Categories
Recommended

Childhood Stress Can Make You Ill as an Adult

Prolonged stress can have life-threatening consequences not only for adults but also for children. Research shows adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can predispose them to any number of health problems later in life.

In the early days of mankind’s evolution, the stress response saved our lives by enabling us to run from predators or take down prey. Today, however, such dire circumstances are few and far between, yet we still turn on the same “life-saving” reaction to cope with countless everyday situations.

Constantly being in a stress response may have you marinating in corrosive hormones around the clock, which can raise your blood pressure, add fat to your belly, shrink your brain and even unravel your chromosomes.1

Stress disrupts your neuroendocrine and immune systems and appears to trigger a degenerative process in your brain that can result in Alzheimer’s disease. Stress can also accelerate aging by shortening your telomeres, the protective genetic structures that regulate how your cells age. In the words of Dr. Lissa Rankin, author of “Mind Over Medicine”:2

“Our bodies know how to fix broken proteins, kill cancer cells, retard aging, and fight infection. They even know how to heal ulcers, make skin lesions disappear and knit together broken bones! But here’s the kicker — those natural self-repair mechanisms don’t work if you’re stressed!”

Childhood Stress and Mental Health
In a March 2020 Newsweek article,3 Adam Piore discusses the work of Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, founder of a children’s medical clinical in one of San Francisco’s poorest neighborhoods.

A surprisingly large portion of her young patients struggled with symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the hallmarks of which include an inability to focus, impulsivity and abnormal restlessness. Many also had severe health problems and depression. Piore writes:

“Burke Harris noticed something else unusual about these children. Whenever she asked their parents or caregivers to tell her about conditions at home, she almost invariably uncovered a major life disruption or trauma.
One child had been sexually abused by a tenant, she recalls. Another had witnessed an attempted murder. Many children came from homes struggling with the incarceration or death of a parent, or reported acrimonious divorces. Some caregivers denied there were any problems at all, but had arrived at the appointment high on drugs.”

Alarmed by the obvious trend she was witnessing in her clinic, Harris began searching for answers in the medical literature. Was childhood trauma responsible for the poor state of health of so many of her young patients?

“Childhood stress can be as toxic and detrimental to the development of the brain and body as eating lead paint chips off the wall or drinking it in the water — and should be screened for and dealt with in similar ways, in Burke Harris’ view. As California’s first Surgeon General … she is focusing on getting lawmakers and the public to act,” Piore writes.4

Adverse Childhood Experiences Screening
In 2020, California is allocating $105 million to promote screening for ACEs, which have been shown to trigger toxic stress responses and epigenetic changes linked to a variety of health problems. As reported by Piore, the biological switches flipped during ACEs increase a child’s risk for:5

Nicotine, alcohol and drug abuse
Heart disease

Suicide
Cancer

Mental illness
Dementia

Impaired immune function

What’s more, these stress-induced epigenetic changes can be passed on to future generations. Indeed, you will often find that childhood trauma “runs in families,” with each subsequent generation playing out the same interpersonal dramas as their parents. According to Harris, “The social determinants of health are to the 21st century, what infectious disease was to the 20th century.”6
The ACE Study

Much of what we now know about ACEs are the result of the 1998 ACE Study,7 which examined the relationship between childhood trauma and subsequent risky behaviors and diseases in adulthood. Categories of ACEs examined included:8,9

Psychological abuse
Physical abuse

Sexual abuse
Violence against the mother

Living with household members who were substance abusers
Living with mentally ill or suicidal household members

Living in a household in which a member has been or is imprisoned
Early death of a parent

Neglect
Separation or divorce

Of the 13,494 adults who received the questionnaire and had completed a standard medical evaluation, 70.5% responded. Of those, more than half reported experiencing at least one ACE; one-fourth reported two or more.

Not only did they find a direct “dose-dependent” relationship between the number of ACEs and future health problems and risky behaviors, childhood trauma appeared to be an independent risk factor for leading causes of death. According to the authors:10

“We found a graded relationship between the number of categories of childhood exposure and each of the adult health risk behaviors and diseases that were studied.
Persons who had experienced four or more categories of childhood exposure, compared to those who had experienced none, had 4- to 12-fold increased health risks for alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, and suicide attempt; a 2- to 4-fold increase in smoking, poor self-rated health, > or = 50 sexual intercourse partners, and sexually transmitted disease; and 1.4- to 1.6-fold increase in physical inactivity and severe obesity.
The number of categories of adverse childhood exposures showed a graded relationship to the presence of adult diseases including ischemic heart disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, skeletal fractures, and liver disease.
The seven categories of adverse childhood experiences were strongly interrelated and persons with multiple categories of childhood exposure were likely to have multiple health risk factors later in life.”

Origins of ACEs
In the June 2019 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, (full text is behind a paywall)11 Dr. Vincent J. Felitti commented on his 1998 ACE Study:

“The ACE Study was a direct outgrowth of significant counterintuitive findings derived from … the treatment of obesity in Kaiser Permanente’s Department of Preventive Medicine in San Diego, California. Unexpectedly, we discovered that such major weight loss was actually threatening to many patients.
Pursuing this, we came to realize that obesity, a major public health problem from a societal standpoint, was from the involved patient’s standpoint often an unconsciously chosen solution to unrecognized traumatic life experiences that were lost in time and further protected by shame, secrecy, and social taboos against exploring certain realms of human experience.”

Upon investigation, 55% of 286 patients enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente weight loss study acknowledged sexual abuse — an absolutely staggering statistic Felitti could hardly believe at first. Many of these patients also spoke about other childhood traumas.

Since these patients unconsciously used obesity as a defense mechanism, their weight loss efforts were often unsustainable, and they’d gain all the weight back. Since the publication of the 1998 ACE Study, Felitti and co-principal investigator Dr. Robert Anda have published more than 75 articles on its findings and other follow-up investigations.
The Importance of Sharing and Acceptance
Unfortunately, while interest in ACEs has grown, there’s been a strong resistance to using the information in clinical medical practice. For example, there were fears that questions about ACEs might enrage patients or trigger suicide.

However, when Felitti conducted an investigation, he found that when the ACE questions were included in an adult medical history intake, outpatient visits were actually reduced by 35% and emergency room visits declined by 11% in the subsequent year, compared to the year before the ACE questions were added.

They also found there was no rise in referrals to psychotherapy, so the reduction was not due to more people seeking psychiatric help. What they eventually discovered was that the mere ability to talk about their ACEs had a tremendously beneficial effect. Felitti writes:12

“We learned from patients that our apparent acceptance of them after hearing their dark secret was of profound importance. After lengthy consideration, we came to see that ‘Asking’ … followed up by face-to-face ‘Listening’ and ‘Accepting’ was a powerful form of ‘Doing.’
In other words, we had come upon a mechanism for reducing traumatic shame, which shame had the secondary effect of causing stress-related symptoms and hence doctor visits. Given our sample size, the economic implications of a reduction of this magnitude in medical utilization are in the multibillion-dollar range for any large organization.
Numerous legislatures, state and federal, have become involved because of the multibillion-dollar implications of the ACE Study findings for population health as well as medical care budgets.
The WHO has been collecting data annually with an International Version of the ACE Questionnaire in more than two dozen European and Asian nations, and the CDC has added since 2009 an ACE module to its annual Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Study, with almost all states currently participating.
Thus, in spite of the slow progress over the past 20 years, the international breadth and strength of interest in understanding the implications and extent of the ACE findings strongly suggest that our keynote AJPM article will ultimately have a major role in advancing well-being and medical care.”

Mind-Body Connection
In the two decades since the ACE Study came out, researchers have investigated the connection between childhood trauma and adult disease states from a variety of angles, looking for biological mechanisms to explain it.
One proposed mechanism involves the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, which controls stress reactions and regulates immune function, energy storage and expenditure, moods and emotions by way of hormones. A key hormone involved is cortisol, which plays a role in energy regulation. As explained by Piore:13

“When all is calm, the body builds muscle or bone and socks away excess calories for future consumption as fat, performs cellular regeneration and keeps its immune system strong to fight infection. In the case of a child, the body fuels normal mental and physical development.
In an emergency, however, all these processes get put on hold. The HPA axis floods the bloodstream with adrenaline and cortisol, which signals the body to kick into overdrive immediately. Blood sugar levels spike and the heart pumps harder to provide a fast boost in fuel …
When the emergency goes on for a long time — perhaps over an entire childhood of abuse — the resulting high levels of cortisol take a big and lasting toll.”

ACEs and Cortisol Dysregulation
Interestingly, researchers have discovered that different ACEs impact cortisol regulation in different ways. Children who experience severe emotional, physical or sexual abuse tend to have abnormally high cortisol levels first thing in the morning, while children experiencing severe neglect tend to have abnormally low morning levels.
Low morning cortisol has been linked to delinquency and alcohol use, while high morning cortisol levels are associated with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Excessive amounts of cortisol also lower immune function, thus raising the risk of infection, and raises the risk of high blood pressure, insulin resistance, Type 2 diabetes, obesity and heart disease.
On the other hand, too little cortisol increases the risk of an inflammatory immune response and exaggerated inflammatory response to stress. “Sickness behavior” — lack of appetite, fatigue, social withdrawal, depressed mood, irritability and poor cognitive functioning — has also been shown to be related to insufficient cortisol, Piore reports.
Genetics Also Play a Role

Researchers have also discovered that the presence of ACEs is in and of itself not enough to trigger toxic stress. Genetics also appear to play a role, as does interpersonal intervention. If someone is around to offer soothing reassurance, a sense of safety can be restored, allowing cortisol levels to normalize.
The problem is that chronic abuse is typically because no one is intervening on the child’s behalf. “Adversity and stress without adequate buffering can turn on genes that flood the system with enzymes that prime the body to respond to further stress by making it easier to produce adrenaline and reactivate the fight-or-flight response quickly, which can make it harder for children with toxic stress to control their emotions,” Piore notes.14
Childhood Trauma Is a Significant Health Risk

In 2019, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed data from 144,017 individuals in 25 states, finding:15,16

Nearly 1 in 6 adults (15.6%) has experienced four or more types of ACEs
ACEs raise the risk of at least five of the top 10 leading causes of death
Preventing ACEs could reduce adult depression rates by as much as 44%, asthma rates by 24% and stroke by 15%
Preventing ACEs could also prevent up to 1.9 million cases of heart disease and up to 2.5 million cases of overweight or obesity

Interventions to Combat the Stress Response
The good news is that as the role of ACEs and toxic stress is becoming more widely recognized, doctors can begin to address these issues, which is what Harris is pushing for in California. Caregivers of stressed or traumatized children also need to be educated on the importance of emotional and physical buffering. Piore writes:17

“Buffering includes nurturing caregiving, but it can include simple steps like focusing on maintaining proper sleep, exercise and nutrition.
Mindfulness training, mental health services and an emphasis on developing healthy relationships are other interventions that Burke Harris says can help combat the stress response.
The specifics will vary on a case-by-case basis, and will rely on the judgment and creativity of the doctor to help adult caregivers design a plan to protect the child — and to help both those caregivers and high-risk adults receive social support services and interventions when necessary … ‘Most of our interventions are essentially reducing stress hormones, and ultimately changing our environment,’ says Burke Harris. ”

A 2017 paper18 in Health & Justice delineates further “action steps using ACEs and trauma-informed care” to improve patient resiliency without retraumatizing them.
Resilience is the ability of your body to rapidly return to normal, physically and emotionally, after a stressful situation. One way to improve resilience is through breath work, as described in “Simple Techniques to Reduce Stress and Develop Greater Resiliency.”
The Health & Justice paper19 also highlights the importance of incorporating neuroscience concepts to trauma-informed care programs and therapies, and stresses the use of a resilience-oriented approach in order to move “from trauma information to neuroscience-based action with practical skills to build greater capacity for self-regulation and self-care in both service providers and clients.”
Problems and Challenges: ACE Score May Be Misleading

California’s Department of Health Care Services ACEs Aware Initiative kicked off January 1, 2020.20 Health care providers in the state are encouraged to screen patients for ACEs that might influence their health, and connecting patients in need with the appropriate interventions and resources.
Some, however, including Anda, who helped develop the ACE score with Felitti, worry that the ACE score might not work well when applied to individual patients, as it does not take into account caregiver buffering and other factors that tend to be protective. Piore writes:21

“The problem with applying it to individual patients, he says, is that it doesn’t take into account the severity of the stressor. Who’s to say, for instance, that someone with an ACE score of one who was beaten by a caregiver every day of their life is less prone to disease than someone with an ACE score of four who experienced these stressors only intermittently?
On a population level, surveying thousands, the outliers would cancel each other out. But on the individual level they could be misleading.”

While screening tools can indeed be misused and lead to inappropriate labeling, recognizing the influence of ACEs in public health is an important step forward. In coming years, we’re likely to see more advances in screening methods as well.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/03/19/adverse-childhood-experiences.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Deadly Mold in Seattle Children’s Hospital

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Seattle Children’s Hospital after six children died and many others were sickened from Aspergillus mold.1 The lawsuit claims the hospital knew about “systemic problems” with its air-handling system and the related risks as far back as 2000, but “engaged in a cover-up” that left vulnerable patients exposed to potentially dangerous Aspergillus mold.
Since 2001, Seattle Children’s has identified 14 patients who contracted Aspergillus infections during or after hospital stays; six of those patients died as a result.2 Attorneys suggest, however, that many more children were likely affected and the numbers could be as high as “dozens if not hundreds.”3
As of December 4, 2019, all 14 operating rooms at the hospital’s main campus remained closed as a new air handling unit was moved into place. “We are incredibly sorry for the hurt experienced by these families and regret that recent developments have caused additional grief,” Seattle Children’s said in a statement. “Out of respect for privacy, we do not intend to share details about our patients or comment on specific cases or legal action.”4
Hospital’s Air Handling System Led to Deadly Mold Infections

Patients affected by the toxic mold at Seattle Children’s Hospital range in age from 2 months to 17 years.5 The infections occurred from 2001 to 2019 as a result of the hospital’s negligence at maintaining and testing its facilities, leading to the transmission of Aspergillus mold spores to hospitalized children, according to the suit.6
In 2019, the hospital admitted that it was contaminated with Aspergillus mold since 2001, sickening patients as a result. Air tests conducted in November 2019 also revealed the presence of Aspergillus in several operating rooms.7
However, this wasn’t a new revelation, as the suit alleges that the hospital knew by at least 2005 its air-handling system could be transmitting Aspergillus, when a family sued them over the issue. “During the course of that lawsuit troubling information surfaced regarding the Defendant’s failure to maintain and staff its air-handling systems,” the complaint reads.
The lawsuit was settled in 2008 under confidential terms, but the hospital continued to keep “a deadly secret” in assuring patients and the public that it was safe, when in fact the mold persisted.8
Further, as early as 2002, an engineering consultant as well as the hospital’s lead engineer warned the hospital about “filthy conditions” of its air-handling units, including water leaks, birds in fan shafts, units “rotting out” and failure to test equipment.9
The hospital also published an internal investigation in 2007 looking into three Aspergillus infections, but concluded they were isolated incidents. Seattle Children’s CEO Dr. Jeff Sperring said in a statement:10

“As we have previously shared, Seattle Children’s has had seven Aspergillus surgical site infections since the summer of 2018. We are deeply saddened that one of those patients died. As we have looked more closely at our history of Aspergillus infections, we believe there are connections between recent and past infections. Between 2001 and 2014, seven patients developed Aspergillus surgical site infections. Tragically, five of those patients died. At the time, we believed most of these were isolated infections. However, we now believe that these infections were likely caused by the air handling systems that serve our operating rooms. Looking back, we should have recognized these connections sooner.”

Dangers of Aspergillus Infection
Aspergillus is a common type of mold found both indoors and outdoors, in decaying leaves and on plants, trees and compost.11 While most people come in contact with Aspergillus daily without any ill effects, certain strains can be dangerous for people with weakened immune systems or lung diseases.
Disease caused by Aspergillus is known as aspergillosis, which can lead to allergic reactions and infections in the lungs or other organs.12 The CDC lists seven types of aspergillosis, which range in severity from mild to life threatening:13

Allergic broncopulmonary aspergillosis, which occurs when the mold causes allergy symptoms and lung inflammation.Allergic Aspergillus sinusitis, which occurs when the mold causes sinus inflammation and symptoms of a sinus infection.

Azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, caused by A. fumigatus, a type of Aspergillus that’s resistant to certain medications used to treat it.Aspergilloma, or “fungus ball,” which refers to a ball of Aspergillus that grows in the lungs or sinuses.

Chronic pulmonary aspergillosis, which is Aspergillus infection that causes cavities and sometimes fungal balls in the lungs.Invasive aspergillosis, a serious infection that typically affects people with weakened immune systems; it commonly affects the lungs but may spread to other areas.

Cutaneous (skin) aspergillosis, which occurs when the mold enters a wound or other skin break and leads to infection.

Aspergillosis isn’t a reportable disease in the U.S., which means numbers on its incidence are scarce, but the CDC estimates that nearly 15,000 aspergillosis-associated hospitalizations occurred in the U.S. in 2014, with costs of $1.2 billion.14 Further, they noted, “In a broad U.S. health care network of intensive care unit autopsy studies, aspergillosis was one of the top four most common diagnoses that likely lead to death.”15
Aspergillosis Outbreaks in Hospitals

While clusters of cases of dangerous invasive aspergillosis are rare in the general population, outbreaks have occurred previously in hospital settings, particularly among immunocompromised patients.
Recently, lung infections caused by Aspergillus have been reported in people hospitalized with severe influenza and, in one study, invasive pulmonary aspergillosis occurred even in people without a compromised immune system.16 The CDC also reported:17
“Although most cases of aspergillosis are sporadic (not part of an outbreak), outbreaks of invasive aspergillosis occasionally occur in hospitalized patients. Invasive aspergillosis outbreaks are often found to be associated with hospital construction or renovation, which can increase the amount of airborne Aspergillus, resulting in respiratory infections or surgical site infections in high-risk patients. Outbreaks of primary cutaneous aspergillosis and central nervous system aspergillosis in association with the use of contaminated medical devices have also been described. The incubation period for aspergillosis is unclear and likely varies depending on the dose of Aspergillus and the host immune response.”

While it’s virtually impossible to avoid exposure to aspergillus in the environment, hospitals have a responsibility to ensure they aren’t exposing patients to this potentially dangerous fungus via an ill-maintained air handling system. As for Seattle Children’s, they’re installing new air handlers in an attempt to resolve the mold issues:18
“Seattle Children’s will install a new rooftop air handler as well as custom-built, in-room high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters in every operating room and adjacent supply area. HEPA is an extremely effective filtration system that removes 99.97 percent of particles from the air that passes through the filter. This is the highest level of filtration found in operating rooms today. These operating rooms will remain closed until the enhancements are fully in place.”

Is There Mold in Your Home?
Common health problems that can be attributed to poor and potentially toxic indoor air quality courtesy of mold growth include but are not limited to the following. If you have any of these issues, it may be worthwhile to consider your indoor air quality, and the possibility that your health problems may be related to mold.

Frequent headaches
Depression
Chronic fatigue

Allergies

Neurological problems; poor concentration and forgetfulness
Skin rashes

Stomach and digestive problems, such as dysbiosis, leaky gut and frequent diarrhea
Chronic sinusitis

Joint aches and pains

Muscle wasting
Frequent fevers
Asthma or trouble breathing

To determine if mold is lurking in your home, first look for signs of visible mold or musty odors. However, not all mold is easily detectable, so if you can’t see any visible traces of mold, take an air sample and use a moisture meter to determine the moisture level in the area.
Wood flooring should have a maximum moisture content of 10% to 12%, for instance, as anything above that is a breeding ground for mold. Exterior walls should not have a moisture content above 15%. In addition to air sampling, proper lab testing of bulk samples of the mold growth is recommended.
This will require cutting out a piece of the affected area. The U.S. EPA has a test called Environmental Relative Moldiness Index (ERMI), which tests for 31 different species of mold. If all you have is a small area of surface mold, you probably don’t have to call in an expert. However, only attempt to clean it if it’s limited to the surface of a small area. Any deep-rooted mold will require professional assistance to remediate.
Mold Is Serious, Here’s What You Can Do

Download Interview Transcript

Aspergillosis is an example of what Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker calls biotoxic illness. Most biotoxic illnesses are difficult to diagnose and treat as all of them, including mold, affect multiple systems in your body and produce a wide array of symptoms.
Shoemaker, a pioneer in the field of biotoxin-related illness, explains that the underlying commonality, whether the disease is caused by dinoflagellates, mold or spirochetes, for example, is chronic inflammation. The inflammation induced by exposure to the toxins and metabolic products produced by these microorganisms is what wreaks havoc on your health. “In order to treat them, we need to both remove them from exposure and remove toxin from their body,” Shoemaker said. Many of his patients have had success using cholestyramine (CSM), a rarely used cholesterol drug that binds to not just cholesterol, but just about everything of a particular molecular shape and size. “Binding CSM to the toxin prevents its reabsorption. There’s another cholesterol-lowering resin called Welchol that also has these net positive charges … Even though people have used clays — and Bentonite is one — with some success, cholestyramine is so much better that people would put up with the common side effects of constipation and some reflux,” he said. This is only the first step in his protocol, which includes 10 additional steps intended to stop the inflammatory process initiated by the mold (or other toxin) exposure. For more information, SurvivingMold.com is a great resource for medical practitioners and patients alike.19
I also discuss helpful tests and diagnostic tools for mold-related illness in “Mold: The Common Toxin That Can Be Far More Damaging Than Heavy Metals.” Overall, your best approach is to find a well-informed physician with expertise in environmental medicine. Together you can devise an appropriate treatment plan. For a list of physicians with experience in treating mold-associated disease, see DrThrasher.org.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/12/17/seattle-childrens-hospital-mold.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Should Kids Avoid This Kind of Milk?

Plant-based milk has become increasingly popular. Once regarded as a fringe product geared toward “health nuts,” it’s now gone mainstream and is available at many supermarkets and coffee shops. The health benefits, if any, of alternative milks are debatable, and new health guidelines released by a group of health organizations suggest most young children should not consume it.
Childhood nutrition sets the stage for optimal development and lifelong health. What your child drinks is part of this equation, as is what your child does not drink. It’s widely known that sugar-sweetened beverages and even fruit juice should be limited or avoided, but milk is largely considered to be a go-to beverage option for children. However, not all milk is created equal.
Most Young Children Should Avoid Plant-Based Milk

A panel of experts with the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association prepared the healthy beverage consensus statement, “Healthy Beverage Consumption in Early Childhood.”1
For infants aged zero to 12 months, the panel stated plant milks are not recommended. For those aged 1 to 5 years, plant milks were also not recommended for exclusive consumption in place of dairy milk. This includes plant milks and nondairy beverages such as rice, nut and seed milk, or milk made from coconut, oats, peas or blends of these ingredients. The rationale, according to the statement:2

“Plant-based milks are growing in popularity, but it is important to note that they are not nutritionally equivalent to cow’s milk. They have varying nutritional pro les based on their plant source and many often contain added sugars.”

Two studies were cited that compared the nutritional value of cow’s milk with nondairy beverages. One found that cow’s milk has higher protein content and quality compared to most nondairy milk beverages.3
The other concluded, “[I]f the goal is to provide a beverage nutritionally similar to cow’s milk for growing children, then, with the exception of soy, NDMAs [nondairy milk alternatives] are not nutritionally similar to cow’s milk and are not a good substitute.”4 The expert panel noted:5

“Although plant milks may be fortified to attain similar nutrient levels as cow’s milk, it is not known whether the bioavailability of these added nutrients is comparable to that of their naturally-occurring counterparts in cow’s milk.

These studies concluded that cow’s milk should not be removed from the diets of young children unless there is a medical indication or specific dietary preference, and that non-dairy milk beverages should not be considered adequate nutritional substitutes for cow’s milk until nutrient quality and bioavailability are established.”

Almond and Soy Milk Are Not Healthy Options
Almond milk is loaded with oxalates and should be avoided. Not only can oxalates increase your risk of kidney stones but there is increasing evidence that high oxalate consumption can cause a wide variety of disorders and there is pretty clear evidence that oxalates can cause excess oxidative stress and increase mitochondrial dysfunction.The panel made an exception for soy milk; however, this beverage is not a healthy choice for children or adults. Most soybeans in the U.S. are genetically engineered to be herbicide tolerant. They are doused with toxic glyphosate, a chemical linked to cancer and other health risks. Soy is also high in antinutrients called lectins, including soybean agglutinin (SBA), which may alter intestinal health and gut flora.6
Other antinutrients in soy include saponins, soyatoxin, phytates (which prevent the absorption of certain minerals), oxalates, protease inhibitors, estrogens (which can block the hormone estrogen and disrupt endocrine function) and goitrogens (interfering with your thyroid function) as well as a blood clot-inhibiting substance called hemagglutinin.
The expert panel noted that children with allergies may choose to consume plant milks, but even in these instances, soy milk is not a healthy choice. It’s also not a safe choice for infant formula either, in part because it exposes infants to hormone-mimicking substances. As noted in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives:7

“Early-life exposure to estrogenic compounds affects the development of the reproductive system in rodent models and humans. Soy products, which contain phytoestrogens such as genistein, are one source of exposure in infants fed soy formula, and they result in high serum concentrations.”

Are Plant Milks Ever Healthy?
One major problem with plant milks, particularly if you’re giving it to a child as a significant portion of their diet, is that they don’t offer much nutrition. Almond milk, for instance, may contain only 2% almonds.8 The rest of the beverage may be made largely of water, sugar and other additives, like carrageenan, a highly inflammatory additive that may cause inflammation in your gastrointestinal system and related problems.9
Rice milk is also problematic due to potential arsenic contamination, which may surpass the maximum levels allowed in drinking water.10 That being said, if you choose unsweetened, organic options, most plant milks aren’t necessarily harmful, but they’re not going to provide children with the nutrition their growing bodies need.
What they will do is fill up the child, making them less likely to eat the foods they need, like healthy fats and vegetables. The panel stated:11

“For 0 to 12-month-olds, plant milks/non-dairy beverages should not be used as a substitute for breast milk or infant formula. Use of alternative beverages as a major component of the diet during this period has been associated with malnutrition.”

Certain plant milks, particularly coconut milk, can provide some nutrition, but you’re almost always better off choosing the whole food instead, especially for children. So instead of serving a child almond milk, choose a handful of organic almonds.
Is Cow’s Milk a Healthy Choice?

The assumption that all children need milk to grow up strong is outdated. The calcium and protein found in milk can be consumed via a variety of dairy sources, vegetables and other foods. It’s not necessary to give children milk, provided they’re consuming a healthy, whole-food diet otherwise.
If your child feels ill after drinking dairy milk, a lactose intolerance, casein allergy or another type of dairy sensitivity may be present, and regular cows’ milk may be better off avoided. If you’re still looking for a dairy beverage, keep in mind that some people who have problems drinking regular dairy do fine when drinking raw, organic grass fed milk, which is far easier on your digestive system. Raw, grass fed A2-only milk may be even more ideal.
Due to the unique needs of their developing bodies, it is important to ensure children are getting the full spectrum of vitamins and minerals, as well as sufficient amounts of high-quality fat and protein, on a daily basis. However, this can come from a number of healthy sources, not necessarily milk.
Have You Heard of Cockroach Milk?

Speaking of milk alternatives, one of the most outrageous to surface is cockroach milk — but when you learn about the potential benefits, it doesn’t sound so outrageous after all. The female Pacific beetle cockroach is the only known cockroach species to be viviparous, meaning they give birth to live young and nurse their offspring.
As cockroach embryos drink their mother’s milk, it concentrates inside their guts and forms tiny crystals, which are considered a complete food with proteins, fats and sugars. Because cockroach milk has quadruple the nutrition value in comparison to cow’s milk, it may in the future be tapped to feed the world.12
What Are the Healthiest Beverage Choices for Children?

Healthy beverage choices are an important component of an overall healthy diet, particularly in childhood. As the panel explained:13

“Establishing healthy dietary patterns in early childhood (0 to 5 years) is important to help prevent future diet-related chronic diseases, as well as to support optimal physical and cognitive growth and development and overall health.

Healthy beverage intake is critical in early childhood as beverages can make a significant contribution to dietary intake during this period, and thus may serve as important sources of essential nutrients.”

If cockroach milk is too “out there,” and plant milks aren’t really healthy, what should you give your children to drink? From zero to 6 months, infants need only breastmilk. At 6 to 12 months, breastmilk along with a small amount of pure water (one-fourth to 1 cup a day) can be given.
For those older than 12 months, the panel recommended a combination of pure water and milk, along with a small amount of fruit juice (no more than 0.5 to 0.75 cups daily)14 — an addition I don’t recommend due to the high sugar content. And, while the panel recommended the water you give your children be fluoridated, I don’t recommend that either, as research confirms that fluoride lowers children’s IQ levels.
Perhaps most notable are the beverages the panel does not recommend for children aged zero to 5, which include:

Plant milks and other nondairy beverages, unless medically indicated
Flavored milk, such as chocolate or strawberry milk

Toddler milk, which often contains added sugars
Sugar-sweetened beverages

Beverages with low-calorie, or artificial, sweeteners
Caffeinated beverages

Unfortunately, many children are consuming far too many unhealthy beverages and not enough pure water, putting them at risk of diet-related chronic diseases such as obesity, Type 2 diabetes and dental caries. The panel stated:15

Many infants consume milk and 100% juice prior to their first birthday, which increases the risk of nutrient deficiencies and anemia
Among 2- to 5-year-olds, 44% consume a sugar-sweetened beverage daily
The prevalence of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption increases throughout childhood

To replace sugar-sweetened beverages, many children enjoy homemade smoothies made from kefir (fermented milk) and berries. If you’re having a hard time getting your child to drink water, try adding in some healthy flavor, such as fresh lemon or lime juice, cucumber slices or crushed mint leaves.
Sparkling mineral water can add some variety, but the fact remains that, once you’re past 6 to 12 months and no longer breastfeeding, your body needs pure water, and plenty of it. Swapping out sweetened beverages, plant milks and artificially sweetened drinks for pure water will go a long way toward protecting your child’s health, both now and in the years to come.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/10/05/plant-based-milk.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Little Timmy vs. Google Spies

Children are spending an alarming amount of time watching media on various screens and devices, but among them, Google-owned YouTube is emerging as one of the biggest threats to their well-being.
In fact, Google must pay a record $170 million to settle allegations by the Federal Trade Commission and the New York attorney general, which claim YouTube collected children’s personal information without parents’ consent. Broken down, Google will pay $136 million to the FTC and $34 million to New York.
The allegations include that YouTube violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by using persistent identifiers, also known as cookies, which track users, on child-directed YouTube channels without parents’ consent.1 According to the FTC, YouTube earned millions of dollars via the cookies by selling targeted ads.
FTC Chairman Joe Simons said in a news release, “YouTube touted its popularity with children to prospective corporate clients. Yet when it came to complying with COPPA, the company refused to acknowledge that portions of its platform were clearly directed to kids. There’s no excuse for YouTube’s violations of the law.”2 The penalty is the largest ever obtained by the FTC in a COPPA case.
A study by Ofcom, the U.K.’s communications regulator, also revealed that YouTube was the most popular platform among children. It was the go-to spot for children to find and watch content, “and the place they did so most frequently — many of them every day.”3
In one of the most ironic findings, children enjoyed watching people pursue hobbies on YouTube that they themselves did not do, or had recently given up.4 They also enjoyed the ability to find whatever content they wanted, whenever they wanted it.
“As YouTube responds to demand, it can offer a seemingly limitless choice of content. YouTube offers everything they could possibly want, and then allows them to easily access more of what they like the most,” the researchers explained5—and herein lies part of the problem.
While collecting information, YouTube is able to tailor content directly to your child, presenting an irresistible stream of digital content that children have a hard time turning off. Like the way food manufacturers engineered potato chips to offer an addictive mix of salt, crunch and unhealthy fats, YouTube has been set up to make your kids crave it.
Autoplay and Other Tactics Keep Kids Glued to the Screen

Apps like YouTube collect data, such as the number of “likes,” and use it to select content your children may be interested in. The content is then played automatically, one video after another, making it difficult for children to look away.
Baroness Beeban Kidron, who is leading a campaign for children’s online rights, told the New York Times, “The idea that it’s O.K. to nudge kids into endless behaviors, just because you are pushing their evolutionary buttons — it’s not a fair fight … It’s little Timmy in his bedroom versus Mark Zuckerberg in his Valley.”6
The personalization aspect is emerging as one of the keys drawing children in. The Ofcom study revealed, in fact, that children were most attracted to content that they could view on their own device, exercise maximum choice over and that directly fed them content of interest, i.e., YouTube.7 They explained how YouTube presents the perfect storm of personalization to capture kids:8

“The way content is presented on YouTube also makes for a very different platform experience. For example, videos on YouTube are recommended to individual users with one of the most personalised experiences on the internet. The content available on YouTube is also refreshed second by second by millions of users worldwide, dynamically responding to what is popular.

Organisations and individuals alike create and upload content with the sole aim of maximising views, and therefore advertising revenues, making use of YouTube analytics to see exactly what is appealing to users and generating more content of that type.

As a result, the videos available on YouTube adapt rapidly in response to what users watch, making it easier and easier for people to find and discover content that appeals to them. In this research, we found that children could easily access exactly what they wanted to watch and were being served with an endless stream of recommendations tailored exactly to their taste.”

Baroness Fights for Children’s Online Rights
Kidron began the 5Rights foundation, which aims to protect children’s digital rights. Just as children are afforded certain protections in the real world, Kidron believes they should be extended to the digital world.
At issue is those pop-up boxes that ask users to click “accept” in order to access content, and in so doing surrender much personal privacy, along with so-called “nudge” techniques that encourage users to stay engaged. 5Rights notes that the very design of these technologies is costing children their childhood, one notification and “Like” at a time:9

“Persuasive design strategies are the hooks and tricks that keep users online; auto-play, auto-suggestion, Likes, re-tweets, notifications, buzzes, pings, typing bubbles, Streaks…

Each on their own offer a small symbol of personal worth or fuzzy reward, together they provide a constant, damaging ecosystem of distraction, competition and invasion that and with it an epidemic of anxiety, sleeplessness and negative impacts on health education family and social life.”

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), in its draft Age Appropriate Design Code, is considering 16 standards that would help to protect children’s online privacy. The Code, which was proposed by Kidron, calls on online services to automatically provide the following protections for children under 18:10

Automatically set high privacy settings
Collect and retain only the minimum amount of personal data
Not share children’s data
Geolocation services should be switched off by default
Nudge techniques that encourage children to provide personal data, lessen privacy settings or keep using the app longer should not be used

Tech giants aren’t happy with the Code, including defining a “child” as under 18 instead of 13 or 16. Further, the protections are slated to affect all sites in Britain, not just those geared to children — another aspect the tech industry is fighting against.
According to The New York Times, “A children’s online privacy law in the United States, by contrast, applies only to nursery rhyme apps and other services directed at children under 13.”11
This, however, is part of the problem, as while YouTube and many social media platforms state they’re designed for users over 13, many children under this age tune into such sites daily. One Ofcom report found 46% of 11-year-olds and 51% of 12-year-olds have social media profiles, while 90% of 12- to 15-year-olds use YouTube.12
However, as part of the FTC settlement, Google and YouTube must make changes to help protect children under 13 years of age who are using their online services. According to the news release:13

“In addition to the monetary penalty, the proposed settlement requires Google and YouTube to develop, implement, and maintain a system that permits channel owners to identify their child-directed content on the YouTube platform so that YouTube can ensure it is complying with COPPA.

In addition, the companies must notify channel owners that their child-directed content may be subject to the COPPA Rule’s obligations and provide annual training about complying with COPPA for employees who deal with YouTube channel owners.”

Spying on Your Kids in Schools

Google and its parent company, Alphabet, in addition to owning YouTube and Android, one of the most popular operating systems worldwide, are also infiltrating U.S. classrooms via Chromebooks and Google apps.
In 2012, less than 1% of the tablets and laptops used in the U.S. school system were Google Chromebooks. By 2015, 51% of the devices sold to K-12 schools were Chromebooks,14 which come complete with a host of Google apps.
While Google has pledged to protect student privacy, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) found that the company is tracking students’ online habits and even using it to create profiles and targeted advertisements.15 What data is Google collecting about students? According to EFF:16

“When students log in to Google, whether through Chromebooks or through GAFE, Google collects a huge variety of personal data by default: search history and which results students click on, videos they search for and watch on YouTube, usage data and preferences, Gmail messages, G+ profiles and photos, docs, and other Google-hosted content and content that flows through Google’s systems.

Additionally, if students use Chrome (the only browser available on Chromebooks), Google also collects the following information by default: browsing history, bookmarked URLs, passwords, website form entries, and which extensions are installed—and Google stores this information in the cloud (rather than locally on the Chromebook itself).”
Google Is Listening at Home Too
If you use smart speakers in your home, like Google Home smart speakers or the Google Assistant smartphone app, there’s a chance people are listening to your requests, and even may be listening when you wouldn’t expect. When you say “OK Google,” the command to “wake up” the speakers or virtual assistant, the recording starts, according to an investigation by VRT NWS.17
“Not everyone is aware of the fact that everything you say to your Google smart speakers and your Google Assistant is being recorded and stored. But that is clearly stated in Google’s terms and conditions,” VRT NWS reported, after a Google contractor gave them access to 1,000 voice recordings.18 Further, it employs people to listen to the recordings and transcribe them, in order to improve their algorithms.
Personal information, like addresses, names and companies, are often included, raising serious privacy concerns. As VRT NWS noted:19

“Knowing that people who work for Google indirectly are listening to such recordings raises questions about privacy. In order to avoid excerpts being automatically linked to a user, they are disconnected from the user’s information.

They delete the user name and replace it with an anonymous serial number. But … it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recover someone’s identity; you simply have to listen carefully to what is being said.

What’s more, if they don’t know how it is written, these employees have to look up every word, address, personal name or company name on Google or on Facebook. In that way, they often soon discover the identity of the person speaking.”

It’s not only Google’s smart speakers that are recording queries, which are then reviewed by human workers. Apple’s Siri does too, and was accused of being activated by similar sounding phrases to “hey Siri” and recording private moments including discussions between doctors and patients, arguments, business deals, criminal deals, sexual encounters and more.20
Out of the 1,000 Google recordings reviewed VRT NWS, 153 of them reportedly occurred when they shouldn’t have been and “the ‘OK Google’ command was not clearly given.”21
Google ‘Pausing’ Spy Technique While Under Investigation

In response to the investigation, Google announced that it had “paused” its human reviews of queries to Google smart speakers, telling Ars Technica, “Shortly after we learned about the leaking of confidential Dutch audio data, we paused language reviews of the Assistant to investigate. This paused reviews globally.”22
Google stated they would not be transcribing voice recordings starting August 1, 2019 and continuing for at least three months. They also stated that users can turn off audio data storage or choose to have it auto-deleted every three or 18 months.
This represents only a sliver of the assault to your privacy that occurs when you regularly use Google products online, or allow your children to do so, however. To be part of the solution, and help protect your privacy, I encourage you to take the following actions:

• Boycott Google by avoiding any and all Google products:

? Stop using Google search engines. Alternatives include DuckDuckGo23 and Startpage24
? Uninstall Google Chrome and use Brave or Opera browser instead, available for all computers and mobile devices.25 From a security perspective, Opera is far superior to Chrome and offers a free VPN (virtual private network) service to further preserve your privacy
? If you have a Gmail account, try a non-Google email service such as ProtonMail,26 an encrypted email service based in Switzerland
? Stop using Google docs. Digital Trends has published an article suggesting a number of alternatives27
? If you’re a high school student, do not convert the Google accounts you created as a student into personal accounts

• Sign the “Don’t be evil” petition created by Citizens Against Monopoly

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/09/10/children-are-spending-more-time-online.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Juul funds program to get kids hooked on vaping

Quitting smoking is likely one of the best things you can do for your health as traditional cigarettes cause damage to nearly every organ in your body. Vaping, or using e-cigarettes, is sometimes marketed as a way for adults to quit smoking, but there’s not enough evidence to demonstrate it helps.1
If you’re trying to quit smoking, the American Heart Association2 endorses using established methods. They suggest you don’t try vaping because you think it’s “cool” or “safe.” There is a perceived assurance e-cigs are safe and harmless. The vapor is often the odorless, making it difficult to detect once the device has been put away.
In a 2016 report,3 “E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults,” the U.S. Surgeon General called the products unsafe and documented an alarming increase in use by young adults. The report also showed e-cigarettes are associated with the use of other tobacco products as well as challenges with brain development affecting the health and mental health of young adults.
In July 2018 the Verge reported4 on the difference between Juul salts using freebase nicotine and other e-cigarettes. The combination of freebase nicotine with benzoic acid creates a chemical reaction designed to be as easy to inhale as cigarettes. A company spokesperson, Victoria Davis, called fighting underage vaping a “top priority.” She said:5

“Juul is intended for adult smokers only who want to switch from combustible cigarettes. We cannot be more emphatic on this point: No young person or non-nicotine user should ever try Juul.”

Juul spends thousands in schools and camps

Davis’ commentary in 2018 does not line up with information presented to the House Oversight Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, which viewed documents as part of an investigation into the role the company played in the vaping epidemic.6
Documents show “Juul spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund” programs, which an employee characterized as7 “our new understanding of how much our efforts seem to duplicate those of big tobacco.” In the same email thread, another employee expressed concerns about pulling out of the health fair as they would certainly lose the school as part of the pilot program.8
In a memo from the Subcommittee,9 an examination of the role Juul has played in teenage nicotine addiction was outlined. The memo stated Juul had deployed “a sophisticated program to enter schools” and direct its message at teenage children; it also targeted teenagers in summer camps and public out of school programs.
Internally,10 Juul maintained a division aimed at recruiting schools to present a program to students. In testimony about one presentation, a representative from Parents Against Vaping E-cigarettes said no parents or teachers were allowed in the room and the message from the company was the product was safe. During the presentation, the presenter did a demonstration of how to use the product.
The program paid the school system $10,000 to access the students in class, in summer school or at a Saturday school program.11 Additionally, they targeted teenagers by purchasing access to teens in a public out of school program,12 in one instance paying the Richmond, California, Police Activities League $89,000 to offer the Juul program.
At another time, the company paid $134,000 for access to children attending a five-week summer camp, recruiting those in grades 3 through 12 and providing them with a “holistic health education program.”13

Juul also engaged social media influencers

Over the past decade, there has been a shift from celebrities to social media influencers behind the drive to purchase new beauty products, cars and clothing and to get involved in nonprofit organizations. Whereas before spokespeople have been recognizable celebrities, marketing companies now understand the power that social media influencers wield on personal brand recognition.14
Audiences appear to be more receptive to social media influencers who often are the first to try products and services.15 In one survey 70% of brand marketing agencies said they either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” their 2018 budgets aimed at social media influencers would increase; 89% thought this form of marketing could impact how people felt about their product.16
Juul was no exception. They put into place a sophisticated program used to promote their product online to young people.17 Documents obtained by the subcommittee show Juul hired the Grit Creative Group to find 280 influencers in the Los Angeles and New York area18 “to seed Juul product to over the course of three months.”
In a second contract with the same company, Juul sought to secure social media influencers who held a following of at least 30,000 to attend launch events and engage their efforts to establish a network to leverage their influence for the company. Just four months later, the company’s marketing update stated:19

“The Container Tour will get JUUL into the hands of over 12,500 influencers, subsequently introducing JUUL to over 1.5 million people.”

The subcommittee was given further evidence of the program designed by Juul with planning documentation, in an email showing an employee held the title “Influencer Manager” and another email indicating there may be an entire department devoted to addressing social media influencers within Juul.20

Company pushes addictive nicotine but tells teens it’s safe

The subcommittee met in late July 2019,21 hearing testimony from research experts, parents and Juul Labs. In addition, the subcommittee heard testimony from two teenagers who told Congress a Juul representative had repeatedly told their ninth-grade classroom the e-cigarette was totally safe and then went on to show the students the device. All the students were underage.22
One of the teens, 17-year-old Caleb Mintz, told Congress the representative was there as part of a mental health seminar during which teachers were not present. At just 17, Mintz cut to the chase on Juul’s marketing tactics when he said:23

“I believe the presenter was sending mixed messages by saying Juul was ‘totally safe’ and following up every totally safe statement with ‘but we don’t want you as customers.’ I believe that the presenter was playing on the rebellious side of teens, where when teens are told not to do something, they are more likely to do it.”

Following Mintz’s testimony, his 16-year-old friend Philip Fuhrman testified. CNN reported Fuhrman told Congress the Juul representative told him the24

“FDA was about to come out and say that Juul was 99% safer than cigarettes, and he said that that would happen very soon, and that it was in FDA approval while the talk was going on.”

In June 2018, Juul Labs was valued at $15 billion.25 While selling tobacco and nicotine to those addicted has been a good business model, Juul innovated the e-cigarette to a product delivering more nicotine than a cigarette and with a sensation similar to smoking. This is all thanks to nicotine salts, a chemical base used to deliver nicotine.26
Each puff from a Juul delivers more nicotine than other e-cigarettes while reducing throat discomfort at higher concentrations. And, because nicotine salts work well in smaller devices, there’s no need to opt for a larger, bulkier e-cigarette product. Using new technology, Juul salts in one cartridge delivers roughly the amount of nicotine as found in a pack of cigarettes.27
The vaping community acknowledges nicotine salts are potentially more addictive since they lead to higher blood levels of nicotine over a short amount of time.28 Juul sponsored a study demonstrating their29 “tobacco-flavored nicotine salt-based ENDS were well tolerated and provided similar nicotine exposure and perceptual satisfaction compared to tobacco-flavored combusted cigarettes.”

Reactions in vape juice form airway irritating compounds

The long-term effects of heating e-cigarette juice have not been determined, but researchers have now found these liquids are reacting on the shelf and forming chemicals called acetyls. In a study published in Nicotine and Tobacco Research,30 data show the liquids may form new chemicals as they are sitting on the shelf with unexpected toxicological effects.
The researchers recommended a rigorous process to monitor the changes in chemical composition and continue to analyze the situation in order to identify the potential health hazards to users. In other words, chemical reactions that occur once the liquid is placed in the delivery device and before heating, may increase the potential risk for those using e-cigarettes.31
The chemicals in question are from flavorings for vanilla, cherry, citrus and cinnamon. Sven-Eric Jordt, Ph.D., from Duke University, and senior author of the study commented on the results, saying:32

“These individual ingredients are combining to form more complex chemicals that are not disclosed to the user. When inhaled, these compounds will persist in the body for some time, activating irritant pathways. Over time, this mild irritation could cause an inflammatory response.”

Clusters of seizures and pulmonary infections

Doctors and hospitals have found vaping is associated with a cluster of neurological conditions.33 The FDA has received reports of 127 people who have experienced seizures or other neurological symptoms potentially related to the use of e-cigarettes. Although experts have not yet established a link, they are investigating if the nicotine in e-cigarettes are causing neurological disturbances.
NPR reports34 there have been 15 cases of severe respiratory injury in Wisconsin and 15 more are suspected. Six other cases were reported in Illinois and four in Minnesota, prompting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to work with health departments to determine the cause.
The problem was first found by Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin after eight healthy teenagers were hospitalized with rapid onsets of coughing, weight loss and breathing difficulties. Some were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit for treatment. At this point, Dr. Thomas Haupt from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services says the only common denominator has been vaping.35

Vaping companies sue over regulations to protect kids

In 2009, the law gave the FDA power over combustible cigarettes but not e-cigarettes. In 2016 the agency expanded those regulations but have repeatedly delayed the timeline to review the products that have come to market. Recently, an e-cigarette industry group sued to delay the review arguing the deadline of May 2020 could wipe out many smaller companies.36
Unfortunately, while manufacturers and regulators argue over legalities, children and teens are being caught in the middle. Exposure at a young age to nicotine affects the reward center in the brain and increases their risk of engaging in addictive behavior as they grow into adulthood.
Additionally, addiction at a young age leaves these teens with no good treatment options for the addiction to a product designed specifically to increase the users risk of becoming addicted. In other words, children as young as 11 are becoming addicted to a product for which medical science has yet to come up with a treatment option safe at their age.
If you are addicted to cigarettes or e-cigarettes and would like to take control of your health and quit the habit, I suggest my previous article, “Quitting Smoking Starts in the Brain,” to learn a free technique that may make the process easier. Take the profit out of the tobacco industry’s pocket and put it back in yours.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/08/28/juul-funded-program-to-hook-kids-on-vaping.aspx

Categories
Recommended

The Link Between Fast Food and Teenage Depression

In the U.S., an estimated 3.2 million adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17 suffer from depression, defined as having at least one major depressive episode in a year. This accounts for 13.3% of adolescents, who experience a period of at least two weeks with a depressed mood, loss of interest in daily activities and other symptoms, such as problems with sleep, appetite, energy, concentration or feelings of self-worth.1
Depression among adolescents is on the rise, increasing by 30% in the last 10 years.2 Many factors may be to blame, but one that continues to fly under the radar is diet, particularly an unhealthy one based on processed foods and fast foods.
Junk Food Diet Linked to Depression in Teens

Researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham looked into the role two dietary factors play in symptoms of depression among adolescents, in this case African-American teens who may be at an increased risk of both unhealthy diet and depression.
They analyzed the excretion of sodium and potassium in the urine of 84 urban, low?income adolescents. Higher levels of sodium in the urine can be an indication of a diet high in sodium, such as processed foods and salty snacks. A low level of potassium, meanwhile, is indicative of a diet lacking in fruits, vegetables and other healthy potassium-rich foods.
As might be expected, higher sodium and lower potassium excretion rates were associated with more frequent symptoms of depression at follow up 1.5 years later. “This study was the first to demonstrate relationships between objective indicators of unhealthy diet and subsequent changes in depressive symptoms in youth,” the study noted.3
It’s possible that eating foods high in sodium and low in potassium may lead to depression by negatively influencing neurotransmitters and neural function during a time that is particularly vulnerable.
“Given the substantial brain development that occurs during adolescence, individuals in this developmental period may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of diet on the neural mechanisms underlying emotion regulation and depression,” the researchers wrote. In addition, poor diet could influence depression by disturbing the gut microbiome, which could further influence brain function.4
Past studies have also confirmed the diet-depression link among children and teens. When researchers systematically reviewed 12 studies involving children and adolescents, an association was revealed between unhealthy diet and poorer mental health, as well as between a good-quality diet and better mental health.5
The consumption of junk food has also been associated with psychiatric distress and violent behaviors in children and adolescents, which includes worry, depression, confusion, insomnia, anxiety, aggression and worthless feelings, as well as physical fighting, being a victim and bullying.6
Unhealthy Diet Linked to Depression in Adults, Too

While teens may be especially vulnerable to the negative effects of a poor diet, adults, too, may suffer mentally from a diet based on unhealthy foods. An inflammatory diet, which can include one high in processed foods, was associated with recurrence of depressive symptoms in women, for starters.7
Likewise, in 2018, a systematic review and meta-analysis with a total of 101,950 participants also found an association between a pro-inflammatory diet and risk of depression.8 People who ate a pro-inflammatory diet were 1.4 times more likely to suffer from depression.9 “Thus, adopting an anti-inflammatory diet may be an effective intervention or preventative means of reducing depression risk and symptoms,” according to the study.10
Sugar intake, a known inflammatory food, is also specifically linked to common mental disorder and depression. Research published in 2002 also found a “highly significant correlation between sugar consumption and the annual rate of depression.”11
Men consuming more than 67 grams of sugar per day were 23% more likely to develop depression over the course of five years than those whose sugar consumption was less than 39.5 grams per day.12 Several potential mechanisms were discussed for why a high-sugar diet may influence depression risk, including:13

Sugar may decrease levels of brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), leading to hippocampal atrophy in depression
Consuming sugar may increase circulating inflammatory markers, which could lead to depressed mood
A high-sugar diet may cause an exaggerated insulin response, influencing hormone levels and mood
Sugar has addiction-like effects, which could influence dopamine and mood
A high-sugar diet may lead to obesity, which could contribute to depression via inflammatory pathways as well as psychosocial factors

Eating Real Food Is Key for Good Mental Health
You can improve your mood and your mental health by tweaking your diet for the better. Researchers even compiled a list of five key dietary recommendations for the prevention of depression, based on current published evidence. The basic premise is to eat real food. The five strategies include:14

Follow “traditional” dietary patterns
Increase consumption of fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds
Eat lots of foods rich in omega-3 fats
Replace unhealthy foods with wholesome nutritious foods
Limit your intake of processed foods, fast foods, commercial bakery goods and sweets

That last one is truly essential, in part because of the additives in processed foods, such as emulsifiers. Previous research has shown that adding the food emulsifiers CMC and P80 to the diet leads to low-grade inflammation, obesity and metabolic abnormalities in mice, while disturbing gut microbiota.15
Because your gut and brain communicate via your gut-brain axis, altering microbes in your gut can influence anxiety and behavior, leading researchers to speculate that consuming emulsifiers may also influence mental health and behavior.
Likewise, in 2015, it was previously found that low concentrations of emulsifiers (CMC and P80) induced low-grade inflammation, obesity and metabolic syndrome in mice.16 “Depression and inflammation fuel one another,” researchers wrote in the American Journal of Psychiatry, adding that in the case of inflammation, “depression fans the flames and feasts on the heat.”17
Making sure you’re getting enough anti-inflammatory omega-3s in your diet, either from wild Alaskan salmon, sardines, herring, mackerel and anchovies or a high-quality animal-based omega-3 supplement, is also crucial for optimal mental health. B vitamins are also important, and low levels of B vitamins are common in patients with depression, while vitamin B supplements have been shown to improve symptoms.18
Further, in a study of 9,700 vegetarian (including a small number of vegan) men, vegetarians were more likely to suffer from depression than meat eaters, even after adjusting for variables like job status, family history and number of children.19 Vegetarians tend to have lower intakes of omega-3 fats, vitamin B12 and folate, which could affect depression risk.
In the case of folate, it helps your body produce mood-regulating neurotransmitters, including serotonin and dopamine. One 2012 study found people who consumed the most folate had a lower risk of depression than those who ate the least.20 Addressing nutrient deficiencies, as well as optimizing your diet, are keys to mental health and should be first-line strategies to treating depression.
How to Get Teens to Eat Better

It’s clear that your mental health depends, at least in part, on what you eat. Less clear is how to get teenagers — a population keen on junk food — to eat better. One simple tip? Let teenagers know they’re being manipulated by food marketers.21 Students who read an exposé that revealed the manipulative practices used by marketing companies chose to eat less junk food and drank more water instead of soda.
Students who read about the junk food industry’s manipulation also chose healthier foods for the remainder of the school year — a period of about three months. Tapping into teens’ natural desire to rebel against authority proved to be an effective way to prompt significant changes in dietary choices.
Teaching children to eat right from a young age can alter their health significantly, even beyond mood and depression. In one study, eating fast food three or more times per week was associated with an increased risk of severe asthma, rhinitis and eczema.22
Children who eat more fast food also progress slower academically, with test score gains about 20 percent lower in children who ate the most fast food compared to those who ate none.23 One British study also revealed that kids who ate a predominantly processed food diet at age 3 had lower IQ scores at age 8.5.24
Junk Food Marketing Targets Youth

Yet, children are exposed to junk food marketing 27.3 times a day, at home, in public spaces and even at school. Marketing for sugary drinks, fast food, candy and snack foods were the types most commonly encountered by the children in one study.25
With the continual barrage of marketing and junk food’s highly addictive nature, it’s easy for teens to fall into a trap of unhealthy eating. As a result, even the World Health Organization is calling for more protections for children from the harmful effects of junk food and junk food marketing:26

“Food advertising and other forms of marketing have been shown to influence children’s food preferences, purchasing behaviour and overall dietary behaviour. Marketing has also been associated with an increased risk of overweight and obesity in children.

The habits children develop early in life may encourage them to adopt unhealthy dietary practices which persist into adulthood, increasing the likelihood of overweight, obesity and associated health problems such as diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.”

Depression, unfortunately, can also be added to those health problems, so in addition to modeling healthy eating behaviors for your teen by eating right yourself, have a serious conversation about the profit-driven motives behind junk food ads. It just may prompt your teen to rebel in a good way and choose healthier, real foods instead of processed junk.
Finally, if you think your teenager is suffering from depression, keep a close watch for signs they may be contemplating suicide. If there are any doubts, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, a toll-free number: 1-800-273-TALK (8255), or call 911 or take your teen to your nearest hospital emergency department for help.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/09/12/link-between-fast-food-and-depression.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Popular eating program for kids sparks controversy

According to the most recent data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,1 39.8% of all U.S. adults are obese. The same data show the obesity prevalence in children ages 2 to 19 years is 18.5%, and is expected to rise to 20.6% in adolescents from 12 to 19 years.2
According to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases,3 an individual who weighs more than what’s considered normal for their height is described as overweight or obese. According to the CDC, the percentage of youth who are overweight or obese has more than tripled since the 1970s.4
There are several factors contributing to these rising percentages, including shorter sleep duration, metabolic inefficiency, poor eating and low levels of physical activity.5 Children who are obese are also more likely to develop health conditions such as metabolic syndrome, musculoskeletal disorders, cardiovascular disease and disability.6
The growing number of those who are overweight and obese directly feeds the weight loss industry, which market researchers anticipated would grow in 2018 to a value of $70.3 billion.7
While the final reports are not yet out on whether those numbers were actually reached, a summary of Marketdata’s research8 showed the greatest gains were expected in the commercial chains and meal replacement programs, with a trend toward ketogenic diets as well as diets high in protein. One market that was identified as untapped and underserved included overweight adolescents.
WW losing consumer base opens up to teens

However, even as researchers anticipated strong growth in the weight loss industry, one iconic company has been posting losses. WW, the company formerly known as Weight Watchers, rebranded their company in September 2018 in an effort to become the world’s partner in wellness. According to Mindy Grossman, president and chief executive officer:9

“No matter what your goal is — to lose weight, eat healthier, move more, develop a positive mind-set, or all of the above — we will deliver science-based solutions that fit into people’s lives. This is just the beginning of our journey to become the world’s partner in wellness, and I am inspired by the potential for our impact.”

The company posted a poor fourth quarter 2018 performance with declining memberships for 2019. One marketing analyst believes this might be in part due to their rebranding, as well as the declining popularity of “dieting.”10 Early in 2018, the company offered free membership to teens between ages 13 to 17.
While the company said they were aiming at helping children develop good habits at a critical age, CNN11 reported Weight Watchers expected the tactic to engage young customers who could become loyal for years. The company’s goal was to impact 10 million lives with 5 million people in the program by the end of 2020 and another 5 million using other company content.12
The announcement angered many parents who felt counting calories and engaging in a weight loss program may give rise to unhealthy eating behaviors. However, Time magazine reports WW CEO Mindy Grossman responded by saying,13 “It actually strengthened our resolve and made us offensive.”
The answer didn’t go down well with Lori Ciotti, regional assistant vice president of the Renfrew Center, an organization that bills itself as having treated more than 75,000 adolescents for eating disorders.14 Ciotti spoke to Today, saying:15

“Dieting is a slippery slope into an eating disorder. It sends a message that one should not listen to their body’s hunger or fullness cues, so it’s really concerning from that perspective.

I think what (Weight Watchers) is doing here is offering a sanctioned method of counting calories or points or whatever they want to call it. It’s not teaching teens anything about self-care or self-worth. Instead it teaches them that their worth is about a number on a scale or the back of their jeans.”

Appearing to aim at childhood obesity, WW lowers the bar

As the company appears to take aim at childhood obesity in their well-publicized “wellness” campaigns, they have now announced the release of a smartphone app for children as young as 8.16 In their notice, Gary Foster, Ph.D., chief scientific officer at WW said:17

“At WW, we have decades of expertise in scaling science-backed behavior change programs, uniquely positioning us to be a part of the solution to address the prevalent public health problem of childhood obesity.

Alongside a distinguished group of leaders in pediatric health and nutrition, we’ve carefully developed this platform to be holistic, rewarding and inspirational so kids, teens and families get the tools and guidance they need to manage their environment and build and sustain healthy habits.”

The “distinguished group” to which Foster is likely referring are the scientists at Stanford Pediatric Weight Control Program.18 The Stanford program was licensed by the app’s founder, Joanna Strober, who helped develop the original app, Kurbo.19
That app was designed to help children learn healthier eating patterns without parental involvement. This app did not produce metrics like calories, carbs and sugar, but rewarded children for their food choices with a red, yellow or green light. After WW purchased the product, they made a few changes.20
With the WW version, parents have greater involvement, and for an optional monthly subscription, children may work with coaches. Parents also have the option of joining the sessions. WW also added options children can track, such as weight loss, body measurements and Snapchat-style tracking streaks.21 Children enter their height, weight, age and goals, and then log what they eat.22
In an earlier free progra, WW targeted teens aged 13 to 17. But in an effort to take advantage of smartphone applications, children’s affinity for using smartphones and the childhood obesity epidemic, WW aimed the Kurbo app at children as young as 8. In their press release, the company says the program:23

“ … builds on Kurbo’s evidence-based mobile platform to help children and teenagers, with support from their families, make lifestyle changes while receiving guidance around sustainable healthy eating, physical activity and mindfulness habits. Kurbo by WW is currently available in the U.S., and the free Kurbo app can be accessed through iOS Apple Store and Google Play.”

Dieting may have the opposite effect

Despite the company’s assertion that this is a program that teaches healthy eating choices, critics counter that it’s nothing more than a weight loss program for children, which they believe will contribute to children’s eating disorders. The backlash has gained a substantial following of people filing a Change.org petition calling for WW to remove the app.24
In explaining why she thinks WW’s app is counterintuitive to WW’s stated goals for it, Tomi Akanbi, clinical nutrition coordinator at Mount Sinai Adolescent Health Center, warns that encouraging children and teenagers to count calories like many adults do is dangerous.25 She routinely counsels patients who have adopted weight loss programs used by their parents without realizing that the nutritional needs of teens are different from those in other age groups.
By focusing on calories, many teenagers tend to skip meals or replace foods with empty calories from junk foods. Akanbi goes on to say focusing on weight can also lead to eating disorders, especially in teenage girls who feel pushed by media images to conform to a specific image. Following the announcement of the free summer program for teens, she said to CNBC

“Weight Watchers really is dieting and focusing on just weight, and research has shown when the focus is on weight and dieting in teens, that is not an effective way to promote and sustain weight loss. It’s not even helpful to promote overall wellness because we’re also talking about body image and how these kids are experiencing themselves and food and their bodies, and dieting does not help with that.”

In support of this line of thinking, some experts have suggested weight loss efforts in childhood may result in body image dissatisfaction and unhealthy weight control behaviors, including disordered eating, if the behavior is not severe enough to warrant diagnosis of an eating disorder.26
A small study using a survey and two workshops delved into it deeper, with researchers gathering data about how young people interact with fitness mobile apps. The aim was to identify risks and negative experiences about how current fitness apps may or may not exacerbate risky eating behaviors.27
The researchers concluded there was a need for consideration around the design of these apps when used for teenagers who are vulnerable to poor body image and maladaptive eating behaviors.28 Additionally, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has advised doctors and families to avoid the use of “weight” in their talks with teens and instead focus on healthy lifestyles.29
Calorie counting is not the answer

The AAP stresses families focus on eating a healthy diet and get plenty of physical activity rather than focusing on weight loss, if they want to reduce the risk of their teens developing an eating disorder:30

“Family involvement in treatment of teen obesity and EDs [eating disorders] has been determined to be more effective than an adolescent-only focus. An integrated approach to the prevention of obesity and EDs focuses less on weight and more on healthy family-based lifestyle modifications that can be sustained …

… AAP recommendations include discouraging dieting, skipping of meals or the use of diet pills; promoting a positive body image; encouraging more frequent family meals; and suggesting that families avoid talking about weight.”

The AAP also stressed that making healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables more accessible while limiting sugars and refined carbohydrates is one way to positively address weight without directly talking about it. The pediatricians also suggest working on helping children make lifestyle changes, such as limiting TV and screen time and promoting physical activity — and I agree.
In addition to the possibility that counting calories or counting points may promote an unhealthy relationship with food31 and increase a teen’s risk of developing an eating disorder, the act of counting calories is not the answer to maintaining a healthy weight or overall health.
The fatal flaw in counting calories is you don’t pay attention to the nutrition you’re eating. The calorie-counting theory is that whatever calories you take in, as long as you burn them off, you will either maintain your weight or lose weight. But that way of thinking is simply wrong: All calories are not alike — while you may like to believe 100 calories in an apple and 100 calories in a cookie are identical, they are not.
The real science says that calories you get from whole, unprocessed foods feed your cells and reduce your risk of disease, including obesity. Foods from processed meals include high amounts of sugar or fructose as well as chemicals that may trigger weight gain.32
Cyclical ketosis supports balanced weight and health

Like the AAP states, more important than counting calories is focusing on bringing home healthy foods and watching where your teens are spending their lunch money. While Grossman has attributed part of the problem with WW’s poor earnings in late 2018 to the keto diet,33 she’s failed to realize that one reason the keto “diet” — which is aimed at adults — is working is because you don’t count calories. Instead, you focus on eating healthy, which is just what the AAP prescribes.
The good news is that keto also aligns with the AAP’s guidance in that you don’t eat processed foods or refined sugars when you “go keto.” The truth is children need protection from the junk food industry and you can help your children eat healthy and learn to make healthy food choices by simply refusing to buy processed foods, and concentrating on stocking your pantry with organic, fresh fruits and vegetables.
Go the extra step and skip fast food restaurants and cook and eat at home, and you’ll be well on your way to teaching them healthy eating.
You can also help by getting your kids moving. Overweight and obese children need at least 30 minutes of exercise each day, and may benefit from closer to 60 minutes. But, even if your child is not overweight, you should encourage him or her to take part in physically engaging activities after school and on the weekends.
For older teens and young adults who are motivated to try the keto way to health on their own, it’s crucial to understand which fats are good for you and which are not. Most Americans consume harmful fats like processed vegetable oils, which will invariably worsen your health.
So when we’re talking about boosting consumption of dietary fats, we’re referring to natural, unprocessed fat, found in real foods such as seeds, nuts, butter, olives, avocado and coconut oil. A more extensive list of examples can be found in “Basic Introduction to Metabolic Mitochondrial Therapy.”
If they want to go the next step and consider ketofasting, it’s even more important to remember that this isn’t about skipping meals, but of understanding that cyclical ketosis lies in the metabolic flexibility your body achieves as it is able to burn glucose and ketones for fuel.
Unfortunately, eating over a 12-hour period or more during the day radically increases your risk for obesity as your body is only adapted to burning glucose and it’s not flexible enough to burn ketones or fat for fuel.
In addition to metabolic flexibility and the reduction in the risk for metabolic syndrome, cyclical ketosis accelerates autophagy34 during which your body eliminates damaged organelles and intracellular pathogens.35
This essential cleaning process encourages the growth of healthy cells and is a foundation for longevity. Intermittent fasting may be one of the most profound interventions you can do to radically improve your health, increase your body’s ability to preferentially burn visceral fat36 and help you shed excess weight37 all while extending your lifespan.
Instead of picking up the newest smartphone app, consider going on a journey of discovery with your teenagers, seeking out some of your locally grown produce, eliminating the processed foods and incorporating intermittent fasting. Each of these nutritional strategies helps support your overall health and weight control.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/08/28/new-app-for-kids-to-address-childhood-obesity.aspx

Categories
Recommended

New Delta Virus Variant Escalates Lockdowns

According to the regional director of the European office of the World Health Organization, Hans Henri Kluge, a new coronavirus variant called “Delta” (its scientific name being B.1.617.2 and originating in India) is “poised to take hold” in Europe, which may necessitate renewed lockdowns.1

In a June 10, 2021, article, The Hill reported that the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant “can spread quickly and infect those who have received one of two vaccine doses at higher rates than the fully vaccinated.”2

According to Kluge, Europe is facing the same situation as they did back in the winter of 2020, when cases rapidly rose, resulting in “a devastating resurgence, lockdowns and loss of life.” “Let’s not make that mistake again,” Kluge said during the press conference.

Indian Variant Refuels Fear

The Delta variant is now the dominant strain in the U.K., where a surge in cases, supposedly, has occurred predominantly among younger people between the ages of 12 and 20.3

Research by Public Health England (PHE) suggests two doses of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID shot is 88% effective against the Delta variant, while AstraZeneca’s DNA injection is “supposedly” 60% effective. After a single dose, either of the shots was only 33% protective against symptomatic illness.4,5

However, while single-dose recipients are said to be at greater risk than those having received two doses, more fully “vaccinated” people have actually died from this variant. According to the PHE, of the 42 Britons who had died with the Delta variant as of mid-June 2021, 12 had received two doses of gene therapy, compared to just seven single-dose recipients.6

More importantly, a June 11, 2021, PHE report7 shows that as a hospital patient, you are six times more likely to die of the COVID Delta variant if you are fully vaccinated, than if you are not vaccinated at all.

The information shows up in Table 6 of the 77-page document, which are labled as the attendance to emergency care and deaths by vaccination status and confirmed Delta cases from February 1, 2021, to June 7, 2021.

Of 33,206 Delta variant cases admitted to the hospital, 19,573 were not vaccinated. Of those, 23 (or 0.1175%) died. But, of the 13,633 patients who were vaccinated with either one or two doses, 19 (or 0.1393%) died, which is an 18.6% higher death rate than for the unvaccinated patients. Seven of the 5,393 patients who were partially vaccine with one dose died, or 0.1297%.

Of the 1,785 patients who had both vaccine doses 14 days or more before admission, 12 (or 0.6722%) died. This death rate is 5.72 times higher than that for unvaccinated patients. Put another way, if all 33,206 patients had been fully vaccinated, there would have been 223 deaths.

The PHE also claims the Delta variant is 64% more likely to transmit within households than the Kent (Alpha) variant that had previously dominated, and that it’s 40% more transmissible outdoors.8

Knowing what we now know about how science and statistics are being manipulated to give the appearance of a serious problem where there is none, I take these statements and data with a grain of salt. World leaders, however, are using the data to impose yet more restrictions. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is now considering keeping lockdown rules in place until spring of 2022.9

Similarly, Chile, which has one of the highest COVID-jab rates in the world, with 58% of the population having received two doses and 75% having received their first dose, authorities announced a blanket lockdown across the capital of Santiago, June 10, 2021. The lockdown came in response to the highest COVID-19 case numbers since the beginning of the pandemic.10

Why Was a Disgraced Disease Modeler Relied on Yet Again?

In the U.S., Delta accounts for about 10% of cases and is doubling every two weeks, according to the former Food and Drug Administration commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who spoke about the variant on a “Face the Nation” broadcast June 13, 2021.11,12

According to Gottlieb, Delta is likely to “spike a new epidemic heading into the fall.”13 Showing just how crazy a repeat this is, Gottlieb is again citing data from Neil Ferguson. Yahoo! News calls Ferguson a “prominent British epidemiologist” but in fact, the man is beyond untrustworthy and has been thoroughly — and publicly — disgraced.

His only prominence is that of a failed statistician whose models have been repeatedly proven faulty to a ridiculous degree. The fact that Gottlieb is again using Ferguson’s models ought to set off warning bells that this is fear propaganda to justify even further COVID jabs and nothing else.

It was Ferguson’s Imperial College model14 that predicted the death of 2 million Americans and 500,000 Britons unless draconian lockdown and social distancing measures were implemented. A major flaw in his model was that he didn’t account for the fact that the susceptible population is only ever a small portion of people, never 100%.15

Ferguson was also the source of the December 2020 prediction that the Alpha variant B117 — the so-called “Kent” strain that became the predominant strain before Delta — would be 50% to 70% more contagious than previous variants circulating in the U.K., and would infect children and teens to a greater extent than previous variants.16

Well, what happened? PHE data reveal the rolling average of infections (i.e., positive tests, which may be symptomatic or asymptomatic) sharply declined starting in January 2021, from a high of 68,053 cases in early January to a low of 1,649 cases in early May 2021.17

Daily hospitalizations also dropped, as did the number of daily deaths, which plunged from a high of 1,610 in January 2021 to a low of eight on June 13, 2021.18 Apparently, the much-feared and “far more infectious” B117 strain didn’t unleash a mass-death cascade after all.

In the U.S., CDC data show a total of 204 teens — aged 12 to 17 — were admitted to hospital for COVID assessment between January and March 2021. These are hardly catastrophic numbers. Fewer than one-third required intensive care and none died.

Meanwhile, there are at least four reported deaths among 12- to 17-year-olds following COVID “vaccination,” along with several hundred adverse effect reports, including dozens of cases of heart inflammation.

What’s more, the fact that mainstream media and health authorities have not highlighted the number of children infected or hospitalized is a clear hint that children really weren’t at great risk from B117 either. They just wanted you to fear the possibility of it being so.

In the U.S., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data19 show adolescent hospitalizations for COVID-19 peaked at a rate of 2.1 per 100,000 hospital admissions in early January 2021. By mid-March, that had declined to 0.6 per 100,000. In April, it rose a little again, to 1.3 per 100,000. In actual numbers, we’re talking about a total of 204 teens — aged 12 to 17 — being admitted to hospital for assessment between January 2021 and March 2021.

These statistics are indeed quite far from catastrophic. Fewer than one-third required intensive care and none died. Meanwhile, there are at least four reported deaths among 12- to 17-year-olds following COVID “vaccination,” along with several hundred adverse effect reports, including dozens of cases of heart inflammation.20

As Ferguson’s calamitous predictions for Alpha variant B117 having failed to come to fruition, it appears the same fearmongering narrative has now simply shifted over to the Delta variant.

Clearly, they want us to fear for our children, as this will improve compliance with freedom-robbing measures and boost vaccine uptake. Right now, they’re having a really hard time explaining why children, whose risk of serious complications or death from COVID-19, and who aren’t a primary disease vector, would need to participate in an uncontrolled gene therapy experiment. 

COVID Measures Did Not Work and Should Never Be Repeated

After a year and a half of lies and disinformation, it seems clear the technocrats pushing for a Great Reset are more than willing to make things up as they go, simply to keep the pandemic going. According to Kluge, the way out of this new phase of the pandemic is “a combination of public health measures and vaccination, not one or the other.”21

This despite the fact that we already know that none of these strategies actually work. As noted by pathologist Dr. Roger Hodkinson22 in a May 27, 2021, Last American Vagabond interview,23 masks, social distancing and lockdowns did not work and never will, and the COVID jabs are too dangerous to pursue.

In the interview above, Hodkinson reviews the very real concerns surrounding vaccine-induced spike proteins and their potentially devastating effects on health and human reproduction,24 seeing how Pfizer’s own research demonstrates free spike proteins are disseminated throughout your body within hours of injection.25,26,27

I detailed this research in “Researcher: ‘We Made a Big Mistake’ on COVID-19 Vaccine,” which featured an interview with Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Byram Bridle, Ph.D. I’ve also explained the mechanics of why the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is so dangerous and toxic in “The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health.”

Anti-Vax Hater Predicts Nightmare Summer

In a June 11, 2021, Daily Beast article,28 Dr. Peter Hotez — a rabid anti-vax hater — is now saying that children living in conservative “red” states, where COVID jab refusal tends to be higher, face a dangerous “nightmare summer.”

Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, has in the past called for violent suppression of vaccine safety information, bullying parents of vaccine-injured children29 by calling them “anti-vaxxers” even though they’re discussing their children’s injuries that occurred as a result of vaccination, not because they didn’t vaccinate them.

In 2018, Hotez classified vaccine safety and pro-informed consent advocacy groups such as the National Vaccine Information Center as “hate groups” that “hate children,”30 and said we must “snuff out” (a term typically reserved for gangster style murder) the “anti-vaccine” movement.31,32 He’s also stated that vaccination “is not a choice; it’s a responsibility.”33 Not surprisingly, Hotez has very strong ties to the vaccine industry.

During a March 23, 2019, appearance on the Joe Rogan show, Hotez suggested Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Reddit, Instagram and other online platforms should hire chief scientific officers to manage, filter and regulate content.34 Hotez has also called for the use of cyberwarfare tactics against people who dare discuss potential vaccine problems, including yours truly.

No doubt, he’s loving the current Dark Age of online censorship that arose with the COVID pandemic.

“The only way to prevent these variants from gaining a foothold is to step up the pace of vaccinating everyone over the age 12 (and hopefully children younger than that by the fall),” Hotez writes in his Daily Beast article.35

“But in these robust pockets of vaccine resistance, it’s hard to imagine getting anywhere close to full coverage of young people. For example, more than 50 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds are vaccinated (received at least one dose of vaccine) in Massachusetts and Vermont, whereas less than 10 percent of those in this same age group have been vaccinated in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

Here’s what might happen if we don’t fully vaccinate the South. First, the number of cases could accelerate in July and August, just as they did last year … In addition, we might see the new variants rise in frequency and disproportionately affect children, adolescents, and young adults, possibly including a multisystem inflammatory syndrome of children or MIS-C.

Some children’s hospitals in the region may already be seeing an acceleration in hospitalizations and ICU admissions. In fact, the CDC just reported on rising hospitalization rates among adolescents this spring.”

Hotez Overstates Risk to Children and Teens

Here, Hotez cites the CDC data36 I discussed earlier, and the way he does it ends up misrepresenting the trend. To repeat, no teenagers have died from COVID-19. And the uptick in hospitalization he’s talking about is an uptick from the mid-March low. But the April 2021 hospitalization rate for teens is still only about half the January 2021 rate (1.3 per 100,000 hospitalizations compared to 2.1 per 100,000). We are not looking at a doomsday trend here.

“The nation has to be fully and evenly vaccinated if we are to have any hope of navigating our way out of this epidemic. It’s also the surest way to protect young people in this region,” Hotez writes.37

I disagree. Already last year, in 2020, data suggested the vast majority of the global population already had full or partial natural immunity. Initially, experts estimated that 70% of the population or more would need to be exposed and develop immunity before natural herd immunity would be achieved.38

By mid-October 2020, more than a dozen scientists claimed the herd immunity threshold is actually somewhere between 43% and 9%, which means a vast majority of the global population — by then — were already at very low risk of serious illness.39,40,41,42,43 Data from Stockholm, Sweden, which didn’t shut down during 2020, showed a herd immunity threshold of 17%.44

Contrast that to the COVID jabs, which do NOT actually make you immune. You can still contract the illness and spread the virus. The vaccine makers admit the design of the shots mean they will only lessen your symptoms if or when you get infected. Theoretically, this will prevent or lower your risk of hospitalization and death.

However, on the flipside, scientists have fervently warned that the COVID shots may trigger antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), making vaccinated individuals far more prone to serious complications and death when encountering the wild virus.

Children and teens also are not dying from COVID-19 in droves. In fact, they’re not dying from it at all, so the idea that they are in dire need of gene therapy is simply not true.

No Need to Fear Mutations

Is there cause to be concerned about the new Delta variant? Or any other variant for that matter? According to Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a life science researcher and former vice-president and chief scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer, the answer is a firm “no.” In the interview above, which is part of the full-length documentary “Planet Lockdown,”45 Yeadon explains why.

“Basically, everything your government has told you about this virus, everything you need to do to stay safe, is a lie,” Yeadon says. “Every part of it … None of the key themes that you hear talked about — from asymptomatic transmission to top-up vaccines [i.e., booster shots] — not one of those things is supported by the science.

Every piece is cleverly chosen adjacently to something that probably is true, but is itself a lie, and has led people to where we are right now.”

When it comes to your susceptibility to variants, mutated versions of SARS-CoV-2, your resilience is not dependent on antibodies as much as it’s dependent on your T-cell immunity, also known as cellular immunity. Yeadon explains:

“You’ve got four or five different arms of the immune system: innate immunity, mucosal, antibody, T-cells and compliment[ary systems]. There are all of these different wonderful systems that have integrated, one with another, because it needs to defend you against all sorts of different threats in the environment.

What I’m telling you is that the emphasis on antibodies in respect of respiratory viral infections is wrong, and you can establish that quite easily by doing some searching …

I’m not saying antibodies have no role, but they’re really not very important. This has been proven. There are some people in whom a natural experiment has occurred. They have a defect and they actually don’t make antibodies, but they’re able to fight off COVID-19, the virus SARS-CoV-2, quite well.

The way they do that is, they have T-cell immunity, cellular immunity. [T-cells] are cells that are trained to detect virus-infected cells and to kill those cells.

That’s how you defend yourself against a virus. So, all of these mentions of antibody levels, it’s just bunk. It is not a good measure of whether or not you’re immune. It does give evidence that you’ve been infected, but their persistence is not important as to whether you’ve got immunity …

We’ve known this for decades. We’ve known about T-cells for decades. They were clearly in my undergraduate textbooks. And we’ve known about their importance in defending you against respiratory viruses since probably the 1970s, certainly the 1980s …

It’s quite normal for RNA viruses like SARS-CoV-2, when it replicates, to make typographical errors. It’s got a very good error detection, error correction system so it doesn’t make too many typos, but it does make some, and those are called ‘variants.’

It’s really important to know that if you find the variant that’s most different from the sequence identified in Wuhan, that variance … is only 0.3% different from the original sequence.

I’ll say it another way. If you find the most different variance, it’s 99.7% identical to the original one, and I can assure you … that amount of difference is absolutely NOT possibly able to represent itself to you as a different virus. [So] when your government scientists tell you that a variant that’s 0.3% different from SARS-CoV-2 could masquerade as a new virus and be a threat to your health, you should know, and I’m telling you, they are lying.”

To recap, what Yeadon is saying is that a virus cannot mutate into a version that is so dissimilar from the original that your body cannot identify it. If you have T cell immunity, your immune system will recognize the mutated virus and take care of it, just as it would with the original version of the virus.

He explains how, earlier in the pandemic, scientists obtained blood from patients who had been sickened with the SARS virus 17 or 18 years ago. SARS-CoV-1, responsible for that SARS outbreak, is only 80% similar to SARS-CoV-2. They wanted to know if the immune systems of these patients would be able to recognize SARS-CoV-2 — which they did. They still had memory T-cells against SARS-CoV-1, and those cells also recognized SARS-CoV-2, despite being only 80% similar.

Now, if a 20% difference was not enough to circumvent the immune system of these patients, why should you be concerned with a variant that is at most 0.3% different from the original SARS-CoV-2? And why would we need booster shots for these near-identical variants?

Booster Shots, a Trojan Horse?

Yeadon is extremely suspicious of the intentions behind booster shots for different variants, saying:

“You should be terrified at this point, as I am, because there’s absolutely no possible justification for their manufacture. There’s no possible benign interpretation of this. I believe they [the booster shots] are going to be used to damage your health and possibly kill you. Seriously. I can see no sensible interpretation other than a serious attempt at mass depopulation.

This will provide the tools to do it, and plausible deniability. They’ll create another story about some sort of biological threat and you’ll line up and get your top-up vaccines, and a few months or a year or so later, you’ll die of some peculiar inexplicable syndrome. And they won’t be able to associate it with the vaccines.

That’s my belief — that they’re lying to you about variants so they can make damaging top-up vaccines that you don’t need at all. I think they will be used for malign purposes …”

Reject the ‘New Normal’ and Reclaim Your Life

Until or unless someone in the know steps up to the plate with a confession, we have no way of knowing whether depopulation is actually an intended outcome of these shots. Still, even if there’s no ill intent behind them, the real-world outcome may still be a mass-casualty event.

What seems clearer is that world leaders are sowing fear that is wildly disproportionate to the actual health threat of this virus and its variants, and the most logical reason for this is because they need this pandemic to continue in order to usher in the Great Reset.

The Great Reset, in turn, is part of a parallel agenda built around transhumanist ideologies, ideas and ideals, where man is merged with machine and biologically controlled through the use of nanotechnology and digital surveillance.

If I’m correct, then the COVID pandemic narrative will continue to be spun, not for the next several months but years. The fearmongering will persist until permanent tracking has been implemented, getting regular gene therapy injections have become the norm and no one does anything unless government says it’s OK. In other words, until life has been permanently turned into a hell fit for robots alone.

In the video below, talkRADIO host Julia Hartley-Brewer shares her opinion on the matter, saying that if the U.K. does not open on “Freedom Day,” June 21, 2021, as planned, then lockdowns are likely to continue forever.

She points out that the “vaccines” are working better than anyone dared hope, and a far larger portion of the population than expected have willingly taken them. People are as safe as they’re ever going to get, yet government is still vacillating, saying it’s not enough. It’s time to go back to the old normal where people are free to live their own lives, Hartley-Brewer says, and she’s absolutely right.

Boris Johnson will announce a four week delay to lockdown lifting. But Julia says: “We have to get out of this and if it’s not now, it may be never. We need to get back to the old normal where we have our freedom.”@JuliaHB1 pic.twitter.com/slAnzM5xVx— talkRADIO (@talkRADIO) June 14, 2021

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/23/covid-delta-variant-lockdowns.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Key Researcher in Wuhan Thanks Fauci for Downplaying Lab Leak

In an interview with a reporter from the Washington Examiner, Nicholas Wade, retired science writer for The New York Times, postulated the reason the media and others didn’t further explore the idea that the SARS-CoV-2 virus leaked from a lab was that the theory was initially and publicly proposed by then-President Trump.1

Wade believes the theory became politically polarized, burying the possibility it would be fully and independently explored. In April 2020, Trump made a comment that he had seen evidence supporting the theory that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a lab in China. At a White House event, he was asked about the evidence, to which he replied, “I cannot tell you that. I’m not allowed to tell you that.”2

His inability to disclose the source was immediately pounced upon by the media, prompting headlines that stated he claimed to have evidence but cited no details. Just days later, mainstream media began refuting Trump’s comment, claiming the virus was not “cooked up in a Chinese lab,”3 and headlines proclaimed there was “‘Exactly Zero’ Evidence COVID-19 Came From a Lab.”4

Many reporters also claimed what one reporter in the LA Times wrote: “The story has all the earmarks of a conspiracy theory.”5 In this case, however, the truth is beginning to come out. As I’ve reported in the past months, many scientists believe the evidence demonstrates it is nearly impossible for the virus to have developed in nature.6 Within the past month the idea that the virus originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, has been gaining mainstream media attention.7

The questions appeared to start after the World Health Organization’s joint report with Beijing was released, which concluded the lab leak hypothesis was “extremely unlikely.”8 However, as demonstrated by interviews with at least one member of the investigation team, it appeared the group’s assessment at the lab was not thorough.

Challenging the idea of the origins of the virus has been seen as career suicide for scientists,9 but the recent release of emails10 from Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical adviser to the president, has shed new light that may ultimately create an environment where the truth will be exposed.

Fauci Works With Group to Quash Lab Leak Theory

Under the Freedom of Information Act, BuzzFeed obtained and published online11 over 3,000 pages of emails written to and from Fauci from various sources. The emails revealed an exchange between Fauci and Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance based in New York.

In the published documents is a telling email from Daszak to Fauci, “to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators.”12 This email came hours after Fauci publicly dismissed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally leaked from a Wuhan lab.

Earlier in the day the Washington Examiner13 reported that Fauci was asked directly about the hypothesis the virus leaked from a lab and he said the scientific evidence “is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

EcoHealth Alliance is a research group that secured a grant from the NIH to do research on coronaviruses in Wuhan before the pandemic broke in 2019.14 As reported in a February 2021 article in the Austin American-Statesman, the original grant from the NIH was for $3.4 million awarded in 2014 to an organization, “which aims to protect people from viruses that jump from species to species.”15

EcoHealth Alliance turned around and hired the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), with which they had been collaborating since 2004,16 paying $598,500 over five years.17 WIV had reportedly secured approval from the NIH and the U.S. State Department to do the research.

In February 2021, the Austin American-Statesman reporter attempted to refute the claim that Fauci and the NIH had funded gain-of-function research “on a bat coronavirus, which ‘created’ SARS-CoV-2,”18 despite incriminating evidence to the contrary as I have reported. But now, as I will show below, Fauci’s emails show that he knew much more than he was admitting to.

The very person who funded and worked closely with WIV was also appointed to the joint inspection team led by WHO and Beijing.19 The report was criticized over its strong conclusions that were based on little evidence. In a later 60 Minutes interview, Daszak admitted they had taken at face value the word of the Chinese officials in their investigation.20

NIH Finally Seeks Accountability for Millions in Grant Money

Early in 2020, the NIH pulled the multimillion-dollar grant from EcoHealth Alliance and then reinstated it in July with what Daszak termed “absurd conditions.”21 In a press release from EcoHealth Alliance they expressed displeasure at the conditions placed on the research grant, writing:22

“We were initially pleased to learn that the National Institutes of Health had reversed its indefensible decision to terminate our funding for a five year research project on emerging coronaviruses, during this coronavirus pandemic.

However, NIH’s letter cynically reinstates and instantly suspends EcoHealth Alliance’s funding, then attempts to impose impossible and irrelevant conditions that will effectively block us from continuing this critical work.”

The Wall Street Journal reported some of the conditions under which EcoHealth Alliance could continue to receive funding. These included:23

A sample of the new coronavirus that Wuhan researchers used for genetic sequencing.
Arrange an inspection of the WIV by an outside team of scientists that would review the records “with specific attention to addressing the question of whether WIV staff had SARS-CoV-2 in their possession prior to December 2019.”

In their response to the letter from the NIH outlining the conditions of the reinstatement, The Wall Street Journal reports, “EcoHealth Alliance said in its response that it hadn’t sent any grant funds to the Wuhan Institute before the grant was suspended, though it has provided funding to the institute in previous years.”24

Daszak called the demands for information about how millions of taxpayer dollars were being spent “heinous,” and in an email to Nature, his partner scientist at WIV, Shi Zhengli, called it “outrageous.”25 Shi Zhengli is the WIV virologist who has been working with EcoHealth Alliance for over 15 years on viruses originating in bats.

In a statement to Nature, Daszak expressed concern that the additional information requested by the NIH about how millions of dollars are being spent was “pressure of a very aggressive administration.”26 Tapping into what is known to be a strong motivating factor — fear — he insinuated that the work being done by EcoHealth Alliance was all that is standing between any virus and human health, saying:27

“And it turns out that they decided that this issue and our work is going to be one of the angles of attack. That’s extremely unfortunate. The winner in all of this is the virus, and not just this virus — SARS-CoV-2 — but all the other viruses.”

Fauci Plays Word Games in Gain-of-Function Research Funding

As shared in this 15-minute video,28 Fauci has been a chief supporter of gain-of-function research. In 2014, the Obama Administration put a ban on gain-of-function research, which Fauci reversed in 2017. The research, according to the NIH guidelines, did not follow safety protocols in the specific grant to the EcoHealth Alliance shared with WIV.

That same lab was cited in 2018 for having substandard safety protocols. As noted in the video, in response to the pandemic, The Hill’s Rising, a morning news show, shared that Fauci pushed for more gain-of-function research, mentioning the Global Virome Project (GVP).29

The goal of GVP is to raise several trillion dollars to fund the discovery of zoonotic virus threats to humans,30 which includes gain-of-function research. Interestingly, the same Peter Daszak who is head of EcoHealth Alliance, receiving multimillion-dollar grants from the U.S. government, is also the secretary and treasurer of GVP.31

Daszak’s influence in suppressing information that the pandemic could have had a lab origin runs even deeper. In a Freedom of Information Act release, U.S. Right to Know32 found Daszak had penned a paper published in the Lancet that was central to the argument dismissing the idea the virus could have been released from a lab.

He orchestrated the paper signed by 27 scientists to “avoid the appearance of a political statement.”33 Getting back to Fauci’s finger in the pie, it is apparent from his answers in the video above that he now denies ever having funded gain-of-function research, even though there’s irrefutable evidence that he did as I reported in, “The Biggest Flip-Flop Ever — Who’s Going to Jail?”

Science Writer Makes Strong Argument for Lab Leak Origin

In an interview with a reporter from the Washington Examiner, Wade talked about what would happen if it were accepted that virologists indeed developed SARS-CoV-2 in the lab.34

“Well, this is of course one of the reasons virologists have not been too keen to explore this possibility. I think there will definitely be a public backlash. People will want to scrutinize much more closely the safety conditions virologists thought were adequate and what experiments they were doing.”

Wade has been interviewed by several reporters in response to a paper he wrote titled, “Origin of COVID — Following the Clues: Did People or Nature Open Pandora’s Box at Wuhan?”35 In this paper he stated that if we’re ever to solve the mystery of where this novel virus came from, people must be willing to follow the science as “it offers the only sure thread through the maze.”

Unlike Fauci, who appears to be intent on distancing himself and the NIH from responsibility for the research that appears to have resulted in the virus and ultimately the financial and mental health disaster that followed, Wade presents a balanced approach to the data and goes on to write:36

“It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory. Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction.”

To summarize his paper, Wade believes the preponderance of clues lean toward the virus originating in a laboratory setting, most likely from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, after having undergone manipulation to increase infectiousness and pathology in humans.

In the meantime, the arguments laid out by government officials and supported in the media for the past year in support of natural origin are grounded in inconclusive speculations that require you to throw out scientifically possible scenarios. Wade writes:37

“It seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence. It’s documented that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were doing gain-of-function experiments designed to make coronaviruses infect human cells and humanized mice.

This is exactly the kind of experiment from which a SARS2-like virus could have emerged. The researchers were not vaccinated against the viruses under study, and they were working in the minimal safety conditions of a BSL2 laboratory. So escape of a virus would not be at all surprising.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/23/fauci-lab-leak-theory-emails.aspx

Categories
Recommended

Eric Clapton Details His Vaccine Injury

In an interview with Oracle Films, musician Eric Clapton detailed his experience suffering from a severe adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. Clapton has been blasted by mainstream media for speaking out about the vaccine and COVID lockdowns, and he said he’s lost friends over his views.

He’s even fearful of losing the love and trust of members of his own family, but believes in speaking out for what he believes in and sharing his experiences:1

“I believe most of all in free speech and freedom of movement, choice of movement and life and love and kindness and with all of this exposure to the polarization of politics and the medicine and the science, I found it very difficult to be neutral because I’ve seen scorn and contempt from both sides, and I get caught in the crossfire a lot.

… I’m talking today on behalf of people like me who may be lost, maybe need to hear someone talk about it from a human point of view without condemnation … There has to be a way to bring people together. I believe music can do that, but it’s a long way away. There’s still time, I believe, for us to come together.”

Song ‘Stand and Deliver’ Takes on COVID Lockdowns

Before he received the COVID-19 vaccine, Clapton collaborated with Van Morrison on the song “Stand and Deliver,” which was released in December 2020. It takes on the U.K.’s pandemic response, which included strict lockdowns.

Analysis of scientific evidence since the start of the pandemic supports the theory that lockdowns have been ineffective in stopping the spread of the illness and have come at an exceedingly high financial and human cost.2 They’ve even been called the “single worst public health mistake” of the last 100 years.3 In the song, Clapton sings:4

“Stand and deliver / You let them put the fear on you / Stand and deliver / But not a word you heard was true / But if there’s nothing you can say / There may be nothing you can do / Do you want to be a free man / Or do you want to be a slave?”

Clapton Lost Use of Hands After Second Vaccine Dose

Even though Clapton was unhappy with the government’s pandemic response, and even considered moving his family away from England, he believed he was vulnerable to COVID-19 due to his age — 76 years — and diagnosis of emphysema.

He decided to get a COVID-19 vaccine — the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which uses a chimpanzee adenovirus vector genetically engineered to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The side effects began shortly after his first dose:5

“I went and had the jab … within several hours, I was shaking like a leaf and I went to bed early and I couldn’t get warm … and I thought, I’m running a fever. I was boiling hot and sweating and then I was cold, and I was out for the count for about a week.

I had been preparing for a project where I was going to be playing acoustic guitar with a couple of musicians and we were going to film it. That week knocked me out and I had to start again from scratch. I was OK, but it didn’t come off as well as I would like to because, professionally, it was a huge setback …”

When it came time to get the second dose, Clapton was hesitant, but went ahead anyway, only to experience an even more severe reaction:6

“Bit by bit I realized that I probably shouldn’t have had the first jab, but then I was offered the second and I thought, well … what’s the point in stopping now. So I went and had the second, and then it got really bad. Within about a week … my hands didn’t really work.”

Clapton had previously been diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy, which is nerve damage in the arms and/or legs that causes pain, burning, numbness and pins-and-needles sensation. The condition is progressive and incurable, Clapton noted, but said his was always manageable.

“I expected it to be something that would gradually grow worse as I got older into my 80s, but always I could get some ice pack or whatever and it would be fine.” This changed after the second COVID-19 vaccine, however.

Clapton Says Vaccine Damaged His Immune System

After the second COVID-19 vaccine, Clapton’s peripheral neuropathy got significantly worse, which he attributed to an assault on his immune system:7

“[When I had the second jab] this ramped up from, on a scale of 10, say from three to eight or nine. Agony and chronic pain. When you know there’s nothing that will work, there’s no medication you can take that will help, it’s very, very frightening. And the worst thing is you don’t know when it’s going to wear off or when it’s going to go away.

So that was what frightened me the most, medically, health-wise, and it still does because I have gigs to do, I have recording work to do, but I can’t touch the guitar to play … it’s not fun … and when I put it down, it’s there until I go to bed, and I take sleeping pills because I can’t sleep because of the pain. That’s not a good way to live.

It’s not all due to the vaccine but the vaccine took my immune system and just shook it around again, and that’s still going on. Then I read a lot of the evidence that I had been reading about with people that were having adverse reactions, that was on the list … damage to the immune system.”

Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., is among those who have warned about COVID-19 vaccines leading to dysregulation in the immune system. She explained in our June 2021 interview:

“As mentioned, it’s an adenovirus vector expressing the protein. So, the HIV, the XMRV envelope, the syncytin, the HERV-W envelope and the ACE2 are already being expressed in the vector … these adenovirus vector protein-producing vaccines are grown in an aborted fetal tissue cell line, so now you’ve got human syncytin [in there]. You’ve got 8% of the human genome of another human.

So, again, looking at the communication that has to regulate your Type I interferon response, it’s going to give you autoimmunity. In immunocompromised people, it’s going to continue to express and that will give you a live infection, and you already have your firetrucks fighting another [infection]. You can’t fight a war on three fronts.”

Clapton Told Doctor to Make a ‘Yellow Card’ Report

The U.K. maintains a “Yellow Card” reporting site to report adverse effects to vaccines and medications.8 From December 9, 2020 to June 2, 2021, the site reported the following submissions:9

67,998 Yellow Cards reported for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine
195,641 Yellow Cards reported for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca
3,278 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna
754 Yellow Cards reported for COVID-19 vaccines, brand not specified

This works out to an overall adverse event reporting rate of three to seven Yellow Cards per 1,000 doses administered for the Pfizer/BioNTech, AstraZeneca and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.10 When asked whether he felt he was made aware of the vaccine risks beforehand, Clapton said, “Oh god no. I didn’t even know there was a yellow card report. I didn’t know there was any such thing.”

Other than saying you may be a bit sore, Clapton said, “They say it’s safe.” After the second dose, however, he told his doctor to make a Yellow Card report and got a note that would hopefully exempt him from having to receive a booster dose:11

“I lost the use of my hands for about three weeks, so I thought I was in real trouble … I can’t touch anything cold or hot. I have to use these [holding up a pair of gloves], otherwise my hands will begin to burn and they’ll stay burnt all day … And that’s my experience from having had the second jab.

I went to my doctor pretty quickly and said, you know, I can’t have any more vaccinations. This is not possible for me because I don’t know what will happen. I don’t what will happen next, and from what I read and from what I’ve been told, there would be a booster in the autumn, and I said I have to have a document that says I’m allergic, I can’t have COVID vaccine, which I have in my backpack.”

It was about this time that Robin Monotti with Oracle Films invited Clapton to talk about his experiences, which he said was an easy decision. “It was easy to say yes because I realized that I wasn’t the only one that was suffering adverse reactions,” Clapton said.12

Fear of Reprisal Is Keeping People From Speaking Out

Clapton is supportive of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), written by infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, which highlighted grave concerns over lockdown measures implemented during the pandemic and has collected more than 850,000 signatures in support.13

The GBD authors, along with a team of academics, researchers and subject matter experts, are now publishing a regular analysis of the global impact of COVID-19 restrictions, called Collateral Global.14 The reality is, lockdowns have caused a great deal of harm, from delays in medical treatment and disrupted education to joblessness and drug overdoses.

Clapton said what disturbs him the most about the pandemic response is coercion. NHS propaganda ads in the U.K. featured photos of sick, elderly people with sayings like “Look him in the eyes and tell him the risk isn’t real.” “That’s very dark, it’s victimization is what it is,” Clapton said, adding:15

“The trick they got together with their propaganda was making it so you’re responsible for other people’s lives. So, I can be labeled a murderer and people would really believe that. That’s powerful. It’s very clever.”

COVID-19 anxiety syndrome has also now manifested in many, which refers to pandemic-related psychological distress that may persist long beyond the pandemic, interfering with daily life.16 Clapton said he suffers from this but it was worse when he was following the news. Now, he doesn’t watch television. This psychological suffering is a key control mechanism, Clapton said, referencing George Orwell’s “1984”:

“It’s so true. There’s so much of the sickness is in our heads now. We’ve become weak. If we’re talking about freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of choice with the vaccine, for instance, then the opposite of that is what we’re experiencing if you take that away.”

Clapton believes more people aren’t speaking out because of fear of reprisal if they go against the official narrative, including reprisal from their own family. While Clapton said he’s felt some level of alienation due to his views, in his case, he said, “My fear is about what will they do to my children? My fear about vaccination is what will it do to my children?”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/22/eric-clapton-covid-19-vaccine-injury.aspx