the observation period — in other words, they may have acquired natural immunity previously, giving them added protection ...
But their own data tells the opposite story. The boosted are more likely to contract the disease — by a factor of 3 to 4. How do we know whether the larger infection rates in the boosted are due to more robust immunity in the unvaccinated because of prior infection or due to an immune deficiency in the boosted?
The question can be definitively answered by examining the trend of infection rates [using] ... the equivalent table from two months earlier. There is still a greater infection rate among the boosted, but it is only two to three times higher. If the authors' hypothesis was correct, the more recent data should have shown less of a difference, not more.
If anything, their data support the finding that the decreased seroconversion rates in the vaccinated may be causing a greater risk of repeated infections."
Data from the pharmacy chain Walgreens in the U.S. also reveal the same trend — COVID-jabbed individuals are testing positive for COVID at higher rates than the unjabbed, and those who got their last shot five months or more ago have the highest risk.
As you can see in the screenshot from Walgreens' COVID-19 tracker24 below, during the week of May 9 through 15, 2022, 21.4% of unvaccinated individuals who got tested for COVID got a positive result. Of those who had gotten just one COVID shot, the positivity rate was 26.3%.
Of those who received two doses five months or more ago, 31.3% tested positive, and of those who received a third dose five months or more ago, the positive rate was 32.7%. So, after the first booster shot (the third dose), people are at greatest risk of testing positive for COVID.
Perhaps most disturbing of all are the data showing the COVID shots are raising mortality rates, both from COVID and other causes. Above is an animated illustration25 sourced from Our World In Data, first showing the vaccination rates of South America, North America, Europe and Africa, from mid-December 2020 through the third week of April 2022, followed by the cumulative confirmed COVID deaths per million in those countries during that same timeframe.
Africa has had a consistently low vaccination rate throughout, while North America, Europe and South America all have had rapidly rising vaccination rates. Africa has also had a consistently low COVID mortality rate, although a slight rise began around September 2021. Still, it's nowhere near the COVID death rates of North America, South America and Europe, all of which saw dramatic increases.
Here's another one,26 also sourced from Our World In Data, first showing the excess death rate in the U.S. (the cumulative number of deaths from all causes compared to projections based on previous years), between January 26, 2020, and January 30, 2022, followed by an illustration of the tandem rise of vaccine doses administered and the excess mortality rate. It clearly shows that as vaccination rates rose, so did excess mortality.
We also have the benefit of more than one risk-benefit analysis, and all show that, with very few exceptions, the COVID jabs do more harm than good. A risk-benefit analysis27 by Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and independent researcher Kathy Dopp, published in mid-February 2022, concluded that the COVID jab is deadlier than COVID-19 itself for anyone under the age of 80.
Another analysis,28 which relied on data in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), concluded that in those under age 18, the shots only increase the risk of death from COVID, and there's no point at which the shot can prevent a single COVID death, no matter how many are vaccinated.
If you're under 18, you're a shocking 51 times more likely to die from the jab than you are to die from COVID if not vaccinated. In the 18 to 29 age range, the shot will kill 16 for every person it saves from dying from COVID, and in the 30 to 39 age range, the expected number of vaccine fatalities to prevent a single COVID death is 15. Only when you get into the 60 and older categories do the risks between the jab and COVID infection even out.
A third risk-benefit analysis by researchers in Germany and The Netherlands was published in June 2021, in the journal Vaccines.29 The paper caused such an uproar, part of the editorial board resigned in protest.30 The journal retracted the paper, but after a thorough re-review, it was republished in the August 2021 issue of Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.31
These researchers concluded that, "as we vaccinate 100 000 persons, we might save five lives but risk two to four deaths."32 A fourth, still preliminary, analysis — based on more than 1,700 death reports collected by Steve Kirsch — shows the shots do more harm than good in anyone under age 60. Kirsch writes:33
"Figure 1 below is an analysis of survey data I collected. The analysis shows that the vaccines are harmful to those under 60. The red dots higher than the error bar means more vaccinated people observed dead than expected based on the population of vaccinated to all people.
In other words, if we vaccinated 60% of people (middle of the grey bar) and 70% (red dot) of the deaths are vaccinated, we have a serious problem. The precautionary principle of medicine suggests if you are under 60 and thinking of taking a vaccine, you shouldn't. These preliminary results are both statistically significant ...
The conclusion is very clear: nobody under 60 years old should get the vaccine because there is no evidence of a benefit. In fact, if you are between 40-60, it's clear that vaccination makes it more likely you'll die, not less likely."
While some analyses present a direr picture than others, taken together, it's clear that there appears to be no long term benefits to the COVID jabs. We're consistently ending up with a higher cost than can conceivably be considered reasonable. The pro-pharma side will likely continue to lob flimsy excuses at the data, but at some point, the truth will be so clear that even the blind will see it. Until that day, continue to inform yourself and share what you find.
Pollution comes in several different forms. While the health effects of air and water pollution have been well studied over the last several decades, researchers have only begun to delve into the health effects of noise and light pollution on humans and the environment. A study presented at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session in 2022 revealed data that blames noise pollution on 1 in 20 heart attacks.1
At the most basic level, noise pollution is sound in the environment that has potential health effects on sleep, hearing damage and stress levels. Sources of environmental noise pollution can include construction, vehicles, aircraft and industrial sounds like generators, compressors and train station traffic.
Whether the noise comes from natural sources such as cicadas or birds, or human activity such as vehicle traffic, it is still noise. Most people often overlook noise pollution as a health hazard. One review2 published in 2017 found that noise pollution is a major problem in urban areas, and while it is more widespread than in past years, the writers anticipated it would continue to grow in severity and magnitude related to several factors.
Industrial growth, transportation, population growth and urbanization all contribute to noise pollution that has a direct and cumulative effect on health. The paper compares the adverse effects on health to those caused by chronic stress. The writers concluded, “People have the right to choose the nature of their acoustical environment; it should not be imposed by others.”3
Scientists from Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School4 asked the question if people who live in urban areas near busy roads, trains or under flight paths would have a higher risk of heart attacks that could not be blamed on personal health issues or air pollution.
The researchers gathered data from nearly 16,000 patients who were hospitalized in 2018 for a heart attack in New Jersey. They used the patient's home address to calculate the daily noise level at home. The group was separated into those who lived in areas where there was a high level of transportation noise with an average of 65 decibels or higher and those who lived in areas with exposure to low noise levels at an average of 50 decibels or less.
Decibels are the unit of measurement that describes how loud a sound is. To put this into perspective,5 breathing is measured at 10 decibels and described as being barely audible, while a jet taking off at 25 meters (27.3 yards) from the individual is 150 decibels, which can rupture an eardrum.
Sounds6 that are 65 decibels and above start with normal conversation and laughter and moves louder to vacuum cleaners, hairdryers, dishwashers and washing machines that measure 78 decibels. Sounds that are 50 decibels and lower start with a quiet office and reduce in intensity to a refrigerator humming or a whisper at 30 decibels.
When the data were analyzed, the researchers found that the heart attack rate of people who lived in places where they were routinely exposed to noise at 65 decibels and louder had a 72% higher chance of a heart attack as compared to those who lived in areas where the noise level measured 50 decibels and lower.7
When the data were extrapolated, the heart attack rate was 3,336 heart attacks per 100,000 people (3.3%) in areas with higher noise levels as compared to 1,938 heart attacks per 100,000 people (1.9%) in quieter areas. Their data showed that exposure to high levels of noise was associated with approximately 5% of all heart attacks experienced in busy cities.
This data supports past studies that have demonstrated similar results. One 2016 study8 engaged 5,223 people and found those with hearing loss from being around loud sounds had a greater risk of heart problems. A 2018 study9 made a link between transportation noise and a higher risk for heart attack, high blood pressure, stroke and heart failure.
Another study10 showed individuals who are exposed to higher levels of noise had greater activity in the amygdala and an increase in harmful inflammation in blood vessels. Researchers then went on to look at participants in the study who had heart attacks, strokes, chest pain or blocked arteries and found those who had been around loud noise had more heart problems.
Abel Moreyra, a professor in the division of cardiology at Rutgers commented on the featured study:11
“When people talk about pollution, they’re usually talking about particles in the air or water. But there are other forms of pollution, and noise pollution is one of these. As cardiologists, we are used to thinking about many traditional risk factors such as smoking, hypertension or diabetes. This study and others suggest maybe we should start thinking about air pollution and noise pollution as additional risk factors for cardiovascular disease.”
Air pollution is an insidious problem that does not recognize borders and can travel thousands of miles. One collaborative effort of more than 40 researchers who analyzed data from 130 countries called air pollution the “largest environmental cause of disease and premature death in the world today.”12
Fine particulate matter measures 2.5 microns or less in width. To put this into perspective, there are 25,000 microns in 1 inch and PM2.5 particles are about 30 times smaller than a human hair.13 Particles this size can pass through lung tissue and enter your bloodstream, which in turn triggers chronic inflammation and chronic disease.
Once PM2.5 is in the body it can deposit in any organ system and has been linked to inflammation leading to cardiovascular disease,14 obesity,15 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease16 and cancer.17
According to Jeff Schussler of Baylor Scott & White Health, "Half of the people that are going to die in America are going to die of cardiovascular disease. That includes heart attacks, and it includes strokes."18 According to a Royal College of Physicians report:19
"The evidence for the effects of both short- and long-term exposures to air pollution on cardiovascular disease in adults is strong. Exposure to air pollution can exacerbate existing heart conditions and contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease, resulting in increased hospital admissions and deaths from cardiovascular disease."
One study that evaluated the ambient air pollution in Europe discovered the problem was far worse than had been previously measured.20 The estimated number of people who were dying an early death from exposure to air pollution was nearly double the previous estimate.21
The key focus of the study was air pollution in Europe, where the researchers found it triggered an estimated 790,000 deaths, nearly 80% of which were from cardiovascular disease.22 One paper reviewed the literature and found that there were extensive epidemiological studies that showed particulate air pollution was associated with the development of cardiovascular disease.23
Your brain is always monitoring the environment for sounds that indicate danger, even when you're asleep.24 Continued exposure to noise pollution can trigger sensitivity to stress. If you feel unable to control the amount of noise in the environment, it can have an impact on your mental health.
Noise impacts the depth and quality of your sleep25 and alters the amount of rapid eye movement sleep,26 which in turn impacts your mood and ability to concentrate. According to the United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),27 loud noise also can create psychological stress, reduce productivity and interfere with concentration.
One study28 analyzed the number of prescribed anxiolytics medications in 4,861 people living near seven airports in six European countries. They found those living near the airport had an excessive risk of taking anxiolytics medication when exposed to aircraft noise.29 Another 2018 study30 found similar results after examining information from 7,321 respondents who completed questionnaires.
Higher levels of noise were associated with anxiolytics drug use but not sedatives or antidepressants. Individuals who were sensitive to noise had an increased use of psychotropic medication.
Experts hypothesize that noise pollution influences cognitive function in adults and children.31 One review found that exposure to air and noise pollution separately was associated with measures of global cognitive function, memory, depression, anxiety and verbal and nonverbal learning.
Living in urban areas with steady exposure to noise pollution can impair a child's development and have a lifelong effect on overall health. The World Health Organization released a study in 2011 in which they analyzed 10 years of data from across Western Europe using large-scale epidemiological studies of noise from transportation vehicles and other city sources. Writing about the study, Acoustica Projects reports:32
“They found that at least one million healthy years of life are lost each year in Europe alone due to noise pollution (and this figure does not include noise from industrial workplaces).
The authors concluded that ‘there is overwhelming evidence that exposure to environmental noise has adverse effects on the health of the population’ and ranked traffic noise second among environmental threats to public health (the first being air pollution). The authors also noted that while other forms of pollution are decreasing, noise pollution is increasing.”
As children are still in the process of cognitive and physical development, noise pollution is an environmental stressor that could have irreversible negative consequences. Studies of children who are exposed to environmental noise have consistently demonstrated an effect on cognitive performance,33 many of which involve reading comprehension and memory.34,35,36
An analysis of data37 from an ongoing study in children exposed to air and noise pollution around London's Heathrow Airport showed exposure to aircraft noise was significantly associated with recall memory and poor recognition memory, even after the data were adjusted for increased exposure to air pollution. The children also experienced poor reading comprehension and information recall.
In 2022, researchers did an updated systematic review and meta-analysis38 of noise pollution as it relates to cognitive abilities across the lifespan. An evaluation of the data found that children who were taught in quiet classrooms had higher scores than children taught in noisier classrooms. Environmental noise also had an impact on reading and language abilities.
A review also found high-quality evidence of an association between cognitive impairment in middle-aged to older adults and environmental noise pollution.39 Interestingly, cognitive impairment is also found when sound levels are reduced. In other words, without enough sound and environmental stimulation, adults are at a higher risk for dementia.
Hearing loss is frustrating as it leads to social isolation, depression and dementia. In some cases, hearing loss is related to chronic exposure to loud noises. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention40 nearly 1 in 4 adults who believe they have excellent or good hearing have measurable hearing loss and noise-induced hearing loss increases from 1 in 5 young adults to 1 in 4 adults aged 50 to 59.
Exposure to loud noise increases your risk for hearing loss and increases your risk for tinnitus. This is the perception of noise or ringing in your ears that can be chronic and is estimated to affect up to 25.3% of people in the U.S.41 Tinnitus can also be triggered by other factors such as smoking, head injuries and some medications.42
Unfortunately, fewer than 30% of people over age 70 who have a hearing loss will wear hearing aids.43 Data gathered by the University of Exeter and King's College London demonstrated how wearing an effective hearing aid can reduce the risk of developing dementia.44
It is important to take action to protect your hearing at all ages. The cost of cardiovascular disease and hearing loss places a significant financial burden on families and communities.
You can begin protecting your hearing by reducing exposure to everyday loud noises, such as music and a loud work environment. Nutritional imbalances can affect hearing, as can certain medications. Consider wearing ear protection when using loud equipment at home, such as lawnmowers and leaf blowers.
Tiny bits of plastic about the size of a sesame seed or smaller are everywhere. News headlines often show intact plastic bags, rings and bottles as the primary threats to the environment — and these are indeed harmful to marine life and more — but the smaller, more insidious microplastic bits may even be more harmful. A study1 from Great Britain2 found microplastics in 11 out of 13 patients’ lungs.
Across the world, 299 million tons of plastic were produced in 2013, much of which ended up in the oceans, threatening wildlife and the environment.3 That number jumped to 418 million tons in 2021.4 In 2018, the U.S. alone generated 35.7 million tons of plastic and sent 27 million tons to landfills, which accounted for 18.5% of all municipal solid waste.5
Chemicals found in plastic products are known to act as endocrine disruptors.6 These chemicals are similar in structure to natural sex hormones, and they interfere with the normal functioning of those hormones in your body.7 This poses a particular problem for children who are still growing and developing.
The price that society will pay for the ubiquitous use and distribution of plastic particles has yet to be quantified. Evidence suggests that the long-term exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals like phthalates poses a significant danger to health and fertility.
The amount of plastic that enters the environment grows each year as manufacturers continue to produce products in disposable containers and consumers continue to demand a disposable lifestyle. At a time when advocacy groups warn that plastics are falling from the sky8 and have become a global tragedy,9 the COVID-19 pandemic has driven the plastic problem to even greater heights.
Decades of research have shown that people breathe in microparticles of air pollution as well as consume them in food and water. A 2021 autopsy study10 showed microplastics in 13 of the 20 people analyzed and over 20 years ago a 1998 U.S. lung cancer study11 found plastic and fibers in 99 of the 114 lung samples that were examined.
According to the Natural History Museum,12 microplastics measure less than 5 millimeters. They call microplastics “one of the greatest man-made disasters of our time.” While there are industrial uses for microplastics, most form when they break away from larger plastic products in the environment.
Primary microplastics are those produced in small sizes for industrial use, such as in sandblasters, cosmetics or microfiber clothing. Secondary microplastics result from the breakdown of larger plastic products caused by exposure to environmental stressors.13
One team of scientists from Hull York Medical School sought to analyze the impact that inhaling microplastics has on human tissue. Past research has found synthetic fibers in lung tissue, but researchers wrote there were no robust studies confirming microplastics in lung tissue. The current study analyzed human lung tissue in 13 patients who had undergone lung surgery.
They found microplastic contamination in 11 of the 13 patients.14 The team found 39 pieces in 11 lung tissue samples. Laura Sadofsky, senior lecturer and lead researcher in the study, commented on the importance of the results:15
"Microplastics have previously been found in human cadaver autopsy samples — this is the first robust study to show microplastics in lungs from live people. It also shows that they are in the lower parts of the lung. Lung airways are very narrow so no one thought they could possibly get there, but they clearly have.
This data provides an important advance in the field of air pollution, microplastics and human health. The characterisation of types and levels of microplastics we have found can now inform realistic conditions for laboratory exposure experiments with the aim of determining health impacts."
Study authors found the subjects harbored 12 types of microplastics, “which have many uses and are commonly found in packaging, bottles, clothing, rope/twine, and many manufacturing processes. There were also considerably higher levels of microplastics in male patients compared to females.”16
Another unexpected finding was that a higher number of microplastics were found in the lower portions of the lung. The most abundant types of microplastics were polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET).17 This finding points to the recent ubiquitous use of blue surgical masks during the pandemic as PP is the most commonly used plastic component in those masks.
A study18 published in 2021 looked at the risks of wearing blue surgical face masks and inhaling microplastics. The researchers found that reusing masks could increase the risk of inhaling microplastic particles and that N95 respirators had the lowest number of microplastics released when compared to not wearing a mask.
They said, “Surgical, cotton, fashion, and activated carbon masks wearing pose higher fiber-like microplastic inhalation risk …”19 and yet, according to Chris Schaefer, a respirator specialist and training expert, the masks used by millions of people throughout the world are not really masks at all.20
Schaefer calls these “breathing barriers” as they “don't meet the legal definition” of a mask. He was emphatic that the surgical masks used by consumers throughout Canada, the U.S. and the world are shedding microplastics small enough to be inhaled.21
“A [proper] mask has engineered breathing openings in front of mouth and nose to ensure easy and effortless breathing. A breathing barrier is closed both over mouth and nose. And by doing that, it captures carbon dioxide that you exhale, forces you to re-inhale it, causing a reduction in your inhaled oxygen levels and causes excessive carbon dioxide. So, they’re not safe to wear.”
He encourages people to cut one open and look at the loose fibers that are easily dislodged within the product.22
“The heat and moisture that it captures will cause the degradation of those fibres to break down smaller. Absolutely, people are inhaling [microplastic particles]. I’ve written very extensively on the hazards of these breathing barriers the last two years, I’ve spoken to scientists [and other] people for the last two years about people inhaling the fibres.
If you get the sensation that you’ve gotten a little bit of cat hair, or any type of irritation in the back of your throat after wearing them. That means you’re inhaling the fibres.”
He went on to note that anyone exposed to these types of fibers in an occupational setting would be required to wear protection. Instead, people are using products that increase the risk of inhaling fibers that "break down very small and, well, what that’s going to do to people in the in the form of lung function — as well as toxicity overload in their body — I guess we’ll know in a few years."23
German physician, Dr. Zacharias Fögen, published a study24 in the peer-reviewed journal Medicine, which analyzed data across counties in Kansas, comparing areas where there was a mask mandate against counties without a mandate.
He found that mandatory masking increased the death rate by 85%. The mortality rate remained 52% higher in counties that mandated masking even when the analysis accounted for confounding factors. Fögen writes that further analysis of the data showed that 95% of the effect “can only be attributed to COVID-19, so it is not CO2, bacteria or fungi under the mask.”25
He has named this the Foegen Effect which refers to the reinhalation of viral particles trapped in droplets and deposited on the mask, which worsens outcomes. He writes:26
“The most important finding from this study is that contrary to the accepted thought that fewer people are dying because infection rates are reduced by masks, this was not the case. Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ~50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates.
The mask mandates themselves have increased the CFR (case fatality rate) by 1.85 / 1.58 or by 85% / 58% in counties with mask mandates. It was also found that almost all of these additional deaths were attributed solely to COVID-19. This study revealed that wearing facemasks might impose a great risk on individuals, which would not be mitigated by a reduction in the infection rate.
The use of facemasks, therefore, might be unfit, if not contraindicated, as an epidemiologic intervention against COVID-19.”
Fögen notes two other large studies that found similar results with case fatality rates. The first was published in the journal Cureus27 and found no association between case numbers and mask compliance in Europe but a positive association with death and mask compliance.
The second study28 was published in PLOS|One, which demonstrated there was an association between negative COVID outcomes and mask mandates across 847,000 people in 69 countries. The researchers estimated that ending the mask mandates could reduce new cases with no effect on hospitalization and death.
Past research has highlighted the impact microplastics have on the environment, wildlife and human health. However, many studies have not drawn an association between microplastic consumption or inhalation and disease. Instead, they identify research gaps and recommend further study.29
A paper30 published in April 2022 has suggested why this data has been inconsistent. The lab data was the first to find that microplastics damaged human cells at levels that are relevant to the number of particles humans ingest or inhale.
The study was a meta-regression analysis of the toxicological impact on human cells across 17 studies that compared the level of microplastics that cause cell damage. The researchers found that it was the irregularly shaped microplastics that cause cell damage and not the spherical microplastics that are normally used in laboratory experiments.
This suggests that past lab data using spherical microplastics may not fully represent the damage that microplastics cause to human health. Evangelos Danopoulos from Hull York Medical School in the U.K., who led the study, commented on why research is increasing: “It is exploding and for good reason. We are exposed to these particles every day: we’re eating them, we’re inhaling them. And we don’t really know how they react with our bodies once they are in.”31
Researchers have found that tiny microplastics are not only deposited in your lungs and gut but can also be found floating in your blood. Researchers from The Netherlands analyzed samples32 from 22 healthy volunteers and found plastic particles in 77% of the samples. These particles were 700 nanometers or greater in dimension, which is a size that can be absorbed across membranes.
Some samples contained up to three different types of plastic. The study author told The Guardian “Our study is the first indication that we have polymer particles in our blood — it’s a breakthrough result. But we have to extend the research and increase the sample sizes, the number of polymers assessed, etc.”33
The researchers wrote that where these plastic particles end up in the body also requires further study. They stated that it’s “scientifically plausible” that the plastic particles are being transported by the bloodstream to organs, based, for instance, on data showing that 50, 80 and 240 nm polystyrene beads and microsized polypropylene can permeate the human placenta.34
After these microplastics cross the placental barrier, they end up in a newborn's first feces. This means they migrate from the infant’s blood to the gut. A pilot study35 published in 2021 looked at the magnitude of human exposure to microplastics and found that the microplastic polyethylene terephthalate (PET) was found in meconium samples, which is a baby's first stool.
The amount of PET in infant stool was 10 times higher than found in adult samples, which suggested that babies have plastic in their system that is absorbed from their mother. How this will affect the future of human health is still being studied. An animal study found that just 24 hours after maternal inhalation exposure, nanopolystyrene particles could be detected in the placenta and fetal brain, lungs, liver, heart and kidney.36
It appears that inhaling or consuming microplastics allows micro particles access to your bloodstream and then to your vital organs. While researchers have demonstrated that the irregularly shaped microplastics found in the environment cause cell damage and death, the long-term effects on disease have not been identified. Yet, you may be sure that cell damage and death do not occur without consequences.
In “The Corbett Report” above,1 independent journalist James Corbett reviews the contents of Bill Gates’ book, “How to Prevent the Next Pandemic.”
“It’s every bit as infuriating, nauseating, ridiculous, laughable and risible as you would expect,” he says. “This is a ridiculous book ... There’s certainly nothing of medical or scientific value in here ... It’s a baffling book even from a propagandistic perspective ...
Gates’ goal in writing the book is to disarm the public and prepare us to accept the agenda that Gates and his allies would like to impose on the world. Ultimately, what this is about is drumming up general public support — or at least general public understanding — of the unfolding biosecurity agenda.”
Another reviewer of Gates’ book, economist Jeffrey Tucker, offered similarly negative feedback:2
“Imagine yourself sidled up to a bar. A talkative guy sits down on the stool next to you. He has decided that there is one thing wrong with the world. It can be literally anything. Regardless, he has the solution.
It’s interesting and weird for a few minutes. But you gradually come to realize that he is actually crazy. His main point is wrong and so his solutions are wrong too. But the drinks are good, and he is buying. So you put up with it. In any case, you will forget the whole thing in the morning.
In the morning, however, you realize that he is one of the world’s richest men and he is pulling the strings of many of the world’s most powerful people. Now you are alarmed. In a nutshell, that’s what it’s like to read Bill Gates’s new book ‘How to Prevent the Next Pandemic.’”
Corbett goes through Gates’ book chapter by chapter, so if you’re short on time, you can review the ones that interest you the most:
Chapter 1: Learn from COVID (timestamp: 12:58)
Chapter 2: Create a pandemic prevention team (timestamp: 18:23)
Chapter 3: Get better at detecting outbreaks early (timestamp: 26:21)
Chapter 4: Help people protect themselves right away (timestamp: 31:01)
Chapter 5: Find new treatments fast (timestamp: 37:26)
Chapter 6: Get ready to make vaccines (timestamp: 39:46)
Chapter 7: Practice, practice, practice (timestamp: 47:06)
Chapter 8: Close the health gap between rich and poor countries (timestamp: 50:49)
Chapter 9: Make — and fund — a plan for preventing pandemics (timestamp: 57:40)
Afterword: How COVID changed the course of our digital future (timestamp: 1:03:00)
By now, you’ve probably heard that the World Health Organization is attempting to seize control over global pandemic monitoring and response, and ultimately, all health care decisions. But did you know Bill Gates, the largest funder of the WHO (if you combine funding from his foundation and GAVI), also intends to play a key part in this takeover?
As Gates explains in a video at the beginning of Corbett’s report, he’s building a pandemic response team for the WHO, dubbed the "Global Epidemic Response & Mobilization" or GERM Team. This team will be made up of thousands of disease experts under WHO’s purview, and will monitor nations and make decisions about when to suspend civil liberties to prevent spread of an illness.3
Alas, as noted by “Rising” host Kim Iversen in the video compilation above, if COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that stopping the spread of a virus is more or less impossible, no matter how draconian the rules. Meanwhile, the side effects of lockdowns and business shutdowns are manifold.
People’s health has suffered from lack of health care. Depression and suicide have skyrocketed. Economies have gone bust. Violent crime has risen. Tucker also points out the false premise behind Gates’ pandemic prevention plan, stating:4
“This theory of virus control — the notion that muscling the population makes a prevalent virus shrink into submission and disappear — is a completely new invention, the mechanization of a primitive instinct.
Smallpox occupies a unique position among infectious diseases as the only one affecting humans that has been eradicated. There are reasons for that: a stable pathogen, a great vaccine, and a hundred years of focused public health work. This happened not due to lockdowns but from the careful and patient application of traditional public-health principles.
[T]he attempt to crush a respiratory virus through universal avoidance could be worse than allowing endemicity to it to develop throughout the population.”
During COVID, we basically traded false protection against one thing for a multitude of other ills that are far worse in the long run. Now, Gates and the WHO want to make this disastrous strategy the norm.
Once again, we see Gates is basically paying the WHO to dictate what the world must do to make him a ton of money, because he’s always heavily invested in the very “solutions” he presents to the world. While he’s built a reputation as a philanthropist, his actions are self-serving, and more often than not, the recipients of his “generosity” end up worse than they were before.
Case in point: After 15 years, Gates’ Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) project has now been proven an epic fail.5 Gates promised the project would “double yields and incomes for 30 million farming households by 2020.”
That false prognosis was deleted from the AGRA website in June 2020, after a Tuft University assessment revealed hunger had actually increased by 31%. February 28, 2022, the first-ever evaluation report6 confirmed the failure of AGRA.
But getting back to the globalists’ plan to seize global control through biosecurity governance, they are attempting to do this using two different avenues. If we fail to fight off both attacks, we’ll end up under totalitarian governance.
The first attack comes in the form of amendments7 to the International Health Regulations (IHR). The second attack comes through a new international pandemic treaty with the WHO.
Starting with the first takeover strategy, as you read this, countries around the world are in the process of voting on amendments to the IHR.8 By May 28, 2022, the World Health Assembly will have concluded their vote on these amendments and, if passed, they will be enacted into international law in November 2022.
The IHR, adopted in 2005, is what empowers the WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).9 This is a special legal category that allows the WHO to initiate certain contracts and procedures, including drug and vaccine contracts. While the IHR grants the WHO exceptional power over global health policy already, under the current rules, member states must consent to the WHO’s recommendations.
This is one key feature that is up for revision. Under the new amendments, the WHO would be able to declare a PHEIC in a member state over the objection of that state. The amendments also include ceding control to WHO regional directors authorized to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC).
In summary, the IHR amendments establish “a globalist architecture of worldwide health surveillance, reporting and management,” Robert Malone, Ph.D., warns,10 and we the public have no say in the matter.
We have no official avenue for providing feedback to the World Health Assembly, even though the amendments will give the WHO unprecedented power to restrict our rights and freedoms in the name of biosecurity. There’s not even a publicly available list of who the delegates are or who will vote on the amendments.
A summary of the proposed changes to the IHR was recently provided by Malone.11 In all, the WHO wants to amend 13 different IHR articles (articles 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53 and 59), the end result of which is the following:12
1. “Increased surveillance — Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from COVID-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.
2. 48-hour deadline — Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states.
3. Secret sources — Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.
4. Weakened sovereignty — Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state, the Director-General may (not must) consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern.
The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.”
Once the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, nations will have only a limited time — six months — to reject them. That would put us into November 2022. Any nation which hasn’t officially rejected the amendments will then be legally bound by them, and any attempt to reject them after the six-month grace period will be null and void.
The second attempt to gain global control is through an international pandemic treaty with the WHO. An intergovernmental negotiating body (INB) was established as a subdivision of the World Health Assembly in December 2021,13 for the purpose of drafting and negotiating this new pandemic treaty.
In summary, the WHO wants to make its pandemic leadership permanent. It can then extend its power into the health care systems of every nation, and eventually implement a universal or “socialist-like” health care system as part of The Great Reset.
While a WHO-based universal health care system is not currently being discussed, there’s every reason to suspect that this is part of the plan. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has previously stated that his “central priority” as director-general is to push the world toward universal health coverage.14
And, considering the WHO changed its definition of “pandemic” to “a worldwide epidemic of a disease,”15 without the original specificity of severe illness that causes high morbidity,16,17 just about anything could be made to fit the pandemic criterion.
The problem with this treaty is that it simply cannot work. The whole premise behind this pandemic treaty is that “shared threat requires shared response.” But a given threat is almost never equally shared across regions.
Take COVID-19 for example. Not only is the risk of COVID not the same for people in New York City and the outback of Australia, it’s not even the same for all the people in those areas, as COVID is highly dependent on age and underlying health conditions.
The WHO insists that the remedy is the same for everyone everywhere, yet the risks vary widely from nation to nation, region to region, person to person. They intend to eliminate individualized medicine and provide blanket rulings for how a given threat is to be addressed, and this can only result in needless suffering — not to mention the loss of individual freedom.
In closing, Gates’ GERM team would be the ones with the authority to declare pandemics and coordinate global response.18 Are you ready to cede all authority over your life, health and livelihood to the likes of Gates? I hope not.
In the video above, Del Bigtree with “The Highwire” provides poignant examples where Gates is now admitting what “The Highwire,” I and many others have been saying since the earliest days of the COVID pandemic, and getting censored and deplatformed for it.
Gates is two years behind everyone else, yet despite his apparent inability to interpret the readily available data, he now wants power to dictate health rules to the whole world. We can’t let that happen.
It’s going to require a global response to prevent these two power grabs, starting with the IHR amendments under vote by the World Health Assembly. To that end, the World Council for Health has launched a global #StopTheWHO campaign. Here’s how you can get involved:19
Speak — Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos
Act — Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices and cases and similar campaigns
Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health
Explore activist toolboxes such as: www.dontyoudare.info and stopthewho.com
Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR
Notify World Health Assembly country delegates to oppose the IHR amendments
Activate people’s parliaments, legislatures or referendums to oppose power grabs
This article was previously published January 8, 2019, and has been updated with new information.
Back pain is one of the most common health complaints across the globe, and the No. 1 cause of job disability.1 It's also one of the most common reasons triggering opioid dependence, the side effects of which can be lethal. In fact, by 2017 opioids were now the leading cause of death among Americans under the age of 50,2 and more than 202,600 Americans died from overdosing on these potent pain killers between 2002 and 2015 alone.3
According to a recent population study,4,5 opioids are the most commonly prescribed medication for people with chronic low back pain, and as you'd suspect, these drugs are typically used long-term in this population. This flies in the face of guidelines from the American College of Physicians, which recommend heat wraps and exercise as a first line of treatment, stressing that prescription drugs should only be used as a last resort.6
Another recent study7,8 found a strong link between chronic back pain and mortality in women, and while the authors laid the bulk of the blame on decreased activity, the use of narcotic pain killers is another likely contributor.
Meanwhile, other recent research9 shows opioids (including morphine, Vicodin, oxycodone and fentanyl) fail to control moderate to severe pain any better than over-the-counter (OTC) drugs such as acetaminophen, ibuprofen and naproxen. In fact, those taking nonopioid pain relievers actually fared "significantly better" in terms of pain intensity.
Lead author Dr. Erin Krebs with the Minneapolis VA Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research (formerly Chronic Disease Outcomes Research), told WebMD:10
"We found that opioids had no advantages over nonopioid medications for pain, function or quality of life in patients with low back pain … This is important information for physicians to share with patients who are considering opioids."
Here, I'll provide you with a variety of strategies that can help you avoid this toxic trap by building a strong, pain-free back.
Two effective means of preventing lower back pain are closely related: staying active and minimizing sitting. Both will improve muscle strength and coordination, reduce stiffness and improve blood flow, which may reduce back pain and lower your risk of developing back pain in the first place.
Oftentimes, back pain originates from tension and muscular imbalances. For example, sitting for long periods of time ends up shortening the iliacus, psoas and quadratus lumborum muscles that connect from your lumbar region to the top of your femur and pelvis. When these muscles are chronically short, it can cause severe pain when you stand up as they will effectively pull your lower back (lumbar) forward.
By bringing these muscles into better balance, you will remedy many of these common pains and discomforts. Overuse and misuse of the muscles supporting your spine, poor muscle strength and inappropriate posture while sitting, standing and walking are other common causes of low back pain.
For instance, when walking with your toes pointed outward, the muscles in your hips and lower back tighten, increasing your risk for lower back pain. Sitting with your shoulders hunched over a computer screen stretches muscles in your upper back and places added stress on your lower back, increasing your risk for both lower and upper back pain.
Walking with your head down is yet another posture-related problem that has repercussions on the rest of your back and hips,11 as your head is the single heaviest part of your body and will throw everything out of alignment. If poor posture is a culprit, consider doing some exercises to stretch out your shoulders, open up your hip flexors, and lift your chest.
That said, research suggests the treatment of choice for lower back pain is maintaining physical activity.12 If the pain is severe, you may have to ease up on your usual activities, but continuing some activity is necessary. Studies have demonstrated bed rest may actually extend your disability by promoting muscle stiffness and spasms.13
Several people have developed techniques to address back pain. Here are three with a good track record:
• Foundation Training exercises work to gradually pull your body out of the movement patterns that are hurting you. The focus is on strengthening your core, which includes anything that directly connects to your pelvis, whether above or below it.
Foundation Training teaches all those muscles to work together through integrated chains of movement, which is how your body is structurally designed to move. Every muscle that directly connects to your pelvis should be considered a piece of your core and this includes your glutes, adductors (inner thigh muscles), deep lower back muscles, hip flexors, hamstrings and all of your abdominal muscles.
Having strong, balanced core muscles is like having a built-in corset that not only holds your gut in, but also stabilizes your spine, vertebrae, discs and your pelvis. Teaching your body to naturally support itself at the deepest level is going to be far more effective than strapping on an external back brace, which over time can lead to even weaker musculature.
• Egoscue can also be helpful in mitigating the damage from excess sitting. Four examples of Egoscue exercises are foot circles and point flexes, frog pose, static back extension and standing forward bend. For instructions and photo illustrations, see the hyperlinked article.
• Neurostructural integration technique (NST) is a gentle, noninvasive technique that stimulates your body's reflexes. Simple movements are done across muscles, nerves and connective tissue, which helps your neuromuscular system to reset all related tension levels, promoting natural healing.
It is completely safe and appropriate for everyone from highly trained athletes, to newborns, pregnant women and the elderly and infirm. To find an NST therapist near you, see our NST Therapists Page. You can also purchase a DVD set to learn more about this technique.
Spinal manipulation by a chiropractor can also ease back pain in many cases. In one 2017 meta-analysis14 of 26 studies, spinal manipulation was associated with "statistically significant benefits in both pain and function, of on average modest magnitude, at up to six weeks."
The average patient reported greater ease and comfort in their day-to-day activities, such as walking, sleeping or turning in bed. However, while these results appear to be modest in nature, it is important to recognize the results are an average, and that the participants only underwent manipulation. In other words, they were not given any additional rehabilitative exercises designed to maintain functional movement of the spine gained after manipulation, or to reduce inflammation.
A more recent study15,16 (which included chiropractic treatments as a component of a multidisciplinary team approach to low back pain in two large military medical centers) revealed a reduction in discomfort and disability greater than what was experienced with standard medical care.
Here, 750 active duty military service members already being treated for lower back pain were evaluated. All were receiving physical therapy and/or drugs to ease pain and inflammation. The team added chiropractic treatment to half the participants, including spinal manipulation, rehabilitation exercises and treatment with cold or heat.
On average, the chiropractic treatment group received two to five treatments over a six-week period. After six weeks, patients who received chiropractic treatments experienced greater improvements in their lower back pain and less disability than those who did not receive the treatments. Lead study author and chiropractor Christine Goertz, Ph.D., commented on the results, saying:17
"Spinal manipulation (often referred to as Hias chiropractic adjustment) may help heal tissues in your body that form as a result of injury, decreasing pain and improving your body's ability to move correctly.
It is also possible that manipulation impacts the way your body perceives pain through either the brain or spinal cord and or decreases pain from muscle strain, inflammation and or spasm in the muscles next to your spine."
Aside from addressing any immediate spinal misalignment that might cause back pain, chiropractic care can also help address, prevent and treat deeper dysfunctions in your body. Chiropractic adjustments can actually affect the chemistry of biological processes on a cellular level, thereby reducing oxidative stress and improving immune function and DNA repair,18 for example.
Acupuncture and massage also have their place. Research has discovered a "clear and robust" effect of acupuncture in the treatment of back, neck and shoulder pain specifically, while massage therapy releases endorphins that help induce relaxation, relieve pain and reduce levels of stress chemicals such as cortisol and noradrenaline. It also reverses the damaging effects of stress by slowing your heart rate, respiration and metabolism, and lowering raised blood pressure.
Certain breathing techniques can even be helpful. Compression breathing is actually an important aspect of Foundation Training that helps re-educate the muscles surrounding your axial skeleton (the spine of your rib cage), teaching them to be in a state of expansion rather than contraction.
You'll find a demonstration of this technique in the video below. When done properly, it will help lengthen your hip flexors, stabilize your spine and support your core using transverse abdominal muscles. This strengthens your back and keeps your chest high and open:
Repeat five to 10 rounds with three to four breaths per round. Over time, your muscles will get stronger and your seated posture will gradually improve.
Aside from core strengthening exercises such as Foundation Training, stretching is also important, as tight and stiff muscles and lack of flexibility will contribute to back pain. There are many options here, including the six highlighted below.19 If these stretches cause pain, stop doing them and consult your doctor, chiropractor or massage therapist before continuing.
You may experience mild discomfort when you begin doing these stretches, especially if you are new to exercise or it has been a long time since you last exercised. My advice is to take it slowly and gradually increase your tolerance to these stretches over time.
Baby cobra — Lie on your stomach with your legs together, arms bent and palms on the ground at chest level, elbows bent. Begin with your forehead on the ground. Inhale and lift your chest, keeping the back of your neck long and your chin relaxed. Exhale and return your forehead to the mat. Repeat a few times, focusing on your breath.
Bird dog — This stretch engages your back muscles, buttocks and hamstrings, as well as your core and shoulders. Begin on all fours, then lift and extend one leg and the opposite arm at the same time. Hold for three to five breaths. Switch sides and raise and hold the opposite arm and leg for three to five breaths.
Cat/cow — Begin on your hands and knees and place your hands directly under your shoulders and your knees under your hips. On your inhalation, drop your belly and lift your gaze up to the ceiling. When you exhale, round your spine so your tailbone drops between your thighs and your head lifts between your arms. Repeat multiple times, slowly, to gently increase spinal mobility.
Psoas lunges — Your psoas muscle extends from your lowest vertebrae to the top of your thigh, putting it in a good position to stress your lower back when it becomes tight. A great way to stretch your psoas is through lunges.
Begin with your right leg in front of you and your left knee on the floor. Tuck your buttocks slightly and place your hands on your forward knee or your hips. Allow your hips to gently shift forward as you breathe for three to five breaths. Change legs and repeat on the other side.
Squat — Separate your legs a little more than hip-distance apart and bend your knees so your thighs are parallel to the ground. Keep your heels on the ground.
Press your palms together and hold them at chest height. Use your elbows to release your knees apart. If this is too hard on your hips you can sit on a yoga block, stool or a few books. Maintain the position for three to five breaths.
Twist — Twists help rotate and lengthen your spine and can be performed sitting in a chair or while lying or sitting on the ground. Begin on your back and bring your knees up to your chest. Gently allow your legs to fall to one side and turn your torso in the opposite direction, extending your arm. Breathe in this position for 30 seconds and then repeat on the other side.
You can do this stretch sitting by raising your arms and twisting gently from your torso. If seated in a chair, you can grip the arm of the chair with one hand and put the other hand on the opposite leg. Extend your spine on the inhale and twist a little further on the exhale. Repeat on the other side.
Last but not least, there's evidence that back pain may originate in, and is certainly exacerbated20,21 by, psychological or emotional issues. The late Dr. John Sarno, a professor of rehabilitation medicine, gained notoriety using nothing but mind-body techniques to treat patients with severe low back pain.
His specialty was those who have already had surgery for low back pain and did not get any relief. This is a tough group of patients, yet he claimed to have a greater than 80% success rate using techniques like the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT). As noted by Sarno in the documentary "All the Rage" — a four-minute trailer of which is included above — "I tell [my patient] what's going on, and lo and behold, it stops hurting."
The "what" that is going on is not a physical problem at all — it's emotions: anger; fear; frustration; rage. When these kinds of emotions are suppressed, your brain redirects the emotional impulses to restrict blood flow to certain parts of your body, such as your back, neck or shoulders, thereby triggering pain.
This pain acts as a distraction from the anger, fear or rage you don't want to feel or think about. The pain essentially acts as a lid, keeping unwanted emotions from erupting. You may feel anger at the pain, but you won't have to face the fact that you're actually angry at your spouse, your children or your best friend, or that you hate your job, or the fact that you feel taken advantage of.
As noted by Sarno, working hard and constantly trying to do everything perfectly to keep everybody around you happy, "is enraging to the unconscious mind." The term Sarno coined for this psychosomatic pain condition is "tension myoneural syndrome,"22 and he firmly believed most people can overcome their pain by acknowledging its psychological roots.
While many of Sarno's patients got well without psychiatric help, he would often recommend seeking out a psychotherapist to explore repressed emotions, or to take up journaling to put your feelings on paper. Dr. David Hanscom, an orthopedic surgeon, also uses expressive writing as a primary treatment tool for back pain.
As you can see, there's no shortage of strategies to address back pain, and I urge you to try several of them before resorting to a dangerous drug or back surgery. Remember, more movement, not less, is typically advisable for chronic back pain, and there are many ways to build a stronger, more flexible back — regular stretching and Foundation Training being at the top of the list.
Avoiding sitting and addressing your posture are other key strategies, to which you may consider adding chiropractic care and/or acupuncture treatment. Also, do give some thought to your emotional state. Even if you struggle to accept such a concept, the mere knowledge of it can have therapeutic power. In other words, by considering the idea that your problem is in fact rooted in stress factors opposed to a physical problem can allow the pain to dissipate.
Although back pain is definitely serious, as it affects your everyday life and can suck the joy out of your days for a week or more, it is often not dangerous. In other words, the severity of your pain does not indicate your condition is medically dangerous.
However, there are some signs and symptoms that might suggest the pain you're experiencing is not common low back pain from a muscle strain or sprain, but might be something more serious requiring physical assessment and treatment.23,24,25 Should your back pain be accompanied by any of these symptoms, a thorough medical checkup would be in order to rule out a more serious problem.
Difficulty passing urine
Previous high risk of fracture
Loss of bladder or bowel control
Feeling like you need to pass urine but there is none
Loss of muscle strength or sensation in the legs
Night back pain not relieved by adjusting in bed or starting only at night
Impaired sexual function, such as loss of sensation, numbness or tingling in the genitals or buttocks
Pain in your upper or lower back not tied to a specific joint or muscle may signal a heart attack
This article was previously published August 26, 2019, and has been updated with new information.
Ivor Cummins is a biochemical engineer with a background in medical device engineering and leading teams in complex problem-solving. On his website, TheFatEmperor.com,1 he offers guidance on how to decode science to transform your health.
In the featured lecture, "Avoiding and Resolving Modern Chronic Disease" presented at the Low Carb Denver 2019 conference,2,3 Cummins discusses the root causes of heart disease and other chronic health problems that rob us of our health span.
His father, who died of heart disease, also suffered with vascular dementia for about 15 years. In total, Cummins believes his father lost about 20 years of his health span — years he could have had, had he had access to better information.
According to the statistics Cummins cites, about 30% of people lived past the age of 70 in 1925. Since then, our life span has improved. Nowadays, a greater percentage of people live well into their 80s and 90s, compared to 1925.
However, Cummins believes that with appropriate nutrition and lifestyle modifications, we could live well past 100, and more importantly, remain healthier far longer than we are now.
As noted by Cummins, there's little point in living longer if you're chronically ill and cannot enjoy your life. He proposes that the primary hindrance to extended health span is the process of atherosclerosis, the hardening of your arteries, which is the No. 1 cause of heart disease.
By implementing the appropriate lifestyle strategies, you can prevent or at the very least stabilize the disease progression, thereby avoiding a life-threatening heart attack.
In his lecture, Cummins discusses the importance of your coronary artery calcium or CAC score, which he refers to as "the master measure for cardiac disease."
As noted by the American College of Cardiology,4 a CAC scan "is one way to estimate someone's risk of developing heart disease or having a heart attack or stroke." The reason for this is because calcium deposits in your arteries signal buildup of plaque, which over time hardens and narrows your arteries.
The thicker your arteries, the higher your score. Cummins cites research5 showing that having a CAC score of zero in middle age means you have a very low risk (1.4%) of heart attack in the following decade.
A low score between 1 and 100 raises your risk to 4.1%, an intermediate score between 101 and 400 raises your risk to 15%, and a high score between 400 and 1,000 puts your risk at 26%. Above 1,000, your risk of a heart attack within the next 10 years is 37%.
He also cites data from the Framingham study showing the cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk for seniors with a zero CAC score is nearly identical to that of a 50-year-old with a zero score. Ditto for those with intermediate scores.
In other words, while age is typically seen as the primary risk factor for CVD, the CAC score takes precedence when it comes to identifying your real risk, and transcends other risk factors. Needless to say, if you stop the progression of calcification, you decrease your future risk of CVD, and the earlier you catch it, the better.
The CAC scan takes about 30 minutes and costs between $100 and $400.6 While some health insurance plans may pay for this test, most do not, so check your plan details. Ideally, discuss your need with your doctor, who can refer you to a facility that performs the scan. There are also walk-in CAC scan clinics around the U.S.,7 but you'll still need to share the results with your doctor to have him or her interpret them for you.
To prevent atherosclerotic progression, you need to know what the driving factors are. Cummins compares data of calcification rates in Western white men and those of indigenous cultures.
The differences are provocative, with indigenous Tsimane men having virtually no calcification even into their later years, and even though they have very similar low density protein (LDL) particle counts (a well-recognized risk factor for CVD and the focus of Cummins' lecture) as white men.
What lifestyle differences may account for these discrepancies? According to Cummins, these indigenous tribesmen have:
If you want to protect your heart and live a healthy life well into your retirement, Cummins believes the following factors are the most important. As you will see below (and in his lecture), these factors are all underlying drivers of atherosclerosis. Thus, to avoid CVD you'll want to:
Avoid glucose spikes and insulin resistance
Avoid inflammatory drivers
Maintain healthy blood pressure
Limit oxidative stress
Address mineral and vitamin deficiencies
Avoid iron overload
Avoid heavy metal exposure and/or addressing heavy metal toxicity
Address autoimmune issues
Avoid and address infections
Cummins presents a model based on the airline industry's airplane crash trajectory. There are many defense systems in place, and a failure must appear in each system layer for a crash to occur. The same model can be applied to CVD. In order for a heart attack to occur, more often than not, multiple factors must line up.
You're probably familiar with the theory that high LDL particle count can be a significant risk factor for CVD. Cummins warns that should a dietary change cause your LDL particle count to skyrocket, you'd be wise to investigate further. To assess whether high LDL particle count is actually a problem, the following factors need to be taken into account, as they all play a role:
• Oxidized LDL in your bloodstream — According to Cummins, recent research shows it's damage to the LDL in your blood that leads to oxidized LDL. Oxidized LDL is allowed into your arterial wall through the LOX-1 receptor, thereby contributing to the atherosclerotic process.
Meanwhile, undamaged LDLs "do not appear to partake in the process in a meaningful way," Cummins says. So, if you have high LDL particle count, you'll want to know whether or not they're oxidized. The list above (of strategies that will protect your heart), are things that will affect the oxidation of your LDL.
• Damaged glycocalyx — The glycocalyx are tiny hair-like protrusions on the inside of your artery that act as a sieve for LDL. It regulates many of the components that determine which particles will be allowed to enter the artery wall.
The paper8 "Hypothesis: Arterial Glycocalyx Dysfunction Is the First Step in the Atherothrombotic Process" details the role of the glycocalyx. According to Cummins, scientists have identified the following factors as being damaging to the glycocalyx, which also match his list of CVD prevention strategies above:
Diets high in sugar and processed foods
High blood pressure
Oxidized LDL (but not native LDL)
• Damaged endothelium — The endothelium is a single-celled layer inside your artery that manages the damaged LDLs entering the arterial wall. (In his lecture, Cummins explains the two ways in which LDL's can enter your arterial wall.)
Factors that damage your endothelium, allowing LDLs to be driven across it, include the following. Again, most of the items on Cummins' list of things to avoid to protect your heart will trigger these endothelia damaging factors:9
Reactive oxygen species
Lipopolysaccharide ingress from infections and leaky gut syndrome that causes an immune reaction
Tumor necrosis factor
• Proteoglycan reactivity — Proteoglycans are hair-like structures inside your arterial wall that can trap LDL particles and cause them to oxidize. What makes LDL particles get stuck here?
According to Cummins, the research shows it's not LDL particle size per se that matters most. Heart attack patients, Type 2 diabetics and those with insulin resistance all have higher proteoglycan reactivity, and Cummins believes his list (above) covers most of the issues that these people have.
• Damaged high density lipoprotein (HDL) efflux — High HDL is typically viewed as being protective, but that's not the whole story. As explained by Cummins, HDL helps remove cholesterol from your arterial wall.
As long as the HDL can keep up with the incoming cholesterol, buildup is prevented. Problems can occur, however, if your HDL become inefficient at their task. The importance and impact of HDL functionality is detailed in the paper10 "HDL Cholesterol Efflux Capacity and Incident Cardiovascular Events."
The researchers measured not just the HDL level but the actual functionality of the participants' HDL. Those with highly functional HDL had a significantly lower risk of CVD than those with poorly functioning HDL. "This is the real story on HDL," Cummins says. So, how do you lower the functionality of your HDL? Fail to address the items on Cummins heart-health list.
In short, the risk factors Cummins lists (high glucose and insulin levels, inflammation, high blood pressure, oxidative stress and so on), all damage your arteries in ways that allow LDL to cause CVD. Yet for the past half-century, the medical community has been near-exclusively focused on cholesterol while largely ignoring the root causes.
Unfortunately, as noted by Cummins, the media has been complicit in creating bad press and misleading information about lifestyle strategies that can effectively address these root causes, such as nutritional ketosis. The "keto crotch" disinformation, for example, was a PR ploy designed to scare people away from the ketogenic diet.
"All of this media has a chilling effect in applying low-carb or keto, and because a majority of our adult population are now essentially diabetic, we need low-carb and keto to fix the real root causes," Cummins says.
To extend both your health span and life span, Cummins points out you need to do your due diligence as early as possible, which means addressing the root causes as early in life as possible.
A cyclical ketogenic diet can go a long way toward addressing those issues, lowering inflammation, normalizing your blood glucose, insulin and blood pressure and so on. Aside from eating a low-carb diet, Cummins also recommends:
In summary, Cummins recommends getting regular lab work done to track your status. If your CVD risk based on your lab work is really low, you probably don't need a CAC scan.
If your lab work indicates high risk, you don't need a CAC scan, as you need to take action to lower your CVD risk anyway. CAC is best for those in the middle, who want to fine-tune their risk assessment.
If your CAC score is low, maintain a healthy lifestyle and retest in five to seven years to make sure you're still on track. Midrange scores are indicative that changes are needed, if you want to lower your CVD risk. If you haven't already implemented the prevention strategies listed earlier, now's the time.
If your score is high, Cummins recommends following up with expert assessment of more comprehensive blood panels — such as A1C, GGT, ferritin, homocysteine and others — to pinpoint where the problem lies.
In the case of a high score, you may want to do another scan in about two years to get an idea of what your trajectory is — are the changes you're making producing the desired results? If not, what may you be doing wrong, or what have you failed to address?
A high score also means you have little room for cheating — you'd be wise to implement as many healthy lifestyle strategies as possible, and be strict about maintaining them.
Just remember, your body has a remarkable way of self-healing, given half the chance, and as Cummins notes, we now know a whole lot more about what's required for good health than we did in decades past. The key is to implement this knowledge.
In the featured video, Chris Martenson, Ph.D., reviews why he’s giving up on “the idea that our leaders in charge are going to get a clue and maybe navigate our way to a better ... outcome.”
Many are now starting to realize that we’re facing a multitude of catastrophes, sort of pancaked on top of one another. Gas prices are skyrocketing, thanks to President Biden’s decision to shut down U.S. oil production,1 yet when confronted with the price hikes, he blames it on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine2 — an odd choice, considering Russia accounts for a mere 3% of U.S. crude oil imports.3
The crypto market recently cratered.4 Bitcoin lost about a quarter of its value and Luna, an algorithmic stablecoin, lost nearly all of its $40 billion value.5 It is likely this was precipitated by Blackrock and Vanguard as crypto is an existential threat to the financial markets. The crypto market in its entirety has lost more than half its value since November 2021, and Reddit forums are reportedly flush with suicide discussions.
The stock market is also starting to cave, and inflation is starting to careen out of control, thanks to the U.S. government borrowing (read printing) trillions of dollars from the Federal Reserve which, by the way, is not federal but a privately-owned corporation. The reason we pay federal taxes is because we have to pay interest on the money the federal government borrows from this private lender.
Ditching this central bank, i.e., the Federal Reserve, and printing our own U.S. currency would keep inflation at bay, since the central bank system only has a life span of about a half-century. Then, it collapses under the weight of the accrued debt. The interest is simply too great to ever be paid off.
So, it’s important to realize that the collapses of energy and finance we’re about to experience are not accidental. Parts are intentional and fabricated, and other parts are unavoidable thanks to relinquishing our national currency creation to a central bank.
We’re now faced with nothing but painful options. As reported by Spanish economist and investment manager Daniel Lacalle:6
“After more than a decade of chained stimulus packages and extremely low rates, with trillions of dollars of monetary stimulus fueling elevated asset valuations and incentivizing an enormous leveraged bet on risk, the idea of a controlled explosion or a ‘soft landing’ is impossible.
The first problem of a soft landing is the evidence of the weak economic data ... both the labor participation and employment rate ... have been stagnant for almost a year ... Real wages are down, as inflation completely eats away the nominal wage increase.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, real average hourly earnings decreased 2.6%, seasonally adjusted, from April 2021 to April 2022. The change in real average hourly earnings combined with a decrease of 0.9% in the average workweek resulted in a 3.4% decrease in real average weekly earnings over this period ...
The second problem of believing in a soft landing is underestimating the chain reaction impact of even allegedly small corrections in markets. With global debt at all-time highs and margin debt in the US alone at $773 billion, expectations of a controlled explosion where markets and the indebted sectors will absorb the rate hikes without a significant damage to the economy are simply too optimistic ...
However, the biggest problem is that the Federal Reserve wants to curb inflation while at the same time the Federal government is unwilling to reduce spending.
Ultimately, inflation is reduced by cutting the amount of broad money in the economy, and if government spending remains the same, the efforts to reduce inflation will only come from obliterating the private sector through higher cost of debt and a collapse in consumption ...
There is no easy solution. There is no possible painless normalization path ... There are only two possibilities: To truly tackle inflation and risk a financial crisis led by the US dollar vacuum effect or to forget about inflation, make citizens poorer and maintain the so-called bubble of everything ... [Federal reserve chairman Jerome] Powell will have to choose between the risk of a global financial meltdown or prolonged inflation.”
In 2016, the World Economic Forum (WEF) published several “predictions” for the future, a sort of summary agenda to let people know the direction of the globalists’ plans. This was done in two formats. One was a video (above), which was also discussed in greater detail on the WEF’s website,7 the other was an article written by an unnamed WEF contributor, published in Forbes magazine.8
Topping the WEF’s list of “predictions” for 2030 was that “you will own nothing and be happy.”9,10 As noted by Martenson, if you own nothing, that means you’ll be renting everything you need.
And if you’re renting, that means you’re renting it FROM someone (and note they didn’t say “we” will own nothing). While the WEF didn’t spell out who the owner of everything would be, it’s clear they foresee a future in which ownership of everything is restricted to a few “elite” individuals — the richest of the rich, and the most powerful of the powerful.
This is what The Great Reset, “Building Back Better” and the Green New Deal are all about. It’s about wealth transfer, from you to them. It’s about stripping property rights from the people. It’s about controlling the masses, and possibly eliminating a few along the way to ensure the “useless eaters” don’t gobble up “their” resources.
While the first item on the WEF’s wish list is disconcerting, Martenson is even more troubled by No. 8 on the list, which states that by 2030, “Western values will have been tested to the breaking point.”
Just what are “Western values”? Martenson suggests cornerstones include things like individualism, liberty, democracy, science and progress, the bond between parent and child, family values and the idea that there is objective truth based on shared, common understanding of facts.
Certainly, the idea of objective truth has been stretched to near-breaking over the past two years. Martenson notes he can’t even have conversations with some colleagues anymore because they can no longer agree on the common interpretation of common data. “We don’t share objective reality anymore,” he says.
Now, if the WEF claims they’re going to do something, and it then happens, is it not reasonable to suspect the WEF had a hand in it? Martenson certainly believes so. The fact that we’re now experiencing the destruction of Western values on every front suggests the WEF and its global allies are, in fact, carrying out their plan.
Here’s another example: Also included in the WEF’s 2030 “wish list” is the declaration that “You’ll eat less meat.” This too is now coming to pass. And, by the way, meat shortages, which are bound to become far more severe over the next several months and years, are largely the result of intentional actions by national and international leadership.
Martenson points out that we’re now seeing plenty of evidence of “enemy action,” meaning, what we’re experiencing is not the result of mere incompetence but, rather, intentional malevolence.
“There are people out there INTENDING to destroy the country,” he says. “And like Maya Angelou, the poet, said, ‘When people tell you who they are, believe them the first time.’ It’s a really good life tip.”
Martenson goes on to note that one of the things that strikes him about “the WEF crowd” is that their superiority complex appears to be rooted in their wealth. Because they’re wealthy, they believe they’re smarter than the rest of us and worthier of life than we are.
However, their wealth has also shielded them from the realities that face the rest of us, so many actually have only the flimsiest understanding of how things work. “They’ve never had to cook a meal, bang a nail or run a production process,” Martenson says. Yet these are the people who now want to micromanage the lives of every person on the planet.
But what is it about the year 2030? Why do all of the globalist plans converge on 2030? What’s the urgency, the ticking clock that has them so intent on reaching certain goals by that time? “Wander with me over to the big world of resources and I’ll think you’ll see what the big ticking clock is,” Martenson says.
Basically, the short story is that the resources of the world have been grossly mismanaged under the leadership of these globalists, and we’re coming up on very real shortages. Up until about 1930, farming was a net positive exercise. Today, it’s a net negative process. We’re using more energy in the production of food than we get out of it.
To give you a bit of background, Martenson is the founder of a website called Peak Prosperity, and he’s the author of a book and corresponding course called “The Crash Course.” It lays out a systems-level view that connects economy, energy and environment into a holistic whole. You cannot squeeze any one of these without causing ramifications in one or both of the others, and we’re starting to see very clear examples of this now.
However, rather than admit their mistakes, and the mistakes of their forefathers, the globalist cabal members are now trying to manipulate the world into a system of governance that will allow them to maintain their power and privilege while the rest of us are told to “take cold showers and eat bugs,” Martenson says.
You’ve likely heard about OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, an intergovernmental organization of 13 countries founded in 1960. The U.S. Senate judiciary committee recently passed the NOPEC bill, which paves the way for lawsuits against OPEC members for market manipulation — an action that OPEC energy ministers warn could drive oil prices to $300 per barrel.
That would basically be the death knell for the U.S. economy. Many companies would simply go out of business. It’s important to realize that for all the talk about green energy, oil is the engine that drives economies and food production.
U.S. leaders are now cutting the U.S. off from oil, while having no reasonable alternative, while Saudi Arabia is forming alliances with Russia and China. Martenson believes the power structure of the world will dramatically change over the next decade, and he who has the oil will rule the roost.
It’s not an unintended consequence if you can predict the future based on certain data, and Martenson predicts the NOPEC bill will open the door for OPEC to retaliate in kind and find new trading partners who aren’t so eager to sue them. If that happens, and the U.S. economy tanks as a result, it’s hardly an unintended consequence but a predictably negative outcome, based on the intentional actions of our leadership.
Martenson goes into a number of other details that explain why and how we’re heading toward a global energy shortage, but that’s the final verdict: The countries of the world will not have the energy they need to maintain rates of production, which includes food production.
Data clearly show that consumption of primary energy (hydropower, nuclear energy, gas, coal, oil) and the real gross domestic product (GDP) is so tightly intertwined as to be indistinguishable. They go together and cannot be separated.
If you want more units of a given product, you have to consume the same number of units of primary energy. So, “energy is the economy,” Martenson says. Take away the energy and the economy vanishes. You’d be hard-pressed to find a single item in your home that ended up inside your house without the use of a primary energy source, and oil in particular.
What this means for our immediate future is that we’re at a point that requires painful trade-offs,11 but our leadership simply aren’t willing to do it, or don’t have the experience to realize that trade-offs are necessary.
The dire conclusion Martenson presents is that our energy economy is in a nose dive. Importantly, it’s not just about quantity. Even if we were able to extract more energy, such as oil, on a global level, which we can’t, it still might not solve the problem, and here’s why.
The graph above was taken from Martenson’s video above. It shows the energy return on investment over the past several decades. Energy is required to bring energy to market. Energy is required to pump oil out of the ground, for example. The energy required by the energy industry itself is the red part in the graph.
In the 1930s, we’d invest one barrel of oil into an oil extraction venture, and get 100 barrels back. The green part of the graph shows the surplus energy available to society. With that surplus, society can do whatever it wants. This surplus is what has allowed for air travel, massive gas-guzzling SUVs, vacations, a home filled with electronics and much more.
But as you can see, the energy invested in more recent years ballooned, which means the surplus energy available to society has shrunk, but it didn’t shrink linearly. In 2000, when energy production required the input of one barrel to extract 10 (or one unit of energy to produce 10 units of energy), there was still a lot of surplus. It wasn’t noticeably different from the 1970s, really.
But look where we are today. We’ve now gone over what’s called “the energy cliff,” and at the bottom of this cliff, there’s no surplus energy left over for society, because it takes one unit of energy to produce a unit of energy. Today, the energy to produce oil is about one unit for every 3.8 units, leaving only 2.8 units for society. Tar sands and oil shale have about the same returns. Needless to say, as energy becomes in short supply, prices will rise.
To understand these concepts better, I recommend viewing Martenson’s video. So, in the final analysis, it appears only the foolish will ignore the signs of the times and hang their hopes on the fantasy that, somehow, all of this will just sort itself out and life will return to normal. That hardly seems likely. As noted by Martenson, there’s a reason why the global cabal are pressing forward with 2030 in their sights. They know we’re on the energy cliff and where we’re headed.
The question is, how do we make it through the coming energy and financial crises? The answer is to work on your own resiliency. Learn to grow your own food. Start now, because it can take some time to master. Pick up tips from preppers who can instruct you on long-term food storage and the like, and pick up a bit extra right now.
Consider how you might power some of the essentials in your home if there are rolling blackouts. Identify sources of potable water and so on. Like Martenson warns, I believe things will get far worse before they get better, and making things better again may require new forms of energy that haven’t even been invented yet, or at the least released into the public domain.
A previously healthy 36-year-old mother of two died 11 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot.1 Initially, her cause of death was deemed inconclusive, but at an inquest, pathologist Dr. Sukhvinder Ghataura explained that he believes the COVID-19 shot was to blame. He told the coroner:2
“On the balance of probabilities, she had vaccine-related problems. There is nothing else for me to hang my hat on. It is the most likely reason, in my conclusion. It is more than likely Dawn died in response to the Covid jab.”
Government officials continue to deny deaths linked to Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 shot. In the U.S., they’ve only acknowledged nine deaths as causally associated with Johnson and Johnson’s COVID-19 shot as of May 10, 2022.3 But this case, which occurred in the U.K., highlights the potential dangers of shot-induced myocarditis.
According to Ghataura, the woman had several signs of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, including inflammation of the heart, fluid in the lungs and a small clot in her lungs.
She had also reported menstrual irregularities, jaw pain and arm pain.4 When asked by a family member whether he believed the woman would still be alive today if she hadn’t received the shot, Ghataura said, “It’s a difficult question but I would say yes.”5
At the conclusion of the inquest regarding the woman’s death, assistant coroner Alison McCormick stated, “I give the narrative conclusion that her death was caused by acute myocarditis, due to recent Covid-19 immunization.”6 Myocarditis is a recognized adverse effect of mRNA COVID-19 shots,7 and one that has been named in other deaths.
Dr. Neil Singh Dhalla, a CEO of a major health clinic, fell asleep four days after he got a COVID-19 booster shot — and died from a heart attack.8 The autopsy stated myocarditis. He was only 48 years old and had never had heart problems in his life. In another example, epidemiologists confirmed that two teenage boys from different U.S. states died of myocarditis days after getting the Pfizer shot.9
Both had received second doses of the shot. In a study that examined the autopsy findings, it’s reported that the “myocarditis” described in the boys’ deaths is “not typical myocarditis pathology”:10
“The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis and has an appearance most closely resembling a catecholamine-mediated stress (toxic) cardiomyopathy. Understanding that these instances are different from typical myocarditis and that cytokine storm has a known feedback loop with catecholamines may help guide screening and therapy.”
An astounding study published in Scientific Reports further revealed that calls to Israel’s National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome increased more than 25% among 16- to 39-year-olds from January 2021 to May 2021, compared to the same time period in 2019 and 2020.11
The researchers evaluated the association between the volume of the calls and other factors, including COVID-19 shots and COVID-19 infection, but a link was only found for the shots:12
“[T]he weekly emergency call counts were significantly associated with the rates of 1st and 2nd vaccine doses administered to this age group but were not with COVID-19 infection rates.
While not establishing causal relationships, the findings raise concerns regarding vaccine-induced undetected severe cardiovascular side-effects and underscore the already established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a frequent cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Pfizer attempted to hide COVID-19 shot clinical trial data for 75 years. “When I saw that, that’s when I got very vocal and said fraud has occurred. How do I know that? They won’t show us the clinical data,” former Blackrock portfolio manager Edward Dowd said.13 This should be a red flag for all Americans.
Now that a lawsuit forced the FDA to release thousands of the documents, data about what they were trying to hide is coming out. Among the revelations is evidence that Pfizer deliberately excluded pregnant women from COVID-19 shot trials. So how did they make the recommendation that the shots are safe and effective for pregnant women?
This was based on a 42-day study involving 44 rats.14 What’s more, a Pfizer-BioNTech rat study revealed the shot more than doubled the incidence of preimplantation loss and also led to a low incidence of mouth/jaw malformations, gastroschisis (a birth defect of the abdominal wall) and abnormalities in the right-sided aortic arch and cervical vertebrae in the fetuses.15
A CDC-sponsored study that was widely used to support the U.S. recommendation for pregnant women to get injected “presents falsely reassuring statistics related to the risk of spontaneous abortion in early pregnancy,” according to the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK).16
When the risk of miscarriage was recalculated to include all women injected prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, the incidence was seven to eight times higher than the original study indicated, with a cumulative incidence of miscarriage ranging from 82% to 91%.
Also buried in one of the documents is the statement, “Clinical laboratory evaluation showed a transient decrease in lymphocytes that was observed in all age and dose groups after Dose 1, which resolved within approximately one week ...”17 What this means is Pfizer knew that, in the first week after the shot, people of all ages experienced transient immunosuppression, or put another way, a temporary weakening of the immune system, after the first dose.
"It looks to me — this is not an overstatement from what I've seen — that this was a clinical trial that by August 2021, Pfizer and the FDA knew was failed, the vaccines were not safe and effective,” said investigative author Naomi Wolf. “That they weren’t working. That the efficacy was waning ... and that they were seriously dangerous. And they rolled it out anyway."18
Regarding the shots for pregnant women, Wolf said, in an interview with Stephen Bannon on “War Room,” that a spike in severe adverse events among pregnant women coincides with the rollout of COVID-19 shots.
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) whistleblowers datamined the DOD health database, revealing significant increases in rates of miscarriage and stillbirths, along with cancer and neurological disease, since COVID-19 jabs rolled out.19 "This is honestly one of the wors[t] things I've ever, ever seen in my 35 years as a reporter," Wolf said.20
Not only does IPAK’s data show COVID-19 injections prior to 20 weeks are unsafe for pregnant women, but 12.6% of women who received it in the third trimester reported Grade 3 adverse events, which are severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening. Another 8% also reported a fever of 38 degrees C (100.4 degrees F), which can lead to miscarriage or premature labor.21
Young children are also developing severe hepatitis and nobody knows why.22 COVID-19 shots have been linked to cases of liver disease23 and liver damage following the shots has been deemed “plausible.”24
It’s clear that there are many unknowns about how COVID-19 shots affect pregnancy and reproduction, including their effects on menstrual cycles. Women around the globe have reported changes in their menstrual cycles following COVID-19 shots, and health officials have tried to brush off the reports or label them all as anecdotal.
But a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology — and funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Office of Research on Women's Health — confirms an association between menstrual cycle length and COVID-19 shots.25
Clinical trials for COVID-19 shots did not collect data about menstrual cycles following injection, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) does not actively collect menstrual cycle information either, making it difficult to initially determine whether the shots were having an effect. Anecdotal reports on social media, however, are numerous and, according to the study, “suggest menstrual disturbances are much more common …”26
The Obstetrics & Gynecology study involved 3,959 individuals between the ages of 18 and 45 years. Those who had not received a COVID-19 shot noted no significant changes in cycle four during the study compared to their first three cycles.
Those who received COVID-19 shots, however, had longer menstrual cycles, typically by less than one day, when they received the shots. The longer cycles were noted for both doses of the injection, with a 0.71-day increase after the first dose and 0.91-day increase after the second dose.27
While the researchers described the change as not clinically significant, meaning it’s not notable from a health standpoint, there were some women who experienced even greater menstrual changes, particularly those who received two shots in the same menstrual cycle. These changes included a two-day increase in cycle length and, in some cases, changes in cycle length of eight days or more.
Adding insult to injury, research conducted by the New York State Department of Health shows the dismal reality about the effectiveness of COVID-19 shots in children.28 From December 13, 2021 to January 24, 2022, they analyzed outcomes among 852,384 children aged 12 to 17 years, and 365,502 children aged 5 to 11 year, who had received two doses of the shots.
Effectiveness declined rapidly among 5- to 11-year-olds, falling from 68% to just 12%. Protection against hospitalization also dropped, from 100% to 48%. Among 11-year-olds alone, vaccine effectiveness plunged to 11%.29 The lackluster response was blamed on the dosage discrepancies among the age groups, as 5- to 11-year-olds receive two 10-microgram Pfizer shots, while 12- to 17-year-olds receive 30-microgram shots.30
In the younger age group, the shots provided almost no protection at all. And it’s not only children who are affected by the shots’ rapidly waning effectiveness. COVID-19 booster shots also lose effectiveness rapidly, with protection plummeting by the fourth month post-shot.31 One CDC-funded study involved data from 10 states collected from August 26, 2021 to January 22, 2022, periods during which both delta and omicron variants were circulating.
Visits to emergency rooms and urgent care facilities, as well as hospitalizations, among people seeking medical care for COVID-19 were analyzed. The study did not include milder COVID-19 cases, for which no medical attention was sought.
While initially vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-associated emergency department or urgent care visits and hospitalizations was higher after the booster shot, compared to the second COVID-19 injection, effectiveness waned as time passed since vaccination.32
Within two months of the second COVID-19 shot, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits related to COVID-19 was at 69%. This dropped to 37% after five months post-shot. The low effectiveness five months after the initial shot series is what prompted officials to recommend a booster dose — and the third shot “boosted” effectiveness to 87%.
This boost was short-lived, however. Within four to five months post-booster, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more post-booster.33
Considering the adverse effects and lack of effectiveness, many have called for an immediate withdrawal of the shots. IPAK believes the data are already compelling enough to withdraw the shots for vulnerable populations, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, children and those of child-bearing age.34
Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., a prominent toxicologist and molecular biologist who works with M.D. Anderson Cancer Center-Houston, spoke at the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting held April 23, 2021, and also called for “all gene therapy vaccines” to “be halted immediately due to safety concerns on several fronts,” including fertility.35
Skyrocketing prices and food shortages are already looming, and are likely to become worse in the coming months. At present, many parents across the U.S. are running from store to store in search of baby formula and finding only empty shelves. How did this happen?
The shortage, it turns out, stems from the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration shut down Abbott Nutrition’s facility in Sturgis, Michigan, back in mid-February 2022, after five infants were reportedly sickened with Cronobacter and Salmonella infections.1 Two of the babies died.
February 17, 2022, Abbott voluntarily recalled Similac, Alimentum and EleCare powdered formulas manufactured in the Sturgis facility. According to the FDA, the Sturgis facility failed inspection and was ordered to halt production until required sanitary measures were carried out.
The FDA inspection came on the heels of a whistleblower report,2 submitted to the FDA in October 2021, alleging several health and safety compliance issues at the Sturgis facility, including falsification of records; release of untested formula; undermining of an FDA audit in 2019; lax cleaning processes; and the failure to adequately trace its products.
Some members of Congress are now calling for an investigation to determine whether the FDA took sufficiently prompt action after receiving this information.3,4
May 16, 2022, the Biden administration announced5 it had reached a deal to reopen the Abbott plant in about two weeks, which should result in shelves being restocked in another six to eight weeks, but while that may solve the problem in the short term, it does nothing to address the underlying problem, which is the fact that the U.S. baby formula market is monopolized by three companies.6
Regulatory red tape also prevents the import of infant formula from other countries. As reported by The Defender:7
“The $45.4 billion U.S. baby formula market is controlled by three companies — Abbott, Mead Johnson and Gerber. A 2011 market analysis8 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows these companies accounted for nearly all U.S. formula sales ...
Abbott Nutrition ... dominates the market — the company’s sales accounted for roughly 43% of the formula market ... according to a 2011 USDA report, which contains the latest available figures ...
FDA regulations for baby formula9 make it nearly impossible for parents in the U.S. to buy infant formula produced outside the country ... The issue is this: FDA rules bar formula imports from Europe if the product does not have FDA-compliant nutritional labels.
The formula may be perfectly safe and produced in accordance with European standards that are at least as stringent as U.S. health and safety requirements, but it can’t be imported because the FDA has not reviewed and approved what is printed on the package — a costly and time-consuming process for producers.”
House Democrats have now approved an emergency spending bill to allocate another $28 million to the FDA to allow it to hire more inspectors and prepare for future baby formula shortages. Some Republicans voiced opposition to the bill, saying it doesn’t contain any instructions for how the money is actually supposed to be spent, which would likely render it ineffective,10 and as of this writing, it’s still uncertain whether the bill will pass the Senate.11
May 18, 2022, Biden invoked the Defense Production Act to increase production.12 The law allows the president to compel companies that supply various formula ingredients to prioritize the needs of formula manufacturers over other customers.
Commercial aircraft owned by the U.S. Defense Department will reportedly be deployed to pick up formula overseas and fly it back to the U.S., in an operation dubbed “Operation Fly Formula.” DoD contracts with other commercial air cargo will also be used to speed up imports and distribution.
That same day, the House also passed bipartisan legislation to allow WIC recipients to purchase any brand of formula.13 The Biden administration has also promised to crack down on price gouging to discourage hoarding and reselling at higher prices.14
While that’s all well and good, but the Biden administration was initially criticized for its tone-deaf response to the crisis. In “The Jimmy Dore Show” episode featured above, Dore replays Jen Psaki’s response to a reporter who asks where parents should turn if they cannot find formula for their babies. Psaki suggested they call their pediatrician.
And then what? What is the pediatrician supposed to do about it? Manufacture baby food? Do they have some sort of magic wand? Dore also points out she’s apparently unaware that millions of parents are uninsured or underinsured, and can’t afford to pay for pediatric visits to ask about how to feed their babies.
Three key factors have contributed to the current disaster, and none is being properly addressed. First of all, the market has been allowed to be monopolized by so few companies that the takedown of a single plant has the ability to threaten the lives of millions of babies.
Adding insult to injury, our corporate-captured government has implemented labeling regulations that effectively ban foreign imports of formula, even if they meet or exceed FDA nutritional requirements.
Far more importantly than either of those, however, is the fact that science — to say nothing of common sense — has been ignored for decades and corporate greed has been allowed to dictate infant nutrition instead.
Absolutely nothing can compare to breast milk, yet people have been brainwashed into thinking that manmade formula is better, and that breast feeding is somehow undignified and unnecessary.
Formula offered greater freedom for busy moms, and the promotion of the obnoxious idea that breastfeeding in public is shameful fueled the transition, making more moms defer to the bottle rather than their breasts. For years, women could even be fined for "public indecency" if caught breastfeeding in public.
Were breastfeeding the norm, the country wouldn’t be in a panic over low inventory of infant formula. Many children would also enjoy better health overall. The sad reality is that most commercial infant formula is complete junk food.
Most contain shocking amounts of sugar — typically in the form of corn syrup, which is the worst of all — and even far worse ingredients, including large amounts of dangerous linoleic acid from soy (the risks of which I detail in “Infant Soy Formula — A Risky Public Experiment”) and genetically modified ingredients (reviewed in this 2012 article). Infant formulas have also been found to contain hazardous contaminants, including glyphosate15 and perchlorate (rocket fuel).
We’re now also hearing about artificial breast milk, a brand-new industry heavily funded by Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. A company called Biomilq is trying to create artificial breast milk from cultured human mammary cells.16 What could possibly go wrong with that? As of yet, however, artificial breast milk is not commercially available, so that’s a concern for another day.
All of that said, as it stands, the formula shortage is an absolute disaster, because while breastfeeding is the perfect option for most new mothers, it’s certainly not an option for anyone who didn’t breastfeed from the start, or who hasn’t breastfed for a number of weeks or months. You can’t just restart lactation at will. For that reason, telling mothers who already rely on formula to “just breastfeed” is ridiculous, because they can’t.
If you are a new mother and still lactating, then giving breastfeeding a try would be your best bet at this point. Breastfeeding has several benefits over formula,17 including reducing your baby’s risk of dying,18 improving your baby’s microbiome, thereby lowering their risk of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease later in life.19
Exclusively breastfed babies also tend to have higher IQs than formula-fed babies.20 For an even more comprehensive list of benefits for both the baby and mother, see my 2018 article, “The US Campaign Against Breastfeeding.”
If the opportunity to breastfeed has already passed, your next-best option is to make your own infant formula.21 The Weston A. Price Foundation has been a leader in this for years. In the video above, former Weston A. Price chapter leader Sarah Pope demonstrates how to make the formula created by Mary Enig, Ph.D., published in the book, “Nourishing Traditions.”
However, based on my research into linoleic acid (LA), iron and other components, I have revised Enig’s original formula (which you can find on the Weston A. Price Foundation’s website22). In my view, it’s really crucial to NOT include any kind of iron or seed oils with high LA content, for all the reasons detailed in “Iron Overload Destroys Mitochondria and Sabotages Health” and “How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health.”
I don’t have any children, but if I did and the child’s mother could not breastfeed, I would never use commercial infant formula as the recipe below is decidedly superior to commercial formulas and will give your child a major head start in life and preserve their health.
2 cups organic, whole, cow milk, preferably raw unprocessed milk from grass fed cows. For sources of good-quality milk, see www.realmilk.com or contact a local chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation.
If the only choice available to you is commercial milk, choose whole milk, preferably grass fed organic and non-homogenized (Kalona SuperNatural non-homogenized organic milk23 is one example), and culture it with a Piima yogurt culture, available on CulturesForHealth.com,24 to restore enzymes.
For sensitive bellies, raw goat’s milk may be better, but since it’s low in vitamin B12, be sure to add 2 teaspoons of frozen organic chicken liver (boiled), finely grated, to each batch, and begin egg-yolk feeding at 4 months of age.
4 tablespoons pure lactose (a milk sugar), available on Amazon.25
2 or more tablespoons of good quality, organic cream (regular, not ultrapasteurized). Use more if using milk from Holstein cows.
1 teaspoon of Carlson’s liquid cod liver oil, available from CarsonLabs.com,26 Amazon and most health food stores.
2 teaspoons organic, virgin coconut oil, available in most grocery and health food stores. The coconut oil provides medium-chain saturated fats also found in mother’s milk.
2 teaspoons Sari Foods non-fortified nutritional yeast flakes, available on Amazon.27 Nutritional yeast provides essential folic acid.
4 teaspoons Great Lakes beef hydrolysate gelatin, available on GreatLakesWellness.com.28 Before adding the gelatin into the formula, you’ll need to dissolve it in the recommended amount of water; heat gently until completely dissolved.
2 1/4 cups pure filtered water. Do NOT use tap water if your local water supplies contain fluoride. Most filtration systems cannot filter out fluoride, so only use fluoride-containing tap water if you have a water filtration system that is certified to remove fluoride.
1 teaspoon acerola powder, available on Amazon.29 Acerola is an excellent source of whole food vitamin C.
Optional: 1/4 cup homemade liquid whey (see recipe for whey, below).
Optional: Monkfruit sweetener. If your child has gotten used to the sweetness of corn syrup-sweetened infant formula and is refusing unsweetened formula, you can use a little liquid monkfruit as a sweetener, available on Amazon30 and in most grocery stores. However, AVOID any monkfruit brand that contains erythritol, which can cause gastrointestinal stress. Try to lower the amount used, over time, to discourage the development of a sweet tooth.
This recipe will make 36 ounces. Place all ingredients in a clean glass or stainless steel container and mix well. To ensure your mixing bowl is properly sanitized, place it in boiling hot water for a few minutes. Remove with tongs and let fully cool before using.
To serve the formula, pour 6 to 8 ounces into a sanitized glass baby bottle, attach the nipple and set it in a pot of simmering water. Heat until the formula is warm but not hot to the touch. Always check the temperature of the formula before feeding using either the back of your hand or your tongue. Never ever heat formula in a microwave oven. You’ll need to make a batch every other day or so, but the formula can be frozen so you have a stash for emergencies.
To make homemade whey, start with plain unsweetened yogurt, raw milk or cultured milk. Rest a large strainer lined with a clean linen kitchen towel or several layers of cheese cloth over a bowl.
If you’re using yogurt, place 2 quarts in the towel-lined strainer. Cover with a large plate and leave at room temperature overnight. The whey will drip out into the bowl. Place the whey in sanitized glass jars and store in the refrigerator.
If you are using raw or cultured milk, place 2 quarts of the milk in a glass container and leave at room temperature for two to four days until the milk separates into curds and whey. At that point, pour the mixture into the towel-lined strainer and cover with a plate. Leave at room temperature overnight to separate the whey from the curd. (The whey will drip out into the bowl.) Store in clean glass jars in the refrigerator.
If your baby has a milk allergy, you can make a liver-based formula as follows. This recipe, again revised from the original Weston A. Price recipe to remove iron and seed oils, will make 36 ounces:
Gently simmer the liver in the broth until fully cooked through. Liquefy the liver using a handheld blender or food processor. Once cooled, stir in all the remaining ingredients. Store in a sanitized glass or stainless steel container.
This article was previously published June 29, 2019, and has been updated with new information.
Eggs are among the healthiest foods out there, but not all eggs are created equal, and sorting through the egg labels to identify the highest quality eggs can be a confusing affair.
Health conscious consumers know to look for designations like "organic," "free-range," "pastured" and "cage-free,"1 but while you may think many of these are interchangeable, they're actually not. In some ways, these labels are little more than creative advertising.
The featured video, "Egg Crackdown," a CBC Marketplace report by investigative reporter Asha Tomlinson, investigates the marketing of supermarket eggs and visits egg producers to get a firsthand look at what the company's label actually means.
Unfortunately, while the Humane Farm Animal Care, a nonprofit certification agency, has set standards for free-range and pastured poultry for products bearing its Certified Humane label,2 there's no legal definition of these terms in the U.S.
The "free-range" definition established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture applies to chickens only,3 not their eggs. As a result, the commercial egg industry is able to run industrial farm egg laying operations while still calling them "free-range" eggs, despite the fact that the birds' foraging conditions are far from natural.
Confusing matters further, while organic poultry and eggs are guaranteed to be free-range, as required by organic standards, free-range poultry are not required to be organic.4 Importantly, the organic label is also the only way to ensure you're getting eggs from chickens that have not been fed antibiotics for growth purposes, as this is not allowed under the organic standards.
For chickens, the USDA's definition of free-range does not specify the amount of time the hens must spend outdoors or the amount of outdoor space each hen must have access to. Nor do they indicate that the hen must have access to a pasture diet.
True free-range eggs, now typically referred to as "pasture raised" as a way to differentiate them, come from hens that roam freely outdoors on a pasture where they can forage for their natural diet, which includes seeds, green plants, insects and worms.
Large commercial egg facilities typically house tens of thousands of hens and can even go up to hundreds of thousands of hens. Obviously, they cannot allow all of them to forage freely. However, they can still be called "cage-free" or "free-range" as long as they're not confined to an individual cage.
Overall, the cage-free and free-range labels say little to nothing about the conditions in which the chickens are raised, and more often than not, they're still deplorable. So, for the best quality eggs, from the most humanely-raised hens, the label you're looking for is "pastured."
In the featured video, CBC Marketplace also conducts a taste test to see how the different farming methods translate into flavor. Included in the taste test are conventional battery caged eggs, free-range, organic and pastured eggs. The two conventional brands tested were Burnbrae and Gray Ridge.
In terms of flavor, the conventional eggs were deemed "bland," and some of the testers expressed concerns about animal welfare being one of the reasons they avoid conventional eggs. Tomlinson visits a CAFO in Ontario to investigate the conditions in which these egg-layers are raised.
The facility houses 20,000 chickens, and operations are automated. Each cage houses six chickens, the space being just tall and wide enough for the chickens to fit with minimal space to move. The eggs drop through an opening onto a conveyer belt.
Next up in the taste test were Small Flock's Delight's brown eggs "from hens on grass," a Canadian free-range brand, the label of which states: "Back to the old way, small flocks of happy hens picking and scratching through soil and green plants." Some taste testers said these eggs had a much more robust flavor and aroma, while others guessed they were conventional.
Next, Tomlinson visits a CAFO with "enriched housing" facilities. Eggs such as these cost about 50 cents Canadian more than conventional eggs and are marketed as being more ethical. But are they? The hens raised in enriched housing facilities get double the square inch of space given conventional chickens, and each cage has a scratch pad and perch rail.
They also have a darkened "privacy quarter" in which they can lay their eggs, as scientists claim hens prefer to lay eggs in a dark, private area. Other than that, the facilities and methods are identical to those of a regular CAFO. Eggs such as these are typically labeled as "enriched colony," "enriched coup" or "nest-laid."
As noted in the featured video, while "free run," "free-range" and "pastured" may sound like interchangeable terms, they're not. And the reality behind these terms isn't necessarily what you might expect:
• "Free run" eggs are from chickens that are not confined to battery cages, but they're still cooped up indoors, in a giant factory-style building, without access to the outside.
• "Free-range," is basically the same, but with access to the outdoors — at least in theory: Pictures from some free-range farms have a conspicuous absence of chickens in their outdoor areas.
• Then there's pastured. CBC visits Organic Meadows, a farmer-owned cooperative that raises "pastured" chickens and eggs. Each day, the barn is opened up and the birds migrate outdoors.
"Fresh air and sunshine, that does a lot of good to an animal," the farmer says. The hens are fed organic feed, and the eggs are hand-gathered. Thus, they command a markedly higher retail price.
While everyone might not be able to afford pastured eggs, "the consumer can feel confident they're getting their money's worth," the farmer says. As for taste, "creamy" and "delicious" were some of the comments given after tasting Organic Meadow's pastured eggs.
As noted in the video, the diet of the chicken can impact not only the taste of the egg, but also its nutritional value. CBC Marketplace had the different types of eggs tested for their nutritional content, and the differences were significant.
Organic Meadow's pastured eggs received the highest nutritional rating, having three to five times more vitamin E, twice as much omega-3 fat and significantly higher amounts of vitamins A and D than the other eggs.
When it came to taste, Burnbrae's conventional eggs came in last place, with none of the taste testers selecting it as their favorite. The free run eggs came in fifth place, followed by the free-range brand (Small Flock's Delight) and Burnbrae's Organic. Interestingly, the win was a tie between Gray Ridge's conventional and Organic Meadow's pastured eggs.
While not discussed in this CBC Marketplace report, pastured eggs are also far less likely to be contaminated with disease-causing pathogens. CAFOs are known to be hotbeds for Salmonella infection.5
Eggs can become contaminated while they are being formed if the Salmonella bacteria exist inside a chicken's ovaries. As noted in the report,6,7 "Food Safety and Cage Egg Production" by the Humane Society, published in 2011:
"All 16 scientific studies published in the last five years comparing Salmonella contamination between caged and cage-free operations found that those confining hens in cages had higher rates of Salmonella, the leading cause of food poisoning-related death in the United States."
Today, we also have antibiotic-resistant strains of salmonella to contend with, which makes potential contamination even more worrisome. While there's no way to guarantee 100% safety at all times, the benefits of free-range poultry are becoming more well-recognized, and reduced disease risk is definitely part of that benefits package.
As mentioned, eggs are one of the healthiest foods around, loaded with valuable vitamins and minerals, including selenium, vitamins B2 (riboflavin), B5 (pantothenic acid), B7 (biotin) and B12, high-quality protein, iodine, vitamin D, zinc, omega-3 fats and more.8
Eggs are also an important source of lutein and zeaxanthin, two antioxidants known to play a role in healthy vision and the prevention of cataracts and macular degeneration, and are one of the best sources of choline available, providing 430 milligrams of choline per 100 grams.9
Choline helps keep your cell membranes functioning properly, plays a role in nerve communications and prevents the buildup of homocysteine in your blood, which is good because elevated levels are linked to heart disease.
Choline also helps reduce chronic inflammation and has been shown to lower your risk of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, in part due to its role in phosphatidyl choline and transporting fats out of your liver,10 and part due to the fact that it's an important part of the mitochondrial membrane, and mitochondrial dysfunction is a central mechanism in the pathogenesis of NAFLD.11
Choline deficiency is thought to play a major role in NAFLD because it disturbs mitochondrial bioenergetics12 and fatty acid oxidation.13 Choline also enables your body to make the brain chemical acetylcholine, which is involved in storing memories. In pregnant women, choline helps prevent birth defects such as spina bifida, while also playing a role in your baby's brain development.
According to a study14 published in the journal Nutrients, only 8.03 to 0.56% of U.S. adults are getting enough choline — including only 8.51 to 2.89% of pregnant women. Among egg consumers, however, 57.3% meet the adequate intake levels for choline.
Based on the outcomes, the study authors concluded that "it is extremely difficult to achieve the adequate intake for choline without consuming eggs or taking a dietary supplement."15
Some of the symptoms associated with low choline levels include lethargy, memory problems and persistent brain fog. Because your body can only synthesize small amounts of this nutrient, you must get it from your diet on a regular basis.
So to summarize, what you're really looking for is eggs that are both certified organic and true pasture-raised. Barring organic certification, which is cost-prohibitive for many small farmers, you could just make sure the farmer raises his chickens according to organic, free-range standards, allowing his flock to forage freely for their natural diet, and doesn't feed them antibiotics, corn or soy.
If you live in an urban area, visiting a local health food store is typically the quickest route to finding high-quality local egg sources. Your local farmers market is another source for fresh organic pasture-raised eggs, and is a great way to meet the people who produce your food.
With face-to-face contact, you can get your questions answered and know exactly what you're buying. Better yet, visit the farm and ask for a tour. Your egg farmer should be paying attention to proper nutrition, clean water, adequate housing space and good ventilation to reduce stress on the hens and support their immunity.
To get an idea of what you're looking for in a superior egg producer, take a look at Joel Salatin's Polyface farm operation below. He's truly one of the pioneers in sustainable agriculture, and you can take a virtual tour through his chicken farm operation in the following video.
As a general rule, you can tell the eggs are pastured by the color of the egg yolk. Foraged hens produce eggs with bright orange yolks. Dull, pale yellow yolks are a sure sign you're getting eggs from caged hens that are not allowed to forage for their natural diet.
For store-bought eggs, be sure to check out Cornucopia's organic egg scorecard that rates 136 egg producers based on 28 organic criteria. According to Cornucopia, their report "showcases ethical family farms and their brands, and exposes factory farm producers and brands in grocery store coolers that threaten to take over organic livestock agriculture."
This is the choice I have actually taken. I had a chicken coop built for 20 chickens and I now have 17 hens. The key is what you feed them. I give them 1 1/2 pounds of two-day sprouted field peas and 1 cup of white rice that is cooked with the peas in an Instapot with 4 ounces of tallow.
To that I add 1 ounce of our organic beef organ complex and 1 1/2 ounces of calcium carbonate and a mineral complex. Also feed them 8 ounces of barley. This produces eggs that are VERY low in linoleic acid (about 75% less). As noted in the featured Marketplace report, backyard chickens are making a comeback, as more homeowners are adding free-roaming chickens to their gardens. If you are so inclined, it's by far your best egg sourcing option.
As you can see in the Polyfarm video above, raising chickens is not very difficult. If you are interested in the possibility of raising a few chickens yourself, a good place to begin is by asking yourself a few questions (see below). You can also visit Joel's Polyface Farm Web site for more details on raising chickens.
N-acetylcysteine (NAC), a form of the amino acid cysteine and a common dietary supplement, has been on the market for nearly six decades. Among its many benefits is helping increase glutathione and reduce the acetaldehyde toxicity1 that causes many hangover symptoms, but anyone who overdoses on acetaminophen (Tylenol) also receives large doses of NAC in the emergency room, as it helps prevent liver damage by increasing glutathione.
However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration suddenly cracked down on NAC in 2020, claiming it is excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement, as it was approved as a new drug in 1963,2 before it was marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food.
Retailers, including Amazon, pulled supplements containing NAC from their shelves in response, as the FDA’s move meant that NAC could no longer legally be marketed as a supplement, even though there are no fewer than 1,170 NAC-containing products in the National Institutes of Health's Dietary Supplement Label Database.3
Draft guidance released by the FDA in April 2022 gives a glimmer of hope that NAC will continue to be available over-the-counter,4 but it’s still uncertain whether NAC will end up becoming a banned supplement.
According to the FDA, their draft guidance, once finalized, will:5
“… explain our intent to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the sale and distribution of certain NAC-containing products that are labeled as dietary supplements.
This enforcement discretion policy would apply to products that would be lawfully marketed dietary supplements if NAC were not excluded from the definition of “dietary supplement” and are not otherwise in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”
In July 2020, the FDA sent out warning letters to seven companies that marketed NAC as a remedy for hangovers.6 Nine months after the FDA issued warning letters with their position that NAC supplements could not legally be sold, Amazon began removing products containing the supplement.7
The new verbiage suggests, however, that the FDA will not be enforcing their policy that NAC cannot be marketed as a dietary supplement, even though it’s technically still illegal to do so. And therein lies the problem. Steve Mister, president and CEO of the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), explained:8
"That still leaves some exposure for the industry for a state [attorney general] to say, 'Well if it's technically illegal under the federal law,' we don't care that FDA's not enforcing it. We could do it. It also leaves you potentially exposed [to] a plaintiff's attorney."
Further, payment processing platforms, including PayPal, are among those that added policies prohibiting the sale of NAC products labeled as supplements following the FDA’s 2020 warning. It’s unknown whether PayPal will reverse its policy, or whether other major retailers, like Amazon, will begin to offer NAC supplements again.
Former FDA official Robert Durkin suggested that, in theory, the “draft guidance in and of itself should provide enough comfort to retailers to start marketing NAC-containing dietary supplements now."9 Whether that will be the case in practice remains to be seen.
After the FDA decided that NAC could no longer be marketed as a dietary supplement, CRN and the Natural Products Association (NPA) filed separate citizen petitions with the FDA requesting that the agency reverse its position.
The CRN letter in December 2020 challenged the FDA’s determination that NAC should be precluded from supplementary use.10 They then filed a citizen position petition June 1, 2021, requesting the FDA reverse its position and outlining why this sudden policy change is “legally invalid on multiple grounds.”11
The NPA filed a separate citizen petition with the FDA12 requesting that the agency not exclude NAC as a dietary supplement or, alternatively, that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issue a regulation finding NAC is lawful in supplements.
November 24, 2021, the FDA announced they were requesting more information about how NAC has been marketed as a dietary supplement,13 including information and data on the date that NAC was first marketed as a dietary supplement, reports of adverse events and details on how the products are marketed and sold.14 In their latest draft guidance, the FDA suggests it is still considering the petitioner’s requests:15
“… we have not yet reached a final decision on one petitioner’s request to issue a regulation to permit the use of NAC in dietary supplements, and we are considering initiating rulemaking to provide by regulation that NAC is not excluded from the definition of dietary supplement.
If, among other considerations, the FDA does not identify safety-related concerns as we continue our review of the available data and information, we are likely to propose a rule providing that NAC is not excluded from the definition of dietary supplement.”
In a positive step, while the FDA stated that their full safety review of NAC is ongoing, its initial review “has not revealed safety concerns with respect to the use of this ingredient in or as a dietary supplement.” The agency further explained:16
“In addition, NAC-containing products represented as dietary supplements have been sold in the United States for over 30 years and consumers continue to seek access to such products. Accordingly, while the FDA continues its evaluation of the request to initiate rulemaking, the FDA issued this draft guidance to explain our policy regarding products labeled as dietary supplements that contain NAC.
Unless we identify safety-related concerns during our ongoing review, the FDA would intend to exercise enforcement discretion (as described in the draft guidance) until either of the following occurs: we complete notice-and-comment rulemaking to allow the use of NAC in or as a dietary supplement (if we move forward with such proceedings) or we deny the citizen petition’s request for rulemaking.
If the FDA determines that this enforcement discretion policy is no longer appropriate, we will notify stakeholders by withdrawing or revising the guidance.”
With the draft guidance suggesting that no safety concerns have been noted, and enforcement is unlikely, Marc Ullman, counsel to the law firm Rivkin Radler LLP, suggested it should be perceived as “a win for industry” and that Amazon should “rescind its ban” on NAC dietary supplements in response:17
"FDA has said there's no safety issue and it's not going to take enforcement action. I think it would be an incredible overabundance of caution for any retailer to say, 'We shouldn't get NAC back into commerce.'"
The FDA’s crackdown on NAC coincided with research suggesting COVID-19 treatment as a new indication. According to one literature analysis,18 glutathione deficiency may be associated with COVID-19 severity, leading the author to conclude that NAC may be useful both for its prevention and treatment.
Previous research has shown NAC inhibits the expression of proinflammatory cytokines in cells infected with highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus. Proinflammatory cytokines also play a crucial role in COVID-19 severity.19 Considering many COVID-19 cases also involve blood clots in addition to excessive oxidative stress, and NAC effectively addresses both, I believe NAC should be included in the standard of care for COVID-19. As noted in the FASEB Journal:20
"COVID-19 may cause pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiovascular alterations, and multiple organ failure, which have been ascribed to a cytokine storm, a systemic inflammatory response, and an attack by the immune system. Moreover, an oxidative stress imbalance has been demonstrated to occur in COVID-19 patients.
N-Acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC) is a precursor of reduced glutathione (GSH). Due to its tolerability, this pleiotropic drug has been proposed not only as a mucolytic agent, but also as a preventive/therapeutic agent in a variety of disorders involving GSH depletion and oxidative stress …
Thiols block the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 thereby hampering penetration of SARS-CoV-2 into cells. Based on a broad range of antioxidant and anti-inflammatory mechanisms … the oral administration of NAC is likely to attenuate the risk of developing COVID-19, as it was previously demonstrated for influenza and influenza-like illnesses.
Moreover, high-dose intravenous NAC may be expected to play an adjuvant role in the treatment of severe COVID-19 cases and in the control of its lethal complications … including pulmonary and cardiovascular adverse events."
Another study published in 2021 compared consecutive patients hospitalized with moderate or severe COVID-19 pneumonia.21 One group received only standard care and the other group received 600 milligrams of NAC twice daily for 14 days. There were 42 in the NAC group and 40 in the control group. Treatment with NAC led to lower rates of severe respiratory failure and significantly lower mortality rates.
NAC has been described as an “old drug with new tricks” because scientists are continually uncovering new ways to use it.22 Along with antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and mucolytic properties, NAC may be a useful adjuvant for a variety of chronic diseases and other medical conditions, including:23
Polycystic ovary disease
Acquired immune deficiency syndrome
Obsessive compulsive disorder
As a chelator for heavy metals and nanoparticles
Recently, it was found that NAC may also prevent strokes in people with hereditary cystatin C amyloid angiopathy (HCCAA), a rare genetic disorder.24 People with HCCAA have an average life expectancy of just 30 years, and most die within five years of their first stroke,25 so reducing their incidence could prove to be essential to increasing survival.
The finding is even more significant because it was conducted by researchers from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), which is notoriously against supplements. NAC appears to work by preventing the formation of amyloid-producing proteins, which promote amyloid deposits linked to strokes.26
It could also have potential for Alzheimer’s as, according to the CHOP researchers, the process of protein deposition that occurs in HCCAA is similar to what occurs in Alzheimer’s, although at an accelerated pace, which is why dementia occurs later in life than Alzheimer’s.
With so many potential health benefits, the root of the motivation to ban NAC as a supplement likely lies in protecting the finances of pharmaceutical companies. Hopefully in this case, however, the FDA will determine that NAC should be allowed to exist under the dietary supplement definition, ensuring widespread access to this important compound will continue the way it did for decades.