Lose Them Pounds

As reported in several previous articles, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — a division of the National Institute of Health (NIH) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci since 1984 — has, for years, provided grants to the EcoHealth Alliance and others to conduct gain-of-function (GoF) research on coronaviruses.
EcoHealth Alliance, in turn, farmed out some of this research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), from whence SARS-CoV-2 appears to have emerged. In a May 11, 2021, Senate hearing, Sen. Rand Paul questioned Fauci on the NIAID’s funding of GoF research on bat coronaviruses, some of which was conducted at the WIV.
Fauci denied the charge, saying “The NIH has not ever, and does not now, fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute.”1 It’s a curious denial, considering the NIH’s funding of such research has been thoroughly documented and can be easily double-checked.
Fauci is clearly and provably lying … to Congress, which is a crime … and he’s lying to the American public. ~ Ben Swann
When Paul asks Fauci if the NIAID funded Dr. Ralph Baric’s GoF research, Fauci claims Baric “does not do gain-of-function research, and if it is, it is according to the guidelines and is being conducted in North Carolina.” Paul shoots back, saying:

“You don’t think him turning a bat virus spike protein, that he got from the Wuhan Institute into the SARS virus, is gain-of-function? You’d be in a minority, because at least 200 scientists have signed a statement from the Cambridge Working Group that it is gain-of-function.”

In the video above, Jimmy Dore reviews the apparent lies dished out by Fauci during the Senate hearing. In the Truth in Media report below, investigative journalist Ben Swann lays out some of the proof, showing Fauci’s dishonesty.

“What’s insane about this exchange is that Fauci is clearly and provably lying … to Congress, which is a crime … and he’s lying to the American public,” Swann says.

NIH/NIAID Has Funded Gain-of-Function Research
As reported by Swann, the NIH/NIAID has funded GoF research to the tune of at least $41.7 million. Up until 2014, this research was conducted by Baric at the University of North Carolina (UNC). In 2014, the U.S. government issued a moratorium on federal gain-of-function research funding due to safety, ethical and moral concerns raised within the scientific community.
It was at this point, in 2014, that funding for GoF research started being funneled through the EcoHealth Alliance to the WIV. Swann reviews documents proving Fauci lied to Congress, including a paper2 titled “SARS-Like WIV1-CoV Poised for Human Emergence,” submitted to PNAS in 2015 and subsequently published in 2016. In this paper, the authors state that:

“Overall, the results from these studies highlight the utility of a platform that leverages metagenomics findings and reverse genetics to identify prepandemic threats.

For SARS-like WIV1-CoV, the data can inform surveillance programs, improve diagnostic reagents, and facilitate effective treatments to mitigate future emergence events. However, building new and chimeric reagents must be carefully weighed against potential gain-of-function (GoF) concerns.”

At the end of that paper, the authors thank “Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology for access to bat CoV sequences and plasmid of WIV1-CoV spike protein.” They also specify that the research was supported by the NIAID under the grant awards U19AI109761 and U19AI107810, which together total $41.7 million.
As noted by Swann, this paper clearly spells out that the NIAID spent $41.7 million on GoF research, with the aim of determining how bat coronaviruses can be made more pathogenic to humans, and that this research continued after the 2014 moratorium on such funding was implemented.
NIAID Viewed Baric’s Research as GoF

What’s more, a letter3,4 from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to the director of proposals at UNC Chapel Hill, discussing grant U19AI107810, also spells this out in black and white. The October 21, 2014, letter states, in part:

“NIAID has determined that the above referenced grant may include Gain of Function (GoF) research that is subject to the recently-announced U.S. Government funding pause … The following specific aims appear to involve research covered under the pause: Project 1: Role of Uncharacterized Genes in High Pathogenic Human Coronavirus Infect — Ralph S. Baric, PhD — Project Leader.

Specific Aim 1. Novel Functions in virus replication in vitro. Specific Aim 3. Novel functions in virus pathogenesis in vivo … As your grant is currently funded, this pause is voluntary.”

In other words, the NIAID authorized the continuation of what it admitted was gain-of-function research — simply because the grant had already been funded — and it did so after the ban on such funding was put into place.
NIAID Authorized GoF Research, Bypassing Review Board

But that’s not all. After the moratorium was lifted in 2017, a special review board, the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (the P3CO Review Framework), was created within the DHHS to evaluate whether grants involving dangerous pathogens are worth the risks. The review board is also responsible for ensuring proper safeguards are in place for approved research.5
According to Rutgers University professor Richard Ebright, an NIH grant for research involving the modification of bat coronaviruses at the WIV was sneaked through because the NIAID didn’t flag it for review.6 In other words, the WIV received federal funding from the NIAID without the research first receiving a green-light from the HHS review board.
The NIAID apparently used a convenient loophole in the review framework. As it turns out, it’s the funding agency’s responsibility to flag potential gain-of-function research for review. If it doesn’t, the review board has no knowledge of it.
According to Ebright, the NIAID and NIH have “systemically thwarted — indeed systematically nullified — the HHS P3CO Framework by declining to flag and forward proposals for review.”7
NIAID Is Also Committed to Continued GoF Research

Lastly, Fauci is also clearly committed to continuing GoF research, seeing how the NIAID, back in August 2020, announced a five-year, $82-million investment in a new global network of Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases.8
Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance will receive $7.5 million9 from this grant, and planned research will include GoF-type experiments that the NIAID says10 will “determine what genetic or other changes make [animal] pathogens capable of infecting humans.”
Wuhan Lab Deleted Documents Showing Fauci’s NIAID Funding
All of that basically serves as backstory to the latest development. It’s now been discovered that the WIV quietly deleted all mentions of its collaboration with Fauci’s NIAID, the NIH and other American research partners from its website shortly after Fauci testified in a Senate hearing in March 2021,11 when he went head to head with Sen. Rand Paul on mask-wearing. As reported May 15, 2021, by The National Pulse:12

“March 21st, 2021, the lab’s website listed six U.S.-based research partners: University of Alabama, University of North Texas, EcoHealth Alliance, Harvard University, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States, and the National Wildlife Federation.13

One day later, the page was revised to contain just two research partners — EcoHealth Alliance and the University of Alabama.14 By March 23rd, EcoHealth Alliance was the sole partner remaining.15

EcoHealth Alliance is run by long-standing Chinese Communist Party-partner Dr. Peter Daszak, who National Pulse Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam has repeatedly claimed will be the first ‘fall guy’ of the Wuhan lab debacle …

Beyond establishing a working relationship between the NIH and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, now-deleted posts16 from the site also detail studies bearing the hallmarks of gain-of-function research conducted with the Wuhan-based lab.”

Altered WIV Page Admits GoF Research With American Partners
Indeed, a now-deleted WIV web page titled “Will SARS Come Back?” stated that:17

“Prof. Zhengli Shi and Xingyi Ge from WIV, in cooperation with researchers from University of North Carolina, Harvard Medical School, Bellinzona Institute of Microbiology … examine the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations.

Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, the scientists generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.

The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV.

Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein.

On the basis of these findings, they synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo …”

Again, while Fauci insists Baric is “not doing any kind of GoF research,” and “if he is,” then he’s doing it at UNC and not in China, the WIV’s web page clearly refutes this. GoF research was done at the WIV, in partnership with UNC researchers, of which Baric is a leading one.
The WIV’s deletions of American research partners from its website (with the exception of EcoHealth Alliance), and its deletion of the article discussing genetic research on the SARS virus raise a host of questions and appears to be yet another attempt at a cover-up. The surprising thing is that they’re now covering up American involvement and not just their own.
Chinese-American GoF Research Example
The WIV and the Wuhan University School of Public Health are both listed as subcontractors for EcoHealth Alliance under a $3.7-million NIH grant titled, “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”18
The two institutions also worked as collaborators under another $2.6-million grant to research the “Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats,”19 and under EcoHealth Alliance’s largest single source of funding, a $44.2 million sub-grant from the University of California at Davis for the PREDICT project (2015-2020).20
Part of the PREDICT grant went to funding GoF experiments by WIV scientist Zhengli and Baric with the UNC.21,22,23 In this experiment, Zhengli and Baric used genetic engineering and synthetic biology to create a “new bat SARS-like virus … that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans.” A request by Zhengli and Baric to continue their research during the moratorium on GoF was approved by the NIH. Daszak described Zhengli and Baric’s work in a 2019 interview:24

“You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily. Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk. So, you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this. Insert it into a backbone of another virus, and do some work in the lab.”

The research was published in the journal Nature in 2015.25,26 As a condition of publication, Nature, like most scientific journals, requires27 authors to submit novel DNA and RNA sequences to GenBank, the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information Database. Curiously, the new SARS-like virus Zhengli and Baric published in 2015 wasn’t deposited in GenBank until May 2020.28
Fauci Has Accomplished Great Deal of Harm
It remains to be seen whether Daszak is in fact being groomed as the fall guy in this saga. Clearly, he’s innocent in the lab origin cover-up. He somehow ended up on two separate commissions charged with investigating the origin of SARS-CoV-2 — one by the WHO29 and one by The Lancet30 — having already played a central role in the plot to obscure the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 by crafting a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”31,32
Letting Fauci off the hook is not an option, however. Like Daszak, Fauci has spent the last year denouncing the possibility that COVID-19 could be the result of a lab leak,33 all while knowing the kinds of research his agency funded there.34
He’s been a longtime defender and promoter of GoF research on animal viruses in general, saying while he was working on GoF with bird-flu viruses such research is worth the risk because it allows scientists to prepare for pandemics.35 However, this kind of research clearly has not improved governments’ pandemic responses one whit.
Fauci has also flip-flopped endlessly when it comes to mask recommendations, and helped suppress one of the most effective, safest and least expensive COVID-19 remedies, hydroxychloroquine, despite his knowledge of a 2005 study showing it’s an effective remedy against SARS coronavirus.36,37
The study was published in Virology Journal, which is the official publication of the NIH, so it’s hard to believe he was unaware of it. But rather than protect public health and save lives using hydroxychloroquine, Fauci promoted the ineffective, dangerous and expensive drug remdesivir and COVID-19 gene therapies instead.
Fauci also knew (and has admitted) that using a PCR test with a cycle threshold (CT) above 35 renders it useless because at that point, you’re just detecting dead nucleotides. No live virus can be detected at CTs that high.38 As early as March 2020, he knew up to 90% of positive PCR tests were false positives and that these people really weren’t sick,39 yet he said and did nothing.
Now, as COVID-19 vaccines are taking their toll, with vaccine injury reports that show they are possibly disabling and killing tens of thousands around the world, Fauci is defending the universal use of the shots and downplaying their lethality.
According to Fauci, deaths from the vaccines have to be “put into context with the population they occurred in.”40 What he’s referring to are cases where old people died shortly after receiving their COVID shots. Old people die, so therefore you shouldn’t blame it on the vaccine.
This is hypocrisy at its finest. When seniors die before vaccination, it’s due to COVID-19 and something must be done to prevent it, but when they die after vaccination, they die of natural causes and no preventive action is necessary. Fauci’s dismissal of vaccine deaths also overlooks the fact that many young, healthy people have reported serious adverse reactions or even died within hours or days of their vaccinations.41
Gain-of-Function Research Is the Real Threat
I believe GoF research cooperation and sharing between nations is such that blame will ultimately be shared by multiple parties. The key issue, really, if SARS-CoV-2 did in fact come from a lab, is how do we prevent another lab escape? And, if it turns out to have been a genetically manipulated virus, do we allow gain-of-function research to continue?
I believe the answer is to ban research that involves making pathogens more lethal to humans. As it stands, the same establishment that is drumming up panic by warning of the emergence of new, more infectious and dangerous variants is also busy creating them. They just never tell you about that part.
Already, scientists have figured out a way to mutate SARS-CoV-2 such that it evades human antibodies. Were this mutated virus to ever get out, we’d be in serious trouble. While mankind has created several outbreaks, nature seems to have a way of NOT mutating animal viruses into global killers. So, the hypocrisy needs to end.
World leaders need to realize that funding and defending gain-of-function research is the real threat here. I believe Fauci’s lies are a pathetic attempt to hide his agency’s involvement with GoF research that may have resulted in a global crisis.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/26/wuhan-lab-deleting-files-proving-fauci-funding.aspx

In a May 5, 2021, Fox News report, Tucker Carlson asked the question no one is really allowed to ask: “How many Americans have died after taking the COVID vaccine?”1
If you haven’t paid attention, the answer to this verboten (forbidden) question may shock you. Carlson points out (inaccurately, if you ask me) that vaccines have been shown to be generally safe, citing statistics on how many Americans have died after the seasonal influenza vaccine in recent years.
Each year, more than 165 million Americans get the flu shot, and according to the U.S. vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS), there were 85 reported deaths following influenza vaccination in 2017; 119 deaths in 2018; and 203 deaths in 2019. “How do those rates compare to the death rates from the coronavirus vaccine?” Carlson asks. The answer is, there’s really no comparison.
How Many Have Died From COVID Vaccines?
Between mid-December 2020, when the first COVID-19 shots were rolled out, and April 23, 2021, at which point between 95 million and 100 million Americans had received their COVID-19 shots, there were 3,544 reported deaths following COVID vaccination.2

That’s 182 more deaths than cited by Carlson. As of April 23, 2021, VAERS had also received 12,618 reports of serious adverse events. In total, 118,902 adverse event reports had been filed. If, like Carlson estimates, about 30 people per day are dying from the shots, these numbers will grow by the hundreds each week.

Carlson also cites data from an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which found that VAERS catches a mere 1% of vaccine injuries,3,4 primarily because it’s a passive system and reports are filed voluntarily.

Many Americans don’t even know that the system exists, or that they can file a report, and most doctors won’t file reports when injuries are brought to their attention because the medical system doesn’t reward such fastidiousness. At most, 10% of vaccine side effects are ever reported to VAERS, according to a 2005 study in the BMJ.5

What this means is that side effects may actually be 10 times or even 100 times higher than reported. We could, in reality, be looking at anywhere from 126,000 to 1.2 million serious side effects, and anywhere from 35,440 to 354,400 vaccine-related deaths.

While Carlson refuses to speculate about what the actual death toll might be, he does stress that what we’re seeing is clearly out of the norm, and by a tremendous margin. In just four months, the COVID-19 vaccines have killed more people than all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 2013 — a period of 15.5 years.
Gamble Your Life or Lose Your Freedom?
While the data show there are clear risks, Americans are urged, cajoled, shamed and threatened into getting the shot in any number of ways. President Biden recently warned that people who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 “can still die every day” from the infection, adding “This is your choice: It’s life and death.”

Carlson accurately points out that while unvaccinated people can indeed die of COVID-19, not everyone is at equal risk of complications and death. Old and chronically ill individuals are at greatest risk, while young and/or healthy individuals have a very low risk, and those who have had COVID-19 and recovered are immune.

For those who are young and/or healthy and/or immune, risking death or injury from the “vaccine” doesn’t make much sense. I would argue it makes no sense whatsoever, as there are also several proven-effective treatments, both early at-home treatments and in-hospital treatments. So, there’s no need to risk your health and life by taking COVID gene therapy.

As noted by Carlson, the young, healthy and already immune can add up to hundreds of millions of people in the U.S., yet policy makers are “not even acknowledging that these categories of people exist,” he says.

They’re pretending that everyone’s risk is the same and, therefore, everyone must get vaccinated, or at bare minimum, they want 70% of the American adult population vaccinated by July 4, 2021.

Carlson points out that this policy might be deemed acceptable if it could be conclusively shown that the “vaccines” are safe, and if we had a thorough understanding of the long-term effects of these mRNA and viral vector DNA shots. However, we can’t and we don’t.

Thousands have died, and many of the side effects reported defy easy explanation. For example, COVID shots now account for one-third of all tinnitus side effects in VAERS. Oxford and UCLA researchers, who are now tracking side effects across eight different countries, report finding that “women aged 18 to 34 years had a higher rate of deep vein thrombosis than men of the same age,” Carlson says. Why? No one knows.
Stunning Lack of Reaction to Mounting Death Toll
Perhaps most stunning of all is that these thousands of deaths and serious reactions are receiving no attention whatsoever. In 1976, the U.S. government vaccinated an estimated 45 million people against pandemic swine flu.

The 1976 pandemic swine flu mass vaccination campaign was canceled after 53 people died. Authorities decided the vaccine was too risky to continue the campaign. Now, health authorities are shrugging off more than 3,500 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination as either coincidental or inconsequential.

The program was canceled, Carlson reports, after only 53 people died. Authorities decided the vaccine was too risky to continue the campaign. Now, health authorities are shrugging off more than 3,500 deaths after COVID-19 vaccination as either coincidental or inconsequential.

Folks, this is 70 times more deaths than the swine flu vaccine, which was halted. If this isn’t insanity on steroids, please tell me what is. Maybe murder? This doesn’t even include the deaths of thousands, and potentially tens of thousands of miscarriages, which is now becoming rapidly recognized as a possible complication of COVID-19 “vaccines.”

In fact, an April 2021 report in The New England Journal of Medicine6 said that miscarriage was the most common condition reported after a COVID vaccine, and that “there is probably substantial underreporting of pregnancy- and neonatal-specific adverse events” connected with the vaccine. But rather than posting a warning that the vaccine may be causing miscarriages, health officials simply urged “continued monitoring” of the issue.
EU Reports Hundreds of Thousands of Side Effects
In the European Union, we find more of the same. Its EudraVigilance system, to which suspected drug reactions are reported, had as of April 17, 2021, received 330,218 injury reports after vaccination with one of the four available COVID vaccines (Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson), including 7,766 deaths.7

Of these, Pfizer’s mRNA injection accounted for the largest number of deaths at 4,293, followed by Moderna with 2,094 deaths, AstraZeneca with 1,360 deaths and Johnson & Johnson with 19 deaths. The most commonly reported injuries were cardiac-related problems and blood/lymphatic disorders.

In related news, the Israeli People Committee (IPC), a civilian body of health experts, has published a report detailing side effects from the Pfizer vaccine, concluding “there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people.” The Committee received 288 reports of death, 90% of which occurred within 10 days after the vaccination; 64% of them were men.

This contradicts data from the Israeli Ministry of Health, which claims only 45 deaths were vaccine related. According to this report (translated from Hebrew):8

“According to Central Bureau of Statistics data during January-February 2021, at the peak of the Israeli mass vaccination campaign, there was a 22% increase in overall mortality in Israel compared with the previous year.
In fact, January-February 2021 have been the deadliest months in the last decade, with the highest overall mortality rates compared to corresponding months in the last 10 years.
Amongst the 20-29 age group the increase in overall mortality has been most dramatic. In this age group, we detect an increase of 32% in overall mortality in comparison with previous year.
Statistical analysis of information from the Central Bureau of Statistics, combined with information from the Ministry of Health, leads to the conclusion that the mortality rate amongst the vaccinated is estimated at about 1: 5000 (1: 13000 at ages 20-49, 1: 6000 at ages 50-69, 1: 1600 at ages 70+).
According to this estimate, it is possible to estimate the number of deaths in Israel in proximity of the vaccine, as of today, at about 1000-1100 people.”

Reproductive Effects
In the U.S., we’re now starting to see thousands of reports of menstrual problems among women who have received the COVID-19 vaccine. As reported by The Defender:9

“Women have reported hemorrhagic bleeding with clots, delayed or absent periods, sudden pre-menopausal symptoms, month-long periods and heavy irregular bleeding after being vaccinated with one or both doses of a COVID vaccine.
There’s no data linking COVID vaccines to changes in menstruation because clinical trials omit tracking menstrual cycles. But two Yale University experts wrote in The New York Times … there could be a connection.
‘There are many reasons vaccination could alter menstruation,’ wrote Alice Lu-Culligan, an M.D./Ph.D. student at Yale School of Medicine, and Dr. Randi Epstein, writer in residence at Yale School of Medicine.
‘Periods involve the immune system, as the thickening and thinning of the uterine lining are facilitated by different teams of immune cells and signals moving in and out of the reproductive tract,’ Lu-Culligan and Epstein explained.
‘Vaccines are designed to ignite an immune response, and the female cycle is supported by the immune system, so it’s possible vaccines could temporarily change the normal course of events.’”

Even more bizarre, there are hundreds of anecdotal reports of women who have not gotten the vaccine, but spent time in close proximity to someone who did, who are experiencing the same kind of abnormal menses and bleeding irregularities. Some doctors are hypothesizing that some sort of shedding may be taking place, although the mechanism is unknown. As yet, it’s too early to speculate further.

Interestingly, a Chinese study10 published in Reproductive BioMedicine Online, which looked at sex hormones and menstruation in unvaccinated women of reproductive age who were diagnosed with COVID-19, found 28% had a change in the length of their cycle, 19% had prolonged cycles and 25% had a change in menstrual blood volume.

The researchers hypothesize that “the menstruation changes of these patients might be the consequence of transient sex hormone changes” caused by a temporary suppression of ovarian function during infection.
Dr. Natalie Crawford, a fertility specialist, told The Defender11 that the menstrual irregularities seen in female COVID-19 patients may be linked to a cellular immunity response, and since the vaccine instructs your body to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which your immune system then responds to, the effects of the vaccine may be similar to the natural infection.
Death Tally May Spike During Fall and Winter

While the death toll from COVID-19 vaccines is already at a historical level, I fear it may shoot far higher as we move through fall and winter. The reason for this is because one of the greatest risk factors and wild cards of these vaccines is antibody?dependent enhancement (ADE) or paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE).

I’ve detailed this issue in several articles, including “How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System” and “Will Vaccinated People Be More Vulnerable to Variants?” In summary, ADE means that rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the vaccine actually enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated.12
The 2003 review paper “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Virus Infection and Disease” explains it this way:13

“In general, virus-specific antibodies are considered antiviral and play an important role in the control of virus infections in a number of ways. However, in some instances, the presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus. This activity is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of virus infection.
The ADE of virus infection is a phenomenon in which virus-specific antibodies enhance the entry of virus, and in some cases the replication of virus, into monocytes/macrophages and granulocytic cells through interaction with Fc and/or complement receptors.
This phenomenon has been reported in vitro and in vivo for viruses representing numerous families and genera of public health and veterinary importance … For some viruses, ADE of infection has become a great concern to disease control by vaccination.”

Fall and winter are the seasons in which most coronavirus infections occur, be it SARS-CoV-2 or other coronaviruses responsible for the common cold. If ADE does turn out to be a common problem with these injections, then vaccinated individuals may be at significantly higher risk of severe COVID-19 and a potentially lethal immune reaction due to pathogenic priming.

Another potential risk is that of Th2 immunopathology, especially among the elderly. As reported in a PNAS news feature:14

“Since the 1960s, tests of vaccine candidates for diseases such as dengue, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have shown a paradoxical phenomenon: Some animals or people who received the vaccine and were later exposed to the virus developed more severe disease than those who had not been vaccinated.
The vaccine-primed immune system, in certain cases, seemed to launch a shoddy response to the natural infection …
This immune backfiring, or so-called immune enhancement, may manifest in different ways such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), a process in which a virus leverages antibodies to aid infection; or cell-based enhancement, a category that includes allergic inflammation caused by Th2 immunopathology.

In some cases, the enhancement processes might overlap … Some researchers argue that although ADE has received the most attention to date, it is less likely than the other immune enhancement pathways to cause a dysregulated response to COVID-19, given what is known about the epidemiology of the virus and its behavior in the human body.
‘There is the potential for ADE, but the bigger problem is probably Th2 immunopathology,’ says Ralph Baric, an epidemiologist and expert in coronaviruses … at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In previous studies of SARS, aged mice were found to have particularly high risks of life-threatening Th2 immunopathology … in which a faulty T cell response triggers allergic inflammation, and poorly functional antibodies that form immune complexes, activating the complement system and potentially damaging the airways.”

Recognize Cheap Brainwashing Propaganda for What It Is
Carlson ends his segment with a crude, cuss-filled ad “brought to you by people who are smarter than we are,” in which people who are supposedly doctors and nurses belittle those who read about side effects online or hear about risks from friends, and demand, while giving you the finger, that you just “grow up and get the vaccine.”

If you did not watch Carlson’s report, you need to STOP now and watch the video below to see this unbelievable ad. It is queued up to start at the ad. It is beyond shocking that they believe they can get away with this type of abuse.

“It doesn’t make you laugh,” Carlson says. “It makes you nervous. Why are they talking to you that way? Why are they giving you the finger on TV? No matter how many fingers they give you, it doesn’t change what remains true for the country.
If American citizens are going to be forced to take this vaccine, or any other medicine, they have the absolute right to know what it is and what its effects might be.
And they have an absolute right to ask that question, without being silenced or mocked or given the finger. And no amount of happy talk or coercion or appeals to false patriotism can change that. Period.”

In my view, there are still so many potential avenues of harm and so many uncertainties, I would encourage everyone to do your homework, keep reading and learning, weigh the potential pros and cons, ignore all pressure tactics and take your time when deciding whether to get any of these COVID-19 gene therapies.
Last but not least, if you or someone you love has already received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations:15

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

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/22/tucker-carlson-covid-vaccine-deaths.aspx

During 2020, many people learned more about coronaviruses, and specifically the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. Pictures of the spiked virus have been plastered across the news media.

The image is reminiscent of a chain mace, or flail. This was a medieval weapon with a spiked steel ball at the end of a chain or leather strap. The image may be frightening. It turns out researchers believe the spikes are responsible for significant vascular damage leading to severe disease.1

Most people will be infected at least one time in their lives by some type of coronavirus. If the COVID-19 pandemic is the first time you’ve heard about coronaviruses, you should know the first one was discovered in chickens in 1930.2 A few decades later the first human coronavirus was identified.3

Currently, scientists have identified four types of coronaviruses that are endemic and can cause up to 15% of common colds.4 Interestingly, if all coronaviruses have originated in the wild, the rate at which the virus is mutating has accelerated dramatically in 20 years.

In the last two decades, three new coronaviruses have emerged: SARS in November 2002;5 MERS in September 2012;6 and SARS-CoV-2 in December 2019.7 The symptoms of COVID-19 from an infection with SARS-CoV-2 can vary to a great extent.

Some people carrying the virus have had no symptoms. Others report fever, headache, body aches, dry cough, loss of appetite and loss of smell.8 In others, more severe symptoms can develop that affect the respiratory tract and lead to pneumonia.

Approximately 36% of individuals have experienced gastrointestinal symptoms or neurological symptoms, either with or without respiratory symptoms.9 A recent paper published in Circulation Research10 revealed it is the spiked proteins on the virus that play a key role in your symptoms.

Spiked SARS-CoV-2 Damages More Than Your Lungs

A team of researchers including scientists from the University of California San Diego evaluated the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in animals. The researchers were not surprised by the clinical findings, but the data revealed a detailed explanation of how the spike (S) protein triggers damage to the vascular system.11

The researchers created a pseudo virus, or cell surrounded by the spike proteins that did not contain a virus.12 Using an animal model, the researchers administered the pseudo virus into the lungs and found the virus was not necessary to create damage. Instead, the spike protein was enough to cause inflammation.

The experiment was then replicated in the lab using cell cultures. The team exposed healthy endothelial cells that line your arteries to the spiked pseudo virus. Past studies had demonstrated that exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus elicited damage to the cells by binding to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2).

However, the team found the cells responded in a similar way when exposed to the pseudo virus. When the S protein attached to the ACE2 receptor, it disrupted signaling to the mitochondria and caused damage and fragmentation. The alterations in mitochondrial function were confirmed as part of the inhibition of ACE2 signaling in the lab.

The results also revealed that the virus could induce endothelial cell inflammation and endotheliitis. The protein reportedly decreased ACE2 levels and impaired nitric oxide bioavailability.13 Co-senior author of the study, Uri Manor, explained in a press release from Salk Institute:14

“If you remove the replicating capabilities of the virus, it still has a major damaging effect on the vascular cells, simply by virtue of its ability to bind to this ACE2 receptor, the S protein receptor, now famous thanks to COVID. Further studies with mutant spike proteins will also provide new insight towards the infectivity and severity of mutant SARS-CoV-2 viruses.”

Long Haul Symptoms May Be Related to Vascular Damage

Some of the symptoms from COVID-19 that last weeks or months for some people may be the result of vascular damage. People who have had these symptoms have been given the name “long haulers.”15

In theory, they have recovered from the worst symptoms of the illness and test negative. Yet, they continue to have symptoms without an active infection. According to a paper in JAMA,16 approximately 10% of people who have had COVID-19 may experience long haul symptoms.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention17 report that a combination of the following symptoms without an active COVID infection can appear weeks after the infection and last for months. Symptoms may worsen after physical or mental activity.

Brain fog described as difficulty thinking or concentrating
Chest pain

Cough and difficulty breathing
Depression or anxiety

Dizziness when first standing
Fast beating heart or pounding heart

Fatigue
Fever

Headache
Joint or muscle pain

Loss of smell or taste
Shortness of breath

The predominant pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes endothelial damage and microvascular injury, stimulation of hyperinflammation and hypercoagulability.18 A recent review in Physiological Reports19 examined how the capillary damage and inflammation from endotheliitis triggered by COVID-19 could contribute to the persistent symptoms by interfering with tissue oxygenation.

The combined effects of capillary damage in multiple key organs may accelerate hypoxia related inflammation and lead to long haul symptoms. Although exercise temporarily worsens long haul symptoms and some have rejected high-intensity interval training (HIIT) as an option, one paper published in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine from Denmark suggests the opposite.20

The authors of this study argue that the pathophysiology of COVID-19 may be overcome by the physiological effects of HIIT and it should be considered as one of the rehabilitation choices to potentially reverse these symptoms. They propose that exercise could increase viral clearance and modulate TNF-alpha and interleukin-1 beta signaling.

This may in turn reduce vascular inflammation. They acknowledge that HIIT is the most controversial type of exercise intervention to be prescribed after COVID-19, due to the risk of sudden cardiac arrest secondary to cardiovascular damage.

Several experts21,22 recommend even those accustomed to high intensity exercise should first complete a cardiovascular exam and approach their return to physical activity gradually. They cite a small retrospective study of 28 people with a history of COVID-19 in which the researchers concluded that “comprehensive cardiopulmonary rehabilitation after COVID-19 is safe, feasible, and effective.”23

Early Treatment May Reduce the Number of Long Haulers

In my interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko in March 2021, we discussed the treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine. At that point, Zelenko had treated 3,000 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 and only three of his high-risk patients had subsequently succumbed to the disease.

While the focus of the interview was on treatment protocols and the use of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, Zelenko shared an interesting statistic about his protocol. In the early months of COVID-19, Zelenko decided to treat his high-risk patients as early as possible, without waiting for severe symptoms. This turned out to be one key to his significant success.

Without waiting for test results that often took five days, by which time high-risk patients were exhibiting more severe symptoms, he started treatment immediately. His understanding of the mechanism behind hydroxychloroquine and zinc led to using the combination alongside azithromycin, to prevent bacterial pneumonia and other bacterial infections common with COVID.

What is interesting are the statistics for Zelenko’s patients with long haul symptoms. As I’ve discussed, approximately 10% of the population that is infected with COVID-19 will go on to experience persistent symptoms.24 However, Zelenko has treated 3,000 patients and none who received treatment within the first five days went on to develop long-haul symptoms.

While he has had patients with persistent symptoms from COVID-19, they sought medical care after the first five days of symptoms, which meant the inflammatory process had advanced. From his experience, and the experience of the patients he treated, early intervention with the protocol nearly eliminated the risk of persistent symptoms.

Researchers Find Another Vaccine Target

During vaccine development, researchers and pharmaceutical companies have focused on the spike protein that surrounds the virus. It appears that this is how the virus enters the cells and it seemed reasonable if the virus could not replicate inside the cells, the infection could be stopped.

However, as has been discovered, the virus has more than just a single spike protein.25 There are four proteins that form the structure surrounding the RNA. There is an envelope (E), a membrane (M) and a nucleocapsid (N), in addition to the spike (S). Your immune system recognizes all four of these proteins. Researchers have discovered humans make more antibodies to the N protein than the S protein.26

However, it seemed counterintuitive to address the N protein since this is found inside the structure with the viral RNA. Therefore, any antibodies your body makes against the N protein will not block the virus from entering the cells.27 New information has revealed that once the N protein antibodies get inside the cell they are recognized by an antibiotic receptor, TRIM21.

This antibody receptor shreds the N protein, which then reaches the surface of an infected cell. Your body’s T cells recognize the fragments and kill the cell along with any virus. This has suggested to researchers that inducing N protein antibodies may be another way of stimulating the immune response against SARS-CoV-2.

Another benefit of focusing on the N protein is that it has a lower mutation rate.28 In other words, as the virus mutates in the wild the current vaccine may no longer have any effectiveness against it, in much the same way that the flu vaccine must be altered each year to address influenza variants. The sequence in the N protein is more stable, so researchers postulate that a vaccine may be effective for a longer period.

List of Current Vaccine Side Effects Is Growing

Early in May 2021, reports from France indicated five cases of myocarditis were found in those who had taken the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle that can have lifelong effects as it weakens the muscle and creates scar tissue.29

The national medicines safety agency (ANSM) released their weekly vaccine update, saying “five cases have been declared in France.”30 The agency didn’t feel there was enough information to conclude the vaccine had played a role but would continue to monitor reports.

Over 13.5 million doses of COVID vaccines have been administered in France since April 22, 2021. The ANSM reports 16,030 adverse events from those who had been vaccinated. Israel has also reported several cases of myocarditis after people receive their second dose.

A review of the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows 12 reports of myocarditis were recorded in the U.S. by April 30, 2021. According to Our World in Data,31 by April 30, 2021, 30.32% of the population in the U.S. had been fully vaccinated. VAERS also showed there were 157,277 adverse events reported by April 30, 2021.32

These numbers are likely far lower than the actual number of people who have experienced adverse events from the vaccines. Research data33 show health care providers identify and report vaccine adverse events in woefully low numbers. In fact, the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine was recently paused to teach doctors how to report vaccine injuries.34 The pause has since been lifted in the U.S.

It is crucial to report a vaccine injury or side effect to VAERS, as the data are essential in helping individuals, doctors and researchers make informed decisions. You can make your own report online or using a PDF by going to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.35 You’ll find more information about adverse events and how vaccines affect your health at the National Vaccine Information Center.36
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/25/spike-protein-coronavirus.aspx

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

In this interview, Susan Wadia-Ells, Ph.D., discusses breast cancer as an unnecessary U.S. epidemic and how to help prevent it, which is the topic of her book, “Busting Breast Cancer: Five Simple Steps to Keep Breast Cancer Out of Your Body.” This year alone, an expected 300,000 women in the U.S. will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Another 50,000 are projected to be diagnosed with non-invasive breast cancer, which in all likelihood isn’t cancer at all.
Wadia-Ells has a graduate degree in energy economics and political development (MALD) and a Ph.D. in women’s studies with a focus on women’s autobiographical writing. “This really means that I am an investigative reporter,” she says, “and so I’ve come to this with a very innocent, independent mind.”
The inspiration behind the book was Wadia-Ells’ experience of losing several friends to recurrent metastatic breast cancer, meaning cancer that was “successfully treated” at an early stage, only to later return as a terminal stage or metastatic disease.

“Between 20% and 40% of women who have been “successfully treated” in the United States today will end up with recurrent metastatic breast cancer, which means an early death sentence for most women,” she says.
“And I just got very angry. I love to investigate new topics. I’ve always been a change-maker throughout my whole career. I’ve just followed and done what I wanted to do. And this, I just fell into it and wouldn’t let it go.”

Breast Cancer Treatment Is a For-Profit Industry 
The for-profit cancer industry makes a fortune overdiagnosing breast cancer cases and then treating women with inflammatory and toxic remedies that increase your risk of developing real cancer. So, overall, the financial component is a motivating catalyst in the U.S. for much of what we’re seeing within the breast cancer industry, including that so-called “Breast Cancer Awareness,” month that can be translated as: “Get Your Mammogram Month.”

“The reason I wanted to do this book was really to teach women how to avoid getting breast cancer. Once you have a mammogram, you can sometimes end up being unnecessarily diagnosed and treated. And then that becomes incredibly expensive and harmful.
As I said, 20% to 40% of women who are being diagnosed and treated for an early stage breast cancer end up being treated for recurrent metastatic breast cancer, which means they’re spending an inordinate amount of money. These metastatic drugs that have been developed are not even meant to stop the disease; they have been developed to extend your life by a matter of months …
[The reason] why it’s so important for women to read the book and understand the five simple steps in Busting Breast Cancer is because most of these steps go against everything that the American Cancer Society is telling us, that Susan G. Komen is telling us, that in most cases, our regular primary care practitioners are telling us. And women have a much harder time questioning authority than men.
And so, as breast cancer has now become this epidemic that surrounds us … women have got to learn how to look at the facts, learn to be brave and question authority, and ‘take risks’ by going against these authorities. From early ages, women are much more terrified of going against authority.
And in order to protect ourselves and knock down the risk of breast cancer by 80% or more, it means a woman is going to have to stand up to the American Cancer Society and say, ‘Yes, I’m going to have a clinical breast exam. Yes, I’m going to do breast self-exams again. No, I don’t want a mammogram’ — all of these things that go against what women are being taught right now by the cancer industry.”

I’ve done extensive articles on mammography in the past, so much so that the State of Illinois Medical Board tried to remove my license, even though I wasn’t selling anything related to breast cancer. I was just telling people about the dangers of mammograms and disputing a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

I appealed and sued the medical board in the Illinois state supreme court and won, on grounds of first amendment freedom of speech, which is progressively being destroyed in real time in 2021. But that just goes to show the lengths to which the industry will go to protect the conventional narrative — a narrative that is ultimately harming more women than it’s helping.
Cancer Is a Lifestyle Disease
As noted by Wadia-Ells, statistical studies reveal there are a number of lifestyle and environmental issues that raise a woman’s breast cancer risk, including birth control drugs and vitamin D3 deficiency. Yet, the medical industry still has no answer as for why breast cancer occurs. They treat it like it’s a mystery that no one knows anything about, which simply isn’t true.
In 2013, Wadia-Ells discovered Thomas Seyfried’s book, “The Metabolic Theory of Cancer,” which I have highlighted in many previous articles. Seyfried’s theory on the origin of that first cancer cell allowed her to finally connect dozens of statistical studies on the risks of birth control drugs, progestin menopausal drugs, mammograms, biopsies, environmental toxins and more.
She was finally able, for the first time, to develop a clear set of biologically-based effective breast cancer prevention strategies for individual women. “Women need to understand that we can prevent this disease, probably 80%, if not more, of the time,” she says.
Lifestyle variables reviewed in Wadia-Ells’ book include the danger of chemical progestin drugs, toxic/unbalanced levels of estrogen from excess body fat, and high cortisol levels from chronic long-term stress. These are all significant assaults that contribute to the suffocation of breast cells’ mitochondria. This suffocation is the first step in the creation of that first cancer cell.
Processed foods are another culprit that need to be avoided, foods high in refined and hydrogenated vegetable oils in particular, as they are loaded with an omega-6 fat called linoleic acid (LA). Minimizing LA to pre-1850 levels, or 1% to 2% of your total daily calorie intake, which is 90% to 95% lower than what the average American consumes, is crucial. I believe it’s probably the most significant metabolic poison in our diet.

Prevention Begins With Shedding Excess Body Fat
Topping Wadia-Ells’ list of prevention strategies is shedding excess body fat by following a low-carb or ketogenic lifestyle. This type of daily eating helps lower the production of excess or unbalanced estrogen from fat cells, which reduces long term mitochondrial damage. Unknown to many, excess body fat creates an enzyme called aromatase; an enzyme required in the production of natural estrogen.
You need to be careful about the types of fat you eat, however. Going on a low carb/high-fat diet, will help only, if you limit your intake of toxic omega-6 fat (linoleic acid) to less than 5% of total calorie intake.

“That takes us back to Seyfried’s metabolic theory of cancer. We now understand that what causes that first cancer cell to happen — be that a breast cancer cell or a brain cancer cell — is assaults on the [mitochondria], the power batteries within your cells … that basically suffocate them.
So all of these things are suffocating the mitochondria, and when you have unbalanced estrogen to progesterone, or the chemical progestin, these are all toxic conditions that suffocate, that harm those mitochondria.
In Chapter 4 in the book, I talk about the importance of not taking birth control drugs or Prempro, a combination of menopausal relief drugs, or even having a progestin-laced IUD inserted, because progestin has now been shown to not only accelerate breast cancer, but it also has the potential of initiating breast cancer.”

In short, excess or unbalanced estrogen will increase a woman’s risk for breast cancer. That’s why many who are diagnosed with breast cancer find they are not metabolizing or eliminating this processed or “used” estrogen efficiently, causing an imbalance.
Wadia-Ells recommends getting a hormone balancing test to make sure your estrogen and progesterone levels are properly balanced and, if not, get an estrogen metabolite test done to see if you’re efficiently eliminating this now-processed or excess estrogen.
If your ability to eliminate your processed estrogen is sluggish, there are supplements and other strategies that can help boost your ability to efficiently eliminate your “used” estrogen, so you don’t end up with toxic levels. Ideally, you’ll want to measure all three types of natural estrogen your body can make: estrone, estradiol and estriol. The ratios among these three are also important.
The Dangers of Progestin
Progesterone is a helpful and important natural hormone. Progestin, a chemical that offers a few attributes of natural progesterone, however, can initiate and accelerate breast cancer. Intuitively, it makes sense that synthetic hormones might be more dangerous than naturally-occurring ones made by your body, and in fact they are. Wadia-Ells explains:

“In 2010, there was an incredibly important study that has gotten buried. The lead researcher was Josef Penninger. On that international study team of about 12 people, one is now the CEO and president of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
The researchers spent 10 years working with mice in preclinical settings, trying to figure out why women who take progestin-based drugs — be they birth control drugs or menopausal drugs — have anywhere from a 26% to an eightfold increased risk of developing breast cancer.
They finally published a study in 2010 that basically explained, in some more detail, but not totally, how the progestin pulls out or activates something called RANKL, which is a protein. The RANKL, apparently — though they don’t say these words — can suffocate the mitochondria in a woman’s breast cell, initiating that first cancer cell.
The sad thing is that no researchers in the field of breast cancer prevention ever cite this study. They’re not aware of it for some reason. But, it was published in October of 2010 in Nature magazine, which we all know is a very significant, well-known scientific journal.”

Tragically, the medical and scientific professions continue to conflate the terms “progestin,” and “progesterone,” ignoring the fact that these substances are not the same. Chemically, they are very different.

So, when reading studies, you have no way of knowing whether a researcher is talking about progestin, the chemical that causes and accelerates breast cancer, or natural progesterone, which when balanced with natural estrogen, does not cause a problem. In fact, natural progesterone appears to work as a tumor suppressor. It’s even used in men with prostate cancer, with significant success.
Proper Administration of Hormones
The delivery system of estrogen and/or progesterone is a third issue that plays a role. The worst delivery method is oral delivery, as the hormone must go through your digestive system and liver before it reaches your bloodstream.
Transdermal application is also problematic because, over time, your body becomes increasingly resistant to it as it builds up in your cells. The most ideal delivery method is transmucosally, where you apply the cream or suppository either into your vagina or rectum. This will bypass liver metabolism and get the hormone directly into your blood.
The Importance of Vitamin D3

Vitamin D3 is another crucial factor for cancer prevention. As noted by Wadia-Ells, studies show a vitamin D3 level of 40 ng/mL is protective against prostate and liver cancer, but for breast cancer, you need a level of at least 60 ng/mL (100 nmol/L).
“That 60 ng/mL becomes the magical number when a woman is trying to protect herself from developing breast cancer,” she says. Indeed, several studies suggest vitamin D optimization alone can knock your breast cancer risk down by about 80%.
Sensible sun exposure is the best way to optimize your level, but for a vast majority of people, a supplement is typically required to reach and maintain a level between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L) year-round.
Latitude tends to be a limiting factor because most people in the U.S. are unable to get significant vitamin D from the sun between September and May. Even in the middle of summer, you have to spend time outside in a bathing suit, not fully clothed, in order for it to work.
Regardless of how you’re getting your vitamin D3, the key is to test your level once or twice a year. This is the only way to ensure that what you’re doing is providing you with the vitamin D you need for optimal health and disease prevention. If you don’t know your D3 blood level, you have no way of knowing whether your immune system is strong enough to protect you from any fast-growing developing breast cancer cells or not.
Keep in mind that if you are obese, your body will store about half the vitamin D3 you ingest in your fat cells, which means you’ll need higher doses than someone of normal weight.

“If you take 5,000 IUs of D3 a day, it could be that your body is only able to utilize half of that. The other half is being stored in your fat cells. What some functional medicine physicians are finding is that when women or men start to lose weight, once they lose 15% of their weight, the fat cells let loose the stored D3 and their D3 blood level goes shooting up,” Wadia-Ells says.

Many Breast Cancer Cases Really Aren’t Breast Cancer

As mentioned earlier, mammograms can get you into trouble. “One simple mammogram can really take you down a bad path,” Wadia-Ells says. First of all, you’re compressing your breast tissue, which in itself can cause tissue damage, and if you do have a tumor, that tumor could potentially be broken apart, resulting in metastatic breast cancer.
Ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS is not actually a tumor. It’s not invasive. It’s not cancer. Studies suggest only about 5% of DCIS will eventually, a decade or more down the line, turn into cancer.
“But probably the major concern that I have with mammograms is the fact that they are the only way the cancer industry can diagnose if a woman has atypical cells or a tiny indolent tumor that may never grow,” Wadia-Ells says. The term “atypical cells” later became known as ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS — a far more frightening term than “atypical cells.” Fear sells, and this is true in the cancer industry as well.
DCIS is not actually a tumor. It’s not invasive. It’s not cancer. Studies suggest only about 5% of DCIS will eventually, a decade or more down the line, turn into cancer. Yet DCIS has now been renamed yet again as “Stage 0 breast cancer.”

“I have met so many women and they go, ‘I had breast cancer, but happily, they found it early. I’m fine.’ And I say to them, ‘What stage was it?’ Sometimes they don’t know, but if they do know, they might say, ‘Stage Zero,’ and the first thing I want to say to them is, ‘You did not have breast cancer. You never had breast cancer.’
But the problem is they were treated as if they had breast cancer. So, a biopsy, often using fine needle aspiration, was done, which inflames the tissue, which can then create cancer. Sometimes they had surgery. I’ve met women who have had double mastectomies because they had DCIS. It’s a travesty.”
People are being given all of these reasons to be fearful about breast cancer. My book becomes a unique piece of merchandise in the store, because it’s saying, ‘No, you don’t have to fear it anymore. There are ways that you can stop it before it starts.’ And with recurrent metastatic breast cancer, there actually are ways that are nontoxic, that can literally make metastatic cells go away.
And there’s even a case study from Turkey in my book of how they have used strictly nontoxic metabolic therapies to remove all of the metastatic cells from this 30-year-old woman. And as long as she was willing to participate and stay on her low-carb diet and have her non-toxic therapies every few months, she stayed clear.”

Why Biopsies Are a Bad Idea

As mentioned earlier, 20% to 40% of women treated for early stage breast cancer in the U.S. go on to develop recurrent metastatic breast cancer. The question is, what percentage of those cases were actually caused by diagnostics and/or treatment?

“Dr. Seyfried clearly describes … in his book, ‘Cancer as a Metabolic Disease,’ the biological process. When a tumor cell is released from a biopsy and the inflammation is happening, the immune system cells, including macrophages, come in to try and heal this new wound that the surgeon has just created in the woman’s breast.
That macrophage can then morph into a hybrid cell; merged with that errant breast cancer cell, it can take off into the woman’s body. In the majority of women who end up with metastatic breast cancer, it goes either to the bone, to the brain or to the liver, and maybe one other spot. It’s very clear that there’s a metabolic process involved. It’s not a haphazard process.
What I’m trying to do, and I talk about this in Chapter 10, is get the state cancer boards to release the annual data they have on recurrent metastatic breast cancer. The state cancer boards are required to collect that data within six months of a diagnosis from licensed physicians and from licensed cancer clinics.
But the state cancer boards, to the best of my knowledge, are not allowed to release that data. I feel the recurrent metastatic breast cancer epidemic is growing exponentially. You can see this by looking at data from clinical studies and from the exponential growth of income coming from metastatic breast cancer drugs. More than 50% of all the income in the breast cancer industry today is metastatic breast cancer drug income.”

Certain Drugs Impact Your Breast Cancer Risk
In her book, Wadia-Ells also details the risks of certain popular drugs. Women who have been on a statin drug for more than 10 years, for example, have been shown to double their risk of breast cancer. This is a drug that 1 in 4 American adults over the age of 40 is on, so it’s a significant issue.
Another group of common but hazardous drugs are progestin-based birth control drugs and IUDs or intrauterine devices laced with progestin. A far safer alternative is the hormone-free copper coil IUD.
However, today, FDA regulations have created a single monopoly-priced, hormone-free IUD, much too expensive for women who do not have health insurance. While the actual cost of this tiny and simple device is about 50 cents in the U.S., women or their insurance must pay more than $800 to purchase and have the IUD inserted. Wadia-Ells explains:

“This is where my graduate work in political economy came in, so it served me well. I just kept unpeeling the onion. In the ’70s, we had a variety of types and sizes of hormone-free IUDs. They didn’t have progestin-based IUDs back then. By 1999, there was suddenly only one IUD on the U.S. market, and that was today’s copper coil IUD named Paragard.
Suddenly, overnight, the FDA decided to reclassify this 50-cent copper coil from a medical device — what it had been for 30 years — to a pharmaceutical drug. They said that the copper causes the effectiveness of the IUD; therefore, it’s a drug.
When they did that, they virtually blocked the market for all other hormone-free IUDs, because … now that hormone-free IUDs were considered to be drugs, and they had remained effective for 10 years, companies had to do multimillion-dollar, 10-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies for any IUD, i.e., “drug.”
So, many women in the U.S. have developed breast cancer because they’ve been forced to go on the birth control drug because the cost of that hormone-free IUD became unbearable. Low-income women were given, and still are being given, the progestin-only contraceptive shots that last for three months, which increase their risk of breast cancer worse than if they’re taking the pill.
These drugs are increasing one’s breast cancer risk much more than if a woman is on a hormone-free IUD, because she is not getting that progestin. I believe that this IUD reclassification in 1999 was done to support the birth control drug industry.”

What’s more, why did no one insist on studying birth control drugs once it was discovered, in 2002, that post-menopausal women using the progestin-based menopausal drug, increased their risk of developing palpable tumors by 26% within three years? After all, contraceptive drugs can have 10 times more progestin than menopausal progestin drugs.

“They didn’t do it, I am sure, because the industry did not want to destroy their birth control drug revenues,” Wadia-Ells says. “And so, there’s a reason we have seen premenopausal women’s breast cancer rates increase in the United States.
In my book I show the study that my little group did. We contacted several state cancer boards and said, ‘Can you send us the rate of breast cancer of women under 50 years old between 1985 — when they started to advertise birth control drugs on TV — and 2005?’
And we saw, no matter if it were Florida, Colorado or Massachusetts — those were the three states we ended up looking at — there was a 1% to 2% annual increase over those years in breast cancer rates in women under 50.
That’s when birth control drugs really had taken off, because the Clinton administration allowed these drug ads to be put on television, so you could tell your doctor what drug you wanted, instead of having the doctor tell you what drug you should have.
There are seven political action steps in my book, and one of them is for women’s groups and health groups to go to the FDA and knock on the door and say, ‘Change it back. Make the hormone-free IUD a medical device again, and open up the market, flood the market with all of these affordable European makes and models.’”

More Information
To learn the details of the five strategies that can radically reduce your risk of breast cancer, be sure to pick up a copy of Wadia-Ells book, “Busting Breast Cancer: Five Simple Steps to Keep Breast Cancer Out of Your Body.” Of net sales of this book, 20% is being donated to the Foundation for Metabolic Cancer Therapies. Aside from optimizing your vitamin D and losing excess weight, other strategies include:

Losing excess body fat by using time-restricted eating and fasting, by reducing carb intake, and by increasing natural and unprocessed fats and oils
Avoiding or eliminating processed vegetable oils and processed foods
Avoiding synthetic hormones
Getting an annual thermogram to see if your breast tissue is inflamed/precancerous, meaning you need to detox immediately
Detoxifying your body and mind through breast massage, practicing daily meditation, avoiding food with pesticides and added hormones, filtering water for drinking and showering, and avoiding cosmetics and cleaning agents with carcinogenic chemicals

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/23/dcis.aspx

In the 20th century, scientists developed a group of complex, manmade chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). In the past decade, researchers have found the chemicals contaminate drinking water and the environment.1 Current data measure these chemicals at alarming rates in breast milk.2

The properties of these substances include oil and water repellency, temperature resistance and friction reduction. Experts estimate there may be up to 10,000 of these forever chemicals,3 the full effects of which are not yet known.

The most widely recognized PFASs are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), both associated with kidney and testicular cancers.4 The family of chemicals are also linked to endocrine disruption and a host of other problems in people who live in communities that have heavily contaminated drinking water.

Out of the 10,000 forever chemicals, 3M agreed to stop making PFOS in 2002 and DuPont began phasing out PFOA in 2005.5 Yet, with just a chemical tweak, companies began marketing a new generation of PFASs with similar chemical structures.

The properties of PFAS made them useful in aerospace technology, photography, construction and everyday items like paper products and nonstick cookware.

Ubiquitous use, delays in reducing use and the known bioaccumulative and persistent effects of the chemicals have generated an environmental problem, largely since some of these forever chemicals can take up to 1,000 years to degrade.6

Frightening Levels of Forever Chemicals Found in Breast Milk

The featured study was published in Environmental Science and Technology, which researchers say is the first study in 15 years to analyze PFAS in a group of breastfeeding women in the U.S.7 Data were gathered from a cross-section of socioeconomically and geographically diverse groups of women and showed PFAS contamination in all 50 samples tested.

In some samples, the levels were nearly 2,000 times higher than what is recommended safe for drinking water. There are no set standards for PFAS found in breast milk.

However, as a comparison, the Environmental Working Group (EWG)8 advises a target for drinking water at 1 part per trillion (ppt) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry9 recommends 14 ppt in children’s drinking water.

The researchers found levels ranging from 50 ppt to more than 1,850 ppt in woman’s breast milk. Evaluating the effects of high amounts of PFAS in infants is difficult. Dr. Sheela Sathyanarayana, a co-author of the study and pediatrician with the University of Washington, spoke with a reporter from The Guardian.10

She told the reporter studies in older children and adults have shown the presence of these chemicals damage the immune system and create hormonal disruptions. This is particularly problematic for infants as their immune system is not yet mature.

Another co-author of the study and science director with Toxic Free Future in Seattle, Erika Schreder, added her saying,11 “The study shows that PFAS contamination of breast milk is likely universal in the US, and that these harmful chemicals are contaminating what should be nature’s perfect food.”

The results of the study counter the industry claim that the new generation of PFAS do not bioaccumulate in humans.12 The researchers also evaluated international breast milk data, finding in comparison to the current data that older chemical concentration is declining, while newer chemical concentration has doubled every 4.1 years.13

Evidence from this study also has suggested the challenge with PFAS bioaccumulating in people is getting worse. When data from the current study were compared to a study spearheaded by the EWG in 2005,14 the researchers found there was an increase in the amount of new-generation PFAS found in breast milk.

Additionally, while manufacturers have phased out some older compounds, they were still present in breast milk, and some were found at high levels. Schreder believes the best solution is banning the entire class of chemicals and went on to say:15

“The study provides more evidence that the PFAS that companies are currently using and putting into products are behaving like the ones they phased out, and they’re also getting into breast milk and exposing children at a very vulnerable phase of development.”

Polluting Infants Likely Has Lifelong Consequences

More than 15 years ago, the EWG found16 287 chemicals in umbilical cord blood that passes between mother and baby. Of these, 180 are known to cause cancer in humans and animals, 217 are known toxins to the brain and nervous system, and 208 are known to cause abnormal development or birth defects in animal models.

There is substantial scientific evidence that demonstrates exposure in the womb may be dramatically more harmful as a baby is developing. Exposure during childhood also increases vulnerability related to the rapid development and incomplete defense systems of a child.

Many of these PFAS chemicals can potentially leach from food packaging, causing one group of 33 scientists to write a consensus statement17 pleading with lawmakers “to take swift action to reduce exposure”18 to plastics in food packaging.

Pete Myers, founder of Environmental Health Services and publisher of Environmental Health News, was also a contributor to the statement. In an editorial on the consensus statement, he wrote:19

“… hazardous chemicals can transfer from food contact materials into food, and some are known endocrine disrupting chemicals, or ‘EDCs.’ EDCs are associated with chronic diseases such as diabetes, obesity, cancer and neurological disorders like ADHD.”

And concluded:

“The authors say while there is a great amount of information for some of the most well-studied food contact chemicals, such as bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, many of the 12,000 reported food contact chemicals lack data on their hazardous properties or level of human exposure. This suggests that the human population is exposed to unknown and untested chemicals migrating from food wrappings, with unknown health implications.”

Increasing amounts of data have demonstrated PFAS chemicals have a lethal effect on human health and the environment. After years of mounting evidence, the EPA revealed their PFAS Action Plan in February 2020,20 in which they state the “agency has multiple criminal investigations underway concerning PFAS-related pollution.” They wrote, “Since 2002, the agency has initiated 12 enforcement actions, including four since 2017.”

Better Living Through Chemistry

The definition of natural is “existing in or formed by nature.”21 There is no value-added implication in the definition that natural is healthier. Yet, in a commentary published in the journal Pediatrics, authors Jessica Martucci, Ph.D., and Anne Barnhill, Ph.D., addressed the potential that the word “natural” adds value.22

In it, they discussed how using the word “natural” may have unintended consequences of equating “natural” to “healthier and better.” The authors used statements from the 109-page Nuffield Council report23 as a basis for their argument and recommended the term not be used when pediatricians encourage new mothers to breastfeed.

The authors expressed the concern that praising breastfeeding as a natural way to feed infants may bolster the belief that any natural approach is “presumptively healthier.” In the article, Martucci said the original commentary arose from what they believe to be a:24

“… pretty straightforward and interesting observation: the “nature” arguments used by vaccine skeptics to critique public health efforts seemed highly reminiscent of the “nature” arguments used by public health authorities to promote breastfeeding.”

In other words, the premise was that breastfeeding promotion programs used a language that is similar to the kinds of arguments they believe are used by people who oppose vaccines. Months later, Martucci described the backlash that arose from the commentary:25

“However, I also think that “nature” arguments have become increasingly entangled with very conservative political ideologies that are often laced with racist, classist, and misogynistic undertones (and sometimes overtones).”

Juxtaposing breastfeeding, which has no associated risk, with vaccinations that have a long history of drug-related side effects was likely not an accident and may have been meant to draw a parallel, insinuating both are equally safe. The underlying issue may have been that using the word “natural” could negatively influence the decision to vaccinate.

Taken on the surface, it appears the authors were making an argument that breastfeeding and bottle-feeding are equally healthy for infants. If women choose not to breastfeed, the only other option is bottle feeding with lab-produced formulas mixed with drinking water that has tested positive for toxic chemicals across the U.S.

In 2015, 200 scientists from 38 countries signed the Madrid Statement on PFASs,26,27 warning about the dangers of old and new PFAS chemicals. The scientists recommended avoiding all products using PFASs. Helpful tips can also be found in the EWG’s “Guide to Avoiding PFCS.”28 More suggestions are found in “Warning: Biodegradable bowls contain toxic chemicals.”

Breastfeeding Supports Brain and Gut Development

Just as the food you eat impacts your gut microbiome and consequently your immune system, so does the food that infants and children eat. In one study published in the Journal of Pediatrics,29 researchers looked at how bacteria in an infant’s digestive system affect burning and storage of fat, and how the infant body uses energy.

Information was gathered from 1,087 infants. Mothers reported how long infants were breastfed, when formula was introduced and when solid food was introduced. Stool samples were collected at 3 to 4 months of age and again at 12 months and tested for gut bacteria.30

Data revealed the highest level of beneficial bacteria at three months and one year was in infants who were exclusively breastfed. Infants who were exclusively formula-fed had the least variety of bacteria and nearly double the risk of becoming overweight.

Several studies have also demonstrated that breastfeeding benefits a baby’s brain. Data from Brown University31 used magnetic resonance imaging to watch brain growth in children under age 4. They discovered that babies who were exclusively breastfed for the first three months had “enhanced development in key parts” of the brain as compared to those who were fed formula or a combination of formula and breast milk.

One review of the literature32 concluded there was compelling evidence in both full term and preterm infants that breastfeeding benefited a child’s neurodevelopment. They went on to recommend:33

“Overall, available evidence regarding neurodevelopmental benefits supports existing recommendations that infants should be breastfed exclusively for 6 months and that hospitalized preterm infants should receive fortified maternal milk.”

A third study34 released from Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., demonstrated how breast milk can increase biochemicals important for brain growth and development. The researchers studied extremely premature babies in the neonatal intensive care unit. They discovered:35

“… significantly higher levels of some key biochemicals in breast-fed babies, compared to those who had been fed formula milk. Namely, there were increased amounts of inositol (a molecule similar to glucose) and creatine (a molecule which helps to recycle energy inside cells). The percentage of days that babies were fed breast milk was also linked to higher levels of a vitamin-like nutrient called choline.”

More Amazing Benefits of Breastfeeding

If you’re making a decision about breastfeeding, it’s helpful to know the benefits to both baby and mom. Breastfeeding may confer the following benefits to you and your baby:

Babies

Natural immunity — Breastfeeding initially provides passive immunity as antibodies from the mother are passed through breast milk to the infant. Researchers have also found breast milk has a unique capacity to stimulate the infant’s immune system with long-term positive effects.36

Bonding — The close interaction during breastfeeding is just one way mothers develop a greater bond with their infant, which may extend years beyond infancy37 and impact parenting.

Reduction of blindness in preemies — Retinopathy of prematurity causes blindness in 10% of severe cases occurring in premature infants. Breastfeeding reduces this risk.38

Reduction in sudden infant death syndrome — In one study, breastfeeding reduced the risk of sudden infant death syndrome in children by 50% at all ages through infancy.39

Reduced allergies — In one study40 of 1,278 mothers and babies, exclusive breastfeeding prevented the development of allergic diseases and asthma.

Mothers

Quicker recovery from childbirth — The release of oxytocin during breastfeeding helps the uterus return to a normal size and reduces postpartum bleeding.41

Faster weight loss after childbirth — During pregnancy your body automatically stores extra fat to provide food for your baby. Producing milk burns 480 extra calories each day, which helps mobilize visceral fat stores.42

Reduced rates of breast cancer — Breastfeeding may cut the risk of breast cancer in women who have had children.43

Reduced rates of cardiovascular disease — Women who breastfeed have a 10% lower risk of heart disease and stroke.44

Reduced risk of postpartum depression — The release of prolactin and oxytocin while breastfeeding produces a peaceful and nurturing sensation. Women who breastfeed enjoy a reduced risk of developing postpartum depression in the first four months of their infant’s life.45

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/27/chemicals-causing-birth-defects.aspx

In their race to vaccinate the entire U.S. adult population, health officials are urging everyone to get a COVID shot, regardless of whether or not they’ve already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and spending billions of dollars in taxpayer funded propaganda to convince people to get the vaccine.
This is an important distinction, however, with at least one scientist warning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that “clear and present danger” exists for those who have had COVID-19 and subsequently get vaccinated.
That scientist — Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate — warned the FDA that prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins may reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination, as the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus.1
Unfortunately, health agencies continue to assert that everyone should get vaccinated, even if they’ve already acquired natural immunity via previous infection.
CDC: Get Vaccinated Even if You’ve Had COVID

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admits that it’s rare to get sick again if you’ve already had COVID-19. Despite this, they say those who have recovered from COVID-19 should still get vaccinated:2

“You should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. Even if you have already recovered from COVID-19, it is possible — although rare — that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 again.”

Your immune system is designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. Upon recovery, you’re typically immune to that infectious agent. This is why, for instance, proof of prior diagnosis with chickenpox, measles and mumps is allowed instead of vaccination to enter most U.S. public schools3 — once you’ve had the disease and recovered, you’re immune.
If you’ve had COVID-19, you have some level of immunity against the virus. It’s unknown how long it lasts, just as it’s unknown how long protection from the vaccine lasts. According to the Public Health Agency of Sweden:4

“If you have had COVID-19, you have some protection against reinfection. This means that you are less likely to become infected and seriously ill, and less likely to infect others if you are exposed to the virus again.

Over time, the protection that you get after an infection wanes and there is an increased risk of getting infected again. At present, we estimate that the protection after having had COVID-19 lasts at least six months from the time of infection.”

People With Prior COVID Have More Vaccination Side Effects

An international survey of 2,002 people who had received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine found that people who had previously had COVID-19 experienced “significantly increased incidence and severity” of side effects after the COVID-19 vaccine.5 Those who had previously had COVID-19 had a greater risk of experiencing any side effect, along with the following, specifically:

Fever
Breathlessness

Flu-like illness
Fatigue

Local reactions
Severe side effects leading to hospital care

The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were linked to a higher incidence of side effects compared to the viral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines, but the mRNA side effects tended to be milder, local reactions. Systemic reactions, such as anaphylaxis, flu-like illness and breathlessness, were more likely to occur with the viral vector COVID-19 vaccines.
According to the researchers, the findings should prompt health officials to reevaluate their vaccination recommendations for people who’ve had COVID-19:6

“People with prior COVID-19 exposure were largely excluded from the vaccine trials and, as a result, the safety and reactogenicity of the vaccines in this population have not been previously fully evaluated. For the first time, this study demonstrates a significant association between prior COVID19 infection and a significantly higher incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after vaccination for COVID-19.

Consistently, compared to the first dose of the vaccine, we found an increased incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after the second dose, when recipients had been previously exposed to viral antigen.

In view of the rapidly accumulating data demonstrating that COVID-19 survivors generally have adequate natural immunity for at least 6 months, it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the recommendation for immediate vaccination of this group.”

Surgeon Warns of Immunological Dangers, Blood Clots

Noorchashm has written multiple letters to the FDA, warning them that people should be screened for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins prior to COVID-19 vaccination. Without such screening, he wrote in one letter to the FDA, “this indiscriminate vaccination is a clear and present danger to a subset of the already infected.”7
He describes the case of 32-year-old Benjamin Goodman of New York, who died within one day of receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. “There will be many more in the coming months as we carelessly and indiscriminately vaccinate the already infected, millions a day … It is a near certainty,” he continued.8 At issue are viral antigens that remain in the body after a person is naturally infected.
The immune response reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine may trigger inflammation in tissues where the viral antigens are present. The inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain may be particularly at risk of such inflammation and damage.9 According to Noorchashm:10

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

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

What’s more, Noorchashm quotes one of his previous medical school professors, who said, “the eyes do not see what the mind does not know.” In the case of a vaccine-induced antigen specific immune response, which may trigger thromboembolic complications 10 to 20 days after vaccination, including in those who may already be elderly and frail, the reaction isn’t likely to be registered as a vaccine-related adverse event.
Immediately Delay Vaccination for These Key Groups

In his repeated letters to the FDA, Noorchashm suggests that the FDA “immediately and at the very minimum” delay COVID-19 vaccination for people with symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as those who have recently recovered from the virus.
Because so many cases are asymptomatic, he recommends clinicians “actively screen as many patients with high cardiovascular risk as is reasonably possible, in order to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2, prior to vaccinating them.”11 As it stands, Noorchashm points out that by ignoring what he believes to be an imminent risk for a sizable minority of people, the FDA’s credibility, and that of the mass vaccination campaign in general, is at grave risk:12

“Can you imagine if the public, without having received any real warning from FDA, becomes aware of an increasing number of such vascular/thromboembolic complications? What do you suppose will happen to the level of ‘vaccine hesitancy’ then?

And, what kind of accountability do you think the public will demand from our experts and federal regulators — especially if they knew, or should have known, that this immunological danger might exist?

The aim of benefiting the majority of our public and saving the nation from this pandemic by quick and aggressive vaccination is an ethically sound one — but where we know of real or likely risks of harm and mortality, we ought to mitigate the risks to those in potential harm’s way.

So doing is the only reasonable, ethical, and likely legal option you can pursue as public health regulators — for in America, we no longer sacrifice the lives of minority subsets of people for the benefit of the majority.”

At least 62 cases of myocarditis, or heart inflammation, in people who received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine are being investigated by the Israel Health Ministry. Most of the cases occurred in men under the age of 30 who were in good health, and two deaths have been reported as a result.13,14
No Proof of Efficacy in People Who’ve Had COVID-19

In a high-profile report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 15 scientists stated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.15
But according to Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky, “That sentence is wrong. There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either.”16 In France, the health body la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) does not recommend routinely vaccinating those who have already recovered from COVID-19, stating:17

“At this stage, there is no need to systematically vaccinate people who have already developed a symptomatic form of Covid-19 unless they wish to do so following a decision shared with the doctor and within a minimum period of time. 3 months from the onset of symptoms.”

When Massie realized that vaccination didn’t change the risk of infection among people who’ve had COVID-19, he was alarmed and contacted the CDC directly, recording his calls.
“It [the CDC report] says the exact opposite of what the data says. They’re giving people the impression that this vaccine will save your life, or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or the Moderna trial,” Massey says in a “Full Measure” report.18
CDC Allows Misinformation to Continue

Massie spoke with multiple officials on numerous occasions, who acknowledged the misinformation and implied that it would be fixed.19,20 It wasn’t until Massie’s final call with the CDC, to deputy director Dr. Anne Schuchat, that it was acknowledged that a correction was necessary.
“As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior infection, there’s efficacy. So, you’re correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it. I apologize for the delay,” Schuchat said. January 29, 2021, the CDC did finally issue a correction, which reads:21

“Consistent high efficacy (?92%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Efficacy was similarly high in a secondary analysis including participants both with or without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Instead of fixing the error, Massie believes the wording just phrases the mistake in a different way and still misleadingly suggests vaccination is effective for those previously infected.22 Meanwhile, increasing numbers of breakthrough COVID-19 cases among the fully vaccinated are being reported, which the CDC has been reporting.
As of April 26, 2021, there have been 9,245 reported cases of COVID-19 in fully vaccinated individuals, including 132 deaths.23 Note this is not total deaths from the vaccine, which is rapidly approaching 4,000.
However, May 14, 2021, the CDC announced it will no longer report breakthrough cases unless they involve hospitalization or death,24 which will obscure the actual number of breakthrough cases occurring, artificially driving down rates and making the vaccines appear to be more effective.
The CDC also changed recommendations on PCR tests for the fully vaccinated, which will further drive down the appearance of breakthrough cases by making them less likely to “test positive.”
PCR tests recommended by the WHO used to be set to 45 cycle thresholds (CTs),25 yet the scientific consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs renders the test useless,26 as the accuracy will be extremely low, with false positives artificially driving up case numbers.
In April 2021, the CDC recommended the CT be lowered to 28, but only for people who are fully vaccinated.27 Under this guidance, someone with a CT of 30 would not be considered to have COVID-19 if they were fully vaccinated, but if they were not, then their test would be “positive.” 
This is beyond obvious that they are rigging the system to create data that fit their fake narrative, which is pushing the entire population to get a vaccine they don’t need, will harm or kill them and which will generate tens of billions of dollars in annual recurring revenue for the drug companies.
In return, the drug companies have no legal risk for any complications, adverse effects or deaths and are given billions of dollars in free advertising from the U.S. taxpayers to get this dangerous gene therapy.
The Big Lie — Natural Infection Isn’t Adequate

Why is it that the media continue to promote the fake narrative that natural immunity — the type acquired by getting infected by and recovering from a virus — isn’t as powerful or long-lasting as vaccine-acquired immunity?28,29 Do you think it might be to support vaccine sales?
Did they forget that COVID-19 vaccines aren’t intended to be a long-term solution, and have NEVER been shown to provide immunity benefits? The original warp speed test only showed reduced symptoms.
Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla exacerbated this charade by stating that not only will people need a third booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine within 12 months of being fully vaccinated, but annual vaccination will probably be necessary.30
Robust natural immunity has been demonstrated, however, for at least eight months after infection in more than 95% of people who have recovered from COVID-19.31,32 A Nature study also demonstrated robust natural immunity in people who recovered from SARS and SARS-CoV-2.33
There continue to be many unanswered questions surrounding COVID-19 vaccines, many of which most of the public has never heard of, such as imprinting and Th2 immunopathology. If you choose to get a COVID-19 vaccine, you’re participating in a giant experiment, acting as a guinea pig to see what will ultimately bear out.
That being said, if you or someone you love have received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it. Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do three things:34

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

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/24/delay-vaccination-for-people-with-covid-19-infections.aspx

When you visit your physician, you hope to be given unbiased information that will best support your health — nothing less, nothing more. If a physician is unable to speak freely, this independent relationship between doctor and patient ceases to exist. In the past, illegal marketing, gifts and bribes from drug companies were frontrunners in eroding doctors’ integrity — and patients’ trust in them.

Now, with censorship in the name of COVID-19 ramping up to unprecedented levels, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which regulates the practice of medicine in Ontario, has issued a statement prohibiting physicians from making comments or providing advice that goes against the official narrative.

Actor Clifton Duncan shared the Orwellian message on Twitter, urging his followers to “Read this. Now. And then share it as much as you can.”1 Because, equally as disturbing as the notion of publicly dictating to physicians what they’re allowed to say, is the fact that, as Duncan said, the statement has a glaring omission, “The health and well-being of the patient.”2

CPSO Warns Physicians Not to Speak Their Minds

According to CPSO, physicians in isolated incidents have been spreading “blatant misinformation” via social media, which is undermining “public health measures meant to protect all of us.” To explain, the CPSO released their “Statement on Public Health Misinformation” on April 30, 2021, which reads:3

“The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations.

Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19.

Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted.

When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.”

While threatening physicians with investigation and disciplinary action should they speak out regarding the many inconsistencies and questions surrounding pandemic lockdowns, masks and COVID-19 vaccines, CPSO had the gall to add that it’s not intending to stifle healthy public debate about how to “best address aspects of the pandemic.” “Rather, our focus is on addressing those arguments that reject scientific evidence and seek to rouse emotions over reason,” it added.4

But clearly, CPSO has already outlined which “arguments that reject scientific evidence” it’s referring to: anything “anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown,” which is better described as anything that dares question the official COVID propaganda narrative.

It should be noted, too, that in order to practice medicine in Ontario, physicians are required to be CPSO members. One of CPSO’s central responsibilities is in the area of investigations and discipline, as it responds to public complaints about Ontario physicians, referring them to a discipline committee “if necessary.”5

‘Unethical, Anti-Science and Deeply Disturbing’

Clapping back at CPSO’s blatant overreach, a group of Canadian physicians sent out a declaration to the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons at various provinces and territories across Canada, as well as to the public, describing CPSO’s statement as “unethical, anti-science and deeply disturbing.” They wrote:6

“As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO or any other authority, but to our patients. When we became physicians, we pledged to put our patients first and that our ethical and professional duty is always first toward our patients. The CPSO statement orders us to violate our duty and pledge to our patients …”

Three primary reasons were given in the declaration that show why CPSO’s statement runs contrary to physicians’ oath to protect their patients above all else:7

1. Denial of the Scientific Method — Vigorous debate by those holding opposing views has been central to scientific progress throughout history. CPSO orders physicians to put scientific method aside and silences open debate. “Any major advance in science has been arrived at by practitioners vigorously questioning “official” narratives and following a different path in the pursuit of truth,” the declaration states.8

2. Violation of Physicians’ Pledge to Use Evidence-Based Medicine for Their Patients — Physicians pledge to seek out the best evidence-based science and advocate for it on their patients’ behalf, but CPSO asks physicians to violate this pledge and only express pro-lockdown views.
They write, “This tyrannical, anti-science CPSO directive is regarded by thousands of Canadian physicians and scientists as unsupported by science and as violating the first duty of care to our patients.”9

3. Violation of Duty of Informed Consent — Censoring health information of any kind, including vaccine information, violates the Nuremberg code,10 which states, “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,” and specifies that in order for the subject to be able to make an informed decision, “all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation” must be disclosed.

Informed consent simply isn’t possible if potential hazards and drawbacks are censored. The Nuremberg Code was drafted to prevent the horrific experiments performed on humans in Nazi concentration camps from ever occurring again, but CPSO is ordering physicians to “violate the sacred duty of informed consent.”11

‘A Watershed Moment in the Assault on Free Speech’

The declaration ends by telling CPSO to withdraw its April 30 statement, with which the physicians state they will never comply:12

“We physicians believe that with the CPSO statement of 30 April 2021, a watershed moment in the assault on free speech and scientific inquiry has been reached. By ordering physicians to be silent and follow only one narrative, or else face discipline and censure, the CPSO is asking us to violate our conscience, our professional ethics, the Nuremberg code and the scientific pursuit of truth.”

It’s encouraging to see pushback against tyrannical efforts. The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), written by infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, also highlighted grave concerns over lockdown measures implemented during the pandemic, and, as of May 20, 2021, had collected hundreds of thousands of signatures in support.13

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

Opioid overdose fatalities nearly doubled during the stay-at-home order in Cook County, Illinois, compared to a 100-week period in 2018 to 2019, rising from 23 deaths per week to 44, for instance.15

A survey of 2,000 U.S. adults also revealed that 1 in 6 Americans started therapy for the first time during 2020. Nearly half (45%) of the survey respondents confirmed that the reason they considered therapy was the COVID-19 pandemic.16 Meanwhile, serious questions remain, with evidence suggesting lockdowns weren’t effective.

Even the World Health Organization wrote in 2019 that during an influenza pandemic, quarantine of exposed individuals, entry and exit screening and border closure are “not recommended in any circumstance.”17

Likewise, in 2021 a study published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation found no significant benefits on COVID-19 case growth in regions using more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as mandatory stay?at?home and business closure orders (i.e., lockdowns).18

Data compiled by Pandemics ~ Data & Analytics (PANDA) also found no relationship between lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths per million people. The disease followed a trajectory of linear decline regardless of whether or not lockdowns were imposed. Yet, this is the type of information that CPSO is forbidding physicians from talking about with their patients.

AIER: ‘Nothing Short of Horrifying’

The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) also spoke out against CPSO’s censoring of physicians, calling it “nothing short of horrifying” and adding:19

“Although there are certainly concerns about the spread of falsehoods and conspiracy theories in the age of Covid-19, this sort of broad censorship of speech from practicing medical professionals is not only an ethical sham but anti-science.

The practice of science is premised on the rigorous application of the scientific method which among other things requires falsifiability and debate. The move to silence doctors also flies in the face of liberal democracy — something that has been deteriorating around the world as both the public and private sector move to silence dissent.”

Equally disturbing is that CPSO’s move isn’t unique to Ontario. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia issued a similar warning to physicians, stating that they could be investigated and penalized if they say something against public health orders or official COVID-19 guidance.20 And it’s not only physicians who are being censored, either. Academics are also being punished for teaching outside of the COVID box.

Take professor Mark Crispin Miller, who has taught classes on mass persuasion and propaganda at the New York University Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development for the last two decades.

After challenging students to investigate current propaganda narratives surrounding mask mandates, Miller was placed under conduct review for spreading “dangerous misinformation” — one of three key propaganda strategies used to suppress academic and scientific inquiry. Miller fought back, suing 19 of his department colleagues for libel after they signed a letter to the school dean demanding a review of Miller’s conduct.21

Censorship and Surveillance Go Hand in Hand

Big Tech censorship, which oftentimes filters out or blocks all but one viewpoint, is also pervasive, such that even your Google searches are canned. Many also aren’t aware that, while the internet is viewed as a tool to promote the dissemination of information, it was built by the government as a tool to spy on citizens.

If you’re interested in learning more about the little-known beginnings of the internet, I encourage you to read the book “Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet,” by Yasha Levine.22

Levine, an investigative journalist, reveals that the internet began in the Vietnam era and was used to spy on guerrilla fighters and antiwar protestors, “a military computer networking project that ultimately envisioned the creation of a global system of surveillance and prediction.” What’s more, the military surveillance objectives that underpinned the internet’s development are still in force today.23

The more data that Big Tech gathers, the more it gives them the unprecedented ability to predict the type of messaging triggers that will create the maximum amount of fear — and thus compliance.

A key solution will be decentralized platforms that not only virtually eliminate censorship but also foster privacy and free speech, the latter of which must also be fervently protected when it comes to discussions between you and your doctor.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/28/physicians-forbidden-from-questioning-official-health-guides.aspx

In this interview, return guest Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT for over five decades, discusses the COVID-19 vaccines. Since 2008, her primary focus has been glyphosate and sulfur, but in the last year, she took a deep-dive into the science of these novel injections and recently published an excellent paper1 on this topic.

“To have developed this incredibly new technology so quickly, and to skip so many steps in the process of evaluating [its safety], it’s an insanely reckless thing that they’ve done,” she says. “My instinct was that this is bad, and I needed to know [the truth].
So, I really dug into the research literature by the people who’ve developed these vaccines, and then more extensive research literature around those topics. And I don’t see how these vaccines can possibly be doing anything good. When you weigh the good against the bad, I can’t see how they could possibly be winning, from what I’ve seen.”

Significant Death Toll Will Rise in Months and Years to Come

Five months into the vaccination campaign, statistics tell a frightening story. Seneff cites research2 showing deaths are 14.6 times more frequent during the first 14 days after the first COVID injection among people over the age of 60, compared to those who aren’t vaccinated. That is extraordinary. You can read the full paper here.

Other data,3,4 reviewed in the video above, show that after COVID-19 vaccines were implemented, overall death rates have increased, with the exception of a few areas. Interestingly, Seneff believes she may have discovered why. It appears countries in which COVID-19 vaccines have not raised mortality rates are also not using glyphosate.

“I immediately suspected glyphosate when I started to see COVID-19,” Seneff says. “I’ve written a book on glyphosate called ‘Toxic Legacy,’ and I have an entire chapter in that book on the immune system. Glyphosate, I believe, is a train wreck for the innate immune system, and when your immune system is weak, your body has to overreact to the virus. It can’t kill the virus.
So, it ends up [causing] collateral damage and wrecking your tissues. You get into this cytokine storm kind of situation where you destroy your lungs and you can’t cope. It’s not really the virus. It’s the immune reaction to the virus that’s killing you, and that’s because your immune system is too weak. If you have a strong innate immune system, I believe you wouldn’t even get symptoms from COVID-19.
When you look at the statistics on which countries are hit hard and just can’t get ahead of this virus, they’re clearly the countries that use a lot of glyphosate and developing biofuels based on glyphosate-exposed plants. So, I think that’s a critical piece of the puzzle as well. Glyphosate is in the atmosphere … [and] people are breathing it. So now you’re getting a direct attack on the lungs immune system, which makes you very susceptible to COVID.”

Ultimately, Seneff believes, as I do, that the COVID-19 “vaccines” will end up killing far more people than the disease itself, and will in fact make the disease worse. Seneff cites a disturbing case history of a cancer patient in the U.K. who was treated for severe COVID-19 for 101 days.
The antibody cocktails they gave him didn’t work, and after his death, they concluded that the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant in his body had a dozen different mutations in the spike protein. Somehow, his body figured out how to evade the antibodies, which is a critical piece of the puzzle.
“I think the vaccines are doing the same thing,” Seneff says, adding that, among the immune compromised, only 17% of vaccinated individuals actually produce antibodies.5 Surprisingly, these people may actually have drawn the short end of the stick. The antibodies may not work because their immune function is low, thereby allowing the virus to build resistance and mutate.

“I think you have a lot of immune compromised people in a country where glyphosate is destroying people’s immune system, and that gives tremendous opportunity for the virus to mutate. The vaccine is going to accelerate that process because we’re vaccinating immune compromised people left and right.”

COVID-19 Vaccines Are a Public Health Disaster
The typical unprecedented vaccine takes 12 years to develop, and of all the unprecedented vaccines in development, only 2% are projected to ever make it through phases 2 and 3 of clinical testing.

The COVID-19 vaccine was developed with Operation Warp Speed in less than one year, which makes it virtually impossible for this vaccine to be adequately tested for safety and efficacy.
Hundreds of millions of people are now being vaccinated around the world, based on nothing more than preliminary efficacy data. Disturbingly, while sudden death is one apparent side effect, the vast majority of side effects won’t be known until a decade or more from now.
Seneff predicts that in the next 10 to 15 years, we’ll see a sudden spike in prion diseases, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases at younger ages, and blood disorders such as blood clots, hemorrhaging, stroke and heart failure.

“It’s a nightmare,” she says. “And I can see how it can happen. Basically, the vaccine is so unbelievably unnatural, and it has a single-minded goal, which is to get your body to produce antibodies to the spike protein. The RNA has been manipulated. It’s not natural RNA because it has methyl-pseudouridine on it … And the goal is to keep it alive.
Normally, if you get injected with RNA, you have enzymes in your system, in your tissues, that will immediately break it down. Your body knows it must get rid of the RNA. What you do with the vaccine is you make sure [your body] can’t get at it …
Then there’s the lipid [that the RNA is encased in]. The lipids are very abnormal, very weird … They’re not natural but they have some cholesterol in there, probably to help it look like a natural LDL particle so that your cells will take it up. It’s not being taken up by the ACE2 receptor.
It’s not being taken up the same way that the virus is being taken up. It’s a totally different mechanism that brings it into all the cells. You’ve gone past all the mucosal membranes. Usually, a virus is going to come into the lungs or any kind of cavity where there’s a mucosal system that’s going to hit the virus first.
The virus [will trigger] your natural mucosal system to respond to it and clear it if you’re a healthy person, and that’s the end of it. [With the vaccine], we never get a chance to do that. You’re just getting it shot right into your muscle, past all the barriers and the muscle goes crazy … sending out all kinds of alarms.”

Understanding Your Immune System

As your cells start producing the viral spike proteins, your immune cells rally to mop up the proteins and dump them into your lymphatic system. This is why many report swollen lymph nodes under the arms. This is also a sign of breast cancer. The antibody response is part of your humoral immunity. You also have cellular immunity, which is part of your innate immune system.
Your innate immune system is very powerful. And, if you’re healthy, it can clear viruses without ever producing a single antibody. Antibodies are actually a second-tier effect when your innate immune system fails. The problem is your innate immune system is definitely going to fail if you get a COVID-19 shot, because it’s bypassing all of the areas where your innate immune system would be brought to bear.
Your body will essentially believe that the innate immune system has failed, which means it must bring in the backup cavalry. In essence, your body is now over-reacting to something that isn’t true. You’re not actually infected with a virus and your innate immune system has not failed, but your body is forced to respond as if both are true.
How COVID-19 Vaccine Circumvents Healthy Immune Responses

But there’s more. As explained by Seneff, the synthetic RNA in the mRNA vaccines contains a nucleotide called methyl-pseudouridine, which your body cannot break down, and the RNA is programmed to trigger maximum protein production. So, we’re looking at completely untested manipulation of RNA.
It is very important to recognize that this is a genetically engineered mRNA for the spike protein. It is in no way shape or form the same that SARS-CoV-2 produces. It’s been significantly altered to avoid being metabolized by your body. Additionally, the spike protein your body produces in response to the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA locks into your ACE2 receptor.
This is because the genetically engineered NEW spike protein has additional prolines inserted that prevent the receptors from properly closing, which then cause you to downregulate ACE2. That’s partially how you end up with problems such as pulmonary hypertension, ventricular heart failure and stroke.6,7
As noted in a 2020 paper,8 there’s a “pivotal link” between ACE2 deficiency and SARS-CoV-2 infection. People with ACE2 deficiency tend to be more prone to severe COVID-19. The spike protein suppresses ACE2,9 making the deficiency even worse. As it turns out, the vaccines essentially do the same thing.
How Long Might Effects Last?
As mentioned, RNA is highly perishable, so to get it past the enzymes that would normally break down free mRNA, it’s encased in a lipid nanoparticle combined with polyethylene glycol or PEG. The PEG helps protect the RNA from breaking down. The RNA can easily enter the cell via natural endocytosis pathways, taking advantage of the nanoparticle design made to look like an LDL particle.

They strategically chose a cationic lipid, meaning it’s positively charged. “Usually you have phospholipids in your membranes that are negatively charged,” Seneff explains. The problem with cationic lipids is they disturb the plasma membrane and cause an immune response.

However, that may also be a key reason for why they were used. Typically, conventional vaccines contain an aluminum adjuvant to initiate an immune response. Aluminum was not appropriate for the COVID-19 vaccines, but the cationic lipids serve a similar function spectacularly well.
Being extremely toxic to the cell membranes, the positively charged lipids trigger immune cells to rush in to aid the cells and mop up the spike protein now being produced, while also being the vehicle that allows the RNA to slip into the cells. Once inside the cell, the mRNA delivers the instructions to produce enormous amounts of spike proteins.
The really worrisome thing is there’s potential for it to become part of the DNA and then it will last forever. Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D.
Importantly, there’s no telling how long these instructions will persist. Manufacturers are guessing the synthetic RNA may survive in the human body for about six months, but we really don’t know if that’s true or not.
Again, the alterations they’ve done to the synthetic RNA are meant to prevent it from breaking down. It could be years or even decades that these spike proteins are being produced, and you will find out shortly why this is a really bad scenario.

“The really worrisome thing, which I talk about in the paper, is there’s potential for it to become integrated into your DNA,” Seneff says. “If that happens, it will last your entire lifetime, and you may pass this new genetic code on to your offspring.”

Tracing Spike Protein From Cells to Lymph to Spleen
As explained by Seneff, your immune cells mop up mRNA and spike protein and dump them into your lymphatic system. From there, they make their way into your spleen, where they can remain for quite a long time. 

“There are all these different immune cells that have different roles, but it’s the dendritic cells and the macrophages that are initially going into the muscle, picking up the mRNA, taking it over to the lymph system, traveling through the lymph system to the spleen and piling it up there. The spleen was the highest concentration of all the organs they looked at in animal studies. The liver was second.
It wasn’t the COVID-19 vaccine, but it was a messenger RNA vaccine. So, it was the same concept. The other vaccines, the ones that are based on a DNA vector, they also go to the spleen. I think they like it when they see that it’s going to the spleen because you have these germinal centers in the spleen that are focus groups for making antibodies.
So these dendritic cells are in these germinal centers in the spleen, and then they bring in the B-cells and T-cells, and those are the ones that make and perfect the antibodies, because you need to go through a whole training mode to get the antibiotics to be exactly matched to that particular spike protein. That happens predominantly in the spleen.”

Potential Vaccine Shedding Mechanism Revealed
Seneff also sheds light on the mysterious reports of unvaccinated individuals experiencing unusual bleeding symptoms after spending time in proximity to a newly vaccinated person. She believes this may be due to exosomes being released from the lungs.

“If you are a person who’s producing these exosomes from your spleen and shipping them out, there’s no reason why you can’t ship them out to the lungs. In fact, they’ve shown experimentally that those exosomes do get released from the lungs,” Seneff says.

So, to be clear, what’s being “shed” or spread by vaccinated individuals is the spike protein — which is itself toxic — not the SARS-CoV-2. So, it’s not an infection but rather the shedding of a toxic protein.

“If you’re breathing it in, you could be getting an increased risk, it seems to me. I mean, it sounds really farfetched, but it looks like it could happen, just from the logic of what goes on in biology. It could happen that you would breathe in these exosomes containing these misfolded prion proteins, which are not good for you, and exactly what happens when they go into the lungs, I don’t know. I have no idea.”

Can mRNA Vaccines Change Your DNA? That Is the Question

Getting back to the potential issue of gene editing, I’ve been accused of being scientifically ignorant for stating that COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines but rather a form of gene therapy. But when you delve into the genetics and molecular biology of this vaccine you discover that they are in fact a form of a stealth gene editing tool that can change your DNA and integrate instructions to make even more spike proteins.
It’s counterintuitive because, typically, mRNA cannot be integrated directly into your genes because you need reverse transcriptase. Reverse transcriptase converts RNA back into DNA (reverse transcription). Seneff, however, discovered there’s a wide variety of reverse transcriptase systems already embedded in our DNA, which makes this possible. She explains:

“There was this long period of time in which we had the mantra that transcription is DNA to RNA to protein. That’s basic biology — DNA, RNA, protein. But then, in 1970, David Baltimore at MIT… discovered reverse transcriptase in retroviruses (RNA tumor viruses), which he won the Nobel Prize for.
It turns out, and I didn’t know this until I started digging into these vaccines, that we actually have plenty of reverse transcriptase in our own cells. We have plenty of it. And it’s these long interspersed nuclear elements (LINEs) and short interspersed nuclear elements (SINEs) that are able to take our RNA back to DNA and to put that DNA back into the genome.”

LINEs and SINEs are sequences of nucleotides, pieces of DNA, and they make up a huge percentage of the genome. For example, LINE1 is 10% of your genome. Most of the time they’re inactive and scientists were puzzled about what they actually do. They’re rather strange, as they fold DNA backward and stick it back in different areas. For example, in people with Alzheimer’s, the amyloid beta protein gets duplicated all over the place in their genome.

“They get like a big fat genome with extra copies with different variations in those copies. And they do that through RNA,” Seneff says. “So, you have a mechanism for evolution. The primary mechanism, I would guess, is through taking the DNA, turning it into RNA, mutating the RNA because RNA mutates much more easily than DNA does, and then turning it back into DNA and sticking it back into the genome.”

In a nutshell, LINEs and SINEs appear to be activated when an alternative solution for a problem is needed. One such problem could be glyphosate exposure. When the body is too sick to function normally, it finds a way around the problem by mutating proteins. “It’s a process that we use to deal with environmental toxic chemicals that we’re confronted with generally,” Seneff says.
So, in summary, mRNA can be reverse transcribed and converted back to DNA by LINEs and SINEs in your body. This cloned DNA can then be integrated into your genome. In this way, it truly is genetic editing.
Are We Creating a Generation of Super-Spreaders?

What comes next is truly chilling. Seneff cites research10 showing that sperm has this ability to take exogenous mRNA, either from a virus or an mRNA vaccine, and reverse transcribe it into DNA and then produce plasmids that contain this cloned DNA. The sperm then releases these plasmids around the egg, which takes them up.
The egg hangs on to those plasmids and puts the new code into the cells of the growing fetus. Hypothetically, a man having been vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine could produce a child born with the genetic code to make the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
This is not a good thing, because this means the child will not have antibodies against the spike protein. Since it’s part of their genetic code, it registers as one of their own proteins and their body won’t produce antibodies against it. If that child is exposed to SARS-CoV-2, their immune system won’t react at all. What happens next is anyone’s guess, but it’s bound to be severely problematic in one way or another.

“Exactly how sick they’ll get or whether they’ll get sick at all, I don’t know,” Seneff says, “but their immune system won’t react and they’ll be able to carry that virus for their entire life and then pass [that genomic trait] on down to their children …
Now, if I don’t react to [the virus] and I let it grow, what happens? Do I get sick? To what extent is the illness [COVID-19] the consequence of the immune response, rather than the virus itself? We don’t know that, really, but many say the real problem is the overactive immune response.
People are dying of the immune response to COVID, they’re not dying from the virus. The virus is not killing them. It’s the immune response to the virus that’s killing them. So, if you don’t have an immune response, what happens? Nobody knows.”

Even if such a child were to be unaffected by the virus, we could be looking at a serious problem, as they could turn into lifelong super-spreaders and a chronic hazard to everyone around them. At least that’s what happened in cows.
Seneff recounts a story of herds plagued by a viral diarrhea. They finally realized that “killer calves” were the problem. Calves were being born that had viral protein integrated into their genome. When exposed to the virus, these calves, unable to clear the virus naturally, then spread it to the adult cows, which got sick.

“I don’t see why the same thing couldn’t happen with COVID — that a baby could be born who has this humanized version of that protein, catches the [wild] virus and then it spreads it to the adult population,” Seneff says.

Such children would be true super-spreaders, and the indoctrination we’re currently seeing, where children are told their mere presence could pose a mortal risk to the people they love, would then turn into grim reality. The calves in question were euthanized to safeguard the rest of the herds. How would we address human equivalents?
Hopefully, this nightmare scenario will not occur, but it appears biologically possible, and that is the problem. The fact that the available science allows for this kind of speculation is reason enough to put the brakes on this vaccination campaign. We have no clue what the long-term consequences are. We don’t even know what the short-term consequences are, other than more vaccinated people are dying, collectively, compared to unvaccinated ones.
Spike Protein Appears Highly Problematic

A particularly fascinating part of Seneff’s paper addresses the toxicity of the spike protein. A key problem with all of these gene-based COVID-19 vaccines is that the spike protein itself appears toxic, and your body is now a spike protein-producing factory.

“Right. They have done studies where they only expose the [animal] to the spike protein, showing it was toxic in the brain and the blood vessels. So, it’s causing immune reactions all by itself that is damaging to the tissues.
It’s basically a toxic molecule, and I think it’s toxic possibly because of it being a prion protein …
I’m going to do more research on it. I don’t know enough yet, but it looks horrendous to me. I think it may be the most worrisome thing. There are two big things that are going to happen in the future.
They’re going to take time [to develop], so we’re not going to see it immediately. And, of course, we’re not going to blame the vaccine because rates will start going up for these horrible diseases and no one will link them to it.”

Why Spike Protein May Cause Serious Neurodegenerative Disease

Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CKD), the human version of mad cow disease, is a prion disease. Other human forms of prion disease include Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS). “You have all these horrible neurodegenerative diseases and each one is tied to specific prion proteins,” Seneff says. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein also appears to be a prion protein, although this has yet to be thoroughly verified.
Disturbingly, the spike protein produced by COVID-19 vaccines, due to the modifications made, may make it more of a prion than the spike protein in the actual virus, and a more effective one.

“Papers are showing that those germinal centers in the spleen … are a primary source of the prion proteins that eventually get taken up the vagus nerve and delivered to the brainstem nuclei. That’s how you can get Parkinson’s disease, for example …
There’s so much we need to learn, but it looks to me like it’s a setup here. They’re really inviting this kind of thing to happen with these vaccines, where they’re focusing on those germinal centers [because] those are the very same place where these prion proteins often get started.”

Why Long-Term Neurological Damage Is To Be Expected

In her paper, Seneff describes key characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that suggests it’s a prion:11

“Neurological symptoms associated with COVID-19, such as headache, nausea and dizziness, encephalitis and fatal brain blood clots are all indicators of damaging viral effects on the brain. Buzhdygan et al. (2020) proposed that primary human brain microvascular endothelial cells could cause these symptoms …
In an in vitro study of the blood-brain barrier, the S1 component of the spike protein promoted loss of barrier integrity, suggesting that the spike protein acting alone triggers a pro-inflammatory response in brain endothelial cells, which could explain the neurological consequences of the disease.
The implications of this observation are disturbing because the mRNA vaccines induce synthesis of the spike protein, which could theoretically act in a similar way to harm the brain. The spike protein generated endogenously by the vaccine could also negatively impact the male testes, as the ACE2 receptor is highly expressed in Leydig cells in the testes …
Prion diseases are a collection of neurodegenerative diseases that are induced through the misfolding of important bodily proteins, which form toxic oligomers that eventually precipitate out as fibrils causing widespread damage to neurons …
Furthermore, researchers have identified a signature motif linked to susceptibility to misfolding into toxic oligomers, called the glycine zipper motif … Prion proteins become toxic when the ?-helices misfold as ?-sheets, and the protein is then impaired in its ability to enter the membrane.
Glycines within the glycine zipper transmembrane motifs in the amyloid-? precursor protein (APP) play a central role in the misfolding of amyloid-? linked to Alzheimer’s disease. APP contains a total of four GxxxG motifs. When considering that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is a transmembrane protein, and that it contains five GxxxG motifs in its sequence,12 it becomes extremely plausible that it could behave as a prion.
One of the GxxxG sequences is present within its membrane fusion domain. Recall that the mRNA vaccines are designed with an altered sequence that replaces two adjacent amino acids in the fusion domain with a pair of prolines.
This is done intentionally in order to force the protein to remain in its open state and make it harder for it to fuse with the membrane. This seems to us like a dangerous step towards misfolding potentially leading to prion disease …
A paper published by J. Bart Classen (2021) proposed that the spike protein in the mRNA vaccines could cause prion-like diseases, in part through its ability to bind to many known proteins and induce their misfolding into potential prions.
Idrees and Kumar (2021) have proposed that the spike protein’s S1 component is prone to act as a functional amyloid and form toxic aggregates … and can ultimately lead to neurodegeneration.”

So, in summary, the take-home here is that COVID-19 vaccines, offered to hundreds of millions of people, are instruction sets for your body to make a toxic protein that will eventually wind up concentrated in your spleen, from where prion-like protein instructions will be sent out, leading to neurodegenerative diseases.
Vaccine Remedy May Be Worse Than the Disease
In her paper, Seneff goes into far more detail in her description of the spike protein as a metabolic poison. While I recommend reading Seneff’s paper in its entirety, I’ve extracted key sections below, starting with how the spike protein can trigger pathological damage leading to lung damage and heart and brain diseases:13

“The picture is now emerging that SARS-CoV-2 has serious effects on the vasculature in multiple organs, including the brain vasculature … In a series of papers, Yuichiro Suzuki in collaboration with other authors presented a strong argument that the spike protein by itself can cause a signaling response in the vasculature with potentially widespread consequences.
These authors observed that, in severe cases of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 causes significant morphological changes to the pulmonary vasculature … Furthermore, they showed that exposure of cultured human pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit was sufficient to promote cell signaling without the rest of the virus components.
 Follow-on papers showed that the spike protein S1 subunit suppresses ACE2, causing a condition resembling pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a severe lung disease with very high mortality … The ‘in vivo studies’ they referred to … had shown that SARS coronavirus-induced lung injury was primarily due to inhibition of ACE2 by the SARS-CoV spike protein, causing a large increase in angiotensin-II.
Suzuki et al. (2021) went on to demonstrate experimentally that the S1 component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, at a low concentration … activated the MEK/ERK/MAPK signaling pathway to promote cell growth. They speculated that these effects would not be restricted to the lung vasculature.
The signaling cascade triggered in the heart vasculature would cause coronary artery disease, and activation in the brain could lead to stroke. Systemic hypertension would also be predicted. They hypothesized that this ability of the spike protein to promote pulmonary arterial hypertension could predispose patients who recover from SARS-CoV-2 to later develop right ventricular heart failure.
Furthermore, they suggested that a similar effect could happen in response to the mRNA vaccines, and they warned of potential long-term consequences to both children and adults who received COVID-19 vaccines based on the spike protein.
An interesting study by Lei et. al. (2021) found that pseudovirus — spheres decorated with the SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein but lacking any viral DNA in their core — caused inflammation and damage in both the arteries and lungs of mice exposed intratracheally.
They then exposed healthy human endothelial cells to the same pseudovirus particles. Binding of these particles to endothelial ACE2 receptors led to mitochondrial damage and fragmentation in those endothelial cells, leading to the characteristic pathological changes in the associated tissue.
This study makes it clear that spike protein alone, unassociated with the rest of the viral genome, is sufficient to cause the endothelial damage associated with COVID-19. The implications for vaccines intended to cause cells to manufacture the spike protein are clear and are an obvious cause for concern.

Commercial Vaccines Are Not as ‘Clean’ as Trial Vaccines

Seneff’s paper also highlights the unknown hazard of injecting fragmented RNA, found in greater quantity in the commercially manufactured Pfizer vaccine compared to the vaccine used in the initial trials:14

“The EMA Public Assessment Report … describes in detail a review of the [Pfizer] manufacturing process … One concerning revelation is the presence of ‘fragmented species’ of RNA in the injection solution. These are RNA fragments resulting from early termination of the process of transcription from the DNA template.
These fragments, if translated by the cell following injection, would generate incomplete spike proteins, again resulting in altered and unpredictable three-dimensional structure and a physiological impact that is at best neutral and at worst detrimental to cellular functioning.
There were considerably more of these fragmented forms of RNA found in the commercially manufactured products than in the products used in clinical trials. The latter were produced via a much more tightly controlled manufacturing process …
While we are not asserting that non-spike proteins generated from fragmented RNA would be misfolded or otherwise pathological, we believe they would at least contribute to the cellular stress that promotes prion-associated conformational changes in the spike protein that is present.”

More Information
Seneff and I cover a great deal more than I’ve covered in this article, including how the vaccines may trigger autoimmune problems by way of molecular mimicry. This includes things like celiac disease, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis and lupus. So, if you have ANY interest in learning more about this vaccine I strongly suggest you watch the entire video.
We also discuss how the shots are causing idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), a rare blood disorder in which you end up with blood clots, a drop in platelet count and hemorrhages, all at the same time.
Also, be sure to read through Seneff’s paper, “Worse Than The Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research.15
How Can You Protect Yourself From the Vaccine or Exposure to Those That Were Vaccinated?

Indeed, that is the question of the day. We talked about shedding from the vaccine. Obviously, the vaccine does not classically shed virus particles but it can easily cause people to shed spike proteins, and it is these spike proteins that may cause just as much damage as the virus.
While Seneff’s paper didn’t delve deeply into solutions, it provides a major clue, which is that your body has the capacity to address many of these problems through a process called autophagy. This is the process of removal of damaged proteins in your body.
One effective strategy that will upregulate autophagy is periodic fasting or time-restricted eating. Most people eat more than 12 hours a day. Gradually lowering that to a six- to eight-hour window will radically improve your metabolic flexibility and decrease insulin resistance.
Another beneficial practice is sauna therapy, which upregulates heat shock proteins. I have discussed this extensively in previous articles. Heat shock proteins work by refolding proteins that are misfolded. They also tag damaged proteins and target them for removal.
Another vital strategy is to eliminate all processed vegetable oils (seed oils), which means eliminating virtually all processed foods as they are loaded with them. Seed oils will radically impair mitochondrial energy production, increase oxidative stress and damage your immune system. 
Seed oils also are likely to contain glyphosate, as it is heavily used on the crops that produce them. Obviously, it is important to avoid glyphosate contamination in all your food, which you can minimize by buying only certified organic foods.

Finally, you want to optimize your innate immune system and one of the best ways to do that is to get enough sun exposure, wearing in your bathing suit, to have your vitamin level reach 60 to 80 ng/ml (100 to 150 nmol/l).
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/23/stephanie-seneff-covid-vaccine.aspx

May 6, 2021, we received an email from Geoff Brumfiel, a senior editor and correspondent with NPR. According to NPR, “his reporting focuses on the intersection of science and national security,”1 but as soon as I read the subject line of the email — “The business of anti-vaccine propaganda” [sic] — it was clear that the line of questioning that would follow was not journalism but rather a PR piece for the pharmaceutical industry.

Indeed, Brumfiel’s email did not disappoint, nor did his resulting article, “For Some Anti-Vaccine Advocates, Misinformation Is Part of a Business.”2 True to form for NPR, the article presents a slanted view of vaccine safety advocates designed to disparage and discredit those who are speaking out against COVID propaganda.

Conveniently, Brumfiel included only one short segment from our emailed response to his questions, but neglected to mention NPR’s tight connections with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — and the hundreds of articles NPR has released that are highly favorable toward the Gates Foundation and the work it funds.3

Brumfiel’s Slanderous Allegations

Brumfiel included only a short segment of our email exchange in his NPR article, which was that I reject his “biased accusation of promoting misinformation.”4 This is true, but it helps to read it in context. The entire sentence was actually, “Dr. Mercola rejects your biased accusation of promoting misinformation, please provide your direct evidence to support your slanderous allegations.” Those allegations were made in Brumfiel’s email to us, which read:

“I’m a reporter with National Public Radio who’s working on a story about the business side of the antivaccine industry. The article describes how the current pandemic has provided an opportunity for people such as Dr. Mercola. By promoting misinformation about the coronavirus and vaccines, they are able to expand their reach and potentially their customer base.”

Yet, NPR’s smear piece shows what a real misinformation campaign looks like. A true journalist would not ask loaded questions with no relevance to his stated topic and no explanation as to how those questions might fit into his topic the way Brumfiel did. Those questions were:

“1. Can you provide me with any details about the size of Dr. Mercola’s businesses? And have they grown during the pandemic?

2. How does he respond to critics who say that he is using misinformation about vaccines to turn people away from conventional medicine and towards his brands and products?

3. Is he worried about being deplatformed by social media companies? Would that pose a financial challenge to him?”

Since Brumfiel did not include our response in his article, here it is for you to read in its entirety:

“Dr. Mercola owns a small business that employs 135 people in Cape Coral, Fl. The pharmaceutical industry and the propagandists that fund your organization with multi-millions are making tens of billions of dollars through this pandemic — with complete indemnification.5

NPR serves an important role in pushing the pharmaceutical agenda to promote mandatory vaccination with the help of Bill Gates’ funding. You are defending the world’s most powerful and corrupt industry, while attacking a small business that has been fighting against them and claiming concerns about the size and growth of Dr. Mercola’s business.

The pharmaceutical industry is the world’s most powerful industry, and Bill Gates is one of the world’s most powerful people.6,7,8 Standing up for what is right and defending free speech is more important than complying with any mass media campaign attacks or social media’s political agendas. Your line of questioning is not journalism, it’s just part of political bias and pharmaceutical propaganda.”

Gates Foundation Gave $17.5 Million to NPR

Mainstream media is increasingly being bought off by organizations including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and as a result, the bought-and-paid-for press will only publish articles in their favor.

Writing in Columbia Journalism Review, Tim Schwab examined the recipients of nearly 20,000 Gates Foundation grants, finding more than $250 million had been given to major media companies, including BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, The Guardian and the Center for Investigative Reporting.9

Ironically, “The foundation even helped fund a 2016 report10 from the American Press Institute that was used to develop guidelines11 on how newsrooms can maintain editorial independence from philanthropic funders,” Schwab writes, adding, “Gates’s generosity appears to have helped foster an increasingly friendly media environment for the world’s most visible charity.”

And Gates’ donations come with strings attached. Those given to NPR were intended to target coverage of global health and education:12

“When Gates gives money to newsrooms, it restricts how the money is used — often for topics, like global health and education, on which the foundation works — which can help elevate its agenda in the news media.

For example, in 2015 Gates gave $383,000 to the Poynter Institute, a widely-cited authority on journalism ethics … earmarking the funds ‘to improve the accuracy in worldwide media of claims related to global health and development.’ Poynter senior vice president Kelly McBride said Gates’s money was passed on to media fact-checking sites …

Since 2000, the Gates Foundation has given NPR $17.5 million through 10 charitable grants — all of them earmarked for coverage of global health and education, specific issues on which Gates works …

Even when NPR publishes critical reporting on Gates, it can feel scripted. In February 2018, NPR ran a story headlined ‘Bill Gates Addresses ‘Tough Questions’ on Poverty and Power.’ The ‘tough questions’ NPR posed in this Q&A were mostly based on a list curated by Gates himself, which he previously answered in a letter posted to his foundation’s website.”

NPR’s Key Source Is a Digital Hate Group

Brumfiel’s primary reference for his NPR hit piece is none other than Imran Ahmed, who runs the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — a progressive U.K.-based cancel-culture leader13 with extensive ties to government and global think tanks who has labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine as “threats to national security.”

Ahmed has gone on record saying he considers anti-vaxxers “an extremist group that pose a national security risk,”14 and admits tracking and spying on 425 vaccine-related Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter accounts.15 CCDH is also partnered with HealthGuard, which is NewsGuard’s health-related service.16

NewsGuard, the self-ascribed arbiter of the trustworthiness of internet websites, is another threat to the free sharing of information. It claims to rate information as reliable or fake news, supplying you with a color-coded rating system next to Google and Bing searches, as well as on articles displayed on social media.

But NewsGuard is in itself fraught with conflicts of interest, as it’s largely funded by Publicis, a global communications giant that’s partnered with Big Pharma. NewsGuard previously classified Mercola.com as fake news because we reported the SARS-CoV-2 virus as potentially having been leaked from the biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory in Wuhan City, China, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Since then, several members of the U.S. Congress have vowed to launch their own investigation to explore the lab accident theory.17

Publicis appears to be playing an important role in the global censorship of information relating to COVID-19, and Publicis Health admitted its involvement in this agenda in an April 2021 tweet, in which the they announced its partnership with NewsGuard, “to fight the ‘infodemic’ of misinformation about COVID-19 and its vaccines.”18

Publicis Health is dedicated to suppressing any information that hurts its Big Pharma clients, which include Lilly, Abbot, Roche, Amgen, Genentech, Celgene, Gilead, Biogen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer, just to name a few. They’re now being sued by the Massachusetts attorney general for their role in creating Purdue’s deceptive marketing for OxyContin, which is described as the “crime of the century.”

NPR Spreads CCDH’s Hit List

The CCDH published a hit-list of 12 groups and individuals it wants Big Tech to bury, deplatform and ban for disseminating COVID-19 information that runs counter to status quo propaganda. NPR jumped right on the bandwagon in spreading this misinformation, with an article titled, “Just 12 People Are Behind Most Vaccine Hoaxes on Social Media, Research Shows.”19

Not surprisingly, Mercola.com is on that list, and a ramp-up of personal threats that cannot be defended against in a court of law recently forced me to delete many of the articles discussing alternative treatments for COVID-19 from my website. That article — ironically part of NPR’s special series on “untangling disinformation” — is in itself fraught with misinformation, most of it again being spread by one individual — Ahmed — and CCDH.

NPR praises Facebook for blatant censorship, with statements such as, “Facebook said it now limits the reach of posts that could discourage people from getting vaccinated, even if the messages don’t explicitly break its rules. But the cat-and-mouse game continues.”20 Then if you scroll to the bottom, you’ll see the editor’s note: “Facebook is among NPR’s financial supporters.”21

Media Is Getting Away With Blatant Lies

Digital dictatorship is escalating, and people are increasingly being conditioned to think it’s not only necessary for “misinformation” to be removed but that it’s the obligation of these essential information carriers to do so. Mercola.com is on the hit list and, as I already said, a ramp-up of personal threats that cannot be defended against in a court of law recently forced me to delete many of the articles discussing alternative treatments for COVID-19 from my website.

Censorship extremists have called this a victory, but it’s nothing of the sort. For instance, Coda Story published a false article May 7, 2021, claiming that “pressure from lawmakers and antidiscrimination groups” prompted me to remove COVID-19 content from Mercola.com, in order to “avoid social media ban.”22

The article quotes Ahmed (notice a pattern?) who states, “Joseph Mercola is a superspreader of anti-vaccine and COVID disinformation. The fact that he has said he will self-censor shows the impact of penalizing anti-vaccine propagandists.”23

I actually stopped maintaining an active Facebook page voluntarily in August 2019 due to the company’s habit of subverting users’ privacy. The idea that I am now self-censoring due to some form of unnamed penalty or to “avoid social media ban” is quite a stretch, and makes it clear that Ahmed did not read the article I published explaining my reasoning for removing select content.

It was also implied that I’m part of an “anti-science movement” — another lie that’s easily “fact-checked,” considering one of the driving forces behind Mercola.com is to share science-backed health information — including the science that not everyone wants you to hear.

It’s time to get the word out that if you want to see what a real misinformation campaign looks like, you need look no further than the mainstream media and social media, which are actively trying to restrict your access to the truth from websites like mine.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/26/npr-pharmaceutical-propaganda-disguised-as-journalism.aspx

Aside from being vital pollinators, bees produce a number of products that benefit human health. Honey1 is an obvious one, but there are others as well, such as royal jelly, a nutritious substance secreted by nurse bees as exclusive nourishment for the queen of the hive.
Recent research2,3,4,5 by Stanford University scientists found royalactin (also known as major royal jelly protein 1, or MRJP1), a protein found in royal jelly responsible for the queen’s massive growth, has the ability to keep embryonic stem cells pluripotent.
This initial finding could eventually lead to the development of drugs to boost stem cells in the human body, allowing for the regeneration of healthy tissue in damaged organs, be it your heart, eyes, skin or spinal cord.
They also identified a protein with similar qualities found in mammals, which they dubbed Regina — a nod to the queen bee for which royalactin is made — which like royalactin allows embryonic stem cells to maintain their naïve state. According to the authors:

“This reveals an important innate program for stem cell self-renewal with broad implications in understanding the molecular regulation of stem cell fate across species.”

Researchers Discover Innate Program for Stem Cell Self-Renewal

Embryonic stem cells are the product of the initial meeting of egg and sperm. Three days after fertilization of the egg, an inner cell mass can be isolated, and these are the embryonic stem cells that, if left alone, will grow into a fetus.
Stem cells are pluripotential, meaning that they have the ability to turn into any and every type of tissue to form an entire being, be it animal or human. Adult stem cells, in contrast, are multipotential, meaning they only have the ability to form subsets of tissue.
The problem researchers have is that embryonic stem cells have a tendency to differentiate into mature tissue cells of various kinds when grown in the lab, and in order to use the stem cells for research and/or therapies, they must be kept in their “naïve” state long enough. As explained by New Atlas:6

“With the ability to differentiate into all kinds of cells that serve specialized functions, like muscle cells, red blood cells or brain cells, embryonic stem cells have incredible potential. But growing them in the laboratory is difficult, because their natural inclination is to quickly outgrow their pluripotent state and become something else.

To preserve that pluripotency, scientists must add special molecules to the culture that inhibit that behavior. Wang and his team found that by adding royalactin instead, they could stop the embryonic stem cells from differentiating just as well.

In fact, they found that they were able to maintain the cells in their embryonic state for up to 20 generations in culture without the need for inhibitors.”

This was a complete surprise. Normally, scientists must use leukemia inhibitor factor to prevent the embryonic stem cells from differentiating when grown in culture. What they discovered is that royalactin performed the same function. The question is: How?
Royalactin-Like Protein in Mammals Inhibit Embryonic Stem Cell Differentiation

Mammals do not produce the royalactin protein, yet the royalactin activated a network of genes known to code proteins that allow the embryonic stem cells to maintain their pluripotency. To find the answer, the researchers searched scientific databases to identify human proteins with structures similar to that of royalactin.
What they found was a protein known as NHL repeat-containing-3 protein or NHLRC3, produced during the development of the mammalian (including human) embryo. They then duplicated the mouse experiment using NHLRC3, which was found to trigger a similar gene network as royalactin.
The end result was the same — the embryonic stem cells maintained their pluripotency in culture. Kevin Wang, assistant professor of dermatology and lead author of the study, commented on the results, saying:7

“It’s fascinating. Our experiments imply Regina is an important molecule governing pluripotency and the production of progenitor cells that give rise to the tissues of the embryo. We’ve connected something mythical to something real.”

Next, Wang and his team will investigate whether Regina — the mammalian equivalent of royalactin — has the ability to affect cell regeneration and wound healing in adult animals. And, as reported by New Atlas:8

“It could be used as another way to keep embryonic stem cells pluripotent in the lab, and could one day lead to the development of synthetic versions that deliver stocks of stem cells in the human body.

[T]hose kinds of drugs could be used for all kinds of things, from generating healthy tissue for damaged hearts, degenerating eyes, injured spinal cords and severe burns.”

What Is Royal Jelly and How Is It Made?

Royal jelly is a gelatinous, milky substance secreted by the hypopharyngeal and mandibular glands of worker honeybees between the sixth and twelfth days of their life,9 and is an essential food for the development of the queen bee. It’s a complex substance containing proteins (12 to 15 percent), sugars (10 to 12 percent), fat lipids (3 to 7 percent), along with a variety of amino acids, vitamins and minerals.10
Compared with the short-lived and infertile worker bees, the queen bee, which is exclusively fed royal jelly, is characterized by her extended lifespan and her well-developed gonads. Therefore, royal jelly has been long-used as a supplement for nutrition, antiaging or infertility.
The larva selected to become queen is fed royal jelly exclusively, while the rest of the larva receive royal jelly along with pollen and honey. Research11,12 reveals this exclusive royal jelly diet activates certain genes in the queen bee, allowing her to grow much larger and become such a prolific egg layer. The honey and beebread fed to worker bee larvae contains p-coumaric acid, and it’s the presence or absence of p-coumaric acid that determines the caste of the bee.
Larvae fed royal jelly to which p-coumaric acid had been added produced adults with reduced ovary development. “Thus, consuming royal jelly exclusively not only enriches the diet of the queen-destined larvae, but also may protect them from inhibitory effects of phytochemicals present in the honey and beebread fed to worker-destined larvae,” the researchers explain.13
Health Benefits of Royal Jelly

Folklore in Europe and Asia has it that royal jelly is a powerful rejuvenator capable of boosting longevity and fertility. It’s also been used to promote hair growth and minimize wrinkles. In Chinese medicine, royal jelly is revered as a substance that helps increase life expectancy, prevent disease and restore youth.
The fact that the protein Regina in mammals and humans appears to work like royalactin in royal jelly could possibly account for some of these benefits. Royal jelly also has antimicrobial benefits, courtesy of bee defensin-1, an antimicrobial peptide found in it. Because of components such as these, it’s fair to assume that royal jelly is in fact beneficial for humans.
That said, the idea that consuming royal jelly might somehow affect your stem cells is probably taking things too far. There’s no evidence of that — only that royalactin allows mammalian embryonic stem cells in an undifferentiated state in a lab environment.
Also keep in mind that it’s difficult to ensure potency and quality of royal jelly products on the market. Toxicology tests suggest most if not all honeys, for example, are tainted with the herbicide glyphosate, and the bee population has taken a hit around the world due to various pesticide exposures. If the bees have toxins in them, it’s feasible their royal jelly might be contaminated as well.
Still, the research was conducted by a very prestigious institution and published in a respectable journal, and they seem to believe there are possibilities here. Just realize that the focus is on Regina, the mammalian protein equivalent of royalactin, and not on royal jelly itself.
Health Benefits of Bee Propolis

Propolis is yet another bee product with health benefits, including immune-boosting properties and strengthening your body’s defenses against bacteria, viruses and other disease-causing organisms.
Propolis is used by bees to close openings in their beehives, which is why it is also referred to as “bee glue.” The materials are usually taken from leaves, bark, flower buds and other plant parts. These are then combined with bee saliva, wax and pollen, which are then adhered to the hive holes.
Studies suggest propolis also protects the bees from bacterial infections and possible external elements that may endanger the whole colony. In some cases, propolis may also be used to encase the carcasses of hive intruders to stop bacteria from spreading.14
Propolis has been used for years in folk medicine because of its proposed effect on various body systems, dating back to the time of the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians.
In fact, Hippocrates notes that propolis is beneficial for promoting wound healing, both internal and external, while Pliny the Elder documents that propolis may be used to treat tumors, muscle pain and ulcers. This bee product was also documented in the Persian manuscripts as a remedy for various conditions, including eczema and rheumatism.15
Today, propolis is used in a wide variety of skin care products, including creams and extracts to promote wound healing and ease various types of infections. It is also available as a supplement, with people taking it on a regular basis to boost their immune system function.16
Another Bee Product, Propolis Has Flavonol With Health Benefits

Research also suggests a flavanol in propolis called galangin has anticancer effects on several cancers, including melanoma, hepatoma, leukemia and colon cancer.
In one such study,17 galangin was found to induce apoptosis (programmed cell death) in two types of colon cancer cells (HCT-15 and HT-29 specifically), and that the effect killed the cancer cells in a dose-dependent manner. According to the authors:

“We also determined that galangin increased the activation of caspase-3 and -9, and release of apoptosis inducing factor from the mitochondria into the cytoplasm by Western blot analysis.

In addition, galangin induced human colon cancer cell death through the alteration of mitochondria membrane potential and dysfunction. These results suggest that galangin induces apoptosis of HCT-15 and HT-29 human colon cancer cells and may prove useful in the development of therapeutic agents for human colon cancer.”

Galangin has also been shown to inhibit inflammation by regulating the nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-?B), PI3K/Akt and peroxisome proliferator activated receptor-? (PPAR ?) signaling in activated microglia in the brain and thus should improve or prevent Alzheimer’s.18 Additionally, galangin reduces insulin resistance by increasing the activity of hexokinase and pyruvate kinase, promoting glucose consumption and glycogen synthesis.19
Royal Jelly May Be Beneficial for Health, But Don’t Expect Miracles

In summary, while royal jelly has a number of health benefits, it’s premature to assume it can affect your stem cells directly. A number of studies done on royal jelly have focused on its potential effects on cancer, fertility and its role in testosterone production.
In one study,20 infertile men were given different dosages of royal jelly and honey to increase the production of testosterone. After three months, those given royal jelly had higher testosterone levels, improved sperm active motility and luteinizing hormone levels, thus showing the potential impact royal jelly can have on infertility in men.
In another study,21 royal jelly was found to reduce symptoms of mucositis in patients suffering from neck and head cancer. Mucositis refers to the inflammation of the digestive tract brought on by chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Patients who were given royal jelly thrice a day showed a decreased occurrence of mucositis.
A recent study22 published in an obscure Chinese journal also suggests royal jelly has an antisenescence effect on human lung fibroblasts in cell cultures. Other studies have found royal jelly supplementation can improve menopausal symptoms23 and Type 2 diabetes outcomes.24,25
How to Identify a Quality Product
So, provided you can find a high-quality product (which can be expensive), it could be a valuable supplement in some instances. In terms of what to look for when shopping for a royal jelly product, here are a few pointers:

Fresh royal jelly is ideal if you can find it, but lyophilized royal jelly is also a good and more convenient option

To assess quality, look for 10-hydroxydecanoic acid (10-HDA) content. Most companies that care about quality will test their royal jelly for this. For fresh royal jelly the typical range is ~1.5 to 2.3 percent. For lyophilized royal jelly, it is ~4.5 to 6.6 percent

Look for organic royal jelly as it is less likely to contain antibiotics or be adulterated

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/12/17/royal-jelly-benefits.aspx