Lose Them Pounds

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

Reports of deaths and serious injuries from the COVID-19 jabs have been mounting with breakneck rapidity. Those who look at the numbers and have some awareness of historical vaccine injury rates agree we’ve never seen anything like it, anywhere in the world. While data can be hard to come by for some countries, the ones we can check reveal deeply troubling patterns.

• United States — As of June 11, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) had posted 358,379 adverse events,1 including 5,993 deaths and 29,871 serious injuries. In the 12- to 17-year-old age group, there were 271 serious injuries2 and seven deaths. Among pregnant women, there were 2,136 adverse events, including 707 miscarriages or premature births.3

All of these are bound to be undercounts as, historically, less than 10% of vaccine side effects are reported to VAERS.4 An investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services put it as low as 1%.5,6

Be that as it may, 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,7 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.8,9 Assuming the COVID shots had the same side effect rate, and assuming some 200 million got the vaccine, the estimated number of people suffering a serious side effect would be about 5,000. We’re well past that already, as 35,86410 people have been seriously injured or killed.

Even though there are nearly 6,000 reported deaths in VAERS, this number is likely seriously compromised. I recently interviewed Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, who has treated COVID patients quite successfully, and we discussed the very distinct possibility that everyone who receives the COVID jab may die from complications in the next two to three years.

He personally knows of 28 COVID jab deaths that were not accepted by VAERS. Zelenko suspects the number of deaths may exceed 100,000 already.

Getting the COVID jab immediately places the injected individual in the very high risk of dying from COVID. Most have the false assurance that they are protected, but in reality, they are far more vulnerable and as a result will not take very aggressive proactive measures to avoid dying from pathogenic priming or paradoxical immune enhancement before it is too late.

Please be sure and make a notation in your calendar to review my groundbreaking interview with Zelenko this Sunday, July 4, 2021, which is only three days away. We will review protocols you can use to protect you and your family or those you love, who now regret getting the COVID jab.

• European Union — In the European Union’s database of adverse drug reactions from COVID shots, called EudraVigilance, there were 1,509,266 reported injuries, including 15,472 deaths as of June 19, 2021.11 EudraVigilance only accepts reports from EU members, so it covers only 27 of the 50 European countries.

Remarkably, about HALF of all reported injuries — 753,657 — are listed as “serious,” meaning the injury is life-threatening, requires hospitalization, results in a medically important condition, significant disability or persistent incapacity.

• U.K. — The British Yellow Card system had received, as of June 9, 2021, 276,867 adverse event reports following COVID “vaccination,” including 1,332 deaths.12

• Israel — According to a report by the Israeli People Committee, a civilian body of health experts, “there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people.”13 For example, Israeli data show boys and men between the ages of 16 and 24 who have been vaccinated have 25 times the rate of myocarditis (heart inflammation) than normal.14

(Myocarditis is also affecting teens and young adults in the U.S. Although CDC officials say no confirmed deaths have been reported, at least two deaths have been linked temporally to the vaccine.15,16,17,18,19)

• Australia — In Australia, two people have died from blood clots after taking AstraZeneca’s COVID shot. Meanwhile, only one person — an elderly woman — has died from COVID-19 this year.20,21

If Something Goes Wrong, You’re on Your Own

The pain and suffering these shots have already created is hard to imagine. Clearly, millions around the world have had their lives turned upside down by them. Many may not recover, physically or financially. It’s really important to realize that if something goes wrong, you’re largely on your own.

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. You cannot sue them for damages. Nor can you sue the government or anyone else.

If you are injured by a COVID shot and live in the U.S., your only recourse is to apply for compensation from the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Act (CICP), under which COVID-19 vaccines are a covered countermeasure.22 The CICP is run by a sparsely staffed agency under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Details and hyperlinks to benefit request forms can be found in the Congressional Research Service’s legal sidebar, “Compensation Programs for Potential COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries.”23 You cannot apply for and will not receive compensation from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which covers other vaccines, including the flu vaccine.

Compensation from CICP is very limited and hard to get. In its 15-year history, it has paid out just 29 claims, fewer than 1 in 10.24,25,26 You only qualify if your injury requires hospitalization and results in significant disability and/or death, and even if you meet the eligibility criteria, it requires you to use up your private health insurance before it kicks in to pay the difference.

The average CICP award is $200,000, and death cases are capped around $370,000. Meanwhile, you can easily rack up a $1 million hospital bill if you suffer a serious thrombotic event.

There’s no reimbursement for pain and suffering, only lost wages and unpaid medical bills. This means a retired person cannot qualify even if they die or end up in a wheelchair. Salary compensation is of limited duration, and capped at $50,000 a year. On top of all that, you cannot appeal the CICP’s decision. Appeals simply get reviewed by another staff member in the same office.

Can You Afford a COVID Shot Injury?

Even if they can get it, CICP awards are likely to be a drop in the bucket for most people. The average award is $200,000, and death cases are capped at $370,376.27 Meanwhile, you can easily rack up a $1 million hospital bill if you suffer a serious thrombotic event.28 You must also pay for your own legal help and any professional witnesses you may need to support your claim.

In early June 2021, KRDO news reported29 on the case of Kendra Lippy, a 38-year-old woman who had no health complaints prior to getting her Johnson & Johnson shot. Within a week, she developed headaches, abdominal pain and nausea. Her diagnosis: Severe blood clots that progressed into multiple organ failure and coma.

She had to have most of her small intestine removed and will need total parenteral nutrition for the rest of her life — a feeding method that bypasses her gastrointestinal tract. She was hospitalized for 33 days, including 22 days in the intensive care unit. She now needs occupational and physical therapy to regain basic functions like walking, writing and holding a fork.

Lippy’s hospital bill already exceeds $1 million, a sum she’ll likely never be able to pay off, and there’s no telling what kind of medical treatment she’ll need in years to come. Clearly Lippy is headed for bankruptcy, and medical bills are the most common cause in the U.S.

Additional Stipulations That Make Payouts Rare

There are also time stipulations. You must file a request for benefits within one year of the date the vaccine was administered in order to qualify. This is a serious barrier, as serious side effects can take time to develop. For example, after the 2009 swine flu pandemic, people started reporting Guillain-Barre syndrome years after getting the pandemic H1N1 vaccine. At that point, they no longer qualified.30

Worst of all, however, is the fact that it is now your responsibility to prove your injury was the “direct result of the countermeasure’s administration based on compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence beyond mere temporal association.”

In other words, you basically have to prove what the vaccine developer itself has yet to ascertain, seeing how you are part of their still-ongoing study! The CICP is also notoriously secretive about why claims are approved or rejected. As reported by the Insurance Journal, “it doesn’t release even the most basic details such as the kinds of sicknesses people claim they got from vaccines.”31

As of June 1, 2021, 1,360 Americans had sought compensation from the CICP for injuries and deaths arising from pandemic countermeasures, but only 869 were deemed eligible to file a claim.32 None has been adjudicated. Professor Peter Meyers, a former director of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic, who has referred to the CICP as a “black hole process,”33 warns that it’s a “lousy program.” He told Life Site News:34

“It’s a secretive, opaque program whereby some unknown officials within the Department of Health and Human Services will make decisions; we don’t know how many people are adjudicating, who they are, or what the process is.”

The secrecy means there are no official statistics on the types of injuries people are filing for, or what countermeasure is said to have caused their injury. By the way, vaccines are not the only countermeasures shielded from liability. Hospital treatment errors are shielded too, and we know some hospitals routinely killed patients, whether they had confirmed COVID-19 or not, by placing them on ventilators even when they didn’t need it.35

Can You Trust These White-Collar Criminals?

As mentioned, pandemic vaccine makers are shielded from financial liability. The only way you can sue is if you can prove “willful misconduct,” such as deliberate deception, fraudulent behavior or hiding relevant information. To get around this, vaccine makers may simply not look for certain problems.

The potential for infertility is a perfect example. The spike protein is suspected of having reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries.36 Despite that, Pfizer did not perform any reproductive toxicology tests. Since they didn’t look, they can with a straight face say they “didn’t know” the shot might cause reproductive failure. The thing is, they should have suspected it, and done the tests to make sure.

Already, we’re seeing signs of reproductive toxicity. Data suggest the miscarriage rate among women who get the COVID “vaccine” within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is a whopping 82%. The normal rate is 10%, so this is no minor increase. Infertility will be far more difficult to ascertain, and could take decades.37

In a May 28, 2021, letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, Drs. Ira Bernstein and Sanja Jovanovic and Deann McLeod, HBSc, of Toronto, pointed this out by highlighting that preliminary safety studies published in the NEJM in April 2021 were in error by including “clinically unrecognized pregnancies” in them.38

They included adjusted graphs reflecting this, and asked the study’s authors to remove the erroneous data but, interestingly, their letter disappeared from the internet the last week of June, although it was still in Wayback archives as of June 27, 2021. Coincidentally, June 17, 2021, the NEJM republished the April study with no explanation as to why it was being republished and with no adjustments to the data.

Considering the criminal history of Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, it’s hard to understand how millions of people trust these companies not to lie in order to make a buck. As reported by Life Site News:39

“Just three main vaccine makers, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, have been ordered by state and federal courts to pay a combined more than $8.6 billion in fines to resolve dozens of allegations of criminal and civil misconduct.

Pfizer alone was fined $2.3 billion — the largest such settlement in history, according to the Department of Justice — for willfully defrauding and misbranding its drugs that had already been yanked from shelves for their documented dangers.

But for six whistleblowers who brought evidence forward against the company, it may have continued misbranding and selling its dangerous wares.

‘We’ve made a trade-off in America,’ said Meyers, in giving vaccine manufacturers liability protection to ensure that they will keep making vaccines that, before legal immunity, were bogged down in lawsuit litigation for side effects.

Manufacturers who make cars or ladders or other products can be sued if they are faulty. Vaccine makers have blanket liability to ensure their products are produced, government funding to produce them, ensured government orders for products, government-paid mass-marketing and mandates …

‘The tradeoff seems unfair today because the CICP program is such as flawed program,’ said Meyers, particularly when vaccine companies are raking in colossal profits (Pfizer is set to haul in $26 billion from its COVID vaccines this year and COVID vaccine manufacturing is churning out billionaires whose annual salaries are multiples of a decade of CICP payouts to dozens of people).

The CICP benefits are ‘stingy compensations,’ he added, for people who are suffering and waiting in the face of corporate greed and government opacity. Notwithstanding the drug companies’ criminal records, Meyers thinks they would be ‘crazy to risk misconduct.’ If it turned out that vaccine makers were actually hiding information on risks of COVID vaccines, he said, ‘it would be a catastrophe.'”

Are Government and Big Pharma Guilty of Willful Misconduct?

I don’t know about you, but the feeling I get when I look at the cascade of injuries and deaths occurring within days or in many cases mere hours after injection is that something is terribly amiss, and vaccine makers are sweeping it all under the rug. Isn’t that willful misconduct? Failing to perform reproductive toxicology tests after they discover that spike protein accumulates in the ovaries — isn’t that reprehensible willful misconduct?

Continuing to claim that the mRNA stays in the shoulder muscle when they have data showing it gets distributed into virtually all organs in the human body — isn’t that hiding important information? Isn’t that reprehensible willful misconduct?

I would argue that government officials are also guilty of medical maleficence. As noted by Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,40 the most current version of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that governs these COVID shots reveals the FDA opted not to require stringent post-vaccination data collection and evaluation, even though they had the power to do so.

Again, if you don’t look for injuries, you’re unlikely to find them. If there’s no robust data collection and review process, they can say the shots are safe and shuttle them through the licensing process far more easily. The problem they’re now facing is that VAERS is getting such an overwhelming number of reports that even if they account for only 10% of actual injuries, or less, it’s absolutely unmistakable that there are serious problems.

Failing to require vaccine makers to put together a comprehensive system to capture adverse event data is a sign of incompetence at best. But that’s not all. The FDA really starts appearing deceitful when refusing to acknowledge that the VAERS reports indicate there are problems.

To call “coincidence” more than 35,000 times is simply not believable, and to dismiss the risks of permanent disability and death as being “worth it” is beyond heartless, seeing how we have safe and effective treatments and no one actually needs to gamble their health on an experimental gene therapy.

COVID Shots Are Clearly Riskier Than Advertised

As noted in a June 22, 2021, Wall Street Journal article,41 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.42

In order for such effects to be tolerable, even if rare, the vaccine (or drug) would need to be absolutely crucial for survival. Think of a highly infectious pandemic of Ebola, for example — something where death is swift and virtually assured, and treatment, once infected, is ineffective.

None of those criteria apply to COVID-19, 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.

Remember, mark your calendar to view my groundbreaking interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko this Sunday, which is only three days away. We will review protocols you can use to protect you and your family or those that you love who now regret getting the COVID jab.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/01/covid-vaccine-deaths-and-injuries.aspx

If you’ve had COVID-19, even a mild case, major congratulations to you as you’ve more than likely got long-term immunity, according to a team of researchers from Washington University School of Medicine.1 In fact, you’re likely to be immune for life, as is the case with recovery from many infectious agents — once you’ve had the disease and recovered, you’re immune, most likely for life.

The evidence is strong and promising, and should be welcome and comforting news to a public that has spent the last year in a panic over SARS-CoV-2. Big surprise (not) that this message is not being shared by our public health authorities! The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — the foremost agency tasked with protecting Americans’ health and safety — refuses to get the word out.

Instead, they’re still encouraging those who have probable natural COVID-19 immunity to get vaccinated, even while admitting that it’s rare to get sick again if you’ve already had COVID-19.2 The most obvious reason is that it would conflict with their primary objective, which is to get as many immunized with the COVID jab as possible.

They’re frequently asked, “If I have already had COVID-19 and recovered, do I still need to get vaccinated with a COVID-19 shot?” Their response is that yes, you should, because “experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19.”3 Increasingly, however, evidence is showing that long-lasting immunity exists.

Initial Reports That COVID Immunity Was Fleeting Were Flawed

Seasonal coronaviruses, some of which cause common colds, yield only short-lived protective immunity, with reinfections occurring six to 12 months after the previous infection. Early data on SARS-CoV-2 also found that antibody titers declined rapidly in the first months after recovery from COVID-19, leading some to speculate that protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 may also be short-lived.4

Senior author of the study, Ali Ellebedy, Ph.D., an associate professor of pathology and immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, pointed out that this assumption is flawed, stating in a news release:5

“Last fall, there were reports that antibodies waned quickly after infection with the virus that causes COVID-19, and mainstream media interpreted that to mean that immunity was not long-lived. But that’s a misinterpretation of the data. It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau.”

The researchers found a biphasic pattern of antibody concentrations against SARS-CoV-2, in which high antibody concentrations were found in the acute immune response that occurred at the time of initial infection.

The antibodies declined in the first months after infection, as should be expected, then leveled off to about 10% to 20% of the maximum concentration detected. In a commentary on the study, Andreas Radbruch and Hyun-Dong Chang of the German Rheumatism Research Centre Berlin explained:6

“This is consistent with the expectation that 10–20% of the plasma cells in an acute immune reaction become memory plasma cells,7 and is a clear indication of a shift from antibody production by short-lived plasma cells to antibody production by memory plasma cells. This is not unexpected, given that immune memory to many viruses and vaccines is stable over decades, if not for a lifetime.”

When a new infection occurs, cells called plasmablasts provide antibodies, but when the virus is cleared, longer lasting memory B cells move in to monitor blood for signs of reinfection.8

Bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) also exist in bones, acting as “persistent and essential sources of protective antibodies.”9 According to Ellebedy, “A plasma cell is our life history, in terms of the pathogens we’ve been exposed to,”10 and it’s in these long-lived BMPCs were immunity to SARS-CoV-2 resides.

Long-Term Immunity Likely After COVID-19 Infection

For the study, blood samples were collected from 77 people11 who had recovered from COVID-19, about one month after the onset of symptoms; most had experienced mild cases. Additional blood samples were collected three more times at three-month intervals to track antibody production; memory B cells and bone marrow were also collected from some of the participants.

Levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S) antibodies declined rapidly in the first four months after infection, then slowed over the next seven months.12 The most exciting part of the research is that, at both seven months and 11 months after infection, most of the participants had BMPCs that secreted antibodies specific for the spike protein encoded by SARS-CoV-2.

The BMPCs were found in amounts similar to those found in people who had been vaccinated against tetanus or diphtheria, which are considered to provide long-lasting immunity.

“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.13 This is perhaps the best available evidence of long-lasting immunity, Radbruch and Chang explained, because this immunological memory is a distinct part of the immune system that’s essential to long-term protection, beyond the initial immune response to the virus:14

“In the memory phase of an immune response, B and T cells that are specific for a virus are maintained in a state of dormancy, but are poised to spring into action if they encounter the virus again or a vaccine that represents it. These memory B and T cells arise from cells activated in the initial immune reaction.

The cells undergo changes to their chromosomal DNA, termed epigenetic modifications, that enable them to react rapidly to subsequent signs of infection and drive responses geared to eliminating the disease-causing agent.15

B cells have a dual role in immunity: they produce antibodies that can recognize viral proteins, and they can present parts of these proteins to specific T cells or develop into plasma cells that secrete antibodies in large quantities.

About 25 years ago,16 it became evident that plasma cells can become memory cells themselves, and can secrete antibodies for long-lasting protection. Memory plasma cells can be maintained for decades, if not a lifetime, in the bone marrow.17”

In addition, in 2020 it was reported that people who had recovered from SARS-CoV — a virus that is genetically closely related to SARS-CoV-2 and belongs to the same viral species — maintained significant levels of neutralizing antibodies at least 17 years after initial infection.18 This also suggests that long-term immunity against SARS-CoV-2 should be expected.19 Ellebedy even said the protection is likely to continue “indefinitely”:20

“These [BMPC] cells are not dividing. They are quiescent, just sitting in the bone marrow and secreting antibodies. They have been doing that ever since the infection resolved, and they will continue doing that indefinitely.”

Why You Shouldn’t Get Vaccinated if You’ve Had COVID

The finding that long-term immunity is likely following COVID-19 infection is important not only for those still living in fear due to media-induced fearmongering but also for those who have recovered and are considering vaccination.

As I’ve previously warned, if you’ve had COVID-19, please don’t get vaccinated. Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, Ph.D., a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate, has repeatedly warned the FDA that “clear and present danger” exists for those who have had COVID-19 and subsequently get vaccinated.21

At issue are viral antigens that remain in your body after you are naturally infected. The immune response reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine can trigger inflammation in tissues where the viral antigens are present. The inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain may be particularly at risk of such inflammation and damage.22 According to Noorchashm:23

“Most pertinently, when viral antigens are present in the vascular endothelium, and especially in elderly and frail with cardiovascular disease, the antigen specific immune response incited by the vaccine is almost certain to do damage to the vascular endothelium.

Such vaccine directed endothelial inflammation is certain to cause blood clot formation with the potential for major thromboembolic complications, at least in a subset of such patients. If a majority of younger more robust patients might tolerate such vascular injury from a vaccine immune response, many elderly and frail patients with cardiovascular disease will not.”

Noorchashm quoted one of his previous medical school professors, who said, “the eyes do not see what the mind does not know.” By this, he meant that in the case of a vaccine-induced antigen specific immune response, which may trigger thromboembolic complications 10 to 20 days after vaccination, including in those who may already be elderly and frail, the reaction isn’t likely to be registered as a vaccine-related adverse event.

Because so many cases are asymptomatic, Noorchashm recommends clinicians “actively screen as many patients with high cardiovascular risk as is reasonably possible, in order to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2, prior to vaccinating them.”24 As it stands, Noorchashm points out that by ignoring what he believes to be an imminent risk for a sizable minority of people, the FDA’s credibility, and that of the mass vaccination campaign in general, is at grave risk.25

Was Mass Vaccination Always the Plan?

If protecting public health was really the ultimate goal in the pandemic response, people who have recovered from COVID-19 should be offered the same type of immunity “passports” and benefits being offered to those who have been vaccinated. In fact, they should be granted even more “access” since their immunity is likely superior to those with vaccine-induced immunity.

This isn’t the case, however, as everyone is urged to get vaccinated with an experimental shot, regardless of their COVID-19 infection history and even if they’re as young as 12 years old — in some cases without parental consent.26

Meanwhile, effective treatments like ivermectin — a broad-spectrum antiparasitic that also has anti-inflammatory activity — has shown remarkable success in preventing and treating COVID-19,27 but it continues to be ignored in favor of more expensive, and less effective, treatments and mass experimental vaccination.28

As Dr. Peter McCullough, vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center, has stated, “All roads lead to the vaccine,”29 it’s possible the pandemic’s purpose was to fuel the global vaccination campaign that is now occurring. This would allow for the vaccinated population to be recorded in a vaccine database, essentially “marking” you, which could be used as a tool for population control via vaccine passports.

At this point, however, with effective treatments available, the documented high survival rate of COVID-1930 and knowledge that if you’ve had COVID-19, you’re already likely immune to further infection, the rationale for getting vaccinated is faltering, even among mainstream groups. A large percentage of police and Marines are refusing COVID-19 vaccines, for instance.31

It’s important to be informed that if you choose to get a COVID-19 vaccine, you’re participating in an unprecedented experiment with an unapproved gene therapy, of which the benefits may not outweigh the risks, especially if you’ve already had COVID-19.

Please be sure and make a notation in your calendar to review my groundbreaking interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko this Sunday, which is only two days away. We discuss the very distinct possibility that everyone that receives the COVID jab may die from complications in the next two to three years.

This is largely because getting the jab now immediately places the injected individual at a very high risk of dying from COVID. Most have the false assurance that they are protected, but in reality they are far more vulnerable and as a result will not take very aggressive proactive measures to avoid dying from pathogenic priming or paradoxical immune enhancement before it is too late.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/02/covid-immunity.aspx

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has hailed water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century. Beginning in 1945, it was claimed that adding fluoride to drinking water was a safe and effective way to improve people’s dental health. Over the decades, many bought into this hook, line and sinker, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The featured film, “Our Daily Dose,” reviews some of this evidence. As noted in the film’s synopsis:

“Filmmaker Jeremy Seifert lays out the dangers of water fluoridation informatively and creatively, highlighting the most current research and interviewing top-tier doctors, activists, and attorneys close to the issue. Through thoughtful examination of old beliefs and new science, the film alerts us to the health threat present in the water and beverages we rely on every day.”

Share This Film With Those Still on the Fence on Fluoride

The film may not offer many brand new revelations to those of you who are already well-informed about the history and documented hazards of fluoride.
It was primarily created as an educational vehicle aimed at those who may not be aware of these issues, or who might not yet be entirely convinced that drinking fluoride isn’t a good thing. So PLEASE, share this video with all of your friends and family who are on the fence on this issue, and ask them to watch it. It’s only 20 minutes long, but it packs a lot of compelling details into those 20 minutes.
Understanding how fluoride affects your body and brain is particularly important for parents with young children, and pregnant women. It’s really crucial to know that you should NEVER mix infant formula with fluoridated tap water for example, as this may overexpose your child to 100 times the proposed “safe” level of fluoride exposure for infants!
If your child suffers with ADD/ADHD, drinking fluoridated water may also worsen his or her condition. Ditto for those with underfunctioning thyroid. So please, do share this video with your social networks, as it could make a big difference in people’s health.

Fluoride Is Both an Endocrine Disruptor and a Neurotoxin

Scientific investigations have revealed that fluoride is an endocrine-disrupting chemical,1 and a developmental neurotoxin that impacts short-term and working memory, and lowers IQ in children.2 It has been implicated as a contributing factor in the rising rates of both attention-deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD)3,4 and thyroid disease.
Indeed, fluoride was used in Europe to reduce thyroid activity in hyperthyroid patients as late as the 1970s, and reduced thyroid function is associated with fluoride intakes as low as 0.05 to 0.1 mg fluoride per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/day).5

For Over 50 Years, Fluoride Levels Were Too High

Children are particularly at risk for adverse effects of overexposure, and in April 2015, the US government admitted that the “optimal” level of fluoride recommended since 1962 had in fact been too high. As a result, over 40 percent of American teens show signs of fluoride overexposure6 — a condition known as dental fluorosis. In some areas, dental fluorosis rates are as high as 70 to 80 percent, with some children suffering from advanced forms.
So, for the first time, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lowered its recommended level of fluoride in drinking water7,8 by 40 percent, from an upper limit of 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.7 mg/L.
The HHS said it will evaluate dental fluorosis rates among children in 10 years to assess whether they were correct about this new level being protective against dental fluorosis. But just what is the acceptable level of harm in the name of cavity prevention?
A number of studies9,10,11,12 have shown that children with moderate to severe dental fluorosis score worse on tests measuring cognitive skills and IQ than peers without fluorosis — a clear revelation highlighted in the film, as some still insist that dental fluorosis is nothing more than a cosmetic issue.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< The Price We Pay for Cavity Prevention According to the film, the CDC estimates water fluoridation decreases dental decay by, at most, 25 percent. Recent research13,14 however, suggests the real effect may be far lower. Based on the findings of three papers assessing the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay, the researchers concluded that water fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth. If that's the case, then why are we still jeopardizing our children's long-term thyroid and brain health by adding fluoride to drinking water? Fluoride — like many other poisons — was originally declared safe based on dosage, but we now know that timing of exposure can play a big role in its effects as well. Children who are fed infant formula mixed with fluoridated water receive very high doses, and may be affected for life as a result of this early exposure. Fluoride can also cross the placenta, causing developing fetuses to be exposed to fluoride. Considering the fact that fluoride has endocrine-disrupting activity, this is hardly a situation amenable to the good health of that child. It's important to realize that fluoride is not a nutrient. It's a drug, and it's the ONLY drug that is purposely added directly into drinking water. This route of delivery completely bypasses standard rules relating to informed consent, which is foundational for ethical medical practice. What's worse, there's no way to keep track of the dosage. And no one is keeping track of side effects. Infants Are Severely and Routinely Overdosed on Fluoride According to the recent Iowa Study, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the CDC, infants and young children are being massively overdosed on fluoride. This study, which is the largest U.S. study conducted measuring the amount of fluoride children ingest, concluded that: 100 percent of infants receiving infant formula mixed with fluoridated tap water get more than the allegedly safe dose of fluoride. Some formula-fed infants receive 100 times the safe level on a daily basis 30 percent of 1-year-olds exceed the recommended safe dose 47 percent of 2- to 3-year-olds exceed the safe dose Most Water Authorities Don't Use Pharmaceutical Grade Fluoride As stated, fluoride is a drug, and research into the health effects of fluoride are based on pharmaceutical grade fluoride. However, a majority of water authorities do not even use pharmaceutical grade fluoride; they use hydrofluosilicic acid, or hexafluorosilicic acid — toxic waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry, which are frequently contaminated with heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead and other toxins. This is a key point that many fluoride proponents fail to address when arguing for its use. Indeed, holding elected officials accountable for procuring proof that the specific fluoridation chemical used actually fulfills fluoride's health and safety claims and complies with all regulations, laws and risk assessments required for safe drinking water, has been a successful strategy for halting water fluoridation in a number of areas around the U.S. While the idea of hiding toxic industrial waste in drinking water would sound like a questionable idea at best to most people, it was welcomed by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In a 1983 letter, Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, wrote: "... In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them ..." Data and Science Do Not Support Water Fluoridation Ninety-seven percent of Western European countries do not fluoridate their water, and data collected by the World Health Organization (WHO) show that non-fluoridating countries have seen the exact same reduction in dental cavities as the U.S.,15 where a majority of water is still fluoridated. If fluoride were in fact the cause of this decline, non-fluoridating countries should not show the same trend. Clearly, declining rates of dental decay are not in and of themselves proof that water fluoridation actually works. It's also worth noting that well over 99 percent of the fluoride added to drinking water never even touches a tooth; it simply runs down the drain, contaminating and polluting the environment. Source: KK Cheng et.al. BMJ 2007.16 Rates of cavities have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation. Ten Facts About Fluoride Despite the fact that the scientific evidence does not support fluoridation, those who question or openly oppose it are typically demonized and written off as crazy conspiracy theorists. Many fluoride supporters claim the science of fluoridation was "settled" some 50 years ago — effectively dismissing all the revelations produced by modern science! To defend their position, they rely on outdated science, because that's all they have. You'd be extremely hard-pressed to find modern research supporting water fluoridation. Indeed, as noted in the film, ending water fluoridation will be one of the greatest public health achievements of the 21st Century, and I for one will not stop until that happens. To learn more about why water fluoridation runs counter to good science, common sense and the public good, please see the following video, which recounts 10 important fluoride facts. The Best Cavity Prevention Is Your Diet The best way to prevent cavities is not through fluoride, but by addressing your diet. One of the keys to oral health is eating a traditional diet or real foods, rich in fresh, unprocessed vegetables, nuts and grass fed meats. By avoiding sugars and processed foods, you prevent the proliferation of the bacteria that cause decay in the first place. According to Dr. Francesco Branca, Director of WHO's Department of Nutrition for Health and Development:17 "We have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10 percent of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay." Other natural strategies that can significantly improve your dental health are eating plenty of fermented vegetables, and doing oil pulling with coconut oil. Also make sure you're getting plenty of high-quality animal-based omega-3 fats, as research suggests even moderate amounts of omega-3 fats may help ward off gum disease. My favorite source is krill oil.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/02/our-daily-dose-fluoride-documentary.aspx

Despite a lack of evidence that plastic shields would reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission and documentation that children are at a much lower risk for COVID than adults, officials recommended masks and plastic boxes to separate and socially distance children.1

Not long after China announced the novel coronavirus, researchers began collecting data. Within months many scientists realized that COVID-19 does not affect children at the same rate that it affects adults. There have been many theories as to why this is the case.2 For one thing, children do not have the same types of comorbidities that increase the risk for adults and older adults. Their immune systems are also different.

Experts postulated that another difference was the expression of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) 2 receptor that is necessary for the virus to infect cells. Some suggested that other viruses common to the mucosa and airways in young children may limit the growth of the virus, which reduced the rate of severe illness.

Available data3 in the early months from the Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed a cohort of 44,672 confirmed cases of COVID-19 indicated 2.1% of patients were aged zero to 19 years. As more data were collected throughout 2020, researchers continued to report that children have a much lower risk of severe disease and mortality from COVID-19 than do adults.4

According to the CDC,5 since children are hospitalized significantly less often than adults, it suggests that children may have less severe illness. They also attribute the lack of transmission in children to school closures in the spring and early summer of 2020, keeping children at home. And yet, children were still exposed to adults in their home who were symptomatic for the viral illness.

The lack of severe symptoms in children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is in stark contrast to the history of significant symptoms with other respiratory viruses in children.6

No Evidence Portable School Desk Shields Are Effective

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< In this 44-second clip, a masked President Biden is visiting a school where the children are all wearing masks behind plastic shields. It’s a disturbing sight that the mainstream media appears to take in stride as they try to convince you that this is the way we should live. Mid-March 2021, the CDC released new guidelines, which reduced the social distance in schools to 3 feet and removed the recommendations for barriers between school desks. Greta Massetti leads the CDC's community interventions task force and said about the plastic shields, “We don't have a lot of evidence of their effectiveness” in preventing transmission.7 The new recommendations triggered a variety of responses in teachers and parents, some of whom are not comfortable sending their children to school where they may be allowed within 3 feet of another child or teacher.8 If you haven’t seen the plastic boxes being purchased in bulk by school systems for students at each of their desks, try imagining a three-sided transparent plexiglass shield that measures about 22 inches high9 and surrounds the front and two sides of the student’s desk. Some school systems are excited by the prospect of adding another layer of distance between people. One school in Hawaii recently purchased 460 shields for students and teachers. Principal James Denight said, “Our focus is the health and safety of students and staff. We’re going to keep them in their bubble.”10 Mainstream media outlets covering the story are calling face masks and plastic shields “the new normal.”11 In one school in Ohio, students and staff spend the day wearing a mask and carry a foldable plastic shield they set up on their desks. Unfortunately, the vast fortune the school systems and retail businesses are spending on plastic is not supported by scientific evidence. In the early months, health authorities told the public that the virus was spread by large droplets. Yet, scientists and researchers like Joseph Allen from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, protested, saying the virus could travel farther, making plastic shields ineffective.12 Nearly one year after the novel coronavirus began infecting people, the World Health Organization and the U.S. CDC finally accepted what researchers had been arguing — the virus can spread through the air.13 A recently released study14 by the CDC of COVID-19 transmission in elementary schools in Georgia demonstrated that plastic barriers on desks or tables were not effective. Building scientist Marwa Zaatari spoke with a reporter from Bloomberg about plastic desk shields, saying they create15 “a false sense of security. Especially when we use it in offices or in schools specifically, plexiglass does not help. If you have plexiglass, you’re still breathing the same shared air of another person.” Air Flow Restriction May Raise Risk of Transmission One study published in the journal Science16 has suggested desk shields used in multiple school systems across the U.S. “are associated with lower risk reductions (or even risk increases).” A preprint paper17 released from Japan investigated the effect plastic shields would have in areas with poor ventilation. They found the plexiglass blocked the air flow and may increase the risk for infection. The CDC study concluded that the results:18 “… highlighted the importance of masking and ventilation for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in elementary schools and revealed important opportunities for increasing their use among schools.” Yet, the published data do not support their statement supporting masking. It's important to note that the incidence of COVID-19 in the schools evaluated was extremely low. Among students and staff members, there were only 3.08 COVID-19 cases per 500 enrolled students during the study period. The analysis of the numbers showed the incidence of COVID was 37% lower in schools where teachers and staff used masks and 39% lower where ventilation was improved, as compared to schools that did not use these strategies. However, in absolute numbers, a 37% reduction is only about one case in the school — hardly a supportive statistic for requiring schoolchildren to wear masks all day long. Especially interesting is that the statistic was for teachers and staff and not for students. When the researchers looked at masking students they found, “The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional.”19 The data suggest that masks are not as effective as government health experts would like you to believe, even though viral experts have been outspoken about the dangers of wearing face masks. Virus expert Judy Mikovits is one of those who have posted on social media. According to Weblyf.com, Mikovits wrote:20 "Do you not know how unhealthy it is to keep inhaling your carbon dioxide and restricting proper oxygen flow? ... The body requires AMPLE amounts of oxygen for optimal immune health. Proper oxygenation of your cells and blood is ESSENTIAL for the body to function as it needs to in order to fight off any illness. Masks will hamper oxygen intake.” Mikovits is joined by Dr. Jenny Harries, England's deputy chief medical officer. According to News-Medical.Net, she warned the public against wearing face masks "as the virus can get trapped in the material and cause infection when the wearer breathes in."21 Nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock also believes face masks may cause serious harm:22 "Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods? Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such a mask. This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications ... By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain." Where Will All the Plastic Go? Interestingly, the sale of plexiglass has roughly tripled since the beginning of 2020, rising to roughly $750 million in the U.S.23 Sales were fueled by offices, restaurants and retail stores that scrambled to put up plastic shields after being told it would reduce the spread of the virus. Tufts Medical Center epidemiologist Shira Doron supports the use of plastic shields but acknowledges “there’s no research” to support plexiglass barriers against coronavirus spread. She spoke with a reporter from Bloomberg, saying: “We don’t know a lot.” However, she believes that it comes down to, “If it might help, and it makes sense, and it doesn’t hurt, then do it.”24 Unfortunately, it doesn’t make sense and, ultimately, it may trigger mental health issues for children and adds to the growing plastic problem. Zaatari and Allen believe that plastic shields may make sense in certain settings, such as in front of cashiers if it doesn't impede airflow. However, money would have been better spent on improving ventilation and air filtration in the school systems. Craig Saunders, president of the International Association of Plastics Distribution, spoke with a reporter from Bloomberg about the future of those plexiglass shields when they are no longer used. He said, “It’s 100% recyclable thermoplastic. [It] just comes down to the logistics.”25 Yet, the logistics of recycling plastic are not a societal strong suit as has been demonstrated in the past 30 years. This begs the question of whether the additional plastic garbage from discarded plexiglass shields will join the trillions of pieces of plastic that litter the oceans and beaches.26 The planet is also facing a new plastic crisis brought on by discarded face masks. Each month there's an estimated 129 billion face masks being used,27 most of which are disposable, made from plastic microfibers. Before wearing a mask became a daily habit, more than 300 million tons of plastic were already produced globally each year. Most of it has ended up as waste, which led researchers from the University of Southern Denmark and Princeton University to warn that masks could quickly become “the next plastic problem.”28 Bottled water containers have been a leading source of environmental plastic pollution, but will likely be outpaced by disposable masks. While about 25% of plastic bottles are recycled, “there is no official guidance on mask recycle, making it more likely to be disposed of as solid waste,”29 the researchers stated. “With increasing reports on inappropriate disposal of masks, it is urgent to recognize this potential environmental threat.”30 No matter what the ultimate goal was in pushing the COVID-19 pandemic, it appears that ensuring the safety of the Earth on which we live was not a priority. It is essential we protect the ecosystem, and therefore our food supply. Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Ineffective and Harmful The evidence that masks do not work to prevent the spread of viruses has been demonstrated using influenza and COVID-19. The first COVID-19 specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial was published in November 2020,31 and it confirmed previous, conflicting32 findings showing that: Masks may reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may increase your risk by 23% The vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn't wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection-free Despite scientific evidence, the CDC has relied on anecdotal stories about hair stylists and retrospective reports to prop up their recommendation for universal mask-wearing to prevent the spread of infection.33 In addition to this, their own data34,35,36 also show 70.6% of patients with confirmed COVID-19 reported always wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness and 14.4% wore it often. This means a total of 85% of people who had confirmed cases of COVID-19 either “often” or “always” wore a face mask. For a discussion of more science-based evidence about face masks, see “Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Do More Harm Than Good.” Denight’s focus on keeping children “in their bubble” is not far from what’s happening across the world. Data from a study37 using Germany's first registry recorded the experiences of children wearing masks. It shows there are physical, behavioral and psychological harms38 being perpetrated on children in the name of science. Data from 25,930 children found the average child was wearing a mask 270 minutes each day and parents, doctors and others reported 24 health issues associated with that mask wearing. These problems:39 “… included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).” Added to these concerning symptoms, they also found 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play.40 Hundreds more experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.”41 Push Back Against Tyranny Measurements of anxiety or depressive disorder have also jumped dramatically for adults. Data from the CDC42 show the percentage of adults reporting symptoms of anxiety disorder and/or depressive disorder was 11% in the first quarter of 2019 but jumped dramatically to 41.1%43 across the U.S. by January 2021. This jump in anxiety and depression in adults is significant for children since there is a positive relationship between a child's behavioral problems and mental health with maternal mental health44 and parental mental health.45 This means that independent of their own stress and psychological harm from mask-wearing, lockdowns and plastic shields, children also respond negatively to the rising rate of anxiety and depression exhibited by adults. Thus, the impact on a child’s mental health is the result of both their own stress and that of their parents. March 20, 2021, marked the 1-year anniversary of the first COVID-19 lockdown. On that day, people in more than 40 countries took to the streets to peacefully demonstrate against the lies and tyrannical measures being taken by governmental agencies and experts in the name of a viral pandemic. Chances are you didn't hear about this global rallying cry for freedom since the mainstream media have near-universally censored any news of it. However, this information is vital to understanding how your freedoms are being stripped and what you can do to protect your rights. Our children and our children's children are depending on us to ensure they have the freedom and the right to make decisions for themselves about their health, wellness and finances. Read more at “Global Pushback Against Tyranny Has Begun.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/01/cdc-guidelines-for-desk-shields-in-schools.aspx

While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout.

The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other alternatives available. In a sane world, the COVID gene therapies would never have gotten an EUA, as there are several safe and effective treatment options available.

One treatment that stands out above the others is ivermectin, a decades-old antiparasitic drug that is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medications.

What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary. It’s been shown to significantly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro,1 speed up viral clearance and dramatically reduce the risk of death.

Gold Standard Review Supports Use of Ivermectin

Dr. Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor, Ph.D., researcher and director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (video above).2 in the U.K., has been trying to get the word out about ivermectin. To that end, she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel3 and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference,4 which was held online, April 24, 2021.

Twelve medical experts5 from around the world shared their knowledge during this conference, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.6

Lawrie has published several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looking at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment.”7

Her February 2021 meta-analysis, which included 13 studies, found a 68% reduction in deaths. This is an underestimation of the beneficial effect, because one of the studies included used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the control arm. Since HCQ is an active treatment that has also been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes, it’s not surprising that this particular study did not rate ivermectin as better than the control treatment (which was HCQ).

Two months later, March 31, 2021, Lawrie published an updated analysis that included two additional randomized controlled trials. This time, the mortality reduction was 62%. When four studies with high risk of bias were removed during a subsequent sensitivity analysis, they ended up with a 72% reduction in deaths.

(Sensitivity analyses are done to double-check and verify results. Since the sensitivity analysis rendered an even better result, it confirms the initial finding. In other words, ivermectin is unlikely to reduce mortality by anything less than 62%.)

Lawrie reviewed the February and March analyses and other meta-analyses in an interview with Dr. John Campbell, featured in “More Good News on Ivermectin.” Lawrie has now published her third systematic review. According to this paper, published June 17, 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics:8

“Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared to no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38 …) … Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% … Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence.

Low-certainly evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation,’ whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials …”

World Health Organization Refuses to Recommend Ivermectin

Despite the fact that most of the evidence favors ivermectin, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they largely rejected it, saying more data are needed. They only recommend it for patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial.

Yet, they based their negative recommendation on a review that included just five studies, which still ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths. What’s more, in the WHO’s summary of findings, they suddenly include data from seven studies, which combined show an 81% reduction in deaths. The confidence interval is also surprisingly high, with a 64% reduction in deaths on the low end, and 91% on the high end.

Even more remarkable, their absolute effect estimate for standard of care is 70 deaths per 1,000, compared to just 14 deaths per 1,000 when treating with ivermectin. That’s a reduction in deaths of 56 per 1,000 when using the drug. The confidence interval is between 44 and 63 fewer deaths per 1,000.

Despite that, the WHO refuses to recommend this drug for COVID-19. Rabindra Abeyasinghe, a WHO representative to the Philippines, commented that using ivermectin without “strong” evidence is “harmful” because it can give “false confidence” to the public.11

Why Ivermectin Has Been Censored

If you’ve been trying to share the good news about ivermectin, you’re undoubtedly noticed that doing so is incredibly difficult. Many social media companies are banning such posts outright.

Promoting ivermectin on YouTube, or even discussing benefits cited in published research, violates the platform’s posting policies. DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., is but one of the victims of this censorship policy.

His interviews with medical and scientific experts such as Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung and ICU specialist, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the president and chief medical officer12 of the FLCCC, and Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,13 have been deleted from the platform. The interview with Malone had more than 587,330 views by the time it was wiped from YouTube.14

But why? Why don’t they want people to feel confident that there’s treatment out there and that COVID-19 is not the death sentence they’ve been led to believe it is? The short answer is because ivermectin threatens the vaccine program. As explained by Andrew Bannister in a May 12, 2021, Biz News article:15

“What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts?

What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalization?

The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, ‘there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.’

The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021 … The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal.

The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021 … Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily.”

The WHO and Drug Companies Are Severely Compromised

The WHO’s rejection of ivermectin only makes sense if a) you take into account the EUA requirements; and b) remember that the WHO receives a significant portion of its funding from private vaccine interests.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of the WHO after the United States, and The GAVI Alliance, also owned by Gates, is the fourth largest donor. The GAVI Alliance exists solely to promote and profit from vaccines, and for several years, the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, served on the GAVI board of directors.16

As reported by Bannister, Merck, the original patent holder of ivermectin, also has severe conflicts of interest that appear to have played a role in the rejection of ivermectin. He writes:17

“Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder,18 donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries … Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal …

Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both.

In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, ‘A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies’ of the drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries.

The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic.

The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy.”

FLCCC Calls for Widespread and Early Use of Ivermectin

In the U.S., the FLCCC has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19,19,20 and Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202021 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.22

Based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.

As noted by the FLCCC:23

“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.

… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”

The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:

I-MASK+24 — a prevention and early at-home treatment protocol
I-MATH+25 — an in-hospital treatment protocol. The clinical and scientific rationale for this protocol has been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine26 in mid-December 2020
I-RECOVER27 — a long-term management protocol for long-haul syndrome

In addition to Lawrie’s meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the FLCCC has also published a scientific review28 in that same journal.

This paper, “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19,” published in the May/June 2021 issue, found that, based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces “large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”

Ivermectin Significantly Reduces Infection Risk and Death

The FLCCC also found that when used as a preventive, ivermectin “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19.” In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug.

In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take ivermectin.

In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater. Only 6.7% of the ivermectin group tested positive compared to 73.3% of controls. According to the FLCCC, “the difference between the two groups was so large and similar to the other prophylaxis trial results that confounders alone are unlikely to explain such a result.”

The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality,” which indicate that ivermectin is “effective in all phases of COVID-19.” For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to its residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.

In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%.

It’s worth noting that ivermectin’s effectiveness appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world. Additional evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,29 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.

Ivermectin in the Treatment of Long-Haul Syndrome

The FLCCC believes ivermectin may also be an important treatment adjunct for long-haul COVID syndrome. In their June 16, 2021, video update, the team reviewed the newly released I-RECOVER protocol.

Keep in mind that ivermectin is not to be used in isolation. Corticosteroids, for example, are often a crucial treatment component when organizing pneumonia-related lung damage is present. Vitamin C is also important to combat inflammation. Be sure to work with your doctor to identify the right combination of drugs and supplements for you.

Last but not least, as noted by Kory in this video, it’s really important to realize that long-haul syndrome is entirely preventable. The key is early treatment when you develop symptoms of COVID-19.

While ivermectin has a good track record when it comes to prevention and early treatment, it can be tricky to obtain, depending on where you live and who your doctor is.

A highly effective alternative that anyone can use, anywhere, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It’s extremely safe and very inexpensive. The biggest cost is the one-time purchase of a good tabletop jet nebulizer. To learn more, download Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” in which he details how to use this treatment.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/30/ivermectin-covid-19-treatment.aspx

I. National Institutes of Health (NIH) research1 published June 15, 2021, finds antibody evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the U.S. earlier than previously thought.

1. Why did it take NIH so long to do this experiment, or perhaps to tell us? These antibody tests take only a few minutes to perform. The blood was drawn more than 15 months ago.
2. Why is NIH relying on these two antibodies in nine individuals as evidence of COVID infection, but will not let a single U.S. person use them as evidence of prior infection and immunity?

“A participant was considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies on the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm.
Sensitivity and specificity of the Abbott and EUROIMMUNE ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated with 95% confidence intervals.”2

3. The old excuse that we don’t know how long immunity lasts has been crushed by the data from several studies. Perhaps unsurprisingly, one of avuncular Tony Fauci’s early emails said he expected immunity to be long-lasting. But Americans were told lies to push the vaccine program and keep people frightened of COVID even after they had recovered and were immune.

II. “The NIH report states that the CDC testing guidelines early in the pandemic had a narrow focus: Only people who had been in contact with a person confirmed to have an infection, or who had traveled to an area known to have coronavirus transmission, were advised to be tested.”3

1. What The Washington Post fails to make clear is that the test for COVID — the only test permitted to be used by federal agencies — from January 1, 2020, until early March 2020, was grossly inaccurate. CDC knew this. To cover it up, they allowed only a tiny number of people to get tested during this period, virtually restricting testing to those who already had a confirmatory clinical picture.

2. This CDC coverup had terrible consequences, possibly intended. It gave the infection two months to spread through the U.S. and become established via community transmission.

3. By this time, the tracing of contacts to control the epidemic had already been made obsolete. There was way too much unidentified spread happening. Track and trace does not work when most infections are asymptomatic.

4. It is conceivable that CDC keeps claiming that the vast majority of infections have symptoms in order to justify the many billions of dollars travelling through CDC’s hands for the track and trace program,4 which is still active.

5. The program cannot possibly work to control the pandemic at this late stage. The only purpose to use track and trace now is to obtain data on citizens’ social networks.

III. Seven of nine persons whose blood tested positive for antibodies were black or Hispanic. Therefore, the authors are concerned about possibly increased susceptibility in minority populations. Aha! Now we know why this story was dribbled out now. To scare black and Hispanic Americans into vaccination.

*This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Office of the Director and the National Cancer Institute.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/30/covid-19-infections-in-usa-before-pandemic-declaration.aspx

Many scientists and medical experts have warned that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is both unnecessary and risky in the extreme. The video above features comments by Peter Doshi, Ph.D., made during a June 10, 2021, public hearing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

Doshi is an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and the senior editor of The BMJ. He has previously pointed out that while Pfizer claims its vaccine is 95% effective, this is the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction — which is far more relevant for public health measures — is actually less than 1%.1 As such, the COVID-19 vaccine is of dubious benefit, to say the least.

If you choose to watch the video above I must warn you to stop after Doshi finishes and not view the presentation by Dr. Jacqueline Miller. She’s a paid shill pediatrician and the head of development for infectious diseases at Moderna. The reason I advise this caution is because if you understand reality, you will be shocked at how easily a physician can sell out and sacrifice even her own children in the delusional belief that Moderna’s shot provides any benefit to children.

Meanwhile, largely because of irresponsible beliefs and comments like Miller’s, harms are rapidly mounting, which skews the risk-benefit ratio even further. Considering the potential for harm, children should not get the COVID-19 vaccine, Doshi says, citing trial evidence from Pfizer — the very same evidence used to support its emergency use authorization application for 12- to 15-year-olds. In this trial, harms clearly outweighed the benefits.

Risk-Benefit Analysis

While benefits were rare and short-lived, side effects were common and long-term effects are completely unknown. In the 12-to-15 age group, 75.5% experienced headache, along with a long list of other transient side effects. However, more serious systemic adverse events also occurred in 2.4% of the trial subjects receiving the actual mRNA shot.

2% of the fully vaccinated [children] avoided COVID; 98% of the vaccinated wouldn’t have gotten COVID anyway … So, the benefit is small. ~ Peter Doshi, Ph.D.

Now, Pfizer boasted a 100% efficacy rate in this age group. This, Doshi explains, was based on 16 cases occurring in the placebo group, while no cases were recorded in the vaccine group. However, since there were about 1,000 placebo recipients, fewer than 2% of the placebo group actually tested positive for COVID-19.

“Put another way, 2% of the fully vaccinated avoided COVID,” Doshi says, adding “98% of the vaccinated wouldn’t have gotten COVID anyway … So, the benefit is small.”

One of the reasons for why children reap so little benefit from this jab is because a significant portion of American children are already immune and aren’t at risk of infection to begin with. Doshi cites Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data showing an estimated 23% of children under the age of 4 and 42% of those age 5 through 17 have already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection and now have robust and long-lasting immunity.

While most side effects in children have been short-lived, at least seven deaths among 12- to 17-year-olds had been reported as of June 11, 2021, as well as 271 events rated “serious.”2 In the long term, there’s really no telling what might happen, and that’s a really important point.

As noted by Doshi, during the 2009 swine flu pandemic, narcolepsy didn’t become apparent until nine months after vaccination with the Pandemrix vaccine, and it wasn’t until four months into Israel’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign that heart damage was recognized as a side effect in young men and boys.

Cocooning Does Not Work

Doshi goes on to explain why vaccinating children will not likely benefit adults, as claimed. This practice, sometimes referred to as “cocooning,” has never actually been proven. Doshi cites a 2021 BMJ editorial3 in which the authors stressed that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is “hard to justify right now,” seeing how children experience only mild disease and transmission by children is limited, while the possibility of unintended consequences is high.

“Should childhood infection (and re-exposures in adults) continue to be typically mild, childhood vaccination will not be necessary to halt the pandemic,” the authors state.4

“The marginal benefits should therefore be considered in the context of local healthcare resources, equitable distribution of vaccines globally, and a more nuanced understanding of the differences between vaccine and infection induced immunity.

Once most adults are vaccinated, circulation of SARS-CoV-2 may in fact be desirable, as it is likely to lead to primary infection early in life when disease is mild, followed by booster re-exposures throughout adulthood as transmission blocking immunity wanes but disease blocking immunity remains high. This would keep reinfections mild and immunity up to date.”

Doshi points out that even if you believe that a small benefit is better than nothing, you must remember that this is an unproven hypothetical benefit. We would need a proper randomized controlled trial to ascertain whether vaccinating children might actually benefit adults. “We need confirmatory evidence, not just assumptions,” Doshi says.

Vaccinating Children to Benefit Adults Is Unethical

However, even if vaccinating children were found to reduce infection among adults, we may still not be able to do so. Why? Because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can only authorize the use of a medical product in a given population if the benefit outweighs the risk in that same population.

This means that even if adults were to benefit, if children don’t benefit from it themselves, then we cannot authorize the vaccine for children. So, if children reap no benefit, then whether or not vaccinating them might benefit adults is a moot argument. You cannot authorize a drug for use in a population that reaps no benefit.

In conclusion, Doshi points out that the FDA has no basis on which to grant COVID-19 vaccines emergency use authorization for children in the first place, as COVID-19 is not an emergency in children. The threat this infection poses to children is negligible and no more serious than that of the common cold or flu.

Since demonstrated risks far outweigh demonstrated benefits in children, the vaccines also fail to meet the biologics license application required for ultimate market approval.

Already, healthy children have died shortly after the jabs, dozens of cases of heart inflammation have been reported, and Pfizer’s own biodistribution study raises serious questions about the shot’s potential to cause infertility. Last but not least, since there’s no “unmet need,” there’s also no need to rush to approve these injections for children.

To be clear, the only way they can even try to justify vaccinating children is by sacrificing them as shields to protect the elderly, which is completely unethical. Children are not harmed by COVID-19 itself, yet they keep using the slogan that “Nobody is safe until everyone is vaccinated,” which simply isn’t true.

Carefully Consider the Many Risks

While long-term effects are unknown, there’s reason to suspect they may be severe. A Pfizer biodistribution study5,6 demonstrates the synthetic mRNA does not stay near the injection site as initially assumed. It is, in fact, widely disseminated in your body within hours of injection.

It enters your bloodstream and accumulates in a variety of organs, primarily your spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands and, in women, the ovaries. The spike protein — which we now know is pathogenic and causes disease in and of itself — also travel to your heart, brain and lungs. Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. When that happens, one of several things can occur:

It can cause platelets to clump together — Platelets, aka thrombocytes, are specialized cells in your blood that stop bleeding. When there’s blood vessel damage, they clump together to form a blood clot. This is why we’ve been seeing clotting disorders associated with both COVID-19 and the vaccines
It can cause abnormal bleeding
In your heart, it can cause heart problems
In your brain, it can cause neurological damage
In your blood vessels, it can cause vasculitis, including Kawasaki disease, antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma and Sjogren’s disease.7 These conditions significantly increase your risk of death, in some cases raising mortality by 50 times compared to people who do not have these conditions

Regardless of the tissue, the spike protein can also impair your mitochondrial function, which is imperative for good health, innate immunity and disease prevention of all kinds.

When the spike protein interacts with the ACE2 receptor, it can disrupt mitochondrial signaling, thereby inducing the production of reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. If the damage is serious enough, uncontrolled cell death can occur, which in turn leaks mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) into your bloodstream.8

Aside from being detected in cases involving acute tissue injury, heart attack and sepsis, freely circulating mtDNA has also been shown to contribute to a number of chronic diseases, including systemic inflammatory response syndrome or SIRS, heart disease, liver failure, HIV infection, rheumatoid arthritis and certain cancers.9

The spike protein is also expelled in breast milk, which could be lethal for babies. You are not transferring antibodies. You are transferring the vaccine itself, as well as the spike protein, which could result in bleeding and/or blood clots in your child. All of this suggests that for individuals who are at low risk for COVID-19, children and teens in particular, the risks of these vaccines outweigh the benefits by a significant margin.

How Spike Protein Harms Your Health

I’ve written several articles detailing the mechanisms by which the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can decimate your health. For a refresher, see my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., featured in “The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health.”

I recently came across yet another paper that describes a very important mechanism that, to my knowledge, is not widely known, despite being published in July 2020. The paper, “Genetic Polymorphisms Complicate COVID-19 Therapy: Pivotal Role of HO-1 in Cytokine Storm,”10 explains that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has a far higher affinity for porphyrin molecules in the cell membrane than ACE-2.

Porphyrins are molecules with optical properties. Their ability to absorb light accounts for many of the beneficial health effects of sunlight.11 Porphyrins are also the building blocks of heme, the precursor to hemoglobin, which is necessary to bind oxygen in your blood.

According to this paper, porphyrins not only facilitate SARS-CoV-2 invasion into the cell, but they also allow the virus to bind functional hemoprotein within the cell, thereby increasing oxidative stress.

When the spike protein bind to porphyrins, it upregulates free heme and iron, which causes oxidation and fuels inflammation. It also increases reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, while decreasing levels of heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) enzymes. HO enzymes degrade heme into free iron, bilirubin (which has antioxidant effects) and carbon monoxide (which is antiapoptotic). As such, the HO system plays a crucial role in cellular defense.

The spike protein essentially overwhelms the anti-inflammatory cytoprotection normally offered by HO-1. As dysfunctional porphyrin are no longer capable of making heme, more hemoprotein becomes available for SARS-CoV-2 to bind to, which results in the release of more free iron. As the cycle continues, inflammation builds. Iron released by dying cells also has toxic effects. All of this has devastating consequences for your mitochondria, and, as noted in this paper:12

“If insufficient mitochondria in cells are evident, such as in white adipose cells, these cells are unable to accommodate the severe ROS formed leading to overwhelming inflammation. Brown adipose cells are better at handling ROS due to higher concentrations of mitochondria.”

This explains why obese individuals are at much higher risk. Because their fat cells have fewer mitochondria, they’re less able to counteract the ROS and therefore end up with higher levels of inflammation. The unprecedented outpouring of toxic iron into the body may also help explain why some end up with “long-hauler syndrome” after recovering from COVID-19.

Worst of all, since all of this is related to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the COVID shots may also end up promoting cancer, as excess iron is tightly associated with tumorigenesis in multiple human cancer types through a variety of mechanisms, including catalyzing the formation of mutagenic hydroxyl radicals, regulating DNA replication, repair and cell cycle progression, affecting signal transduction in cancer cells, and acting as an essential nutrient for proliferating tumor cells.

Do You Have Vaccine Regret?

If you’ve already had one or two COVID shots and are now having second thoughts, first, be sure to never have another vaccination again, with any vaccine of any kind. Even if you’re not having discernible symptoms as of yet, you’d be wise to start building your innate immune system. To do that, you need to become metabolically flexible and optimize your diet.

I interviewed Dr. Vladimir Zelenko June 23, 2021, and that interview should go live July 4, 2021. We discussed what Dr. Mike Yeadon — a former chief scientist at Pfizer, which is one of the primary manufacturers of COVID shots — believes, which is that those who are vaccinated are already condemned to certain and agonizing deaths.

He believes those who have received the injection will die prematurely and three years is a generous estimate for how long they can expect to remain alive.

If Yeadon’s projections are true, it changes EVERYTHING. There is no way to know if it is accurate or not, but Yeadon is someone who has serious insights as Pfizer’s former chief scientist. I was a Boy Scout and their motto is to “Be prepared.” Clearly, this is one contingency that needs to be planned for. Zelenko happens to share this belief. We discuss in great detail the strategies that can be used to lower the risk of Yeadon’s predictions coming true.

Use time-restricted eating and eat all your meals for the day within a six- to eight-hour window. Avoid all vegetable oils and processed foods. Focus on certified-organic foods to minimize your glyphosate exposure, and include plenty of sulfur-rich foods to keep your mitochondria and lysosomes healthy. Both are important for the clearing of cellular debris, including these spike proteins. You can also boost your sulfate by taking Epsom salt baths.

You’ll also want to make sure your vitamin D level is optimized to between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L), ideally through sensible sun exposure. Sunlight also has other benefits besides making vitamin D.

To combat the toxicity of the spike protein, you’ll want to optimize autophagy, which may help digest and remove the spike proteins. Time-restricted eating will upregulate autophagy, while sauna therapy, which upregulates heat shock proteins, will help refold misfolded proteins and also tag damaged proteins and target them for removal. It is important that your sauna is hot enough (around 170 degrees Fahrenheit) and does not have high magnetic or electric fields.

Other remedies that might be helpful if you’re experiencing side effects from your COVID shot(s) include:

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin treatments. Ivermectin appears particularly promising as it actually binds to the spike protein. To learn more, please listen to the interview that Brett Weinstein did with Dr. Pierre Kory,13 one of Dr. Paul Marik’s collaborators

Low-dose antiretroviral therapy to reeducate your immune system

Low-dose interferons such as Paximune, developed by interferon researcher Dr. Joe Cummins, 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

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/2021/06/29/children-covid-vaccine.aspx

Cancer is a disease of uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells. In 1971,1 President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer with a goal to make a national commitment to find a cure. Chemotherapy has been one of the primary treatments used in cancer with the objective to destroy cancer cells.2

However, chemo is technically a poison. When administered it travels throughout your body and affects every cell, unlike radiation or surgical treatments, which target precise locations.3

Glioblastoma is a specific type of brain cancer that develops from glial cells in the brain.4 It is sometimes referred to as a grade 4 astrocytoma. The tumor is fast-growing, invasive and commonly spreads throughout the brain. According to the Glioblastoma Foundation5 it can result in death as quickly as 15 months after diagnosis.

Symptoms of a glioblastoma develop rapidly as the cells grow and fluid around the tumor increases pressure in the brain.6 Some common symptoms include severe headaches, nausea and vomiting. Depending on the location of the tumor, symptoms can include weakness or sensory changes in the face, arms or legs, neurocognitive or memory issues and difficulty with balance.

Despite decades of research, researchers have written that the survival rate for individuals with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) has not changed in more than 40 years.7 Thomas Seyfried, who I believe is one of the best cancer biologists in the world, recently published an 80-month case report follow-up on a patient with glioblastoma,8 who has lived far longer than expected.

Long-Term Care With Ketogenic Metabolic Therapy

Writing in the journal Nutrition & Metabolism in 2007,9 Seyfried and colleagues proposed that restricting calories on a ketogenic diet is an effective alternative means of treating malignant brain cancer. The researchers used an animal model to test the theory and found the method was safe and effective.

August 16, 2014, a 26-year-old man presented at University Hospital Plymouth with symptoms of a malignant brain tumor.10 The man refused the recommended standard of care and opted instead to use ketogenic metabolic therapy (KMT). He educated himself on the implementation of the diet despite pressure from health care professionals to use their treatment.

He took medication to control the seizures and strictly followed the ketogenic diet, monitoring his glucose and ketones. It took two weeks to enter therapeutic ketosis. A second MRI in January 2015 showed no noticeable progression of the tumor. Serial MRIs every three to five months showed the tumor was growing slowly, quite unlike the natural progression of a glioblastoma.

Just over two years later, an MRI showed enough tumor growth that the patient decided to undergo a debulking surgery. Histological analysis showed an invasive astrocytic tumor. The tumor cells had a chance mutation known as IDH1, which improves the length of survival.11 After surgery, the patient continued the ketogenic diet, maintaining his glucose ketone index (GKI) near or below 2.0.12

In October 2018, an MRI showed interval progression after the patient had relaxed his strict adherence to the ketogenic diet. He returned to eating a keto diet that kept his GKI at 2 and included additional interventions such as breathing exercises, stress management and moderate physical training.

Over the following 2.5 years and seven MRIs, the tumor showed slow interval progression. As of the time of the case study writing in April 2021, the patient was “active with a good quality of life, except for occasional tonic-clonic seizures and no signs of increased intracranial pressure.”13

This case study is similar to one presented in 201814 of a 38-year-old man with a diagnosis of GBM. In addition to using a calorie-restricted ketogenic diet, this patient also underwent a subtotal tumor resection and used a modified standard of care treatment including epigallocatechin gallate, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, metformin and methylfolate.

After nine months of treatment, biomarkers and clinical symptoms indicated the tumor was regressing. At the time of the case study, 24 months after the start of therapy, the patient was in excellent health and showed evidence of significant tumor regression.15

Importance of Glucose and Glutamine to Cancer Cells

Seyfried commented in a press release from Boston College:16

“We were surprised to discover that KMT could work synergistically with the IDH1 mutation to simultaneously target the two major metabolic pathways needed to drive the growth of GBM. Glucose drives the glycolysis pathway, while glutamine drives the glutaminolysis pathway.

No tumor, including GBM, can survive without glucose and glutamine. Our study has identified a novel mechanism by which an acquired somatic mutation acts synergistically with a low carbohydrate, high fat diet to provide long-term management of a deadly brain tumor.”

The team postulated that the long-term survival of the first patient whose follow-up case study was written at 80 months after diagnosis may have been in part due to the IDH1 mutation17 and KMT, both targeting glycolysis and glutaminolysis essential for GBM growth.18

Glutamine is an amino acid that plays a role in intestinal health. Glucose and glutamine are fermentable fuels in the body. Studies19 have suggested microbial protein fermentation plays a role in generating a range of molecules that may increase inflammation and tissue permeability.

Seyfried writes that glucose and glutamine may drive breast cancer growth “through substrate level phosphorylation (SLP) in both the cytoplasm (Warburg effect) and the mitochondria (Q-effect), respectively.”20

In an interview with me, Seyfried describes how cancer cell metabolism is different from normal cell metabolism, changing from respiration to fermentation.21 If you measure oxygen consumption in tumor cells it looks like they are using oxygen to make ATP. However, the mitochondria are abnormal and what Seyfried realized was that the cells were fermenting amino acids, and in particular glutamine.

Using an animal model,22 Seyfried and colleagues demonstrated that with a calorically restricted ketogenic diet and a glutamine antagonist, they could reverse disease symptoms and improve animal survival. The strategy also appeared to reduce inflammation, swelling and hemorrhaging.

He also suggests that KMT with glutamine targeting may be an effective means of improving overall survival for women with breast cancer.23 This means targeting glucose and glutamine in the treatment of cancer all but eliminates their source of energy and starves the cells, so they can’t survive.

Why Cancer Is a Metabolic Disease

Western medicine has been operating under the theory that cancer is a genetic disease. This rules everything from research funding and treatment to the entire cancer industry. Unfortunately, despite decades of relying on this dogma, it has not led to any significant breakthrough in treatment or prevention.

Seyfried and others have advanced the theory that cancer is primarily the result of defective energy metabolism in, and damage to, the cell’s mitochondria. Genetic mutations that are detectable in cancer cells are not the primary cause of cellular overgrowth but are rather a downstream effect of defective energy metabolism.24

Research data demonstrate that cancer growth is suppressed when the nucleus from a tumor cell is transferred to the cytoplasm of normal cells with normal functioning mitochondria.25 This tells us that normal mitochondria can suppress cancer growth. Conversely, for cancer cells to proliferate, you must have dysfunctional mitochondria.

Seyfried’s research has demonstrated the growth and progression of cancer can be managed using a “whole body transition from fermentable metabolites, such as glucose and glutamine, to respiratory metabolites.”26 These are primarily ketone bodies that are formed when you follow a ketogenic diet.

In “Why Cancer Needs To Be Treated as a Metabolic Disease,” I discuss many of the pathways Seyfried notes in his interview with Dr. Peter Attia. Seyfried answers questions about the different types of mitochondrial abnormalities that are found in cancer cells and why cancer cells do not self-destruct.

Changing the view of cancer from a genetic disorder to primarily a metabolic disease has a significant impact on the approaches to preventing, treating and managing cancer.27

Healthy Mitochondria Help Prevent Cancer

Seyfried’s take-home message is that as long as your mitochondrial respiration remains healthy, cancer will not develop. There are several strategies you can use to help keep your mitochondria healthy. Avoiding toxic environmental factors and implementing healthy lifestyle strategies are the primary means of protecting your mitochondria.

In fact, this is the sole focus of the metabolic mitochondrial therapy program detailed in my book “Fat for Fuel.” Topping my list of strategies to optimize mitochondrial health, which you can read more about in my book, are:

Cyclical nutritional ketosis — The divergence from our ancestral diet — this massive prevalence of processed, unnatural foods and excessive amounts of added sugars, net carbs and industrial fats — is responsible for most of the damage to your mitochondria.

Calorie restriction — Another extremely effective strategy for reducing mitochondrial free radical production is to limit the amount of fuel you feed your body. This is a noncontroversial position as calorie restriction has consistently shown many therapeutic benefits.

Meal timing — Meal timing is also important. Specifically, eating too late in the evening, when your body doesn’t need the energy, is one of the worst things you can do to your mitochondria, as it creates a buildup of ATP that is not being used.

Normalizing your iron level — Iron also plays an important role in mitochondrial function, and contrary to popular belief, excessive iron levels are far more prevalent than iron deficiency. Virtually all men over the age of 16 and post-menopausal women are at risk of high iron.

Exercise — Exercise upregulates genes that promote mitochondrial efficiency, helping them grow and divide so that you have more mitochondria. By placing an increased energy demand on your cells, free radicals signal that you need more mitochondria to meet the energy demand. As a result, your body adapts to your level of activity by creating more mitochondria and making them work more efficiently.

Nutritional supplements — The following nutrients and cofactors are also needed for mitochondrial enzymes to function properly:

CoQ10 or ubiquinol (the reduced form)
L-Carnitine, which shuttles fatty acids to the mitochondria
D-ribose, which is raw material for the ATP molecule
Magnesium
Marine-based omega-3
All B vitamins, including riboflavin, thiamine and B6
Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA)

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/28/role-of-eating-ketogenic-for-glioblastoma.aspx

A landmark study by Grandjean, et al.,1 has been published confirming that very low levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy impair the brain development of the child and at a population level may be causing more damage than lead, mercury or arsenic.

The study found that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of 0.2 mg/L, which is exceeded four to five times in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities, was enough to lower IQ by one point. The authors stated that even this impact is likely underestimated and:

“These findings provide additional evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant … and the benchmark results should inspire a revision of water-fluoride recommendations aimed at protecting pregnant women and young children.”

A urinary fluoride (UF) concentration of 0.2 mg/L is far below what a pregnant woman in a fluoridated community would have, as confirmed by two recent studies.
A study of pregnant women in fluoridated San Francisco, California,2 found a mean UF concentration of 0.74 mg/L, and one with participants in fluoridated communities across Canada3 found a mean UF concentration of 1.06 mg/L. Both levels were significantly higher than those found in women in nonfluoridated communities.

Grandjean, et al.’s study, published in Risk Analysis, was a benchmark dose (BMD) analysis of the pooled data from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded ELEMENT and MIREC birth cohorts in Mexico and Canada. These are the birth cohorts that were used in the studies that found exposure to low levels of fluoride during pregnancy is linked to cognitive impairment in children.4,5,6,7

A Benchmark Dose is used to identify a dose or concentration that would likely cause a defined amount of harm, in this case a loss of one IQ point.

What makes this paper so important is that BMD is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) risk assessment methodology, and the paper’s authors used a one IQ point drop as the adverse effect amount because the EPA has used this same level of IQ loss in their own risk assessments and has recommended use of such a level.

It has been well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000. Summed over the whole population we are talking about a loss of billions of dollars of earning ability each year.

It is estimated that over 72% of public drinking water systems in America are fluoridated; thus, millions of pregnant women are currently being exposed to levels of fluoride that have the potential to lower their children’s IQ by at least four points and probably more.

Moreover, it’s important to point out that in risk assessments using BMD methodology, it’s standard practice to apply a safety factor on top of the calculated BMD in order to determine a safe reference dose (RfD) to protect the whole population (including the most vulnerable) from harm.

If that safety factor used was the standard safety margin of 10, to account for the variables in population-wide sensitivity, then the EPA might conclude that any urine fluoride concentration above 0.02 mg/L would be unacceptable and “unsafe.” This is 35 times lower than what the American Dental Association and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend for fluoridated communities.

Study Submitted to Judge in Federal Fluoridation Lawsuit

Michael Connett, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA, has sent a copy8 of this BMD analysis to the judge presiding over the case currently in federal court. The Fluoride Action Network is involved in an ongoing federal lawsuit9 against the EPA seeking to prohibit the deliberate addition of fluoride to drinking water because of its neurotoxicity.

A trial was held in June 2020, which featured world-renowned experts10 testifying in court that fluoridation posed a danger on par with lead. At the conclusion, the judge stated that we had presented “serious evidence” that presents “serious questions” about the safety of fluoridation, and said, “I don’t think anyone disputes that fluoride is a hazard.”

The judge also noted that the EPA had used an incorrect standard for assessing the available science and offered them a second chance to review it accurately, which they have declined repeatedly.

Since last summer, we have also won several legal victories, including rulings against EPA motions to dismiss the case and a recent ruling in April 2021 granting our motion to amend our original 2016 petition to include the latest studies and a more detailed listing of plaintiffs.
In the written order,11 the court dismantles the EPA’s arguments one by one, showing that the judge is committed to ensuring that all of the science is considered and remains the focus, which is a very good sign for our side.

The ruling also sets a precedent for future environmental cases under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by allowing petitioners to update and amend complaints to include the most up-to-date science during the trial, rather then restart the multiyear petition process over as the EPA attorneys wanted.

The court will hold the trial in abeyance until the final National Toxicology Program monograph on fluoride’s neurotoxicity is published possibly later this year. The judge was also awaiting the release of the benchmark dose analysis mentioned above and at least one additional study due out later in 2021.

Once all of this new research is available to the court, the judge could potentially hold a second phase of the trial, allowing additional discovery and testimony only on this new evidence. In fact, during the April 22, 2021, status hearing, the judge said this was his preference, and in the court order it is written, “As this Court has indicated, the evolving science warrants reopening of expert discovery and trial evidence.”

The court order indicated that once the judge has had the opportunity to see the new evidence and hear from both sides, the Fluoride Action Network will be able to resubmit our amended petition to the EPA for what will likely be one last opportunity for their reconsideration before a final ruling is made by the judge.

The next court hearing will be August 26, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. (Pacific U.S.). To get additional updates and links to view the hearing, follow FAN on Facebook and Twitter or sign up for our weekly bulletin.

For those wanting to catch up on this precedent setting trial, we have several resources available for you. First is a 16-minute video featuring our attorney, Michael Connett, providing a detailed background on the case and trial. Second, we have a 30-minute interview of Connett by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Third, FAN has a comprehensive database of documents, timelines, media coverage and materials about the lawsuit on our website.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< Damning Deposition Videos The talking point we probably hear the most from proponents at council hearings, and repeated by policy makers, is that government agencies like the CDC and EPA vouch for fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness, and regulate the practice responsibly, so therefore it must be true and we must be wrong. Instead of verifying any of these claims, policy makers have put their blind trust in these agencies. The media outlets, on the other hand, which should be the nation’s watchdog, have suspended their professionalism by not only blindly trusting these agencies, but also by discrediting those opposed to fluoridation. Under oath, representatives from these agencies proved that their mantra of “safe and effective” is only a baseless claim used to promote a failed policy. In this first video, Casey Hannan, the director of the CDC’s Oral Health Division, testifies that the CDC has no data12 establishing the safety of fluoride’s effect on the brain, despite decades of touting the safety of fluoridation for all citizens, including children. In this second video, Hannan admits there is no prenatal or early-life benefit13 from fluoride despite its known neurotoxicity to this same sub-population. In the third video, Joyce Donohue, Ph.D., a scientist from the EPA’s Office of Water, admits that the EPA’s current fluoride risk assessment, and thus fluoridation regulations, are out of date and should be updated14 in response to the collection of studies showing neurotoxicity published over the past several years. These three videos are just a small taste of what was admitted under oath by representatives of the government agencies responsible for protecting the health of Americans. For example, during the trial we also watched a video of CDC’s Hannan agreeing with the finding that “fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain … and increase risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” as well as agreeing with the National Research Council finding that “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the function of the brain and body by direct and indirect means.” FAN will be able to share much more of this video content with you after a ruling is made in the trial, exposing the failure of these agencies to protect the public from overexposure to fluoride. Former NTP Director Warns Parents in Op-Ed Along with the avalanche of new peer-reviewed studies showing harm and the lawsuit exposing government negligence, there has been an ever-growing chorus of warnings to the public and opposition to fluoridation from researchers and public health experts. This includes the former director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health. Toxicologist and microbiologist Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., co-authored an op-ed appearing in Environmental Health News with Christine Till, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada, and Dr. Bruce Lanphear, MPH, a physician, clinical scientist and professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada. Till is a co-author of several significant fluoride studies including the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride neurotoxicity study15 and others finding lowered IQ, increased diagnosis of ADHD and thyroid impairment. She received a leadership award from York University, in part, for this groundbreaking research. Lanphear is also an award-winning researcher who has been a member of two National Academies of Science committees, is a member of the EPA’s Lead Review Panel and is renowned for his research on low-level lead exposure and many other environmental neurotoxins. The op-ed, titled “It Is Time to Protect Kids' Developing Brains From Fluoride,”16 highlights the mounting evidence that fluoride is impairing brain development and compares the response from the public health community to its delayed response to the obvious harm caused by lead. The authors call for the U.S. "to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children," and state: "Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to review their recommendations and regulations to ensure they protect pregnant women and their children ... We can act now by recommending that pregnant women and infants reduce their fluoride intake." The op-ed is accompanied by a powerful animated short video17 on the impact of fluoride on brain development produced by Little Things Matter, a nonprofit scientific organization composed of children’s environmental health professionals. Dr. Till was also recently filmed giving an hour-long “must watch” presentation and Q&A on her fluoride neurotoxicity research.18 FAN has compiled quotes19 (and produced a video) from a variety of experts warning about fluoride’s neurotoxicity, as well as a list of opinion pieces and journal articles20 warning of harm. From Womb to Tomb An April 2021 study from Sweden found 50% higher rates of hip bone fractures in post-menopausal women in an area with up to about 1 mg/L fluoride in drinking water.21 It also found 10% to 20% higher rates of fractures for all types of bone fractures and for those types commonly associated with osteoporosis. The high-quality cohort study used detailed information from more than 4,000 older Swedish women enrolled starting in 2004 and followed through 2017. Their largest source of exposure was from naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water, at concentrations at or below 1 mg/L. Their total exposures fell within the same range as women living in areas with artificial fluoridation. Concern for fluoride’s effect on bone quality was raised 25 years ago based on animal studies: “[O]ne cannot help but be alarmed by the negative effects of fluoride on bone strength consistently demonstrated in animal models.”22,23 The animal findings prompted human studies. This new Swedish study builds on previous studies that found increased risk of bone fractures in older people with long-term fluoride exposure.24,25,26 It is also consistent with extensive experience from randomized controlled trials (RCT) done in the 1990s that attempted to decrease fracture risk for those with osteoporosis by giving patients relatively high doses of fluoride. Instead of decreasing fracture risk, those studies found increased risk, especially for hip fractures, and the attempts to use fluoride as a medication against osteoporosis have been largely abandoned. Researchers concluded that although fluoride can increase bone mineral density (BMD), it simultaneously decreases bone quality and bone strength, despite the greater density. This ought to have serious implications for the practice of fluoridation. The study’s findings suggest that long-term consumption of fluoridated water may be responsible for 50% or more of the hip fractures experienced by older people. There are about 2 million osteoporotic fractures in the U.S. per year, of which about 300,000 are hip fractures.27 Hip fractures in the elderly are a leading cause of disability and death. “About 30% of people with a hip fracture will die in the following year.”28 “Of those who survive, many do not regain their prefracture level of function. About 50% of patients with hip fractures will never be able to ambulate without assistance and 25% will require long-term care.”29 Water fluoridation may literally be killing older people, taking years off their lives or leaving them confined to wheelchairs. “Treating hip fractures is also very expensive. A typical patient with a hip fracture spends US $40,000 in the first year following hip fracture for direct medical costs and almost $5,000 in subsequent years.”30 Widespread fluoridation in the U.S. might help explain why, “Hip fracture rates among the U.S. population are the highest in the world.”31 Just as with the fluoride neurotoxicity studies that are finally being taken seriously, and funded by government agencies, this new study could help spur more high-quality studies on bone effects of fluoride. But there is already more than enough evidence of risk to the brain, and now to bone health, that there is no justification to continue intentionally adding fluoride to drinking water for the sole purpose of trying to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridation Lobby Is Doubling Down Unfortunately, in response to the abundance of new research, the landmark lawsuit, growing concern in the scientific community and the sustained advocacy and education efforts of FAN, the promoters of fluoridation have doubled-down on their efforts to expand the practice further in an effort to gaslight public officials into believing the practice isn’t on the brink of extinction. The United Kingdom and New Zealand32 are both being threatened with nationwide fluoridation mandates. In the U.K., the fluoridation lobby alongside the health secretary, Matt Hancock, are urging the government to take the power33 over fluoridation from local councils so he can mandate it throughout the country. While this threat is very real, the proposal doesn’t seem to have made much progress since March, but FAN is tracking it and working with U.K. residents to mount opposition. In New Zealand, the government has revived and amended a bill that was introduced in 2016 but lacked enough support for passage. As introduced, the bill would have moved fluoridation decisions from local councils — where they reside presently – to district health boards. However, the current government has amended the language to centralize fluoridation authority even further, by giving full control34 to the director-general of health, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield. Using this process has defied the normal democratic process, with no select committee, community consultation or public input. Supporters of this proposal are trying to pass it into law by the end of the year, at which time local councils (and local taxpayers) will be responsible for all capital and operational costs. While a number of mayors have come out in opposition, as well as citizens and professionals led by Fluoride Free NZ,35 the proposal appears to be moving forward. Learn more in this new video from FAN. The dental lobby is also targeting large cities in North America. This past summer, a coalition led by Delta Dental worked behind the scenes to pressure the city council in Spokane, Washington, to pass a resolution to fluoridate their drinking water, despite the public voting three times to reject fluoridation. Part of their sales pitch was that COVID was presenting an oral health emergency, to which this would be a solution. It was eventually revealed that implementation would take at least five years, making their exploitation of the pandemic to sell their fluoridation chemicals apparent. A local citizens group assisted by FAN, Safe Water Spokane,36 has fought this effort, and as a result the council has tabled their fluoridation resolution and will study the issue for the next year. Click here to learn more about Spokane. Calgary, Alberta, is also being threated with fluoridation despite voting numerous times to reject the practice. After hearing from the O’Brien Institute for Public Health that the practice causes cognitive impairment,37 the cowardly council decided to put the issue to a public vote this October, rather than make a decision. FAN is working with local campaigners Safe Water Calgary38 to ensure the public votes “no” on reintroducing fluoridation chemicals. The CDC has even partnered with private industry, using your tax dollars to develop new fluoridation products39 for rural water systems and private wells to expand the practice to every corner of the country (and likely beyond). We can’t count on the mainstream media or the public health authorities to tell the public or decision makers about what is happening. It’s up to us to make this information go viral! It’s up to us to bring it to our elected leaders and demand action! We need your support more than ever. Please help us get to the finishing line of a world without fluoridation.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/29/low-levels-of-fluoride-can-reduce-iq.aspx