Lose Them Pounds

Chart from Freedom Israel Twitter: https://twitter.com/FreedomIsrael_

>>>>> Click Here <<<<< COVID cases have risen sharply in nearly every country that has launched a mass vaccination campaign. (Please watch this short video before You Tube removes it.1) Why is this happening? Mass vaccination was supposed to reduce the threat of COVID but — in the short term — it appears to make it much worse. Why? And why is COVID now “surging in 4 of 5 the most vaccinated countries?” According to Forbes magazine:2 “Countries with the world’s highest vaccination rates — including four of the top five most vaccinated — are fighting to contain coronavirus outbreaks that are, on a per-capita basis, higher than the surge devastating India, a trend that has experts questioning the efficacy of some vaccines … and the wisdom of easing restrictions even with most of the population vaccinated.” Worse than India? How can that be? And why have eight “fully vaccinated” members of the New York Yankees tested positive for COVID? Here’s the story from the Associated Press:3 “New York Yankees shortstop Gleyber Torres tested positive for Covid-19 despite being fully vaccinated and having previously contracted the coronavirus during the offseason. Torres is among eight so-called breakthrough positives among the Yankees — people who tested positive despite being fully vaccinated.” And if that’s not confusing enough, check out what’s going on in Cambodia. Cambodia began its vaccination campaign in early February after having compiled zero fatalities. That’s right: The country had no COVID deaths until March 2021, a few weeks after it started its vaccination program. And that’s when the deaths started piling up as you can see in the eye-popping chart below. Chart from Joel Smalley Twitter4 Zero COVID Fatalities, Until After Vaccination Campaign So, let’s see if we can figure this out. There were zero fatalities before the launching of the vaccination campaign, but soon after the injections began, the fatalities started to mount. Do you think there might be a connection here? Do you think that, perhaps, the deaths are linked to the vaccines? Of course, they are. And, that’s why the media is trying to sweep this story under the rug. It doesn’t fit with the “official narrative” about the vaccines, so they’ve decided to “vanish” the story altogether. “Poof” and it’s gone! And, actually, it’s worse than a cover-up because shortly after Biden took office the CDC changed its testing methodology, making it harder to test positive. In other words, they rigged the system so it would look like fewer “fully vaccinated” people had contracted COVID after inoculation. Dr. Joseph Mercola explains what’s going on behind the scenes: “Now, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has lowered the CT even further, in what appears to be a clear effort to hide COVID-19 breakthrough cases, meaning cases in which fully vaccinated individuals are being diagnosed with COVID-19.” It’s all a big shell game. They’re gaming the system to make it look like the vaccines are stopping infection when the evidence proves the opposite. And notice the deliberately misleading moniker the media invented for the people who get COVID after being vaccinated. They call them “breakthrough cases.” “Breakthrough”? Really? If cases surge in nearly every country that launches a mass vaccination campaign, then there’s nothing “breakthrough” about it. It’s the predictable result of a failed experiment. Here’s more from an article titled: “COVID rates post-vaccination around the world”:5 “… the government assumed that if ‘you vaccinate lots of people and the problem goes away’, but the questioners among us did not assume that. Especially having read the FDA Briefing Document for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for example, many of us had questions after reading it; on Page 42, it states: Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccination group vs 287 in the placebo group. It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days post-vaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19. Overall though, these data do not raise a concern that protocol-specified reporting of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases could have masked clinically significant adverse events that would not have otherwise been detected.” FDA Knew Vaccinated People More Likely to Contract COVID WTF!?! So, the FDA KNEW that vaccinated people were more likely to contract COVID than those in the placebo group, but they approved the vaccines anyway?!? Is that criminal negligence or just plain old stupidity? Please. Read the above paragraph again and decide whether you would have given these sketchy injections the “green light” or not? Here’s more from the same article:6 “The following show data from around the world from some selected locations. It is, of course, vital to stress that correlation is not causation. And that there are countries where vaccine rollout does not precede or coincide with increased infections. However, I have been unable to find any nation where covid rates have begun to drop after vaccination started, or where a drop coincided with vaccination starting. In Indonesia, for example, the covid rate was falling when vaccination started and seems to have been unaffected in its trajectory by the vaccine being rolled out. The reader can look up these charts for him/herself on the website. Have a look at these and see what you make of them.” OK, so the author is trying to put the most charitable spin on vaccine performance as possible. He says, “correlation is not causation,” which means, “Don’t trust your eyes when you look at the charts because — if you do — you’ll draw the obvious conclusion that the vaccines greatly increase your chances of getting COVID in the few weeks afterward.” The charts will also convince you that Fauci, Biden and the media have been lying through their teeth about the effectiveness of the vaccines. (Please, check out the charts in the article and judge for yourself.) Here’s more:7 “What is very clear looking at data worldwide, is that vaccinations are certainly not associated with a reliable fall in covid cases in any predictable timeframe. This, alongside the observations in the trial, surely must be addressed. What is happening here? Is it just that vaccinations are coincidentally being rolled out at the same time as outbreaks are due? In very many places? Or is the vaccine not working immediately? If not, why not? … Or is the vaccine making people more susceptible to infection? If this is the case … is this a temporary effect? What causes it? … How long does it take for any increased susceptibility to diminish? … We are told that everyone must be vaccinated (but) How can free informed consent be given under these conditions?” These are all good questions. Unfortunately, Dr. Fauci and Co. don’t plan to answer any of them. Instead, their allies in the media are doing everything they can to disappear the story and deflect attention to the elusive “variants,” which is the diversion du jour. Am I being too harsh? Maybe, but maybe not harsh enough. Reason to Doubt Vaccine Makers’ Reassurances Take a look at this clip from a piece at Conservative Woman titled, “Every reason to doubt the vaccine makers’ reassurances”:8 “I have reported previously on an astonishing spike in deaths that occurred alongside an intensive vaccination campaign in Gibraltar, where the small community consequently developed the highest Covid death rate in the world. We also know that thousands of deaths have been seen in the US, EU and UK in the wake of Covid vaccinations, often immediately after the jab has been administered. The manufacturers, leading medical journals and most governments insist these deaths are unrelated to the vaccine. In many instances, the deaths and serious illness have been attributed to coincidental infection with the virus. But evidence is mounting that for some, especially the weak and elderly, the vaccine itself is creating or worsening the very illness against which it is supposed to be protective … … a worrying phenomenon which appears consistently in Covid vaccine studies is a spike in purported ‘infections’ which occurs precisely during that three-week period, and usually immediately following the jab … The researchers raise the possibility that the jab may trigger ‘symptoms likened to Covid-19 symptoms including fever’ in those recently exposed to the virus … He suggests the mechanism may be a depression in immunity caused by a loss of white blood cells post-jab, observed in both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca trials, making the vaccinees more vulnerable to the virus in the short term.” OK, so the author arrives at the same conclusion as the previous author; maybe the vaccine makes people more susceptible to the virus by lowering their defenses and, thus, inviting infection. That’s certainly one possibility, but there are other possibilities that could be infinitely more serious. Take a look:9 “It has not been generally acknowledged that the jab is designed to protect us by provoking our cells into producing the very toxin that makes the virus more dangerous than its predecessors in the coronavirus family. This toxin, known as the spike protein, can damage not just the lungs but may also affect organs such the brain, heart and kidneys. The reasoning behind administering the jab is that temporary exposure to the toxin may provide long-term protection against becoming ill from the virus. Early indications are that this strategy is working, although it is not at all certain yet to what extent the fall-off in infection rates seen in intensely vaccinated populations is seasonal and related to the waves of infection, or if it is a lasting benefit. But there is also a very real possibility, supported by animal experiments as well as by the studies cited above, that the vaccine itself may produce symptoms in vulnerable people which are then attributed to Covid-19. The damage to health may be especially severe in an individual who has been recently or is concurrently infected with the actual virus. There is therefore every reason to doubt the manufacturers’ assurances that the deaths and injuries seen to be accompanying vaccination, and that in some instances look like and are being attributed to Covid-19, are unrelated to the jabs. The situation is serious enough for some doctors and scientists to be calling for a moratorium on further Covid vaccinations until it has been properly investigated.” So, it could be, that something in the vaccine itself is killing people. That is one distinct possibility. Sure, the drug companies and public health officials dismiss the idea with a wave of the hand, but medical professionals and scientists think the danger is significant enough to demand that the mass-vaccination program be temporarily terminated. Main Damage From COVID Caused by Spike Protein Some readers will recall that the Salk Institute recently released a study which showed that SARS-CoV-2’s “distinctive ‘spike’ protein” … “damages cells, confirming COVID-19 as a primarily vascular disease.” Here’s an excerpt from the article dated April 30, 2021:10 “In the new study, the researchers created a “pseudovirus” that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model — proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls. (Note — “Vascular endothelial cells line the entire circulatory system, from the heart to the smallest capillaries.”) The team then replicated this process in the lab, exposing healthy endothelial cells (which line arteries) to the spike protein. They showed that the spike protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2. This binding disrupted ACE2’s molecular signaling to mitochondria (organelles that generate energy for cells), causing the mitochondria to become damaged and fragmented. Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own.” The significance of this report cannot be overstated. The Salk researchers are confirming that the main damage from COVID is caused by the spike protein not the virus. And, if that’s the case, then why are we injecting people with vaccines that teach their cells to make spike proteins? It makes no sense at all. And how does this effect our understanding of the phenomenon that we’ve seen in countries around the world, that is, the sharp rise in cases following mass vaccination? Allow me to offer a plausible, but as-yet unproven, explanation: The sharp rise in cases and deaths following mass vaccination is NOT related to COVID “the respiratory illness,” but COVID “the vascular disease.” The vascular component is mainly the result of spike proteins produced by cells in the lining of the blood vessels (endothelium) that are activating platelets that cause blood clots and bleeding. The other main factor is autoimmune reaction in which the killer lymphocytes attack one’s own body triggering widespread inflammation (and potential organ failure.). In short, the post-injection fatalities are caused by the spike proteins produced by the vaccines and not by COVID. Once again, look at the chart of Cambodia. There were no deaths prior to vaccination. All the deaths came afterwards. That suggests that the fatalities are attributable to the vaccines. One final thought: 118 million Americans have now been injected with a clot-generating spike protein. At present, no one seems to know how long these potentially lethal proteins remain trapped in the lining of the blood vessels or what damage they might eventually do. Keeping that in mind, wouldn’t this be a good time to exercise a bit of caution? Now that cases have dropped sharply across the country, why not ease up on the vaccinations until we have a better grasp of the long-term risks? That would be the sensible approach, right? Just postpone further injections until product safety can be assured. If there was ever a time for caution, this is it.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/27/mass-vaccination-triggers-spike-covid-19-cases.aspx

February 28, 2021, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a retired professor, microbiologist and infectious disease and immunology specialist, along with several other doctors and scientists who have formed Doctors for COVID Ethics, sent a letter1 to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), warning about the potential for gene-based COVID-19 “vaccines” to cause blood clots, cerebral vein thrombosis and sudden death.
The signees listed several questions in need of urgent answers, including evidence that gene-based vaccines will not enter the bloodstream and disseminate throughout the body, or that the vaccines will not remain entrapped in circulation and taken up by endothelial cells.
They warned that, barring such evidence, “it must be expected that during expression of the vaccines’ nucleic acids, peptides derived from the spike protein will be presented via the MHC I – pathway at the luminal surface of the cells,” and that many healthy individuals have CD8-lymphocytes that recognize these kinds of peptides — either due to previous COVID-19 infection, or cross-reaction with other coronaviruses responsible for the common cold.
“We must assume that these lymphocytes will mount an attack on the respective cells,” they noted, unless there’s evidence to exclude this probability.
If lymphocytes do mount an attack on cells, “it must be expected that endothelial damage with subsequent triggering of blood coagulation via platelet activation will ensue,” they warned, adding that reduced platelet count and the appearance of D-dimers in the blood is also to be expected, as are “myriad ischemic lesions throughout the body including in the brain, spinal cord and heart,” followed by “profuse bleedings and hemorrhagic stroke.”
Post-Vaccination Thrombocytopenia

Bhakdi and colleagues cite research showing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor on platelets. The subsequent activation of the platelets can lead to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), i.e., a pathological overstimulation of your coagulation system that can result in abnormal, and life threatening, blood clotting, as well as thrombocytopenia (low platelet count) and hemorrhaging.
Platelets are specialized cells that stop bleeding. As Bhakdi explains, you basically end up with so many blood clots throughout your vascular system that your coagulation system is exhausted, resulting in bleeding (hemorrhaging). Interestingly, thrombocytopenia — low platelet count —has been reported in severe COVID-19 cases and vaccinated individuals alike, suggesting the spike protein may be a causative agent.
The signees also demand evidence that “an actual emergency existed at the time of the EMA granting Conditional Marketing Authorization to the manufacturers of all three vaccines, to justify their approval for use in humans,” seeing how most hospitals, in most countries, were no longer at capacity when the authorizations were issued.

“There are serious concerns, including but not confined to those outlined above, that the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines by the EMA was premature and reckless, and that the administration of the vaccines constituted and still does constitute ‘human experimentation,’ which was and still is in violation of the Nuremberg Code,” the letter states.2

Vaccine Risks Clearly Outweigh Any Potential Benefit
Since that February 28, 2021, letter to the EMA, 15 European countries have suspended use of the AstraZeneca DNA vector-based vaccine due to clotting disorders.3
The U.S. temporarily suspended the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, another DNA vector vaccine, for the same reason.4,5 As of mid-May 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had identified 28 cases of serious blood clots among the 8.7 million Americans who had received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.6
While the CDC admitted there’s evidence to suggest a plausible causal association, the pause was lifted April 23, 2021.7 However, as Bhakdi explains, the mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer) are just as dangerous and can cause the same problems, as the key causative agent appears to be the spike protein.
The EMA held a press conference March 17, 2021, at which they assured the European population that no definitive link could be found between the COVID-19 vaccines and these rare coagulation disorders. They also stated that the World Health Organization “considers that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh its risks and recommends that vaccinations continue.”
However, as stated in a follow-up letter to the EMA, Bhakdi and his colleagues point out that “The WHO is not a competent body for formally evaluating drug safety. That is explicitly the role of the [EMA].”
In the interview, Bhakdi notes that in Germany, a total of 52 people without preexisting disease died as a direct result of COVID-19 infection during the first six months of the pandemic.
Extrapolating from the EMA’s own statistics on vaccine-related deaths (which is likely to be an undercount), vaccinating 60 million Germans under the age of 60 would result in the death of 54 people from these two rare blood disorders alone8 (DIC and cerebral venous thrombosis, i.e., blood clots in the brain resulting in bleeding).
“So, how in God’s name can the benefits outweigh the risks?” Bhakdi says. Indeed, it’s important to realize that the COVID-19 vaccines do not confer immunity. You can still contract the infection and spread it to others.
All the vaccines may do is reduce your symptoms, if and when you get infected. Also remember that, unless you are elderly and have more than two underlying chronic conditions, your risk of death from COVID-19 is on par with seasonal influenza.9,10,11,12,13
As explained by Bhakdi, the first symptom of a blood clot in your brain is a splitting headache, followed by nausea, vomiting, dizziness, alterations of consciousness, reduced hearing, blurred vision, paralysis and uncontrollable body spasms, just to name a few. Early emergency medical treatment is essential for survival.
Vast numbers of people complain of one or several of these symptoms after getting a COVID-19 shot, and not just the AstraZeneca vaccine, and this does not bode well for safety.
How COVID Vaccines Deregulate Your Vascular Function

In the video above, Bhakdi explains the science behind the blood disorders seen post-vaccination with gene-based COVID-19 “vaccines,” and why, in the long term, these injections may be causing dangerously overactive immune function in hundreds of millions if not billions of people.
He believes the mRNA or DNA in the vaccines are being taken up by the endothelial cells that line your blood vessels. These cells then start producing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the blood vessel wall.

“This is a disastrous situation,” Bhakdi says, “because the spike protein itself is now sitting on the surface of the cells, facing the bloodstream. It is known that these spike proteins, the moment they touch platelets, they active them [the platelets], and that sets the whole clotting system going.

The second thing that should happen, according to theory, is that the waste products of this protein that are produced in the cell, are put in front of the ‘door’ of the cell … and is presented to the immune system.

The immune system, especially the lymphocytes, recognize these and will attack the cells, because they don’t want them to make viruses or viral parts. And the viral parts are now being made in locations where viral parts would never, ever reach [naturally], like the vessel wall in your brain …

If that ‘tapestry’ of the wall [i.e., the lining of the blood vessel] is then destroyed, then that is the signal for the clotting system to [activate], and create a blood clot. And this happens with all of these vaccines because the gene [the instruction to make spike protein] is being introduced to the vessel wall.”

The fact that blood clots can occur anywhere in the body is evident from reports. For example, a 43-year-old healthy man lost a large portion of his small intestine after developing a blood clot following the AstraZeneca vaccine.14 His symptoms included headache, nausea, fever and vomiting.
A 62-year-old woman suffered blood clots in her lungs a week after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.15 The same fate hit an 18-year-old nursing student three weeks after getting the AstraZeneca jab.16
Clear Correlation Between Vaccine and Increased Death Rate

Five months into the vaccination campaign, statistics tell a frightening story. For example, one recent investigation17 shows 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.
Another study,18 reviewed in the video above, shows that after COVID-19 vaccines were implemented, overall death rates, with few exceptions, temporarily increased after they had been dropping in virtually every country.
Interestingly, I recently interviewed Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., about a paper in which she details some of the harmful mechanics of COVID-19 vaccines, and she noted that countries in which COVID-19 vaccines have not raised mortality rates are also not using glyphosate. This, she believes, may be a central part of the equation, as glyphosate causes a lot of biological damage and lowers your immune function.
April 23, 2021, molecular biologist and toxicologist Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., provided a public comment during a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting, in which she noted that:19

“We have enough evidence now to see a clear correlation with increased COVID deaths and the vaccine campaigns. This is not a coincidence. It is an unfortunate unintended effect of the vaccines.

We simply must not turn a blind eye and pretend this is not occurring. We must halt all COVID vaccine administration immediately, before we create a true pandemic that we cannot reign in.”

Other Theories
Another hypothesis has been presented by professor Andreas Greinacher, a German expert on blood. Greinacher and his team at the University of Greifswald believe viral vector vaccines — AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson — may be causing an immune response resulting in blood clots due to the presence of human-derived proteins and/or the preservative used in the AstraZeneca vaccine. As reported by The Wall Street Journal:20

“Prof. Greinacher and his team has … identified more than 1,000 proteins in AstraZeneca’s vaccine derived from human cells, as well as a preservative known as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, or EDTA.

Their hypothesis is that EDTA, which is common to drugs and other products, helps those proteins stray into the bloodstream, where they bind to a blood component called platelet factor 4, or PF4, forming complexes that activate the production of antibodies.

The inflammation caused by the vaccines, combined with the PF4 complexes, could trick the immune system into believing the body had been infected by bacteria, triggering an archaic defense mechanism that then runs out of control and causes clotting and bleeding …

The type of clotting observed is known as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, or VITT. Peer-reviewed studies by Prof. Greinacher’s group, as well as from teams at the University of Oslo and University College London have independently confirmed its existence.”

Other scientists hypothesize that the adenoviruses used in the DNA vector shots might play a role, as they too have been linked to blood clotting, while a theory suggested by professor Eric van Gorp in The Netherlands is that the intense flu-like symptoms induced by the shots contribute to inflammation that can trigger or exacerbate an autoimmune reaction that in turn results in blood clotting.21
Toxicity of Spike Protein Is a Major Issue
As noted in my interview with Seneff, 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.

“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,” Seneff said, “So, it’s causing immune reactions all by itself that is damaging to the tissues.”

Its inherent toxicity may be due to it being a prion protein. While this has yet to be conclusively determined, there are signs to suggest the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein acts as a prion. If so, we can expect these injections to cause all manner of prion diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS).
COVID-19 vaccines 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.
Disturbingly, the spike protein produced by COVID-19 vaccines — due to the modifications made to the synthetic mRNA that delivers the instructions to the cell for what protein to make — may make it more of a prion than the spike protein in the actual virus, and a more effective one.
To summarize a take-home message from that interview, COVID-19 vaccines 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 recently published paper, Seneff explains how and why the spike protein acts 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:22

“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-2 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.”

Long-Term Neurological Damage Is To Be Expected

Seneff also describes key characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that suggests it’s a prion. As such, the spike protein may induce serious neurological damage resulting in conditions such as such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), just to name a few. She writes:23

“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,24 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.”

Clear Crimes Against Humanity
Circling back to where we started, March 23, 2021, the EMA issued a reply25 to the Doctors for COVID Ethics. In it, they conceded that the gene-based “vaccines” do enter the bloodstream, but they could provide no quantitative data. This lack of data effectively nullifies the remainder of their scientific assessment, which Doctors for COVID Ethics described as “unconvincing and unacceptable.”
The following week, April 1, 2021, Doctors for COVID Ethics sent a follow-up letter and rebuttal26 to the EMA, expressing their dissatisfaction with the EMA’s responses:27

“We are dismayed that you chose to respond to our request for crucially important information in a dismissive and unscientific manner. Such a cavalier approach to vaccine safety creates the unwelcome impression that the EMA is serving the interests of the very pharmaceutical companies whose products it is you pledged duty to evaluate.

The evidence is clear that there are some serious adverse event risks and that a number of people not at risk from SARS-CoV-2 have died following vaccination …

For the avoidance of doubt, if your regulatory body does not immediately suspend its ‘emergency’ recommendation of potentially dangerous inadequately tested gene-based ‘vaccines,’ while the matters which we have highlighted to you are properly investigated, we hereby put the EMA on notice of being complicit in medical experimentation, in violation of the Nuremberg Code, which thereby constituted the commission of crimes against humanity.”

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/28/how-covid-vaccines-can-cause-blood-clots.aspx

The White House is pouring taxpayer money into free advertising for a booming and liability-free vaccine industry,1 which doesn’t seem quite right. Since the beginning of human existence, greed has played a central role in the corruption of man.

The phrase “follow the money” was popularized in the film, “All the President’s Men,” a docudrama about the break-in at the Watergate office building and the subsequent political scandal that ultimately brought down the presidency of Richard Nixon.2

The movie, based on the nonfiction book by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, suggests that by following the money, political corruption will be exposed. In the past 18 months, there’s been so much money promised, allocated, provided and spent in relation to the COVID pandemic that it’s difficult to tease out the origins.

The amounts of money reported in the news or announced by government agencies are so large it’s easy to believe the pot of money is endless. Yet, that pot of money is funded through your tax dollars, and those tax dollars have plummeted in the last 18 months as more and more businesses closed, shutting more and more people out of a paycheck.

In comparison, in 2008, one of the worst recessions in recent history, the average unemployment rate was 5.8%.3 But in 2020 the jobless rate rose to a record high of 14.7%4 and one year later is still above the 2008 recession rate, averaging 6.1% in April 2021.5 As a comparison, the average unemployment rate before the pandemic, in 2018, was 3.9%.6

Although these seem like small percentage differences, they represent large numbers of people and sums of money that were not being paid in taxes. For example, 5.8% of the population in 2008 (304.09 million people7) was 17.6 million people not working and contributing to the tax pool; 6.1% of the population in 2020 was 20.17 million people. In 2018, the average tax bill in the U.S. was $15,322,8 which means if you do the math, the U.S. was short $309 billion in tax money in 2020.

$3 Billion in Free Advertising Goes to Big Pharma

In January 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services9 announced $22 billion to support expanded testing and vaccine distribution. In March 2021, the White House announced10 they would spend another $10 billion to expand access to vaccines and “build confidence” in them in designated areas.

Twelve days later, April 6, 2021, the CDC announced11 they would again dip into taxpayer money through Washington’s Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act to spend $3 billion to support an “ad campaign to combat vaccine hesitancy.”12

In the CDC announcement they said the money would fund “innovative partnerships with community-based organizations to increase vaccine uptake.”13 This begs the question, hasn’t there been enough free publicity in the news and on television about the pandemic and the “need” for vaccination to return to “normal”?14,15

The advertisements were played on network TV and cable throughout April 2021 in English and Spanish in the hope they would reduce vaccine hesitancy as “skepticism about the vaccines also remains high.”16 Yet, as the National Vaccine Information Center points out, you only have to turn on the evening news on any major television network in the U.S. to see one long COVID vaccine commercial.

As Jeffrey Zients, White House COVID-19 response coordinator, commented in a press briefing about the $3 billion being used to bolster information about the COVID vaccine in communities, “Building vaccine confidence and increasing access to vaccination is central to our efforts.”17

At the beginning of the pandemic, major drug companies were funded with taxpayer dollars to develop COVID vaccines to the tune of over $9 billion.18 They were then handed a liability shield,19 which ensured if the product did not work or a person were hurt by using it, the company was shielded from any lawsuits.

In other words, the vaccine industry was given billions of dollars to develop a vaccine, then shielded from any liability if their vaccines didn’t work or if they hurt people. Next, the government poured billions more taxpayer dollars into advertising those vaccines and spreading information that might help people to decide to get the vaccines.

It is important to note that the government is providing the vaccine free of charge to you regardless of your health insurance status.20 FiercePharma21 reported in February 2021 that the cost to the government per dose for COVID-19 vaccines was:

$19.50 Pfizer
$16.00 Novavax
$15.00 Moderna
$10 Johnson & Johnson
$4 AstraZeneca

So, added to the billions already given to the vaccine companies to develop the vaccine, free advertising for their product through the news media and billions poured into increasing access to their product — plus additional paid ad campaigns — all paid for by the government, vaccine companies are now charging the government for each individual dose they deliver. This may make the COVID-19 vaccine the best return on investment for drug development and sale in history.

Department Launches Grassroots Campaign

But the amount of money, time and effort being poured into vaccinating as many people as possible in the shortest time possible doesn’t stop there. In early April 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services22 launched a grassroots ad campaign for the COVID vaccine industry called the COVID-19 Community Corps.

This is a group of leaders within communities that “people know and trust,”23 whose goal is to encourage Americans to get vaccinated. The group was invited to:24

“… receive timely, accurate information to share with your family, friends, and neighbors. By encouraging them to get vaccinated, you’ll help protect them – and allow all of us to safely gather together again.”

The New York Times25 reported that 275 organizations had signed up for the COVID-19 Community Corps by mid-May 2021, including the Catholic Health Association, the North American Meat Institute and NASCAR.

It’s expected that many of the Catholic and evangelical groups will work at a community level to address the concerns surrounding the use of abortion-derived fetal cell lines in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

While some have tried to debunk this concern using general terms, the answer lies in the technicalities of how the cell lines have been used, as detailed in ”Several COVID-19 Vaccines Are Made Using Aborted Fetal Cells.” The general terms that self-declared fact-checkers like to use when rating something false or misleading is in fact, false and misleading.

There have been cell lines commonly used in vaccine development that originated from aborted fetuses.26 Several vaccine makers used at least one of these cell lines in the development of COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson.

One argument for using fetal cell lines during the production of vaccines is the claim that the cells are clones of the original. This is like saying your 20-year-old or 40-year-old body is no longer your body since all the cells are copies of those when you were a baby.

They are, in essence, a clone of the original. However, there is virtually no difference between cells that grow and multiply in a petri dish and those that grow and multiply in your body during your lifetime. If the cells in your body are still you, then the cells in the petri dish are still those of the original aborted fetus.

Agencies Soft Pedal Reasons for ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’

The government agency reasons given for the slowdown in vaccinations, which threatens to create a situation where supply exceeds demand for the vaccine, are superficial. The New York Times quotes Shirley Bloomfield, chief executive of NTCA — The Rural Broadband Association as saying:27

“I’ve got some pockets where they cite religious reasons with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. There are a lot of pockets where people have already had Covid and a sense of, ‘Well, we’ve all already gotten it, so we’re not really pressed.’”

In early May 2021, the White House announced that 100 million people in the U.S. were fully vaccinated.28 According to a reporter from The Hill, “Authorities need to dispel the legitimate concerns that make people hesitant, while also stopping waves of misinformation.”29 How do you dispel concerns that are legitimate without using your own misinformation?

The news media appears to classify those who are vaccine hesitant based on their political affiliation, continuing to cite Trump supporters as those who might want to create chaos around vaccinations. Yet, according to a recent poll reported in The Hill,30 only 30% of Republicans said they would not get the vaccine, and only 35% of the U.S. is fully vaccinated.31

As the number who are willing to get jabbed by a genetic experiment begins to wane, it’s difficult to justify how vaccine hesitancy can fall along political lines. To put this another way, 40% of the U.S. population now identifies as Republican,32 and 30% of those said they would not get the vaccine. If politics were a significant factor for vaccine hesitancy, then only 12% of the U.S. population would not be willing to be vaccinated.

Some of the reasons being cited for an unwillingness to take an experimental vaccine include some of the side effects without talking about the side effects, potential safety without describing why there may be safety issues and a belief that COVID-19 isn’t a problem. In each case, the reasons for hesitating are downplayed and countered.

Who Has More Medical Knowledge — Joe Rogan or Bill Gates?

In a slightly comedic turn of events, Dr. Anthony Fauci and White House communications director Kate Bedingfield questioned radio blogger Joe Rogan’s medical knowledge after he made comments in his popular podcast that young people likely didn’t need to be vaccinated, which he possibly based on these facts:

The CDC states:33 “Children and adolescents have had lower incidence and fewer severe COVID-19 outcomes than adults; 2.5% were hospitalized, 0.8% required ICU admission, and <0.1% died.” The vaccine may not prevent you from getting COVID-19 but reduces your symptoms.34 Researchers are not sure if you can spread COVID-19 after vaccination.35 This means young people are not at significant risk for severe disease and death. Since the vaccine may not prevent a mild to moderate illness in this age group and the vaccine may not prevent transmission, Rogan’s statement doesn’t seem like misinformation. Yet, Bedingfield told CNN:36 “Did Joe Rogan become a medical doctor while we weren’t looking? I’m not sure that taking scientific and medical advice from Joe Rogan is perhaps the most productive way for people to get their information.” The same question could be asked of Bill or Melinda Gates. Did either of them become doctors when we weren't looking? Yet, Gates: Is called the “world’s most powerful doctor” in reference to his influence over the World Health Organization,37 years before the COVID-19 pandemic Hosted Event 201 with the World Economic Forum in October 2019,38 which was a highly predictive novel coronavirus pandemic exercise of the events that transpired over the coming 12 months Set up,39 and influences the actions of,40 GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, with a grant of $750 million to start and a subsequent infusion of $50 million in 2020; GAVI claims they are a key partner in shaping the vaccine market across the world Government officials are crying out over the dissemination of “misinformation” surrounding COVID-19 and the vaccine, all while demonizing those who have the audacity to use their First Amendment rights to free speech. Public health experts, while being allowed their own opinions, said Rogan's comments could perpetuate vaccine hesitancy.41 But they didn’t stop there. Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association, told Rogan, “You have a responsibility as an adult, you have a responsibility as a community leader, your responsibility as a communicator to get it right.”42 He later went on to talk about developing trusted COVID messengers, saying:43 “I just think they have to speak the facts. You speak the facts, and anytime you discover the facts that are incorrect, you try to correct them. And ... I don't think you demonize the individual, nor do I think you try to pin motive to it, because you don't know what the motive is.” In other words, he implied that Rogan was acting like a child and an irresponsible community leader, but those who are “sent” as community messengers must not be derided or demeaned since “you don’t know what the motive is.” In other words, the objective is to “try to correct” the information. These are the insidious ways that anyone with an opposing opinion who does not align with the desired rhetoric is discredited. It’s an effective technique that uses a deep understanding of psychology to sway your beliefs and your opinions. It is vital at this time in history to read the information and make up your own mind. While it may be easier to listen to the “experts,” many don’t have your individual best interest in mind and are likely leading people down a primrose path to a future they design and control. Consider the information shared in the following articles and decide for yourself. Have You Been 'Recalibrated' for COVID? CDC Embarks on New COVID Cover-Up Trust WHO? Clandestine Influences Revealed  US Citizens Have a New Weapon in Their Fight for Freedom 
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/25/campaign-to-combat-vaccine-hesitancy.aspx

Throughout the pandemic, the inconsistencies in public health guidelines not only have been glaring but unsettling.

From flip-flops over the effectiveness of mask wearing to rules that seemingly contradict themselves — like it’s “safe” to take your mask off while eating in a restaurant but not while you’re walking to the table, or making small businesses close their doors while big box stores stay open because they’re “essential” — the last year has left many people feeling like they’re living in some sort of altered reality.

This feeling isn’t all in your head, however. The state of reality has, in fact, been altered, in more ways than one. A particularly visual and polarizing example is the use of face masks, which some have suggested is nothing more than a form of virtue signaling. A video captured by a citizen journalist suggests as much, as the reporter captured on the video wears no mask, and neither does his cameraman, until the tape starts rolling.1

Reporter Puts on Mask Only When on Camera

A citizen journalist begins filming reporter David Kaplan from WTAE in Pittsburg just before he’s about to go on-air for a news segment. When questioned about the authenticity of his report, he states, “We’re purely objective journalists. Truly, truly, sir. From the bottom of my heart … Nobody tells me what to say sir.”2

However, the news station does tell him what to do, which includes putting on a mask while on-air. Again, neither the reporter nor the cameraman are masked until they are about to go on air, at which point the reporter puts his mask on, saying it’s their policy and he wants to set a good example.

Throughout the pandemic, the media have been fanning the flames of fear, including with displays like this, in which viewers see an image of a reporter masked up against the virus — who promptly removes said mask as soon as the camera is off.

It’s a veritable theater, a show of a person’s willingness to obey, even when the rules seem to defy common sense, like wearing a mask outdoors when you’re far away from other people.

Masks Offer Little Protection Except as Symbolic ‘Talismans’

In May 2020, a group of doctors and researchers wrote in a perspective piece published in the New England Journal of Medicine that masks offer little protection outside of health care facilities, except to calm people’s nerves.

“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” they wrote, and went on to describe masks as playing a “symbolic role” as “talismans” to increase the perception of safety, even though “such reactions may not be strictly logical.”3

“Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of COVID-19,” they add.4

Since then, masks have indeed taken on a symbolic role, one that presents an outward visible sign that you’re obeying COVID protocols and are acting as a “moral” COVID citizen. Jeffrey Tucker, with the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), pointed out that this mask orthodoxy is part of what’s driving the rampant censorship online, including by YouTube.

“YouTube has taken it upon itself to censor the opinions of esteemed scientists that depart from the orthodoxy on masks. This is not surprising given that masks have become dogma – a visible symbol of compliance and fealty to the medical/political agenda that elevates the coronavirus above all else,” Tucker wrote.5

Now that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that vaccinated individuals can remove their masks outdoors and in most spaces indoors,6 it moves the playing field to another agenda, one in which only the “impure” unvaccinated individuals must be masked, creating a new form of segregation and second-class citizens.

Canned News Is the Real Fake News

If you think you’re getting real, unbiased news when you turn on the TV, watch the video above, which shows an unnerving compilation of local affiliate stations owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group reciting the same script as though it’s actual journalism.

The newscasters, featured on CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox affiliates, ironically stated, “Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think … This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.”7

It’s time that word got out that it’s extremely difficult to find truly independent, unbiased reporting, whether you’re watching the news on television or online.

Take, for instance, the Australian Science Media Centre (SMC), which partnered with Google to create a COVID-19 Vaccine Media Hub that will parrot approved mainstream vaccine information to the press.8 Science Media Centres exist in a number of countries, including the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with a reported mission to provide “high-quality” scientific information to journalists. Their mission, as stated on their website, is:9

“To provide, for the benefit of the public and policymakers, accurate and evidence-based information about science and engineering through the media, particularly on controversial and headline news stories when most confusion and misinformation occurs.”

But SMC is not an independent news agency as it claims to be, as it counts among its biggest funders a number of high-level industry players with worldwide agendas, including the Wellcome Trust, GlaskoSmithKline, CropLife International, Sanofi and AstraZeneca.10

As noted by the U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), “ … The SMC model has been influential in shaping media coverage about science. A media analysis11 of U.K. papers in 2011 and 2012 found that a majority of reporters who used SMC services did not seek additional perspectives for their stories.”12

The analysis concluded that there are “more journalists than there should be” that are relying solely on SMC information instead of consulting independent sources.13

CDC Walks Back Hygiene Theater

In the early days of the pandemic, bleach cleaners and disinfectant wipes were flying off store shelves in a frenzy to clean away COVID. Now we know that transmission of COVID-19 by fomites — the term used for inanimate surfaces and objects that can transmit a pathogen — has been exaggerated, but the CDC didn’t acknowledge this until more than a year later, in April 2021. In a science brief released that month, they noted:14

“People can be infected with SARS-CoV-2 through contact with surfaces. However, based on available epidemiological data and studies of environmental transmission factors, surface transmission is not the main route by which SARS-CoV-2 spreads, and the risk is considered to be low.”

Emanuel Goldman, a microbiology professor at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, suggested this back in July 2020, when he stated that studies suggesting SARS-CoV-2 was easily spread via surfaces did not present in real-life situations.15

“In my opinion, the chance of transmission through inanimate surfaces is very small,” he said, and while period disinfection of surfaces, especially in hospitals, was a reasonable precaution, in public settings, he noted, “this can go to extremes not justified by the data.”16 In February 2021, an editorial in Nature supported Goldman’s work, suggesting that costly and toxic disinfection efforts are misguided.

“Catching the coronavirus from surfaces is rare. The World Health Organization and national public health agencies need to clarify their advice,” the editorial reads.17 The New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority alone spent an estimated $380 million annually on COVID-related sanitation, and when it asked the U.S. government whether they should be focusing on fomites or solely aerosols, they were told to continue their focus on fomites.18

Writing in The Atlantic, Derek Thompson described this as a type of “hygiene theater,” in which Americans are going through the motions of dutifully cleaning and, likely, over-disinfecting surfaces when the virus spreads most efficiently through the air.19 Hygiene theater, much like the theater for masks and vaccine passports, provides an illusion of safety, not one grounded in reality.

CDC Finally Acknowledges COVID Is Airborne

There’s been strong evidence for months that aerosol transmission is involved in the spread of SARS-CoV-2,20 which are 0.125 ?m in size. On September 18, 2020, the CDC posted updated COVID-19 guidance on its “How COVID-19 Spreads” page that, for the first time, mentioned aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, saying “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”21

The CDC then deleted the mention of aerosols and the possibility of spread beyond 6 feet the following Monday, September 21, 2020, saying a draft version of proposed changes had been posted “in error.”22 Finally, on May 7, 2021, the CDC updated their guidance to acknowledge that one of the primary ways SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted is via “inhalation of very fine respiratory droplets and aerosol particles.”23

It’s a noteworthy difference, because since SARS-CoV-2 is spread via aerosolized droplets,24 such droplets remain in the air for at least three hours and can travel over long distances of up to 27 feet.25

This adds to the likelihood that cloth masks do little to stop you from getting COVID-19, not to mention calls into question the arbitrary 6 feet social distancing guidelines (which the CDC recently cut down to 3 feet in classrooms26). AAPS explained back in September 2020:27

“The preponderance of scientific evidence supports that aerosols play a critical role in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Years of dose response studies indicate that if anything gets through, you will become infected. Thus, any respiratory protection respirator or mask must provide a high level of filtration and fit to be highly effective in preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.”

Little by little, the truth continues to emerge as nonsensical theatrics are exposed. Now more than ever, it’s essential to look beyond canned news reports and censoring fact-checkers’ labels to find real information on which to base your knowledge.

If you’d like to get involved, Stand for Health Freedom, a nonprofit advocacy organization, has a number of alerts you can take part in, from saying no to vaccine passports to asking key congressmen to formally investigate the CDC’s conduct during the pandemic.28
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/22/covid-mask-theater-caught-on-camera.aspx

Censorship’s reach in the 21st century knows no bounds, as increasingly repressive tactics are being used to silence and discredit anyone who questions the official COVID narrative. Suppression and censorship have been aimed repeatedly at this website specifically, along with many others in the natural health realm, but anyone who speaks out is at risk of being targeted.

This includes C.J. Hopkins, an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin, who is being censored by YouTube and Facebook, which went so far as to even suspend or restrict the accounts of people who tried to share Hopkins’ posts.1

In his reasoning for why he won’t be getting a COVID-19 vaccine, Christian Elliot made a good point, stating, “Maybe I’m weird, but if someone is censored, then I REALLY want to hear what they think. Don’t you?” In Hopkins’ case, his criticism of COVID policies has landed him on the list to be silenced. In an interview with Matt Taibbi, Hopkins said:2

“The censorship is clearly targeted at any content deviating from the official Covid-19/New Normal narrative. It has reached hysterical levels on Facebook, where any posts including the words ‘vaccine,’ ‘Covid,’ etc., are instantly festooned with an advisory warning about how ‘vaccines are tested for safety and effectiveness’ or whatever.”

What Is the Line To Be Crossed?

When censorship happens on social media, it often occurs without warning. In April 2021, for instance, Spotify removed my Take Control of Your Health podcast, citing their rules about “prohibited content.”3 The takedown notification stated my podcast was in violation of their content policies, which include a prohibition of infringing content, illegal content and hate content, none of which apply, but the entire channel was taken down anyway, without recourse.

In short, you don’t know what you can’t talk about on any given site until your account is gone. Social media companies need to publish the topics that are forbidden on their platforms, and talk about what people aren’t supposed to communicate. Otherwise, it appears as though each censorship incident is just an arbitrary decision made to ban this person or that, with everyone at risk of being cut out at any moment.

What might such a list potentially include? Talk about vaccine injuries, science related to facemasks’ ineffectiveness, harms of lockdowns, anything questioning the safety of an experimental vaccine, discussion of the origins of SARS-CoV-2 — virtually anything is fair game, so it’s impossible to speculate how extensive such a list would become.

If you take a look at some of my videos that have been banned from YouTube, you’ll see that the majority are interviews with health experts sharing their medical or scientific expertise and viewpoints on COVID-19, but others include discussions of the World Health Organization, and one in which I provide information about and instructions on how to use hydrogen peroxide therapy as a prophylactic against COVID-19.

The reality is, though, that publishing a list of off-limits topics would only shine the light on what these companies would prefer to keep quiet, which is a unified goal of silencing anyone who understands and exposes the global technocratic agenda that is pushing us toward global totalitarianism. Anything that deviates from the standard COVID narrative is at risk, which is where Hopkins got into trouble.

Censored Over ‘New Normal’ Art Exhibit

Even art, once a protected form of personal expression, is being targeted — that is, if it’s attempted to be shared online. When asked what stories he’s been prevented from sharing on the internet, Hopkins explained:4

“Perhaps the most dramatic example was the censorship of a Facebook post featuring a photo of a ‘New Normal’ art exhibit in Germany where the artist projected ‘Vaccination = Freedom’ on one of those gigantic TV towers that we have here. Of course, that evoked the infamous ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ [‘Work Shall Set You Free’] sign over the gates of Auschwitz, which I noted in my post …

Facebook prevented people from sharing the post, and, when they inquired about why, sent them this warning:

‘Your post goes against our Community Standards on dangerous individuals and organizations … we don’t allow symbols or support of dangerous individuals or organizations on Facebook. We define dangerous as things like terrorist activity, organized hate or violence, mass or serial murder, human trafficking, criminal or harmful activity.’”

It’s not the first time such a comparison has been made. It’s also not lost that at the time of Hitler’s rise to power, the world was unaware that “massively organized information” had “emerged to become a means of social control, a weapon of war, and a roadmap for group destruction.”5 The same can’t be said today, when massive data collection can and is being used to actively manipulate societies worldwide.

Therefore, it would be naïve to think that digital vaccine passports, tied to our biometric IDs, banking, credit histories and health data would not end up being used as a tool for social control and a weapon for group destruction.

In another example, an interview Hopkins did with Gunnar Kaiser, a German author and YouTuber, titled “Corona Kult,” was also censored by YouTube, which claimed it contained medical misinformation. “The interview contains no medical information at all,” Hopkins said. “It’s just me and another author discussing our views of the Covid-19 restrictions, ‘New Normal’ ideology, global capitalism, totalitarianism, my novel and so on.”6

People have also routinely reported not being able to share Hopkins’ Consent Factory columns7 via Facebook.

‘Anti-Vaxxer,’ ‘COVID Denier’ Are ‘Purely Tactical Terms’

A common strategy used by tech platforms and cancel-culture leaders like the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) is to label people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine or pandemic response as “threats to national security,” “anti-vaxxers” or “COVID deniers.” Hopkins is among those who has been accused of spreading “anti-vaxxer propaganda,” to which he replied:8

“[M]ost people think of propaganda as misleading, and I’m not trying to mislead anyone. I am trying to urge people to question the official propaganda that the corporate media and other ‘authoritative sources’ inundate us with on a daily basis, much of which is, in fact, misleading.

As for the ‘anti-vaxxer’ part, (a) I have no problem with vaccines that have been thoroughly tested and approved for public use, and which people aren’t being coerced into taking by the introduction of a medical segregation system, and (b) these derogatory labels, ‘anti-vaxxer,’ ‘conspiracy theorist,’ and ‘Covid denier’ are meaningless.

They’re purely tactical terms, like the term ‘extremist.’ Their only purpose is to demonize anyone who questions or challenges the official ‘New Normal’ narrative.”

Entering Phase 2 of the New Normal

What is the ‘New Normal’ that Hopkins speaks of? At the root of the agenda is a significant economic and power shift that only a minority of people are aware of. If there were a covert plan for a global takeover, the COVID-19 pandemic presents the perfect scenario for its success.

First, a problem is created — coronavirus is released and a global pandemic is declared. Next, a reaction is created — namely, fear. This is ramped up and lockdowns ensue, forcing businesses to close and economies to be destroyed. The final stage is when the “solution” is created, which is part of what Hopkins describes as Phase 2, in which “the pathologization of political dissent will continue, and intensify, both overtly and subtlely”:9

“The ‘New Normal’ isn’t just about a virus. The ‘New Normal’ was never just about a virus. You don’t need a new ‘normal’ because of a virus. You need a new ‘normal’ when your current ‘normal’ has outlived its usefulness to those in power, which, in our case, are the global capitalist ruling classes.

… basically, we’re living through one of those historic transformations of the structure of political power that we usually don’t recognize until after it has occurred … not just a ‘changing of the guard,’ a transformation of the nature of power, how it is exercised, the beliefs it is based on, and the “reality” conjured into being by those beliefs.”

In short, the technocratic elite are using the pandemic to erode liberty, freedom and democracy, but this isn’t something that just appeared in March 2020. It’s been transpiring for some time:10

“Essentially, what the last 4-5 years have been about is crushing resistance to GloboCap’s [global capitalism] hegemony and ideology throughout the West, as it crushed resistance to its hegemony and ideology in the Middle East during the War on Terror.

What better way to crush a populist rebellion and remind us who is really in charge than to foment mass hysteria over a clearly non-apocalyptic virus, impose a bunch of unnecessary, totalitarian ‘emergency measures,’ cancel our constitutional rights, censor and/or demonize dissent, and otherwise transform societies into pathologized-totalitarian police states?

The extreme totalitarian phase won’t last (we’re already shifting into Phase 2), but the ‘New Normal’ is here to stay, or that’s the plan anyway.”

A Pathologized New World

Due to months of fearmongering, many now enter a state of hysteria when they see an unmasked person, even if they look perfectly healthy and clearly are not suffering from any kind of respiratory issue. This is a highly irrational state that has no basis in reality.

The mass delusion is driving us toward a society devoid of all previous freedoms and civil liberties, and the corrupt individuals in charge will not voluntarily relinquish power once we’ve given it to them. As Hopkins put it, “Society has been transformed into … an enormous hospital from which there is no escape.” The stark changes that have occurred in one year’s time are visually apparent all around:11

“You’ve seen the photos of the happy New Normals dining out at restaurants, relaxing at the beach, jogging, attending school, and so on, going about their ‘normal’ lives with their medical-looking masks and prophylactic face shields.

What you’re looking at is the pathologization of society, the pathologization of everyday life, the physical (social) manifestation of a morbid obsession with disease and death.”

What effects this will have on future generations — the children growing up thinking this is all “normal” — is perhaps the most unsettling question of all. Hopkins believes it’s a form of conditioning, in which the “New Normal children” will grow up reflexively hating and fearing the “threats” being fed to them — viruses, misinformation and vaccine hesitancy among them.

Such threats will “fuse into a single Goldstein-like enemy,” Hopkins says, “which ‘New Normal’ children will … want to silence, and quarantine off from ‘normal’ society, or ‘cure’ of their ‘illness’ with government-mandated, ‘safe and effective’ pharmaceutical therapies.”12

Already, the pandemic has succeeded in generating fear and controlling human behavior, and anything that counters its final solution of vaccination is being censored — this is a clue that shouldn’t be overlooked. Even open debate is being silenced, leaving fear-based propaganda, not real information, to become an everyday fixation.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/24/new-normal-critic-gets-censored.aspx

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