Lose Them Pounds

A question that has lingered since the 2009 mass vaccination campaign against pandemic H1N1 swine flu is whether seasonal influenza vaccination might make pandemic infections worse or more prevalent.1
Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Michael Murray, naturopath and author, confirmed what Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., told me in her second interview with me, namely that seasonal influenza vaccinations may have contributed to the dramatically elevated COVID-19 mortality seen in Italy. In a blog post, he pointed out that Italy had introduced a new, more potent type of flu vaccine, called VIQCC, in September 2019:2

“Most available influenza vaccines are produced in embryonated chicken eggs. VIQCC, however, is produced from cultured animal cells rather than eggs and has more of a ‘boost’ to the immune system as a result.

VIQCC also contains four types of viruses — 2 type A viruses (H1N1 and H3N2) and 2 type B viruses.3 It looks like this ‘super’ vaccine impacted the immune system in such a way to increase coronavirus infection through virus interference …”

Vaccines and Virus Interference
The kind of virus interference Murray was referring to had been shown to be at play during the 2009 pandemic swine flu. A 2010 review4,5 in PLOS Medicine, led by Dr. Danuta Skowronski, a Canadian influenza expert with the Centre for Disease Control in British Columbia, found the seasonal flu vaccine increased people’s risk of getting sick with pandemic H1N1 swine flu and resulted in more serious bouts of illness.
People who received the trivalent influenza vaccine during the 2008-2009 flu season were between 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to get infected with pandemic H1N1 in the spring and summer of 2009 than those who did not get the seasonal flu vaccine.
To double-check the findings, Skowronski and other researchers conducted a follow-up study on ferrets. Their findings were presented at the 2012 Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. At the time, Skowronski commented on her team’s findings, telling MedPage Today:6

“There may be a direct vaccine effect in which the seasonal vaccine induced some cross-reactive antibodies that recognized pandemic H1N1 virus, but those antibodies were at low levels and were not effective at neutralizing the virus. Instead of killing the new virus it actually may facilitate its entry into the cells.”

In all, five observational studies conducted across several Canadian provinces found identical results. These findings also confirmed preliminary data from Canada and Hong Kong. As Australian infectious disease expert professor Peter Collignon told ABC News:7

“Some interesting data has become available which suggests that if you get immunized with the seasonal vaccine, you get less broad protection than if you get a natural infection …

We may be perversely setting ourselves up that if something really new and nasty comes along, that people who have been vaccinated may in fact be more susceptible compared to getting this natural infection.”

Flu Vaccination Raises Unspecified Coronavirus Infection
A study8,9 published in the January 10, 2020, issue of the journal Vaccine also found people were more likely to get some form of coronavirus infection if they had been vaccinated against influenza. As noted in this study, titled “Influenza Vaccination and Respiratory Virus Interference Among Department of Defense Personnel During the 2017-2018 Influenza Season:”

“Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference … This study aimed to investigate virus interference by comparing respiratory virus status among Department of Defense personnel based on their influenza vaccination status.”

While seasonal influenza vaccination did not raise the risk of all respiratory infections, it was in fact “significantly associated with unspecified coronavirus” (meaning it did not specifically mention SARS-CoV-2, which was still unknown at the time this study was conducted) and human metapneumovirus (hMPV10).
Remember, SARS-CoV-2 is one of seven different coronaviruses known to cause respiratory illness in humans.11 Four of them — 229E, NL63, OC43 and HKU1 — cause symptoms associated with the common cold.
OC43 and HKU112 are also known to cause bronchitis, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pneumonia in all age groups.13 The other three human coronaviruses — which are capable of causing more serious respiratory illness — are SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2.
Service members who had received a seasonal flu shot during the 2017-2018 flu season were 36% more likely to contract coronavirus infection and 51% more likely to contract hMPV infection than unvaccinated individuals.14,15
Influenza Vaccination Linked to Higher COVID Death Rates
October 1, 2020, professor Christian Wehenkel, an academic editor for PeerJ, published a data analysis16 in that same journal, in which he reports finding a “positive association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rates in elderly people worldwide.”
In other words, areas with the highest vaccination rates among elderly people also had the highest COVID-19 death rates. To be fair, the publisher’s note points out that correlation does not necessary equal causation:

“What does that mean? By way of example, in some cities increased ice cream sales correlate with increased murder rates. But that doesn’t mean that if more ice creams are sold, then murder rates will increase. There is some other factor at play — the weather temperature.

Similarly, this article should not be taken to suggest that receiving the influenza vaccination results in an increased risk of death for an individual with COVID-19 as there may be many confounding factors at play (including, for example, socioeconomic factors).”

That said, one of the reasons for the analysis was to double-check whether the data would support reports claiming that seasonal influenza vaccination was negatively correlated with COVID-19 mortality — including one that found regions in Italy with higher vaccination rates among elders had lower COVID-19 death rates.17 “A negative association was expected,” Wehenkel writes in PeerJ. But that’s not what he found:

“Contrary to expectations, the present worldwide analysis and European sub-analysis do not support the previously reported negative association between COVID-19 deaths (DPMI) [COVID-19 deaths per million inhabitants] and IVR [influenza vaccination rate] in elderly people, observed in studies in Brazil and Italy,” the author noted.18

“To determine the association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination, available data sets from countries with more than 0.5 million inhabitants were analyzed (in total 39 countries).

To accurately estimate the influence of IVR on COVID-19 deaths and mitigate effects of confounding variables, a sophisticated ranking of the importance of different variables was performed, including as predictor variables IVR and some potentially important geographical and socioeconomic variables as well as variables related to non-pharmaceutical intervention.

The associations were measured by non-parametric Spearman rank correlation coefficients and random forest functions.

The results showed a positive association between COVID-19 deaths and IVR of people ?65 years-old. There is a significant increase in COVID-19 deaths from eastern to western regions in the world. Further exploration is needed to explain these findings, and additional work on this line of research may lead to prevention of deaths associated with COVID-19.”

What Might Account for Vaccination-Mortality Link?
In the discussion section of the paper, Wehenkel points out that previous explanations for how flu vaccination might reduce COVID-19 deaths are not supported by the data he collected.
The influenza vaccine may increase influenza immunity at the expense of reduced immunity to SARS-CoV-2 by some unknown biological mechanism … Alternatively … reduced non-specific immunity in the following weeks, probably caused by virus interference. ~ Professor Christian Wehenkel
For example, he cites research attributing the beneficial effect of flu vaccination to improved prevention of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 coinfections, and another that suggested the flu vaccine might improve SARS-CoV-2 clearance.
These arguments “cannot explain the positive, direct or indirect relationship between influenza vaccination rates and both COVID-19 deaths per million inhabitants and case fatality ratio found in this study, which was confirmed by an unbiased ranking variable importance using Random Forest models,” Wehenkel says.19 (Random Forest refers to a preferred classification algorithm used in data science to model predictions.20) Instead, he offers the following hypotheses:21

“The influenza vaccine may increase influenza immunity at the expense of reduced immunity to SARS-CoV-2 by some unknown biological mechanism, as suggested by Cowling et al. (2012)22 for non-influenza respiratory virus.

Alternatively, weaker temporary, non-specific immunity after influenza viral infection could cause this positive association due to stimulation of the innate immune response during and for a short time after infection.23,24

People who had received the influenza vaccination would have been protected against influenza but not against other viral infections, due to reduced non-specific immunity in the following weeks,25 probably caused by virus interference.26,27,28

Although existing human vaccine adjuvants have a high level of safety, specific adjuvants in influenza vaccines should also be tested for adverse reactions, such as additionally increased inflammation indicators29 in COVID-19 patients with already strongly increased inflammation.”30

The Flu Vaccine Paradox
Since Wehenkel’s analysis focuses on the flu vaccine’s impact on COVID-19 mortality among the elderly, it can be useful to take a look at information presented at a World Health Organization workshop in 2012. On page 6 of the workshop presentation31 in question, the presenter discusses “a paradox from trends studies” showing that “influenza-related mortality increased in U.S. elderly while vaccine coverage rose from 15% to 65%.”
On page 7, he further notes that while a decline in mortality of 35% would be expected with that increase in vaccine uptake, assuming the vaccine is 60% to 70% effective, the mortality rate has risen instead, although not exactly in tandem with vaccination coverage.
On page 10, another paradox is noted. While observational studies claim the flu vaccine reduces winter mortality risk from any cause by 50% among the elderly, and vaccine coverage among the elderly rose from 15% to 65%, no mortality decline has been seen among the elderly during winter months.32,33
Seeing how the elderly are the most likely to die due to influenza, and the flu accounts for 5% to 10% of all winter deaths, a “50% mortality savings [is] just not possible,” the presenter states. He then goes on to highlight studies showing evidence of bias in studies that estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness in the elderly. When that bias is adjusted for, vaccine effectiveness among seniors is discouraging.
Interestingly, the document points out that immunologists have long known that vaccine effectiveness in the elderly would be low, thanks to senescent immune response, i.e., the natural decline in immune function that occurs with age. This is why influenza “remains a significant problem in elderly despite widespread influenza vaccination programs,” the presenter notes.
Report All COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects
My belief is that current COVID-19 “vaccines,” which use mRNA gene therapy technology, are likely to do more harm than good in most people. There are many reports of elderly in nursing homes dying within hours or days of getting the vaccine. This is likely due to an overwhelming inflammatory response.
If you’re elderly and frail, or have a family member who is elderly and thinking of getting the vaccine, I would urge you to take a deeper dive into the available research, and to review the side effect statistics before making your decision.
Last but not least, if you or someone you love have received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it:34

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

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/26/flu-vaccine-increases-covid-mortality.aspx

Evidence suggests that including bay leaves and ginger in your nutritional plan may have a positive impact on your blood sugar and gut health. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,1 6 in every 10 adults living in the U.S. have a chronic disease. Nearly 4 in every 10 adults have two or more chronic illnesses that may include heart disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease or cancer.

Many of these conditions are associated with behaviors that include poor nutrition, lack of physical activity, exposure to smoke or excessive alcohol use. Two health conditions that contribute to chronic diseases include metabolic syndrome and poor gut health, or gut dysbiosis.

Metabolic syndrome is a group of five health conditions that are associated with other chronic problems, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and chronic kidney disease. When a person has three or more of the five risk factors they are diagnosed with metabolic syndrome. These include:2,3

High blood glucose
High blood pressure
Obesity, a BMI of 30 or above or a large waist (40 inches in men; 35 in women)
High triglycerides
Low high-density lipoproteins (HDL) cholesterol

Your nutritional choices also have an impact on your gut health. Optimizing your gut microbiome is a pursuit that has far-reaching effects on your physical and emotional health. There is mounting scientific evidence to suggest that a large component of nutrition centers on nourishing beneficial bacteria in your gut, which may help keep harmful microbes in check.

This in turn reduces your risk of chronic disease. The list of conditions influenced by your gut microbiome includes learning disabilities, obesity,4 diabetes5 and Parkinson’s disease.6 In fact, one scientific review7 published in 2020 goes so far as to suggest all inflammatory diseases begin in the gut.

Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome Is Rising

Metabolic syndrome, also called Syndrome X, has risen to epidemic proportions across the world.8 While the constellation of symptoms began in the Western world, the ever-growing spread of this lifestyle has created a global problem.

A combination of calorie-dense foods and a reduction in physical activity has fed the spread of metabolic syndrome that has led to a rising number with cardiovascular diseases, Type 2 diabetes and other disabilities. It’s estimated the total direct and indirect cost to the economy is in the trillions.

According to the CDC,9 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey gathered from 1988 to 2012 demonstrated that more than 33% of all adults living in the U.S. had met the criteria for metabolic syndrome.

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome closely follows the rates of obesity,10 which have only continued to rise.11 It is a safe assumption that as the rates of obesity continue to rise, so has the prevalence of metabolic syndrome.

These Ingredients May Affect Symptoms of Metabolic Syndrome

Making small lifestyle changes can help normalize weight management and reduce insulin resistance, a hallmark of Type 2 diabetes. Adding ginger and bay leaves in your dietary regimen are two small steps that may help support lifestyle changes. Bay leaves are popular in pickling, marinating and flavoring stews, soups and stuffing.

The leaves can be up to 2 inches long12 and are almond-shaped. While they are added for marinating or cooking, you shouldn’t eat them since biting into a bay leaf is unpleasant. The flavor of the bay leaf changes after simmering it for an hour or two and it adds a complex profile to foods.

There are a variety of plants that are called bay leaves, but it is the Indonesian bay leaf (Syzygium polyanthum) that has demonstrated the ability to reduce fasting blood sugar in individuals with Type 2 diabetes. In a pilot study,13 researchers gave 350 milligrams (mg) of an extract in capsule form once a day for 14 days to the intervention group.

They found at the end of the 14 days the fasting blood sugar in the group receiving the supplement was lower than in the control group. This supported an earlier animal study14 also using an extract of Indonesian bay leaves.

Ginger is another flavorful choice you can add to your diet that may help reduce your blood sugar and has advantages for obesity and metabolic syndrome. The most frequent references for ginger have been for the treatment of nausea without any adverse side effects.15

However, ginger has also been shown to reduce blood sugar levels in human and animal studies. In 2014, an animal study16 using obese diabetic rats demonstrated those given cinnamon and ginger “significantly reduced their body weight and body fat mass” and “decreased blood glucose and leptin and increased insulin serum levels.”

A 2015 study17 using a ginger powder supplement for 12 weeks demonstrated the people in the intervention group had lower levels of hemoglobin A1c, which is a measurement of long-term blood glucose control. In 2016, an animal study18 demonstrated ginger extract supplementation in rats with diabetes may help protect against cardiovascular complications that are commonly found with diabetes.

Bay Leaves May Help Lower High Blood Pressure

High blood pressure is another symptom of metabolic syndrome that may be affected by the addition of a bay leaf supplement. On its own, high blood pressure can also increase your risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke and may double your risk of dying from COVID-19.19 Bay leaves are a traditional Malay treatment for high blood pressure,20 which may be associated in part with diuretic properties.21

Using an Indonesian bay leaf supplement, another study22 published in 2020 found that it has an influence on your vascular system. The researchers examined the effect against vascular endothelial growth using an animal model in which acute coronary syndrome was surgically induced.

The animals were then treated with bay leaf extract. When evaluated, they found there was a significant expression of vascular endothelial growth factors in the intervention group as compared to the control group. This led the researchers to conclude that the extract could have a potential effect on angiogenesis and act as an adjuvant treatment that could lead to better prognosis for reperfusion.23

These changes have the potential to improve recovery after a cardiovascular event that triggers tissue ischemia and damage. However, the results of a second study24 indicated that the extract also has an effect before cardiovascular damage and may help reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure.

The researchers engaged 39 pregnant women and split them into an intervention group and control group. The women in the intervention group were given 80 mg of Indonesian bay leaf nanoparticles in combination with 10 mg of nifedipine for 14 days. The control group received just the nifedipine.

Nifedipine is a calcium channel blocker used to treat high blood pressure and control angina,25 and is prescribed in the treatment of high blood pressure in pregnancy.26 The data revealed there was a greater decrease in the systolic and diastolic blood pressure of the women in the intervention group when the medication was augmented with bay leaf nanoparticles.

Bay Leaves May Help With Intestinal Issues

According to a scientific review27 the chronic inflammatory diseases that are linked to leaky gut may depend in part on the types of exposures you’ve had, your genetic makeup and the composition of your gut microbiome. The author mentions several inflammatory diseases that are associated with dysregulation, including metabolic and autoimmune disorders and infections.28

Your gut bacteria are part of your natural immune defense, including antiviral defense as recent research has shown.29 According to a report by Harvard Medical School,30 researchers have for the first time identified specific populations of beneficial bacteria that help “ward off viral Invaders.”

Bay leaves have traditionally been used to help those who are having intestinal problems. Olga Korapliova, a nutrition expert, believes in part this may be due to the mineral and vitamin composition of bay leaves,31,32,33 which includes magnesium, potassium, trace selenium, iron and vitamins A, C, B6, B12 and B9 (folate).

These may assist in soothing an upset stomach and help in eliminating toxins from the gastrointestinal tract.34 It is also an Ayurvedic remedy that helps to manage indigestion. According to a report in Medicinal Plants of South Asia Journal,35 bay leaves have traditionally been used to relieve abdominal pain, gastrointestinal problems, constipation and diarrhea.

Ginger Fights Obesity and Aids Digestion

Ginger also helps aid digestion. Studies have demonstrated that ginger can reduce systemic inflammation, body weight and blood sugar,36 which helps protect against nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), found in up to 40% of U.S. adults.37

This in part may be related to an elaborate chemical makeup that includes bioactive compounds with antioxidant, antiemetic and anti-inflammatory properties.38 The compounds in ginger tend to concentrate in the gastrointestinal tract,39 which may be why so many of the benefits are related to this system.

It also has an exceptional ability to break up and get rid of intestinal gas that can cause cramping, pressure and vomiting. Some researchers also theorize that ginger can stimulate the digestive tract and is associated with rising levels of digestive enzymes.40

Together with elevating saliva41 and improving gastric motility,42 ginger helps keep food moving through the gut, so fermentation or gas buildup is less likely to occur.

How to Add Ginger and Bay Leaves

As mentioned before, bay leaves are often added to stews or in a marinade. However, you can also steep bay leaves for a flavorful tea. How long you steep the bay leaf will depend on the flavor profile you enjoy. Consider grating raw ginger to add a punch to foods, salad dressings and drinks or slicing the root and steeping a fresh hot cup of tea.

As you’re considering adding bay leaves and ginger, remember to choose organically grown herbs and spices over processed products. Try to be consistent with adding these to your diet. It is regular consumption over a period of weeks that has demonstrated positive results and not intermittent use.

Bay leaves are likely safe for most people but there isn’t enough information about safety for women who are pregnant or nursing.43 Since the leaf cannot be digested, it may remain intact while passing through the digestive system and may pierce the digestive system if an intact leaf is swallowed.

People who are on antidiabetic medications, narcotics or sedative medications should speak with their health care provider before using bay leaf supplements or adding a bay leaf to their daily routine.44 Bay leaves can decrease how quickly the body metabolizes narcotics and may cause sleepiness or drowsiness, especially when combined with sedative medications.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/22/bay-leaves-and-ginger-for-gut-health-and-blood-sugar.aspx

Dr. Paul Saladino is the author of “The Carnivore Code,” a book on nose-to-tail animal-based eating. He believes that animals, including organ meats, provide all of the nutrients needed for humans to thrive, in their most bioavailable forms.1 In the video above, he debates Dr. Joel Fuhrman, a family physician and author who coined the term “Nutritarian,” which refers to a nutrient-dense style of eating that’s primarily plant-based.
“It was a friendly debate but at times it got heated as all debates do,” Saladino said. “As you will hear in this video we disagreed on a lot of things.” Eventually, the two agree to disagree, but if you’ve ever wondered about which diet is best — animal-based or plant-based — this video provides some excellent food for thought.
Despite their differing opinions on diet, Saladino and Fuhrman share many similarities, including attending medical school in their 30s and ultimately pursuing nutrition and natural healing to promote human health. Both of their strategies have helped people to improve their health, but the underlying reasons why may differ, as may the ultimate long-term effects.
“It’s so interesting,” Saladino said, “that both animal-based diets and plant-based diets can lead to reversal of chronic disease that Western medicine calls untreatable and that mainstream Western medicine wants to treat with pharmaceuticals.” This may be because any diet that focuses on whole foods in lieu of the processed ones that make up a typical Western diet is a vast improvement.
In the Western world, people typically lose vitality consistently throughout life, but this doesn’t happen in native hunter-gatherer societies that are still eating their traditional — and meat-based — diet.
Observational Study in Favor of a Plant-Based Diet

Saladino asked Fuhrman why he believes meat is better off avoided, to which he replied, “I don’t really believe there’s a controversy here and I don’t really think there are two sides. I think the evidence is overwhelming and noncontroversial [in favor of a plant-based diet].”
He cited one study published in The Lancet Public Health, which found that, over a 25-year period, low-carb diets with higher animal-derived protein and fat sources were associated with higher mortality compared to diets that favored plant-derived protein and fats.2 Others, he said, have linked increased animal protein intake to deaths from breast, colon and bowel cancers. Speaking to Saladino, he added:

“… You’re a nice guy but I think you’re very misguided … and it’s like a religion where people aren’t weighing science and logic and overwhelming amounts of evidence. They just pick the side they want to choose to be on and then they try to accumulate data to support that way of living and eating instead of having an open slate …

So if I can reverse a person’s heart disease, get them off their blood pressure medication or get rid of their psoriasis with a diet that’s going to enable them to live to be 100 years old, I’d rather do that … because using a diet style that you’re recommending is like using a chemotherapeutic agent by a rheumatologist because they may feel better and you know just from certain things they’re doing …

But long term it’s not going to be great for their health. So, you’re selling the people out with inadequate and misguided information.”

Flaws With Plant-Based Ideology

Saladino takes issue with The Lancet Public Health study, which is observational epidemiology, not an interventional study. “I offer you the opportunity to show me one single interventional study with nonprocessed red meat that shows harm because it does not exist that I’m aware of,” he said.
In contrast, he cites multiple studies that show increasing red meat in the human diet leads to improvements in inflammatory markers and other markers of human health, such as diabetes.
Observational studies are often plagued by healthy and unhealthy user bias. In western countries, increased consumption of red meat is often associated with other unhealthy behaviors, while those who eat more fruits and vegetables are more likely to be engaging in other healthy behaviors like outdoor activity.
So, it’s not necessarily the eating of red meat that’s the problem, as the entire lifestyle must be factored in — something that isn’t accounted for in an observational study, which cannot determine causation. A reliance on observational epidemiological studies has contributed to the belief system that plant-based diets are better than meat-based ones. Saladino said:

“We have to look at these studies and ask is it really the red meat that is causing these problems in humans or is it something else these people are doing or not doing, and I think it is much more likely that it is the latter case because of unhealthy user bias … when I look at epidemiology I say, ‘This is garbage.’

There’s an acronym in computer programming — garbage in garbage out. We cannot base medical decisions on garbage science, but the good news is that we actually do have interventional studies with red meat studies where people replace large amounts of carbohydrates in their diet, presumably from grains, with eight ounces of red meat per day and they see lower CRP and improved markers of insulin sensitivity.”

Red Meat Does Not Increase Inflammation

Saladino cites a study published in the Journal of Nutrition, in which 60 people partially replaced carbohydrate-rich foods in their diet with 8 ounces of lean red meat daily for eight weeks.3 Markers of oxidative stress and inflammation did not increase and, in fact, CRP, a marker for inflammation in the body, decreased. Markers of insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity also improved.
Fuhrman points out that the type of carbohydrates being replaced matters in studies like these, as removing processed white flour, for example, in favor of red meat may show benefits simply because it’s better than white flour — but if it were replacing nuts or vegetables a different effect may occur.
Another study Saladino mentioned, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,4 compared trends in meat consumption and associations with meat intake and mortality in Asia. Nearly 300,000 men and women were followed for 6.6 to 15.6 years.
No association was found between total meat intake and risks of all-cause, cardiovascular or cancer mortality. Further, red meat intake was inversely associated with death from cardiovascular disease in men and with cancer mortality in women.
Research published in the Journal of Epidemiology, which followed 223,170 people in Japan, also found the risk of mortality from cerebrovascular disease was inversely associated with the consumption of milk, meat and fish.5 “I will admit this is correlation — we cannot draw causative inference,” Saladino said, “but you are incorrect if you make the statement that every study shows increasing meat … animal fat consumption is harmful.”
An interventional study cited by Saladino also found that beef tallow, compared to soybean oil, increases apoptosis and decreases aberrant crypt foci, which are considered the earliest lesions indicative of colon cancer, challenging the long-held notion that red meat increases colon cancer risk.6
Plant-Based Diets Versus Animal-Based Diets

Fuhrman suggests that virtually every study available highlights the benefits of eating plant-based over meat-based, but Saladino quickly pulls up interventional studies pitting the two diets against one another — and meat doesn’t turn out to be the villain it’s widely portrayed as.
One 2020 study examined a high-protein diet against a high-plant protein diet in 37 people with Type 2 diabetes for six weeks.7 Both of the diets ended up reducing levels of proinflammatory markers, although calprotectin, a marker of gastrointestinal inflammation, increased in those following the plant-protein diet while decreasing in those eating more animal protein.
Another study investigated the effects of diets high in animal protein — rich in meat and dairy foods — versus plant protein — primarily legume protein — in people with Type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.8 Again, both of the diets reduced liver fat by 36% to 48% within six weeks. Markers of inflammation also decreased while insulin sensitivity increased.
“[These studies show] the exact same thing, that when we really look at this there is no evidence that meat is harmful for humans. It’s very clear, it’s extremely clear that meat is actually quite good for humans and improves so many of these outcomes,” Saladino said. He also takes issue with Fuhrman’s claims that saturated fats from animal foods are linked to heart disease — a myth that stems from Ancel Keys’ flawed hypothesis in 1960-1961.9
The introduction of the first Dietary Guidelines for Americans in 1980, which recommended limiting saturated fat and cholesterol, coincided with a rapid rise in obesity and chronic diseases such as heart disease.
Are Phytonutrients Helpful or Harmful?

The debate briefly touches on the health benefits and hazards of phytonutrients, i.e., plant-based nutrients, which is highly controversial. I was under the belief that phytonutrients were largely responsible for activating profoundly powerful pathways for longevity.
Saladino does point out that grass fed meats and dairy products are naturally higher in phytonutrients, which accumulate in meat and liver. However, many phytochemicals are plant defense molecules that have negative effects in humans. Saladino’s work caused me to seriously reevaluate my views on phytonutrient supplementation.
Nutrient deficiencies are another risk of following a strictly plant-based diet. Nutrient deficiencies that can compromise immune function, for instance, include vitamins, A, C, D, E, B2, B6, B12, folate, iron, selenium and zinc. These vitamins are primarily found in animal foods, which is why shunning animal foods tends to lead to nutrient deficiencies. Even folate is found in organ meats in highly bioavailable form.
Nutrient deficiencies are not only possible with a strict plant-based diet but probable, depending on your diet, with choline being among them. Research has found that eating eggs is one of the best ways to improve choline intake, and it’s difficult to get enough of this essential nutrient if you don’t consume them.10
Saladino cited studies showing that partially replacing animal proteins with plant proteins for 12 weeks had risks for bone health in healthy adults,11 and another even suggested that while vegetarians may have an aversion to eating meat on a subjective level, on a neural level they’re still intrinsically motivated to eat this food.12 He noted:

“I think this is a very strong argument for the fact that we evolved eating meat and it remains at the center of our nutritional paradigm for healthy humans and so with all of this taken together — the evolutionary past of humans, the fact that we evolved eating meat, that the unique nutrients in meat made us human — this is really difficult to debate.”

Problems With Blue Zone Observations

Blue Zones are areas in the world where people tend to be unusually long-lived. Many suggest that the unifying factor of the Blue Zones is that they consume limited amounts of animal protein, but Saladino points out that the five “Blue Zones” have been cherry-picked, avoiding areas that don’t fit with the hypothesis, like Hong Kong, where meat is consumed daily, and Iceland, which also has an animal-based diet yet has a high number of centenarians.
In one of the Blue Zones, Loma Linda, California, research even showed “the vegetables-based food intake decreased sperm quality,”13 and, according to Saladino, many of the centenarians living in Blue Zones actually eat meat:

“The socio-demographic and lifestyle characteristics of the oldest people living in Korea … they do not eat less meat than the general Greek population. In fact, they eat more meat. I had a woman on my show named Mary Ruddock who lives in Greece, who spent time with the people in Ikoria and ate lamb liver with them.

They do not shun meat. Furthermore, we can move to Okinawa. The Okinawan diet … the Japanese elderly … they did not find a single centenarian among the vegetarians in Okinawa. And imagine that, the Okinawans also eat lots of meat … Why are people using Okinawans to support their concept of the Blue Zones when there were no centenarians among the vegetarians in Okinawa? The Blue Zones are a farce.”

Fuhrman suggested that the observational studies are still beneficial due to the long-term nature of nutrition; it can take time for the health effects of a poor or healthy diet to show up. Yet, Saladino noted, human evolution may be the best long-term “study” of all, supporting the consumption of naturally raised, grass fed animal foods:

“The best long-term nutritional study that’s ever been done is human evolution. And so these hunter-gatherer tribes like the Hadza cannot be ignored because we find them hunting meat every single day of their life and yet they are free from chronic disease.

These are 50-, 60-, 70-year-old people who have decades and decades of observational studies if you’re going to do these. These have been done, it’s called anthropology. It’s called human evolution.

I just went to Tanzania and spent time with some of the last remaining hunter-gatherers on the planet, the Hadza. We hunted every single day. We ate meat over the fire, and they were healthy and fit and free from diabetes, obesity, autoimmune disease, depression, cancer.”

When it comes to the interventional studies of animal foods causing worsened health outcomes, which Fuhrman said he could provide, Saladino is still waiting: “He could not produce a single one during the podcast, nor did he send me a single study, a single interventional study, showing that animal foods were harmful in humans. So, I continue to wait for these, but I’ve never seen them. They don’t exist as far as I can tell.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/24/experts-face-off-plant-based-versus-meat-based.aspx

By injecting pregnant women with novel COVID-19 mRNA gene technologies, the medical establishment has thrown away one of the most fundamental safety edicts of medicine, which is that you do not experiment on pregnant women.
None of the COVID-19 vaccines on the market are licensed. They’ve only received emergency use authorization, as basic efficacy and safety studies are still ongoing. Yet pregnant women are urged to get vaccinated, and are lining up to get the shot — probably while at the same time being careful about avoiding second-hand smoke, alcohol and drugs with known or suspected toxicity.
In my view, giving these vaccines to pregnant women is beyond reprehensible. This experimentation is doubly unforgivable seeing how women of childbearing age have virtually no risk of dying from COVID-19, their fatality risk being a mere 0.01%.1
Contrast this dramatic downside to the potential benefits of the vaccine. You can still contract the virus if immunized and you can still spread it to others.2 All it is designed to do is lessen your symptoms if or when you get infected. Pregnant women simply do not need this vaccine, and therefore any risk is likely excessive.
It seems like the choice is obvious, unless you are an unethical pharmaceutical company that has been previously convicted of criminal felonies that resulted in billions of dollars in judgments and is seeking to create tens of billions of dollars of revenue.
Abnormal Periods and Miscarriage Reported

As reported by The Defender,3 as of April 1, 2021, VAERS had received 56,869 adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including 7,971 serious injuries and 2,342 deaths. Of those deaths, 28% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. The youngest person to die was just 18 years old.
There were also 110 reports of miscarriage or premature birth among pregnant women. In all, 379 pregnant women reported some sort of adverse event. In the U.K., the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Yellow Card reporting site that collects COVID-19 vaccine side effects had, as of March 28, 2021, 40 miscarriages listed for Pfizer’s vaccine4 and 15 for AstraZeneca’s.5
Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., sent me a 2006 study6 that could explain this, as it showed sperm can take up foreign mRNA, convert it into DNA, and release it as little pellets (plasmids) in the medium around the fertilized egg. The embryo then takes up these plasmids and carries them (sustains and clones them into many of the daughter cells) throughout its life, even passing them on to future generations.
It is possible that the pseudo-exosomes that are the mRNA contents would be perfect for supplying the sperm with mRNA for the spike protein. So, potentially, a vaccinated woman who gets pregnant with an embryo that can (via the sperms’ plasmids) synthesize the spike protein according to the instructions in the vaccine, would have an immune capacity to attack that embryo because of the “foreign” protein it displays on its cells. This then would cause a miscarriage.
If there were, truly, a public health authority in the U.S., the criminals that are recommending this would be put in prison for reprehensible criminal negligence for the unnecessary damages they are causing to pregnant women and the deaths of their unborn children.
Even among non-pregnant women, side effects hinting at reproductive side effects are being reported, such as heavier than normal menstrual flow, uterine bleeding or restarting their period for the first time in years.7,8
While no one knows what might be causing the heavier flow, it may be worth looking into the parallels between the blood clotting disorders reported, both in some COVID-19 cases and post-COVID-19 vaccination, and Von Willebrand disease, a chronic condition that prevents normal blood clotting, thus resulting in excessively heavy periods.
Rare and Lethal Blood Disorder Reported

Several individuals have rapidly developed immune thrombocytopenia9,10 (ITP), a rare autoimmune disease, following COVID-19 vaccination.11 The condition, which is often lethal, causes your immune system to destroy your platelets (cells that help blood clot), resulting in hemorrhaging. Despite the loss of platelets, serious blood clots are also occurring at the same time.
One example is the 58-year-old Florida doctor who got the Pfizer vaccine and died from sudden onset of ITP two weeks later. Dr. Jerry L. Spivak, an expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins University, told The New York Times “it is a medical certainty” that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine caused the man’s death.12,13 Pfizer, of course, denies any connection.
At least two papers have been published on the condition, as scientists search for clues as to how the vaccines might be causing this unusual reaction. As reported by The Defender:14

“Two teams of researchers have published detailed observations of patients who developed thrombotic thrombocytopenia after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine and have speculated about a possible mechanism.

Both groups suggest that the development of serious blood clots alongside falling levels of platelets is an immune response that resembles a rare reaction to the drug heparin, called heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The researchers have labelled the syndrome vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia.”15,16

It’s unclear, however, where the platelet-antagonistic antibodies come from. They might form against the spike antigen, or perhaps it’s a response triggered by some other immune response factor. Either way, doctors at Oslo University Hospital recently announced the blood clotting disorders experienced by some recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine are caused by the vaccine:17

“Our theory that this is a powerful immune response most likely triggered by the vaccine, has been confirmed … In collaboration with experts in the field from the University Hospital of North Norway HF, we have found specific antibodies against blood platelets that can cause these reactions …

We have the reason. Nothing but the vaccine can explain why these individuals had this immune response. There is nothing in the patient history of these individuals that can give such a powerful immune response. I am confident that the antibodies that we have found are the cause, and I see no other explanation than it being the vaccine which triggers it.”

Several European countries have halted use of the AstraZeneca vaccine due to blood clots in the past several weeks, and in the U.S., the FDA and CDC have agreed to temporarily halt use of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine while they review six reports of blood clots in combination with low platelet counts. So far, one has died. Another is in serious condition. The announcement was made April 13, 2021.18
Another Novel Hypothesis
Other potential mechanisms of action also exist. For example, as noted by freelance medical writer and neurobiology postgrad Shin Jie Yong in a March 19, 2021, Medium article,19 Dr. Goh Kiang Hua, a consultant general surgeon and Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, has suggested a novel hypothesis to explain the loss of platelets seen in some COVID-19 vaccine recipients.
He believes the lipid-coated nanoparticles, which transport the mRNA, may be carrying that mRNA into the megakaryocytes in your bone marrow. Megakaryocytes are cells that produce platelets. According to this hypothesis, once the mRNA enters your bone marrow, the megakaryocytes would then begin to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which would tag them for destruction by cytotoxic T-cells.
“Platelets then become deficient, causing thrombocytopenia,” Yong writes, adding, “Of course, he emphasized that these are just speculations.” In my view, Hua may well be onto something. If correct, it would be an elegant explanation.
Breast Cancer Symptoms
Many also report developing swollen lymph nodes after their COVID-19 vaccination and, as reported by Fox 8 News Cleveland,20 doctors at Cleveland University Hospital system are seeing swollen lymph nodes in the mammograms of women who have had a COVID vaccine, and typically on the side where the vaccine was given.
Swollen lymph nodes on a mammogram are one sign of breast cancer. University Hospital’s breast imaging department also reported that they are fielding calls from patients who are concerned about finding swollen nodes under their arms.
According to the news report, data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows over 11% of vaccine recipients have swollen lymph nodes after the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine and 16% after the second dose. The swelling typically begins two to four days post-vaccination, and can persist for up to four weeks.
Lymph nodes that remain engorged beyond the four-week mark need to be evaluated by your doctor, Dr. Holly Marshall with University Hospitals told Fox 8 News.
Scarcity of Controlled Trials in Pregnant Women
Getting back to vaccination during pregnancy, it’s important to realize that this is a time during which experimentation can be the most hazardous of all, as you’re not only dealing with potential repercussions for the mother but also for the child. Any number of things can go wrong when you introduce drugs, chemicals or foreign substances during fetal development.
According to the Mayo Clinic,21 30,000 pregnant women have been “successfully” vaccinated against COVID-19 in the U.S. with either Pfizer’s or Moderna’s mRNA vaccines. They don’t mention anything about reported side effects, but as mentioned earlier, 379 VAERS reports had been filed by pregnant women as of April 1, 2021.
A recent BBC article22 sought to make light of post-vaccination miscarriages, saying, “Data showing a miscarriage occurred after a vaccine does not mean that the two events are linked.” Meanwhile, people dying from heart attacks, cancer and other longstanding diseases who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were counted as COVID-19 deaths, no questions asked. There was no difficulty in linking those data points to drive up COVID-19 fatality statistics.
The BBC also notes that miscarriage is “very common,” with 1 in 8 pregnancies (12.5%) ending in miscarriage. The U.K. MHRA, in an effort to put a lid on concerns about miscarriages, claim they occur in “about 1 in 4 pregnancies,”23 or 25%, which strikes me as an exaggeration.
Other sources24 reviewing statistical data stress that the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk rate of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to 5% between Weeks 6 and 7, all the way down to 1% between Weeks 14 and 20. One way to assess whether miscarriages are in fact increasing after vaccination could be to compare miscarriage rates during the second and third trimester, when spontaneous losses are at their lowest under normal circumstances.
Injecting pregnant women with novel gene therapy technology that can trigger systemic inflammation, cardiac effects and bleeding disorders isn’t a good idea, and violates both the Hippocratic Oath that admonishes doctors to “First, do no harm,” and the precautionary principle that, historically, has governed health care for pregnant women.
A vaccination safety monitoring program led by the CDC called V-Safe currently has 2,000 pregnant patients enrolled, but fewer than 300 had completed their pregnancies by the end of March 2021.25 Their babies will be evaluated for side effects until they’re 3 months old.26
These are not significant numbers. It’s also a very short follow-up for the babies. So, while COVID-19 vaccines are hailed as safe for pregnant women and their babies alike, they seem to be basing such claims on extremely limited data.
On the whole, injecting pregnant women with novel gene therapy technology that can trigger systemic inflammation, cardiac effects and bleeding disorders (among other things), isn’t a good idea in my view, and violates both the Hippocratic Oath that admonishes doctors to “First, do no harm,” and the precautionary principle that, historically, has governed health care for pregnant women.
Report All COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects
If you or someone you love has received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations:27

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/2021/04/21/pregnant-women-covid-vaccine.aspx

There is substantial evidence for the beneficial effects of sulforaphane on human health. Sulforaphane is a sulfur containing organic compound that is commonly found in cruciferous vegetables.1

The compound has known antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and immune stimulant properties,2 and as I discuss below, researchers have linked it to health benefits including reducing the accumulation of amyloid-beta common in Alzheimer’s disease, slowing age-related decline and protecting heart health.

Sulforaphane is a phytochemical that helps protect the body against free radical damage formed in the body after exposure to UV radiation, preservatives, pollution and even natural digestive processes. Sulforaphane belongs to the isothiocyanate category of phytochemicals,3 which is a well-known beneficial compound found in broccoli, Brussel sprouts, cabbage and cauliflower.

Protective Effects From Compound in Cruciferous Vegetables

Cruciferous vegetables are rich in a glucosinolate called glucoraphanin, found in particularly high levels in broccoli and broccoli sprouts. The combination of glucoraphanin and the enzyme myrosinase produces sulforaphane4 when you chop or chew the vegetable. Glucoraphanin acts as a natural pest repellent for the plant, since sulforaphane is produced as the insects begin chomping.

In my interview with nutritional biochemist Dr. Jed Fahey from Johns Hopkins Medical School, he describes how when you consume sulforaphane it raises your endogenous defense system, among which is the nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) pathway. He proposes:5

“They may actually have an effect on the heat-shock response, which has to do with protein folding and rescue of proteins from damage. There is a rather daunting list of beneficial biological activities that these isothiocyanates have. But the Nrf2 pathway is certainly the key pathway that we started looking at and that is certainly a primary defensive mechanism that’s upregulated.”

As Fahey explains, the Nrf2 pathway is vital to human health. He states that sulforaphane and isothiocyanates are referred to as “indirect and as long-lasting antioxidants because they crank up the activities of these antioxidant enzymes.”6 One of the benefits from the activities of sulforaphane has been to slow cancer cell growth.

In fact, the data has been so strong that some researchers have suggested that broccoli could be a key part of cancer prevention.7 Most certainly, the results of past studies have demonstrated that eating broccoli could improve your odds of preventing a cancer diagnosis. For example, in one study the data suggested eating about 400 grams of broccoli each week significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer.8

A higher intake of cruciferous vegetables also lowered the risk of bladder cancer9 and improved the rate of survival in those who had it.10 Eating broccoli three to five times a week may also reduce the risk of liver cancer and prevent the development of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).11

Free Radical Control Helps Keep Your Heart Healthy

Sulforaphane has helped reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease12 and has demonstrated the ability to reduce high blood pressure in an animal model.13 In one animal model,14 researchers sought to evaluate the efficacy of sulforaphane in the lab.

Past studies using exogenous antioxidants were not conclusive, leading the researchers to theorize inducing endogenous antioxidant activities may have promising cardioprotective effects. Their theory was confirmed in the lab:15

“… by the decrease in intracellular reactive oxygen species production, the increase in cell viability, and the decrease in DNA fragmentation after long-term treatment accompanied by the induction of antioxidants and phase II enzymes in cardiomyocytes.”

The overproduction of reactive oxygen species has a pathogenic response on the myocardium, triggering damage and dysfunction.16 The antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of sulforaphane may be related to the activation of the Nrf2 pathway that acts as a defense mechanism against oxidative stress. In one review of the literature, researchers concluded that:17

“SFN [Sulforaphane] found in cruciferous vegetables is an indirect antioxidant that can activate Nrf2 and its downstream target genes to induce antioxidant effects. The findings presented in this review indicate that SFN, a phytochemical isolated from extracts of an edible plant with a presumed low level of toxicity, protects against CVD. SFN could therefore contribute to the prevention of CVD.”

Brain Health Benefits From Sulforaphane

Sulforaphane also has a positive effect on the brain, including in those with Alzheimer’s disease, autism or schizophrenia. An initial study18 published in 2015 evaluated the effects on 10 outpatients with schizophrenia.

Patients were given a 30 mg supplement of sulforaphane glucosinolate every day for eight weeks. The authors reported that the clinical symptoms and cognitive function were evaluated at the start of the study and at the conclusion. Seven of the patients completed the trial and the results suggested “that SFN has the potential to improve cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.”19

Research appears to indicate that sulforaphane may benefit individuals with schizophrenia by helping to rebalance the glutamate levels in their brain. The data were gleaned from a series of three animal and human studies performed by researchers at Johns Hopkins school of medicine.20

In one of these studies published in JAMA Psychiatry,21 researchers found that schizophrenics had lower levels of key chemicals — including glutamate and glutathione — as the result of metabolic abnormalities that affected behavior.

In the second study22 the researchers blocked the enzyme that turns glutamate into glutathione and then used sulforaphane to activate the gene required for the synthesis of glutathione from glutamate. They found it normalized the brain cells in the animal study and allowed them to behave in a manner that was more like the healthy controls.23

Research into the use for Alzheimer’s disease also shows some exciting potential. In one animal study,24 researchers found that in mice treated with sulforaphane for four months there was a significant inhibition of the accumulation of amyloid-beta and the intervention alleviated several of the pathological changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

Another animal study25 demonstrated that sulforaphane could not only clear the accumulation of amyloid-beta and tau but also improve the memory deficits in the mice, hinting at a potential treatment that could be useful in humans.

Results from another series of studies has suggested cruciferous vegetables high in sulforaphane might benefit those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), primarily because it “upregulates genes that protect aerobic cells against oxidative stress, inflammation, and DNA-damage, all of which are prominent and possibly mechanistic characteristics of ASD.”26

Sulforaphane also boosts antioxidant capacity, glutathione synthesis, mitochondrial function, oxidative phosphorylation and lipid peroxidation, while lowering neuroinflammmation. According to the researchers, these characteristics also make it suitable for the treatment of ASD.27

More Benefits From Broccoli and Other Cruciferous Vegetables

Although sulforaphane receives most of the attention, broccoli also contains a number of other health promoting compounds including phenolic compounds, vitamins, minerals and Diindolylmethane (DIM). Phenolic compounds include flavonoids that have a powerful ability to eliminate damaging free radicals and inhibit inflammation.

Your body produces DIM when it breaks down cruciferous vegetables that have demonstrated multiple potential benefits, including supporting your immune system28 and helping to prevent cancer.29 Interestingly, broccoli has twice the amount of vitamin C as an orange30,31 and is rich in bioavailable calcium.32

While cruciferous vegetables are powerful allies in the fight against cancer and to keep your heart and brain healthy, they also offer more health benefits. Studies have shown that routinely eating cruciferous vegetables can:33

Prevent metabolic disorders and reduce the risk of Type 2 diabetes

Help control weight and reduce your risk of obesity

Prevent respiratory complications from human papilloma virus (HPV)

Reduce and prevent inflammation associated with respiratory disorders

Prevent oxidative stress, which can reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease

Slow down cognitive decline in older age

Exhibit antimicrobial effects against pathogenic bacteria like Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter aerogenes, Salmonella serovar typhimurium, Escherichia coli and Shigella sonnei

Prevent asthma

Help boost your body’s natural detoxification pathways

Broccoli May Help Heal a Leaky Gut

Researchers have also identified another major benefit from broccoli: a healthy gut. An animal study34 from Penn State demonstrated broccoli may be helpful in the treatment of colitis and leaky gut syndrome. What the researchers discovered is that broccoli contains a compound called indolocarbazole (ICZ), which catalyzes a healthy balance of bacteria in your gut and supports your immune system.

In the study,35 15% of the animals’ diet was swapped for raw broccoli, which is equal to you eating 3.5 cups of broccoli each day. Admittedly, that’s quite a bit of broccoli. However, the researchers say you can get an equivalent amount from one cup of Brussel sprouts as they contain three times the amount of ICZ as broccoli.36

Another key component to cruciferous vegetables is that they are high in fiber, which is an important source of nutrition for beneficial bacteria residing in your gut. This helps to strengthen your immune function and reduce your risk of inflammatory diseases.37

What Are Cruciferous Vegetables?

I’ve mentioned some of the more popular cruciferous vegetables including broccoli, Brussel sprouts, cabbage and cauliflower. Yet, there are others that belong to this family, which increases the number of ways you can add sulforaphane to your diet. Be sure to seek out non-GMO and organically grown vegetables to reduce your risk of exposure to toxins. Consider including these in your diet:

Broccoli sprouts
Collard greens
Kale

Kohlrabi
Mustard greens
Rutabaga

Turnips
Bok choy
Chinese cabbage

Arugula
Horseradish
Radish

Wasabi
Watercress

If you’re short on ideas on how to incorporate some of these vegetables into your diet, check out some of the recipes I have available by searching for the vegetable of your choice on Mercola.com. To boost the benefits of sulforaphane in broccoli and other cruciferous veggies like those listed below, pair them with a myrosinase-containing food. Adding a myrosinase-rich food is particularly important if you eat the broccoli raw, or use frozen broccoli.

Arugula — This vegetable has a peppery taste that can easily be added to other mixed greens or tossed in a salad. Consider adding it to scrambled eggs, pesto or toss it into spaghetti sauce.

Brussels sprouts — These can be used in a variety of ways, such as shredding them raw into coleslaw, roasting them with garlic, slightly sauteing them or steaming them. The trick is to not overcook Brussels sprouts, or you degrade the protective compounds.

Cabbage — This is a classic ingredient in coleslaw for sauerkraut. Consider fermenting your own sauerkraut for greater control over the nutrient value and avoiding pasteurization. You can add it to mashed potatoes and onions or slightly wilted as a wrap for other leftover foods.

Bok choy — This vegetable is nutrient-dense and rich in calcium. Try chopping the stems and tossing it into salads or adding it to soups. It can be lightly sauteed with garlic and a drizzle of extra-virgin olive oil added when it’s off the heat. Also consider using it as a wrap stuffed with leftovers or your favorite protein.

Kale — The dark green kale leaves and earthy taste lend themselves well to a tossed salad, wilted with lemon and garlic or toasted kale chips eaten fresh from the oven.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/19/sulforaphane-health-benefits.aspx

As soon as vaccine companies announced they were developing a COVID-19 vaccine, doctors, scientists, researchers and other experts raised warnings1,2 about the problematic history of coronavirus vaccines and their propensity to produce antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), which could make vaccinated individuals more susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2 or its variants.
It is also called paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE), which I believe is a more accurate description of what is happening.
Among those issuing early warnings were Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who in my interview with him — featured in “Well-Known Hazards of Coronavirus Vaccines” — recounted previous failed coronavirus vaccine trials in which he said the vaccinated animals died when exposed to the wild virus.
Considering all previous coronavirus vaccine efforts have failed for this reason, it seemed reasonable to suspect that a COVID-19 vaccine might have similar problems, and that such effects might remain hidden for some time since animal testing was bypassed. Recent research suggests such fears might still be warranted, although conclusive evidence that ADE is in fact occurring has not been produced.
Trial Subjects Have Not Been Informed of ADE Risk
The October 28, 2020, paper,3 “Informed Consent Disclosure to Vaccine Trial Subjects of Risk of COVID-19 Vaccine Worsening Clinical Disease,” stressed that “COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated,” and criticized vaccine makers for not clearly informing participants in current vaccine trials of this risk. 

“Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern:

That vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralizing antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE),” the paper stated.4

“This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.”

What Is ADE?
What exactly is ADE, and what does it mean? In a nutshell, it 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.5
Needless to say, this is the exact opposite of what a vaccine is supposed to do. The 2003 review paper “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Virus Infection and Disease” explains it this way:6

“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.”

Vaccinated People More Susceptible to South African Variant
As feared from the beginning, vaccinated individuals do appear to be more susceptible to infection by certain variants of SARS-CoV-2, although it remains to be seen whether they are more prone to serious illness.
A study by researchers at Tel Aviv University and Clalit Health Services in Israel found the South African variant of SARS-CoV-2, dubbed B.1. 351 — which presently accounts for about 1% of COVID-19 cases in Israel — affects people vaccinated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine to a greater extent than unvaccinated people.7,8,9,10
Among the people who were fully vaccinated, having received both shots of the vaccine, the variant was eight times more prevalent than in unvaccinated individuals.
The researchers compared 400 individuals who had tested positive for the B.1.351 variant two weeks or more after receiving at least one dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine against 400 unvaccinated individuals who had been infected.
Among the 150 people who were fully vaccinated, having received both shots of the vaccine, the variant was eight times more prevalent than in unvaccinated individuals (5.4% compared to 0.7%).
An estimated 53% of Israel’s 9.3 million inhabitants have received the Pfizer vaccine.11 While Moderna’s vaccine is also available in Israel, it was not included in this investigation. According to professor Adi Stern, Ph.D.,12 at Tel Aviv University, who said the findings took her by surprise:13

“We found a disproportionately higher rate of the South African variant among people vaccinated with a second dose, compared to the unvaccinated group. This means that the South African variant is able, to some extent, to break through the vaccine’s protection.”

For clarity, while the risk of infection appears significantly greater, it is still unknown whether the variant might generate more serious illness in vaccinated individuals. The study did not report disease outcomes, stating it would be “statistically meaningless” to do so since the number of vaccinees infected was too low.
That said, professor Ran Balicer, director of research at Clalit Health Services, which provided assistance for the study, noted this is the first study “to be based on real-world data, showing that the vaccine is less effective against the South Africa variant, compared to both the original virus and the British variant.”14
Other Research Suggests B.1.351 May Evade First-Gen Vaccines
Another recent study,15 reported by Times of Israel,16 was done by researchers at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Here, they analyzed blood samples to assess vaccine response to the South African variant. As reported by Times of Israel:17

“The researchers collected blood samples from 10 people who recovered from COVID-19, five people who received the first dose of the vaccine, and 10 people who also received the second. Samples were drawn from participants 21 days after the first dose, or 10 days after the second. They then measured the antibodies’ ability to protect against infection.”

The study18 found that while the Pfizer vaccine produced high levels of neutralizing antibodies against the generic strain of SARS-CoV-2 and the British variant, it fared worse against the South African variant.
Overall, the neutralization potency of the Pfizer vaccine was 6.8 times lower for the B.1.351 variant compared to the generic strains. It was also less effective against strains that have attributes of both the British and the South African variants. According to the authors:19

“Our study validates the importance of the Pfizer vaccine, but raises concerns regarding its efficacy against specific SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants … Our data also indicate that the Pfizer vaccine is moderately compromised against SA-N501Y/K417N/E484K pseudo-variants.

Average decrease in mean neutralization potential of the vaccinated sera against this pseudovirus was 6.8-fold, relative to wild-type SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus. This result is only partly aligned with recent conclusions from Pfizer,20 reporting that its vaccine is almost similarly efficient against the SA [South African] variant as wild-type SARS-CoV-2.

A Moderna report21 also documented that its vaccine is 6.4-fold less efficient in neutralizing SA-B.1.351 variant, relative to neutralization of the wild-type SARS-CoV-2. However, their conclusion indicated that such a reduction is not clinically significant.

In our mind, the clinical significance of a 6.8-fold-reduced neutralization potency of convalescent or post-vaccination sera against the SA strain remains to be determined and raises concerns about vaccine efficiency against current or future SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Overall, these results call for close attention to variant spread. Moreover, development of new vaccines with improved neutralizing potency against specific SARS-CoV-2 variants may be required.”

As you’d expect, vaccine makers are already hard at work tweaking their formulas to target various mutations of the virus, so don’t be surprised if all of a sudden vaccinated individuals start getting called back for additional shots. As reported by STAT News:22

“Vaccine makers are working on booster shots specifically targeting B.1.351 or that could defend against multiple strains of the coronavirus, and regulators are considering how the updated shots could be authorized without needing to go through the full gamut of clinical trials.”

Pfizer Study Reports Drop in Effectiveness Against B.1.351
Last but not least, Pfizer’s own investigation, published in The New England Journal of Medicine23 March 8, 2021, found its vaccine was about two-thirds less effective, in terms of neutralizing potency, against the South African variant, B.1.351, compared to other forms of the virus.

“It can be difficult to extrapolate what such lab experiments mean for what happens if someone who received the vaccine is exposed to the variant. For one, these experiments only look at how one arm of the immune system, called neutralizing antibodies, responds to the modified virus,” STAT News reports.24

“The vaccines generate a range of immune fighters, including other types of antibodies and T cells, so it’s possible that overall people retain more of their defenses in fending off the virus. It’s also possible that even though neutralizing antibodies don’t work as well against the variant, they can still mount enough activity to have an impact.”

What STAT News does not mention is that the vaccines may also generate nonneutralizing (aka binding) antibodies25 which, instead of preventing infection, can trigger ADE, a paradoxical immune enhancement that increases your susceptibility to infection and more severe illness.
Aside from the studies already mentioned at the beginning of this article, many others have raised concerns about coronavirus vaccines and ADE in particular. Among them is the May 2020 mini review26 “Impact of Immune Enhancement on COVID-19 Polyclonal Hyperimmune Globulin Therapy and Vaccine Development.” As in many other papers, the authors point out that:27

“While development of both hyperimmune globulin therapy and vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 are promising, they both pose a common theoretical safety concern. Experimental studies have suggested the possibility of immune-enhanced disease of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infections, which may thus similarly occur with SARS-CoV-2 infection …

Immune enhancement of disease can theoretically occur in two ways. Firstly, non-neutralizing or sub-neutralizing levels of antibodies can enhance SARS-CoV-2 infection into target cells. Secondly, antibodies could enhance inflammation and hence severity of pulmonary disease …

Animal studies … have shown that the spike (S) protein-based vaccines (specifically the receptor binding domain, RBD) are highly immunogenic and protective against wild-type CoV challenge … However, immunization with some S protein based CoV vaccines have also displayed signs of enhanced lung pathology following challenge.

Hence, besides the choice of antigen target, vaccine efficacy and risk of immunopathology may be dependent on other ancillary factors, including adjuvant formulation, age at vaccination … and route of immunization.”

Th2 Immunopathology Is Another Potential Risk
Another potential risk is that of Th2 immunopathology, especially among the elderly. As reported in a PNAS news feature:28

“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.”

Full Extent of Risks Remain To Be Seen
Whether or not COVID-19 vaccines can trigger ADE or Th2 immunopathology remains to be seen. As or right now, studies suggest vaccinated individuals are at increased risk of contracting lab-confirmed infection with variants such as the South African B.1.351 strain, but there’s no telling whether they actually get sicker than unvaccinated individuals.
Similarly, while there are now hundreds of cases of fully vaccinated individuals having being diagnosed with COVID-19, some of whom have died as a result,29 it’s too early to tell whether ADE is at play. We’re currently moving into summer in the Western hemisphere, a time when respiratory viruses tend to be less prevalent in general, so I suspect the real test will come this fall and winter.
So, while some argue that ADE is a “non-issue” with COVID-19 vaccines simply because we haven’t seen any signs of it yet,30 even with new variants, I have my doubts. I suspect we might still see it once flu season sets in. Besides, ADE is far from the only potential problem. There are many other potential side effects, some of which may take months or years to develop, while others may be lethal within days or even hours.
The vaccines may also be problematic for already immunosuppressed patients. The reason for this is because they don’t develop a robust neutralizing antibody response from the vaccines, and there’s research31 warning that developing a poor neutralizing antibody response after an initial exposure to certain coronaviruses might result in more severe illness upon re-exposure. Might the same apply if you fail to develop robust neutralizing antibodies in response to mRNA gene therapy?
A recent JAMA study32,33 found only 17% of organ transplant recipients mounted detectable antibodies after their first dose of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine. Among patients taking antimetabolites, only 8.75% had detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 following vaccination. As noted by the authors:

“Given this observation, the CDC should update their new guidelines for vaccinated individuals to warn immunosuppressed people that they still may be susceptible to COVID-19 after vaccination. As the CDC guidelines are currently written, they assume that vaccination means immunity.

Our study shows that this is unlikely for most transplant recipients, and one could guess that our findings (especially those concerning anti-metabolites) could also apply to other immunosuppressed patients, such as those with autoimmune conditions.”

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, and take your time when deciding whether to get any of these COVID-19 gene therapies.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/19/vaccinated-people-more-susceptible-to-covid-variants.aspx

The Truth About COVID-19 Book by Dr. Joseph Mercola

The Truth — and Madness — of COVID-19 What to Do Now to Reclaim Your Health, Democracy and Freedom

Since early 2020, the world has undergone major upheaval due to a global pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2. International closures and domestic lockdowns have led to widespread business closures, economic collapse and massive unemployment. Civil liberties and freedoms have been crushed, all in the name of keeping people safe. Find out why none of this needed to happen, and what you must do now to take control of your health and power.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/18/the-truth-about-covid-19-book.aspx

1 What is iatrarchy?

Physical or mental condition caused by a physician

Collaboration between government agencies for the benefit of public health
Government by physicians

Historical experiments with iatrarchy — meaning government by physicians — have been catastrophic. The medical profession has not proven itself an energetic defender of democratic institutions or civil rights. Most German doctors accepted lead roles in the Third Reich’s project to eliminate mental defectives, homosexuals, handicapped citizens and Jews. Learn more.

A psychological test designed to measure implicit attitudes

2 Censorship, lockdowns, social distancing, mask wearing, new domestic terrorism laws and vaccine passports are important for which of the following?

Eradicating COVID-19

Preventing all deaths

Preventing the breakdown of hospital care

The swift implementation of the Great Reset

Under the pretext of public health safety, we’re told we need censorship, lockdowns, social distancing, mask wearing, new domestic terrorism laws and vaccine passports. We need none of those things in order to optimize public health. Those things, however, are necessary for the swift and easeful implementation of the Great Reset. Learn more.

3 Which of the following U.S. institutions funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China?

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, have funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. Several such grants were given to EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn subcontracted some of that research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Learn more.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

African Development Foundation

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

4 Evidence suggest communism has reincarnated and spread through which of the following global movements?

The civil rights movement

The environmental “green” movement

Evidence suggests communism has reincarnated under the flag of environmentalism and the green movement, which is part and parcel of the Great Reset, and climate policies are about the redistribution of wealth. Learn more.

The feminist movement

The organic and alternative health movement

5 The ugly truth about COVID-19 is that the world is being crippled by fear due to a:

Highly infectious, novel virus

Misunderstanding about herd immunity

False narrative

He explains the ugly truth about COVID-19, which is that the world is being crippled by fear due to a false narrative. Learn more.

Lack of COVID-19 vaccines

6 The Paperwork Reduction Act established which of the following offices as the overseer of all federal agencies’ data?

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

The Paperwork Reduction Act requires data collection and publication to be overseen by the Office of Management and Budget. Proposed changes must be published in the Federal Register and be open to public comment. Learn more.

 
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/19/week-178-health-quiz.aspx

Widespread mask usage has been virtually useless during the COVID-19 pandemic,1 but mandates were rolled out in countries worldwide nonetheless. Many of the mandates included a caveat that you must wear a mask unless you can maintain a 6-foot distance, or social distancing, from others. This meant that if you were outdoors, you could forgo wearing a mask in most cases and still be in compliance with mandates.

March 30, 2021, however, Spain’s Ministry of Health announced a new law, published in the Official State Gazette (BOE),2 that would remove the social distancing component, making masks mandatory in all public spaces, even if no one else is around — including when sunbathing at the beach or swimming in the ocean.3

While face masks were already mandatory in public and outdoor spaces when keeping a distance of 1.5 meters (3.2 feet) or more wasn’t possible, the updated rule suggests that mask usage is mandated at all times:4

“People from the age of six and older have the obligation to wear masks […] on public streets, in outdoor spaces and in any closed space that has a public use or is open to the public.”

The law also leaves no room for regional governments to make exceptions to the rules, such as at the beach. Previously, certain regions made exceptions to mask mandates at the beach or swimming pools.5

Backlash Ensues From Tourism Industry

With the tourism industry already reeling from the pandemic, the restrictive mask mandate would only worsen problems in Spain while offering only an illusion of “safety.” EL PAÍS, a daily newspaper in Spain, reported that the mask mandate change went largely unnoticed until they flagged it, reporting:6

“The obligation to keep mouths and noses covered in public spaces, including the beach and swimming pool, will undoubtedly put a number of tourists off coming to Spain, according to industry pundits who point out that businesses were not consulted on the measure.

‘We are going through the kind of hell that threatens to wipe out thousands and thousands of jobs and businesses,’ says José Luis Zoreda, vice-president of Exceltur, the main lobby group for Spanish tourism — a sector which accounted for 12% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) prior to the health crisis. ‘And now they want to turn the beaches into open-air field hospitals.’”

Wearing a mask in an outdoor area, even when others are far away, defies common sense and reason. Likewise, wearing a mask while swimming — assuming you were able to keep it on, which isn’t likely — could pose a drowning risk, not to mention, would the mask even work if it were soaking wet?

Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns, “Do not wear a mask when doing activities that may get your mask wet, like swimming at the beach or pool. A wet mask can make it difficult to breathe and may not work as well when wet.”7

Spain Backtracks on Beach Mask Mandate

Just days after releasing the new rules that would require masks to be worn at the beach, the Spanish Ministry of Health proposed revisions that would allow people to forgo a mask at the beach if they are swimming, playing a sport or resting in a fixed spot, and maintaining a distance of 1.5 meters from other people.8

A number of regional governments had already suggested that they would defy the initial orders, including the Balearic Islands, which stated masks would not be mandatory at area beaches and swimming pools. According to EL PAÍS:9

“… [I]n Andalusia the tension was palpable. Juan Marín, the deputy premier of the southern region, said he did not understand ‘this type of decisions that get made without consulting with the regions.’ And sources in the governments of Catalonia and the Canary Islands said that their legal services are already analyzing the law to determine their next steps.”

Yet, the back-and-forth passage of arbitrary health rules as policy is becoming so common that it’s hard to know what’s “allowed” from one day to the next. So, wearing a mask while walking along the shoreline of a beach in Spain is necessary for public health, but if you’re playing a sport it’s not?

The CDC is similarly confusing, with a recent change allowing physical distancing in classrooms to go from 6 feet to 3 feet.10 If SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is spread via aerosolized droplets, which research suggests,11 such droplets remain in the air for at least three hours and can travel over long distances of up to 27 feet.12

This further adds to the likelihood that cloth masks do little to stop you from getting COVID-19. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons explained:13

“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.”

Masks at the Beach Are a Pollution Nightmare

Masks are a ticking time bomb when it comes to pollution, and wearing them at the beach provides direct access to the ocean. It’s estimated that 129 billion face masks are used worldwide each month, which works out to about 3 million masks a minute. Most of these are the disposable variety, made from plastic microfibers.14

Ranging in size from 5 millimeters (mm) to microscopic lengths, microplastics, which include microfibers, are being ingested by fish, plankton and other marine life, as well as the creatures on land that consume them (including humans15).

Mask pollution may end up being even worse than that from plastic bottles because while about 25% of plastic bottles are recycled, “there is no official guidance on mask recycle, making it more likely to be disposed of as solid waste,” researchers from the University of Southern Denmark and Princeton University stated. “With increasing reports on inappropriate disposal of masks, it is urgent to recognize this potential environmental threat …”16

When the masks become weathered in the environment, they can generate a large number of microsized polypropylene particles in a matter of weeks, then break down further into nanoplastics that are less than 1 mm in size.

Because masks may be directly made from microsized plastic fibers with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, they may release microsized particles into the environment more readily — and faster — than larger plastic items, like plastic bags. Most disposable face masks contain three layers — a polyester outer layer, a polypropylene or polystyrene middle layer and an inner layer made of absorbent material such as cotton.

In the environment, sunlight and heat are not enough to degrade the polypropylene, which is left to persist and accumulate in the environment.17

Multiple Studies Show Masks Are Ineffective

Spain’s choice to make their mask mandate even more restrictive is especially puzzling given the evidence that masks are ineffective. Only one randomized controlled trial has been conducted on mask usage and COVID-19 transmission, and it found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.18

You may also remember that in the early days of the pandemic, face masks were not recommended for the general public. In February 2020, Christine Francis, a consultant for infection prevention and control at WHO headquarters, was featured in a video, holding up a disposable face mask.

She said, “Medical masks like this one cannot protect against the new coronavirus when used alone … WHO only recommends the use of masks in specific cases.”19 As of March 31, 2020, WHO was still advising against the use of face masks for people without symptoms, stating that there is “no evidence” that such mask usage prevents COVID-19 transmission.20

But by June 2020, the rhetoric had changed. Citing “evolving evidence,” WHO reversed their recommendation and began advising governments to encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult.21 Yet that same day, June 5, 2020, WHO published an announcement stating:22

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

Dr. Jim Meehan, an ophthalmologist and preventive medicine specialist also compiled a number of studies showing the use of masks is highly questionable:23

• A working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research24 found that nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as lockdowns, quarantines and mask mandates, have not significantly affected overall virus transmission rates.25

• A CDC meta-analysis found that face masks did little to reduce virus transmission in the case of influenza, stating, “Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”26

• A rapid systematic review of 31 studies concluded, “The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19,” adding that there was evidence for their use only for “particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.”27

• In a perspective article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers state, “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” and go 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.”

“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.28

• A commentary published by the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy further added, “We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because there is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission …”29

Is Wearing a Mask ‘Better Than Nothing’?

There’s a myth that wearing a mask makes sense if there’s even a chance that it can protect you from getting sick from COVID-19 — a disease with an average survival rate of 99.74%.30 This is because mask wearing itself can be harmful with longer term ramifications that are only beginning to be understood.

Germany’s first registry recording the experience children are having wearing masks31 used data on 25,930 children, revealing 24 physical, psychological and behavioral health issues that were associated with wearing masks.32 They recorded symptoms that:33

“… included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).”

They also found 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play.34 Hundreds more experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.”

Another potential issue that’s rarely talked about is the fact that when you wear a mask, tiny microfibers are released, which can cause health problems when inhaled. The risk is increased when masks are reused. This hazard was highlighted in a performance study to be published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials.35

Meanwhile, mask mandates represent another erosion of freedom, one that further “normalizes” the notion that people are sick unless proven healthy and that it’s acceptable to be forced to cover your face just to go about your daily life, even when you’re outdoors and away from others. Maybe even while you’re swimming.

The public narrative is building prejudice against people who refuse to wear masks or get an experimental vaccine, such that some are now fearful of people who aren’t masked or those who choose not to get vaccinated. With societal norms rapidly changing, and an increasingly authoritative environment emerging, it raises the question of whether or not the public will continue to blindly obey, no matter the consequences.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/17/face-mask-while-swimming.aspx

In this interview, Dr. Henry Ealy, ND, BCHN, better known as Dr. Henele, a certified holistic nutritionist and founder/executive community director of the Energetic Health Institute,1 reviews how U.S. federal regulatory agencies have manipulated COVID-19 statistics to control the pandemic narrative.
He earned his doctorate in naturopathic medicine from SCNM. After graduating from UCLA with a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering, he worked for a major aerospace company as a primary database developer for the International Space Station program. He holds over 20 years of teaching and clinical experience and was the first naturopathic doctor to regularly teach at a major university in the U.S., when he headed up a program at Arizona State University on bioanxiety management.
As he points out, he’s an avid data collector. In October 2020, Henele and a team of other investigators published a paper2 in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, titled, “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective,” which details how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has enabled the corruption of case- and fatality-reporting data in violation of federal law.
Accuracy of Data Is Paramount for Public Health Policies
The team started looking at CDC data on COVID-19 cases and fatalities in mid-March 2020. He explains:

“What I started doing on March 12 was going through all the data we could find from the Italian Ministry of Health and South Korea. We couldn’t validate any of the data coming out of China. There was just no independent way to do it. What we were seeing out of Italy and South Korea was that we were going to be concerned about people who are over 60, over 70 years of age with preexisting conditions.

That was the main thing coming out of that data. So, we were expecting the same kind of trends here … I started tracking the data on a daily basis from each state health department, and then making sure that what the CDC was reporting was matching up.

What we started to see, very early on, were some significant anomalies between what the states were reporting and what the CDC was saying. It was concerning, because the variance was growing with each day. We have an old saying: ‘Garbage in equals garbage out.’ And that was the concern, because we knew public health policies are going to be based upon the data, so accuracy is of paramount importance.

Then we started delving in a little deeper into how the CDC was supposedly collecting their data. That’s where we saw the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) March 24 guidelines, which were very concerning, and we saw the CDC adopt the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists paper on April 14.

What was incredibly concerning about this was that it was all done without any federal oversight, and it was all done without any public comment, especially scientific comment. That became increasingly problematic. We started to see discrepancies in the state of New York alone, in the thousands of fatalities.”

Special Rules for COVID-19 Fatalities Were Implemented

Importantly, in March 2020, there was a significant change made to the definition of what a COVID-19 fatality was. As explained by Henele, there’s a handbook on death reporting, which has been in use since 2003. There are two key sections on a death certificate. In the first part, the cause of death is detailed. In the second part, contributing factors are listed.
Contributing factors are not necessarily statistically recorded. It’s the first part, the actual cause of death, that is most important for statistical accounting. March 24, 2020, the NVSS updated its guidelines on how to report and track COVID-19-related deaths.

“They were saying that COVID-19 should be listed in Part 1 for statistical tracking, but [only] in cases where it is proven to have caused death, or was assumed to have caused death,” Henele explains.

“What was really concerning about this document was that it specifically stated that any preexisting conditions should be moved from Part 1, where it has been put for 17 years, into Part 2.

So, it was basically taking this and saying, ‘We’re going to create exclusive rules for COVID-19 and we’re going to do a 180 for this single disease …’ The big problem with that is that now you remove the ability for a medical examiner, a coroner, a physician, to interpret [the cause of death] based upon the collective health history of that patient …

You remove their expertise, and you say, ‘You have to count this as COVID-19.’ That takes on an added measure when you incentivize it financially, and that’s what we saw with some of the Medicare and Medicaid payouts …”

Who’s Responsible?

Who has the authority to do this? The answer is “no one.” A federal agency has the ability to propose a data change, at which time it would be registered in the Federal Register. At that point, federal oversight by the Office of Management and Budget kicks in, and the proposed change is opened up for public comment.
Since they did not register the proposed change, there was no oversight and no possibility for the public to comment on the change. Basically, what happened is that these changes were simply implemented without following any of the prescribed rules. “They acted unilaterally, and that’s not how [it] is supposed to work,” Henele says.
As to who took it upon themselves to alter the reporting rules, we don’t know. To identify the culprits, Henele and his team have sent out formal grand jury investigation petitions to every U.S. attorney and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), requesting a thorough, independent and transparent investigation.

“We did it at both state and federal levels. We have sent physical copies to every U.S. attorney and their aides. We sent out over 247 mailings in October [2020],” Henele explains. “We sent out an additional 20 to 30 to various people at the Department of Justice …

They would have the ability to call a grand jury, and that grand jury would have the ability to subpoena all those records to determine who were at fault … All we need is one U.S. attorney. All we need is one person at the Department of Justice to take up the cause.”

Dramatic Implications
The consequences of that change in the definition of the cause of death where COVID-19 is involved have been dramatic. For the full implications, I recommend reading through Henele’s peer-reviewed paper, “COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data.”3

“We’ve accumulated about 10,000 hours of collective team research into this [paper]. It’s been reviewed by nine attorneys and a judge for accuracy. It’s gone through the peer-review process before being published. We feel it’s tight.

On page 20 of the paper, we have a big graphic showing what the estimated actual fatality count should have been as of August 23, 2020. What was reported on August 23 was 161,392 fatalities caused by COVID-19 …

Had we used the 2003 guidelines, our estimates are that we would have roughly 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19. That’s a significant difference. That’s a difference on the scale of as much as 96%. The range that we calculated was 88.9% to 96% inflation.”

Indeed, this matches up with an admission by the CDC in late August 2020, at which time they admitted that only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths.4

“For absolute 100% accuracy, we’d have to do something like what we were just alerted to by a whistleblower in Florida, where they’ve actually gone in and reexamined every single death certificate and the medical records with them. What they found was that roughly 80% of the fatalities were wrongfully classified as COVID-19 fatalities,” Henele says.

Science Foundations Have Been Violated

Mainstream media have justified pandemic measures “based on the science,” yet the very foundation of science has been violated. The ramifications are enormous, from the destruction of local economies and skyrocketing suicide rates to people being forced to die alone, their family members being barred from being at their bedside during their last moments.

“I lost my mother in in 2002,” Henele says. “The grace of it all was that we were able to get her out of the hospital and fulfill her last request, which was to pass away in her bed with family around her. I grieve for every single person who’s lost someone [during this pandemic] who was not able to be there.

Americans should not have to die alone because we’re worried about some virus that they’re telling us is a problem, when the data, even the data that we know to be inflated and fraudulent, still doesn’t suggest the virility that they want us to believe.”

COVID-19 Timeline
In their paper, Henele and his team detail a timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic and federal laws that impact data handling. Here’s a summary:

In 1946, certain administrative procedures were implemented. The Administrative Procedures Act requires federal agents and agencies to follow certain rules to get things done. These rules are to ensure transparency in government.

“If you’re a federal agency, you have an obligation to the people of this country to make sure that the data you’re publishing is not only accurate, but that it is transparent,” Henele explains.

In 1980, the Paperwork Reduction Act was written into law. In 1995, the Act was amended, designating the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the oversight body for all federal agencies’ data.
In October 2002, the Information Quality Act was implemented, which doubles down even further on the accuracy and integrity and data gathering. This act requires federal agencies to meet explicit criteria in order for their data to be published and analyzed.

In 2005, the Virology Journal published research demonstrating that hydroxychloroquine has strong antiviral effects against SARS-CoV (the virus responsible for SARS) primate cells. This finding was hailed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Henele notes. In other words, 15 years ago, Fauci admitted that hydroxychloroquine works against coronaviruses. This is public record.
As reported in “The Lancet Gets Lanced With Hydroxychloroquine Fraud” and “How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created,” the myth that this drug was useless at best and dangerous at worst was purposely created using falsified research and trials in which the drug was given in toxic doses.
This fraudulent research was then used to discourage and in some cases block the use of hydroxychloroquine worldwide. As noted by Henele, “It’s not science. We’re in this very weird faith-based model of science, which isn’t science at that point.”

In 2014, Fauci authorized $3.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). In 2019, WIV received another $3.7 million. In both instances, this funding was for gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

October 18, 2019, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted Event 201, in conjunction with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and a few other financial partners. November 17, 2019, China recorded the first known case of COVID-19.

“Now, they could be completely unrelated,” Henele says, “but for us, it’s a very incredible coincidence that you run a simulation a month before a pandemic breaks out. It’s a little tough for me to digest as just a coincidence.”

January 29, 2020, the White House installed a coronavirus task force, which included Fauci and then-CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield, as well as Derek Kan, then-deputy director of the OMB.

“I found this to be a little interesting,” Henele says. “Why would you need an OMB person on a coronavirus task force?”

March 9, 2020, the CDC alerted Americans over 60 with preexisting conditions that they might be in for a long lockdown out of safety concerns.
March 24, the CDC changed how COVID-19 is recorded on death certificates, de-emphasizing preexisting conditions and comorbidities, and basically calling all deaths in which the patient had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test a COVID-19 death.

“We have, legitimately on record, people who’ve died in a motorcycle accident listed as a COVID-19 death. These are not fictitious things that we’ve made up. Rhode Island had over 80% of their fatalities at one point in either assisted living centers or hospice care. Why are we testing people in hospice care and life care? That’s another interesting question,” Henele says.

April 14, 2020, the CDC adopted a position paper from a nonprofit, the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, which identifies every single methodology for how to report a probable COVID-19 case, a confirmed COVID-19 case, an epidemiologically-linked or contact-traced COVID case.

“What’s so incredible about this is the standard of proof for a probable case is literally one cough. That’s all a physician needs, [according to] this document, to validate that that person is a probable COVID case,” Henele says.

“And it gets worse. On Page 6 of that document, Section 7B, it explicitly states that they are not going to define a methodology to ensure that the same person cannot be counted multiple times. So, what we end up with is a revolving door.

Now, in terms of new cases, the same person can be counted over and over and over again, without being tested, without having any symptoms. All they need to do is be within 6 feet of someone [who has been deemed positive for SARS-CoV-2] and then a contact tracer can say, ‘OK, well, that person is [also] positive.’

When we looked at data from last week, roughly 27% of the people who were said to be positive actually had a positive test. That means 73% were just told ‘Yeah, we think you got it.’ And that’s good enough, because we’re in this faith-based model of science, instead of a verifiable framework for science, which we’re supposed to be based on.

That person then cannot go back to work until they show a negative test. Well, let’s say they get tested 13 times. Guess what happens? That’s 13 new cases, when it really should only be one.

So, there are major flaws, and the issue that I think a lot of scientists like myself … have with this document and its adoption is that there was no oversight, and there was no public comment period to question some of the obvious flaws in what they were defining as data collection — let alone to ask a very simple question: ‘You’re the CDC, you’re supposed to be the pinnacle of this.

Why do you need to outsource rules and criteria for data collection to a nonprofit entity?’ That doesn’t make much sense to me.”

Transparency Rules Have Been Grossly Violated

So, what exactly is the connection between the Paperwork Reduction Act and the COVID-19 fatality data? Why is it so important?

“Well, the Paperwork Reduction Act is really about establishing oversight,” Henele explains. “It established the Office of Management and Budget, the OMB, which is under the executive branch. It established them as the key agency for oversight of all data in the entire federal government.

So, when you start seeing IHME [Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation] out of the University of Washington — which is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to the tune of $384 million in two installments — when you see their data being used at federal levels, you go and look at the Federal Register and you say, ‘OK, where is the 30 to 60 days that we were supposed to have to comment on the use of that data?’

Public comment is part of the Paperwork Reduction Act. That’s what it’s all about. What we saw instead was just, ‘Hey, this is what the IHME is putting out there. We’re going to go with it.’ Well, you can’t do that if you’re a federal agency … IHME is … technically an independent organization, but they don’t have any governmental designation.

They’re not a 501(c)(3), they’re not a 501(c)(4), they’re not a 501(c)(6). They’re just this amorphous nongovernmental organization within our country, and it’s kind of concerning. We’re doing more research on that, but it’s very, very concerning because they don’t have anybody to account to.”

Test-Based Strategy Has Been an Egregious Fraud
In addition to the manipulation of fatality statistics, the statistics of “cases” were also manipulated. Traditionally, a “case” is a patient who is symptomatic; someone who is actually ill. When it comes to COVID-19, however, a “case” suddenly became anyone who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using a PCR test, or worse, assumed positive based on proximity to someone who tested positive.
The CDC specifically enacted what’s called a test-based strategy, which we’ve never done before in medicine for anything. What that test-based strategy means is if you test positive, you got [COVID-19]. ~ Dr. Henele
I’ve detailed this fraud in many previous articles over the past year, including “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun” and “The Insanity of the PCR Testing Saga.” “Cases” were also counted multiple times, as explained above. Henele expounds on this issue, noting:

“The CDC specifically enacted what’s called a test-based strategy, which we’ve never done before in medicine for anything. What that test-based strategy means is if you test positive, you got [COVID-19]. But what they didn’t do for the PCR testing was they didn’t identify the agreed upon number of cycles across all states across all labs that are testing.

What most people don’t know is that the closer you get to zero in terms of cycle times, the more likely that the result is going to be negative. The closer you get to 60, the more likely that it’s going to be positive.

Well, we’ve never seen a document coming out of the FDA, coming out of the CDC, coming out of any of the state health departments, that says, ‘We need all labs to be at this specific cycle [threshold]. And if a person is not deemed positive with that number of cycles, then they are not positive.’ So, there’s just flaw after flaw after flaw.”

Data Manipulation Created COVID-19 Pandemic

Most labs used cycle thresholds above 40 — as recommended by the CDC and the World Health Organization — which exponentially increased the likelihood of a positive test, even among completely healthy and noninfectious individuals. The only justification for all of this is that it was done to perpetuate the narrative that we were in a raging pandemic, which was then used to justify the unprecedented destruction of personal freedom and the economy.

“The thing I have to give the folks that have been involved in this credit for is the incredible number of sleights of hands,” Henele says. “It’s a little bit here, a little bit here, a little bit here, a little bit here.

And when that happens, it leads to something that is very dangerous scientifically, and very dangerous for public health policy, which is control of data — the ability to manipulate data … and if you can control the data, you get to control the narrative …

If we’re not going to have an absolute, transparent and verifiable data collection process that is based upon accuracy and integrity of that data, then you can turn that [pandemic emergency] dial up and down at your whim. My hope is that the objective scientist within all of us understands that this is bigger than politics. This is beyond it. This is a severely broken system that we have to fix, and we better do it.”

As discussed in many other articles, it appears the COVID-19 pandemic has in fact been a preplanned justification for the implementation of a global technocrat-led control system, which includes a brand-new financial system to replace the central bank-manufactured fiat economy that is now at the end of its functional life. Fiat currency is manufactured through the creation of debt with interest attached, and the whole world is now so laden with debt it can never be repaid.
If people understood how the central banks of the world have pulled the wool over our eyes, we would simply demand an end to the central banks. Currency ought to be created and managed nationally.
The central banks, of course, do not want this reality to become common knowledge, because then they will no longer be able to manipulate all the countries of the world, so they need the economic breakdown to appear natural. For that, they need a global catastrophe, such as a major war, or a fearsome pandemic necessitating the shutdown of economies.
Through this willful manipulation of case- and fatality statistics, the CDC has been complicit in willful misconduct by generating needless fear that has then been used against you to rob you of your personal freedoms and liberties and help usher in this massive transfer of wealth and global tyranny. As noted by Henele, “People are going to be complicit in their own slavery. People are complicit in putting digital shackles around themselves and really restricting their civil liberties.”
Hopefully, people will begin to understand how pandemic statistics have been, and still are, manipulated to control the narrative and generate unjustified fear for no other reason than to get you to comply with tyrannical measures designed to enslave you, not just temporarily but permanently.
More Information

To understand how we got to this point, please consider reading Henele’s paper, “COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data.” As noted by Henele:

“I’m looking forward to the day when we look back on this, and go, ‘Oh, we almost fell for one, but we woke up in time and we figured this out. And now we have a good balance of technology, but technology that doesn’t have the right to censor us, technology that doesn’t have the right to control us; we have figured out that having too much control in the hands of too few is not a good recipe for us as a species on this planet.’

We know it doesn’t pass the smell test, so it’s important to get informed and educated and it’s papers like this — and this isn’t the only one out there — that have done the homework. If we’re going to trust someone, it’s important to me that we trust people who’ve done the homework and have no vested interest in the outcome.

My team is a team of volunteers. We all do this in our spare time. We’re not making any money. We’re not going to seek to make any money off of this. We’re doing this because we believe in this country. We love this country and we love the people of this country. When I see people suffering, I have to help. I got to get in and help.

So, if you are an American that wants to help, we are setting up resources for you to be able to get engaged and help us push this forward, maybe grease some of these wheels of justice, so we can get an independent grand jury investigation.”

For additional information, or if you want to help, you can email Henele and his team at [email protected]. You can also use your voice and actions to support an investigation into the CDC’s actions.

Two Easy Ways You Can Take Action

Add your signature to this petition to help mount public pressure to convene a formal grand jury to investigate allegations of willful misconduct by federal agencies during COVID-19 through Stand For Health Freedom, a nonprofit advocacy organization that Henele and his team have collaborated with
Send a predrafted, customizable letter through Stand For Health Freedom urging key members of Congress to thoroughly investigate alleged violations of federal law by the CDC that compromised COVID-19 data

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/04/18/cdc-violated-law-to-inflate-covid-cases-and-fatalities.aspx