Lose Them Pounds

Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association, has been an activist since the 1960s, not only centered on anti-GMO campaigns and sustainable and regenerative agriculture, but also for human rights and labor issues.

His understanding of the natural world and passion to protect it, along with his expertise in political and economic systems, makes him uniquely suited to speak about the truth behind COVID-19 and the ongoing censorship that has kept the truth largely hidden from the public.

Cummins and I co-wrote the book, “The Truth About COVID-19 — Exposing the Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports and the New Normal,” which exposes the catastrophic events that have occurred due to what appears to be an engineered coronavirus.

In an interview with Speaking Naturally founder Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., Cummins goes into more details about why he believes COVID-19 is the biggest disaster since the second World War.

“Biofascism is what we’re staring in the face right now,” Cummins said. “And if we’re not careful, we’re going to lose not only our health, our environment, the climate crisis is not going to get fixed, but we’re going to be living in a global state that more closely resembles Communist China than it does a participatory democracy.”1

SARS-CoV-2 a ‘Lab-Released, Lab-Engineered’ Virus

The evidence is now overwhelming that SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic are the result of a laboratory release. While no one thought that in our lifetimes in the U.S. we’d be unable to speak freely and uncensored in many channels, such as online, Cummins believes the truth will come out.

“If we were in a courtroom, and there was a jury that had been selected based on the fact that they could render an objective judgment, we would win hands down, right now,” Cummins said, due to preponderance of evidence. He stated:2

“They’re making billions of dollars off a lab-released, lab-engineered virus that should have never existed in the first place, and it wouldn’t have if the public had known about this. But they operate in secret and we don’t understand that the military industrial complex is not just a threat of a nuclear war or a conflict escalating into that.

These people are a threat right now with what they’re doing globally. They’re designing things that will make SARS-CoV-2 look less threatening.”

What Cummins refers to is controversial gain-of-function (GOF) research, which refers to studies that enhance the ability of pathogens to cause disease, making them more virulent or easily transmissible, for instance. Because GOF research can be used to make pathogens more readily able to infect humans, it poses major biosecurity risks.

Many experts, including Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and virologist, and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., a geneticist, believe GOF research performed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) played “an essential causative role in the pandemic.”3 Verkerk asks Cummins if he thinks SARS-CoV-2 was an accidental escape due to GOF research or a deliberate release, to which Cummins responds that that’s really beside the point — either way, it’s a disaster:4

“Scientists, as we speak, are manipulating the SARS-CoV-2 virus to where it will be able to survive the basic immune response of humans. Just think about this for a minute.

If another version gets out there — whether it’s deliberate or accidental, it’s not going to matter — but it’s a version that’s been souped up to where your natural immune system can’t fight it off, it makes it very difficult to talk about vaccine safety and freedom of choice …

The globalists now see that they can consolidate power and control from what looks like an accidental release. You will be able to do this with other varieties.”

GOF Loopholes Must Be Closed

WHO’s heavily conflicted investigative commission, tasked with identifying the origin of SARS-CoV-2, announced the WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan, China, had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak in February 2021.

Since then, WIV deleted mentions of its collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other U.S. research partners from its website.5 It also deleted descriptions of GOF research on the SARS virus.

The U.S. government has committed to redoubling efforts to look into the real origins of COVID-19. While Beijing has stated that it considers the investigation to be complete,6 a U.S. investigation is expected to examine information from WIV held by NIH, NIAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland Security, EcoHealth Alliance and the National Science Foundation.7

Meanwhile, the Senate passed an amendment to ban U.S. funding to WIV going forward, while another banned U.S. funding for any GOF research in China.8 This is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough and will in no way prevent another manmade pandemic because this type of research is being done all around the world, not just in China.

Unless the U.S. government bans GOF research within its own borders, and encourages the rest of the world to ban it as well, there’s nothing to prevent researchers from creating another deadly pathogen that would never have arisen naturally. As Cummins stated, we need to close all loopholes and make GOF research illegal, or it’s only a matter of time before another engineered virus is unleashed.

Cummins even mentions that some evidence suggests HIV may have been a lab release, along with Lyme disease, which he said may be a chemical and biological weapon that escaped.

“It’s here, and the medical establishment first tried to say it was all in your head, then have been very reluctant to look at how complicated the symptoms are and how serious this disease is. And the reason it’s so serious — this is not like other diseases they look at — is because this thing was weaponized to be used in war. It was used in various theaters of the Cold War and the Hot War.”

Terrifying Prediction of Daily Life After Great Reset

Cummins also discusses the other side of the Great Reset, and what might happen socially and politically if the technocrats succeed in taking over. The long-term agenda is not about COVID-19 or even the implementation of a biosecurity state but will be used for the extinction of homo sapiens — the end of humanity as you know it.9

This isn’t conjecture. The notion of transhumanism is being actively researched and explored. In an article titled “Looking Forward to the End of Humanity,” The Wall Street Journal noted that COVID-19 “has spotlighted the promise and peril of ‘transhumanism,’ the idea of using technology to overcome sickness, aging and death.”10

One problem is that, once you give in, you become enslaved by the system, and the very things that make us human — like independence of mind — are gone or rendered useless, because the technocrats control everything. There’s a loss of free will as humans hand over power to technology and biotechnology. Even reproduction as you now know it will be affected. Cummins explained that it’s similar to Communist China:11

“It would look like enlightened capitalism on the surface … but a middle-class person in China doesn’t have any rights compared to the remaining rights we have. You can’t go on the internet in China and find information, period, that the government doesn’t want you to see. It doesn’t necessarily mean we will be poor. We will still have a very large middle class.

There won’t be any jobs for the lower class, but I guess they just figure they’ll give them some sort of token wage, and they don’t seem to care that we’re not going to be able to procreate and reproduce the way we do now if we continue on. It’s a serious matter that we’ve got these chemicals in the environment that are decreasing sperm counts in making it harder and harder for people to have children naturally.

It’s like, well, the elite, the globalists and transhumanists, they don’t care because they are secluded from this and they figure artificial insemination is good for everyone. That way we can control the population and so on.”

Your Financial Life Will Also Be Controlled

Every facet of society is being targeted as part of the Great Reset. The World Economic Forum (WEF), a key promoter of the Reset, has been very vocal about getting rid of cash in the U.S. and moving to a centrally controlled digital currency.12 When and if this occurs, it will act as another layer of control and surveillance.

“We need to educate people about what’s going on in China right now,” Cummins said. “In China, your bank account is connected to your behavior, and if they don’t want you to you’re not going to survive economically.” He added:13

“I don’t think people quite grasp what it’s like, this digital currency controlled by the central banks, by the government. We have to fight this system and realize that surveillance capitalism is not in the future.

It already exists in the United States, and they simply haven’t closed the deal yet as the Great Reset is planning. Things like using cash, buying local, growing local food, building up strong governments — we have to decentralize power.”

Recreating China’s social credit system here in the U.S. is likely easier at this point than anyone would like to think, and probably wouldn’t take long to implement. There are no laws in place to curtail surveillance capitalism, and the only reason it has been able to flourish over the past 20 years is because there’s been an absence of laws against it, primarily because it has never previously existed.

Surveillance has become the biggest for-profit industry on the planet, and your entire existence is now being targeted for profit.

If you want to learn more on this topic, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” written by social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff, is one of the best books I have read in the last few years. It’s an absolute must-read if you have any interest in this topic and want to understand how Google and Facebook have obtained such massive control of your life.

We Need a Participatory Democracy, Not a Great Reset

Cummins urges the public to stop fighting over political terms and ideologies and instead come together toward a participatory democracy, in which people have control over the policies that affect their daily leaves. This would eliminate the dominance of billionaires and corporations, which is the opposite of what the Great Reset is trying to achieve.

“We have to take down the military industrial complex on a global scale as we’re doing this and turn it to pacification and conflict resolution. And I really believe we can do this,” Cummins said. It’s interesting, he pointed out, that a large percentage of police and marines are refusing COVID-19 vaccines, because they’re skeptical not just of COVID-19 but of the elite narrative. The solution will lie in small, local movements preserving their power. According to Cummins:14

“There’s a million different communities in the world. In each one of these communities, we have to organize and take back power … The most important thing is what we’re doing right now in our local regions. If we’re going to have local currencies, cryptocurrencies, that actually work and that can’t be shut down by the government, now’s the time.

But we can’t keep sliding in this direction. We can’t have an internet controlled by billionaires who want a Great Reset and think that we can somehow work around that. We have to take them down. We have to build alternatives, and I believe we can do that.”

This all ties in to the food system, as well, which is also under assault from technocrats trying to usher in synthetic meat and GMOs. But, as Cummins said, “Corporate agribusiness and the genetic engineers have set us up for a biological trigger like SARS-CoV-2, which can magnify and exacerbate the poor health in the population.”

The solution here is healthy, organic, regenerative food and farming, which will bolster the health of the planet, including the Earth itself, via healthier soil, and the humans living on it. This, too, must be done on the local level, via small movements.

Cummins mentions the growing of agave in Mexico, which is being combined with nitrogen-fixing companion tree species (such as mesquite), with holistic rotational grazing of livestock.

The result is a high-biomass, high forage-yielding system that works well even on degraded, semi-arid lands. This agroforestry system reduces the pressure to overgraze brittle rangelands and improves soil health and water retention, while drawing down and storing massive amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).

“We have to regenerate health and regenerate the Earth if we’re going to stabilize the climate,” Cummins said, and “we need to reunite under the banner of regenerating health, not becoming transhuman objects …”15 Truth-telling about COVID is another great start and essential piece to stopping the Great Reset. To learn more, be sure to read the rest of the story in “The Truth About COVID-19.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/26/blistering-backstory-behind-covid-19.aspx

World Health Organization investigators, including Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance president, claimed the suggestion of live bats inside the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China was a conspiracy theory.1 The dismissal was part of the rationale used to bolster the idea that SARS-CoV-2 is a natural virus that jumped from animals to humans, possibly due to a wet market in Wuhan, China.

Anyone who suggested otherwise — including that the virus may actually be a manmade product that escaped from a lab — was censored, discredited and called a conspiracy theorist.

Now, however, evidence continues to accumulate that COVID-19 likely emerged from a laboratory in China after having undergone some sort of manipulation to encourage infectiousness and pathology in humans, known as gain-of-function (GOF) research.

Australian investigative journalist Sharri Markson revealed another bombshell in the video above — proof via video footage taken inside the facility that WIV kept live bats in cages.2 The live bats at WIV directly contradict statements by Daszak and others, who insisted no bats were housed in the lab. “It is not a conspiracy to state there were live bats at the lab,” Markson says. “It is a fact.”3

Video Footage Shows Live Bats at WIV

Footage from WIV, shown in the video above, shows live bats in cages, a researcher feeding bats and a bat hanging off a researcher’s hat in the field, along with hundreds of mouse cages. Shi Zhengli, Ph.D., the director of WIV’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, also known as “bat woman,” has been studying bat-borne viruses since 2004, including SARS-like coronaviruses.

According to the World Society for Virology, “One of her great contributions is to uncover genetically diverse SARS-like coronaviruses in bats with her international collaborators and provide unequivocal evidence that bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-CoV.”4

Part of WIV’s GOF research involved using humanized mice for experiments to determine which coronaviruses could infect humans, as well as research to make viruses that weren’t able to infect humans do just that.5

Other reports also claimed that WIV was carrying out research infecting humanized mice with novel bat SARS coronaviruses in 2019, and years earlier video was released showing WIV scientists working with little or no protective gear while working with live viruses.6

Daszak Denied Bats Were Kept at WIV

Daszak has close ties to WIV and Zhengli, which is why his participation in the WHO investigation into COVID-19’s origins was highly conflicted from the start. Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance has long funded controversial GOF research at WIV. Further, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, gave funding to the EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn funneled it to WIV.7

In case there were any doubt of their close ties, The Sun,8 a tabloid paper in the U.K., featured a Twitter conversation in which Daszak “appears to say he is looking forward to an alcohol-fueled karaoke party in a bat cave with Shi Zhengli,” GM watch noted.9

Daszak tweets, “Looking forward to that special moment when we hit the baiju and the karaoke with Zhengli & Linfa [likely referring to Wang Linfa, aka ‘batman,’ another bat researcher and WIV’s chairman of a scientific advisory board10].” He adds, “Right now a party in a bat cave sounds just right to me!!”11

Daszak has also publicly denied there were bats kept at WIV. According to Markson, in December 2020, Daszak tweeted:12

“No BATS were “sent to Wuhan lab for genetic analyses of viruses collected in the field” That’s now how this science works. We collect bat samples, send them to the lab. We RELEASE bats where we catch them!”

In a second December 2020 tweet, Daszak repeats:13

“This is a widely circulated conspiracy theory. This piece describes work I’m the lead on & labs I’ve collaborated w/ for 15 yrs. They DO NOT Have live or dead bats in them. There is no evidence anywhere that this happened. It’s an error that I hope will be corrected.”

But months later, in June 2021, Daszak starts to backpedal, tweeting:14

“We didn’t ask them if they had bats. I wouldn’t be surprised if, like many other virology labs, they were trying to set up a bat colony. I know it’s happening in labs here and in other countries.”

Daszak Desperately Pushed Natural Origin Theory

Not surprisingly, given his involvement in the GOF research on bat coronaviruses at WIV, Daszak has fervently supported the natural origin theory of SARS-CoV-2 from the beginning. While investigating her book, “What Really Happened in Wuhan?” Markson discovered that Daszak was invited to brief the FBI and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on February 3, 2020, during the early days of the pandemic.

Ironically, misinformation was a key topic at the meeting, Markson said. Not long after, on April 30, 2020, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a statement saying that SARS-CoV-2 was of natural origin: “The Intelligence Community also concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified.”15

This statement is false, Markson pointed out, as there was no scientific consensus that the virus had a natural origin. Nonetheless, it was the official narrative being spewed from mainstream media and health officials alike. In an April 17, 2020, White House press briefing, Fauci said the science was “totally consistent with a jump from an animal to a human.”16

Two days after this press briefing, Daszak wrote to Fauci thanking him for his help in deflecting the lab origin theory. The email reads:

“As the PI of the R01 grant publicly targeted by Fox News reporters at the Presidential press briefing last night, I just wanted to say a personal thankyou on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Daszak was also the mastermind behind the publication of a scientific statement published in The Lancet in March 202017 condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory,”18 which was then relied on by the media to “debunk” theories and evidence showing the pandemic virus most likely originated from a laboratory. Daszak then ended up on both the WHO investigation into COVID-19s origins and The Lancet’s COVID-19 commission,19 despite the glaring conflict of interest.

What Happened to WIV’s Virus Database?

In Markson’s report, it’s stated that, over more than a decade, Zhengli’s research team collected more than 15,000 bat samples in China and Africa, “searching for the origins of SARS, as well as isolating and characterizing many new viruses.”20

But WIV’s online virus databases disappeared from the internet beginning September 12, 2019. Zhengli has claimed that they were the victim of hacking attempts, but as Markson noted, the databases were not reuploaded or made available to investigative agencies.

A reasonable starting point of WHO experts investigating the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic would certainly have been access to those databases, but they didn’t even ask for them. In the video, you can see Daszak stating that Zhengli’s claims that the database was taken down by hackers are “absolutely reasonable” and confirm they did not ask for access.21

Safety Risks Were Well-Known

There were red flags at WIV, a biosafety level 4 laboratory, from the start. In Markson’s report, you can see deputy director Song Donglin state, “Back in 2004 when we began work on this lab, China had no prior experience designing or constructing BSL-4 laboratories. There was no prior experience in using and managing autoclave sterilizers nor life-support systems for personnel. The specifications for standards in these areas were still under development.”

This is an admission that the lab had no prior experiences dealing with the deadly pathogens of a biosafety level 4 lab, yet they were genetically manipulating bat viruses nonetheless. They also relied on French experts to build the laboratory, which was supposed to be a center of international collaboration.

However, France has no role in running the facility22 and, according to Markson, “the French were immediately kicked out” of the lab after it was built, raising alarm bells with French intelligence.23 A video from WIV director Yuan Zhiming also states, “Staff in our central control room remain in constant contact with staff in our laboratory, providing necessary technical support for their experiments as well as for any accidents.”24

This is another admission that not only do accidents happen, but they have cameras set up monitoring for this purpose. It also doesn’t appear that WHO investigators asked to review this security footage in their COVID-19 investigation. Daszak was also well aware of the risks of GOF research.

In 2015, he spoke at a National Academies of Science seminar on reducing risk from emerging infectious diseases, warning of the danger of experimenting on “humanized mice,”25 meaning lab mice that have been genetically altered to carry human genes, cells or tissues.

He also published a paper in which he warned a global pandemic might occur from a laboratory incident and that “the risks were greater with the sort of virus manipulation research being carried out in Wuhan.”26

The Truth Will Be Revealed

Nikolai Petrovsky, professor of endocrinology at Flinders University College of Medicine in Adelaide, Australia, is among those who has stated SARS-CoV-2 appears to be optimally designed to infect humans.27

His team sought to identify a way by which animals might have comingled to give rise to SARS-CoV-2, but concluded that it could not be a naturally occurring virus. Petrovsky has previously stated it appears far more likely that the virus was created in a laboratory.28

The U.S. has recently redoubled its efforts to look into the real origins of COVID-19, with the Energy and Commerce Committee requesting extensive records from both the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance detailing research and collaborations with WIV.29

The Senate also passed an amendment to ban U.S. funding to WIV going forward, while another banned U.S. funding for any GOF research in China.30
This is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough and will in no way prevent another manmade pandemic because this type of research is being done all around the world, not just in China. Ultimately, however, the truth will prevail as the long-censored lab-leak theory and evidence in support of it — like live bats at WIV — go mainstream.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/25/proof-of-bats-at-wuhan-lab.aspx

There’s a medication that has been found to reduce COVID-19 mortality by 81%.1 The icing on the cake? It’s also safe, inexpensive and widely available, with decades of clinical usage suggesting it has a “high margin of safety.”2 The drug is ivermectin — a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic that also has anti-inflammatory activity.

There’s a good chance, however, that you probably haven’t heard about it. And, if you or a loved one had COVID-19, there’s also a high probability that you didn’t receive this potentially life-saving treatment, even though doctors have been begging health agencies to make it part of official COVID-19 treatment guidelines since nearly the start of the pandemic.

One professor and doctor, Hector Carvallo, who has found his science documenting ivermectin’s effectiveness for COVID-19 “quickly scrubbed from the internet,” wrote to colleagues, “I am afraid we have affected the most sensitive organ on humans: the wallet.”3

In June 2021, we’re at the point when the data on ivermectin are really undebatable. It’s a safe, existing option to treat COVID-19, and an alternative to vaccination, but if it were to become mainstream, it would make the COVID-19 vaccine Emergency Use Authorization disappear because, with a readily available treatment, there’s no need for mass, emergency vaccination.

Critical Care Physicians Developed COVID Treatment Early On

Early on in the pandemic, five critical care physicians formed the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC), which developed a highly effective COVID-19 treatment protocol known as MATH+.

One of those physicians, Dr. Paul Marik, a critical care doctor at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in East Virginia, is renowned for his work in creating the “Marik Cocktail,” which significantly reduces death rates from sepsis using inexpensive, safe, generic medications.4

Not content to offer COVID-19 patients “supportive care,” which he describes as “no care at all,” he recruited some of the most knowledgeable pulmonary critical care specialists to solve the COVID-19 treatment puzzle, homing in on stopping the hyper-immune response — including multiorgan inflammation and clotting — which is what typically drives death in fatal COVID-19 cases.5

Marik told Mountain Home magazine, “As pulmonary critical care doctors we know how to treat inflammation and clotting, with corticosteroids and anticoagulants. It’s first-grade science.”6 The result was the MATH+ protocol for hospitalized COVID-19 patients mentioned earlier, which gets its name from:

Intravenous Methylprednisolone
High-dose intravenous Ascorbic acid (vitamin C)
Plus optional treatments Thiamine, zinc and vitamin D
Full dose low molecular weight Heparin

The MATH+ protocol led to high survival rates. Out of more than 100 hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with the MATH+ protocol as of mid-April 2020, only two died. Both were in their 80s and had advanced chronic medical conditions.7

After several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+8 while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,9 due to the addition of ivermectin.

Ivermectin ‘Miracle Drug’ Silenced

In December 2020, FLCCC called for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.10,11 In one trial, 58 volunteers took 12 milligrams of ivermectin once per month for four months.

Only four (6.96%) came down with mild COVID-19 symptoms during the May through August 2020 trial period. In comparison, 44 of 60 health care workers (73.3%) who had declined the medication were diagnosed with COVID-19.12 Mountain Home reported:13

“‘If you were to say, tell me the characteristics of a perfect drug to treat COVID-19, what would you ask for?’ he [Marik] said. ‘I think you would ask firstly for something that’s safe, that’s cheap, that’s readily available, and has anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties.

People would say, ‘That’s ridiculous. There could not possibly be a drug that has all of those characteristics. That’s just unreasonable. But we do have such a drug. The drug is called Ivermectin.’

If it was universally distributed at a dose that costs ten American cents in India and about the cost of a Big Mac in the United States, he said, Ivermectin would save countless lives, crush variants, eliminate the need for endless big pharma booster shots, and end the pandemic all over the world.”

In June 2020, a study also found ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, with a single treatment leading to a 5,000-fold reduction in virus after 48 hours.14 What’s more, the drug is available over-the-counter in some countries, such as France, and 3.7 billion doses have been administered in the last 40 years, with serious side effects extremely rare.15

Dr. Pierre Kory, Marik’s protégé, and a part of the group that formed FLCCC, set out to get the word out to save lives, but his calls for widespread adoption of this “miracle” drug fell on deaf ears.

Senate Committee Ignores Data on Ivermectin

December 8, 2020, Kory testified to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which held a hearing on “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution.” He called on the NIH, CDC and FDA to review the expansive data on ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, keep those with early symptoms from progressing and help critically ill patients recover:16,17

“‘We have a solution to this crisis,’ he said. ‘There is a drug that is proving to be of miraculous impact,’ Kory said. ‘When I say miracle, I do not use that term lightly. And I don’t want to be sensationalized when I say that.

It’s a scientific recommendation based on mountains of data that has emerged in the last three months … from many centers and countries around the world showing the miraculous effectiveness of Ivermectin. It basically obliterates transmission of this virus. If you take it, you will not get sick.’”

Despite his impassioned pleas and astonishing science to back them up, the treatment was not only ignored by the committee but promptly eviscerated. Mountain Home reported:18

“The hearing was dead before it started … The hearing was boycotted by all seven Democrats (who have received a total of $1.3 million in big pharma bucks from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Gilead, and others), and four of the seven Republicans, including Utah’s Mitt Romney (more than $3 million received from big pharma), Ohio’s Rob Portman ($542,400), and Florida’s Rick Scott (more than $1 million in stock in Gilead Sciences, maker of Remdesivir).”

Meanwhile, media reports claimed ivermectin was unproven and the World Health Organization also refused to endorse it. YouTube removed Kory’s testimony, which had nearly 9 million views, calling it a danger to the community.19 Still, the data surrounding ivermectin speaks for itself.

Ivermectin’s Impressive Data — and Legal Fights Over its Use

A scientific review by Dr. Andrew Hill at Liverpool University, funded by the WHO and UNITAID and published January 18, 2021, found ivermectin reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%. It also increased viral clearance. This finding was based on a review of six randomized, controlled trials involving a total of 1,255 patients.20

Kory, Marik and colleagues also published their review based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19, which found “large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.” They continued:21

“Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.”

While an increasing number of doctors and countries have adopted ivermectin’s use for COVID-19, many more refuse it, even going so far as to prohibit its use for patients. Legal fights have ensued, with family members enlisting lawyers to battle hospital boards in order to give their dying loved ones the lifesaving pills — even when all other treatment options have been exhausted.22

‘It’s Really Almost Totalitarian’

In mid-January 2021, the NIH finally revised its guidelines on ivermectin, in large part due to the data presented by Kory and others. However, while the NIH no longer warns against its use, they also do not outright recommend it, and they did not grant ivermectin emergency use authorization. The FDA continues to warn against the use of ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.23

As a result, many patients in the U.S. still struggle to access the drug, as many doctors are unwilling to prescribe it off-label against health officials’ recommendations. The reality remains that inexpensive, generic pills like ivermectin are not the ones that Big Pharma intends to become the COVID-19 savior. As Kory told Mountain Home:24

“‘Only big randomized controlled trials by big pharma/big academic medical centers are accepted by big journals, while others are rejected,’ while only studies in big journals are accepted by big public health agencies for drug recommendations, and only drugs recommended by big public health agencies ‘escape media/social media censorship.’

‘This leaves you with a system where the only thing that’s considered to have sufficient evidence or proven efficacy is essentially a big new pharmaceutical drug … If it doesn’t come from the mountaintop, it doesn’t exist … The people on the ground, we cannot do any more science that’s considered credible.

We’re discredited as controversial and as promoting unproven therapies and our Facebook groups are shut down, Twitter accounts are locked, YouTube videos are removed and demonetized. It’s really almost totalitarian what’s happening when we’re just well-meaning scientists trying to do the right thing by our patients.’”

FLCCC has published its COVID-19 treatment protocols on its website and has answers to many frequently asked questions, including how to get ivermectin.25 FLCCC remains hopeful that ivermectin will be formally adopted into national or international COVID-19 treatment guidelines in the near future.

They also receive many questions from people wondering about COVID-19 vaccines, their safety and whether or not to get vaccinated. While FLCCC does not take a position for or against them, they state, “We can only say that, for those who cannot be vaccinated, ivermectin is an equally effective measure.”26
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/24/use-of-ivermectin-for-covid-19.aspx

Not only are we faced with aggressive attempts to force us into participating in a recklessly dangerous COVID-19 mass vaccination experiment, mainstream media are now drumming up concerns about the next flu season on top of it. As reported by NBC News:1

“More than a year after the pandemic started, Covid-19 is still ravaging parts of the world, but now scientists are warning that another virus could be a serious threat in the coming months: influenza.

This season, the flu virtually disappeared, with less than 2,000 lab-confirmed cases in the United States to date, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.2 In a typical flu season, the U.S. could see more than 200,000 lab-confirmed cases by this time of year, a tiny fraction of the true number of cases, estimated to range from 9 million to 45 million annually …

According to scientists like Dr. Andy Pekosz, a professor of microbiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a year without much flu could lead to a year with a whole lot of flu.

‘We’ve gone over a year without a significant portion of the population getting infected with flu and getting immunity because of that,’ Pekosz said. ‘That could mean that the susceptible people in the population to flu are going to be increasing.’”

Did Masks and Social Distancing Eliminate Influenza?

According to NBC News,3 COVID-19 mitigation measures such as universal mask wearing, social distancing and lockdowns prevented transmission of influenza during the 2020/2021 season. Well, as the old saying goes, “If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.”

First of all, the idea that masks and social distancing magically eradicated influenza, not just in the U.S. but around the world,4 is not supported by any serious science on masks, most of which actually looked at flu viruses. I’ll review some of those below.

It’s also implausible for the simple fact that COVID-19 statistics on cases, hospitalizations and mortality were all massively manipulated. There’s simply no telling how many so-called COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and probably even deaths, were actually flu-related.

Everyone, everywhere was being tested for COVID-19. Not influenza. And anyone presenting flu-like symptoms was automatically assumed to have COVID-19. Even if the flu was tested for and was positive, any falsely positive COVID test would change the diagnosis from flu to COVID-19.

If masks and social distancing worked like magic to prevent the spread of influenza, why did these measures not eradicate SARS-CoV-2? Masking and social distancing could not possibly have prevented influenza while simultaneously having no measurable impact on COVID-19.

Granted, each year, one particular strain of influenza virus will tend to predominate (but will vary from region to region), but it’s never 100% just one strain. So, the likelihood of virtually all infections this past year being due to SARS-CoV-2 is ridiculously small to say the least.

Lastly, if masks and social distancing worked like magic to prevent the spread of influenza, why did these measures not eradicate SARS-CoV-2? You simply cannot have it both ways. Masking and social distancing could not possibly have prevented influenza while simultaneously having no measurable impact on COVID-19.

We’ve Long Known Masks Don’t Work Against Flu

The available research has been rather consistent: Mask wearing does not reduce the prevalence of viral upper respiratory illness, and a vast majority of these studies looked at influenza specifically. For example, a policy review paper5 published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in May 2020, which looked at 10 randomized controlled trials, found there was “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”

In 2019, a review of interventions for flu epidemics published by the World Health Organization concluded the evidence for face masks was slim, and what little benefit there was might simply be due to chance:6

“Ten relevant RCTs were identified for this review and meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of community-based use of face masks …

In the pooled analysis, although the point estimates suggested a relative risk reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza of 22% in the face mask group, and a reduction of 8% in the face mask group regardless of whether or not hand hygiene was also enhanced, the evidence was insufficient to exclude chance as an explanation for the reduced risk of transmission.”

Similarly, a 2020 guidance memo by the WHO pointed out that:7

“At present, there is no direct evidence … on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

A meta-analysis and scientific review8 led by respected researcher Thomas Jefferson, cofounder of the Cochrane Collaboration, posted on the prepublication server medRxiv in April 2020, found that, compared to no mask, mask wearing in the general population or among health care workers did not reduce influenza-like illness cases or influenza.

In one study, which looked at quarantined workers, it actually increased the risk of contracting influenza, but lowered the risk of influenza-like illness. They also found there was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators.

A similar finding was reported in a 2009 study,9 which compared the effectiveness of surgical masks and N95 respirators to prevent seasonal influenza in a hospital setting; 23.6% of the nurses in the surgical mask group still got the flu, as did 22.9% of those who wore N95 respirators.

Seeing how we’ve been encouraged to use cloth masks, it’s worth noting that research10 published in 2015 actually found health care workers who wore cloth masks had a 72% higher rate of lab-confirmed respiratory virus infections, compared to those wearing medical masks or controls (who used standard practices that included occasional medical mask wearing).

According to the authors, “the results caution against the use of cloth masks … Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”

Mask Mandates Had No Impact on COVID-19

COVID-19 statistics also defy the idea that masks made any difference. In his article,11 “These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing to Stop COVID,” bioengineer Yinon Weiss points out that “No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time.”

To see all of the graphs, check out Weiss’ article.12 Here are just a select few to bring home the point:

Social distancing, meanwhile, at best only led to a plateau in infectious spread, according to researchers at the University of Rochester and Cornell University,13 while lockdowns had a net negative effect.14 According to a report15 by Canadian pediatric infectious disease specialist Dr. Ari Joffe, lockdown harms are about 10 times greater than the benefits.

Coming Next: Gene-Based Combo Shots

As detailed in “How COVID Vaccines Can Cause Blood Clots and More,” the gene-based COVID-19 “vaccines” are a disaster in the making. As of May 14, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had logged 227,805 adverse events following COVID vaccination, including 4,201 deaths and 18,528 serious injuries.16

This included 293 injuries among 12- to -17-year-olds, 23 of which were rated serious. Of the deaths, two were under the age of 16, 23% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 20% were due to cardiac disorders. And remember, only 1% to 10% of adverse effects and deaths are reported to VAERS, so the real-world number of deaths could range from 42,000 to 420,000.

In a recent interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., we reviewed several of the ways in which these vaccines destroy your health. Importantly, it’s been fairly well-established that the primary damage in COVID-19 is caused by the spike protein, and this is what these vaccines are programming your body to produce.

Despite there being very obvious problems with this technology, vaccine scientists are moving full steam ahead to produce several additional gene-based vaccines, including:

• The first COVID-flu RNA vaccine17 — This combo vaccine is currently being tested on ferrets. The vaccine, made by NovaVax, combines NanoFlu, a quadrivalent seasonal flu vaccine, with an as-of-yet unapproved COVID-19 vaccine candidate called NVX-CoV2373.18 This COVID vaccine contains spike proteins produced by moth cells infected with a genetically engineered from the genetic sequence of the first strain of SARS-CoV-2.19,20

• A pneumococcal-COVID booster shot21 — This combo shot, made by Pfizer, is currently being tested on adults over 65 who have already been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The shot combines the company’s pneumonia vaccine (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine) with a third dose of its current mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

• mRNA seasonal influenza vaccines22 — The same mRNA technology used in Moderna’s and Pfizer’s COVID vaccines are now also being employed to develop seasonal flu vaccines. One advantage, from a production standpoint, is that such a vaccine can be developed in as little as one month. This would give researchers more time to determine which strains are in circulation that particular season.

We’re Speeding Toward Disaster

What no one is asking or talking about is what might happen if you instruct your body to continuously make spike proteins against several different types of viruses on a continuous basis, perhaps for years on end, if not the rest of your life.

No one knows just how long the cellular instructions remain viable as those studies have never been done. Even worse, they will not be keeping track of who was vaccinated and who wasn’t when people die, making it impossible to pin the blame on the vaccine.

Already, a growing list of physicians and scientists are warning that the COVID-19 shots may end up being a form of mass euthanasia. Many predict mass deaths among the vaccinated to occur within the next several years as their immune function breaks down and cardiovascular damage sets in. The idea that we’re going to add several gene therapy shots into an annual regimen will only exacerbate the predicted deaths.

Circling back to where we started, you can expect to see a new round of fear-mongering crop up as we head into fall and winter, this time badgering you to get your seasonal flu shot on top of the COVID-19 vaccine, plus a booster.

According to Moderna CEO Stephanie Bancel, those who got their first and second shots in December 2020 and January 2021 should prepare to get a third booster shot around September 2021.23 Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has also stated that a booster may be required eight to 12 months after the initial two doses.24

Who knows, the way things are speeding along, perhaps NovaVax’s RNA-based COVID-flu combo shot will be ready for prime time by then too. I hate to be a pessimist, but I don’t foresee a happy ending to this trend. Your best bet is to take your time and don’t be so quick to offer up your body as a guinea pig for these gene-based injections. In time, the truth will become apparent, if it isn’t already.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/24/flu-season-disaster.aspx

It likely comes as no surprise that eating a diet filled with ultraprocessed foods is unhealthy. Research has demonstrated ultraprocessed foods can increase your caloric intake and weight gain.1,2

Data3 gathered from 2009 to 2010 from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed ultraprocessed foods made up 57.9% of the energy intake of Americans and sugar contributed 89.7% of the energy intake.

By 2019, a study published in the journal Nutrients4 found 71% of packaged products in the grocery store were ultraprocessed. Researchers from Northwestern Medicine estimated nearly 80% of the total calories consumed by Americans is from store-bought food and beverages.5

The researchers also compared the food supply in the U.S. against other western countries like Australia, finding packaged foods Americans were eating had higher median amounts of sugar and salt. These foods contribute to the rising level of obesity across the world.

The World Health Organization reported worldwide obesity tripled since 1975.6 The rate of overweight and obesity are rising rapidly in the U.S. as well. Data gathered from 1999 to 2000 and then again from 2017 to 2018 show the prevalence of obesity rose from 30.5% to 42.4%.7 During the same periods, the prevalence of severe obesity rose from 4.7% to 9.2%.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that from 2017 to 2018, the prevalence of obesity was 19.3% in children and adolescents aged 2 to 19 years.8 However, as data have demonstrated and one BBC reporter illustrated, what you eat is a key factor in your health.9

BBC Reporter Eats Only Ultraprocessed Food for One Month

BBC television presenter Dr. Chris van Tulleken was interested in what would happen if he changed his diet for just one month. Tulleken, presenter of “What Are We Feeding our Kids?” was curious about how ultraprocessed foods affect our bodies. The BBC reports that in the U.K, as in the U.S., over half the energy from food in the average diet comes from ultraprocessed products.10

Over one month, 42-year-old Tulleken increased his daily intake of ultraprocessed products from 30% to 80%, mimicking how 20% of the U.K. population eats.11 At the end of four weeks, Tulleken experienced a myriad of changes to his health, including:

Poor sleep
Heartburn

Anxiety
Sluggishness

Low libido
Unhappy feelings

Hemorrhoids (from constipation)
Weight gain of 7 kilograms (15.4 pounds)

“I felt ten years older, but I didn’t realize it was all [because of] the food until I stopped eating the diet,” Tulleken told the BBC. This is telling, since the physician purposefully changed his diet and yet did not recognize feeling 10 years older in one month was associated with the food he was eating.

How much more difficult might it be to convince others that the way they are feeling is related to the chemicals they are consuming? At the rate he gained weight, he believed if he’d continued for six months, he would have gained 6 stone (84 pounds).

These were the health effects Tulleken could identify without testing. He also underwent several measurements of health biomarkers, which demonstrated significant changes from only four weeks of eating ultraprocessed foods.12

Brain scans showed that the diet had created new links in his brain from areas responsible for reward to areas that drive automatic and repetitive behavior. This is a similar response to taking classically addictive substances, such as tobacco, alcohol and drugs.

The brain changes that occurred in the short time that Tulleken had consumed high amounts of processed products were not permanent. However, it isn’t possible to make the same assumption if the diet is followed for months or years. Additionally, Tulleken points out “if it can do that in four weeks to my 42-year-old brain, what is it doing to the fragile developing brains of our children?”

You Eat More When You Eat Ultraprocessed Foods

Tulleken also discovered he consumed about 500 calories more each day than he had before he began the ultraprocessed diet. This was consistent with a study13 from the National Institutes of Health conducted by Kevin Hall, Ph.D., senior investigator at the NIH Intramural Research Program. In Hall’s research he compared two diets that were matched for macronutrients, sugar, salt and fiber content.

One diet was about 80% ultraprocessed products and the other was an unprocessed diet. The group consumed the ultraprocessed diet for two weeks and then was switched to the unprocessed diet while admitted and monitored at the NIH Clinical Center.

The participants were encouraged to eat as much or as little as they wanted. The scientists found that when the participants ate the ultraprocessed diet they consumed more carbohydrates, but not protein. During the two-week intervention, participants gained approximately 0.9 kilograms (2 pounds) while eating the ultraprocessed diet and lost the same amount eating the unprocessed diet.14

The BBC reports Hall’s team also measured hormonal biomarkers responsible for feelings of hunger and satiety.15 As you might expect, the hormone responsible for hunger (ghrelin) increased and that responsible for feeling full (leptin) decreased while participants were eating the ultraprocessed products.

These results were consistent with Tulleken’s experience, as his ghrelin level increased by 30% during the four weeks that he ate ultraprocessed products. In that month he found himself craving food more often and eating more quickly, which likely contributed to eating more food. What is classified as an ultraprocessed food may surprise you.

NOVA16 classifies food categories according to the extent and purpose of processing, rather than the nutrients found in the food. NOVA categories are recognized as a valid tool for nutrition and public health research and are used in reports from the United Nations and Pan American Health Organization.17

According to NOVA,18 ultraprocessed food and beverages have industrial formulations, typically with five or more of these types of ingredients. Below is a list that is not all inclusive but does offer insight into the types of foods that are considered ultraprocessed.19 As you can see, some are products that are touted as a healthy food choice, such as breakfast cereals, energy bars and fruit yogurt.

Ice cream
Chocolate

Candy
Pastries

Cakes and cake mixes
Breakfast cereals

Cookies
Fruit yogurt

Fruit drinks
Energy bars

Cocoa drinks
Infant formulas

Energy drinks
Instant sauces

Ready-to-heat products
Powdered or packaged instant soups, noodles and desserts

Mass-produced bread and buns
Margarines and spreads

Ultraprocessed Foods Increase Disease Risk

Several studies have identified disease risks that are associated with consumption of ultraprocessed foods. In one study,20 researchers collected data on dietary intake from 105,159 participants. Their main outcome measurement was the risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases.

The mean follow-up was 5.2 years, during which the researchers found intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. The results were statistically significant even after adjusting for markers of nutritional quality and after a large range of sensitivity analysis.

As Tulleken experienced, and many studies have reported, eating a diet high in ultraprocessed foods increases your risk of obesity. In turn, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, obesity increases an adult’s risk for many serious diseases, including:21

All-cause mortality (death)
Changes in cholesterol levels
Type 2 diabetes

Heart disease and high blood pressure
Sleep apnea and breathing problems
Mental illness such as depression and anxiety

Stroke
Gallbladder disease
Low quality of life

Osteoarthritis
Many types of cancers
Pain and difficulty functioning

One of the top causes of death researchers have linked to eating ultraprocessed products is cancer. The significant role that metabolism plays on cancer cells is clear and based on the findings of Dr. Otto Warburg, a classically trained biochemist who received the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 193122 for his discovery of the nature and action of cancer cell metabolism.

Smoking has been in the No. 1 spot for preventable causes of cancer for decades. However, it appears obesity is not far behind. According to Dr. Otis Brawley, professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins University and past chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, this may happen within the next five to 10 years.23

Compared to a normal weight range, obesity increases the likelihood of cancer recurrence and is associated with a lower likelihood of survival. While the exact mechanisms behind the cancer-obesity link are not fully understood, researchers are focusing on studying24 visceral fat, as it is metabolically active and may spur cellular growth.

Metabolic Disease Raises Risk of COVID-19

As Tulleken discovered, ultraprocessed food is designed to be appealing, hyperpalatable and habit forming. This is all thanks to additives, crafty packaging and marketing and “convenience.” Unfortunately, these ultraprocessed products are filled with empty calories and devoid of vitamins, minerals, liver enzymes, micronutrients, high-quality fats and protein.

Dr. Aseem Malhotra is an honorary consultant cardiologist at Lister Hospital in Stevenage, England.25 According to an article he wrote in European Scientist, ultraprocessed foods cause:26

“… chronic metabolic disease which can affect many of ‘normal’ weight. Furthermore, sarcopenic obesity may misclassify many elderly patients to having a normal BMI on hospital admission with COVID-19 … There’s no such thing as a healthy weight, only a healthy person.

A recent commentary In Nature states that ‘patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome might have to up 10 times greater risk of death when they contract COVID-19’ and has called for mandatory glucose and metabolic control of type 2 diabetes patients to improve outcomes.”

Since Malhotra’s assertion in early 2020, multiple studies have been published that showed comorbidities such as obesity and Type 2 diabetes increase the risk of severe COVID-19 and worse outcomes.27,28,29 This has suggested to scientists that metabolic syndrome and the consequences from it may be a “better prognostic indicator” for severe outcomes than the individual components of the syndrome.30

Your Diet Is a Key Factor in Health and Longevity

As decades of data have demonstrated, the foods you eat are a key factor and a prognostic indicator of your overall health and expected longevity. Undoubtedly, there is a serious health epidemic across the world, and it is not COVID-19. The obesity epidemic has no quick and easy answer, and much of it is linked to diet. The consequences of this health condition are far reaching and can be lethal.

It is crucial to remember that the food you eat is the foundation on which your health is built. Therefore, eating a processed food diet is a recipe for long-term disaster. If you have access to real food, it is important to take the time to learn to cook from scratch and make the most of any leftovers.

With a little bit of dedication and planning, it is also possible to grow your own produce at home, even in small spaces, including indoors. Consuming a diet of 90% real food and 10% or less processed food is achievable and may make a significant difference in weight management and overall health. For a list of guidelines to help you get started, see “Why a Calorie Is Not a Calorie.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/26/effects-of-eating-ultraprocessed-food.aspx

Vandana Shiva is a brilliant mind calling for inhabitants of the Earth to unite against forces that are threatening to destroy the planet, in part via a new wave of colonization in the name of sustainability.
Tech billionaire Bill Gates, now the largest owner of farmland in the U.S.,1 is at the root of the problem, pushing technology as the only mechanism to save the world, and in so doing denying real solutions. This path is not accidental but carefully orchestrated to amass wealth, power and control, while making all but the elite subservient.
In my interview with Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., she spoke about Gates Ag One,2 which is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, where Monsanto is also headquartered.
“Gates Ag One is one [type of] agriculture for the whole world, organized top down. He’s written about it. We have a whole section on it in our new report,3 ‘Gates to a Global Empire,'” she said. This includes digital farming, in which farmers are surveilled and mined for their agricultural data, which is then repackaged and sold back to them.
Bill Gates’ New Book Is ‘Rubbish’

In the above Under the Skin podcast with Russel Brand, Shiva takes aim at Gates’ book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need,” which was released in February 20214 — calling it “rubbish:”5

“Just by chance I was reading the rubbish in Bill Gates’ new book. I normally don’t read rubbish but when they want to be rulers through rubbish, I read it. And it’s lovely because he says the greenhouse gases from factory farms are not because of factory farms and putting animals in prisons … it’s because the cows were the problem. They had four stomachs and the four stomachs make the methane.”

The reason cows in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) emit methane that smells is because they’re fed an unnatural diet of grains and placed in crowded quarters. It’s not a natural phenomenon. It’s a man-made one. “You walk behind a good cow on a grazing pasture, she’s not stinking,” Shiva said.6
The strong recommendation to replace beef with fake meat is also made in Gates’ book7 — another example of replacing a whole, natural food with something engineered, heavily processed and fake. It all stems from an overreaching theme of arrogance and the desire for recolonization and a global empire.
The idea is to imply, or create the environment in which, survival isn’t possible without technology. “It is a denial of the richness of agroecological knowledges and practices that are resurging around the world,” according to one of Navdanya’s reports.8
Shiva founded Navdanya, a nonprofit organization promoting biodiversity, organic farming and seed saving, in 1994. She has also travelled the globe to warn other countries, including Africa, about plans to displace rural farmers so investors can turn the land into industrial farms to export the commodities.
Gates’ book talks about eliminating age-old farming traditions, which Shiva believes must be protected. Speaking with Brand, Shiva said:9

“He [Gates] has put the Indian plow that has existed for 10,000 years and says this primitive technology must go. I call this, as the future technology, a partnership between our bodies, the body of the Earth, and the body of the animals — realizing that we are not masters but we are there to serve through what Gandhi called bread labor, the labor of our body in the service of the Earth, in the service of community.

So we are for sure at an epic moment where everything wrong is being given a new life just at the time when the world was waking up … I think this is happening … because of arrogance … we’ve destroyed every international law, we’ve destroyed all democracy, we have locked people into fear … you know, the British empire had that arrogance.” 

Breaking the Sacred Relationship With Food
Industrialization started the process of severing humans’ age-old connections to their food and the land on which it’s grown. “Now, with digitalization,” Shiva said, “they would like to end it forever.”10 Tech giants, in an effort to drive home digital agriculture, are working to reduce life to software11 while advancing digital surveillance systems.
So far, Shiva’s organization has managed to prevent Gates from introducing a seed surveillance startup, where farmers would not be allowed to grow seeds unless approved by Gates’ surveillance system. The data mining, Shiva says, is needed because they don’t actually know agriculture.
This is why Gates finances the policing of farmers. He needs to mine their data to learn how farming is actually done. In countering the tech giants’ attempts to remove humans’ sacred relationship to food, Shiva states we can fight back by remembering and focusing on a few essential principles:12

Food is the currency of life
The highest duty is to grow and give food in abundance
The worst sin is to let someone go hungry in your neighborhood, not grow food and, worse, sell bad food

“We’ve got to bring to the center of our everyday life the rituals that make life sacred,” Shiva said. “Our breath … breath is what connects us to the world … water connects us to the world. Food connects us to the world.”13
‘Net Zero’ Nonsense
Gates has been vocal that achieving “net zero” emissions will be the “most amazing thing humanity has ever done.”14 By 2030, he’s pushing for drastic, fundamental changes, including widespread consumption of fake meat, adoption of next generation nuclear energy and growing a fugus as a new type of nutritional protein.15
The deadline Gates has given to reach net zero emissions is 2050,16 likely because he wants to realize his global vision during his lifetime. But according to Shiva, in order to force the world to accept this new food and agricultural system, new conditionalities are being created through net zero “nature-based” solutions. Navdanya’s report, “Earth Democracy: Connecting Rights of Mother Earth to Human Rights and Well-Being of All,” explains:17

“If ‘feeding the world’ through chemicals and dwarf varieties bred for chemicals was the false narrative created to impose the Green Revolution, the new false narrative is ‘sustainability’ and ‘saving the planet.’ In the new ‘net zero’ world, farmers will not be respected and rewarded as custodians of the land and caregivers, as Annadatas, the providers of our food and health.

They will not be paid a fair and just price for growing healthy food through ecological processes, which protect and regenerate the farming systems as a whole.

They will be paid for linear extraction of fragments of the ecological functions of the system, which can be tied to the new ‘net zero’ false climate solution based on a fake calculus, fake science allowing continued emissions while taking control over the land of indigenous people and small farmers.

‘Net Zero’ is a new strategy to get rid of small farmers in first through ‘digital farming’ and ‘farming without farmers’ and then through the burden of fake carbon accounting.

Carbon offsets and the new accounting trick of ‘net zero’ does not mean zero emissions. It means the rich polluters will continue to pollute and also grab the land and resources of those who have not polluted — indigenous people and small farmers — for carbon offsets.”

Gates already alluded to this double-standard in responding to those who criticized him for the hypocrisy of being a serious polluter himself, with a 66,000 square-foot mansion, a private jet, 242,000 acres of farmland and investments in fossil fuel-dependent industries such as airlines, heavy machinery and cars.18
This pollution is acceptable, Gates said, because, “I am offsetting my carbon emissions by buying clean aviation fuel, and funding carbon capture and funding low-cost housing projects to use electricity instead of natural gas.”19
Carbon Colonization and Carbon Slavery

Carbon colonization and carbon slavery are two terms being used to explain the reality behind carbon trade, which is being regarded by Big Tech as the next big opportunity, Shiva says.20 Carbon trade refers to the buying and selling of credits that allow a company to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide,21 but by buying up credits from nonpolluters, industry can continue to pollute.
Technocracy is also a resource-based economic system, which is why the World Economic Forum talks about the creation of “sustainable digital finance,”22 a carbon-based economy and carbon credit trading.23 As explained on its website:24

“Digital finance refers to the integration of big data, artificial intelligence (AI), mobile platforms, blockchain and the Internet of things (IoT) in the provision of financial services. Sustainable finance refers to financial services integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria into the business or investment decisions.

When combined, sustainable digital finance can take advantage of emerging technologies to analyze data, power investment decisions and grow jobs in sectors supporting a transition to a low-carbon economy.”

As Navdanya’s report explains, however, this will ultimately further remove the rights of small farmers, who will be forced into a new form of data slavery:25

“A global ‘seal’ of approval based on fake science, fake economics of maximizing profits through extraction will create new data slavery for farmers. Instead of using their own heads and cocreating with the Earth, they will be forced to buy ‘Big Data.’ Instead of obeying the laws of Mother Earth, they will be forced to obey algorithms created by Big Tech and Big Ag.”

Focusing solely on carbon reductionism also misses the point that “forests, lands, ecosystems are so much more than the carbon stored in them,” and putting conditionalities on small farmers will only make environmental injustices worse. The report adds:26

“Conditionalities under any condition violate democratic principles and human rights. Farmers are guided by Earth care. The culture of Earth care needs to be respected and rewarded because it is centered on rights of the Earth and rights of all her children … Conditionalities put on the nonpolluters by the polluters who want to continue to pollute is unjust and ecologically, morally and ethically bankrupt.”

‘The Universe Is Divine’

According to the ancient Vedas, the universe is divine, and everything therein — even the smallest grass — is an expression of the divine. “When I go to villages,” Shiva told Brand, “women will do sacred ceremonies with indigenous seed. They will never use a hybrid seed for a sacred ceremony … It’s quite amazing. No one told them, but they have that understanding of integrity and what the sacred means. It means to treat without violation.”27
The universe exists for the well-being of all, but her gifts must be enjoyed without greed, Shiva explained. Taking more than your share is theft, and will only backfire. The solution to true sustainability doesn’t lie with new technology, but in relying on the natural “technology” that is the universe:28

“It is by learning from the Earth that we can regenerate the Earth. We have to become students of Mother Earth, not try and dominate her. When we practice agriculture in unison with the Earth’s ecological processes aligned with the ecological laws of nature and the Earth, we evolve an agriculture of care for the land, for the soil. We participate in the process of regenerating the seed and biodiversity, soil and water.”

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/06/25/vandana-shiva-new-wave-colonization-carbon-slavery.aspx

In the U.S., 289,000 children aged 15 years and younger receive a tonsillectomy each year, making it one of the most common surgeries.1 The procedure completely removes the tonsils and is sometimes performed along with adenoidectomy, which is surgery to remove the adenoids.
While tonsillectomy itself is associated with serious long-term risks,2 parents need to be aware that the painkillers given to children following the surgery can also be dangerous. This is especially true if children are prescribed opioids, powerful pain-relieving drugs linked to an epidemic of overdose deaths.
In a revealing study from University of Michigan’s C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital researchers, 59.6% of children received a prescription for opioids following tonsillectomy,3 even though safer pain relief options would likely have worked just as well.
Six in 10 children prescribed opioids after tonsillectomy

Data from 15,793 children aged 1 to 18 who underwent tonsillectomy were analyzed for the study, revealing that 6 in 10 had at least one prescription for opioids filled following the procedure. Yet, there was no difference found in risk of return visits for pain or dehydration among children taking opioids or non-opioid drugs.4
Taking opioids was associated with an increased risk of constipation and opioid overdose.5 What’s more, the median prescription duration was eight days, which could mean an equivalent of 48 doses of the drugs — more than is typically needed. Past research found that an average of 52.2 doses of opioids may be prescribed to children following a tonsillectomy, with an average of 43.8 leftover doses.6
Not only does this increase the risk of adverse effects and addiction, but it poses a risk for family and friends who may take the leftover pills.7 According to the study authors:8

“Most children received less than 50% of their prescribed opioid doses because parents quickly tapered opioids, switched to nonopioids, or discontinued analgesics during the first few postprocedure days.

This left a considerable amount of unused prescribed opioids in the homes of children who were prescribed these agents for acute pain. This suggested mismatch between dispensed and used prescription opioids can inadvertently contribute to risky behavior and, therefore, begs for broad intervention.”

As for why opioids are often prescribed following tonsillectomy, the University of Michigan researchers suggested they’re often believed to provide superior pain relief and reduce the risk of return visits to the doctor, but this study suggests this isn’t the case.
They’re also sometimes offered over nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) due to concerns that NSAIDs may increase the risk of bleeding, but research suggests they can be used safely following tonsillectomy.9
“Our findings suggest that it may be possible to reduce opioid exposure among children who undergo this common surgery without increasing the risk of complications,” lead author Dr. Kao-Ping Chua said in a news release, adding:10

“To minimize the risks of opioids to children and their families, clinicians should rely on non-opioids when possible. When opioids are used, they should aim to prescribe only the amount that patients need …

However, our study suggests that many children receive opioid prescriptions after tonsillectomy and that the amount may be excessive. We need to conduct research to identify interventions that safely and effectively reduce opioid exposure for these children.”

Otolaryngologists advise against opioids after tonsillectomy
Prescription opioids are sometimes considered standard care for treating severe pain in adults following surgery or injury or due to illnesses such as cancer, although they’re now increasingly prescribed for many types of pain, including chronic back pain or pain from osteoarthritis.
The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO HNS), however, advises against their use after tonsillectomy, advising instead, “Clinicians should recommend ibuprofen, acetaminophen or both for pain control after tonsillectomy.”11 In their plain language summary for patients, AAO HNS further states:12

“Some medicines like antibiotics and codeine (koh-DEEN) or any medication containing codeine are not good for children younger than 12 years after tonsillectomy. There are better choices than codeine even for children 12 to 18 years old. Codeine [an opioid] can cause very slow breathing and, if too much is given, death. It can also be habit forming (addictive).”

Opioids given to children despite FDA black box warning

In 2012, the FDA announced it was reviewing the safety of codeine use after tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy after serious adverse events and deaths were reported.
They found many of the children affected had obstructive sleep apnea and “had evidence of being ultrarapid metabolizers of codeine, which is an inherited (genetic) ability that causes the liver to convert codeine into life-threatening or fatal amounts of morphine in the body.”13
“Since these children already had underlying breathing problems, they may have been particularly sensitive to the breathing difficulties that can result when codeine is converted in the body to high levels of morphine,” the FDA announced.14
“However, they continued, “this contraindication applies to all children undergoing tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy because it is not easy to determine which children might be ultrarapid metabolizers of codeine.”
The end result was a black-box warning, the FDA’s strongest warning, added to the label of codeine-containing products advising against the use of such drugs in all children following tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy. 
In 2017, Chua and colleagues published a study that found the FDA’s investigation significantly reduced codeine prescribing to children after these procedures — but did not stop it entirely. In a review of 362,992 children who underwent tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy, 5.1% had one or more prescriptions for codeine filled in December 2015.
The researchers explained, “1 in 20 children undergoing these surgeries were still prescribed codeine in December 2015 despite its well-documented safety and efficacy issues.”15
Considering the risks of prescribing codeine to children, the inability to identify which children may be especially vulnerable to its effects and the widespread availability of nonopioid pain relief options, the researchers described prescribing codeine to children after tonsillectomy an “unnecessary gamble, “particularly for children with OSA [obstructive sleep apnea], who are at a higher risk for opioid-related respiratory depression.”16
Parents mistakenly believe opioids are best for pain

Despite widespread media headlines highlighting the risks of opioid abuse and overdose deaths, many parents still believe they’re the most effective option for pain relief. In a survey commissioned by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, nearly two-thirds of parents surveyed believed opioids were better for pain management after surgery or a broken bone than alternatives.17
In reality, research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) suggests that less risky opioid-free options may work just as well.18
The study evaluated the effects of four different combinations of pain relievers — three with different opioids and one opioid-free option composed of ibuprofen (i.e., Advil) and acetaminophen (i.e., Tylenol) — on people with moderate to severe pain in an extremity, due to bone fractures, shoulder dislocation and other injuries.
The patients had an average pain score of 8.7 (on a scale of zero to 10) when they arrived. Two hours later, after receiving one of the pain-relief combinations, their pain levels decreased similarly, regardless of which drug-combo they received. Specifically, pain scores fell by:19

4.3 in the ibuprofen and acetaminophen group
4.4 in the oxycodone and acetaminophen group
3.5 in the hydrocodone and acetaminophen group
3.9 in the codeine and acetaminophen group

“For patients presenting to the ED [emergency department] with acute extremity pain, there were no statistically significant or clinically important differences in pain reduction at two hours among single-dose treatment with ibuprofen and acetaminophen or with 3 different opioid and acetaminophen combination analgesics,” the researchers concluded.20
Opioid-related deaths among children nearly triple

The opioid epidemic kills 130 Americans daily,21 and sadly this sometimes includes children. While adult deaths due to opioid overdose have trended upward in recent years, so too have those among children.
From 1999 to 2016, 8,986 children and adolescents died due to opioid poisonings — an increase in mortality rate of 268.2%.22 Prescription opioids were responsible for 73% of the deaths, with the mortality rate increasing 131.3% during the study period.23
According to the study, “These findings suggest that the opioid epidemic is likely to remain a growing public health problem in the young unless legislators, public health officials, clinicians and parents take a wider view of the opioid crisis and implement protective measures that are pediatric specific and family centered.”24
The findings underscore the high risks involved when bringing opioids into your home and highlight the importance of choosing the least dangerous pain relief option available following surgeries like tonsillectomy.
If your child is scheduled to have this procedure, ask his or her doctor about pain relief options and express your desire for a nonopioid option. However, before choosing to have your child’s tonsils removed, be aware that the surgery itself is risky and may not be the best option for your child.
Risks of tonsillectomy may outweigh benefits

Tonsillectomies are often recommended for treatment of recurring, chronic or severe tonsillitis or complications resulting from enlarged tonsils, such as difficulty breathing at night.25 However, the benefits of the surgery may not outweigh the risks, according to a population-based cohort study of 1,189,061 children.26
In estimating the long-term disease risks associated with tonsillectomy in childhood, the researchers evaluated data from children who had their adenoids or tonsils removed within the first nine years of life, finding their removal to be associated with a significantly increased risk of respiratory, allergic and infectious diseases later in life.
“Increases in long-term absolute disease risks were considerably larger than changes in risk for the disorders these surgeries aim to treat,” the researchers explained.27 Far from being superfluous tissue, your tonsils and adenoids play an important role in the development and function of your immune system, helping to protect against pathogens and stimulate immune response.28
Short-term risks of tonsillectomy, meanwhile, also carry risks, including severe bleeding before or after surgery, swelling that can cause breathing problems, infection and reactions to anesthetics.29
In some cases, a tonsillotomy, or partial removal of the tonsils, may be an alternative surgical option for both children and adults; however, parents should carefully consider whether surgery is the best option to resolve the underlying medical condition.
Finally, if you, your child or someone you love has chronic pain of any kind, know that there are many safe and effective alternatives to prescription and even over-the-counter painkillers that provide excellent pain relief without any of the health hazards that pain medications like opioids often carry.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/08/24/use-of-opioids-after-tonsillectomy.aspx

The exposure of medical fraud is not new. In the past, drugs have been brought to market before clinical trials revealed a deadly list of side effects, including heart attacks and deaths, as in the case of Vioxx.1 ProCon.org published a list in 2014 of 35 drugs pulled from the market after research revealed they caused more damage than benefit to users.2
You need only take a cursory glance at the epidemic that opioid manufacturers have caused in their search for profit, sometimes boasting they could become an “end-to-end” provider by supplying both the addictive drug and the cure for the addiction.3
In 2015 Dr. Anil Potti from Duke University was found guilty of research misconduct,4 and Duke faced lawsuits filed by patients in his clinical trials.5 Potti’s research was first heralded as a groundbreaking game changer, but is now an example of how fraud can occur anywhere.
Had Duke University paid attention to reports from a medical student in 2008, they could have avoided the ensuing public and political challenges. Instead, Potti’s protectors pressured the student to be silent, in a move to protect their own interests.6
Recently, it was revealed that scientists at Novartis hid manipulated data from animal studies while seeking approval from the FDA for a gene therapy drug meant to treat babies with an inherited disease, spinal muscular atrophy.7
Big Pharma corrupts data but keeps profits

AveXis, a subsidiary of Novartis, is aimed at developing and commercializing gene therapy.8 May 24, 2019, the company received approval to release Zolgensma, which was considered a major milestone. However, it is also the most expensive treatment ever offered on the market, at a whopping price of $2.1 million for a single dose.9,10
AveXis knew of the data manipulation in March,11 a full two months before the drug was officially approved by the FDA. Dr. Wilson Bryon, director of the FDA division reviewing the drug, commented to STAT12 that had the agency been told of the data manipulation, approval of the drug would have been delayed.
In what appears to be an opposing statement, Dr. Peters Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research,13 was quoted in a press release saying,14 “The FDA is carefully assessing this situation and remains confident that Zolgensma should remain on the market.” In the same statement Marks also said,15 “The agency will use its full authorities to take action, if appropriate, which may include civil or criminal penalties.”
In a letter to Ned Sharpless, acting head of the FDA, five senators wrote,16 “This scandal smacks of the pharmaceutical industry’s privilege and greed, and Americans are sick of it.” The senators urged the FDA to take action:17

” … to use your full authorities to hold AveXis accountable for its malfeasance. Anything short of a forceful response would signal a green light to future pharmaceutical misbehavior.”

Business Insider18 reports Novartis declined to comment on the content of the letter from the senators. In a Twitter conversation19 between Dr. Peter Bach20 of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and past FDA Commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb,21,22 the problem was clearly acknowledged:

Bach: “I don’t know the rules in detail, but presumably Nvs could have told the FDA to pause its review to ensure the approval was not based on data suspected to be (or known to be) fabricated. This whole thing has the ‘wrongs were committed but there were no wrongdoers’ feel.”

Gottlieb: “Based on the tone and substance of the FDA statement today, Peter, I suspect there will be wrongdoers here. And consequences.”

Drugmakers not required to report suspected data corruption

In their letter to Sharpless, the five senators described how taxpayers had funded benefits to Novartis in order to speed the regulatory and approval processes for their new drug. They wrote:23

“What makes this unscrupulous action even more appalling is the fact that AveXis was the beneficiary of numerous federal taxpayer-funded benefits and incentives, including obtaining Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and Priority Review designations — ensuring that Zolgensma would be sped through the regulatory approval process. All the while, AveXis breaks records, and budgets, with its staggering $2.1 million price.”

In the same letter, the senators requested that the FDA answer questions about how it plans to deal with cases of data manipulation from drug companies. Additionally, they wanted an explanation about why the FDA had decided to drop a regulation requiring pharmaceutical companies to report any suspected data manipulation.24
Dr. Vasant Narasimhan became the chief executive officer of Novartis on February 1, 2018.25 Narasimhan defended the company’s decision to delay release of the information about manipulated data and said the company “thoroughly, aggressively”26 investigated the issue.
The New York Times27 reports that when Narasimhan assumed this role, his mission was to restore the reputation of Novartis following several allegations of price-fixing, past data manipulation and the decision to hire Michael Cohen, President Trump’s ex-lawyer who pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress.28
Narasimhan said they waited before releasing information about data manipulation in order to perform their own internal investigation and not in an effort to hasten the approval process.29 Novartis continues to assert the falsified data were limited to the early phases of research involving animals; this was discontinued in the summer of 2018.
Insurance companies picking up $2.1 million bill

While Zolgensma is the second gene therapy drug to be approved by the FDA, the government agency expects to be approving between 10 and 20 cell and gene therapy products each year by 2025.30 Zolgensma is a $2.1 million one-time drug for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy in children under 2.
Spinal muscular atrophy is a muscle wasting disease, affecting about 400 children each year. In the most severe form, children die before age 2. At one point, UnitedHealthcare refused payment for several cases. Later, they reversed their decision after pressure from families and intense media coverage.31
The FDA released an inspection report from the mice used in the early phases of the research and found how long the mice lived was different from the actual value in some cases. While the FDA reported the data were manipulated, they would not say if they believed the information was deliberately falsified.32
Novartis concerned regulations may impact business

The high cost of prescriptions has become a political issue, with most calling for change. Bausch Health, possibly best known for their eye care products, is led by CEO Joseph Papa. In an interview with CNBC, Papa said pharmaceuticals are the most cost-effective way to treat and improve health care.33
Also under the Bausch Health umbrella is a dermatology business, Ortho Dermatologics, which received approval in early 2019 for a lotion to treat psoriasis. In two clinical trials, the drugmaker posted a success rate of 36% in the first study and 45% in the second.
Despite pledges from Congress to help regulate prescription prices, Papa remains unconcerned.34 However, Novartis is not quite as unruffled by movements in Congress toward greater regulation.
The company is standing behind their newest gene therapy drug, and defends the massive price tag that nearly all families would find impossible to pay without full coverage insurance. At the same time, Novartis’ annual report cites concern for transparency in the way their company may be forced to do business:35

“For example, we are faced with increasing pressures, including new laws and regulations from around the world, to be more transparent with respect to how we do business, including with respect to our interactions with healthcare professionals and organizations.

These laws and regulations include requirements that we disclose payments or other transfers of value made to healthcare professionals and organizations, as well as information relating to the prices for our products. Such measures, including any additional such measures that may be put in place, could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.”

Novartis dumped vaccine program and more

Novartis’s headquarters are in Switzerland and the company has offices in multiple countries.36 If their name sounds familiar it might be from years of manufacturing and supplying vaccines, including flu vaccines and those for meningitis B. Their vaccine division was formed in 2006 but began posting losses in 2013.37
In 2015, Novartis sold the flu vaccine business for $275 million to Australia’s CSL. This placed CSL as the world’s second largest flu vaccine supplier.38 The acquisition also included the cell-based manufacturing facility in North Carolina.
This was a win for CSL as it was the first of its kind in the U.S. The cost of $487 million was in part paid by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This was a part of the organization’s pandemic preparedness efforts.39 In other words, U.S. taxpayers funded the facility, which was later sold to Australia.
GlaxoSmithKline acquired the remaining vaccine business from Novartis in 2015 for $7.1 billion, which included nearly 20 vaccines the company had in development.40 In addition, GSK divested its oncology portfolio to Novartis for cash consideration of $16 billion.41
Novartis began their companywide restructure with the divestment of their vaccine portfolio, over-the-counter drugs and animal health sections.42 In another deal closed December 2015, Novartis sold Kayersberg Pharmaceuticals from their Alcon unit in a bid to improve financial margins and focus their attention in a different direction.43
By June 2018, Novartis had announced the sale of the entire Alcon eye-care unit44 as Narasimhan continued to focus the attention of the company on prescription drugs. In 2018, Novartis bought AveXis for $8.7 billion to acquire the then experimental Zolgensma.45
As the pharmaceutical industry jockeys for position in an ever-changing political environment, it is the consumer who ultimately loses the battle. Although Papa believes pharmaceutical treatments are the answer to health and wellness, it has been my assertion for decades your life choices have a significant effect on your health, including nutrition, sleep, hydration and exercise.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/08/21/big-pharma-corrupts-data-but-keeps-approval.aspx

The question of where and how to give birth is a relatively new one for women. Up until the early 20th century, fewer than 5% of women gave birth in a hospital. In the 1950s the birth of a baby, an event that had once been a family affair and attended by a midwife, became more medicalized.1
Pregnancy and birth were seen more as a sickness than a natural part of life. One mom described the birth of her first child in the 1960s as occurring without pain medication, with minimal interaction from medical staff and a forced two-week hospital stay.2
Dads began attending births in the 1970s and by the 1990s childbirth was swinging back toward being a natural part of life. More women are now offered choices that are respectful of their wishes, without repeating the horror stories of past generations. This is an important factor in the future health of mother, child and family as recognized by the World Health Organization.3
The outcome not only affects the mother but may also be important in the development of the mother’s and child’s relationship and mom’s future childbearing experiences. Researchers have found that a woman’s positive and negative perceptions of birth are related more to her ability to control the situation and have a choice in her options, than specific details.
Low-Risk Home Birth as Safe as Hospital Birth

Evidence doesn’t back the long-held belief that low-risk deliveries are better served in the hospital where medical intervention may be used to speed delivery.
The safety debate surrounding home births is not a new one. Nearly 11 years ago data showed when a home birth was planned by a woman with a low-risk pregnancy and attended by a midwife, there were:4

” … very low and comparable rates of perinatal death and reduced rates of obstetric interventions and other adverse perinatal outcomes compared with planned hospital birth attended by a midwife or physician.”

In 2008 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) published a statement in opposition to home births, writing that “Choosing to deliver a baby at home, however, is to place the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby.”5
Despite evidence to the contrary, their statement published nearly 10 years later did not change: In 2017 they recommended women be informed of the risks, specifically that there are a lower number of risks to the woman but a higher rate of perinatal deaths.6
In another study of 530,000 births in the Netherlands,7 researchers found no differences in the rate of death in mother or baby between those born at home or in a hospital. The study was sparked by the suggestion that the high rate of infant mortality may be due to the high number of home births. The review of medical records did not bear out the hypothesis. Professor Simone Buitendijk commented to the BBC:8

“We found that for low-risk mothers at the start of their labour it is just as safe to deliver at home with a midwife as it is in hospital with a midwife. These results should strengthen policies that encourage low-risk women at the onset of labour to choose their own place of birth.”

Safety Data Positive With Well-Educated Midwives

It should be noted data were published long before the 2017 policy statement from ACOG mentioned above. In 2014, a review of 16,924 home births recorded between 2004 and 2009 were examined. Researchers noted the rise of home births by 41% from 2004 to 2010, writing there is a9 “need for accurate assessment of the safety of planned home birth.”
The scientists found that of the participants who planned a home birth, 89.1% did in fact do so. Most of the transfers to the hospital during labor were for failure to progress. However, 93.6% went on to have a spontaneous vaginal delivery, and 86% of infants were breastfeeding exclusively by 6 weeks of age. The overwhelming majority — 87% — of 1,054 who attempted a vaginal delivery after cesarean section at home were successful.
Researchers recently conducted an international meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of home and hospital births with the primary outcome measurement of any perinatal or neonatal death. They chose 14 studies including approximately 500,000 intended home births attended by a midwife.10
The information was pulled from outcomes from eight Western countries, including the U.S., in studies published since 1990.11 What they found fit many of the previous studies:12 “The risk of perinatal or neonatal mortality was not different when birth was intended at home or in hospital.” Eileen Hutton from McMaster University, one of the researchers, commented:13

“More women in well-resourced countries are choosing birth at home, but concerns have persisted about their safety. This research clearly demonstrates the risk is no different when the birth is intended to be at home or in hospital.”

Conditions Best Addressed at the Hospital

Of course, there are high risk pregnancies better served inside a hospital environment. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, factors that potentially create a high-risk pregnancy include existing health conditions and lifestyle choices. While this list is not all-inclusive, these are factors your midwife or doctor will consider as you discuss your birth plan. Some include:14

High blood pressure — If this is the only risk factor and blood pressure is only slightly elevated, it may not be enough to stop a home delivery plan. However, uncontrolled blood pressure is dangerous to mother and baby.

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) — PCOS can increase the risk of gestational diabetes, cesarean section, preeclampsia and pregnancy loss before 20 weeks.

Diabetes — Moms who have diabetes are more likely to have babies that are larger than most; their babies may also have low blood sugar after being born.

Kidney disease — Depending upon the extent of the disease, it may impact fertility and the ability to carry a pregnancy to term. Nearly 20% of women with preeclampsia during pregnancy go on to be diagnosed with kidney disease.

Autoimmune disease — Medications used to treat autoimmune diseases may be harmful to the baby; such conditions also increase risks of pregnancy and delivery.

Thyroid disease — Uncontrolled disease may increase stress on the baby and cause poor weight gain, heart failure or problems with brain development.

Obesity — Obesity before becoming pregnant is associated with high risk and poor outcomes, including large for gestational age babies, difficult birth and a risk for heart defects.

Age — Teens and first-time moms over 35 fall into high-risk categories.

Lifestyle factors — Alcohol, tobacco and drug use increase the risks to mom and baby during the pregnancy and delivery.

Pregnancy conditions — Women carrying multiples, who have had a previous premature birth or who have gestational diabetes, preeclampsia or eclampsia are at high risk.

Comparing the Risks of Home and Hospital Births
The decision to give birth at home or in a hospital is a personal one. While ACOG claims the hospital is the safest place, research evidence shows low-risk pregnancies delivered at home or in a hospital with a qualified midwife have the same risks and outcome potential. Just as important are the risks for low-risk women who give birth inside a hospital setting.
For instance, while a home birth rarely if ever includes the use of drugs or interventions to speed delivery, many women who are hospitalized may receive Pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin. The drug is used to induce labor or start contractions and it may be used to intensify labor contractions to speed the process.
However, the use of the medication must be balanced against outcomes, such as a higher rate of analgesia and cesarean section,15 both of which affect mother and baby. In any pregnancy, oxytocin may also increase the risk of fever in the woman, low pH values in the umbilical cord and a shorter first stage of labor.16
Data from the CDC show the rate of cesarean sections in 2018 were 31.9% of all births.17 However, this includes a number of cesarean sections considered medically unnecessary. The rate for Nulliparous, Term, Singleton, Vertex (NTSV) Cesarean Birth Rate is 25.9%.18
This means that of all the women who had a cesarean section, 25.9% were having their first baby, beyond 39 weeks gestation and carrying one child who presented normally, in the vertex position with the head down.19
Having had a first cesarean section nearly guarantees the following births will also be a cesarean section as the repeat rate is 86.7%.20 As explained by the American Pregnancy Association, cesarean section introduces multiple risks for mother and baby. For the mother, these include infection, hemorrhaging, injuries, lengthy stays in the hospital and emotional reactions as well as those related to medicine.
Moms can also have adhesions, or scar tissue that causes a blockage in the stomach area. Babies can have a low birth weight, a low APGAR score, breathing difficulties and even injuries.21
Type of Birth Influences Future Health

As you likely know, the gut microbiome is an intricate living foundation for your immune system that plays a role in your risk of chronic disease, weight management and how well your body absorbs nutrition. As you may imagine, during a vaginal birth a baby’s microbiome is first “seeded” and developed.
During the process a baby is passed the mother’s microbiome, which is why it’s so important for the woman to have a healthy gut before, during and after pregnancy. The makeup of the mother’s gut will influence how the baby’s microbiome grows.
A cesarean section bypasses this important step, which may be compounded by bottle feeding, a lifetime of processed foods and an overuse of antibiotics. These factors all have led to a steep loss of biodiversity in the human gut making many vulnerable to disease. Skin-to-skin contact after birth and breastfeeding are two ways to pass along a healthy microbiome if you’ve had a cesarean section.
For more information about how to more effectively help seed your baby’s gut microbiome see “How the Method of Birth Can Influence Lifelong Health.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/03/25/home-births.aspx

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