Category: Recommended

Ubiquitous exposure to phthalates, found in everything from food packaging to personal care products, is putting children’s brain development at risk, according to Project TENDR (Targeting Environmental Neuro-Development Risks), a collaboration of scientists, health professionals and advocates for children and the environment.1
The group formed in 2015 due to concerns that toxic environmental chemicals were playing a role in neurodevelopmental disorders including autism, attention deficits, hyperactivity, intellectual disability and learning disorders.
Recently, they’ve honed in on phthalates, finding that enough evidence exists to call for immediate action to protect children’s brains from exposure to this harmful class of chemicals.2

Several Behavioral Disorders Linked to Phthalates

Phthalates are high-production volume chemicals used frequently as plasticizers in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and other plastics.
An estimated 8.4 million metric tons of plasticizers, including phthalates, are used worldwide each year,3 with phthalate production amounting to about 4.9 million metric tons annually.4 The Norwegian Institute of Public Health found that 90% of those tested from 2016 to 2017 had eight different plasticizers in their urine.5
In a peer-reviewed article published in the American Journal of Public Health, members of Project TENDR came to the conclusion that exposure to ortho-phthalates can impair brain development, increasing children’s risk of learning, attention and behavioral disorders.
They cite data from longitudinal birth cohort studies that show associations between exposure to phthalates in utero and the following health conditions:6

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
Other behavioral problems

Adverse cognitive development
Lower IQ

Poorer psychomotor development
Impaired social communication

According to the report, more than 30 published studies from 11 different countries have measured prenatal phthalate exposure with the children being followed for alterations in neonatal behavior, cognitive development, executive function, social behavior and more.
“The most consistent pattern across multiple studies is associations with behaviors commonly associated with ADHD (including hyperactivity, aggression/defiance and emotional reactivity), deficits in executive function or ADHD clinical diagnosis,” the researchers noted.7
In one example, children born to mothers that were in the highest quintile of urinary phthalate levels (specifically, DEHP metabolites) during the second trimester of pregnancy were nearly three times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD compared to children born to mothers in the lowest quintile.8
Prenatal exposure to phthalates, especially metabolites of DBP and DEHP, has also been linked to a range of additional problem behaviors such as an increased likelihood of delinquent behaviors and more aggressive behaviors,9 along with reductions in child perceptual reasoning, lowered IQ by seven points, anxiety and poorer working memory.10

Prenatal Exposures Through Puberty Particularly Problematic

There are several sensitive windows of exposure to phthalates, including prenatally and postnatally into adolescence and potentially adulthood. The ongoing development of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus and cerebellum, during these periods make it especially vulnerable to exposures to phthalates toxicities.
The mechanisms behind phthalates’ harms are varied, but the chemicals are known to disrupt organization and function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, the system responsible for the management of stress and involved in the regulation of immune function and metabolic homeostasis. They may also inhibit fetal testosterone production and may also have antiestrogenic effects,11 which could have repercussions for brain plasticity.12
“The hippocampus and, consequently, aspects of neural plasticity, cognitive flexibility, anxiety-like behavior, learning and memory, are thought to be particularly vulnerable to phthalates,” the team noted,13 adding that phthalates may also cause harm by disrupting thyroid hormone pathways and altering lipid metabolism and ion homeostasis, including calcium signaling and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors activation. They noted:14

“Given the widespread exposures to phthalates, including among women and children, and the limited existing US regulations, none of which focus on pregnant women, health-protective regulatory actions are required to eliminate these potentially harmful exposures.”

How Are You Exposed to Phthalates?

While the U.S. put restrictions on the use of eight phthalates in children’s toys and other child care items, this is being legally challenged by the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council and other industry groups.15
Further federal regulation of the chemicals remains lax and, in fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of 28 phthalates for use as food additives in food contact products, such as cellophane, paper and paperboard, coating agents and binders.
Environmental and public health organizations submitted petitions asking the FDA to eliminate its approval of the 28 phthalates as food additives but the FDA did not meet the statutory deadline for final decision.16
As a result, diet continues to be a significant route of exposure to phthalates, since the chemicals can leach into food not only from food packaging commonly used by fast food and take-out restaurants but also from plastic equipment used in food production, such as commercial dairy, conveyor belts and food preparation gloves.17
Another common route of exposure is from building supplies, including vinyl flooring and wall coverings, which allow phthalates to migrate into household dust and indoor air. They’re also widely used in personal care products and cosmetics, including nail polish, fragrance, lotion and hair products.
“Overall, women have higher exposure to phthalates found in personal care products than men,” the report noted, which is especially problematic since “[p]hthalates are readily transferred from mother to fetus during pregnancy.”18

All Phthalates Should Be Regulated, Eliminated

Because people are exposed to multiple phthalates simultaneously, the report called for regulation of the chemicals as a class and policy reforms to eliminate the chemicals from products that lead to exposure in pregnant women, women of reproductive age, infants and children.
“We’re exposed to multiple phthalates, and that mixture can come within a single product, but also across multiple products that people are exposed to in a day,” lead author Stephanie Engel told CNN. “The reality is that we need to think of phthalates as a class because that’s how people are exposed to them.”19
Reviewing the chemicals as a class would also prevent manufacturers from simply swapping one phthalate with another, similar to what occurred with bisphenol-A and bisphenol-S. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, told CNN:20

“This is the whole history of these chemicals, whether you call it ‘whack a mole’ or ‘chemical conveyor belt’ or ‘unfortunate substitution.’ We move from one chemical that we have concerns about to another one which we just haven’t studied yet, which often turns out to be just as problematic.

We can’t continue to test these things one at a time. I could make an argument that if one chemical can be substituted for another without changing the process, then why would you think the biology would be different?”

While industry groups have pushed back due to the “costs” associated with removing the chemicals, some retailers and manufacturers have already taken voluntary action to replace them. Home Depot introduced policy to restrict phthalates in vinyl flooring and wall-to-wall carpeting, for instance, and Apple removed the class of chemicals from nearly all of its products.21

Microplastic Pollution Is Another Human Health Crisis

In a perspective article published in the journal Science, Dick Vethaak from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Juliette Legler from Utrecht University in the Netherlands suggest that ubiquitous exposure to microplastics, including plastic particles smaller than 5 millimeters and nanosized plastics smaller than 1 µm, represent another significant risk to human health.22,23
Exposure occurs via both inhalation and ingestion and is the result of the continual breakdown of plastic products such as car tires, clothing, paint coatings and more, which comes in shapes such as spheres, fragments and fibers. The plastics contain mixtures of chemicals, including additives and other environmental contaminants.
“[A] growing body of evidence suggests widespread exposure to microplastics from various foods, drinking water and air,” the researchers noted, adding that microplastics may cause physical, chemical and microbiological toxicity in humans, with the toxic effects acting cumulatively.
In addition, chemical toxicity could also occur since microplastics may act as “vectors to transfer exogenous hazardous chemicals, proteins and toxins present in or on the particles into the body.”24 They pointed out a little-known and understudied potential hazard as well — the presence of an eco- or biocornoa, which are substances on the surface of the plastic particle that could interfere with normal particle uptake:25

“Before crossing the epithelial barriers in the lung and intestine, microplastics are trapped in the mucus layer covering the cells, whereas ingested particles have to pass through acidic conditions in the stomach and intestinal lumen.

The role of the changing composition of the eco- or biocorona acquired by microparticles, from the outside to the inside of the body, across tissue barriers, and the underlying mechanisms in mediating uptake and toxicity are poorly understood and deserve more study.”

In a study at University of Newcastle, Australia, researchers quantified what microplastic exposure may mean for humans, revealing a shocking finding that the average person could be eating about 5 grams of plastic per week — about the amount found in one credit card.26
While environmental groups have called for national targets for plastic reduction, recycling and management, along with an international treaty to stop plastic pollution in the oceans, don’t underestimate the impact one person — you — can have by making simple tweaks to your daily life.
By avoiding the use of single-use plastics like straws, utensils, bags and bottles, and seeking to purchase products that are not made from or packaged in plastic, you can make a dent in the amount of plastic waste and pollution being produced.

How to Reduce Your Phthalate Exposure

You can take steps to reduce your exposure to phthalates and other plasticizers by making small changes in your everyday routine. This includes:

Avoid plastic containers and plastic wrap for food and personal care products. Store food and drinks in glass containers instead.

Avoid plastic children’s toys. Use toys made of natural substances, such as wood and organic materials.

Read labels on your cosmetics and avoid those containing phthalates.

Avoid products labeled with “fragrance,” including air fresheners, as this catch-all term may include phthalates commonly used to stabilize the scent and extend the life of the product.

Read labels looking for PVC-free products, including children’s lunch boxes, backpacks and storage containers.

Do not microwave food in plastic containers or covered in plastic wrap.

Frequently vacuum and dust rooms with vinyl blinds, wallpaper, flooring and furniture that may contain phthalates, as the chemical collects in dust and is easily ingested by children.

Ask your pharmacist if your prescription pills are coated to control when they dissolve as the coating may contain phthalates.

Eat mostly fresh, raw whole foods. Food packaging is often a source of phthalates.

Use glass baby bottles instead of plastic. Breastfeed exclusively for the first year, if you can, to avoid plastic nipples and bottles altogether.

Remove your fruit and vegetables from plastic bags immediately after coming home from the grocery store and wash before storing them; alternatively, use cloth bags to bring home your produce.

Cash register receipts are heat printed and often contain BPA. Handle the receipt as little as possible and ask the store to switch to BPA-free receipts.

Use natural cleaning products or make your own.

Replace feminine hygiene products with safer alternatives.

Avoid fabric softeners and dryer sheets; make your own to reduce static cling.

Check your home’s tap water for contaminants and filter the water if necessary.

Teach your children not to drink from the garden hose, as many hoses contain plasticizers such as phthalates.

Use reusable shopping bags for groceries.

Take your own non-plastic leftovers container to restaurants. Avoid disposable utensils and straws.

Bring your own mug for coffee and bring drinking water from home in glass water bottles instead of buying bottled water.

Consider switching to bamboo toothbrushes and brushing your teeth with coconut oil and baking soda to avoid plastic toothpaste tubes.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/03/phthalates-damaging-babies-brains.aspx

The flaws of vaccine trials in general are really highlighted by current COVID-19 vaccine studies, one of the most egregious ones being the fact that vaccine makers rarely use inert placebos (such as a saline shot), which is the gold standard for drug trials.
As noted in a January 25, 2021, article in The Defender,1 vaccine developers typically assess the safety of a new vaccine against another vaccine, and by so doing, they effectively hide side effects as most vaccines have side effects and risks.
As just one example, the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is being tested against a meningitis vaccine,2 which just so happens to share many of the side effects reported from COVID-19 vaccines. As reported by the National Vaccine Information Center:3

“According to the CDC, at least 50% of individuals receiving meningococcal vaccines targeting meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y, and W-135 (Menactra or Menveo) experience mild side effects …

Adverse events reported by Sanofi Pasteur in the Menactra vaccine product insert include … headache; fatigue … joint pain; chills; anaphylaxis; wheezing; upper airway swelling; difficulty breathing; hypotension … lymph node swelling; Guillain-Barre syndrome; convulsions; dizziness; facial palsy; vasovagal syncope; paresthesia; transverse myelitis; acute disseminated encephalomyelitis …

Adverse events reported by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics (GlaxoSmithKline) in the pre-licensing clinical trials of Menveo vaccine include … headache; joint and muscle pain; malaise; nausea; chills … acute disseminated encephalomyelitis … pneumonia … suicidal depression and suicide attempts.”

Long-Term Safety Analysis Tossed by the Wayside
Now, Pfizer and Moderna have started offering placebo recipients in their trials the real mRNA gene therapy, which means it will be even more difficult to tease out which side effects are actually caused by the shot and which ones aren’t, over the long term. As reported by NPR, February 17, 2021:4

“Tens of thousands of people who volunteered to participate in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine studies are still participating in follow-up research, though that’s somewhat hampered because many people who had been given a placebo shot opted to take the vaccine instead.”

In fact, according to Dr. Carlos Fierro, who runs the clinical trial for the Moderna vaccine in Lenexa, Kansas, virtually all of the 650 volunteers who initially received the placebo have now opted to get the real vaccine, which means he had “essentially no comparison group left for the ongoing study,” which was slated to run for two full years.
As Dr. Steven Goodman at Stanford University told NPR,5 getting rid of the initial control groups makes it far more difficult to assess the safety and effectiveness of the COVID vaccines since they won’t have anything to compare the vaccine recipients against.
Justification for Elimination of Controls Is Flimsy at Best

Ironically, both the use of an active placebo and the elimination of control groups are being justified on “moral grounds” by pro-vaccine advocates who say it’s unethical to not provide volunteers with something of value, such as another vaccine in the case of active placebos, or a vaccine they know is effective in the case of giving placebo recipients the real McCoy.
Both of these arguments are beyond questionable. As mentioned, no vaccine is 100% safe, so getting an active vaccine placebo comes with risk, not merely benefit, and when it comes to the novel mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines, historical data are troubling to say the least, and the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is rapidly filling up with COVID-19 vaccine-related injury reports and deaths.

As reported in “COVID-19 Vaccine To Be Tested on 6-Year-Olds,” as of February 4, 2021, VAERS had received 12,697 injury reports and 653 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination.6 Even more telling, between January 2020 and January 2021, COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of the annual vaccine deaths, even though these vaccines had only been available for less than two months!

Between January 2020 and January 2021, COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of the annual vaccine deaths, even though these vaccines had only been available for less than two months!

What’s more, previous research7 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are ever reported to VAERS, so in reality, we may be looking at more than 1 million COVID-19 vaccine injuries within the first two months of their release.
In my view, the data are far from assuring overall, which makes the elimination of long-term control groups — flawed as they may be due to active placebo use — all the more troubling.

All Previous Coronavirus Vaccines Failed Upon Challenge 

Historically, previous attempts to create a coronavirus vaccine have all failed miserably, as they ended up creating devastating immune enhancement. This is why any and all short-cuts taken in the COVID-19 vaccine development is so troubling.

In my May 2020 interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., he summarized the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began in 2002, following three consecutive SARS outbreaks. By 2012, Chinese, American and European scientists were working on SARS vaccine development, and had about 30 promising candidates.

Of those, the four best vaccine candidates were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. In the video above, which is a select outtake from my full interview, Kennedy explains what happened next.
While the ferrets displayed robust antibody response, which is the metric used for vaccine licensing, once they were challenged with the wild virus, they were overtaken by a cytokine storm response, known as paradoxical immune enhancement, became severely ill and died.
The same thing happened when they tried to develop a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine in the 1960s. RSV is an upper respiratory illness that is very similar to that caused by coronaviruses.
At that time, they had decided to skip animal trials and go directly to human trials. The RSV vaccine was tested on about 35 children, with identical results. Initially, they developed a robust antibody response, but when challenged with the wild virus, all became ill and two died. The vaccine was abandoned.
Yes, We Really Do Need Placebo Arms

Despite such dire failures, some still argue that placebo arms aren’t needed in COVID-19 vaccine trials. In an opinion piece in STAT News,8 Kent Peacock, a professor of philosophy, and John Vokey, a professor of psychology, both from the University of Lethbridge, compare the use of placebo control groups with giving out dummy parachutes during wartime.
“Giving the real treatment to 100% of the volunteers removes one of the major ethical barriers to challenge trials: the high probability of harmful side effects or death to members of a control group,” they say, completely ignoring the fact that volunteers in the vaccine arm may be put at grave unknown risks, not just in the short term but in the long term as well.
This entire argument hinges on the idea that the vaccine being tested is KNOWN to be safe, which it absolutely is not at this point, and won’t be for many years. They even argue that “not using a placebo … would be less ethically questionable to test the vaccine on older participants.”

People are dying because of the vaccines … It looks more and more as though we’re dealing with homicide, and maybe even murder. ~ Reiner Fuellmich, attorney
Well, they published that article in early September 2020, and now we can more or less conclusively state that they are wrong on this point, as older vaccine recipients have been dropping like flies.
‘We’re Dealing With Homicide,’ German Attorney Says

As reported by Brian Shilhavy, editor of Health Impact News, February 19, 2021:9

“Earlier this week we published10 the English translation of a video in German that attorney Reiner Fuellmich published with a whistleblower who works in a nursing home where several residents were injected with the experimental COVID mRNA shots against their will, and where many of them died a short time later.

Since that interview was published, other whistleblowers in Germany who work in nursing homes have also stepped forward, some with video footage showing residents being held down and vaccinated against their wish …

Fuellmich … stated: ‘We are getting more and more calls from other whistleblowers form other nursing homes in this country, plus we’re getting information from other countries, Sweden for example, Norway … Gibraltar … here are also incidents in England and in the United States that match these descriptions …

It means that people are dying because of the vaccines. What we are seeing in this video clip is worse than anything we ever expected. If this is representative for what’s going on in other nursing homes, and in other countries, then we have a very serious problem.

And so do the people who make the vaccines, so do the people who administer the vaccines. It looks more and more as though we’re dealing with homicide, and maybe even murder.'”

Novel mRNA Gene Therapy Is Not Harmless

It’s important to realize what mRNA and DNA COVID-19 vaccine actually are. They are not traditional vaccines made with live or attenuated viruses. They’re actually gene therapies. They don’t even meet the medical or legal definition of a vaccine, as detailed in “COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines.” This novel, never before used therapy has a long list of potential problems, including the following:

The messenger RNA (mRNA) used in many COVID-19 vaccines are synthetic. Your body sees these synthetic particles as non-self, which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in her interview, featured in “How COVID-19 Vaccines May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”

Your body also views free mRNA as a warning signal to your immune system, as they drive inflammatory diseases. This is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable, meaning it doesn’t break down as easily as it normally would by encasing the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles is likely to be problematic.

COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, and PEG is known to cause anaphylaxis.11

Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic.12

The synthetic RNA influences, in part, the gene syncytin. According to Mikovits, when syncytin is aberrantly expressed in the brain, you can develop multiple sclerosis. Expression of the syncytin gene also inflames and dysregulates communication between the brain microglia, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain. It also dysregulates your immune system and your endocannabinoid system, which is the dimmer switch on inflammation.

The synthetic mRNA also has an HIV envelope expressed in it, which can cause immune dysregulation.

Symptoms of COVID-19 Vaccine Damage
Commonly reported side effects among recipients of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines include:

Persistent malaise13,14 and extreme exhaustion15

Persistent headache and migraine onset16

Severe allergic, including anaphylactic reactions17,18,19

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome20

Seizures and convulsions21,22

Paralysis,23 including Bell’s Palsy24

Swollen lymph nodes25

Sudden death within hours or days26,27,28,29,30

Many of these symptoms are suggestive of neurological damage. According to Mikovits, this is precisely what you’d expect, as these conditions are caused by neuroinflammation, a dysregulated innate immune response and/or disrupted endocannabinoid system.
Long term, Mikovits predicts we’ll see a significant uptick in migraines, tics, Parkinson’s disease, microvascular disorders, cancers, severe pain syndromes like fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, bladder problems, kidney disease, psychosis, neurodegenerative diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) and sleep disorders.
What to Do if You Got the Vaccine and Are Having Problems

If you got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection.
I’ve written many articles over the past year detailing simple strategies to improve your immune system, and with a healthy immune system, you’ll get through COVID-19 without incident. Below, I’ll summarize some of the strategies you can use both to prevent COVID-19 and address any side effects you may encounter from the vaccine.

• Eat a “clean,” ideally organic diet. Avoid processed foods of all kinds, especially vegetable oils, as they are loaded with damaging omega-6 linoleic acid that wrecks your mitochondrial function. Linoleic acid has been shown to increase mortality from COVID-19.
• Consider nutritional ketosis and time-restricted eating, both of which will help you optimize your metabolic machinery and mitochondrial function.
• Implement a detoxification program to get rid of heavy metals and glyphosate. This is important as these toxins contribute to inflammation. To improve detoxification, I recommend activating your natural glutathione production with molecular hydrogen tablets.
A simple way to block glyphosate uptake is to take glycine. Approximately 3 grams, about half a teaspoon, a few times a day should be sufficient, along with an organic diet, so that you’re not adding more glyphosate with each meal.
• Maintain a neutral pH to improve the resiliency of your immune system. You want your pH to be right around 7, which you can measure with an inexpensive urine strip. The lower your pH, the more acidic you are. A simple way to raise your pH if it’s too acidic (and most people are) is to take one-fourth teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) or potassium bicarbonate in water a few times a day.

Nutritional supplementation can also be helpful. Among the most important are:

Vitamin D — Vitamin D supplements are readily available and one of the least expensive supplements on the market. All things considered, vitamin D optimization is likely the easiest and most beneficial strategy that anyone can do to minimize their risk of COVID-19 and other infections, and can strengthen your immune system in a matter of a few weeks.

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) — NAC is a precursor to reduced glutathione, which appears to play a crucial role in COVID-19. According to one literature analysis,31 glutathione deficiency may actually be associated with COVID-19 severity, leading the author to conclude that NAC may be useful both for its prevention and treatment.

Zinc — Zinc plays a very important role in your immune system’s ability to ward off viral infections. Like vitamin D, zinc helps regulate your immune function32 — and a combination of zinc with a zinc ionophore, like hydroxychloroquine or quercetin, was in 2010 shown to inhibit SARS coronavirus in vitro. In cell culture, it also blocked viral replication within minutes.33 Importantly, zinc deficiency has been shown to impair immune function.34

Melatonin — Boosts immune function in a variety of ways and helps quell inflammation. Melatonin may also prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection by recharging glutathione35 and enhancing vitamin D synthesis, among other things.

Vitamin C — A number of studies have shown vitamin C can be very helpful in the treatment of viral illnesses, sepsis and ARDS,36 all of which are applicable to COVID-19. Its basic properties include anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, antioxidant, antithrombotic and antiviral activities. At high doses, it actually acts as an antiviral drug, actively inactivating viruses. Vitamin C also works synergistically with quercetin.37

Quercetin — A powerful immune booster and broad-spectrum antiviral, quercetin was initially found to provide broad-spectrum protection against SARS coronavirus in the aftermath of the 2003 SARS epidemic,38,39,40 and evidence suggests it may be useful for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 as well.

B vitamins — B vitamins can also influence several COVID-19-specific disease processes, including41 viral replication and invasion, cytokine storm induction, adaptive immunity and hypercoagulability.

Type 1 interferon — Type 1 interferon prevents viral replication and helps degrade the RNA. It’s available in spray form that you can spray directly into your throat, your nose. Mikovits recommends taking a couple of sprays per day prophylactically, and more if you have a cough, fever or headache.

Report All COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

Last but not least, if you or someone you love have received a COVID-19 gene therapy “vaccine” and are experiencing side effects, help raise public awareness of these problems by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do three things:42

If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
Report the injury on the CHD website

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/02/covid-vaccine-testing.aspx

For a weary public longing to get back to normalcy, vaccine passports represent a tantalizing carrot, being dangled as a mechanism for freedom. By showing proof that you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, perhaps you can once again board an airplane and travel freely, attend a concert or enjoy a meal in your favorite restaurant, just like you used to.
Except, being required to present your “papers” in order to live your life isn’t actually freedom at all — it’s discrimination, and even a move toward technocratic fascism, one that’s setting the stage for increased surveillance and erosion of your privacy.
Nonetheless, this blatant move toward an ever-increasing surveillance state is being welcomed by many who have been led to believe the passports are necessary to protect public health and safety.
Vaccine Passports Are in Development

It’s likely only a matter of time before you’ll be asked to prove your vaccination status in order to carry on with your daily life. “The government seems to be developing vaccine passports by stealth, making sure the technology is in place for anyone who needs it,” wrote Lara Prendergast, The Spectator’s assistant editor.1
She’s referring to the U.K. government, which has given sizable grants to a number of private companies developing such technology. This includes more than $86,000 to Logifect, which is slated to launch a vaccine passport app in March 2021, and more than $104,000 to iProov and Mvine, which are developing digital certificates that show vaccination status.
As Prendergast noted, “Your phone would most likely be your vaccination passport. Everyone’s vaccination status is already being logged centrally by the National Immunization Vaccination System using their NHS number. This information could be easily linked with an app.”2
Around the world, vaccine passports are rapidly being rolled out, including in Denmark, which will begin issuing them in February 2021. Sweden. Spain, Italy, Cyprus and Malta have also expressed positivity toward vaccine passports to revive tourism, while in the U.S., plans for vaccine IDs are under evaluation.3 International efforts are also underway.
The Commons Project and the World Economic Forum created the Common Trust Network, which developed the CommonPass app that’s intended to act as a health passport in the near future.
The app allows users to upload medical data such as a COVID-19 test result or proof of vaccination, which then generates a QR code that you will show to authorities as your health passport.4 The proposed common framework “for safe border reopening” around the world involves the following:5

Every nation must publish their health screening criteria for entry into the country using a standard format on a common framework

Each country must register trusted facilities that conduct COVID-19 lab testing for foreign travel and administer vaccines listed in the CommonPass registry

Each country will accept health screening status from foreign visitors through apps and services built on the CommonPass framework

Patient identification is to be collected at the time of sample collection and/or vaccination using an international standard

The CommonPass framework will be integrated into flight and hotel reservation check-in processes

Eventually, the CommonPass framework will be integrated with already existing personal health apps such as Apple Health and CommonHealth. If you want to travel, your personal health record will be evaluated and compared to a country’s entry requirements, and if you don’t meet them, you’ll be directed to an approved testing and vaccination location.
Majority Are in Favor of ‘Privacy-Encroaching Technology’

Even as mortality data show COVID-19 is hardly the deadly pandemic it’s been made out to be, fear-mongering remains in full effect — including warnings that a more infectious, mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2 is on the loose. With fear still omnipresent, acceptance of “privacy-encroaching technology” that promises an illusion of safety is high.
In the U.K., researchers from the University of Bristol conducted two large surveys about such technologies, with overwhelming positivity reported.6 The first measured public acceptance of location tracking through your cellphone that would allow health agencies to monitor your contact with others to target social distancing and quarantine measures.
About 70% of the respondents said they would accept such an app that they could choose to download and, surprisingly, 65% also said they would accept such an app even if it was mandated by the government and used to locate those violating lockdown orders and issue fines and arrests.7
A second survey evaluated acceptance of vaccine passports, with 60% stating they were in favor and only 20% stating they were strongly opposed. The study’s lead author, professor Stephan Lewandowsky, described those opposed as “surprisingly low, adding, “It’s fascinating how people seem increasingly receptive to their personal data being used to inform themselves and others about what they can and can’t do.”8

Prendergast put this widespread acceptance into further context for the British, who “have traditionally been deeply suspicious of the idea of an official asking for ‘papers, please’:9

“[This] … is why there was such a backlash against Blair’s ID cards. As one journalist at the time put it:
‘If I am ever asked to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am, when I have done nothing wrong and when I am simply ambling along and breathing God’s fresh air like any other freeborn Englishman, then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.’
That journalist is now our Prime Minister. It would be an extraordinary turn of events if Boris Johnson ended up being the man who introduced an immunity identity system in Britain.”

US Universities Institute Jail-Like Restrictions

At every turn, long-standing societal norms — like college students gathering with friends in their dorm or even leaving their rooms for work and exercise — are disappearing. As of February 7, 2021, for instance, the University of Massachusetts Amherst was in a “high risk” operational mode due to a “continuing surge in COVID-19 cases.”10
The status, which was to be in place for a minimum of 14 days, made all classes remote and ordered all students, whether residing on or off campus, to self-sequester in their residences, except to get meals, attend medical appointments or undergo twice-weekly COVID testing.
Violating these orders would result in “disciplinary action,” according to a university press release, which could include removal from residence halls or suspension.11 Students were also informed that, should they decide to leave campus to self-sequester at home, “it is highly unlikely we will be able to accommodate your return.”
Even within a residence hall, students were told to remain in their rooms at all times except when using a restroom on their floor. Outdoor exercise or attending to the immediate needs of a pet was allowed, but only when wearing a mask and maintaining social distancing.12
This wasn’t the case at UC Berkeley, however, which banned outdoor exercise in addition to extending dormitory lockdowns in February 2021. The only times students are allowed to leave their rooms during the lockdown are to obtain medical care, get required COVID tests, to use an assigned bathroom or to obtain food from an outdoor dining kiosk, after which “you are required to return immediately to your room.”13
Are You Clean Enough to Travel?

While many countries have suggested that the COVID-19 vaccine will not be mandated, by giving special privileges to the vaccinated, such as the ability to travel, attend social events or even enter a workplace, it essentially amounts to the same thing and insinuates a “cleaner” class of people in those who have been vaccinated.
It’s reminiscent of the early days of the pandemic, when hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes were flying off store shelves in a frenzy to clean away COVID. Now we know that transmission of COVID-19 by fomites — the term used for inanimate surfaces and objects that can transmit a pathogen — has been exaggerated.
Emanuel Goldman, a microbiology professor at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, suggested this in July 2020, when he stated that studies suggesting SARS-CoV-2 was easily spread via surfaces did not present real-life situation.14
“In my opinion, the chance of transmission through inanimate surfaces is very small,” he said, and while period disinfection of surfaces, especially in hospitals, was a reasonable precaution, in public settings, he noted, “this can go to extremes not justified by the data.”15 In February 2021, an editorial in Nature supported Goldman’s work, suggesting that costly and toxic disinfection efforts are misguided.
“Catching the coronavirus from surfaces is rare. The World Health Organization and national public health agencies need to clarify their advice,” the editorial reads.16 The New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority alone is spending an estimated $380 million annually on COVID-related sanitation, and when it asked the U.S. government whether they should be focusing on fomites or solely aerosols, they were told to continue their focus on fomites.17
Writing in The Atlantic, Derek Thompson describes this as a type of “hygiene theater,” in which Americans are going through the motions of dutifully cleaning and, likely, over-disinfecting surfaces when the virus spreads most efficiently through the air.18
Indeed, much of the COVID-19 pandemic response has been embroiled in theatrics, including mask mandates, for which the scientific evidence has been described as “astonishingly weak.”19 Hygiene theater, much like the theater for vaccine passports, provides an illusion of safety, not one grounded in reality.
Discussion to Ban Florida Travel for Disobedience

In the U.S., Florida announced in December 2020 that it would have no more lockdowns and no statewide mask mandates.20 The act resulted in retaliation by federal government, which entertained the idea of a domestic travel ban to the state, reportedly to curb the spread of new COVID-19 variants.
In a press conference, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis stated, “Any attempt to restrict by the federal government would be an attack on our state done purely for political purposes.” Sen. Marco Rubio agreed, calling the act unconstitutional: “So now that they’re considering actual restrictions on Americans inside the country, I think it is unconstitutional. I think it’s going to be challenged in court successfully.”21
The “technocratic fascist vision”22 of professor Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum who wrote the book on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, is moving ahead full-steam. He announced the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Initiative in June 2020, which includes stripping all people of their privately owned assets.
Getting health passports to become a new normal has, in fact, been part of the plan all along for the Commons Project, which began developing software that tracks medical data well before the COVID-19 pandemic. “But spikes in virus cases around the world this spring accelerated its work,” The New York Times reported.23
While the vaccine passports are starting out with the COVID-19 vaccine for international travel, it’s setting a precedent for expansion that can be extended to other vaccines and medical information, and then to domestic travel and even leaving your house, as the passports will be carried on your phone that has location-tracking abilities.
And it’s clear that when the fascists come, they’ll be wearing masks — probably two or three of them depending on their level of loyalty. For now, getting informed and sharing your knowledge is the first step to protecting your freedom.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/24/covid-vaccine-passport.aspx

In a collaboration between researchers1 from the University of Queensland and the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, scientists discovered quercetin has proneurogenic effects in the hippocampus of the brain.
The hippocampus is located within the temporal lobe and is part of the limbic system.2 This is a part of the brain where behavioral and emotional responses are generated. These responses are central to survival and include reproduction, caring for babies, feeding and the fight-or-flight response. Other parts of the limbic system include the thalamus, hypothalamus, basal ganglia and amygdala.
The hippocampus is a well-studied part of the brain, which takes its name from the shape that resembles a seahorse. This area plays a crucial role in memory consolidation, coding and learning.3 Another of its major functions is forming a cognitive map, which is related to your ability to acquire new knowledge, store it and recall it.
Your behavior is dependent on your ability to acquire new knowledge and represent the information accurately. Damage to this area can produce maladaptive behaviors. “Evidence supports the role the hippocampus plays in decision-making as it relates to memory deficits that result from an Alzheimer’s type of dementia.”4
According to the Alzheimer’s Association,5 the number of people living in the U.S. who have Alzheimer’s disease is growing. There were an estimated 5.8 million people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in 2020. Nearly two-thirds are women. Experts estimate that as the population of people over 65 continues to grow, the number with Alzheimer’s will also rapidly increase.
By 2050, it is projected 13.8 million will have Alzheimer’s disease. This new data offer more information about caring for the health of your memory and learning centers that are often hardest hit by Alzheimer’s disease. As I discuss below, there are also other strategies you can use to protect your brain health.
Quercetin Stimulates Proneurogenic Activity

The research design of the featured study in Stem Cell Reports6 was built on past studies that have demonstrated the benefits of phytochemicals found in plant foods. As the researchers wrote, one of the interesting processes is the brain’s plasticity, which is necessary for structural and functional modifications to happen when exposed to internal and external stimuli.
The researchers said they chose apples as they are widely consumed across the globe resulting in a generalized exposure.7 The study began with an in vitro examination of quercetin, which is an abundant flavonoid found in apple peel.
The second half of the study was an in vivo study using an animal model. After their data analysis, the researchers ultimately found that apples contained compounds in the peel and the flesh that helped promote neurogenesis.
Quercetin from the peel and another active compound from the apple flesh, 3,5-Dihydroxybenzoic acid (DHBA), demonstrated the ability to increase precursor cell proliferation and neurogenesis.
The researchers measured the effect on neural precursor cells, which are stem cells that can generate neural cell types within the brain. They found the effect was like that reported in past studies for other compounds such as resveratrol and epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), which is found in green tea.8
During the lab portion of the study, the researchers found that stem cells generated from a mouse brain were protected and exhibited more neurogenesis when quercetin and DHBA were added to the cell cultures.9 During the animal study, they found structures in the brain that were associated with learning and memory had more neurons when the mice were given doses of quercetin or DHBA.
Exercise Also Stimulates Brain Growth

Another stimulus that promotes neurogenesis is exercise. One study10 from the University of British Columbia discovered that aerobic training could increase the volume of the hippocampus in older women who had mild cognitive impairment.
The scientists engaged 86 women ages 70 to 80 years and assigned them to a twice-weekly program over six months. The women engaged in aerobic activity, resistance training or balance and tone training. Those enrolled in the aerobic training showed significant improvement in hippocampal volume.
As reported in Science magazine,11 neurogenesis without exercise may not be enough to protect memory and learning. One animal model demonstrated that increasing levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) were required before the animals could outperform the control mice on testing.
BDNF is a key molecule produced in the brain with exercise and may help to explain the neuroprotective and cognitive benefits people experience with exercise.12 Much less is known about the interaction between exercise, BDNF and neurogenesis in the human brain as the inaccessibility of human brain tissue is the limiting factor.
More is known about the benefits from animal models, while indirect measurements of neurogenesis are used in human participants. Senior author of the paper published in Science, Rudolph Tanzi, Ph.D., commented on the results of chemically induced neurogenesis with exercise:13

“In our study we showed that exercise is one of the best ways to turn on neurogenesis and then, by figuring out the molecular and genetic events involved, we determined how to mimic the beneficial effects of exercise through gene therapy and pharmacological agents.

Although exercise-induced AHN [adult hippocampal neurogenesis] improved cognition in Alzheimer’s mice by turning on neurogenesis, trying to achieve that result by using gene therapy and drugs did not help.

That was because newly born neurons, induced by drugs and gene therapy, were not able to survive in brain regions already ravaged by Alzheimer’s pathology, particularly neuroinflammation. So, we asked how neurogenesis induced by exercise differs.

The lesson learned was that it is not enough just to turn on the birth of new nerve cells, you must simultaneously ‘clean up’ the neighborhood in which they are being born to make sure the new cells survive and thrive. Exercise can achieve that …”

More Strategies to Protect Brain Health

There are additional strategies you can use to help promote brain health. Astaxanthin is one. This powerful antioxidant is a naturally occurring carotenoid responsible for the pink or red color found in salmon, trout, lobster and other seafood.14
It’s often referred to as the “king of antioxidants”15 and is derived from haematococcus microalgae that produce it as a protective mechanism to shield it from ultraviolet light.16 In your body, it helps protect against reactive oxygen species and oxidation that play a role in heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and aging.
In one review of the literature,17 scientists identified several pathways astaxanthin may take to help slow brain aging. They also found it increases BDNF levels and attenuates oxidative damage to DNA, lipids and proteins. Another nutrient found in fatty fish that helps protect your brain health is omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3 fats are long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids that include EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid).
They are crucial for cell membranes and play an anti-inflammatory role in the body.18 DHA is especially crucial for brain health as it is an essential structural component that is found in high levels in the neurons.
As I have written before, and covered in my book “Superfuel,” co-written with James DiNicolantonio, Pharm.D., when there is an inadequate amount of omega-3, the nerve cells become stiff and are prone to inflammation. This reduces proper neurotransmission from cell to cell and the cells become compromised.
Low levels of DHA have been linked to both memory loss and Alzheimer’s disease, and some studies have suggested degenerative brain diseases may potentially be reversible when sufficient DHA is provided.19,20 However, it is important to choose wild-caught Alaskan salmon, krill oil or other sources of safe fish, such as sardines, to meet these nutritional requirements. I discuss why in “The High Cost of Salmon Farming.”
There are also many benefits to nutritional ketosis, only one of which is providing adequate fuel to your brain for optimal functioning. You’ll find more information about the metabolic and antiaging benefits, as well as the importance of cyclical ketosis, in the article “Ketones: The Fourth Fuel.”
Strategies to Slow Brain Aging

There are strategies you can use to improve brain function and others you should avoid as they have a negative impact on brain health. To protect your brain health, processed foods and sugar are two dietary culprits to avoid.
Regular consumption of foods high in sugar is also linked to a higher risk of Type 2 diabetes21 and Type 2 diabetes is associated with a 60% higher risk for any type of dementia.22 One study found people who were recently diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes also had a 16% increased risk for dementia, indicating even after having diabetes for a short time you are still at increased risk for dementia.
An increased risk for dementia may also be present with higher levels of glucose without Type 2 diabetes. In one study,23 researchers found that even without a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes, people with higher hemoglobin A1c and glucose measurements had significantly lower scores on memory testing. Also, participants with higher blood sugar levels had lower hippocampal volume.
Another source of carbohydrates and blood glucose is alcohol. Chronic excessive alcohol consumption is known to cause neuronal dysfunction and brain damage.24 Yet, even moderate alcohol consumption can reduce brain volume and is associated with neuronal changes.25
In a large study evaluating brain aging and alcohol,26 researchers from the University of Southern California examined 17,308 brain scans of cognitively normal participants.
They found that for every gram of alcohol consumed each day, the participants’ brain aged 0.02 years, which is equivalent to 7.3 days. To put this in perspective, 12 ounces of regular beer have approximately 14 grams of alcohol.27
Chronic sleep deprivation is another lifestyle component that can trigger poor brain health. When you don’t get enough sleep, your brain cannot do the necessary housekeeping.
Researchers from Marche Polytechnic University in Italy28 show that astrocytes, which are a type of glial cells in the brain that normally get rid of unnecessary nerve connections, start to break down healthy nerve synapses when you are chronically sleep-deprived.
The researchers looked at astrocyte activity in four groups of mice and found that chronically sleep-deprived mice had more than double the activity of the well-rested mice and instead of targeting only damaged cells, astrocytes were beginning to destroy healthy synopsis, an activity that could lead to neurodegenerative diseases.
Quercetin and Exercise Serve Important Roles in Immunity

Together, exercise and quercetin help to support your immune system. The interaction of lifestyle choices with your immune system has become even more important in 2020 after the release of SARS-CoV-2. In one review of the literature,29 researchers describe a “remarkable increase in the number of descriptive studies on exercise and immune system” than occurred in the 1990s.
The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates exercise has an important positive and complex effect on the immune system. The compelling link between physical activity and a strong immune defense system continues to be supported by research data.30
There is a clear inverse relationship between your risk of illness and moderate exercise. While athletes can experience an increased risk after intense training, habitual moderate exercise delays the onset of age-related immune dysfunction and reduces your risk of illness.
In 2020, scientists also began calling for regular exercise, even in isolation without access to gyms or sports clubs, as it can play an important role in supporting the immune system.31 Regular exercise of adequate intensity has been suggested as an auxiliary tool for preparing the immune system,32 even in the elderly.33
Quercetin has also been highlighted in the medical literature as it acts as a zinc ionophore, helping move zinc into the cells where it can halt viral replication, and as a synergistic partner with vitamin C. Yet, on its own, quercetin acts as a natural antihistamine and anti-inflammatory that can also lower your risk for viral illnesses.
Researchers have also found that quercetin can inhibit the expression of casein kinase II (CK2),34 which down-regulates the ability of the cell to generate type 1 interferon when it is attacked by a virus. By inhibiting the expression of CK2, quercetin may help slow the replication of RNA viruses.
In addition to apple peel, you can find quercetin in foods such as plums, red grapes, green tea, elder flower and onions.35 Considering its wide-ranging benefits, quercetin may also be a useful supplement for many, either acutely, for times you feel you’re coming down with something, or more long-term for metabolic health and, potentially, brain health.
If you choose to supplement, I believe that quercetin is best taken at night (with zinc) before you go to bed, and you haven’t eaten for at least three to four hours. You will sleep for eight hours, and if you are metabolically flexible, this is the time that you will dive into nutritional ketosis.
The other benefit of taking quercetin at night is to take advantage of its senolytic action. This helps to remove senescent cells, which are similar to nonreplicating cancer cells that secrete powerful proinflammatory cytokines. You can optimize quercetin’s senolytic properties if you take it while you are fasting. I talk more about quercetin in “Another Reason to Add Quercetin to Your Daily Supplements.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/25/quercetin-found-to-stimulate-new-brain-cells.aspx

When an investigation is led by individuals with financial and professional stakes in the outcome, what happens? Nothing. And that’s where we’re at with the World Health Organization’s investigative team1 tasked with getting to the bottom of SARS-CoV-2’s origin.
The WHO’s investigative commission includes Peter Daszak, Ph.D.,2 the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that has a close working relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), having outsourced several gain-of-function research projects to it. When SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in Wuhan, China, the EcoHealth Alliance was actually funding the WIV to collect and study novel bat coronaviruses.
Not only has Daszak gone on public record dismissing the possibility of the pandemic being the result of a lab leak,3 calling the notion “crackpot,” “preposterous” and “pure baloney,”4 he was also the mastermind behind the publication of a scientific statement, published in The Lancet and signed by 26 additional scientists, condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”5,6
This manufactured “scientific consensus” was then relied on by the media to “debunk” theories and evidence showing the pandemic virus most likely originated from a laboratory.
WHO’s Investigative Team Dismisses Lab Origin Theory

Considering Daszak’s personal involvement with gain-of-function research in general, and research efforts at WIV in particular, he has plenty of motivation to make sure the blame for the COVID-19 pandemic is not laid at the feet of researchers such as himself, especially those at WIV.
So, it was no surprise whatsoever when the WHO, February 9, 2021, announced its investigators had concluded the WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak, and that the lab-escape theory would no longer be part of the team’s investigation.7,8,9
Interestingly, Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, points out that SARS-related work has also been done in BSL2 and BSL3 labs, which were excluded from the investigation.10 The team also was not equipped or designed to conduct a forensic examination of laboratory practices.11 Rather, they relied on information obtained directly from the Chinese team.
According to the WHO team leader, Danish food safety and zoonosis scientist Ben Embarek, the officials at WIV “are the best ones to dismiss the claims and provide answers” about the potential for a lab leak. However, that line of reasoning hardly passes the smell test.
As noted by GM Watch, it “defies common sense: Suspects in an investigation should clearly not be treated as ‘the best ones’ to dismiss any possible charges against them.”12 Embarek further insisted that lab accidents are “extremely rare,” hence it’s “very unlikely that anything could escape from such a place.”13 Yet this is another entirely unconvincing argument.
According to the Cambridge Working Group in 2014, “biosafety incidents involving regulated pathogens have been occurring on average over twice a week” in the U.S. alone,14,15 and a Beijing virology lab accidentally released the original SARS virus on no less than four separate occasions.16 Three of those four instances led to outbreaks.17
Experts Condemn Conflicted WHO Inquiry

Many experts are now condemning the WHO’s inquiry as a sham and a political stunt to exonerate the Chinese government.18 And, at the front of this sham investigation is Daszak himself, who was hand selected by Chinese authorities to be on the WHO’s investigative team in the first place. As reported by GM Watch:19

“The lengths that China is going to in order to control the WHO’s narrative was highlighted in John Sudworth’s report20 on the press conference for the BBC. It showed Chinese officials preventing him from interviewing a WHO team member after the press conference.
Nobody tried to prevent him interviewing Peter Daszak, however. In fact, Daszak has given so many media interviews during the WHO team’s time in China that he has, in the words of one commentator, established himself as ‘the public voice of the WHO team.’”

Unherd also reported on the controversial WHO investigation:21

“The experts were adamant: there is no need for further inquiries into this concept since it is ‘extremely unlikely’ to be the cause of this global catastrophe. It was no surprise to hear such claims from Liang Wannian, the Chinese professor on the podium.
He is, after all, head of the Covid-19 panel at their National Health Commission who led Beijing’s response to the crisis. He has defended his government’s ‘decisive’ approach, despite the silencing of doctors trying to warn their fellow citizens, the denials of human transmission, the deletions of key data and the reluctance to share genetic sequencing22 …
Yet how shameful to see the WHO … diminish itself again by kowtowing to China’s dictatorial regime in such craven style. Beijing fiercely resisted this mission for months, even imposing sanctions on Australia after it called for such an inquiry.
It gave consent after considerable haggling in return for the right to vet the team of scientists. Lo and behold, those picked included … Daszak, who has worked with Wuhan scientists for years on their controversial experiments and led efforts to dismiss claims of any lab leak as ‘baseless.’ Now suddenly this is a ‘WHO-China Joint Study’ — and it seems the chosen experts see their task as selling China’s story to the planet.”

Indeed, China appears to be purposely hiding much of the scientific data the world needs if we are ever to get to the bottom of where SARS-CoV-2 came from, which makes the WHO’s catering to China all the more suspicious.
As reported by OpIndia23 and others,24 a critical database in China that holds the genetic sequences of more than 22,000 samples, including more than 100 unpublished sequences of bat coronaviruses and all bat coronavirus gain-of-function research data from the WIV, was brought offline in September 2019. The WIV-affiliated database created by the National Virus Resource Center was also made inaccessible to the outside world.
According to OpIndia, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has stated there is “reason to believe” WIV researchers became ill in the fall of 2019 which, if true, would coincide with the takedown of these crucial databases.25 Below, I’ll also review additional evidence suggesting WIV staff may have gotten ill as early as August 2017.
WHO Sticks to Natural Origin Theory

According to the WHO team and its Chinese counterparts, one theory still in the running is that SARS-CoV-2 piggybacked its way into the Wuhan market in shipments of frozen food from other areas of China, where coronavirus-carrying bats are known to reside, or even other countries.26,27 Australian beef was apparently offered up as one possible overseas source.28
In an interview with CNN, Daszak referred to finding SARS-CoV-2 on frozen animal foods as “a striking piece of evidence,” as the animal meats in question, including ferret badgers, have been identified as potential intermediate hosts.29
And that brings us to another promoted theory, which is that the virus mutated and jumped species naturally, going from bats to an intermediary host such as pangolin, cat or mink, before mutating into a virus capable of infecting a human host.
A third theory is that an infected individual brought the virus into the Wuhan market, although no details on who that might have been, or where they might have contracted the infection in the first place have been presented.
WHO has now declared its China investigation completed, and is considering expanding its scope to look into other countries as the potential source of the virus. Not surprisingly, Chinese state media are reporting that Wuhan has been “cleared of guilt” and is no longer a suspected origin of the pandemic. The Chinese Foreign Ministry is also calling for an investigation into American-based laboratories.30
New Evidence of Lab Origin Emerges

Meanwhile, just two weeks before the WHO officially dismissed the lab leak theory and took it off the table for future inquiries, a new study31 by Dr. Steven Quay — a highly respected and one of the most-cited scientists in the world32 — was published, claiming to show “beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived.”
It is a 99.8% probability SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory and only a 0.2% likelihood it came from nature. ~ Dr. Steven Quay

In the short video above, Quay summarizes the findings of his Bayesian analysis. His 193-page paper goes into the full details and can be downloaded from zenodo.org33 for those who want to dive into the nitty gritty of this statistical analysis.
Bayesian analysis,34 or Bayesian inference, is a statistical tool used to answer questions about unknown parameters by using probability distributions for observable data. As reported by PR Newswire:35

“Beginning with a likelihood of 98.2% that it was a zoonotic jump from nature with only a 1.2% probability it was a laboratory escape, 26 different, independent facts and evidence were examined systematically. The final conclusion is that it is a 99.8% probability SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory and only a 0.2% likelihood it came from nature.

‘Like many others, I am concerned about what appear to be significant conflicts of interest between members of the WHO team and scientists and doctors in China and how much this will impede an unbiased examination of the origin of SARS-CoV-2,’ said Dr. Quay.

‘By taking only publicly available, scientific evidence about SARS-CoV-2 and using highly conservative estimates in my analysis, I nonetheless conclude that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a laboratory.

The additional evidence of what appears to be adenovirus vaccine genetic sequences in specimens from five patients from December 2019 and sequenced by the Wuhan Institute of Virology requires an explanation. You would see this kind of data in a vaccine challenge trial, for example. Hopefully the WHO team can get answers to these questions.’”

Well, we now know that the WHO team got no such answers, and have moved on to less fertile fields of inquiry. Ironically, Quay based the starting probabilities used for his analysis on the work of Daszak himself, among others.
Suspicious Activity at WIV in Fall of 2019

At the same time, more evidence of “suspicious activity” at the WIV just before the official announcement of the COVID-19 outbreak has also emerged. As mentioned, there are suspicions that WIV laboratory staff may have gotten sick as early as August 2019. According to a January 24, 2021, report by Australian Sky News,36 a January 16, 2021, fact sheet released by the U.S. State Department states:

“The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.”

The fact sheet further accuses the Chinese Communist Party of “systematically” preventing “a transparent and thorough investigation of the origin of the pandemic, instead choosing to devote enormous resources to deceit and disinformation,” while stressing that the U.S. government still does not know where, when or how SARS-CoV-2 initially infected humans.
They do not rule out a lab accident, however. The fact sheet also noted that China has a biological weapons program, and that the WIV has collaborated with the Chinese military on “secret projects.”
Scientific Hubris Is a Serious Threat to Us All
December 18, 2020, Colin David Butler,37 Ph.D., of the Australian National University, published an editorial38 in the Journal of Human Security in which he reviews the history of pandemics from antiquity through COVID-19, along with evidence supporting the natural origin and lab escape theories respectively. As noted by Butler:

“If the first theory is correct then it is a powerful warning, from nature, that our species is running a great risk. If the second theory is proven then it should be considered an equally powerful, indeed frightening, signal that we are in danger, from hubris as much as from ignorance.”

Indeed, scientific hubris may well be at the heart of our current problem. Why are certain scientists so reluctant to admit there’s evidence of human interference? Why do they try to shut down discussion? Could it be because they’re trying to ensure the continuation of gain-of-function research, despite the risks?
We’re often told that this kind of research is “necessary” in order to stay ahead of the natural evolution of viruses, and that the risks associated with such research are minimal due to stringent safety protocols.
Yet the evidence shows a very different picture. For the past decade, red flags have repeatedly been raised within the scientific community as biosecurity breaches in high containment biological labs in the U.S. and around the world have occurred with surprising frequency.39,40,41,42,43
As recently as 2019, the BSL 4 lab in Fort Detrick was temporarily shut down after several protocol violations were noted.44 Asia Times45 lists several other examples of safety breaches at BSL3 and BSL4 labs, as does a May 28, 2015, article in USA Today,46 an April 11, 2014, article in Slate magazine47 and a November 16, 2020, article in Medium.48
Is Gain-of-Function Research Justifiable?

Clearly, getting to the bottom of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial if we are to prevent a similar pandemic from erupting in the future. If gain-of-function research was in fact involved, we need to know, so that steps can either be taken to prevent another leak (which is not likely possible) or to dismantle and ban such research altogether for the common good.

As long as we are creating the risk, the benefit will be secondary. Any scientific or medical gains made from this kind of research pales in comparison to the incredible risks involved if weaponized pathogens are released, and it doesn’t matter if it’s by accident or on purpose. This sentiment has been echoed by others in a variety of scientific publications.49,50,51,52

Considering the potential for a massively lethal pandemic, I believe it’s safe to say that BSL 3 and 4 laboratories pose a very real and serious existential threat to humanity.
Historical facts tell us accidental exposures and releases have already happened, and we only have our lucky stars to thank that none have turned into pandemics taking the lives of tens of millions, as was predicted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Seeing how scientists have already figured out a way to mutate SARS-CoV-2 such that it evades human antibodies, as detailed in “Lab Just Made a More Dangerous COVID Virus,” having a frank, open discussion about the scientific merits of this kind of work is more pertinent than ever before, and we shouldn’t allow the WHO’s dismissal of the lab origin theory dissuade us from such discussion.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/26/origin-of-coronavirus-who.aspx

Some commercially prepared baby foods can contain as much sugar and unhealthy fats as junk food. A recent Congressional report has also found some of the largest commercially prepared baby food brands also contain significant levels of toxic heavy metals.1,2
Commercially prepared baby food may also contain other questionable ingredients, including genetically modified soy, synthetic vitamins, inorganic minerals and excessive levels of protein. These are packed into convenient containers of baby food, which also lack the immune-boosting nutrients found in breast milk.
Although many pediatricians continue to advise parents to feed rice cereal mixed with breastmilk or formula as a baby’s first meal, I believe this is irresponsible advice. Feeding carbohydrate-packed white rice3 can set babies up for a lifetime of bad eating habits and place them at risk for diabetes.4
During processing, the vitamins, fiber and other nutrients in white rice are stripped away, leaving carbohydrates that turn to sugar and raise insulin levels. The result of this congressional review also supports a 2019 study that found toxic metal in 95% of the baby food tested and also found the neurotoxic contaminant perchlorate.5
Congressional Report Finds Heavy Metals in Baby Food

The report, published in February 2021, revealed there were significant levels of arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury found in some of the most popular commercial baby foods on grocery store shelves. The tests were requested by the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy after receiving reports there were high levels of heavy metals in baby food.6
Products from seven manufacturers of baby foods in the U.S. were tested. Four of the companies also provided their internal test policies and results. Some companies tested the ingredients and finished products and others tested only one or the other. However, there were three companies, including Walmart, Campbell Soup company and Sprout Organic Foods, that did not cooperate.7

“The Subcommittee is greatly concerned that their lack of cooperation might be obscuring the presence of even higher levels of toxic heavy metals in their baby food products than their competitors’ products.”

Campbell Soup company sells baby food under the Plum Organics baby food brand and Walmart baby food brand is Parent’s Choice. Chair of the subcommittee Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., spoke with a journalist from The Washington Post after the report was released, saying:8

“Over the last decade advocates and scientists have brought this to the attention of the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA must set standards and regulate this industry much more closely, starting now. It’s shocking that parents are basically being completely left in the lurch by their government.”

While it may have been shocking to Krishnamoorthi, it fits with past actions from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The report discovered that one of the dangers of testing only ingredients was in some cases the finished product tested up to 93% higher in heavy metals than when just the ingredients were tested.9
For instance, when the levels of heavy metals in Hain Celestial Group baby foods were tested, the difference in results between testing the ingredients and the finished product may have been the result of added ingredients, such as vitamin and mineral premix.10
Testing Revealed Significant Heavy Metal Levels

Arsenic is found in soil and water, poses a significant risk to human health and is the leading substance on the priority list from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).11
The Washington Post reports that only rice cereal has a maximum set for inorganic arsenic, 100 parts per billion (ppb). Yet the FDA has set “maximum allowable levels in bottled water,” which are far below the level set for baby food, at 10 ppb.12
Documents from Hain Celestial Group, makers of Earth’s Best Organic baby food, showed many of the ingredients had arsenic levels as high as 309 ppb and at least 24 ingredients in the company’s baby food products measured higher than 100 ppb of arsenic.13
The second substance on the ATSDR list is lead. The Washington Post reports that to date, there is no set federal standard for lead allowed in baby food. Although some experts may believe 1 ppb is an acceptable exposure level in baby food, the American Academy of Pediatrics writes, “Lead exposure has been associated with health, learning and behavior problems, and no amount is considered safe.”14
The congressional report shows that ingredients used in Beech-Nut baby food measure as high as 886.9 ppb of lead and 483 ingredients had levels measuring over 5 ppb. Jason Jacobs, vice president of food safety, quality and innovation at Beech-Nut, commented on the results of the report, saying:15

“Beech-Nut established heavy metal testing standards 35 years ago, and we continuously review and strengthen them wherever possible. We look forward to working with the FDA, in partnership with the Baby Food Council, on science-based standards that food suppliers can implement across our industry.”

Environmental Defense Fund16 analyzed raw data from the FDA’s Total Diet study from 2014 to 2016. The analysis showed lead levels in food designed for babies and children, including teething biscuits, arrowroot cookies, carrots and sweet potatoes, were high.
They analyzed data from August 2019 and found when results for baby food were compared against samples of fruit and vegetables, baby carrots and peeled, boiled carrots had significantly lower lead levels than baby food carrot puree. In fact, 83% to 100% of samples of baby food root vegetables, crackers and cookies had detectable levels of lead.
The report17 also found high levels of cadmium and mercury in baby foods from all the companies tested and the levels tested in baby food for each of the heavy metals is “multiples higher than allowed under existing regulations for other products.” The congressional report found:18

“The test results of baby foods and their ingredients eclipse those levels: including results up to 91 times the arsenic level, up to 177 times the lead level, up to 69 times the cadmium level, and up to 5 times the mercury level.”

Does the Dose Make the Poison?

FoodNavigator-USA19 interviewed executive director of the Clean Label Project (CLP) Jackie Bowen, whose organization has been advocating for manufacturing companies to think carefully about how raw materials are sourced and what ends up on the label.
Bowen pointed out that food safety regulations in the U.S. are often focused on microbial contaminants rather than toxins. In the absence of regulatory guidance, manufacturers are left to determine what they believe is safe for release to the grocery stores.
However, as reported by The Washington Post,20 even when baby foods have tested higher than the companies’ limit set for heavy metals, the products continue to be sold to the public. In answer to the question of whether the dose makes the poison, Bowen points to the responsibility and power that consumers have.21

“Consumers are new arbiters of truth and safety with Mom’s serving as the Chief Operating Officer of their households. Over the past five years, there have been at least four consumer advocacy calls to action about heavy metals in baby food. Low level of repeat exposure to heavy metals has been linked to cancer and infertility. It is past time for brands to recognize that parents expect better.

As to the old adage that the dose is the poison, contaminants like lead are the exception that proves the rule: the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all independently stated there is no safe level of lead for children. In this case, the poison is the poison.”

Heavy Metals Have Long-Term Effect on Babies

Dan Fabricant, CEO and president of the Natural Products Association, once called the CLP’s statements on contaminants in protein powder “defamatory.” He attempted to justify the toxic exposure, saying:22

“Just look at the language and how they use the term ‘detectable levels.’ It’s all made to look very scandalous and salacious. Everything suggests implicitly that there is a critical public health issue. We believe this is bad for the brands themselves and bad for the industry.”

It’s important to remember that any detectable level of heavy metals is concerning since they are not easily removed by the body. A paper in the British Medical Bulletin called exposure to cadmium, lead, arsenic and mercury — the heavy metals found in many baby foods — a “main threat to human health.”23
By far the most studied of the heavy metals is lead, which has demonstrated a particular danger as a neurotoxin in children.24 Scientists have been aware of this for the last 100 years and research has focused on the effects of the poison on the developing nervous system for the past 60 years. Despite this growing body of evidence and public awareness, legislation has not been effective.
One review of the literature25 in emerging market countries reported on blood and urine concentrations of heavy metals. These were generally found to be higher than U.S. reference values. The analysis identified the health effects that were associated with this exposure.
They found associations between gestational age, birth weight and cognitive scores with levels of arsenic in the blood or urine. Children drinking arsenic contaminated water demonstrated skin lesions and different degrees of peripheral neuropathy.
With cadmium exposure, researchers found low birth weight, slightly decreased IQ and smaller head circumference. In the 55 articles focused on lead exposure, there were negative associations between measured blood levels and mental development, and neurological and behavioral test scores.
Other health conditions included low birth weight, stunted growth and aplastic anemia. Twelve studies were focused on mercury exposure and found lower mental and psychomotor developmental test scores as well as children ages 9 to 17 years with ataxia, dysdiadokinesis and pathological reflexes.
Consider Homemade Baby Foods When Possible

There is no denying that prepackaged baby foods are convenient when you are traveling. However, you do have options to lower the risk of exposure to heavy metals and other toxins by making baby food at home using organically grown and locally sourced fruits and vegetables. As I mentioned earlier, steer clear of rice paste cereals as they are high in arsenic and carbohydrates and low in nutrients.
When you make your own food at home, you also have greater control over what goes into the foods as you can select higher quality fruits and vegetables and steer clear of preservatives, additives and added sugar. It reduces food waste and it saves you money in the long run.
For instance, Happy Family Organics26 compares the price of two to three containers of baby food against that of six pears, which can be pureed for 10 or more meals. With a vegetable peeler, steamer basket and blender or food processor you have all you need to get started making and freezing baby food.
Most pediatricians recommend exclusively breastfeeding to at least 6 months of age and introducing your baby’s first spoons of solid food at around 6 months.27 Making baby food at home also improves the nutrient value, since many baby food purees have a long shelf life, which may even be older than your baby.
You also can control the thickness of the puree you make at home, which helps you transition your baby from purees to solid food as they grow older. Once you finish making the food you can add it to an ice cube tray, cover it and let it freeze for at least five hours before transferring to a freezer-safe container.
Remove the food the day before and place into the refrigerator to thaw. It can also be warmed on the stovetop over medium to low heat. Just be sure to stir the food completely so there are no hot spots and test the food yourself, so you don’t burn your baby’s tongue.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/23/more-poison-found-in-baby-food.aspx

In this interview, Ari Whitten, author of “The Ultimate Guide to Red Light Therapy,” reviews the mechanics and basic benefits of red light and infrared light. Whitten, who has a degree in kinesiology, exercise science and movement science, has studied natural health, fitness and nutrition for over 20 years. He’s been a personal trainer, health coach and nutritionist for many years, and went on to do a Ph.D. program in clinical psychology.
Light as Nutrition
Red and near-infrared light are, of course, a subset of natural sunlight, which actually acts and has value as a nutrient. Red light and near-infrared light therapies are ways to get some of those benefits. It may be particularly valuable and beneficial for people who aren’t getting enough natural sunlight exposure, and that’s a majority of people. As noted by Whitten:
“There’s a mountain of literature showing that regular sun exposure is one of the most powerful and important things you can do for your health and to prevent disease. Simultaneously, we have a general public that is afraid of sunlight.
Even the subject of melanoma is rife with misunderstanding because there is research showing, mechanistically, that if you expose cells in a Petri dish to lots of UV light, you can absolutely induce DNA damage and induce cancer formation.
You can take rats and expose them to tons of isolated UV light and induce cancer. You can even find an association between sun burns and increased melanoma risk.
Despite all of those things, it is also the case that when you compare people with regular sun exposure to people with much less sun exposure, they do not have higher rates of melanoma.
In fact, there’s a bunch of studies comparing outdoor workers to indoor workers, showing that outdoor workers have lower rates of melanoma despite three to nine times more sun exposure.”
One of the reasons for this is because indoor workers are exposed to fluorescent lighting, which is loaded with dirty electricity or high voltage transients that cause biological harm. So, not only do they not get sunlight exposure, but they also get harmful EMF exposure.
But the biggest factor has to do with the frequency of exposure. Intermittent exposure – occasional exposure followed by many days or weeks of little to no exposure – tends to be more problematic than regular, frequent sun exposure, as you’re more likely to burn and cause DNA damage in your skin.

Regular exposure, on the other hand, ameliorates this risk, as it engages innate adaptive systems in your skin, your melanin in particular, that are explicitly designed to prevent DNA damage from UV light exposure.
“So, we have this system built into our bodies that’s designed to allow us to get all these benefits of sunlight without the DNA damage and the increased skin cancer risk,” Whitten says.”Framing light as a nutrient is the best way of understanding this.
Just as we require adequate nutrients from the food we eat, just as our bodies require physical movement to express normal cell function, we also require adequate light exposure to express normal cell function. The absence of that exposure to sunlight creates abnormal cell function. And there are myriad mechanisms through which this occurs.
Vitamin D is obviously the most well-known one that regulates over 2,000 genes related to immune health, musculoskeletal health and many other things. But there are many other mechanisms [as well].”
Bioactive Wavelengths
As explained by Whitten, there are specific bioactive wavelengths, and they work through different mechanisms. One mechanism is through your eyes, which is why you’re typically better off not wearing sunglasses on a regular basis. When you’re outdoors on a sunny day, without sunglasses, blue and green wavelengths enter your eyeballs and feed through nerves into the circadian clock in your brain.
Your circadian clock, in turn, regulates a variety of bodily systems, from neurotransmitters involved in mood regulation to hormones involved in immune function. A dysregulated circadian rhythm has been linked to dozens of diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease and neurological diseases.
“I consider disrupted circadian rhythm and poor sleep to be probably the single most common cause of low energy levels and fatigue,” Whitten says. Fatigue is the key focus of his Energy Blueprint brand, and in the interview, he reviews some of the other root causes for poor energy and fatigue, aside from light exposure.
In summary, your body’s resilience, i.e., your ability to tolerate environmental stressors, is directly dependent on the robustness, both in terms of quantity and quality, of your mitochondria. When your resilience threshold is exceeded, disease processes are activated, and fatigue can be viewed as the initial universal symptom prior to overt disease. For more information about this side topic, be sure to listen to the interview or read through the transcript.
Red Light Therapy
Modern day red light and near-infrared light therapy is an extension of the original Helio therapy or sun-based therapy, which has a long and rich history of use for a number of diseases, including tuberculosis.
Over the past few decades, more than 5,000 studies have been published about red and near-infrared light therapy, a.k.a, photobiomodulation, for a wide range of ailments, from combating wrinkles and cellulite to hair regrowth, sports performance, accelerated injury recovery, increased strength and much more.
“You get improvements in strength adaptations, improvements in muscle protein synthesis and the amount of muscle that’s gained, amplified fat loss, increased insulin sensitivity — all when combined with exercise, compared with exercise alone,” Whitten says.
“There’s also research on people with Hashimoto’s hypothyroidism showing profound reductions in thyroid antibodies, as well as thyroid hormone levels. There are also hundreds of studies on random niche things like helping people with diabetic ulcers … combating arthritis pain and chronic pain, joint health, tissue and bone healing …
There are at least dozens, if not hundreds, of studies on using red light therapy in the context of people undergoing chemotherapy to combat oral mucositis, which is inflammation of the oral mucosa that happens as a side effect of some chemotherapy drugs. One of the most, if not the most, effective treatment for that is red light therapy.”
There are also studies showing benefits for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s patients. The difficulty is getting the light to sufficiently penetrate the skull. According to Whitten, near-infrared at 800 to 900 nanometers will penetrate about 20% to 30% deeper than red wavelengths in the range of 600 to 700 nanometers.
“So, if you’re trying to treat the brain, you need a pretty powerful device to be able to emit a strong enough beam of light to penetrate through the skull bone to actually deliver some of that light — which is a relatively small portion, probably less than 20% or something of the overall light being emitted — into the brain,” he says.
More Is Not Necessarily Better
A common fallacy is that if something is beneficial, then the more the better. But this can be a hazardous assumption. As explained by Whitten, there is a bi-phasic dose response to red and near-infrared light therapy. Basically, you need to do enough of it to experience its effects, but if you overdo it, you can cause negative effects. So, it’s all about finding the sweet spot.
That said, as a general rule, your risk of exceeding the beneficial dose with light therapy is lower than it is with something like exercise. Meaning, it’s much easier to overdo exercise and end up with tissue damage from that than it is to overdo red and near-infrared light therapy.
“I interviewed Dr. Michael Hamblin, who’s widely recognized as the world’s top researcher on red and near-infrared light therapy, and I asked him explicitly about this biphasic dose response. I was actually pretty shocked by his response.
He kind of blew off the whole thing as not really significant, [saying] ‘It’s really hard to overdo it, and I’m not worried about really negative side effects from overdoing it.’ Having said that, he is a researcher and he’s doing things in a lab.
And what I’ve seen in my group of about 10,000 people that have gone through my program, many people with severe chronic fatigue or debilitating chronic fatigue syndrome, is there seems to be a small subset of people, I’m guessing somewhere between 1% and 5% of people, that have a really negative reaction to it, even at really, really small doses, let’s say two minutes of red light therapy …
So, there seems to be this small subset of people that is really hypersensitive and prone to negative effects. Generally, in my experience, those people are usually in very poor health overall.”
One potential reason for this is because, like exercise and fasting, light therapy is a type of hormetic stress, which works in part by transiently increasing free radicals or reactive oxygen species.
People with extremely poor mitochondrial health will have a very low resilience threshold, so their capacity to tolerate that burst of reactive oxygen species will be low. At that point, they’re simply creating damage, and their bodies don’t have the resilience to effectively recover from it.
Mechanisms of Action
As noted by Whitten, there are several accepted mechanisms of action, and then there are more speculative mechanisms. One of the most well-known mechanism is cytochrome c oxidase, a photo receptor on your mitochondria that literally captures photons of red and near-infrared light.
Cytochrome c oxidase, photo receptors on your mitochondria, capture photons of red and near-infrared light. The most effective wavelengths that activate this system are in the 600 to 700 nanometer and the 800 to 1,000 nanometer ranges. In response to those light photons, your mitochondria will produce energy more efficiently.
The most effective wavelengths that activate this system are in the 600 to 700 nanometer range, and the 800 to 1,000 nanometers range. In response to those light photons, your mitochondria will produce energy more efficiently. “In general, cells — whether it’s skin cells, your thyroid gland, your muscle cells — they work better if mitochondria are producing more energy,” Whitten explains.

This is one general principle of how light therapy can help heal such a diverse range of tissues and conditions. Another mechanism is related to the benefits of hormesis and the transient spike in reactive oxygen species. That burst of reactive oxygen species creates a cascade of signaling effects that stimulate the NRF2 pathway and heat shock proteins, for example.
As a result, your intracellular antioxidant response system is strengthened and your mitochondria are stimulated to grow bigger and stronger. It also stimulates mitochondrial biogenesis, the creation of new mitochondria. Ultimately, all of this increases your resistance to a broad range of environmental stressors.
“If hormesis is dosed properly, it should not create lasting harm. It should stress the system temporarily and stimulate adaptive mechanisms that ultimately make the whole system more resistant to any kind of harm,” Whitten says. “But you shouldn’t be doing hormesis at a dose that is actually creating damage.”
Light Therapy Modulates Gene Expression
A third mechanism of action involves retrograde signaling and the modulation of gene expression. Your mitochondria play a key role here as well. As explained by Whitten:
“Mitochondria are not just mindless energy generators, but they are also environmental sensors that pick up on what’s going on in the environment. Are there toxins present, is there a pathogen present? Is there increased inflammatory cells present?
They’re picking up on these signals. They’re also picking up on light signals … and reactive oxygen species from hormetic stress. And they’re relaying these signals back to the mitochondria in a way that modulates gene expression.”
There’s a specific set of genes that are expressed in response to red and near-infrared light therapy. In summary, it activates genes involved in cell repair, cell regeneration and cellular growth, depending on the tissue.
For example, in your brain, it activates brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), in your skin, it increases expression of fibroblasts that synthesize collagen, in your muscles, it locally increases expression of IGF1 and factors involved in muscle protein synthesis. “So, you’re getting these local effects in those specific tissues that upregulates genes involved in cell healing, growth and repair,” Whitten says.
Exposure to UVA, red light and near-infrared light also increases the release of nitric oxide (NO) which, while being a free radical, also has many metabolic benefits in optimal concentrations. Many of the benefits of sun exposure cannot be explained solely through the production of vitamin D, and the influence of NO may be part of the answer.
There’s also a speculative line of research suggesting that red and near-infrared light interact with chlorophyll metabolites in a way that helps recycle ubiquinol from ubiquinone (the reduced version of CoQ10).
So, those specific wavelengths of light may help recycle reduced CoQ10, which also enhances energy production. “So, there may be this really interesting synergy between your diet and red and near-infrared light therapy were consuming more chlorophyll-rich compounds may enhance this effect,” Whitten says.
Light Structures Water
Yet another mechanism of action has to do with the structuring the water that surrounds your cells. One of the best ways to build this structured water is through exposure to sunlight. Simply drinking structured water is ineffective. Whitten explains:
“The structuring of water is a really fascinating layer of the story. There’s research showing that the water near membranes, and our mitochondria are composed of membranes, can actually change in viscosity in response to red and near-infrared light therapy.
There are a couple things that happen there. One is that reduced viscosity actually helps the physical rotation of the ATPAs, the ATP synthase pump on the mitochondria, which is the last part of the respiratory chain in mitochondria that creates ATP molecules. That’s a physical rotary mechanism.
So, you have this rotary pump that needs to move in water, and there’s some research suggesting that it moves more efficiently with less resistance when the viscosity of that surrounding water is reduced, and that this may, at least partly, be responsible for the enhanced energy production.
But there’s one other layer to the story. I’ve dug really deep into the literature on light and deuterium. It was tough to find any literature on this, but I did find one really interesting study. Basically, what they found is that, when the viscosity of this water around the mitochondrial membranes is reduced, it does two things.
It pushes the deuterium molecules — which is this isotope of hydrogen that tends to damage mitochondria — away from the mitochondria and makes it less likely to go through the mitochondrial ATP synthase pump where it can create damage.
It also enhances the movement of hydrogen ions — normal hydrogen not deuterium — across the membrane, so more hydrogen can move faster and more efficiently through the mitochondria, whereas deuterium moves less efficiently.

So, it doesn’t necessarily deplete deuterium from your body … but it almost mimics deuterium depletion in a way by making the deuterium much less likely to actually get into the mitochondria where it would create damage.”
On Saunas
We cover far more in this 1.5-hour interview than I’ve summarized here, so for more information, be sure to listen to the interview in its entirety. For example, we delve into the benefits of sauna bathing and the hormetic response to heat stress, which helps repair misfolded proteins.
We also discuss the different types of saunas, the problem posed by electromagnetic fields and why most near-infrared saunas really aren’t. As a quick summary review, there are no pure near-infrared saunas, as part of the near-infrared spectrum is non-heating. Incandescent heat lamps, which is what most people are referring to when talking about near-infrared saunas, emit mostly mid- and far-infrared.
Only about 14% of that light is in the near-infrared spectrum. That said, these kinds of incandescent heat lamps could potentially still deliver a therapeutic dose if you use them for about 20 minutes.
“Let’s frame it this way,” Whitten says. “If you have a heat a near-infrared style sauna, a heat lamp style sauna, where you’re sitting in a chamber that is 110 degrees to 120 degrees Fahrenheit, you cannot claim that it has the same benefits of a sauna when the research on sauna uses sauna chambers that are massively hotter than 110 to 120 degrees. They’re using temperatures of 170 to 220 degrees.
So, if it’s 100 degrees less, you can’t just say it has all the benefits of saunas. Maybe it does have the same benefits, or maybe it has some of the benefits, or maybe it even has superior benefits. But all of those are speculative claims that you can’t make until you’ve done the studies …
We know, for example, that in animal studies, heat stress extends lifespan. It stimulates all kinds of mechanisms that are involved in longevity, autophagy, increased resilience via these hormetic pathways. And in general, when it comes to hormesis, I believe you do need to get a bit uncomfortable.

It should be something that pushes you into your edge of discomfort. And my experience with the heat lamp style sauna is that by themselves, these 110-, 120-degree F chambers, don’t really push the edge of discomfort apart from maybe the local area that’s being exposed to the light from the heat lamps.”
One way to get around this and eliminate the EMF problem, is to preheat your far-infrared sauna as high as it’ll go, then turn it off and turn on your near-infrared bulbs. As for benefits, heat stress is known to:

Preserve muscle mass and prevent the loss of muscle if you’re unable to exercise for a period of time
Lower your risk of infections
Improve detoxification
Reduce your risk of depression, cardiovascular and neurological disease
Reduce all-cause mortality

More Information
To learn more, be sure to pick up a copy of Whitten’s book, “The Ultimate Guide to Red Light Therapy.” On his website, TheEnergyBlueprint.com, you can also access his Energy Blueprint podcast, articles, programs and testimonials.
In his book, Whitten provides specific recommendations for red- and near-infrared therapeutic devices, which can save you a lot of research time if you’re considering this kind of therapy. As noted by Whitten:

“There are a few good brands. It really matters what device you get. I want to put this caution out there because there are a lot of junk devices. There are a lot of devices that are one-fiftieth the power output of the devices that I recommend, and somebody who isn’t savvy to that, isn’t knowledgeable about why the power output of these devices matters, might just go on Amazon and buy some $30 device.
If you get an underpowered device, you’re not doing the same red light therapy, or near-infrared light therapy as [when you’re using] a real high-powered device. So, it is very important to do this the right way, to get the right quality device and to dose it the right way.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/28/red-light-near-infrared-light-therapy-benefits.aspx

As Ivor Cummins demonstrates in the video above, available data reveal lockdowns have been completely ineffective at lowering positive test rates, while extracting a huge cost in terms of human suffering and societal health. All of the reports and studies reviewed in his video are also available on his website, TheFatEmperor.com.1
To that long list of evidences, we can add yet another report from Canadian pediatric infectious disease specialist Dr. Ari Joffe, which shows lockdown harms are about 10 times greater than the benefits.2
In his 51-page paper,3 “COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink,” Joffe reviews how and why initial modeling predictions failed to match reality, what the collateral damage of lockdown policies have been, and what cost-benefit analyses tell us about the efficacy of the lockdown strategy.
Mortality Predictions Were Staggeringly Wrong

While initial models predicted 510,000 Britons, 2.2 million Americans and 40 million people worldwide would end up dead from COVID-19 unless suppression tactics such as lockdowns were implemented at least two-thirds of the time for the next two years,4 such prognostications have turned out to be complete hogwash.
As noted by Joffe, the lethality of SARS-CoV-2 was quickly shown to be nowhere near as high as the 2% to 3% initially predicted. He writes:5

“The WHO recently estimated that about 10% of the global population may have been already infected, which, with a world population of 7.8 billion, and 1.16 million deaths, would make a rough approximation of IFR [infection fatality rate] as 0.15% …

A serology-informed estimate of the IFR in Geneva, Switzerland put the IFR at: age 5-9 years 0.0016%, 10-19 years 0.00032%, 20-49 years 0.0092%, 50-64 years 0.14%, and age 65+ outside of assisted care facilities 2.7%, for an overall population IFR 0.32%.

Similarly, a large study from France found an inflection point in IFR around the age of 70 years … By far the most important risk factor is older age. There is a ~1000-fold difference in death risk for people >80 years old versus children.”

Herd Immunity Threshold Vastly Overestimated
Modelers were also incorrect when they predicted that 70% to 80% would get infected before herd immunity would naturally allow the spread of infection to taper off.
In reality, the herd immunity threshold has turned out to be far lower, which removes the justification for social distancing and lockdowns. More than a dozen scientists now claim the herd immunity threshold is likely below 50%,6 perhaps even as low as 10%.7,8 Data from Stockholm County, Sweden, show a herd immunity threshold of 17%.9 In an essay, Brown University professor Dr. Andrew Bostom noted:10

“Lead investigator Dr. Gomes, from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and her colleagues concluded: ‘naturally acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 may place populations over the herd immunity threshold once as few as 10-20% of its individuals are immune.’11

Separate HIT [herd immunity threshold] calculations of 9%,12 10-20%,13 17%,14 and 43%15,16 — each substantially below the dogmatically asserted value of ~70%17 — have been reported by investigators from Tel-Aviv University, Oxford University, University College of London, and Stockholm University, respectively.”

How could they get this so wrong? Herd immunity is calculated using reproductive number, or R-naught (R0), which is the estimated number of new infections that may occur from one infected person.18 R0 of below 1 (with R1 meaning that one person who’s infected is expected to infect one other person) indicates that cases are declining while R0 above 1 suggests cases are on the rise.
It’s far from an exact science, however, as a person’s susceptibility to infection varies depending on many factors, including their health, age and contacts within a community. The initial R0 calculations for COVID-19’s herd immunity threshold were based on assumptions that everyone has the same susceptibility and would be mixing randomly with others in the community.
That doesn’t happen in real life though. According to professor Karl Friston, a statistician, “effective susceptible population,” meaning those not already immune to COVID-19 and therefore at risk of infection, was never 100%. At most, it was 50% and most likely only around 20%.19
Despite the mounting of such data, and the clear knowledge that lockdowns were causing unimaginable harm to mental health, physical health, education and local economies, lockdowns were repeatedly implemented in various parts of the world.
The initial modeling report from the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team actually admitted it did “not consider the ethical or economic implications” of the pandemic measures proposed, noting only that “The social and economic effects of the measures which are needed to achieve this policy goal will be profound.” Today, we have a much better grasp on just how profound the social and economic effects have in fact been, and they’re devastating.
Stark Reality Facing Off Against Fiction
When we consider the path forward, it’s important to separate the fiction created and promulgated by Imperial College modelers and other doomsday prophets within our government and various health agencies, from more objective, reality-based data.
The fact that lockdowns are still being implemented tells us they’re still operating based on fictional assumptions. The answer is to push back with real-world data and refuse to acquiesce to fantasy doomsday scenarios.
We also need to insist on formal cost-benefit analyses. To this day, no government has presented such an analysis to the public, which is what prompted Joffe to investigate the matter. As noted by Joffe in an interview with Toronto Sun columnist Anthony Furey:20

“Since lockdowns are a public health intervention, aiming to improve the population wellbeing, we must consider both benefits of lockdowns, and costs of lockdowns on the population wellbeing.

Once I became more informed, I realized that lockdowns cause far more harm than they prevent … Emerging data has shown a staggering amount of so-called ‘collateral damage’ due to the lockdowns.”

Collateral damage cited by Joffe include:21

82 million to 132 million more people affected by food insecurity

70 million being pushed into severe poverty

1.7 million mothers and infants dying due to interrupted health care

Millions of deaths caused by other infectious diseases due to interrupted health care services (such as tuberculosis, malaria and HIV)

Millions of children losing future earning potential and life span due to school closures and educational shortfalls

Millions of women affected by worsened or pandemic-initiated domestic abuse

Unemployment, which is one of the strongest risk factors for early mortality, reduced life span and chronic disease

Increased loneliness and all the adverse health conditions associated with it

Increased homelessness

Mental health deterioration across society and an increase in “deaths of despair”

Increases in opioid related deaths

An 83% increase in excess deaths from dementia in England/Wales in April 2020, and an increase in Alzheimer disease and dementia deaths in the U.S., attributed to lack of social contact22

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Lockdowns

Essentially, Joffe’s paper is the cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns that should have at least been attempted before being implemented worldwide and then kept in place for months on end. In his interview with Furey, Joffe explains his approach:23

“In the cost-benefit analysis I consider the benefits of lockdowns in preventing deaths from COVID-19, and the costs of lockdowns in terms of the effects of the recession, loneliness, and unemployment on population wellbeing and mortality.

I did not consider all of the other so-called ‘collateral damage’ of lockdowns mentioned above. It turned out that the costs of lockdowns [in Canada] are at least 10 times higher than the benefits. That is, lockdowns cause far more harm to population wellbeing than COVID-19 can.”

A primary benefit of the lockdowns was supposed to be the prevention of COVID-19 deaths. As detailed in Joffe’s report,24 “Using the age distribution of deaths and comorbidities, in the U.K. the average person who died due to COVID-19 had 3 to 5 healthy years left to live.” That’s a Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) score of 3 to 5, which equates to a Wellbeing Years (WELLBY) score of 18 to 30.
Joffe presents data showing that lockdowns “saved” 58.5 QALY or 360 million WELLBY, at most, seeing how herd immunity threshold and infection fatality rates are far lower than predicted. Joffe suspects the total number of deaths actually prevented by lockdowns is fewer than 5.2 million.
Meanwhile, the cost of the lockdowns in the U.K., in terms of WELLBY, is five times greater than might optimistically be saved, and may in reality be anywhere from 50 times to 87 times greater.
As mentioned by Joffe in the interview quote above, the cost for lockdowns in Canada is at least 10 times greater than the benefit. In his report, he cites data showing that in Australia, the minimum cost is 6.6 times higher, and in the U.S., the cost is estimated to be at least 5.2 times higher than the benefit of lockdowns.
A cost-benefit analysis performed for New Zealand, which looked at the cost of adding just five extra days of “COVID-19 alert level 4” found the cost in QALY was 94.9 times higher than the benefit. In his report, Joffe also cites research estimating that in order to “break even and make a radical containment and eradication policy worthwhile,” the infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2 would need to be 7.8%.25
No matter how many non-COVID deaths are falsely attributed to COVID-19, you’re not going to reach that level of lethality, which means lockdowns are robbing the population of more life than the virus.
CDC Inflated COVID-19 Deaths by 1,670%, Violated Fed Law

Indeed, according to an October 2020 peer-reviewed study26,27 by the Public Health Policy Initiative of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention inflated COVID-19 mortality statistics by 1,670%, yet we’re still nowhere near a fatality ratio of 7.8%.
According to that study, the CDC appears to have violated federal law, including the Information Quality Act in Section 515 of Public Law 106-554 and the Paperwork Reduction Act codified at 44 USC 3501, and by doing so, the CDC was able to bypass essential oversight by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
As of August 23, 2020, the CDC reported a COVID-19 death toll of 161,392. Meanwhile, the more accurate fatality rate, using the standard reporting guidelines that had been in place since 2003, was a mere 9,684.
It’s an eye-opening report, which I encourage you to read through. It can offer a sobering reality check if you’re still worried. For example, on page 20, there’s a graph comparing the COVID-19 fatalities based on the CDC’s illegally updated reporting guidelines, against the fatality count had they continued using the guidelines that had been in use for the past 17 years.
As of August 23, 2020, the CDC reported a COVID-19 death toll of 161,392. Meanwhile, the more accurate fatality rate, using the standard reporting guidelines that had been in place since 2003, was a mere 9,684. No matter what data sets we look at, we find that the COVID-19 pandemic has been grossly overhyped and kept alive long past its natural expiration date.
How Did We Get Here and How Do We Move Forward?

Joffe answers these questions in his interview with Furey, stating:28

“[The] initial modelling and forecasting were inaccurate. This led to a contagion of fear and policies across the world. Popular media focused on absolute numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths independent of context. There has been a sheer one-sided focus on preventing infection numbers.

The economist Paul Frijters wrote that it was ‘all about seeming to reduce risks of infection and deaths from this one particular disease, to the exclusion of all other health risks or other life concerns.’ Fear and anxiety spread, and we elevated COVID-19 above everything else that could possibly matter.

Our cognitive biases prevented us from making optimal policy: we ignored hidden ‘statistical deaths’ reported at the population level, we preferred immediate benefits to even larger benefits in the future, we disregarded evidence that disproved our favorite theory, and escalated our commitment in the set course of action …

Each day in non-pandemic years over 21,000 people die from tobacco use, 3,600 from pneumonia and diarrhea in children under 5-years-old, and 4,110 from Tuberculosis. We need to consider the tragic COVID-19 numbers in context.

I believe that we need to take an ‘effortful pause’ and reconsider the information available to us. We need to calibrate our response to the true risk, make rational cost-benefit analyses of the trade-offs, and end the lockdown groupthink.”

He repeats these sentiments in his report, in which he stresses the need to focus on protecting those at highest risk for severe COVID-19 and death thereof. This includes:

Hospitalized patients
Nursing home residents
Crowded institutions such as homeless shelters, prisons and any large gathering
People over the age of 70, especially if they have severe comorbidities

In these instances, universal masking and other infectious control strategies are warranted, Joffe says. The rest of the population can and should go back to normal life. Certainly, people should not be universally treated as high risk. The closing of schools, for example, is likely to have far-reaching and devastating consequences that are completely unnecessary. As noted by Joffe:29

“We need to keep schools open because children have very low morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, and (especially those 10 years and younger) are less likely to be infected by, and have a low likelihood to be the source of transmission of SARS-CoV-2.”

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/25/public-health-officials-lying-about-lockdowns.aspx

A new study shows children have experienced great psychological, behavioral and physical harm from the mandates and lockdowns handed down during the COVID-19 pandemic. This harm affects the next generation of leaders and has dampened the spirits of people around the world. Yet, there is one place that appears to have side-stepped this damage.

Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, there have been events that have changed the world. They include the two World Wars, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 9/11 attacks and the COVID-19 pandemic.1

The current pandemic has undoubtedly been the most traumatic period for many people. The devastation that has been wrought on the world is incalculable, including things that aren’t easily measured like mental health, food insecurity and physical abuse.

The harsh reality is that virtually none of it was necessary and the real damage has been the result of decisions made by global health and government officials who appear to have been acting in concert, according to some predetermined plan.

The fallout from this event will be experienced by many for the remainder of their lives. Suicide rates,2 child abuse3 and drug deaths4 have risen dramatically. Prescriptions for anti-anxiety drugs had risen 31% and for antidepressants by up to 22% by mid-2020.5 But children, whose voices are not often heard, may be suffering the most.

Children Show Physical, Behavioral and Psychological Harm

A recent study6 has been published online using data from Germany’s first registry recording the experience children are having wearing masks. Parents, doctors and others can enter their observations; the registry had recorded use by 20,353 people as of October 26, 2020.

Using this data on 25,930 children, the researchers discovered interesting information. The average time children were wearing a mask was 270 minutes each day. There were 24 health issues reported that were associated with wearing masks that fell into the categories of physical, psychological and behavioral issues.7

Of the problems that children were having wearing masks, 68% of them were reported to the registry by parents. The researchers concluded the frequency of registry use and the variety of symptoms being reported indicated the importance of the subject. They recorded symptoms that:8

“… included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).”

Added to these concerning symptoms, they also found 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play.9 Hundreds more experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.”

Measurements of anxiety or depressive disorder jumped dramatically for adults between January through June 2019 and January 2021. According to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,10 the percentage of adults reporting symptoms of anxiety disorder and/or depressive disorder was 11% in the first quarter of 2019 but jumped dramatically to 41.1% across the nation by January 2021.11

Evidence has shown that there is a positive relationship between a child’s behavioral problems and mental health with maternal mental health12 and parental mental health.13 This means that independent of their own stress and physiological harm from mask-wearing and lockdowns, children will also respond negatively to the rising rate of anxiety and depression exhibited by adults.

More Families Seeking Drugs to Manage Remote Learning

In spring 2020 began an unprecedented remote learning experiment for schools around the world. Suddenly, tens of millions of students were at home, plugged into their computer for their education. In one survey, Educators for Excellence14 reported 67% of teachers said their students’ homework or assignments were completed “somewhat worse” or “much worse” than before remote learning was mandatory.

In another survey,15 teachers reported their sense of success dropped from 96.3% when teaching in the classroom to 73.1% teaching remotely. On average, the same teachers reported that only 60% of their students were engaged in learning activities.

Remote learning has been especially challenging for young children and for the 20% of students living in the U.S. who do not have access to the necessary technology.16 According to Education Week, 80% of teachers believe their students are having trouble focusing during the shutdown.17

Each of these factors may contribute to the growing number of parents who are seeking treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for their children. NBC News reports18 specialists are flooded with questions and requests for diagnosis and prescriptions for ADHD.

Dr. Melvin Oatis from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry believes that the pandemic has “been a tipping point that has pushed some families to get help.”19

However, Dr. Arthur Lavin, who is a pediatrician with service on several national committees of the American Academy of Pediatrics, warns, “Our concern is that pediatricians and families be very careful to not simply list the symptoms of ADHD, but to look at the child’s history and use differential diagnosis to make sure we have the best possible explanation for the symptoms.”20

The fuzziness surrounding a diagnosis of ADHD has also led to some over-identification of these issues. University of Minnesota psychologist Stephanie Carlson finds that students are often misidentified as having deficits in executive functioning skills when the behavior is within normal limits.21

For example, younger students are more likely to be labeled with ADHD than their older peers. Boys are labeled more often than girls, and black and Latino students have a lower probability of being diagnosed or taking medicine.

Schools Are Not Super Spreaders

Early data are now available from a study22 performed by the University of Warwick in the U.K. looking at information on school absences between September 2020 and December 2020. The researchers were interested in students who stayed home from school sick because of COVID-19 infections and how the number who became ill varied across time.

The study evaluated pupils and teachers and how those absences changed during November lockdown and in December when the lockdown was lifted. What they found was that the infection rate in the schools matched the wider community, indicating there was no evidence that schools were a driver in producing more cases of COVID-19.

As in the U.S., students in the U.K. have been offered remote learning options. Dr. Mike Tildesley is one of the researchers and a scientific adviser to the U.K. government. He suggests using a staggered approach as plans for reopening the schools are underway.23

While the rates of infection between the schools and community were the same, the researchers could not comment if the students and teachers who did have COVID-19 caught it in the school or the community.24 As would be expected with what is known about the virus, the rate of infection was lower in primary schools than secondary schools.

When speaking to a BBC reporter, Tildesley had a telling comment about how decisions to reopen schools should be made: “You could potentially think about doing early years first. But this is a political decision.”25

Face Masks Do Not Effectively Reduce COVID-19 Infections

The first randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 was published in November 2020 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.26

During the trial, researchers evaluated more than 6,000 individuals and found that masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection of COVID-19. Among the people who wore masks, 1.8% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among the control group.

When the researchers removed those who did not adhere to proper mask-wearing, the results remained the same — 1.8%. This suggests that in this group of 6,000 individuals, wearing a mask made no significant difference as to whether they would acquire COVID-19.

In the group that reportedly wore their masks “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for the virus as compared to 2.1% of the controls. Despite a lack of evidence that mask-wearing in the general public was effective, widespread mask mandates were rolled out.

At the end of December 2020, researchers from Rational Ground revealed results of data analysis evaluating the use of masks from all 50 U.S. states.27 It was completed by data analysts, computer scientists and actuaries, who divided the information into states that had mask mandates and those that did not.

They evaluated data from May 1, 2020, through December 15, 2020, and calculated how many cases per day occurred by population with and without mask mandates. Among states without a mask mandate, 5,781,716 cases were counted over 5,772 days, which worked out to:28

No mask mandates — 17 cases per 100,000 people per day
Mask mandates — 27 cases per 100,000 people per day

In other words, the evidence does not support the use of masks and school lockdowns. And, there is powerful evidence that masks and school lockdowns are causing significant damage to the physical and psychological health of children. Yet, these mandates and lockdowns have garnered support from schools and parents, likely driven by fear of the virus.

Countrywide Mandates Prove Successful

In fact, fear seems to have been the force used to drive mandates the public would not have otherwise accepted — except, that is, in Sweden. In a 45-minute documentary, Claudia Nye shows how Sweden has approached COVID-19.

Under the guidance of chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, Sweden did not institute a universal lockdown, close small businesses or schools, or enact mandatory mask mandates. Instead, they chose to use enough reasonable strategies to protect their citizens. According to Tegnell, “We don’t want to hurt anyone unnecessarily, but we want to have as good effect as possible.”29

Using this as the basis for their decision-making, only some schools were closed during certain periods of time and only office workers were asked to work from home to minimize crowding on public transportation. Retail shops, gyms and restaurants remained open, a vast difference from what happened in other countries around the world.

Businesses recommended social distancing and masks, but it wasn’t a strict rule. Around the globe, people were told to stay home or face jail time. Yet, in Sweden people were asked to take commonsense precautions based on their individual circumstances.

It was recommended seniors and other high-risk individuals stay home, use social distancing and wear masks. All others were free to live as they normally would. Tegnell noted that in Sweden, “We have chosen a voluntary way and it’s proven to be sustainable and it’s proven also to be effective.”30

According to the Imperial College of London model, Sweden should have experienced a death toll of 80,000 by the end of June 2020 without a lockdown.31 However, the true number September 30, 2020, after no lockdowns, stood at 5,893,32 a vast majority of whom were elderly with comorbidities.

In fact, of those, only 872 were a direct result of COVID-19. The rest had one or more conditions that contributed to the death.33 Nye tells more of this story in her engaging documentary that won the Outstanding Achievement Award in the Los Angeles International Indie Short Fest film festival in January 2021.

I believe without being aware of how your behavior is being influenced, the world will continue to become decidedly different and more difficult. To protect our children, future generations and your finances, I encourage you to share “Public Health Officials Are Destroying Humanity.”

It may seem like science fiction, but just one year ago you probably could not have imagined the world as it is today. Unless and until more people understand the direction that leadership is sending the world, it will only continue down the same path.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/27/effects-of-mask-mandates-and-school-closures.aspx

The premise that hunger makes food look more appealing is a widely held belief.

Prior research studies have suggested that the hunger hormone ghrelin, which your body produces when it’s hungry, might act in your brain to trigger this behavior.
New studies suggest that ghrelin might also work in your brain to make you keep eating “pleasurable” foods when you’re already full.
Scientists previously have linked increased levels of ghrelin to intensifying the rewarding or pleasurable feelings that can be obtained from cocaine or alcohol.
Researchers observed how long mice would continue to poke their noses into a hole in order to receive a pellet of high-fat food. Animals that didn’t receive ghrelin gave up much sooner than the ones that did receive ghrelin.
Humans and mice share the same type of brain-cell connections and hormones, as well as similar architectures in the “pleasure centers” of the brain.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/16/why-do-people-continue-to-eat-when-they-are-full.aspx