Lose Them Pounds

June 11, 2021, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology,1 Dr. Robert Malone, spoke out on the DarkHorse podcast about the potential dangers of COVID-19 gene therapy injections, hosted by Bret Weinstein, Ph.D. The podcast was quickly erased from YouTube and Weinstein was issued a warning.

To censor a scientific discussion with the actual inventor of the technology used to manufacture these COVID-19 shots is beyond shocking. But the censorship of Malone goes even further than that. As reported in the video above, Malone’s scientific accomplishments are also being scrubbed.

Wikipedia Scrubs Malone’s Scientific Contributions

As recently as June 14, 2021, Malone’s contributions were extensively included in the historical section on RNA vaccines’ Wikipedia page. He was listed as having co-developed a “high-efficiency in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection system using cationic liposomes” in 1989.

In 1990, he demonstrated that “in-vitro transcribed mRNA could deliver genetic information into the cell to produce proteins within living cell tissue.” Malone was also part of the team that conducted the first mRNA vaccine experiments. In short, his scientific knowledge of mRNA vaccines is unquestionable.

Two days later, June 16, 2021, just five days after Malone’s appearance on the DarkHorse podcast, his name was removed from the Wikipedia entry. Now, all of a sudden, the discovery of mRNA drug delivery is accredited to nameless researchers at the Salk Institute and the University of California, and his 1990 research confirming that injected mRNA can produce proteins in cell tissue is accredited to nameless scientists at the University of Wisconsin.

Hungarian biochemist Katalin Kariko is now suddenly praised by mainstream media as the inventor of mRNA vaccines.2 It’s a convenient choice, considering Kariko is the senior vice president of BioNTech, the creator of Pfizer’s COVID injection. Kariko’s unofficial biography also includes being a communist-era police informant.

As noted in the featured video, this goes beyond censoring. It’s revisionism — a “1984”-style rewriting of history to fit the official narrative of the day. The danger of this trend is incalculable.

What Did Malone Say About mRNA Vaccines?

Watch the latest video at foxnews.com

The take-home messages Malone delivered on Weinstein’s podcast were that government is not being transparent about the risks, that no one should be forced to take these experimental injections, that the risks outweigh the benefits in children, teens and young adults, and that those who have recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection should not get the injection. In a June 24, 2021, interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News (above), Malone said:3

“I am of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept vaccines or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines … My concern is I know there are risks but we don’t have access to the data … We don’t really have the information we need to make a reasonable decision.”

A significant part of why we don’t have adequate data is because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration purposely decided not to require stringent post-vaccination data collection and evaluation. This too was revealed in Malone’s DarkHorse interview.

Why did the FDA opt for lax data capture on a brand-new, never before used technology slated for mass distribution? Clearly, without post-injection data capture, there’s no way to evaluate the safety of these products. You cannot identify danger signals if you don’t have a process for capturing effects data and evaluating all of it.

First Risk-Benefit Analysis of COVID Shots

Malone also points out that risk-benefit analyses have not been done, and that’s another objection he has. What data we do have, however, indicate these COVID-19 injections could be the most dangerous medical product we’ve ever seen.

For example, the reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots now exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,4 which historically has been the most hazardous. The COVID shots are also seven times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate.5

Coincidentally, a peer-reviewed risk-benefit analysis6 was in fact published in the medical journal Vaccines the same day Malone spoke to Carlson. It revealed that the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one COVID-19 death using the Pfizer injection is between 9,000 and 50,000, and that for every three COVID-19 deaths prevented, two are killed by the injection. According to the authors, “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”

The Spike Protein Is a Bioactive Cytotoxin

In his DarkHorse interview, Malone noted that he had warned the FDA that the spike protein — which the COVID-19 shots instruct your cells to make — could pose a health risk.

The FDA dismissed his concerns, saying they did not believe the spike protein was biologically active. Besides, the vaccine makers specifically designed the injections so that the spike protein would stick and not float about freely. As it turns out, they were wrong on both accounts.

The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries. Despite that, Pfizer opted not to perform standard reproductive toxicology studies.

It’s since been established that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein does not stay near the injection site,7 and that it is biologically active. It is responsible for the most severe effects seen in COVID-19, such as bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body, heart problems and neurological damage.

These are the same problems we now see in a staggering number of people having received one or two shots of COVID-19 gene therapy. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries.8,9,10

Despite that, Pfizer opted not to perform standard reproductive toxicology studies. For more in-depth information about how the spike protein can wreck your health, see my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D.

COVID Jab Campaign Violates Bioethics Laws

In his interviews with Weinstein and Carlson, Malone stressed that there are bioethical principles and bioethics laws in place to prevent undue risks in medical experimentation, and that those laws are currently being violated. He went into far more detail on this in a May 30, 2021, essay:11

“… the adult public are basically research subjects that are not being required to sign informed consent due to EUA waiver. But that does not mean that they do not deserve the full disclosure of risks that one would normally require in an informed consent document for a clinical trial.

And now some national authorities are calling on the deployment of EUA vaccines to adolescents and the young, which by definition are not able to directly provide informed consent to participate in clinical research — written or otherwise.

The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research. This goes back to the Geneva convention and the Helsinki declaration.12 There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects.”

Experimentation without proper informed consent also violates the Nuremberg Code,13 which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation. This set of principles were developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again.

In the U.S., we also have the Belmont report,14 cited in Malone’s essay, which spells out the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research, covered under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A). The Belmont report describes informed consent as follows:

“Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.

While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.”

Americans, indeed the people of the entire planet, are being prevented from freely accessing and sharing information about these gene therapies. Worse, we are misled by fact checkers and Big Tech platforms that ban or put misinformation labels on anyone and anything discussing them in a critical or questioning way. The same censorship also prevents comprehension of risk.

Lastly, government and any number of vaccine stakeholders are encouraging companies and schools to make these experimental injections mandatory, which violates the rule of voluntariness. Government and private businesses are also creating massive incentives to participate in this experiment, including million-dollar lotteries and full college scholarships. None of this is ethical or even legal. As noted by Malone in his essay:15

“… as these vaccines are not yet market authorized (licensed), coercion of human subjects to participate in medical experimentation is specifically forbidden. Therefore, public health policies which meet generally accepted criteria for coercion to participate in clinical research are forbidden.

For example, if I were to propose a clinical trial involving children and entice participation by giving out ice cream to those willing to participate, any institutional human subjects safety board (IRB) in the United States would reject that protocol.

If I were to propose a clinical research protocol wherein the population of a geographic region would lose personal liberties unless 70% of the population participated in my study, once again, that protocol would be rejected by any US IRB based on coercion of subject participation. No coercion to participate in the study is allowed.

In human subject clinical research, in most countries of the world this is considered a bright line that cannot be crossed. So, now we are told to waive that requirement without even so much as open public discussion being allowed? In conclusion, I hope that you will join me; stop to take a moment and consider for yourself what is going on. The logic seems clear to me.

1) An unlicensed medical product deployed under emergency use authorization (EUA) remains an experimental product under clinical research development.

2) EUA authorized by national authorities basically grants a short-term right to administer the research product to human subjects without written informed consent.

3) The Geneva Convention, the Helsinki declaration, and the entire structure which supports ethical human subjects research requires that research subjects be fully informed of risks and must consent to participation without coercion.”

Clearly, Malone is preeminently qualified to speak on the topic of COVID gene therapy: Not only is he a highly ethical physician committed to integrity, but he actually invented the very technology and performed the first mRNA vaccine studies. The fact that he is now censored by Big Tech and outright being erased from scientific history is a crime in and of itself, and something that should worry just about everyone.

This egregious example of censorship vividly demonstrates just how degenerated the media has become. The only possible explanation is that anyone or any piece of information that interferes with as many people getting the COVID jab is removed. Nothing that counters this narrative is tolerated despite every bit of information is making it clear that these COVID jabs are the biggest crime against mankind in the history of humanity.

If Malone can be erased, what chance do the rest of us have to not encounter the same fate? The parallels between everyday reality and the fictional but uncannily prophetic book “1984” are mounting by the day. Where it will take us is obvious. We’ll end up in a world where faithful adherence to the lies of the day is the only choice. To prevent such a fate, we have to get engaged and expose the lies by sharing facts, data and truth in every which way we can.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/06/mrna-vaccine-inventor-erased-from-history-books.aspx

In the early months of 2019, the pharmaceutical industry was under fire from legislators and the media about the exorbitant prices being charged in the U.S. for drugs. According to one poll reported by Ars Technica,1 58% of people in the U.S. held a negative view of the industry.

The price hike on one life-saving medication — EpiPen — rose from $50 in 2007 for a single autoinjector to $600 in 2018 for a pack of two.2 One reason the price rose so dramatically was that the maker, Mylan, began selling the injectors in two packs only — leaving the door open to charge whatever they felt like for that double-dose package.3

The move subsequently led to a class action lawsuit alleging “the two-pack sale of EpiPens is a pretense for charging unconscionable prices” and that Mylan is “misstating the science of EpiPen dosage in order to purportedly justify its price gouging,’ in violation of various state deceptive and unfair trade practice and consumer protection laws,” according to MarketWatch.

Profits for the drug company rose to $1.1 billion each year for the drug since it is next to impossible for people with severe allergic reactions to go without an EpiPen. But just when it looked like governmental agencies and legislators were considering looking at pricing policies, the pharmaceutical industry used the 2020 pandemic to reverse their public image when they were called upon to develop a vaccine for a viral infection at “Warp Speed.”4

Now, despite the fact the industry holds no responsibility for adverse events associated with the vaccine,5 including death, 2020 gave Big Pharma the needed impetus to overcome their lowest reputation score since public opinion of the industry began being measured in 2001.6

During 2020, Big Pharma as a whole worked hard to portray itself as a benevolent industry that poured billions of dollars into the creation of drugs and vaccines with the intent of protecting public health. As part of that group, biotech giant Gilead Sciences is no different.

The company manufactures remdesivir,7 which is the antiviral drug favored by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the chief medical adviser to the president. However, while the chief medical officer of the U.S. promotes remdesivir, scientific evidence demonstrates the drug has a dark side, and it is not effective.

Fauci’s Favored Drug Has a Dark Secret

The FDA fully approved remdesivir October 22, 2020, for use in adults and children in the treatment of COVID-19.8 This came after the emergency use authorization was issued May 1, 2020, for remdesivir in patients who had “suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19.”

Remdesivir is an antiviral drug that is a nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor. It was tested in primates as a treatment for Ebola and found to have some effectiveness against the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2002 and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak in 2012.9

Before this, Gilead had produced a remarkably similar drug called tenofovir for HIV.10 Remdesivir is nearly a copy of Gilead’s HIV drug and is also a reverse transcriptase inhibitor. According to a paper published in Molecules, “Reverse transcriptase is an enzyme in the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and many retroviruses that convert the RNA template to DNA.”11

The enzyme helps to synthesize a strand of DNA that complements the RNA template. Several nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors are anti-HIV agents.12 This may support the hypothesis that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a chimera.

The term chimera comes from mythology and describes an organism or individual in which the body has cells from genetically distinct organisms. In Greek mythology,13 a chimera was a fire-breathing monster that had the face of a lion, the tail of a snake and the wings of a dragon. In a review of the use of remdesivir for COVID-19, one research team wrote:14

“Other clinically approved nucleoside/nucleotide analogues, such as the hepatitis C drug sofosbuvir and HIV drugs alovudine and zidovudine, have also been shown to be active against the SARS RdRp [RNA dependent RNA polymerase] in in vitro biochemical assays and might have the potential to be repurposed against COVID-19.”

The Mountain View Voice15 reports Fauci believes the remdesivir trials were reminiscent of research that had been conducted nearly 34 years ago when he and his colleagues were analyzing the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

The relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and human retroviruses is complex. To date, there are three retroviruses that scientists have identified that infect humans. Retroviruses are RNA genetic material that changes the host DNA. In 2019, the three known retroviruses that may cause human illness were HIV and types 1 and 2 human T-cell lymphotropic viruses.16

In “The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health,” you can watch my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., where we discuss one of the more dangerous parts of SARS-CoV-2 — the spike protein envelope, common in retroviruses, that causes many of the disease challenges doctors are fighting from COVID-19.

Despite Negative Trial Results FDA Approved Remdesivir

Pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences was given at least $70.5 million in taxpayer money to develop remdesivir, and that number may be higher.17 The recommended treatment dose for remdesivir spans five to 10 days, all of which must be administered in the hospital.18

Gilead Sciences charges the government $2,340 and private insurance $3,120,19 which is well above the drug maker’s estimated cost for production, which is between $10 and $600 for a 10-day course.20

But the price tag does not reflect the effectiveness of the drug. There were several negative trial results, and yet the FDA approved the drug anyway. A few trials were stopped early when participants experienced significant side effects. Some scientists believed the data suggested the drug could shorten recovery time.21

However, the drug has not produced adequate results or proved to reduce the potential for death in those with severe disease. Worse yet, the treatment comes with an added price tag of potential kidney damage.22

While Fauci called the results of studies that had not been peer-reviewed from a pharmaceutical-sponsored clinical trial “highly significant” and referred to remdesivir as the “new standard of care,”23 the World Health Organization had a different recommendation. Based on evidence from the SOLIDARITY trial, the WHO conditionally recommended against using remdesivir in hospitalized patients.24

Fauci’s support of an antiviral drug that hasn’t lived up to the hype helped support the company’s falling revenues. During the first quarter of 2021, remdesivir grossed $1.5 billion in sales, helping boost Gilead’s total bottom line of $6.4 billion in revenue during that same quarter — a 16% increase over the first quarter of 2020. But when revenue for remdesivir was excluded, revenue actually plummeted 11%, at a disappointing $4.9 billion.25

Remdesivir Not Backed by Results

The data from science trials for remdesivir have been disappointing. One study published in The New England Journal of Medicine26 concluded that the drug worked better than a placebo and so was stopped early for benefit. However, as Peter Gotzsche from The Institute for Scientific Freedom wrote, this benefit was not a reduction in mortality from COVID-19, but rather shortened hospital days.27

The placebo-controlled study demonstrated the drug could reduce hospital stays from 15 days to 11 days. Yet, other physicians were finding the drug was keeping people in the hospital longer. Although Dr. George Ralls with Orlando Health reported they saw positive benefits with the drug, he also attributed it to longer hospital stays in order to complete the course of treatment.28

As I reported in “The New COVID-19 Medication Isn’t Backed by Results,” in the middle of the study (April 20, 2020), the researchers changed the primary outcome measures so patients only had to meet three of an original eight categories,29 and none of the three included measurement of mortality.
In the last update to Clinical Trials30 before publication, the researchers had one primary outcome measurement — time to recovery. The idea for the drug was to keep people from dying, but the researchers stopped measuring that important outcome.

In another study published in The Lancet,31 researchers evaluated remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint measurement was how long it took for clinical improvement. The drug was stopped early because 12% of the patients experienced adverse events and researchers found there were no statistically significant clinical benefits.

Just before the release of the studies in The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, Bloomberg32 reported the WHO accidentally posted results of a third study. The summary was removed, but details showed “the drug wasn’t associated with patients getting better more quickly; and 13.9% of patients getting the drug died, versus 12.8% getting standard care.”

Ivermectin Is Effective but Intentionally Suppressed

While researchers using remdesivir struggle to identify and prove the drug is effective against COVID-19, data clearly show ivermectin can prevent it and when used early can keep people from progressing to the hyper inflammatory phase of the disease.

In fact, ivermectin can even be used late in the disease to help critically ill patients recover. The drug has a long history of use as an antiparasitic33 and has a known safety profile as compared to remdesivir, which has a short history of use.

In the early months of COVID-19, a group of physicians formed the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC).34 The collaboration of the five founding physicians in the group resulted in a protocol that can be used in the hospital and another that can be used as an outpatient. Each of the five founding members has treated critical illness for decades.

The two protocols are available for download on the FLCCC alliance website in multiple languages.35,36 Ivermectin was added to the outpatient and inpatient protocols. Although many of the drugs used in the protocols are now accepted standards of care in many places, the same is not true of ivermectin.

It is important to remember that as others clamor for randomized controlled trials to demonstrate that ivermectin is effective, these become more or less unethical when you can see from clinical evidence that something is working, and you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death.

In fact, this is the same argument vaccine makers are using now to justify the elimination of control groups by giving everyone the vaccine.
While the WHO recommended that remdesivir not be used in hospitalized patients based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of pooled data from four randomized trials, the evidence37 they used to recommend that ivermectin not be used in patients with COVID-19 except in clinical trials is based on what they admit is a “high degree of uncertainty.”38

You can read more about the benefits of using ivermectin and how this information is being purposefully suppressed in “COVID, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century.” In the article is a video from DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., in which he interviews Dr. Pierre Kory about the importance of early treatment of COVID-19 and the shameful censoring of information about ivermectin.

It’s no small irony, then, that YouTube deleted this interview, which is why I embedded a Bitchute version. How this interview could possibly be labeled as misinformation is a mystery, considering the entire conversation is about published research and they are both credentialed medical science experts.

Steps to Help Reduce the Severity of the Disease

As I’ve discussed, fear is contagious and is being used to control your behavior. One strategy initially used to funnel the public into vaccination programs revolved around using PCR testing to demonstrate a rising number of cases. However, as I’ve written several times, PCR testing does not accurately diagnose an active infection.

During lockdown, many people put on pandemic pounds that contribute to increasing your risk of getting sick. Instead of depending on drugs and vaccines, I recommend you proactively work to support your immune system using strategies that evidence demonstrates reduces your risk of severe disease.

It has become evident that optimizing your vitamin D level may be the least expensive, easiest and most beneficial strategy to minimize your risk. Making simple lifestyle changes to normalize your blood sugar levels can also help reduce your risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and viral infections such as COVID-19 and flu.

Comorbid conditions that are related to severe disease with COVID-19 include cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes. In “Nearly Half of American Adults Have Cardiovascular Disease,” I summarize strategies that improve the microcirculation in your heart as well as mitochondrial function and insulin resistance, which are related to strong heart health.

It is difficult to control Type 2 diabetes when you rely strictly on medication and do not change the underlying lifestyle factors that have caused the problem. If properly addressed, Type 2 diabetes can be entirely reversible in most people. In “Diabetes Can Increase the Complications of COVID-19,” I discuss some of those dietary and lifestyle choices and offer suggestions for change.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/07/remdesivir-for-covid-19.aspx

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health partnered with Google and Apple to create a smartphone app called MassNotify, which tracks and traces people, advising users of others’ COVID-19 status.

For a tool that claims to have been developed “with a focus on privacy,”1 imagine Massachusetts residents’ surprise when the app suddenly appeared on their Android phones out of nowhere. In a review on the Google Play Store, one shocked parent said:2

“This installed silently on my daughter’s phone without consent or notification. She cannot have installed it herself since we use Family Link and we have to approve all app installs.

I have no idea how they pulled this off, but it had to involve either Google, or Samsung, or both. Normal apps can’t just install themselves. I’m not sure what’s going on here, but this doesn’t count as ‘voluntary.’ We need information, and we need it now, folks.”

The official MassNotify site, operated by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, makes no mention that the app will automatically show up on residents’ phones without consent, stating only that MassNotify is a “new tool that works through smartphones, with a focus on privacy, to alert users who may have been exposed to COVID-19.”3

Reportedly, the feature must be enabled by the user for it to function, but it’s extremely disconcerting that the tool has been automatically added to people’s phones, whether they intend to use it or not.

Residents Alarmed Over ‘Spyware,’ ‘Government Overreach’

Android phone users were understandably alarmed when MassNotify appeared on their devices. The tool “doesn’t have an app icon,” one person reported on Google Play, “you have to go through settings and view all apps. This is a huge privacy and security overstep by [Gov. Charlie Baker] & Google.”4

Other people also described it as “spyware,” while a user on Hacker News wrote, “It’s pure madness that Play Services comes with this sort of backdoor. This is clearly what I would consider a deliberate … vulnerability.”5

In China, COVID-19 tracking apps have been used as surveillance tools in collaboration with its social credit system, raising red flags that this force-installed app could be tracking residents’ movements and contacts without their knowledge and consent. Reviews on the Google Play Store poured in from alarmed citizens worried about privacy violations, with comments such as:6

• “Automatically installed without consent. It has no icon, no way to open this and see what it even does, which is a huge red flag … I think it’s spyware, phishing as the DPH (Department of Public Health).”
• “Force-installed with no authorization or approval. App is hidden on the device to prevent uninstallation. Government overreach and corporate complicity should never be tolerated.”
• “Unethical breach of privacy and a forceful misappropriation of personal property … The degree to which my data is collected or distributed through it has not been disclosed neither in active nor inactive form … I can only conclude and caution others that it is disclosing your whereabouts and social contacts without permission.”

MassNotify ‘Built Into Device Settings,’ Difficult to Remove

When pressed for comment, Google released a statement to the media, but did not address the glaring issue of how or why the system was force-installed without users’ consent. Instead, they only stated:7

“We have been working with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to allow users to activate the Exposure Notifications System directly from their Android phone settings.

This functionality is built into the device settings and is automatically distributed by the Google Play Store, so users don’t have to download a separate app. COVID-19 Exposure Notifications are enabled only if a user proactively turns it on. Users decide whether to enable this functionality and whether to share information through the system to help warn others of possible exposure.”

The MassNotify app was released June 15, 2021, marking the 29th state to launch an app using Google and Apple’s Bluetooth-based Exposure Notifications Express program.

The software framework was first released in April 2020,8 with the goal of allowing users who test positive for COVID-19 to report their results, which then sends out an alert to anyone whose phone crossed paths with the positive case and may have been exposed. The Exposure Notifications Express program acts as a blueprint from which states can implement their own tracking systems without having to develop their own individual apps.

While other states have required users to download an app to use the system, MassNotify was integrated directly into the operating system of Android phones.9 “The contact-tracing feature does not work unless a user manually activates it, but you also can’t get rid of the software,” the Boston Globe reported. “(Meanwhile, Apple added the feature to iPhones months ago, with iOS 13.).”10

Massachusetts Urges Residents to Enable MassNotify

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health is urging residents to enable MassNotify on their cellphones, with Dr. Catherine Brown, state epidemiologist, stating that they’re hoping at least 15% of the state’s population, or more than 1 million people, will opt-in and noting that it could be most useful for those frequenting large workplaces or university campuses.11

Once you opt-in, anonymous codes are shared with other MassNotify users via your phone’s Bluetooth. If within 14 days, you come in close contact — within 6 feet for at least 15 minutes12 — with someone who tests positive, you’ll be notified. If you test positive, you’re expected to “easily and anonymously notify others to stop the spread of COVID-19.”13

The system is working in connection with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which will send a text message with a verification link to those who test positive for COVID-19. The link allows users to share their test result and notify other MassNotify users of their exposure. For those who haven’t opted in to the tool, the link also serves as a tool “to help you enable MassNotify on your phone for future use.”14

Unprecedented, Broad Privacy Risks Uncovered

It’s ironic that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health states that MassNotify is not a contract tracing app,15 yet it’s based on technology developed by Apple and Google that was previously known as the “Privacy-Preserving Contact Tracing Project”16 and is now referred to as the Exposure Notifications API (application programming interface).

In a May 2020 Forbes article by Simon Chandler, he points out that while contact tracing apps “may be cryptographically secure,” they still “threaten our privacy in broader and more insidious ways”:17

“On the one hand, cybersecurity researchers have already argued18 that suitably determined and malevolent bad actors could correlate infected people with other personal info using the API. On the other, the Google-Apple API and any app based on it carry two much more general and dangerous privacy risks.”

First the apps only work if you keep your cellphone with you at all times, with Bluetooth enabled. “Straight away, this is a massive privacy loss,” Chandler notes. “As shown by numerous studies and investigations, smartphones and many of the apps on them track your locations, aside from recording — and sharing — whatever data you enter into them.”19

The other risk is that it’s one more way of “normalizing” something that’s entirely abnormal — the constant use of technology to dictate your freedoms and behavior. “… [W]hile we’re used to ads attempting to prod our consumer behavior, contact-tracing apps will normalize the concept of apps themselves directing and managing at scale how millions of people live and behave,” Chandler pointed out.20

Remember, if you receive a notification that you’ve been in close contact with someone who tested positive, you’ll be expected to quarantine. Many will undoubtedly be doing so unnecessarily, as they won’t end up sick, which means they’ve just given up 14 days of freedom for no reason.

And what happens if you finish quarantining only to go out in public and be notified of an exposure again? Another 14 days in isolation? Further, this seemingly innocent invasion has nefarious consequences. As Chandler put it:21

“Users will get used to the idea of an app telling them when to stay at home and when to go out. Basically, they’ll become more habituated to delegating judgement over how they should behave to apps and digital technology.”

Google’s Manipulation Techniques Are Well Known

Google has been called a dictator with unprecedented power because it relies on techniques of manipulation that have never existed before in human history, according to Robert Epstein, a Harvard trained psychologist who is now a senior research psychologist for the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology, where for the last decade he has helped expose Google’s manipulative and deceptive practices.

They’re not only a surveillance agency — think about products like Google Wallet, Google Docs, Google Drive and YouTube — but also a censoring agency with the ability to restrict or block access to websites across the internet, thus deciding what you can and cannot see.

Google has also infiltrated education with its Google classrooms, usage of which has skyrocketed during the pandemic, but many aren’t aware that even their children are being tracked. The attorney general of New Mexico filed a suit against Google for its educational tools in its classroom suite, helping to “break through the fog,” Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff said:22

“[The suit is] identifying the huge amounts of data that they’re taking about kids, how they track them across the internet are they integrate it with all the other Google streams of information and have it as a foundation for tracking those children all the way through their adulthood.”

Google also backs Profusa,23 which has developed an injectable biosensor that allows a person’s physiology to be examined at a distance via smartphone connectivity. On a larger scale, Google, Amazon, Twitter and other major tech companies are also tied to the “military-industrial-intelligence-media complex,” to quote Edward Curtin from Off-Guardian.24

All provide invaluable surveillance and censorship functions, and without them the totalitarian control system we now find ourselves caught in wouldn’t be possible.

Mass Protests Can End Privacy Invasions

As we’ve seen in the case of vaccine passports, peaceful protests work to protect personal privacy and freedom. The Pentagon also pulled the plug on Lifelog — a database project aimed at tracking the minutiae of people’s entire existence for national security surveillance purposes25 — February 4, 2004, in response to backlash over privacy concerns.26 (Although that same day, Facebook was launched.27)

If you’re a Massachusetts resident and are unhappy that surveillance software was added to your cellphone without your consent, now’s the time to speak out. The end goal here isn’t about tracking COVID-19 cases in your hometown. Vaccine passports or any other type of tracking and tracking device or certification system are part of a much larger plan to implement a global social credit system based on 24/7 electronic surveillance to ensure compliance.

This will expand to include not just COVID-19 infection and vaccination status but also other medical data, basic identification records, financial data and just about anything else that can be digitized and tracked.

It could mean the beginning of the end for freedom as we know it, unless everyone, everywhere recognizes the danger and takes action. Peaceful protest and civil disobedience — simply not complying with tracking apps, mask mandates, social distancing, lockdowns, vaccination or anything else — can be a key part of the solution.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/06/massnotify-covid-app.aspx

If there were any reasonable safety standard in place, the COVID injection campaign would have been halted in early January 2021. The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots now exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,1 which historically has been the most hazardous.

The COVID shots are also five times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate.2,3 In a June 24, 2021, peer-reviewed article4 in the medical journal Vaccines, titled, “The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination — We Should Rethink the Policy,” an international team of scientists warns that we’re killing nearly as many with the shots as would die from COVID-19 itself.UPDATE: This peer reviewed article was retracted. Please see twitter thread for details.

For Every Three COVID Deaths Spared, Two Die From the Jabs

To compare the risks and benefits, they calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one COVID-19 death. The data came from a large Israeli field study and two adverse drug reactions databases, one with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and one with the Dutch National Register.

To prevent one case of COVID-19 using the mRNA shot by Pfizer, the NNTV is between 200 and 700. The NNTV to prevent one death is between 9,000 and 50,000, with 16,000 as a point estimate.

For every three COVID-19 deaths prevented by COVID gene therapy injections, two die from the shots.

Meanwhile, the number of people reporting adverse reactions from the shots is 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. For serious side effects, there are 16 reports per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is 4.11 per 100,000 vaccinations.

The final calculation suggests that for every three COVID-19 deaths prevented, two die from the shots. “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy,” the authors state in conclusion.

Understand that doesn’t even factor in the anticipated far greater death toll from the COVID jab in the fall, as a result of paradoxical immune enhancement. These numbers will escalate to shocking ratios as the deaths start to increase in the fall.

Toxicologist Calls for End to COVID Vaccination Program

Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., a prominent toxicologist and molecular biologist who works with M.D. Anderson Cancer Center-Houston, says the current COVID-19 injection campaign is a “massive clinical trial” using the general population as subjects, and is calling for the program to end.

Lindsay, described by investigative journalist Jennifer Margulis as having “extensive experience in analyzing the molecular profile of pharmacologic responses,”5 told the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) that Pfizer’s and Moderna’s gene therapy injections have multiple safety concerns and should not be given to children or women of childbearing age.

You can hear her comment in the video above. A transcript of her three-minute comment can be found on Algora.com.6

She pointed out “there is a credible reason to believe that the COVID vaccines will cross-react with the syncytin and reproductive proteins in sperm, ova and placenta, leading to impaired fertility and impaired reproductive and gestational outcomes,” and that there are enough pregnancy losses reported thus far to warrant stopping the vaccines. Lindsay should know, seeing how she worked on a vaccine back in the ‘90s that unexpectedly ended up causing permanent sterility.

Margulis contacted Lindsay after the meeting to see what additional information she had that she was not allowed to present due to the three-minute time restriction. In a written response, Lindsay said:7

“There is strong evidence for immune escape and that inoculation under pandemic pressure with these leaky vaccines is driving the creation of more lethal mutants that are both newly infecting a younger age demographic, and causing more COVID-related deaths across the population than would have occurred without intervention. That is, there is evidence that the vaccines are making the pandemic worse.”

Spike Protein Linked to Heart Inflammation and Much More

The podcast, A Shot in the Dark, also interviewed Lindsay for nearly an hour about her concerns, June 24, 2021, which you can listen to above.8 Importantly, she points out that regulatory agencies and vaccine makers feigning surprise that the COVID shots are causing heart inflammation is completely absurd, as there are “hundreds of studies” linking coronavirus spike proteins to this effect.

She also dismisses the claim that heart inflammation is somehow only affecting younger people. Heart attacks in adults are also a clear sign of this effect, she says. Additionally, clinical evidence given to her by health care professionals who are treating patients injured by these shots suggest the spike protein your body produces in response to them have toxic effects on your bone marrow.

Disturbingly, like many others, Lindsay says there’s evidence that the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is deleting reports of side effects, especially deaths, post-COVID injection. So, not only does VAERS generally capture only 1%9,10 to 10%11 of side effects, but they also appear to be manually wiping reports.

Brain Tumors Have Developed Post-COVID Jab

In related news, a peer-reviewed case report12 published June 15, 2021, reviews two neurosurgical cases in which patients developed new onset of neurological symptoms shortly after their COVID shots. The two patients were found to have two different types of brain tumors.

The authors point out that even though these processes are considered “unrelated to vaccination,” their hypothesis is that the COVID shots “may induce an inflammatory cascade with the ability to uncover underlying sinister pathology.”

For this reason, they strongly recommend “careful evaluation in the setting of new-onset neurologic symptoms after COVID-19 vaccination.” Of course, by then, it’s going to be too late, so in my view, people need to carefully consider these risks before they submit to these shots.

The first case was a 58-year-old woman who eight years previously had surgically removed melanoma on her right arm. Within two weeks of her second dose of a COVID-19 injection, she developed slurred speech, facial droop on the left side and left arm and leg weakness. Computed tomography (CT) of the head revealed a 3.4 centimeter intraparenchymal hemorrhage in her right lobe, causing a 3-millimeter shift in the midline of the two lobes.

No overt abnormalities were found in her bloodwork. Contrast-enhanced MRI of the woman’s brain further revealed a large hemorrhagic cavity in the right frontal lobe and a hemorrhagic mass. Surgical biopsy diagnosed it as a metastatic malignant melanoma.

The second case was a 52-year-old woman with a history of hypothyroidism and breast cancer. About four days after her first dose of COVID “vaccine,” she developed a severe headache, neck stiffness and intermittent high-grade fevers.

CT imaging and contrast-enhanced MRI of her head revealed a 5.8 cm mass in her corpus callosum. No obvious problems were detected in her blood work. Biopsy revealed the mass to be an IDH-wildtype Grade IV glioblastoma. According to the authors:13

“Administration of these vaccines was unrelated to the oncologic diagnoses themselves. However, these two independent processes both came to the clinical forefront following vaccination. We hypothesize that the inflammatory response to the COVID vaccine may have played a role in increasing clinical symptoms in these patients, potentially in relation to the COVID-19 spike protein …

Although the precise mechanism of post-vaccination inflammation is unknown, it is known that spike proteins can initiate inflammatory cascades and cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in COVID-19 infections.

It is possible that encoded spike proteins post-vaccination therefore cross the BBB and enhance inflammatory responses to nascent pathology within the brain following vaccine administration.

We believe that an augmented inflammatory response following vaccination called attention to these neuro-oncologic diseases by exacerbating peritumoral edema and worsening clinical symptoms.”

CDC Is Hiding Breakthrough COVID Infections

VAERS is not the only place where data are being manipulated to hide problems associated with the COVID shots. The CDC is also manipulating its data collection and reporting of breakthrough cases, meaning people who contract COVID-19 after being partially or fully “vaccinated,” to make the shots appear more effective than they really are. In a June 24, 2021, Trial Site News article, Joel Hirschhorn writes:14

“How well does the artificial immunity provided by experimental COVID vaccines really work to protect people from getting infected? The answer is revealed by how many ‘breakthrough’ infections develop two weeks or more after full vaccination. But can we trust the federal government to collect comprehensive data on them? Now, the answer is NO.”

Originally, the CDC recommended labs use a PCR cycle threshold (CT) of 4015 when testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection. This, despite CTs above 35 were known to create a false positive rate of 97% or more.16 By using an exaggerated CT, healthy people were deemed to have COVID-19. The pandemic fraud was further propped up by falsely claiming that asymptomatic carriers were responsible for a large portion of the spread.

Now, in what appears to be a clear effort to hide COVID-19 breakthrough cases, the CDC has lowered the CT considerably — from 40 to 28 or lower17 — when testing “vaccinated” individuals. So, as vaccinated individuals are contracting the illness, they’re now far less likely to register as positive cases.

But that’s not all. To boost the appearance of vaccine efficacy even further, the CDC also will no longer record mild or asymptomatic infections in vaccinated individuals as “COVID cases.”

The only cases that now count as COVID cases — if the patient has been vaccinated against COVID-19 — are those that result in hospitalization or death.18 Meanwhile, if you’re unvaccinated and come down with a mild case, or if you test positive at a higher CT and have no symptoms, you still count as a COVID case.

As of April 30, 2021, the CDC had received a total of 10,262 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections,19 which it admitted was a “substantial undercount,” as they’re using a passive surveillance system that relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments.20 May 17, 2021, that number was slashed to 1,949, as the new guidance took effect.

Alas, breakthrough cases continue to rapidly accumulate, even with the laxer reporting rules. By June 21, 2021, the CDC reported 4,115 breakthrough cases resulting in hospitalization and/or death.21

COVID Shot Increases Your Susceptibility to COVID Death

As noted by Hirschhorn,22 several doctors are now reporting that the majority of COVID-19 cases they see are fully vaccinated individuals. Dr. Harvey Risch of Yale, for example, claims the fully vaccinated account for 60% of his COVID caseload.23 This clinical observation stands in stark contrast to what you’ll read in the mainstream news. Lately, a slew of articles has been published declaring that most COVID deaths are now occurring in unvaccinated people.

U.K. data also show vaccinated people are at significantly increased risk of dying from the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 than unvaccinated ones, which suggests antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) might be at play.

A June 11, 2021, report24 by Public Health England shows that as a hospital patient, you are nearly six times more likely to die of the COVID Delta variant if you are fully vaccinated, than if you got no COVID shots at all. The information shows up in Table 6 on page 15, which lists emergency care and deaths by vaccination status and confirmed Delta cases from February 1, 2021, to June 7, 2021.

Of 33,206 Delta variant cases admitted to the hospital, 19,573 were not vaccinated. Of those, 23 (0.1175%) died. But, of the 13,633 patients who were vaccinated with either one or two doses, 19 (0.1393%) died, which is an 18.6% higher death rate than for the unvaccinated patients.

Seven of the 5,393 patients who had received one dose 21 days or more before admission died (0.1297%). Of the 1,785 patients who had both vaccine doses 14 days or more before admission, 12 (0.6722%) died. This death rate is 5.72 times higher than that for unvaccinated patients. To put this into perspective, if all 33,206 patients had been fully vaccinated, there would have been 223 deaths instead of 42.

COVID Shots Are Clearly Far Riskier Than Advertised

As noted in a June 22, 2021, Wall Street Journal article,25 while VAERS cannot tell us whether the shots were causative in any given side effect report, when you see clusters of reports that form a trend, it’s time to investigate.

Four serious adverse effects that are currently trending are thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), noninfectious myocarditis (heart inflammation), especially in those under 30, deep-vein thrombosis and death.26

For such effects to be tolerable, even if rare, the vaccine (or drug) would need to be absolutely crucial for survival. That is not the case for COVID-19 however, which has a lethality rate on par with the seasonal flu for all but the elderly and those most frail. The vaccine would also need to be an actual vaccine — something that provides immunity. COVID-19 gene therapy injections don’t do that either.

Overall, it’s clear that deaths and injuries from these shots are being swept under the rug, and we cannot allow that to continue. We must keep pushing for transparency, honesty and accountability.

If you missed my interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, I encourage you to listen to it now. In it, we review protocols you can use to protect yourself, your family or those that you love who now regret getting the COVID jab.

If you’ve gotten the shot and are suffering side effects, please report it to VAERS. In the video below, National Vaccine Information Center cofounder Barbara Loe Fisher discusses the importance of filing a report if your doctor won’t, and the information you’ll need to provide.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/05/covid-shots.aspx

After years of investigation about the dangers of artificial sweeteners, I wrote my book, “Sweet Deception: Why Splenda, NutraSweet, and the FDA May Be Hazardous to Your Health,” and published it in 2006. Since then I’ve been warning about the ever-growing evidence that artificial sweeteners can damage your health in many ways. Now, new research finds that gut microbiome damage from artificial sweeteners is even greater than was previously thought.

Scientists have found that three of the most popular artificial sweeteners, including sucralose (Splenda), aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal and Sugar Twin) and saccharin (Sweet’n Low, Necta Sweet and Sweet Twin) have a pathogenic effect on two types of gut bacteria.1

Specifically, research using lab data was published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences,2 which demonstrated these common sweeteners can trigger beneficial bacteria to become pathogenic and potentially increase your risk of serious health conditions. This is the first study that demonstrated how two types of beneficial bacteria can become diseased and invade the gut wall.

The bacteria studied were Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis). As early as 2008,3 researchers found that sucralose lowered your gut bacteria count by at least 47.4% and increased the pH level of your intestines. Another study found that sucralose had a metabolic effect on bacteria and could inhibit the growth of certain species.4

Just 2 Cans of Diet Soda Can Alter Beneficial Bacteria

The current molecular research from Angelia Ruskin University5 found that when E. coli and E. faecalis became pathogenic, they killed Caco-2 cells that line the wall of the intestines. Much of the past research demonstrating a change in gut bacteria had used sucralose.

However, data from this study6 showed that a concentration from two cans of diet soft drinks, using any of the three artificial sweeteners, could significantly increase the ability of E. coli and E. faecalis to adhere to the Caco-2 cells and increase the development of bacterial biofilms.

When bacteria create a biofilm, it promotes the invasion of the intestinal cell wall. Biofilms make bacteria less sensitive to treatment and more likely to express virulence that causes disease. Each of the three sweeteners tested also triggered the bacteria to invade the Caco-2 cells, with one exception.

The researchers found that saccharin did not have a significant effect on E. coli invading the Caco-2 cells. Havovi Chichger, Ph.D., lead author and senior lecturer in Biomedical Science at Anglia Ruskin University, spoke about the results of the study in a press release:7

“There is a lot of concern about the consumption of artificial sweeteners, with some studies showing that sweeteners can affect the layer of bacteria which support the gut, known as the gut microbiota.

Our study is the first to show that some of the sweeteners most commonly found in food and drink — saccharin, sucralose and aspartame — can make normal and ‘healthy’ gut bacteria become pathogenic. These pathogenic changes include greater formation of biofilms and increased adhesion and invasion of bacteria into human gut cells.

These changes could lead to our own gut bacteria invading and causing damage to our intestine, which can be linked to infection, sepsis and multiple-organ failure.”

Artificial Sweeteners Can Sabotage Your Diet Goals

Unfortunately, for many people, their sweet tooth has become an addiction, fueled by a food industry that continues to develop highly palatable, inexpensive and ultraprocessed foods loaded with sugar as well as artificial sweeteners. As such, the diet industry has become a cash-cow market for lab-created, low-calorie foods manufacturers promote for weight loss.

One study8 from George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health in 20179 found there was a 54% jump in adults who used low-calorie sweeteners from 1999 to 2012. This represented 41.4% of all adults in the U.S. at that time, or 129.5 million people.10 By 2020, the number had jumped to 141.18 million,11 which represented 42.6% of the population.12

It appears that the jump in adults using low-calorie sweeteners that occurred from 1999 to 2012 has remained steady through 2020. This may be due in part to the growing evidence that low-calorie sweeteners, such as Splenda, are a large contributor to the growing number of individuals who are overweight and obese.13

As the incidence of obesity14 and obesity-related health conditions15 continues to skyrocket, manufacturers seek out “perfectly engineered food”16 to drive sales and consumption.

Consequently, the obesity epidemic is one of the most important global public health challenges today, associated with 4.7 million premature deaths worldwide in 2017.17 Recent research suggests artificial sweeteners may contribute to a greater range of health conditions than we have thus far identified.18

Metabolic Effects of Zero Calorie Sweeteners

It is important to recognize that even though artificial sweeteners have very few or no calories, they are still metabolically active.19 The New York Times20 reported that the FDA announced it was banning saccharin in foods and beverages in 1977 because it was linked to the development of malignant bladder tumors in laboratory animals. However, saccharin is now approved for use by the FDA, which says:21

“In the early 1970s, saccharin was linked with the development of bladder cancer in laboratory rats, which led Congress to mandate additional studies of saccharin and the presence of a warning label on saccharin-containing products until such warning could be shown to be unnecessary.
Since then, more than 30 human studies demonstrated that the results found in rats were not relevant to humans, and that saccharin is safe for human consumption.”

But just because the FDA has approved something doesn’t mean it’s good for you. Scientists have explained that many studies have linked artificial sweeteners to an increased risk for obesity, insulin resistance, Type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. A paper published in Physiology and Behavior22 presented three mechanisms by which artificial sweeteners promote metabolic dysfunction:

They interfere with learned responses that contribute to glucose control and energy homeostasis
They destroy gut microbiota and induce glucose intolerance
They interact with sweet-taste receptors expressed throughout the digestive system that play a role in glucose absorption and trigger insulin secretion

As past and recent research has demonstrated, artificial sweeteners have a significantly different effect on your gut microbiome than sugar. Sugar is detrimental because it tends to feed harmful microbes, yet the effects of artificial sweeteners may be worse, as they are downright toxic to gut bacteria.

One animal study23 published in the journal Molecules analyzed six artificial sweeteners including saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-K. The data showed they all caused DNA damage in, and interfered with, the normal and healthy activity of gut bacteria.

Diet Drinks Increase the Risk of an Early Death

One 20-year, population-based study24 of 451,743 people from 10 European countries discovered there was also an association between artificially sweetened drinks and mortality. The researchers excluded participants who had previously had cancer, stroke or diabetes.

At the final tally, 71.1% of the participants in the study were women. The results showed that there was a higher all-cause mortality in people who drank two or more glasses each day of soft drinks, whether they were sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened.25

The researchers measured one glass as equivalent to 250 milliliters (8.4 ounces),26 which is less than the standard 330 milliliters (11.3 ounces) per can sold in Europe.27 In other words, the results of the study were based on less than two cans of soda each day.

The researchers found 43.2% of deaths were from cancers, 21.8% from circulatory disease and 2.9% from digestive disorders.28 Compared to those who drank fewer soft drinks (less than one per month) those drinking two or more per day were more likely to be young, smokers and physically active.

The data showed there was a link between artificially sweetened soft drinks and death from circulatory diseases and an association between sugar-sweetened soft drinks and death from digestive diseases.29 This suggests that policies aimed at cutting or reducing sugar consumption may have disastrous consequences when manufacturers reformulate their products using artificial sweeteners.

More Health Damage Associated With Artificial Sweeteners

This same study also found a link between drinking soft drinks and Parkinson’s Disease30 “with positive nonsignificant associations found for sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened soft drinks.”

Aspartame is another artificial sweetener that has been studied in the past decades. In one study,31 researchers asked healthy adults to consume a high aspartame diet for eight days, followed by a two-week washout and then a low aspartame diet for eight days.

During the high aspartame period, individuals suffered from depression, headache and poor mood. They performed worse on spatial orientation tests, which indicated aspartame had a significant effect on neurobehavioral health.

A second study32 evaluated whether people with diagnosed mood disorders were more vulnerable to the effects of aspartame. Researchers included 40 individuals with unipolar depression and those without any history of psychiatric disorder. The study was stopped after 13 completed the intervention because of the severity of the reactions.

Mice fed aspartame-laced drinking water developed symptoms of metabolic syndrome33 and another animal study34 found that aspartame had a negative effect on insulin tolerance and influenced gut microbial composition.

A further animal study35 determined that sucralose affected animal liver, “indicating toxic effects on regular ingestion.” The finding suggests “sucralose should be taken with caution to avoid hepatic damage.”36

Scientists have found a long list of symptoms associated with consuming sucralose. These have included migraine headaches,37 raised risk of Type 2 diabetes38 and enlargement of the liver and kidneys.39,40

Sugar Alternative Has a Unique Action on Blood Sugar

There are several plant-based sugar substitutes, including Stevia, Lo Han Kuo and allulose. Stevia is a sweet herb from the South American stevia plant. It’s sold as a supplement and can be used to sweeten the most dishes and drinks.

Lo Han Kuo is similar to Stevia but a bit more expensive. Another natural option is allulose. Although the market in Japan is significant,41 it is relatively unknown in the West. Allulose is found in small quantities in some fruits and was given a generally regarded as safe (GRAS) food designation by the FDA.42

Researchers have said the compound has an energy value of “effectively zero,”43 which suggests this rare sugar may be useful as a sweetener for obese people to aid in weight reduction.

In addition to contributing little to no calories, allulose elicits a physiological response that may help to lower blood glucose, reduce abdominal fat and reduce fat accumulation around the liver. Read more about this natural compound in “Can This Natural Sweetener Lower Blood Sugar?”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/05/how-artificial-sweeteners-destroy-your-gut.aspx

1 Which of the following play important roles in obscuring the true agenda of the pandemic virus industrial complex?

Independent scientists and investigative journalists
Regulatory agencies and international courts
Academics and philanthropic organizations

The pandemic virus industrial complex — a term invented by Jonathan Latham, Ph.D. — is an interlocking set of corporations and other institutions who feed off and support each other with goods and services in a self-reinforcing way. It includes philanthropic organizations that act as string-pullers and profit centers, the Defense Department, which is both a cash cow and a provocateur, academics, who provide public relations, and academic nonprofits that act as money launderers. Learn more.

Doctors and health care personnel

2 While Pfizer claims a 100% efficacy rate in 12- to 15-year-olds, this conclusion is a statistical trick. Which of the following is actually correct?

Efficacy in this age group is between 80% and 95%
Only half of fully vaccinated children avoided COVID-19, so efficacy is 50%
None of the unvaccinated children got COVID-19, so efficacy could be said to be 0%
Fewer than 2% of fully vaccinated children avoided COVID-19; 98% of them would not have gotten COVID anyway

While Pfizer boasted a 100% efficacy rate in 12- to 15-year-olds, this conclusion is a statistical trick. Fewer than 2% of fully vaccinated children avoided COVID-19; 98% of them would not have gotten COVID anyway. So, the benefit is small. Learn more.

3 Which of the following is the most likely reason why safe and effective COVID-19 treatments have been censored and vilified?

To protect the COVID “vaccine” program, as emergency use authorization can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available

While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. This appears to have been done to protect the COVID “vaccine” program, as emergency use authorization can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available. Learn more.

There are no safe and effective COVID-19 treatments
Vaccine makers who profit from vaccines are still human, and want to save as many lives as possible by preventing people from using unsafe remedies
The World Health Organization is incompetent

4 Which of the following statements is accurate?

Adverse events from COVID-19 vaccines are so rare, they’re of no concern
The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received more than 358,300 adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including more than 5,990 deaths and nearly 29,900 serious injuries

Reports of deaths and serious injuries from the COVID-19 jabs mount by the day. As of June 11, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) had posted 358,379 adverse events, including 5,993 deaths and 29,871 serious injuries. Before you make the decision to participate in this unprecedented health experiment, it may be wise to assess your personal insurance and financial ability to handle a serious injury, as pandemic vaccine manufacturers are indemnified against lawsuits. Learn more.

VAERS has received only a handful of reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination
VAERS data suggesting COVID shots might be harmful are likely incorrect, as the European Union and the U.K. have very few reports of adverse effects

5 If you’ve had COVID-19, recent research suggests you now likely have:

Even more reason to get a COVID-19 vaccine
A higher risk of becoming ill from another COVID-19 infection
Long-lasting natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2

“Overall, our data provide strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans robustly establishes the two arms of humoral immune memory: long-lived BMPCs and memory B cells,” the researchers noted. This is perhaps the best available evidence of long-lasting immunity. Learn more.

Temporary immunity that’s likely to disappear

6 A landmark study was recently published showing that exposure to very low levels of fluoride during pregnancy:

Protects babies’ teeth
Is essential for dental health
Is not enough to prevent cavities
Impairs the brain development of the child

Grandjean and colleagues just published a landmark study showing that exposure to very low levels of fluoride during pregnancy impairs the brain development of the child. Learn more.

7 If you have received the COVID shot, you:

Should consider yourself at high risk for COVID-19 and implement proactive prevention measures

If you’ve gotten the COVID shot, consider yourself high risk for COVID and implement a daily prophylaxis protocol. This means optimizing your vitamin D, and taking vitamin C, zinc and a zinc ionophore on a daily basis, at least throughout cold and flu season. Learn more.

Have a significantly lower risk of COVID-19
Have the same risk of COVID-19 as unvaccinated individuals
Are immune to COVID-19

 
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/05/week-189-health-quiz.aspx

Dr. Mercola Interviews the Experts
This article is part of a weekly series in which Dr. Mercola interviews various experts on a variety of health issues. To see more expert interviews, click here.

In this interview, repeat guest Dr. Thomas Levy, a board-certified cardiologist, shares his insights into an oft-forgotten and overlooked area of health, namely your oral health.

Oral infections are frequently a stealth contributor to chronic diseases such as breast cancer and heart disease. Levy became intrigued by the influence of oral health after meeting one of the pioneers in this field, Dr. Hal Huggins, who became one of his primary mentors.

As with his previous book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” in which he details the use of nebulized hydrogen peroxide, Levy is giving away his book on oral health for free. You can download “Hidden Epidemic: Silent Oral Infections Cause Most Heart Attacks and Breast Cancers” on MedFox Publishing’s website.

The Importance of 3D Cone Beam Imaging

“Hidden Epidemic” is an apt title, as this issue is flying well below the radar of most health professionals. This, despite the fact that probably 95% of the population, or more, have some sort of infection in their mouth that is influencing their health in a negative way.

“Part of my initial journey was seeing what Dr. Huggins was doing, in addition to [his use of vitamin C and] taking out mercury fillings … he also focused on Dr. Weston Price’s work, which shows that root canals are chronically infected, all of them,” Levy says.

“This was later documented by the work that Dr. Huggins did with Dr. Boyd Haley at the University of Kentucky. They had over 5,000 root canaled teeth extracted by dentists around the country submitted to them. They did sophisticated testing and found extremely potent toxins and anaerobic bacteria in all of them.

It brought out the point that infected teeth are the nuclear bomb of oxidative stress. All diseases [are] caused by oxidative stress and the lion’s share of oxidative stress is caused by chronic infections.”

Levy co-wrote a book about these findings with Dr. Robert Kulacz called “The Toxic Tooth.” About four or five years ago, Levy convinced a friend that she needed to extract three root canaled teeth. To get the lay of the land, he accompanied her to her 3D cone beam examination. 3D cone beam imaging is a very sophisticated in-depth examination that provides far more information than your average dental X-ray.

An ordinary X-ray (panorex), can find up to 40% of dental abscesses. If you do a slightly more sophisticated digital subtraction, you might add another 10% or 20%. The 3D cone beam examination, however, can find all of them. Levy explains:

“It’s three-dimensional, and they rotate it around your head. It’s tomography, they take slices. You can literally look at every part of the head. There’s a lot of information in there other than teeth, but it’s the only way we can currently detect small, otherwise undetectable, abscessed teeth.

This is important because once a tooth has an abscess, no matter how small, that tooth is dead and it’s just accumulating infection that can disseminate throughout the rest of your body …

[A 3D cone beam examination] is truly the single most important thing that can be done for a heart disease, a heart attack patient or a breast cancer patient, in addition to many other diseases but those are the two biggies. If this is not done, they’re missing — probably greater than 90% of the time — the true reason why they have that condition in the first place.”

Stealth Oral Infections Are Amazingly Common

Looking at the 3D images, it became apparent that Levy’s friend would need a fourth tooth extracted. Adjacent to the three root canaled teeth was another tooth with an abscess so large it protruded into her sinus cavity. Hers is the image on the cover of “Hidden Epidemic.”

The odd part about this was she had no pain in that tooth. Not then and not ever. This made Levy convinced that abscessed teeth could well be far more widespread than previously imagined.

In speaking with dentists, Levy also realized that most dentists fail to realize that horribly abscessed teeth can be clinically silent. You can chew on them, they feel fine, they don’t ache or hurt. Everybody thinks an infected tooth will trigger enormous pain, but chronically abscessed teeth have no discomfort at all well over 95% of the time.

“One dentist I talked to that had seen my book [‘The Toxic Tooth: How a Root Canal Could Be Making You Sick’] said, ‘Hey, I got a 3D cone beam exam and [patients have] those abscesses all over the place.

What are you supposed to do?’ I was stunned. I said, ‘They’re infected dead teeth. They need to come out of the body, and then you need to do a restoration, something along the lines of a bridge or an implant. But if you’re concerned about your patient’s health, they can’t stay inside the body.’”

Root Canals 101

To briefly summarize the conventional approach, when you have an abscess, the typical intervention recommended would be to perform a root canal. Levy explains:

“A root canal is basically where they shave off the top of the tooth and go inside with little roto-rooter cores, and they actually pull and scrape out the inner pulp of the tooth. The pulp is the nerve connective vascular center of the tooth. It has all the nerves, all the blood supply. The reason somebody goes to see the dentist with this type of tooth is because it hurts.

So, primarily, the root canal procedure is a pain relief procedure, but it’s not an infection eradication procedure. It’s basically like, if you have an abscess on your arm and it hurts, rather than take care of the abscess and drain it and cure it, all you do is snip all the nerves going to it so that you don’t feel pain from the abscess anymore. That’s pretty much the same with the root canaled tooth.

The problem is, once that pulp is infected, the tooth is dead. They say, well, if you feel pain, it can’t be dead. But you’re not feeling pain from the core of the tooth, you’re feeling pain from the connective tissue around the tooth, from the infection that goes down into the root of the tooth. Just because there’s pain does not rule out that the tooth is technically dead.

With a root canal, you’ve effectively taxidermized the tooth. You basically just put the tooth in a state of technical preservation, not infection elimination. And in both ‘Hidden Epidemic’ and in ‘The Toxic Tooth,’ we go through reams of literature.

Believe me, there’s a ton of literature that shows how toxic these teeth are, how closely they correlate with coronary artery disease and cancers everywhere else through the body. So, it’s always a nasty scenario to have a chronically infected tooth stay in your body.

The other thing too is, when you chew on it, what happens? Every time you chew on something that has a big abscess at the root tip, you actually push pathogens and toxins into the draining venous and lymphatic circulation more effectively than if you just gave something intravenously, pushed with a syringe, to disseminate throughout the body.”

Periodontitis and Its Connection to Disease

In the interview, I share my own experience with a stealth abscess, which I discovered in the weeks before the COVID-19 pandemic. I also found out I had periodontitis, which can exacerbate or trigger just about any chronic disease. As noted by Levy, periodontitis has “a cause and effect relationship with most diseases in the body.”

Typically, the periodontitis precedes the abscess. Once the gum inflammation gets bad enough and permits oral pathogens to reach the apex of the tooth, the abscess begins to form. A chronically abscessed tooth is known as a “chronic apical periodontitis tooth.” “It’s very difficult to have a chronically abscessed tooth in pristine normal gums, it just really doesn’t happen,” Levy says.

Once you have inflammation in the gums, however, pathogens seep into the lymph every time you chew, making its way to the breast tissue. It also seeps into your venous system, which leads into the left atrium and left ventricle of your heart. Your venous system going to the heart is low pressure, and as it exits the left ventricle it gets pushed out with very high pressure.

“This means that the content that previously traveled through the venous system without any problem suddenly goes out from the left ventricle with great force, and the coronary artery receiving roughly 25% of the cardiac output gets the lion’s share of the pathogens that are first exposed to high systemic pressures,” Levy explains.

“Clear-cut data show virtually 100% of atherosclerotic plaques are colonized by periodontal pathogen. Plain and simple, it’s another form of what we call the chronic pathogen colonization in ‘Rapid Virus Recovery,’ which is discussed at some length. There’s actually a most incredible study from 2006 by Dr. Ott. Ott did angiograms with what’s called atherectomy.

The atherectomy is basically like a coronary roto rooter. They just take a device and core out, scrape out the atherosclerotic plaque. He did this in 38 chronic coronary artery disease patients, examined them, and found an array, most of the time over 50 different periodontal and oral pathogens of all varieties. He found them in 38 out of 38 patients …

And then finally, the coup de grace, if you will, was when Dr. Pessi in Finland coordinated a study … to immediately angiogram acute heart attack patients. Most heart attacks occur when you have a preexisting narrowing that suddenly occludes when you block it off with an acute platelet clot. So, you go immediately from a 70% to 100%, 85% to 100% blockage of the coronary artery.

Well, they went in on these acute heart attack patients and suctioned out those soft platelet clots and analyzed them. Over 80% had an extremely high concentration of the periodontal pathogens in up to 1,600% higher concentration than in the surrounding blood. Now, do we really think a blood clot formed and suddenly pathogens got attracted to it?

No, it was the preexistence of those pathogens that caused the [blockage]. And the same thing happens in the breast, but we’re not talking about the vascular system there but the lymphatic system. So, the bottom line is we have the data … to show that the mouth causes heart attacks; the mouth causes cancer.”

Researchers have also shown that periodontitis can make your microbiome abnormal. As you chew, the pathogens are pushed out and swallowed. Once in your gut, they disrupt your gut microbiome, resulting in leaky gut, and this too “either causes or always exacerbates any preexisting diseases,” Levy says.

Diseases Associated With Periodontitis

In his book, “Hidden Epidemic,” Levy provides a comprehensive list of diseases that periodontitis is associated with. Two of the most prevalent ones are heart disease and cancers, especially breast cancer. Research shows people with abscessed teeth, even when completely asymptomatic, have a fivefold greater chance of heart attack than the general population.

Some detractors will say this is merely an association, not correlation. But there are other studies showing that chronic periodontitis exacerbates disease. For example, researchers have found chronic periodontitis worsens asthma, and when you effectively treat the periodontitis, the asthma either goes into remission or becomes easier to manage. When the periodontitis is allowed to flourish again, the asthma comes back.

“I find it difficult to get around the fact that that’s a cause and effect,” Levy says. “Even if there’s an underlying problem causing the asthma, clearly the periodontitis has a cause and effect relationship as to how severe that particular condition is.”

Other chronic conditions with known links to periodontitis include but are not limited to:

Lupus and other autoimmune diseases
Inflammatory bowel disease

Crohn’s disease
Ulcerative colitis

Multiple sclerosis
Preeclampsia

Maternal hypertension
Alzheimer’s disease

Chronic kidney disease
Sudden hearing loss

Erectile dysfunction
Congenital vascular disease

Levy says:

“[In] Dr. Huggins’ clinic, lots of people with vascular disease, autoimmune diseases, including lupus, with high antinuclear antibody titers would come in and, not all of them, but a substantial number of them, by the time they finished their program, in just two weeks, their antinuclear antibodies had severely dropped in titers or even disappeared.

I became convinced, and I am very convinced now, that you can’t have an autoimmune disease, per se, if you don’t have chronic infection because somewhere, not necessarily in the gums, it could be other sources, but statistically speaking, it’s most commonly going to be from the mouth. Also, any time you’ve had chronic periodontitis, one or two root canals, a chronically abscessed tooth, you have chronically infected tonsils …

Although treating disease is rarely straightforward — it’s complex, involves protocols, different things — in my opinion, the etiology of disease is straightforward.

The etiology of all disease is increased oxidation of biomolecules. As biomolecules oxidize, electrons are taken away, and they become inactivated. And their inactivation, their inability to have their normal function, is the disease. You don’t have any additional disease process going on other than how much protein, sugar, enzymes and various distributions of biomolecules that you have oxidized.

In the case of a brief but acute illness that causes a lot of oxidation, high amounts of antioxidants, such as vitamin C and other electron donors, can resolve the disease. That’s not the case with chronic disease, however. With chronic disease, it appears all you can do is lessen it, mitigate it, make it better.

Way back when I was talking about this with Dr. Huggins, he rolled his eyes back at me in his delightful sarcastic fashion and said, ‘Tom … You can’t dry off while you’re still in the shower.’ That, in a nutshell shined a spotlight on the fact that modern medicine does not prevent nor resolve. They just treat symptoms. They don’t address the underlying disease, they don’t repair tissues, and they never look at what’s causing the oxidative damage.”

Effective Treatment Requires Quelling Inflow of Toxicity

While alternative and integrative medicine is getting very good at repairing oxidative damage that’s already present, many still fail to effectively prevent new damage from occurring. When you have an infection in your mouth, your system is flooded with new pathogens 24/7. The constant onslaught makes it very difficult to resolve a chronic condition.

“It saddens me every time I hear somebody say, ‘I went through this great alternative doc and I’m getting better and my breast lump is going down.’ And I say, ‘Well did he do any examination of your mouth?’ They say, ‘What are you talking about?’

I ask ‘Do you have any root canals?’ ‘Yeah, I have a couple, but they’re fine.’ Well, they’re not fine. And when you do thermography, you can see the red lines going from the heated areas of abscess streaking right on down into the breasts. Of course, you can’t see it with the heart disease, but it’s the same thing with the heart.

So, in a nutshell then, modern medicine doesn’t recognize or acknowledge what causes disease and it doesn’t really care what cures the disease. All it’s dedicated to is symptom relief and trying to make you feel better while staying on a medicine the rest of your life.

Integrative medicine always looks at trying to resolve oxidative damage and is starting to appreciate that we need to look for these causative factors that are producing the oxidative damage and keeping the patient from complete clinical resolution.”

Aside from abscessed teeth, certain dietary components can also drive harmful oxidation. Some of the most damaging are industrial vegetable oils and seed oils, which are loaded with oxidized linoleic acid (LA), an omega-6 fat. As detailed in “How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health,” the primary way LA destroys your health is by radically increasing oxidative stress. So, radically limiting or eliminating processed seed oils from your diet can make a big difference.

Who Should Get a 3D Cone Beam Exam?

Whether you have discernible symptoms of a dental abscess or not, if you have a chronic health condition, your first step would be to get a 3D cone beam exam done. Levy recommends this for children as well, especially if they have cancer.

“If your 5-year-old gets leukemia or a brain tumor or something like that, they need to have this test done because kids get abscessed infected teeth too that are pain-free just like adults,” he says.

“The other example I like to use too is, when you’re an athlete — you’re in your 20s and in perfect health — it’s still a good idea, as part of your baseline examinations, to get this exam. If you have healthy teeth, great. Then when you’re 35, 40 years old, you start getting aches and pains, your blood sugar goes up, you’re getting a new disease. Then you repeat that test to see if something new has developed.”

If you worry about radiation exposure, know that this imaging technology uses about 90% less radiation than a conventional CT scan. You can also minimize oxidative stress from the radiation by fasting the day before and the day after the test, and/or drinking a pint of high-concentration molecular hydrogen water created from the tablets, not a hydrogen water generator. That’s what I do when I get these tests.

How to Address Oral Infections

In early stages of abscess, dental ozone therapy can be very useful and might save the tooth by eradicating the infection. In severe cases, however, the tooth simply must be extracted. The damage is done and you cannot fix it. The tooth is dead and must be removed or else infection will return again and again.

Warm water and a given amount of hydrogen peroxide in a water irrigation device consistently and amazingly can resolve even advanced periodontal disease in just a few weeks. ~ Dr. Thomas Levy

Naturally, the earlier you intervene, the better your chances of success. Remember, periodontitis precedes the abscess, so treating gum inflammation is crucial.

Here, irrigating with hydrogen peroxide can be very effective. Simply add hydrogen peroxide to your dental irrigator. I put about half a dropperful of 12% food grade hydrogen peroxide into my Waterpik irrigation water, plus one-eighth teaspoon of unprocessed salt and one-eighth teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate or potassium bicarbonate.

“Warm water and a given amount of hydrogen peroxide in a water irrigation device consistently and amazingly can resolve even advanced periodontal disease in just a few weeks,” Levy says.

“When you get rid of these pathogens, the gums spring back to life. I saw one lady who had no gum coming up between her teeth, just little flat lines, and I got her on this. Two weeks later, she had the healthiest looking little peaks of gum going on in there. With the waterpik and the tiny amount of hydrogen peroxide as part of your regular oral hygiene, there’s no need — and I would say even a contra indication — to do regular flossing.

Flossing, unless it’s done perfectly, and very few people do it perfectly, you’re always chronically damaging the gums and it’s not as good. If you floss and then waterpik, you’ll see stuff come out. If you waterpik and then floss, you’re not going to get anything more.”

Hydrogen Peroxide and Vitamin C Work Hand in Hand

In addition to irrigating with hydrogen peroxide, you also need to ensure you have an adequate vitamin C level. The hydrogen peroxide needs to be married with vitamin C for optimal effect. Smokers deplete their vitamin C stores in the gums and other tissues, which is why smokers are so prone to periodontitis and heart disease. But nonsmokers also tend to have depleted vitamin C stores that will prevent the elimination of pathogens. The same is true for acute viral infections.

In addition to vitamin C depletion, pathogenic infections are fueled by the presence of iron. So, the more iron there is, the more the infection flourishes. Iron is also a pro-oxidant in and of itself. When vitamin C enters a cell, it releases an electron, turning ferric iron into ferrous iron. Ferrous iron is biochemically compatible with passing that electron on to the hydrogen peroxide, which breaks down into a hydroxyl radical that causes oxidative stress, which in turn kills the pathogen.

The key point is you need to continuously have enough vitamin C, iron and hydrogen peroxide in your system so that the Fenton reaction can operate and destroy all the pathogens present, or else they’ll just replicate and take over again.

“Also, guess what else the vitamin C does? Outside of the cell, it’s the most powerful producer of new hydrogen peroxide. So, at the same time the vitamin C is going into the cell, it’s producing more peroxide outside of the cell, which is a nonionic tiny molecule that diffuses into the cell. The hydrogen peroxide, once it’s inside the cell, mobilizes new iron from the ferritin storage sites.

So, you have a situation where you’ve completely allowed unlimited amounts of the three substrates in the Fenton reaction to continue to completion until it’s done its pro-oxidative killing task. So, in every sense of the word, hydrogen peroxide is the effector arm of vitamin C’s ability to kill a pathogen,” Levy explains.

So, the take-home message here is that whether you’re dealing with an oral infection, or an infection caused by, say, a virus, vitamin C in combination with hydrogen peroxide can effectively address the infection. In the case of respiratory infections, you wouldn’t irrigate with peroxide, rather you’d nebulize it. Levy provides all the details on this in his free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” hyperlinked at the beginning of this article.

Nebulizing hydrogen peroxide can also help to address leaky gut by eradicating harmful pathogens there. “When you stop the brand-new oxidative pathogen toxin stress from dumping in, it’s incredible how rapidly a leaky gut can heal,” Levy says.

Other Strategies to Optimize Your Oral and Physical Health

In addition to regular irrigation with hydrogen peroxide and vitamin C supplementation, get into the habit of scraping your tongue. Your tongue has large amounts of pathogens on it, and manually scraping off the surface gunk will help keep the pathogen count low. Also, Levy recommends seeing a biological dentist for your checkups, someone who uses ozone therapy, so that you can get your tonsils injected with ozone.

“That’s the only way to resolve the chronic infection in them,” he says. “It’s not a big deal. It takes a few seconds, stings a little bit just like a local anesthetic, and then it’s all over. And it doesn’t require but maybe two or three visits. You just tack them onto whatever else you’re doing at the dentist. If you have a dentist who hasn’t done it and the dentist wants to email me or talk to me, that’s perfectly fine. I’m here to help.”

If, like me, you’re prone to hard calculus deposits on your teeth, you can use a scale remover to scrape around your teeth along the gum line. According to Levy, the buildup of scale on your teeth typically occurs when there’s a slight imbalance in your calcium-to-phosphorus ratio. Weston A. Price established that you ideally want a calcium-to-phosphorus ratio of 2 1/2-to-1. “Roughly a calcium of 10 and a phosphorus of 4,” Levy says.

Another contributing factor could be infection. When oxidative stress is high, it causes your reverse T3 to elevate, causing a deranged free T3 to reverse T3 ratio.

“All of that not only causes a predilection toward calcium depositing, it also causes the predilection toward focal infections metastasizing and focal cancers metastasizing,” Levy says. “Oxidative stress is primarily regulated by your thyroid function. Your thyroid function has to be perfect. That’s one of the things that doctors need to do right along with getting the 3D cone beam exam — make sure your T3 to reverse T3 ratio is perfect.”

To learn more, be sure to download your free copy of “Hidden Epidemic: Silent Oral Infections Cause Most Heart Attacks and Breast Cancers.” More details on hydrogen peroxide can be found in “Rapid Virus Recovery,” which is also available as a free download.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/04/thomas-levy-hidden-epidemic.aspx

In this interview, return guest Dr. Vladimir Zelenko discusses an incredibly serious concern, one shared with at least two other highly credible experts — Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a life science researcher and former vice-president and chief scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer, and professor Luc Montagnier, a world-renowned virologist who won the Nobel prize for his discovery of HIV.

Yeadon, Montagnier and Zelenko all believe the COVID-19 shots could reduce life expectancy by several decades, depending on several factors, including whether you’re required to get booster shots. In fact, there may be reason to suspect that many who get the jabs and subsequent boosters could lose their lives within two to three years, as a result of pathogenic priming.1,2

Many may not realize that when I was a youngster I was a Boy Scout, but you might know their motto is “Be Prepared.” It is an approach that has served me well over the years. I am not stating unequivocally that dire outcome will materialize, as my interview next week with Dr. Peter McCullough goes into. However, it would seem prudent to have a good protocol in your hands in anticipation of a worst-case scenario.

So, on that note, Zelenko and I take a deep dive into what can be done to prevent such a fate. Zelenko categorizes the risks of COVID-19 “vaccines” into three categories: acute, subacute and long-term, so let’s begin by reviewing the primary risks found in each of these categories.

Risk Category No. 1 — Acute Risks

The acute phase of harm begins at the moment of injection and likely lasts for about three months or so. Based on reports filed with the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), it’s clear that many cannot survive past the acute phase.

About 6,000 deaths have been reported so far, and death commonly occurs within 48 hours of injection. Many serious disabling events also occur rather rapidly, typically within a few days or weeks. However, Zelenko has a very dismal perspective on the accuracy of the VAERS database. He explains:

“According to a paper published by the Salk Institute in San Diego, they’ve discovered that the spike protein that’s generated through the vaccination itself has negative health effects. It’s toxic … on its own …

There’s plenty of evidence that shows that it spreads from the injection site and goes to the bloodstream, and basically comes into every single cell in the body.3,4

mRNA has a half-life of around one to two weeks, depending on the mRNA, and during that interim, each mRNA molecule makes around 2,000 to 5,000 spike proteins. So, we’re talking about trillions and trillions of spike proteins.

Your entire body becomes a spike protein factory. Several orders of magnitude more than if you were to get COVID, because COVID infects the upper and lower airways primarily. Those are the cells that get infected and begin to produce spike proteins. But here we’re injecting the vaccine and it actually travels to every single cell in your body and converts every single cell in your body into a factory for spike proteins.”

As the mRNA disseminates through your vascular system, the cells lining your blood vessels begin producing spike protein. This is why we’re seeing such a staggering number of reports of people experiencing blood clots from these injections.

According to Zelenko, 40% of these events occur within the first two days after injection. The risk then diminishes, but vascular events such as heart attacks, strokes, renal infarcts and pulmonary infarcts don’t completely peter out until about three months after the last injection.

But these events of the past three months are not being reported to VAERS. It is, of course, possible that people simply aren’t connecting them to the COVID shot they got several months earlier.

How Many Have Actually Died From the COVID Shots?

As noted by Zelenko, underreporting is part of the problem we’re facing. The real number of side effects is impossible to determine, given the fact that the Food and Drug Administration didn’t insist on a robust post-vaccination data collection system, but it’s most certainly higher than what VAERS is listing.

“If you look at the VAERS [vaccine adverse event reporting system], which in my opinion is a piece of garbage … as of today, let’s say says there’s 6,000 deaths associated with taking the vaccine. Well, we need to understand what that actually means,” Zelenko says.

“If you look at the 2009 Harvard study on the VAERS system, they said only 1% of events are actually reported. So, OK … whatever the number is, it’s not 6,000. Maybe only 10% are being reported. I don’t know. But definitely it’s being underreported.

And then there’s two [additional] big problems. There’s evidence coming out that VAERS reports that have been filed are being erased off the server, No. 1. No. 2, I personally know of two dozen cases of deaths associated with the vaccine, and the doctor and/or family members that tried to file a VAERS report, their reports were rejected due to some technicality.

The fact that they all couldn’t make a report, that raises my eyebrows. What percentage of the information are we actually seeing? The answer is, I estimate, there are already around 200,000 dead Americans, directly related to the vaccinations.”

To get to that number, Zelenko assumes only 10%5 of adverse effects are reported. Studies have indicated it could be as low as 1%.6,7 That gives us a death toll of about 60,000, to which he adds another 140,000 given the fact that reports are being scrubbed and refused.

“The point is that it should definitely raise eyebrows and have the public start screaming and saying, ‘We want to know the truth. We want to know the accurate numbers. Stop suppressing the truth … I want to be able to make an informed choice whether or not I want to take this injection.’ And that’s not being given to the people.

My problem is not with the vaccine. My problem is with the government, governing bodies and certain people that are obstructing the flow of life saving information and suppressing the truth from people, and then using coercion to force people to take this vaccine. That’s the nefarious part.

The suppression is so blatant and so overt that doctors with impeccable credentials are being deplatformed for just voicing an opinion. And then you couple that together with proven prehospital treatment approaches and protocols that have been proven to reduce hospitalization and death by 85%, and that information is being suppressed.

So here you have a dual censorship where the positive, hopeful, life-saving information is being suppressed and the dangerous outcomes of the vaccination approach is being suppressed. It’s a perfect setup for genocide.”

Risk Category No. 2 — Subacute Risks

The subacute risk phase, which begins around three months’ post-injection, is exceedingly difficult to quantify. At bare minimum, it’s likely to last several months to a couple of years. The primary concern now is antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), also referred to as pathogenic priming and/or paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE) as it more accurately describes the disease mechanism.

Zelenko believes the mRNA will have degraded by this time, and your cells will hopefully no longer produce spike protein. I believe he may be overly optimistic here, as the synthetic mRNA has been genetically modified to be less perishable, plus it’s encased in a nanolipid to resist breakdown.

I suspect this modified mRNA may remain viable far longer than anyone suspects, thanks to its synthetic nature. What’s more, there’s a mechanism by which the mRNA can be reverse transcribed into your DNA, which would make the spike protein production permanent — and probably intergenerational. I describe this process in “The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health.”

If Zelenko is correct, then the primary disease agent now switches from the spike protein to the antibodies produced in response to the spike protein. We don’t know how long these antibodies will last, but chances are they’ll stick around for a number of months or years.

While antibody production is the primary purpose of these shots, and the response said to provide you an immune benefit, they can actually be the source of problems.

Animal trials in which conventional coronavirus vaccines were tested have shown coronavirus vaccines routinely cause ADE,8,9,10,11,12 so when the animals are challenged with the real virus they’ve been immunized against, they can get seriously ill and even die. If hospitals start filling up with vaccinated individuals this fall, you’ll know why. They’re suffering the effects of ADE.

“In other words, those antibodies that were produced with the vaccination were pathologic,” Zelenko says. “They were lethal and they led to an exaggerated immune response. That’s what it means, antibody-dependent enhancement. It’s an enhancement of your immune response in a way that it will kill you …

The question is, how safe is it long-term, or in the subacute [phase] from three months to three years? That is a big question mark. Based on animal models — and this is what Dr. Mike Yeadon is saying — it could be absolutely genocidal. It’s the biggest gamble on the survival of humanity in the history of humanity.”

However, as a counter to this view, Dr. Peter McCullough, who is in complete agreement with the engineering of this event and it being one of the most egregious crimes against humanity, is not convinced that there will be a massive die-off in the fall.

He is well-trained in the science and has essentially completed a fellowship in COVID-19 along with being the senior editor of two prestigious medical journals so his opinion also deserves consideration. We will be posting his interview next Sunday, July 11, 2021.

Why Is Humanity’s Survival Being Risked?

The questions on many people’s mind right now are, “Why are lifesaving early treatment approaches suppressed?” “Why are the toxic side effects and death rates of the vaccines being suppressed?” and “Why are entire continents being coerced into taking a vaccine that is both medically unnecessary and unproven in terms of safety and effectiveness?”

Taken together, none of it makes any sense, which is why people like Yeadon, Montagnier, Zelenko and others are raising concerns about global genocide. Is that what this is all about? Is there an alternative interpretation of what’s happening? When you consider the actual data, mass vaccination simply isn’t necessary, so why the frantic push to get a needle in every arm? Zelenko explains:

“There’s something called medical necessity. So, let’s analyze if there’s any medical necessity for this vaccine, and you have to do that in a systematic way based on demographics.

If you look at the CDC’s data, anyone 18 and younger has a 99.998% chance of recovery from COVID-19 with no treatment. [Their risk of dying is] 1 in a million. It’s safer than influenza virus. If you gave me a choice, I would rather my kids have COVID-19 than influenza. So, why would I immunize a demographic that has close to 100% chance of recovery with an experimental vaccine that has already killed more kids than the virus?

If you look at the demographic between 18 and 45, people who are healthy have a 99.95% chance of recovery with no treatment … according to the CDC. Same question, why would I vaccinate a demographic that recovers on its own with no treatment?

Third question, if someone has antibodies — and there’s a plethora of evidence [showing] naturally produced antibodies are much more effective in clearing future viruses than vaccine-induced antibodies … Natural immunity is much better, more effective and safer, than vaccine-induced immunity. So, someone who has antibodies already from having COVID before, why would I vaccinate them? …

Fear is an extremely useful tool in manipulating the behavior of people. And that fear has been used to create a psychological motivation to get vaccinated with a vaccine that, in my opinion, has no medical necessity, has tremendous amount of actual and potential risks, and very questionable efficacy.”

Risk Category No. 3 — Long-Term Risks

Beyond the two-to three-year mark are the long-term risks, which are even more difficult to predict. One particularly difficult risk to predict or quantify is infertility. It’ll take decades before we have the data on reproductive effects. Women in their 20s who get the jab might not get serious about trying to get pregnant until they’re in their 30s.

Teens and young children will have to wait decades before fertility can be ascertained. Of course, by then, it’ll be too late. The damage will be done, and hundreds of millions will be in the same boat.

Zelenko cites research published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which concluded COVID vaccination during pregnancy had no increased risk of miscarriage. However, a closer look at the data set revealed that this was only true for women who got vaccinated during their third trimester. Women who get the COVID jab in their first and second trimester have a 24-fold higher risk of miscarriage.

There are also reports of declining sperm counts and testicular swelling in men, and menstrual cycle disruptions in women of all ages. “There is an absolute effect on fertility,” Zelenko says. We just don’t know to what degree yet.

Overall life expectancy is likely to be affected across the board but, again, it’s very difficult to predict just how many years or decades will be lost. Zelenko, like many other doctors, suspect autoimmune diseases and cancer rates will go up as a result of the jabs. As noted by Zelenko:

“Whether you look at the acute spike protein-induced death, the miscarriages, or the myocarditis in young adults, or you look at the subacute pathogenic priming issue, or you look at the potential long-term effects of infertility, auto immune disease and cancer, you have an absolute setup for a genocide. And that’s why these world-leading thought leaders, scientists, are cautioning people …

Let’s do a thought experiment. If COVID-19 were to infect every single human being on this planet and was not to be treated, what would be the overall global death rate? The answer is less than 1%, and I’m not advocating for that, by the way. That’s a lot of people still.

Now, what is going to be the death rate from global vaccination? That is going to be several orders of magnitude greater. And it actually depends how far out you look. Because if someone’s meant to live 80 years and they live 60 years, how do you quantify that? …

We’re talking about 1.5 to 2 billion people [dying] for no reason, except the agendas of a few psychopaths or sociopaths. Why do I say that? It’s because there have been people advocating for population reduction for decades. I just saw a video from [U.K. prime minister] Boris Johnson’s father … advocating for the reduction of England’s population to 15 million …

This type of ideology exists. In this generation, it’s not really anti-Semitic. What it is, is there’s a small group of sociopaths that believe … they’ve evolved into a superhuman enlightened [state] that entitles them the right to dictate the course of history.

For example, Bill Gates in 2015 said the world population needs to be reduced by a certain percentage because of global warming or whatever. So, my question is a very simple question. He’s one of the main supporters and profiteers of global vaccination. Why would I take a vaccine for my health from someone is advocating for the reduction of the world population?

Another scary individual is Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum. He’s very influential. He wrote the book ‘COVID-19 The Great Reset.’ In 2016, in a French interview … Schwab made an announcement that within 10 years, all of humanity will be tagged with an identifier. If you look at the UN 2030 plan, which was crafted by the World Economic Forum, it says ‘America will no longer be a superpower.’

That’s a stated agenda. Then, my favorite is, ‘You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy. You won’t eat any meat. Fossil fuels will be prohibited. There’ll be a billion refugees, which will have to be integrated into your societies.’ So, my question is, what sociopath feels entitled to make a statement like ‘You will own nothing and you will be happy’?

What entitles this type of individual, or group of individuals, to think that way? Well, they believe that they’re enlightened far beyond the average human or subhuman.”

War Against God

Zelenko, a devout Jew, believes the root of this global takeover is really a war against God. The implication is that life has sanctity, and if life has sanctity, we have human rights, “earned” by our birth alone. This is the source of natural law. And, if we have human rights, handed down by God, then no one has the right to decide how long any one of us should live, or how many people there should be on the planet.

“That’s God’s prerogative,” Zelenko says. “However, if you take that out and view people as no different than an animal, a Darwinist perspective or eugenics perspective, and basically survival of the fittest is the yardstick that you measure the dominance hierarchy of humanity, in that case, these people feel that they are on top of the pyramid, and that entitles them to decide if you and me should live …

I call the [COVID] vaccine ‘Zyklon-V.’ That is the gas the Nazis used to kill my relatives. So to express my sentiments, I call it Zyklon-V. It’s an absolute weapon of mass destruction. People are being lied to, and they’re running into the gas chambers themselves because of the pathogenic fear.”

How to Protect Your Health Post-Jab

If you or someone you know or love got the COVID jab and now have serious regrets, there are definite strategies you can use to protect your health.

It appears if you made it through the first three months OK, then your risk for blood clots is likely radically diminished. To counteract excessive clotting, an anticoagulant may be appropriate. A natural alternative with great promise is n-acetyl cysteine (NAC), as it has both anticoagulant13 and thrombolytic effects,14 meaning it may both prevent clots and break up clots that have already formed. Obviously, do not get any more booster shots.

In the subacute phase, your No. 1 goal will be to avoid ADE. The key to this is to avoid triggering a pathogenic immune reaction, and the only way to do that is to implement some sort of prophylactic protocol, i.e., a COVID, common cold and influenza prevention protocol.

This is especially important for anyone that has received the COVID jab as they are at a high risk of having complications and are under the false impression that they are “protected” when actually they are at increased risk now that they got the jab and need to take extraordinary precautions.

Any symptoms of upper respiratory infection should also be treated immediately, not later. COVID is a multi-phase disease. The first phase is the viral phase, which lasts five to seven days. This is when it’s most easily treated. After Day 7, the disease typically progresses into the inflammatory phase, which requires different treatment.

Zinc supplementation is an important component for prevention and early treatment in the viral stage, as it impairs viral replication. You need to take it with a zinc ionophore, however, such as quercetin, EGCG (green tea extract), hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin.

“The majority of the COVID protocols focus on inhibition of our RNA virus replication. What that means is that for a virus to make copies of itself, it needs to enter the human cell. In the case of RNA viruses, all the COVID, coronaviruses and even the influenza viruses, they use a common pathway called RNA dependent RNA polymerase. That’s a very important enzyme.

That enzyme is what makes copies of the viral genetic material, which then enables for new viruses to be formed and spread. So, if you inhibit the viral RNA replication process, you’ll eliminate viral spreading, viral growth. The beautiful thing about what we found with zinc is that zinc inhibits this enzyme extremely well, if there’s another zinc [molecule] inside the cell.

But zinc cannot really get into the cell on its own. That’s where the concept of zinc ionophores come in. Zinc ionophores opens the door in the cell membrane and allows for zinc to go from outside of the cell, to inside of the cell. And when you increase the concentration of zinc inside the cell, then it can effectively inhibit this enzyme, stopping most if not all, coronaviruses and influenza viruses from replicating.”

If you want to use either hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and live in a state that restricts their use, look for online telehealth options. The American Frontline Doctors is one resource. They only charge $90 for a consultation and you will be able to get the prescription that you need. Do not use Ivermectin from veterinary sources as it may be contaminated and is not designed for human use.

If you’ve gotten the jab, consider yourself high risk for COVID and implement a daily prophylaxis protocol. This means optimizing your vitamin D, and taking vitamin C, zinc and a zinc ionophore on a daily basis, at least throughout cold and flu season.

In addition to zinc and a zinc ionophore, you also need to optimize your vitamin D level. The range you’re looking for is 60 ng/mL to 80 ng/mL year-round. The appropriate dose of oral vitamin D3 is the dose that gets you within that range.

Vitamin C is another important component, especially if you’re taking quercetin, as they have synergistic effects. To effectively act as a zinc ionophore, the quercetin needs vitamin C.

In an effort to make it easier for patients, Zelenko has developed an oral supplement that contains all four: vitamin C, quercetin, vitamin D3 and zinc. It’s called Z-Stack and can be purchased on zstacklife.com. For a downloadable “cheat sheet” of Zelenko’s protocol for COVID-19, visit VladimirZelenkoMD.com

The take-home message here is that if you’ve gotten the jab, consider yourself high risk for COVID and implement a daily prophylaxis protocol. This means optimizing your vitamin D, and taking vitamin C, zinc and a zinc ionophore on a daily basis, at least throughout cold and flu season.

It would also be useful to do a daily sauna. Ideally one that can heat up to 170 degrees Fahrenheit. The best saunas are far-infrared and have low EMFs. Sadly, I don’t know any that go to 170 degrees and are low EMF.

I use one that goes to 170 and then I turn it off and turn on the SaunaSpace four near IR bulb system in the sauna and go in for 20 minutes. This practice activates heat shock proteins which will help remove the spike proteins and improve other damaged proteins in your body.

If you’re low risk for COVID and have not been vaccinated, make sure you have these items on hand and begin treating at the very first signs of cold or flu symptoms.

Strategies to Lower Risk in Those Who Received COVID Jab

Nebulized hydrogen peroxide 0.1%
Daily or more frequently if needed

NAC (N-acetyl Cysteine)
500 mg once a day

Zinc
15 mg once a day

Vitamin C
500 mg once a day or 250 mg twice a day

Eliminate ALL vegetable (seed) oils
Goal is zero

Vitamin D
Most adults need 8000 IU per day but it is imperative to check blood levels 60-80 ng/ml or 100-150 nmol/l

Daily sauna
20 minutes at 170 degrees will help destroy spike proteins

Time restricted eating
Helps remove spike proteins through autophagy

Seek to eat organic only foods, especially avoid the dirty dozen
This will help limit glyphosate intake

Nebulized Peroxide and Other Health Promoting Measures

In addition to NAC (to prevent and break up clots), vitamin D, vitamin C, quercetin and zinc, buy yourself a tabletop jet nebulizer, some saline solution and food grade hydrogen peroxide. You’ll want to dilute the peroxide with saline to get a 0.1% solution.Due to risks to my personal safety we had to remove the nebulized peroxide videos from the site but they are now up on our sustack site and you can view all of them here

Nebulized peroxide is my personal go-to both for prevention and treatment, regardless of the stage the respiratory infection is in. To learn more, download Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” As a preventive measure, simply nebulize every other day. Vitamin C is important here too, as it works as a catalyst for the peroxide. A daily dose of 500 milligrams would likely be sufficient for most.

We were forced to remove all the hydrogen peroxide videos that I had previously posted for liability reasons but fortunately they are all now posted on our Substack site. This is important as, in my view, this is the most important step you can take. I would recommend nebulizing a 0.1% solution every day as indicated in the videos, linked below.

There is no danger in doing it every day and likely there is a health benefit. As Dr. Tom Levy describes in one of the videos below, it seems to help improve your bowel movements, which may be a result of eliminating respiratory pathogens that were having negative impact on your microbiome.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< Other important health-preserving strategies include the following: • Make sure you’re metabolically flexible so that your body can seamlessly transition between burning fat and sugar as your primary fuel. This will allow your innate immune system to function optimally. Time-restricted eating is one surefire way to accomplish this. • Avoid processed seed oils in your diet, such as sunflower oil, corn oil, safflower oil or avocado oils. All contain high levels of linoleic acid, which impairs your mitochondrial function, and in upper respiratory infections, it's the precursor for the Leukotoxin that occurs in these infections. • Focus on certified-organic foods to minimize your glyphosate exposure, and include plenty of sulfur-rich foods to keep your mitochondria and lysosomes healthy. Both are important for the clearing of cellular debris, including these spike proteins. You can also boost your sulfate by taking Epsom salt baths. • To combat the toxicity of the spike protein, you’ll want to optimize autophagy, as this may help digest and remove the spike proteins. Time-restricted eating will upregulate autophagy, while sauna therapy, which upregulates heat shock proteins, will help refold misfolded proteins. They also tag damaged proteins and target them for removal. It is important that your sauna is hot enough (around 170 degrees Fahrenheit) and does not have high magnetic or electric fields. • If you’re having post-vaccination symptoms, you could consider: ? Low-dose interferons such as Paximune, to stimulate your immune system ? Peptide T (an HIV entry inhibitor derived from the HIV envelope protein gp120; it blocks binding and infection of viruses that use the CCR5 receptor to infect cells) ? Cannabis, to strengthen Type I interferon pathways, which are part of your first line of defense against pathogens ? Dimethylglycine or betaine (trimethylglycine) to enhance methylation, thereby suppressing latent viruses ? Silymarin or milk thistle to help cleanse your liver
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/04/covid-vaccine-risks.aspx

If you’ve been reading my newsletter, you know that cosmetics and personal care products have often tested positive for toxic chemicals. Now, a new study1 conducted by researchers at the University of Notre Dame found that more than half of common U.S. cosmetics tested contain high levels of industrial compounds associated with various health conditions, including cancer.

One chemical found in an “alarming” number of products from popular stores such as Target, Ulta, Sephora and Bed, Bath and Beyond was fluorine, which is part of the alphabet soup known as perfluorinated chemicals, historically abbreviated as PFC. Perfluorinated chemicals include perfluorocarbons and other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, collectively known as PFAS,2 but also referred to as PFOA and PFOS.3

PFAS are sometimes referred to as “the Teflon chemicals”4 or “forever chemicals” since they do not breakdown in the environment.5 They are used by manufacturers to make products water-, oil-, grease- and stain-resistant. They are also found in firefighting foam.

According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,6 there are more than 4,700 PFAS chemicals in existence and the number continues to rise as the industry invents new forms. Prompted by pressure from the FDA, DuPont and 3M voluntarily phased out two of the thousands of PFAS chemicals, PFOS and PFOA, in the early 2000s.7

While these two chemicals are no longer manufactured in the U.S., documentation from the FDA reveals that “phased out” doesn’t necessarily mean “not being used” anywhere. In fact, there are limited ongoing uses of PFOS8 and the EPA says:9

“Although PFOA and PFOS are no longer manufactured in the United States, they are still produced internationally and can be imported into the United States in consumer goods such as carpet, leather and apparel, textiles, paper and packaging, coatings, rubber and plastics.”

This means that although the manufacture of these toxic chemicals may have stopped in the U.S., they still can arrive back in the country via products made elsewhere. And, when it comes to cosmetics, the three-year study at Notre Dame, published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters,10 clearly indicates that the problem of PFAS chemicals in makeup is an ongoing issue, including a lack of labeling.

Forever Chemicals Found in Nearly Half of Cosmetics Tested

To assess the potential environmental burden of PFAS in makeup, researchers from the university purchased 231 cosmetic products in eight categories commonly purchased throughout the U.S. and Canada. The categories included lip, eye, face and eyebrow products and foundations, mascaras and concealers.11

The researchers purchased cosmetics from stores in Indiana and Michigan and tested them for fluorine. Although the ingredients lists didn’t show PFAS by name, the scientists found that a number of products had precursors of the harmful chemicals in them, including fluorine, in:12

56% of foundations and eye products
48% of lip products
47% of mascaras

Many of the products that tested positive were also labeled “long-lasting” or “wear-resistant.”13 The researchers did not identify specific cosmetic companies, instead calling the issue “widespread.”14

Fluorine is a PFAS chemical that contaminates the water supply and can bioaccumulate in the body. The researchers also found the products tested positive for alcohol, methacrylate and phosphate esters that are precursors to PFAs, also known to be harmful to human health.15

The presence and amount of these chemicals was concerning. Just as important was the revelation that only one of the products tested listed PFAS chemicals on the ingredient label. Graham Peaslee was the principal investigator. He spoke with a journalist from The Washington Post saying:16

“We were shocked to see how much is in some of these products … There’s no way for an average consumer to read a label and understand what’s in the product they just purchased. They can’t trust the label and that can be fixed.”

Senate Bill Proposed to Ban PFAS in Makeup

In June of 2021, Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., introduced a bipartisan bill that would require the FDA to ban all PFAS chemicals in cosmetic products. The bill is called the “No PFAS in Cosmetics Act.” Collins and Blumenthal believe that “Americans should be able to trust that the products they are applying to their hair or skin are safe.”17

The Act is intended to direct the FDA to issue a rule that bans the intentional addition of PFAS in cosmetics. Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group (EWG) said in a press release from Collins:18

“Toxic forever chemicals have no place in personal care products. PFAS have been linked to serious health problems, including cancer and harm to the reproductive and immune systems. EWG applauds Senator Collins for introducing the No PFAS in Cosmetics Act. Once again, Senator Collins is making the safety of cosmetics and other personal care products a top priority.”

Collins has introduced other legislation in the past alongside Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Together they have championed the Personal Care Products Safety Act that was introduced in the Senate over four terms.19,20,21

The Act was a sweeping bill written to reform the regulation of personal care products and empower the FDA to review ingredients.22 The FDA would have been given authority to inspect factories, records and require recalls of dangerous products. Cosmetic companies would also have been charged with providing $20.6 million annually in fee revenue.

The first time it was introduced in the House in 2013-2014,23 Rep. Janice Schakowsky, D-Ill., sponsored the legislation. The most recent reintroduction to Congress was the 2019-2020 term. In each term, the bill was defeated.

The new No PFAS in Cosmetics Act has a more finite mandate to ban a specific chemical in cosmetic products. Without the added fee structure and additional power given to the FDA in past legislation, this may be the inroad needed to start protecting consumers. Janet Nudelman, director of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners’ Campaign for Safe Cosmetics said:24

“It is beyond outrageous that PFAS chemicals that are contaminating our drinking water and threatening human health because of their links to breast and other cancers, reproductive harm and endocrine disruption are hiding in the beauty and personal care products women use every day.”

Food Packaging and Drinking Water Are Contaminated

Unfortunately, one common belief is that if a product is released on the market and sold to the public it must be safe. In 2020, 33 scientists signed a consensus statement to plead with lawmakers to take “swift action to reduce exposure” to plastics in food packaging.25,26 In it they included 1,200 peer-reviewed studies to support their statement. One of those plastics is PFAS.

Nearly 10 years ago there were 6,000 authorized chemicals that could be used in food packaging. Jane Muncke of the Food Packaging Forum, and one of the consensus statement contributors, states that the latest number is nearly 12,000.27

The Environmental Defense Fund has written about the FDA process that led to the acceptance of plastics in contact with food. They have clarified a few misconceptions, some of which include:28

Manufacturers’ claims that anything in contact with food, such as PFAS, must be reviewed before being marketed and sold — Actually, manufacturers use a loophole in the “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) rule meant to exempt common ingredients such as vinegar and baking soda, to bypass FDA review of their chemicals.
The FDA requires in-depth toxicology studies before allowing chemicals in contact with foods on the market — In reality, all a company has to do is provide the chemical, toxicological and environmental data it has.
Manufacturers’ data sheets are clear and concise — On the contrary, in an EDF review of 31 applications accepted by the FDA, the amount of information varied, but the toxicity data was consistently poor.
The FDA continually reviews product safety — The truth is once a food contact substance is allowed, there is no process to evaluate further evidence the chemical may be dangerous, and the agency has no duty to reassess the decision.

These dangers are also reaching your drinking water. The EWG commissioned a test in dozens of U.S. cities which showed contamination had been dramatically underestimated. EWG scientists believe the family of PFAS chemicals may be:29

“… detectable in all major water supplies in the U.S., almost certainly in all that use surface water. EWG’s tests also found chemicals from the PFAS family that are not commonly tested for in drinking water.”

A collaboration between Consumer Reports and The Guardian30 analyzed the water supply of 120 people who volunteered to send in water samples from around the U.S. The group represented a cross-section of each of the EPA’s 10 jurisdictional regions. The analysis showed that of the 120 water samples, 118 had high levels of PFAS or arsenic, as well as detectable levels of lead.

According to the report from Consumer Reports, filtration systems exist that can clean the contaminants and “yet they are not being uniformly used by community water systems.”31

An analysis published by the EWG32 showed there were 2,337 sites in 49 states with known PFAS contamination. Unfortunately, while evidence continues to mount demonstrating forever chemicals are hazardous, the EPA is unwilling to protect consumer health. According to the EWG, the EPA:33

“… recently released a so-called PFAS action plan,42 but it is woefully inadequate. The EPA plan will not address ongoing sources of PFAS pollution, will not clean up legacy pollution and will not even require reporting of toxic PFAS releases.”

Frightening Levels of Forever Chemicals Found in Breast Milk

In one study published in Environmental Science & Technology,34 researchers analyzed PFAS in a group of breastfeeding women in the U.S. The data were gathered from a cross-section of socioeconomically and geographically diverse groups of women, and yet it showed PFAS contamination in all samples.

The samples showed levels ranging from 50 ppt to more than 1,850 ppt in women’s breast milk.35 Even though there are no set standards for breast milk yet, as a comparison, the Environmental Working Group36 advises a target for drinking water at 1 part per trillion (ppt) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)37 recommends 14 ppt for PFOS (a component of PFAS38) in children’s drinking water.

Evaluating the effects on infants is difficult. Dr. Sheela Sathyanarayana, a co-author of the study and pediatrician with the University of Washington, spoke with a reporter from The Guardian.39

She said that studies in older children and adults have shown these chemicals damage the immune system and create hormonal disruption. This is particularly problematic for infants as their immune system is not yet mature.

Evidence from the study also suggested the challenge with PFAS bioaccumulating in people is getting worse. As reported in The Guardian, when data from the current study was compared to one spearheaded by the EWG in 2005,40 the researchers found there was an increase in the amount of new-generation PFAS in breastmilk.

How to Avoid Toxic PFAS Chemicals

In May 2015, more than 200 scientists from 40 countries signed another consensus statement called the Madrid Statement.41 The scientists warned about the potential harmful effects of PFAS, including associations with liver toxicity, adverse neurobehavioral effects, hypothyroidism and obesity.

They recommended avoiding all products containing PFAS. You’ll find more additional helpful tips in the Environmental Working Group Guide to Avoiding PFCS.42 Here are several items to avoid that I’ve suggested in the past:

Pretreated or stain-repellant treatments — Opt out of treatments on clothing, furniture and carpeting. Clothing advertised as “breathable” is typically treated with polytetrafluoroethylene, a synthetic fluoropolymer.

Products treated with flame retardant chemicals — This includes furniture, carpet, mattresses and baby items. Instead, opt for naturally less flammable materials such as leather, wool and cotton.

Fast food and carry out foods — The containers are typically treated.

Microwave popcorn — PFASs may be present in the inner coating of the bag and may migrate to the oil from the packaging during heating. Instead, use “old-fashioned” stovetop non-GMO popcorn.

Nonstick cookware and other treated kitchen utensils — Healthier options include ceramic and enameled cast iron cookware, both of which are durable, easy to clean and completely inert, which means they won’t release any harmful chemicals into your home.

Personal care products containing PTFE or “fluoro” or “perfluoro” ingredients — The EWG Skin Deep database43 is an excellent source to search for healthier personal care options.

Unfiltered tap water — Unfortunately, your choices are limited when it comes to avoiding PFAS in drinking water. Either you must filter your water or get water from a clean source. Although you may think that opting for bottled water is safe, it’s important to realize that PFAS are not regulated in bottled water, so there’s absolutely no guarantee that it’ll be free of these or other chemicals.
Bottled water also increases your risk of exposure to hazardous plastic chemicals such as bisphenol A, which has its own set of health risks. Most common water filters available in supermarkets will not remove PFASs. You really need a high-quality carbon filtration system.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/03/fluorine-in-cosmetics.aspx

It’s Fluoride Awareness Week here at Mercola.com, and I spoke with Paul Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), for the occasion. Connett has been instrumental in catalyzing the movement to remove fluoride — which is neurotoxic — from water supplies in the U.S. as well as internationally, and he shared some exciting updates that have us moving closer to a post-water-fluoridation world.

First up is an update to the historic lawsuit that FAN filed against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in federal court. In 2016, FAN and coalition partners filed a petition asking the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to U.S. drinking water under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The EPA dismissed FAN’s petition, prompting FAN’s lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial. Although the EPA filed a motion to dismiss the case, the motion was denied by the court in 2017.1 The trial was held in June 2020, and while the judge has yet to make a final ruling,2 it’s moving in a positive direction.

“We had a recent hearing in which the judge denied the latest effort by the EPA to get the case dropped,” Connett said in our interview. “He’s ruled in our favor several times now on key decisions. What he made clear is he’s very interested in the science of this issue. He wants to wait before he makes his ruling.”

Judge Plans to Review New Fluoride Study Showing IQ Reduction

The judge hearing the case plans to review two things before making a decision: the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) final review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity when it comes out, along with a benchmark dose study (BMD) study that was recently published on fluoride’s effects on IQ levels.

“So, half of what the judge wants to see has come out,” Connett said. Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an internationally known expert in environmental epidemiology, with ties to both Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Southern Denmark, is the EPA’s go-to person on mercury’s neurotoxicity3 and he has warned about the risks of exposing children to neurotoxicants during early life and in utero.

Grandjean and colleagues just published a landmark study showing that exposure to very low levels of fluoride during pregnancy impairs the brain development of the child.4 The study found that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of 0.2 mg/L, which is exceeded four to five times in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities, was enough to lower IQ by one point.

Not only do the findings suggest that water-fluoride recommendations meant to protect pregnant women and children should be revised,5 but they show that there’s significant risk even at current fluoridation levels. Connett said:

“What they found, they would predict a lowering of IQ in children if the pregnant mother’s urine was at 0.2 milligrams per liter … To put that into perspective, the average in north California and in Canada, two studies, is between 0.8  and one part per million. So in other words … four to five times more.

So you could predict (because this is a linear relationship), the average loss of IQ for children born in the United States, if their mother drinks fluoridated tap water, is going to be between four and five points, and that’s massive when you look at the impact on a whole population. Massive.”

As Stuart Cooper, FAN’s campaign director, previously stated, “It has been well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000. Summed over the whole population we are talking about a loss of billions of dollars of earning ability each year.”

The trial is moving along in a positive direction, but they’re not out of the woods yet. Connett noted that there is evidence from confidential sources that pressure has been put upon the NTP, so there is concern that their findings could be whitewashed. “Once again, we might be confronted with the best science being nullified by political interference,” he said.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< Expert Research Highlights Fluoride’s Dangers to Children One of the experts who testified during the trial was Dr. Bruce Lanphear, who is known as “the EPA's ‘go-to man’ on lead's neurotoxicity, and his work shaped their lead standards.”6 Lanphear’s JAMA Pediatrics study, published in 2019, found that every 1 mg/L increase in fluoride in Canadian pregnant women’s urine was linked to a 4.5-point decrease in IQ in their male children.7 The study is one of several NIH-funded studies8 that Connett believes will be key to the case. “Fabulous methodology, the best methodology to date,” Connett said. Other NIH-funded studies include: • In a study of 213 Mexican mother-child pairs, higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)9 • Babies fed formula mixed with fluoridated water had IQs that were lower than babies fed formula mixed with nonfluoridated water, and researchers noted, “Consumption of formula reconstituted with fluoridated water can lead to excessive fluoride intake.”10 According to Connett, “So the only difference was whether these children got fluoridated tap water in their formula when they were babies. A staggering 13 IQ points dropped, staggering.” • In a study of 299 mother-child pairs in Mexico, higher prenatal exposure to fluoride, in the range of exposure levels reported for pregnant women in other areas, was associated with lower cognitive function in the children at ages 4 and 6 to 12 years.11 The collective exposure of children to fluoride in drinking water is a major public health threat. Going back to Grandjean’s study showing that even very low exposures to fluoride in utero are toxic, Connett explained: “He [Grandjean] said, right now the damage to children's brains in the United States is probably greater for fluoride than it is for lead, arsenic and mercury. Now he's not saying that atom for atom fluoride is more toxic than lead, mercury or arsenic … He's just saying, if you look at what's happening today, fluoride is doing more damage to our kids’ brains than these other well-known neurotoxic substances, lead, mercury and arsenic. The reason of course is the exposure. There are millions of children that are being exposed to fluoridated tap water on a daily basis. Millions of pregnant women.” Damaging People From ‘Womb to Tomb’ It’s not only children who are at risk from fluoride’s adverse effects. A Swedish study published in April 2021 found that rates of hip fractures among postmenopausal women were higher in regions with higher levels of fluoride in drinking water.12 In this case, the fluoride was naturally occurring in the water at concentrations at or below 1 mg/L, making their total exposures similar to those of women living in regions with artificial water fluoridation. While rates of all types of bone fractures were elevated in areas with higher fluoride in drinking water, the link to hip fractures was particularly strong. Connett said: “So they worked out their individual exposure to fluoride and, low and behold, they found that postmenopausal women drinking the same range of fluoride concentration that we have in fluoridated communities in the United States had a 50% increased prevalence of hip fracture. As you know, hip fracture is very serious. We have about 300,000 hip fractures in the elderly in the United States and 30% of those women who get those hip fractures are dead within a year. Many of them do not regain an independent existence … Hip fractures are a very serious issue for elderly people. So we may be damaging people from womb to tomb. Damaging the fetus and then damaging our bones over a lifetime, which has fatal consequences when you reach old age.” FAN Catches Head of CDC’s Oral Health Division in a Lie The CDC’s Division of Oral Health is still actively promoting water fluoridation, and the CDC just recently gave a large grant to Mississippi to do so, Connett said. “Now let me explain who they are,” he said, referring to the Division of Oral Health: “There's only about 30 people who are interested in teeth, and they're nearly all dentally trained, and they work hand in hand with the ADA [American Dental Association]. So they're a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of supporting fluoridation, and they heavily influence local decisions. So, although the federal government doesn't accept responsibility for it, they're encouraging communities to do it … This Oral Health Division has worldwide influence. There's not a day that goes by that somebody, some doctor, some dentist, some public health official, some politician says that fluoridation is one of the top public health achievements of the 20th century. So enormous influence, but no responsibility for harm.” CDC’s Oral Health Division is primarily made up of those trained in dentistry — not specialists looking at the effects of fluoride on the brain and body. “Let's have a group at the CDC that promotes fluoridation based upon what they think it does for teeth, and let's have another group of people that, regardless of promotion, is looking very carefully at all the evidence which indicates harm to the bone, to the brains and so on,” Connett said. FAN also caught Casey Hannon, director of the CDC’s Division of Oral Health in a lie. According to Connett, “He said, ‘These NIH-funded studies were done at levels much higher than the water fluoridation programs.’ Absolute nonsense. They were done either at doses equivalent to what people in fluoridated communities get, or they were actually done in fluoridated communities themselves.” This prompted FAN and over 100 professionals to write a letter to the new CDC director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky. “We weren't after punishment of Casey Hannon, the head of the Oral Health Division. We were after a change of policy. He's only doing what all the previous heads of the Oral Health Division have done, which is to promote fluoridation as being safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective.” FAN is hopeful that with a new person in the position, being informed about the latest fluoridation/IQ studies, positive changes will continue. Already, they’ve gotten a response from Dr. Karen Hacker, the director of CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. “The important point for us is that we've now got engagement at the CDC above the Oral Health Division. We don't get these platitudes about how wonderful it [fluoridation] is for teeth,” Connett said. Help End the Practice of Water Fluoridation The level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline. “Fluoride is following the same trajectory as lead,” Connett said, “because basically, whether or not you found a neurotoxic effect for lead was simply a function of how well designed your study was. The better your study was designed, the more likely you were to find that lead was lowering IQ. The same thing is happening with fluoride.” If you’re concerned about the health effects of fluoride, please support FAN with your tax-deductible donation today. Mercola.com will match your donation, dollar for dollar, up to $25,000, during Fluoride Awareness Week. >>>>> Click Here <<<<< How will FAN use the funds? They’re expecting a mini trial to come up soon, and they’ll need to provide expert witnesses to give commentary on the final version of the NTP report and the BMD analysis. They’re also revamping their website, FluorideAlert.org, to make it easier for people to use and access information (especially for those who do so via cell phone). “We have the largest health database in the world, bigger than many governments, maybe all governments, on the health effects of fluoride. We want to make that more accessible,” Connett said. FAN also uses funding to help communities end water fluoridation or keep it out of their cities: “Right now, Spokane [Washington] is trying to keep fluoridation out, I think for the fourth time. Calgary is trying to put it back in … They're claiming that tooth decay has gone up dramatically in Calgary since they stopped fluoridation, and that’s simply not true. … our mission is to get this information to as many people as possible, so with their help we can take this information to the power structures. We're doing it in federal court and we're doing it with our website. Right now, we're doing it by engaging with people at the CDC above its Oral Health Division.” On a practical level, if you live in an area with fluoridated water, you can protect your health by filtering your water. While Connett travels to a natural spring to collect pure water every few weeks — the ideal solution — this won’t be possible for many people. Because fluoride is a very small molecule, it’s difficult to filter out once added to your water supply, but reverse osmosis filtration is effective for fluoride removal. The simplest, most effective and most cost-effective strategy is to not put fluoride in the water to begin with, but while we work to end water fluoridation, you do not want to expose yourself or your family to fluoride, so be sure to find a fluoride-free source of pure drinking water.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/03/fight-to-end-water-fluoridation.aspx