Lose Them Pounds

As detailed in “The Web of Players Trying to Silence Truth,” the Publicis Groupe, a global PR firm, appears to be at the center of a large network involving Big Tech, Big Pharma, the U.S. government and global nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that work in tandem to further the globalist Great Reset agenda.
As you might expect, when you’re trying to implement a global regime change, you need to exercise very serious control over both the media and the public discourse. If you don’t, you might have a rebellion on your hands when people realize that what you’re doing is not in their best interest.
And, for that, you need some sort of central propaganda organization. Of course, you don’t want the manipulation to be glaringly obvious, so you set up a variety of NGOs, foundations, “public interest” organizations and “grassroots” groups to give the appearance of consensus between independents.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) is but one of many, many examples of groups that appear to serve as front groups for a particular agenda.1 You can be solidly assured that when an organization takes over a million dollars from Bill Gates their ability to produce high-quality investigative journalism is impaired and financially influenced..
TBIJ Produces Another Gates’ Hit Piece

I’ve written many articles over the years about attempts by various groups and organizations to smear my credibility and label this site as a fake news hub. The latest attempt comes from TBIJ, which recently asked for my rebuttal on a number of statements they were about to publish2 about me with regard to my stance on vaccines and COVID-19.
“Misinformation about these topics can hinder public health efforts to control the coronavirus pandemic and undermine the ability of individuals to make accurately informed decisions about vaccines,” TBIJ’s Jasper Jackson wrote in his email.
As recently as November 2019, TBIJ was given a $1,068,169 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for an advocacy program related to ‘Global health and development public awareness and analysis.’
One of the statements slated for publication that I was asked to respond to is that the articles posted on my website and social media channels “often include misinformation about the pandemic, the coronavirus or vaccines, as well as misinformation on other topics.”
One such article, which was singled out, is “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions” which, according to Jackson, “includes the false claim that vaccines being distributed in the U.S. and elsewhere are ‘an experimental gene therapy that could prematurely kill large amounts of the population and disable exponentially more.'”
According to Jackson, there have also been “numerous fact checks articles” about my “publication of misinformation stretching back to the early 2000s.” His article will further claim that “The primary purpose of Mercola’s articles and social media activity are to drive sales from his various health businesses.”
This is a classic and time-honored strategy that is frequently used to discredit any source that disagrees with their agenda. Many may not recall that for the first three years after I started this site, I did not sell anything and subsidized the half a million dollars it cost me to run the site out of my medical practice.
Every content site relies on a source of revenue, either through subscription fees or advertising. Or, in the case of TBIJ, taking dirty money from the Gates Foundation who has an agenda when it comes to his investments in the pharmaceutical and GMO/chemical agriculture industry.
Then, as now, advertisers have a way of influencing the content, and I am free to report the truth without taking advertisers’ bottom lines into account. My content has expanded over the years and remains 100% free to the public. Guess Who Funds TBIJ?

TBIJ is funded by Bill Gates,3,4 a leading force within the technocratic takeover movement who doles out money to anything and anyone that will help further the globalist agenda, including media.5 As recently as November 2019, TBIJ was given a $1,068,169 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for an advocacy program related to “Global health and development public awareness and analysis.”6 Other TBIJ sponsors include:7

• The Google News Initiative, which sponsors fellowships at the TBIJ.8
• George Soros’ Open Society Foundation which, not at all surprisingly, funds projects involving “shadow wars and decision machines.”
• The Wellcome Trust,9 the largest charity in the U.K. that funds “innovative biomedical research.” It was formed in 1936 after the death of Sir Henry Wellcome, a pharmaceutical pioneer and progressive industrialist. Their board consists of present or former bankers, insurance executives and investment board members.
Wellcome also funds the Science Media Centre (SMC), a PR firm that specializes in reshaping public reality, manufacturing consent and manipulating beliefs and behaviors. Wellcome and SMC also have the shared goal of educating and training other media.

All of these — Gates, Google, Soros and Wellcome — are easily identified as parts of the technocratic globalist network. So, it’s not surprising to find TBIJ attempting to discredit and censor those critical of the globalist agenda which, of course, includes protecting and promoting the COVID-19 vaccine program.
After all, the COVID-19 vaccination program is bound to be the most profitable vaccine program in the history of medicine, seeing how the plan is to vaccinate 7+ billion people, and not just once or twice, but probably every year going forward.
And, as reported by Columbia Journalism Review,10 while fact checkers have slapped a “false” label on the claim that the Gates Foundation has financial investments in companies making COVID-19 vaccines and therapies, “the foundation’s website and most recent tax forms clearly show investments in such companies, including Gilead and CureVac.”
In his email, Jackson also asked me to comment on planned statements regarding warning letters sent to my business from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the FDA’s confirmation that a recall of my Organic Cocoa Cassava bars had occurred in 2016.
Why would TBIJ focus on the essentially irrelevant voluntary recall of organic coconut bars as a concern when the real issue they need to be exposing is their acceptance of over $1 million from Gates? Why? Because Gates has been fined well over $1 billion for serious regulatory breaches — $800,000 in 2004;11 $32 million in 2005; and $1.3 billion in 2008.12
Vaccines or Gene Therapy?

As for my description of mRNA “vaccines” as gene therapy, any serious rational and objective assessment would never qualify this as a false claim.Think of it in the most simple terms.  mRNA are snippets of genetic code that carries instructions for cells to produce proteins.  The definition of genetic is ‘relating to genes’ and genes contain instructional code that tell the body what proteins to make.Therapy is the medical treatment of disease, so mRNA vaccines are very clearly gene therapy. 
As noted by David Martin, Ph.D., (see video above), Moderna’s SEC filings specify and stress that its technology is a “gene therapy technology,” originally intended for cancer treatment. It’s mechanism of action also confirms it to be gene therapy. So, it’s gene therapy.
Furthermore, these products don’t meet the medical definition of what a vaccine actually is and does, so where’s the counterargument? According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,13 a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”
Immunity, in turn, is defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.” Neither Moderna nor Pfizer claim this to be the case for their COVID-19 “vaccines.”
In fact, in their clinical trials, they specify that they will not even test for immunity. The sole purpose of these products is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.
I challenge TBIJ to present evidence that these mRNA injections function in the same manner as conventional vaccines such that they meet the medical definition, and that they are not, in fact, gene therapies. Don’t just argue that I’m wrong. Prove me wrong.
Fact: mRNA Technology Has Unproven Safety Record

The mRNA gene therapies currently being misleadingly marketed as “vaccines” admittedly turn your cells into bioreactors that churn out viral proteins to incite an immune response, and there’s no off-switch.14
They are fast-tracked products released under emergency use authorization — animal trials were skipped and human trials aren’t even completed yet — and based on historical and preliminary evidence, significant short- and long-term side effects are, quite frankly, inevitable. This novel, never before used therapy has a long list of potential problems, including the following:

The messenger RNA (mRNA) used in many COVID-19 vaccines are synthetic. Your body sees these synthetic particles as non-self, which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in her interview, featured in “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”

Your body also views free mRNA as a warning signal to your immune system, as they drive inflammatory diseases. This is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable, meaning it doesn’t break down as easily as it normally would by encasing the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles is likely to be problematic.

COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, and PEG is known to cause allergic reactions and anaphylaxis.15,16

Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic.17 What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use across all ages and preexisting health conditions?

The synthetic RNA influences, in part, the gene syncytin. According to Mikovits, when syncytin is aberrantly expressed in the brain, you can develop multiple sclerosis. Expression of the syncytin gene also inflames and dysregulates communication between the brain microglia, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain. It also dysregulates your immune system and your endocannabinoid system, which calms inflammation.

The recommendation to vaccinate individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, could be very dangerous, according to Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, who sent a public letter18 to the FDA Commissioner detailing these risks.

Reports in the medical literature have also highlighted the risk of pathogenic priming and antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). For example, in “Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire? Due Diligence Warranted for ADE in COVID-19,” the authors explain:19

“ADE is an immunological phenomenon whereby a previous immune response to a virus can render an individual more susceptible to a subsequent analogous infection.

Rather than viral recognition and clearance, the prior development of virus-specific antibodies at a non-neutralizing level can facilitate viral uptake, enhancing replication; a possible immune evasion strategy avoiding intracellular innate immune sensors, or pattern recognition receptors …

ADE of SARS-CoV has also been described through a novel Fc?RII-dependent and ACE2-independent cell entry mechanism. The authors state20 that this warrants concern in the safety evaluation of any candidate human vaccines against SARS-CoV … This also illustrates that ADE is not always indicative of disease pathology but raises concern for the immunocompromised.”

Similarly, “Pathogenic Priming Likely Contributes to Serious and Critical Illness and Mortality in COVID-19 Via Autoimmunity,” published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, warns that:21

“Failure of SARS and MERS vaccines in animal trials involved pathogenesis consistent with an immunological priming that could involve autoimmunity in lung tissues due to previous exposure to the SARS and MERS spike protein. Exposure pathogenesis to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 likely will lead to similar outcomes.”

We apparently don’t even know if antibody production is truly protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections, according to a December 11, 2020, paper22 in the journal Vaccine: X, which states:

“The first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine(s) will likely be licensed based on neutralizing antibodies in Phase 2 trials, but there are significant concerns about using antibody response in coronavirus infections as a sole metric of protective immunity.

Antibody response is often a poor marker of prior coronavirus infection, particularly in mild infections, and is shorter-lived than virus-reactive T-cells … Strong antibody response correlates with more severe clinical disease while T-cell response is correlated with less severe disease; and antibody-dependent enhancement of pathology and clinical severity has been described.

Indeed, it is unclear whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. Early data with SARS-CoV-2 support these findings. Data from coronavirus infections in animals and humans emphasize the generation of a high-quality T cell response in protective immunity.”

Sadly, just as I accurately predicted, there’s no shortage of media stories reporting side effects in those receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, including sudden deaths of healthy individuals.23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41 And rest assured, the casualties will continue to mount.
One very serious side effect that has emerged is thrombocytopenia, a rare blood disorder that has been reported in at least 36 Americans shortly after COVID-19 vaccination.42,43 This is what led to the sudden death of a 56-year-old Miami Beach doctor. Symptoms emerged within three days of receiving the Pfizer vaccine. He died two weeks later.
Sure, mainstream media assure us that a link between the vaccine and this lethal condition has not been proven, but to dismiss lethal effects that occur within days in otherwise healthy individuals requires some serious suspension of disbelief.
There were no problems accepting that people who got a positive SARS-CoV-2 test and then died — having struggled with heart disease or cancer for years — actually died due to the infection. Something had to be done.
Now, healthy people are dying within hours or days after vaccination, and we’re to just shrug that off as random coincidence. We’re to believe they would have keeled over from the same problem even if they didn’t receive the gene therapy.
In a paper44 titled, “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease,” published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, Dr. Bart Classen also warns there are troubling evidences suggesting the mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
Based on this readily available data, I believe my projections that these gene therapies “could prematurely kill large amounts of the population and disable exponentially more” is materializing before our eyes. So, again, I challenge TBIJ to rebut, with actual data, all of those reports before they claim I’m peddling misinformation. 
Political Powerbrokers Call for Massive Censoring

That there is a powerful network behind the current efforts to eradicate truth tellers is impossible to miss. The coordination alone — between politicians, Big Pharma, mainstream media, Big Tech, “philanthropic” foundations, NGOs and intelligence agencies — is evidence that this is no minor side project.
Even Congress45 and the Biden administration have reportedly reached out to social media companies, urging them to clamp down on “COVID-19 misinformation” before it goes viral.46
As noted by Glenn Greenwald in a February 20, 2021, substack article,47 “In their zeal for control over online speech, House Democrats are getting closer and closer to the constitutional line, if they have not already crossed it.”
I would argue they have indeed crossed the line, seeing how U.S. House Democrats from California — Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney — have gone so far as to demand a dozen cable, satellite and streaming TV companies to censor or remove Fox News, Newsmax and OANN, allegedly for the crime of rejecting “public health best practices.”
In his article48 on this rapid escalation of government calls for censorship, Greenwald states that “Democrats’ justification for silencing their adversaries online and in media — ‘They are spreading fake news and inciting extremism’ — is what despots everywhere say.”

“Since when is it the role of the U.S. Government to arbitrate and enforce precepts of ‘journalistic integrity’?” Greenwald asks.

“Unless you believe in the right of the government to regulate and control what the press says — a power which the First Amendment explicitly prohibits — how can anyone be comfortable with members of Congress arrogating unto themselves the power to dictate what media outlets are permitted to report and control how they discuss and analyze the news of the day?”

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has strongly denounced the Democrats’ actions, calling it a “marked departure from First Amendment norms,” adding that the demands are “a chilling transgression of the free speech rights that every media outlet in this country enjoys … No government official has any business inquiring about the ‘moral principles’ that guide a private entity’s decision about what news to carry.”49
Peer-Reviewed Published Science Is Not Misinformation

While there are probably several intertwining and overlapping incentives behind the relentless push to get these gene therapies into everyone on the planet — even if it includes shutting down any news networks that once in a blue moon has the courage to report on open questions surrounding these products and other pandemic measures — protecting profits is undoubtedly one of them.
As reported by The Defender,50 drug industry lobbyists spent nearly $306.23 million to influence federal lawmakers in 2020 alone. Drug companies also spend about $30 billion on marketing each year (per 2016 data), $6 billion of which pays to propagandize consumers with 5 million universally misleading ads.51 That’s nearly 13,700 ads every day of the year, or 571 ads per hour, 24/7.
Still, despite that massive brainwashing operation, the truth has an appeal all its own. It’s direct. It’s logical. It doesn’t require complicated cognitive gymnastics and 1984-style double-think to “get it.” Most importantly, it can stand on its own against attacks devoid of substantial, data-backed counterarguments — which is why I don’t lose sleep over baseless hit pieces from TBIJ and other jackals bearing similar stripes.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/05/web-elite-extremists-behind-censorship-of-mercola.aspx

A number of medical professionals and occupational respirator experts, including Chris Schaefer, featured in the video above, have warned that wearing of face masks may have adverse health effects and that people really should not be forced to wear them on a regular basis.
Aside from that, there’s a glaring lack of evidence proving they actually prevent viral illness. On the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly shows they have little to no impact on viral spread.
Research1 also shows asymptomatic individuals pose virtually no risk, as they rarely ever spread live virus, thereby undermining the idea that everyone must be masked simply because you don’t know who’s infectious and who’s not.
Despite all of that, government officials insist that universal mask wearing is an essential strategy to combat COVID-19, now even recommending wearing two,2 three3,4 or even four5 layers of face masks. And, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Americans may have to wear masks all the way through 2022.6
Is Wearing a Wet Mask Good for You?

Just when you thought mainstream propaganda could not propose a greater irrational perversion of the truth, a new study7 from the National Institutes of Health claims wearing a moist mask — which is a breeding ground for harmful bacteria — is actually good for you because inhaling through the wet mask hydrates your lungs and boosts your immune system. As reported by Healthing.ca, February 16, 2021:8

“The study, published in the Biophysical Journal, tested an N95 mask, a three-ply disposable surgical mask, a two-ply cotton-polyester mask and a heavy cotton mask, measuring the level of humidity by having a volunteer breathe into a sealed steel box.

When the person did not wear a mask, the water vapor of the exhaled breath filled the box, leading to a rapid increase in humidity inside the box. When the person wore a mask, the buildup of humidity inside the box greatly decreased as most of the water vapor remained in the mask, became condensed, and was re-inhaled. The researchers conducted the tests at three different temperatures ranging from 7 to 36 degrees Celsius.

‘We found that face masks strongly increase the humidity in inhaled air and propose that the resulting hydration of the respiratory tract could be responsible for the documented finding that links lower COVID-19 disease severity to wearing a mask,’ said Adriaan Bax, Ph.D., a NIH Distinguished Investigator and the study’s lead author.

‘High levels of humidity have been shown to mitigate severity of the flu, and it may be applicable to severity of COVID-19 through a similar mechanism.’”

However, it’s important to realize that the humidity inside the mask will allow pathogenic bacteria to rapidly grow and multiply — a documented fact not addressed by the NIH — and since the mask makes it more difficult to breathe, you’re likely to breathe heavier, thereby risking inhaling the microbes deep inside your lungs. As you’ll see below, this can have significant health risks that vastly outweigh any benefit you might get from breathing more humid air.
Occupational Respirator Testing Expert Speaks Out
In June 2020, Schaefer wrote an open letter9 addressed to the chief medical officer in Alberta, Canada, Dr. Deena Hinshaw, pointing out the errors of recommending universal wearing of N95 masks, surgical masks or nonmedical masks as protection against SARS-CoV-2. In it, he writes:10

“I have been teaching and conducting respirator fit testing for over 20 years and now currently for my company SafeCom Training Services Inc. My clients include many government departments, our military, healthcare providers with Alberta Health Services, educational institutions and private industry. I am a published author and a recognized authority on this subject.

Filter respirator masks, especially N95, surgical and non-medical masks, provide negligible COVID-19 protection for the following reasons:

1. Viruses in the fluid envelopes that surround them can be very small, so small in fact that you would need an electron microscope to see them. N95 masks filter 95% of particles with a diameter of 0.3 microns or larger. COVID-19 particles are .08 – .12 microns.
2. Viruses don’t just enter us through our mouth and nose, but can also enter through our eyes and even the pores of our skin. The only effective barrier one can wear to protect against virus exposure would be a fully encapsulated hazmat suit with cuffs by ankles taped to boots and cuffs by wrists taped to gloves, while receiving breathing air from a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).
This barrier is standard gear to protect against a biohazard (viruses) and would have to be worn in a possible virus hazard environment 24/7 and you wouldn’t be able to remove any part of it even to have a sip of water, eat or use the washroom while in the virus environment. If you did, you would become exposed and would negate all the prior precautions you had taken.”

Face Masks Pose Several Health Hazards
In his letter, and in the video above, Schaefer also stresses that these kinds of face masks pose “very real risks and possible serious threats to a wearer’s health” for a number of reasons, including the following:

1. Wearing a face mask increases breathing resistance, and since it makes both inhaling and exhaling more difficult, individuals with pre-existing medical conditions need to be screened by a medical professional to make sure they won’t be at risk of a medical emergency if wearing a face mask.
This includes those with shortness of breath, lung disease, panic attacks, breathing difficulties, chest pain on exertion, cardiovascular disease, fainting spells, claustrophobia, chronic bronchitis, heart problems, asthma, allergies, diabetes, seizures, high blood pressure and those with pacemakers. The impact of wearing a face mask during pregnancy is also wholly unknown.
2. Face masks can reduce oxygen intake, leading to potentially hazardous oxygen deficiency (hypoxia).
3. They also cause rapid accumulation of harmful carbon dioxide, which can have significant cognitive and physical impacts. That said, there is some evidence to support that this may be one of the few benefits of mask wearing, as slightly elevated CO2 levels can also contribute to health benefits as per my interview with Patrick McKeown. (We’re not talking about dangerously high levels, however.)
4. Wearing a face mask increases your body temperature and physical stress, which could result in an elevated temperature reading that is not related to infection.
5. All face masks can cause bacterial and fungal infections in the user as warm, moist air accumulates inside the mask. This is the perfect breeding ground for pathogens. “That is why N95 and other disposable masks were only designed to be short duration, specific task use and then immediately discarded,” Schaefer notes.
Medical doctors have warned that bacterial pneumonia, facial rashes, fungal infections on the face,11 “mask mouth” (symptoms of which include bad breath, tooth decay and gum inflammation) and candida mouth infections12 are all on the rise.
What’s worse, a study13,14 published in the February 2021 issue of the journal Cancer Discovery found that the presence of microbes in your lungs can worsen lung cancer pathogenesis and can contribute to advanced stage lung cancer. As reported by Global Research:15

“While analyzing lung microbes of 83 untreated adults with lung cancer, the research team discovered that colonies of Veillonella, Prevotella, and Streptococcus bacteria, which may be cultivated through prolonged mask wearing, are all found in larger quantities in patients with advanced stage lung cancer than in earlier stages.

The presence of these bacterial cultures is also associated with a lower chance of survival and increased tumor growth regardless of the stage.”

6. With extended use, medical masks will begin to break down and release chemicals that are then inhaled. Tiny microfibers are also released, which can cause health problems when inhaled. This hazard was highlighted in a performance study16 being published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials.

Schaefer also points out that to provide any benefit whatsoever, users must be fitted with the right type and size of respirator, and must undergo fit testing by a trained professional. However, N95 respirators, even when fitted properly, will not protect against viral exposures but can adequately protect against larger particles.
Surgical masks, which do not seal to your face, “do not filter anything,” Schaefer notes. These types of masks are designed to prevent bacteria from the mouth, nose and face from entering the patient during surgical procedures, and researchers have warned that contaminated surgical masks actually pose an infection risk.17 After just two hours, a significant increase in bacterial load on the mask was observed.
Nonmedical cloth masks are not only ineffective but also particularly dangerous as they’re not engineered for “easy inhalation and effective purging of exhaled carbon dioxide,” making them wholly unsuitable for use.
In the video, Schaefer demonstrates the only type of mask that is actually safe to wear — the gas mask kind of respirator you’d use to protect yourself against painting fumes, organic vapors, smoke and dust.
Real respirators are built to filter the air you breathe in, and get rid of the carbon dioxide and humidity from the air you breathe out, thereby ensuring there’s no dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide or reduction in oxygen inside the mask.
Cochrane Review Gives Masks Thumbs Down

I’ve written many articles detailing the evidence showing that face masks do not prevent viral illnesses. To these we can now add an updated Cochrane review,18 which summarizes randomized trial evidence from studies that looked at face masks, hand-washing and/or physical distancing as prevention against respiratory infections.
Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness; and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test. ~ Cochrane Review
There are many limitations to the included studies, including the facts that none was specific to COVID-19 and most had questionable adherence. They did not include the one COVID-19 specific trial that also included adherence parameters. With regard to medical and surgical masks, they found that:

“Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people).”

Four health care studies and one small community study looked at the use of N95/P2 respirators. Here they found that:

“Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (5 studies; 8407 people) or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people).”

COVID-19 Specific Mask Trial Failed to Prove Benefit

Cochrane’s review certainly would have been more complete had they included the only COVID-19-related study to date. Unfortunately, they only included studies published before April 1, 2020. The trial in question, which was done in Denmark, was published November 18, 2020.
This COVID-19-specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial19,20 confirmed and strengthened previous findings, showing that mask wearing may either reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or increase your risk by 23%. Either way, the vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free.
The study included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study. Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and 7% failed to follow recommendations.
Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed those who did not adhere to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no difference.
Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls. So, essentially, we’re destroying economies and lives around the world to protect a tiny minority from getting a positive PCR test result which, as detailed in “Asymptomatic ‘Casedemic’ Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear,” means little to nothing.
CDC Relies on Anecdotal Data to Promote Mask Use

Considering the dearth of evidence for universal mask use, just what is the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention relying on to back up its recommendation?21 Believe it or not, their primary “evidence” is an anecdotal story about two symptomatic hair stylists who interacted with 139 clients during eight days.
Sixty-seven of the clients agreed to be interviewed and tested. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The fact that the stylists and all clients “universally wore masks in the salon” is therefore seen as evidence that the masks prevented the spread of infection. The Danish study reviewed above didn’t make it onto the CDC’s list of studies either.
The CDC’s own data22,23,24 also show 70.6% of COVID-19 patients reported “always” wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14.4% reported having worn a mask “often.” So, a total of 85% of people who came down with COVID-19 had “often” or “always” worn a mask.
This too contradicts the idea that mask wearing will protect against the infection, and is probably a slightly more reliable indicator of effectiveness than the anecdotal hairdresser story.
Another recent investigation25 revealed the same trend, showing that states with mask mandates had an average of 27 positive SARS-CoV-2 “cases” per 100,000 people, whereas states with no mask mandates had just 17 cases per 100,000. I reviewed these and other findings in my December 31, 2020, article, “Mask Mandates Are Absolutely Useless.”
The CDC’s scientific backing for double-masking is equally flimsy. Using rubber dummy heads for their experiments, they claim wearing two tightly fitted masks could reduce exposure to aerosols by about 95%.26,27
However, there are several reasons to take these results with a grain of salt, starting with the fact that mannequins don’t breathe. The CDC even admits as much in its report, when they note that “double masking might impede breathing or obstruct peripheral vision for some wearers.”
In the final analysis, it seems clear that the most effective ways to prevent the spread of viral illnesses, SARS-CoV-2 included, is frequent handwashing with mild soap and water, and staying home if you have symptoms of a respiratory infection. As for masking up when you’re healthy, let alone double, triple or quadruple masking, there’s simply no scientific consensus for that strategy.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/01/moist-masks.aspx

Vitamin D regulates the expression of hundreds of genes and is integral to biological functions that affect every bodily system. As you’ll see in this short video, vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency can trigger several generalized symptoms that you may have associated with other health conditions.
It is also called the sunshine vitamin since your skin makes vitamin D when exposed to ultraviolet light from the sun.1 Vitamin D performs many functions within the body, including maintaining adequate levels of calcium and phosphate, essential for normal bone mineralization.2
It helps reduce inflammation, which is necessary for the modulation of cell growth and immune function. Vitamin D also affects genes that help regulate cell differentiation and apoptosis.
The main indicator of your vitamin D level is 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD). Data collected from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2005-2006 showed a deficiency prevalence of 41.6% in the U.S. population.3 However, as I discuss later in this article, as many as 80% of people may be deficient in vitamin D.
It’s important to note that how the measurement of insufficiency and deficiency is defined depends on the serum concentrations used. Some researchers use a level of 20 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) or 50 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L); the ng/mL is used most frequently in the U.S. and nmol/L is the standard in Europe.
However, GrassrootsHealth Nutrient Research Institute recommends vitamin D serum concentration levels from 40 ng/mL to 60 ng/mL or 100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L.4 At this level, the number of people who are likely deficient in vitamin D would be significantly higher.

14 Signs You Might Have a Vitamin D Deficiency

During cold and flu season, and the COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential to maintain healthy levels of vitamin D to help reduce your risk of viral and bacterial illness.5,6 A blood test is the best way to determine your vitamin D levels, but here are some symptoms that may indicate your levels are low.

1. Aching muscles — Nearly half of all adults are affected by muscle pain.7 Researchers believe most of those are deficient in vitamin D. Some studies have suggested that nerves have vitamin D receptors that affect the perception of pain. In one animal model, research demonstrated a vitamin D-deficient diet can induce deep muscle hypersensitivity that was not connected to low levels of calcium.8

2. Painful bones — Vitamin D regulates the level of calcium in your body, necessary to protect bone health.9 Vitamin D deficiency can cause your bones to soften, called osteomalacia. This may be a precursor to osteoporosis.

3. Fatigue — This is a common symptom of a variety of different health conditions, including sleep deprivation. Researchers have found that supplementing cancer patients suffering from fatigue can improve their symptoms.10
In one study11 using 174 adults with fatigue and stable medical conditions, the researchers found 77.2% were deficient in vitamin D. After normalizing their level, the fatigue symptoms improved significantly.

4. Reduced muscle performance — Vitamin D deficiency is as common in athletes as in others. Vitamin D is crucial for muscle development, strength and performance. Older adults taking a vitamin D supplement have a reduced risk of falls and improved muscle performance.12
Correction through oral supplementation or sensible sun exposure may reduce symptoms of stress fractures, musculoskeletal pain and frequent illness. Vitamin D also has a direct effect on muscle performance. In one paper from the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the author wrote:13

“Higher serum levels of vitamin D are associated with reduced injury rates and improved sports performance. In a subset of the population, vitamin D appears to play a role in muscle strength, injury prevention, and sports performance.”

5. Brain health — Vitamin D is also essential for your brain health. Symptoms of deficiency can include dementia caused by an increase of soluble and insoluble beta-amyloid, a factor in Alzheimer’s disease.14 Research has also found an association with depression15 that may be associated with the function of vitamin D buffering higher levels of calcium in the brain.16
Vitamin D deficiency in pregnant women can increase the risk of autism and schizophrenic-like disorders in the baby.17 One study of people with fibromyalgia found a vitamin D deficiency was more common in those who had anxiety and depression.18 Another looked at vitamin D deficiency in obese subjects and found a relationship between low levels of vitamin D and depression.19

6. Poor sleep — The mechanism linking vitamin D and poor sleep quality has not been identified. But research has found people with low levels of vitamin D have poor quality sleep and a higher risk of sleep disorders.20

7. Sweaty head — Excessive sweating, especially on your head, or a change in your pattern of sweating, can indicate a vitamin D deficiency.21

8. Hair loss — Vitamin D is crucial to the proliferation of keratinocytes and plays an important role in your hair cycle. The vitamin D receptor appears to play a role in the anagen phase of hair growth, leading researchers to conclude, “Treatments that upregulate the vitamin D receptor may be successful in treating hair disorders and are a potential area of further study.”22

9. Slow-healing wounds — Chronic wounds are a major public health challenge.23 In the U.S. 2% of the population is affected by chronic wounds and it is estimated to account for 5.5% of the cost of health care in the U.K. NHS. Vitamin D promotes wound healing and the creation of cathelicidin, a peptide that fights wound infections.24

10. Dizziness — Evidence from animal models suggests that vitamin D is critical in the development of the inner ear,25 which affects balance and coordination. Analysis of people with vestibular neuritis, characterized by vertigo, showed lower serum vitamin D levels than in people without vestibular neuritis.26

11. Heart problems — Clinical studies have shown that vitamin D3 improves circulation and can help improve high blood pressure.27 In one study28 researchers discovered that vitamin D3 also has a significant effect on the endothelial cells that line your cardiovascular system. They found that it helped balance concentrations of nitric oxide and peroxynitrite, which improved endothelial function. 

12. Excess weight — How vitamin D affects obesity has not been identified. However, data do show there is a high probability of deficiency in people who are obese.29

13. Recurring infections — There have been multiple epidemiological studies that show vitamin D deficiency can increase the risk of infection and raise the severity, particularly in respiratory tract infections.30 Multiple studies have demonstrated that vitamin D deficiency increases the potential risk for severe disease and mortality, especially in those who are critically ill.31

14. Reduced cognitive function — Data show that vitamin D deficiency increases your risk of dementia twofold32 and raises your risk of impaired cognitive function.33

80% of People With COVID-19 Are Deficient in Vitamin D

Vitamin D plays an important role in the development and severity of many diseases. This is why, from the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, I suspected that optimizing vitamin D levels would significantly lower the incidence of infection and death in the general population.

Since then, mounting evidence has revealed this is indeed the case as researchers have repeatedly found that higher levels of vitamin D reduce the rate of positive tests, hospitalizations and mortality related to this infection.

One study,34 released in late 2020, assessed the serum 25OHD levels of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to evaluate the influence it might have on the severity of the disease. The researchers found 82.2% of those with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient (levels lower than 20 ng/mL).

Interestingly, they also found those who were deficient had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, high iron levels and longer hospital stays. A second study35 found similar results for people who only tested positive for COVID-19. 

In other words, these patients were tested for the illness using the PCR test, which gives notoriously high false-positive results, and did not necessarily have symptoms of the illness. Yet, those who were “likely deficient” in vitamin D also had an increased risk of testing positive.

Recently, data showed people who received supplemental vitamin D3 while hospitalized with COVID-19 had reduced admissions to the ICU by 82% and reduced mortality by 64%.36 Editor’s note: This preprint study has since been pulled due to “concerns about the description of the research in this paper,”37 but an archived version is still available.

You can read more about the study, from information published before being pulled, at “Vitamin D Supplementation Reduces COVID-19 Deaths by 64%.”

Before the paper was removed, this information triggered British MP David Davis to call for a reevaluation of the official recommendations for vitamin D. He tweeted, “The findings of this large and well-conducted study should result in this therapy being administered to every COVID patient in every hospital in the temperate latitudes.”38

He added that the demonstration of the “clear relationship between vitamin D and COVID mortality is causal,” and his government should raise the availability of free vitamin D supplements to vulnerable populations. Other experts also called for official vitamin D recommendations.39

It’s important to remember the data showing people who are deficient in vitamin D have a higher risk of severe disease has been available long before the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, information that may suggest the other side of the same coin — namely supplementing with vitamin D — may have a positive effect on disease severity, can come under attack.

It isn’t a big leap to understand that if simple and inexpensive solutions, such a vitamin D, hydroxychloroquine and zinc, may reduce the potential risk of severe disease and death, the billions of dollars the pharmaceutical companies stand to make by vaccinating the world would be lost.

Unlike the painful reports of vaccine adverse events received by the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), supplementing with vitamin D, magnesium and vitamin K2 have been studied for years and found to be “well tolerated.”40,41

Added to which, the studies on vitamin D have demonstrated insufficiency and deficiency are associated with a number of health conditions, which you can find more information about in “Are You Ready for the Darkest Day of the Year?” and “Health Conditions in Which Vitamin D Plays an Important Role.”

Magnesium and Vitamin K2 Optimize Your Vitamin D3 Supplement

In the past, I’ve written about the importance of taking vitamin K2 MK-7 and magnesium with your vitamin D3 supplement. Both play an important role in your overall health and in the bioavailability and application of vitamin D in your body. If you’re not using magnesium and vitamin K2, you could need nearly 2.5 times more vitamin D, which GrassrootsHealth discovered in its D*action project.42

Over 10,000 individuals provided information about supplement use and overall health status to GrassrootsHealth since they began conducting large-scale population-based nutrient research in 2007.43

That information has led to the recommendation that vitamin D blood levels between 40 ng/ml and 60 ng/ml (100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L) are safe, effective and lower overall disease incidence and health care costs. As reported by GrassrootsHealth from their data:44

“… 244% more supplemental vitamin D was needed for 50% of the population to achieve 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/L) for those not taking supplemental magnesium or vitamin K2 compared to those who usually took both supplemental magnesium and vitamin K2.”

In practical terms, this means when you take vitamin K2 and magnesium with vitamin D, you need far less vitamin D to achieve a healthy level. You’ll find more about the relationship between these supplements, how they can improve cognitive function and the impact on mortality at “Magnesium and K2 Optimize Your Vitamin D Supplementation.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/01/14-signs-of-vitamin-d-deficiency.aspx

Ubiquitous exposure to phthalates, found in everything from food packaging to personal care products, is putting children’s brain development at risk, according to Project TENDR (Targeting Environmental Neuro-Development Risks), a collaboration of scientists, health professionals and advocates for children and the environment.1
The group formed in 2015 due to concerns that toxic environmental chemicals were playing a role in neurodevelopmental disorders including autism, attention deficits, hyperactivity, intellectual disability and learning disorders.
Recently, they’ve honed in on phthalates, finding that enough evidence exists to call for immediate action to protect children’s brains from exposure to this harmful class of chemicals.2

Several Behavioral Disorders Linked to Phthalates

Phthalates are high-production volume chemicals used frequently as plasticizers in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and other plastics.
An estimated 8.4 million metric tons of plasticizers, including phthalates, are used worldwide each year,3 with phthalate production amounting to about 4.9 million metric tons annually.4 The Norwegian Institute of Public Health found that 90% of those tested from 2016 to 2017 had eight different plasticizers in their urine.5
In a peer-reviewed article published in the American Journal of Public Health, members of Project TENDR came to the conclusion that exposure to ortho-phthalates can impair brain development, increasing children’s risk of learning, attention and behavioral disorders.
They cite data from longitudinal birth cohort studies that show associations between exposure to phthalates in utero and the following health conditions:6

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
Other behavioral problems

Adverse cognitive development
Lower IQ

Poorer psychomotor development
Impaired social communication

According to the report, more than 30 published studies from 11 different countries have measured prenatal phthalate exposure with the children being followed for alterations in neonatal behavior, cognitive development, executive function, social behavior and more.
“The most consistent pattern across multiple studies is associations with behaviors commonly associated with ADHD (including hyperactivity, aggression/defiance and emotional reactivity), deficits in executive function or ADHD clinical diagnosis,” the researchers noted.7
In one example, children born to mothers that were in the highest quintile of urinary phthalate levels (specifically, DEHP metabolites) during the second trimester of pregnancy were nearly three times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD compared to children born to mothers in the lowest quintile.8
Prenatal exposure to phthalates, especially metabolites of DBP and DEHP, has also been linked to a range of additional problem behaviors such as an increased likelihood of delinquent behaviors and more aggressive behaviors,9 along with reductions in child perceptual reasoning, lowered IQ by seven points, anxiety and poorer working memory.10

Prenatal Exposures Through Puberty Particularly Problematic

There are several sensitive windows of exposure to phthalates, including prenatally and postnatally into adolescence and potentially adulthood. The ongoing development of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus and cerebellum, during these periods make it especially vulnerable to exposures to phthalates toxicities.
The mechanisms behind phthalates’ harms are varied, but the chemicals are known to disrupt organization and function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, the system responsible for the management of stress and involved in the regulation of immune function and metabolic homeostasis. They may also inhibit fetal testosterone production and may also have antiestrogenic effects,11 which could have repercussions for brain plasticity.12
“The hippocampus and, consequently, aspects of neural plasticity, cognitive flexibility, anxiety-like behavior, learning and memory, are thought to be particularly vulnerable to phthalates,” the team noted,13 adding that phthalates may also cause harm by disrupting thyroid hormone pathways and altering lipid metabolism and ion homeostasis, including calcium signaling and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors activation. They noted:14

“Given the widespread exposures to phthalates, including among women and children, and the limited existing US regulations, none of which focus on pregnant women, health-protective regulatory actions are required to eliminate these potentially harmful exposures.”

How Are You Exposed to Phthalates?

While the U.S. put restrictions on the use of eight phthalates in children’s toys and other child care items, this is being legally challenged by the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council and other industry groups.15
Further federal regulation of the chemicals remains lax and, in fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of 28 phthalates for use as food additives in food contact products, such as cellophane, paper and paperboard, coating agents and binders.
Environmental and public health organizations submitted petitions asking the FDA to eliminate its approval of the 28 phthalates as food additives but the FDA did not meet the statutory deadline for final decision.16
As a result, diet continues to be a significant route of exposure to phthalates, since the chemicals can leach into food not only from food packaging commonly used by fast food and take-out restaurants but also from plastic equipment used in food production, such as commercial dairy, conveyor belts and food preparation gloves.17
Another common route of exposure is from building supplies, including vinyl flooring and wall coverings, which allow phthalates to migrate into household dust and indoor air. They’re also widely used in personal care products and cosmetics, including nail polish, fragrance, lotion and hair products.
“Overall, women have higher exposure to phthalates found in personal care products than men,” the report noted, which is especially problematic since “[p]hthalates are readily transferred from mother to fetus during pregnancy.”18

All Phthalates Should Be Regulated, Eliminated

Because people are exposed to multiple phthalates simultaneously, the report called for regulation of the chemicals as a class and policy reforms to eliminate the chemicals from products that lead to exposure in pregnant women, women of reproductive age, infants and children.
“We’re exposed to multiple phthalates, and that mixture can come within a single product, but also across multiple products that people are exposed to in a day,” lead author Stephanie Engel told CNN. “The reality is that we need to think of phthalates as a class because that’s how people are exposed to them.”19
Reviewing the chemicals as a class would also prevent manufacturers from simply swapping one phthalate with another, similar to what occurred with bisphenol-A and bisphenol-S. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, told CNN:20

“This is the whole history of these chemicals, whether you call it ‘whack a mole’ or ‘chemical conveyor belt’ or ‘unfortunate substitution.’ We move from one chemical that we have concerns about to another one which we just haven’t studied yet, which often turns out to be just as problematic.

We can’t continue to test these things one at a time. I could make an argument that if one chemical can be substituted for another without changing the process, then why would you think the biology would be different?”

While industry groups have pushed back due to the “costs” associated with removing the chemicals, some retailers and manufacturers have already taken voluntary action to replace them. Home Depot introduced policy to restrict phthalates in vinyl flooring and wall-to-wall carpeting, for instance, and Apple removed the class of chemicals from nearly all of its products.21

Microplastic Pollution Is Another Human Health Crisis

In a perspective article published in the journal Science, Dick Vethaak from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Juliette Legler from Utrecht University in the Netherlands suggest that ubiquitous exposure to microplastics, including plastic particles smaller than 5 millimeters and nanosized plastics smaller than 1 µm, represent another significant risk to human health.22,23
Exposure occurs via both inhalation and ingestion and is the result of the continual breakdown of plastic products such as car tires, clothing, paint coatings and more, which comes in shapes such as spheres, fragments and fibers. The plastics contain mixtures of chemicals, including additives and other environmental contaminants.
“[A] growing body of evidence suggests widespread exposure to microplastics from various foods, drinking water and air,” the researchers noted, adding that microplastics may cause physical, chemical and microbiological toxicity in humans, with the toxic effects acting cumulatively.
In addition, chemical toxicity could also occur since microplastics may act as “vectors to transfer exogenous hazardous chemicals, proteins and toxins present in or on the particles into the body.”24 They pointed out a little-known and understudied potential hazard as well — the presence of an eco- or biocornoa, which are substances on the surface of the plastic particle that could interfere with normal particle uptake:25

“Before crossing the epithelial barriers in the lung and intestine, microplastics are trapped in the mucus layer covering the cells, whereas ingested particles have to pass through acidic conditions in the stomach and intestinal lumen.

The role of the changing composition of the eco- or biocorona acquired by microparticles, from the outside to the inside of the body, across tissue barriers, and the underlying mechanisms in mediating uptake and toxicity are poorly understood and deserve more study.”

In a study at University of Newcastle, Australia, researchers quantified what microplastic exposure may mean for humans, revealing a shocking finding that the average person could be eating about 5 grams of plastic per week — about the amount found in one credit card.26
While environmental groups have called for national targets for plastic reduction, recycling and management, along with an international treaty to stop plastic pollution in the oceans, don’t underestimate the impact one person — you — can have by making simple tweaks to your daily life.
By avoiding the use of single-use plastics like straws, utensils, bags and bottles, and seeking to purchase products that are not made from or packaged in plastic, you can make a dent in the amount of plastic waste and pollution being produced.

How to Reduce Your Phthalate Exposure

You can take steps to reduce your exposure to phthalates and other plasticizers by making small changes in your everyday routine. This includes:

Avoid plastic containers and plastic wrap for food and personal care products. Store food and drinks in glass containers instead.

Avoid plastic children’s toys. Use toys made of natural substances, such as wood and organic materials.

Read labels on your cosmetics and avoid those containing phthalates.

Avoid products labeled with “fragrance,” including air fresheners, as this catch-all term may include phthalates commonly used to stabilize the scent and extend the life of the product.

Read labels looking for PVC-free products, including children’s lunch boxes, backpacks and storage containers.

Do not microwave food in plastic containers or covered in plastic wrap.

Frequently vacuum and dust rooms with vinyl blinds, wallpaper, flooring and furniture that may contain phthalates, as the chemical collects in dust and is easily ingested by children.

Ask your pharmacist if your prescription pills are coated to control when they dissolve as the coating may contain phthalates.

Eat mostly fresh, raw whole foods. Food packaging is often a source of phthalates.

Use glass baby bottles instead of plastic. Breastfeed exclusively for the first year, if you can, to avoid plastic nipples and bottles altogether.

Remove your fruit and vegetables from plastic bags immediately after coming home from the grocery store and wash before storing them; alternatively, use cloth bags to bring home your produce.

Cash register receipts are heat printed and often contain BPA. Handle the receipt as little as possible and ask the store to switch to BPA-free receipts.

Use natural cleaning products or make your own.

Replace feminine hygiene products with safer alternatives.

Avoid fabric softeners and dryer sheets; make your own to reduce static cling.

Check your home’s tap water for contaminants and filter the water if necessary.

Teach your children not to drink from the garden hose, as many hoses contain plasticizers such as phthalates.

Use reusable shopping bags for groceries.

Take your own non-plastic leftovers container to restaurants. Avoid disposable utensils and straws.

Bring your own mug for coffee and bring drinking water from home in glass water bottles instead of buying bottled water.

Consider switching to bamboo toothbrushes and brushing your teeth with coconut oil and baking soda to avoid plastic toothpaste tubes.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/03/phthalates-damaging-babies-brains.aspx

The flaws of vaccine trials in general are really highlighted by current COVID-19 vaccine studies, one of the most egregious ones being the fact that vaccine makers rarely use inert placebos (such as a saline shot), which is the gold standard for drug trials.
As noted in a January 25, 2021, article in The Defender,1 vaccine developers typically assess the safety of a new vaccine against another vaccine, and by so doing, they effectively hide side effects as most vaccines have side effects and risks.
As just one example, the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is being tested against a meningitis vaccine,2 which just so happens to share many of the side effects reported from COVID-19 vaccines. As reported by the National Vaccine Information Center:3

“According to the CDC, at least 50% of individuals receiving meningococcal vaccines targeting meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y, and W-135 (Menactra or Menveo) experience mild side effects …

Adverse events reported by Sanofi Pasteur in the Menactra vaccine product insert include … headache; fatigue … joint pain; chills; anaphylaxis; wheezing; upper airway swelling; difficulty breathing; hypotension … lymph node swelling; Guillain-Barre syndrome; convulsions; dizziness; facial palsy; vasovagal syncope; paresthesia; transverse myelitis; acute disseminated encephalomyelitis …

Adverse events reported by Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics (GlaxoSmithKline) in the pre-licensing clinical trials of Menveo vaccine include … headache; joint and muscle pain; malaise; nausea; chills … acute disseminated encephalomyelitis … pneumonia … suicidal depression and suicide attempts.”

Long-Term Safety Analysis Tossed by the Wayside
Now, Pfizer and Moderna have started offering placebo recipients in their trials the real mRNA gene therapy, which means it will be even more difficult to tease out which side effects are actually caused by the shot and which ones aren’t, over the long term. As reported by NPR, February 17, 2021:4

“Tens of thousands of people who volunteered to participate in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine studies are still participating in follow-up research, though that’s somewhat hampered because many people who had been given a placebo shot opted to take the vaccine instead.”

In fact, according to Dr. Carlos Fierro, who runs the clinical trial for the Moderna vaccine in Lenexa, Kansas, virtually all of the 650 volunteers who initially received the placebo have now opted to get the real vaccine, which means he had “essentially no comparison group left for the ongoing study,” which was slated to run for two full years.
As Dr. Steven Goodman at Stanford University told NPR,5 getting rid of the initial control groups makes it far more difficult to assess the safety and effectiveness of the COVID vaccines since they won’t have anything to compare the vaccine recipients against.
Justification for Elimination of Controls Is Flimsy at Best

Ironically, both the use of an active placebo and the elimination of control groups are being justified on “moral grounds” by pro-vaccine advocates who say it’s unethical to not provide volunteers with something of value, such as another vaccine in the case of active placebos, or a vaccine they know is effective in the case of giving placebo recipients the real McCoy.
Both of these arguments are beyond questionable. As mentioned, no vaccine is 100% safe, so getting an active vaccine placebo comes with risk, not merely benefit, and when it comes to the novel mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines, historical data are troubling to say the least, and the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is rapidly filling up with COVID-19 vaccine-related injury reports and deaths.

As reported in “COVID-19 Vaccine To Be Tested on 6-Year-Olds,” as of February 4, 2021, VAERS had received 12,697 injury reports and 653 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination.6 Even more telling, between January 2020 and January 2021, COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of the annual vaccine deaths, even though these vaccines had only been available for less than two months!

Between January 2020 and January 2021, COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of the annual vaccine deaths, even though these vaccines had only been available for less than two months!

What’s more, previous research7 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are ever reported to VAERS, so in reality, we may be looking at more than 1 million COVID-19 vaccine injuries within the first two months of their release.
In my view, the data are far from assuring overall, which makes the elimination of long-term control groups — flawed as they may be due to active placebo use — all the more troubling.

All Previous Coronavirus Vaccines Failed Upon Challenge 

Historically, previous attempts to create a coronavirus vaccine have all failed miserably, as they ended up creating devastating immune enhancement. This is why any and all short-cuts taken in the COVID-19 vaccine development is so troubling.

In my May 2020 interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., he summarized the history of coronavirus vaccine development, which began in 2002, following three consecutive SARS outbreaks. By 2012, Chinese, American and European scientists were working on SARS vaccine development, and had about 30 promising candidates.

Of those, the four best vaccine candidates were then given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. In the video above, which is a select outtake from my full interview, Kennedy explains what happened next.
While the ferrets displayed robust antibody response, which is the metric used for vaccine licensing, once they were challenged with the wild virus, they were overtaken by a cytokine storm response, known as paradoxical immune enhancement, became severely ill and died.
The same thing happened when they tried to develop a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine in the 1960s. RSV is an upper respiratory illness that is very similar to that caused by coronaviruses.
At that time, they had decided to skip animal trials and go directly to human trials. The RSV vaccine was tested on about 35 children, with identical results. Initially, they developed a robust antibody response, but when challenged with the wild virus, all became ill and two died. The vaccine was abandoned.
Yes, We Really Do Need Placebo Arms

Despite such dire failures, some still argue that placebo arms aren’t needed in COVID-19 vaccine trials. In an opinion piece in STAT News,8 Kent Peacock, a professor of philosophy, and John Vokey, a professor of psychology, both from the University of Lethbridge, compare the use of placebo control groups with giving out dummy parachutes during wartime.
“Giving the real treatment to 100% of the volunteers removes one of the major ethical barriers to challenge trials: the high probability of harmful side effects or death to members of a control group,” they say, completely ignoring the fact that volunteers in the vaccine arm may be put at grave unknown risks, not just in the short term but in the long term as well.
This entire argument hinges on the idea that the vaccine being tested is KNOWN to be safe, which it absolutely is not at this point, and won’t be for many years. They even argue that “not using a placebo … would be less ethically questionable to test the vaccine on older participants.”

People are dying because of the vaccines … It looks more and more as though we’re dealing with homicide, and maybe even murder. ~ Reiner Fuellmich, attorney
Well, they published that article in early September 2020, and now we can more or less conclusively state that they are wrong on this point, as older vaccine recipients have been dropping like flies.
‘We’re Dealing With Homicide,’ German Attorney Says

As reported by Brian Shilhavy, editor of Health Impact News, February 19, 2021:9

“Earlier this week we published10 the English translation of a video in German that attorney Reiner Fuellmich published with a whistleblower who works in a nursing home where several residents were injected with the experimental COVID mRNA shots against their will, and where many of them died a short time later.

Since that interview was published, other whistleblowers in Germany who work in nursing homes have also stepped forward, some with video footage showing residents being held down and vaccinated against their wish …

Fuellmich … stated: ‘We are getting more and more calls from other whistleblowers form other nursing homes in this country, plus we’re getting information from other countries, Sweden for example, Norway … Gibraltar … here are also incidents in England and in the United States that match these descriptions …

It means that people are dying because of the vaccines. What we are seeing in this video clip is worse than anything we ever expected. If this is representative for what’s going on in other nursing homes, and in other countries, then we have a very serious problem.

And so do the people who make the vaccines, so do the people who administer the vaccines. It looks more and more as though we’re dealing with homicide, and maybe even murder.'”

Novel mRNA Gene Therapy Is Not Harmless

It’s important to realize what mRNA and DNA COVID-19 vaccine actually are. They are not traditional vaccines made with live or attenuated viruses. They’re actually gene therapies. They don’t even meet the medical or legal definition of a vaccine, as detailed in “COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines.” This novel, never before used therapy has a long list of potential problems, including the following:

The messenger RNA (mRNA) used in many COVID-19 vaccines are synthetic. Your body sees these synthetic particles as non-self, which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in her interview, featured in “How COVID-19 Vaccines May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”

Your body also views free mRNA as a warning signal to your immune system, as they drive inflammatory diseases. This is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable, meaning it doesn’t break down as easily as it normally would by encasing the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles is likely to be problematic.

COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, and PEG is known to cause anaphylaxis.11

Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic.12

The synthetic RNA influences, in part, the gene syncytin. According to Mikovits, when syncytin is aberrantly expressed in the brain, you can develop multiple sclerosis. Expression of the syncytin gene also inflames and dysregulates communication between the brain microglia, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain. It also dysregulates your immune system and your endocannabinoid system, which is the dimmer switch on inflammation.

The synthetic mRNA also has an HIV envelope expressed in it, which can cause immune dysregulation.

Symptoms of COVID-19 Vaccine Damage
Commonly reported side effects among recipients of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines include:

Persistent malaise13,14 and extreme exhaustion15

Persistent headache and migraine onset16

Severe allergic, including anaphylactic reactions17,18,19

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome20

Seizures and convulsions21,22

Paralysis,23 including Bell’s Palsy24

Swollen lymph nodes25

Sudden death within hours or days26,27,28,29,30

Many of these symptoms are suggestive of neurological damage. According to Mikovits, this is precisely what you’d expect, as these conditions are caused by neuroinflammation, a dysregulated innate immune response and/or disrupted endocannabinoid system.
Long term, Mikovits predicts we’ll see a significant uptick in migraines, tics, Parkinson’s disease, microvascular disorders, cancers, severe pain syndromes like fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, bladder problems, kidney disease, psychosis, neurodegenerative diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) and sleep disorders.
What to Do if You Got the Vaccine and Are Having Problems

If you got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection.
I’ve written many articles over the past year detailing simple strategies to improve your immune system, and with a healthy immune system, you’ll get through COVID-19 without incident. Below, I’ll summarize some of the strategies you can use both to prevent COVID-19 and address any side effects you may encounter from the vaccine.

• Eat a “clean,” ideally organic diet. Avoid processed foods of all kinds, especially vegetable oils, as they are loaded with damaging omega-6 linoleic acid that wrecks your mitochondrial function. Linoleic acid has been shown to increase mortality from COVID-19.
• Consider nutritional ketosis and time-restricted eating, both of which will help you optimize your metabolic machinery and mitochondrial function.
• Implement a detoxification program to get rid of heavy metals and glyphosate. This is important as these toxins contribute to inflammation. To improve detoxification, I recommend activating your natural glutathione production with molecular hydrogen tablets.
A simple way to block glyphosate uptake is to take glycine. Approximately 3 grams, about half a teaspoon, a few times a day should be sufficient, along with an organic diet, so that you’re not adding more glyphosate with each meal.
• Maintain a neutral pH to improve the resiliency of your immune system. You want your pH to be right around 7, which you can measure with an inexpensive urine strip. The lower your pH, the more acidic you are. A simple way to raise your pH if it’s too acidic (and most people are) is to take one-fourth teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) or potassium bicarbonate in water a few times a day.

Nutritional supplementation can also be helpful. Among the most important are:

Vitamin D — Vitamin D supplements are readily available and one of the least expensive supplements on the market. All things considered, vitamin D optimization is likely the easiest and most beneficial strategy that anyone can do to minimize their risk of COVID-19 and other infections, and can strengthen your immune system in a matter of a few weeks.

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) — NAC is a precursor to reduced glutathione, which appears to play a crucial role in COVID-19. According to one literature analysis,31 glutathione deficiency may actually be associated with COVID-19 severity, leading the author to conclude that NAC may be useful both for its prevention and treatment.

Zinc — Zinc plays a very important role in your immune system’s ability to ward off viral infections. Like vitamin D, zinc helps regulate your immune function32 — and a combination of zinc with a zinc ionophore, like hydroxychloroquine or quercetin, was in 2010 shown to inhibit SARS coronavirus in vitro. In cell culture, it also blocked viral replication within minutes.33 Importantly, zinc deficiency has been shown to impair immune function.34

Melatonin — Boosts immune function in a variety of ways and helps quell inflammation. Melatonin may also prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection by recharging glutathione35 and enhancing vitamin D synthesis, among other things.

Vitamin C — A number of studies have shown vitamin C can be very helpful in the treatment of viral illnesses, sepsis and ARDS,36 all of which are applicable to COVID-19. Its basic properties include anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, antioxidant, antithrombotic and antiviral activities. At high doses, it actually acts as an antiviral drug, actively inactivating viruses. Vitamin C also works synergistically with quercetin.37

Quercetin — A powerful immune booster and broad-spectrum antiviral, quercetin was initially found to provide broad-spectrum protection against SARS coronavirus in the aftermath of the 2003 SARS epidemic,38,39,40 and evidence suggests it may be useful for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 as well.

B vitamins — B vitamins can also influence several COVID-19-specific disease processes, including41 viral replication and invasion, cytokine storm induction, adaptive immunity and hypercoagulability.

Type 1 interferon — Type 1 interferon prevents viral replication and helps degrade the RNA. It’s available in spray form that you can spray directly into your throat, your nose. Mikovits recommends taking a couple of sprays per day prophylactically, and more if you have a cough, fever or headache.

Report All COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

Last but not least, if you or someone you love have received a COVID-19 gene therapy “vaccine” and are experiencing side effects, help raise public awareness of these problems by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do three things:42

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/2021/03/02/covid-vaccine-testing.aspx

For a weary public longing to get back to normalcy, vaccine passports represent a tantalizing carrot, being dangled as a mechanism for freedom. By showing proof that you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, perhaps you can once again board an airplane and travel freely, attend a concert or enjoy a meal in your favorite restaurant, just like you used to.
Except, being required to present your “papers” in order to live your life isn’t actually freedom at all — it’s discrimination, and even a move toward technocratic fascism, one that’s setting the stage for increased surveillance and erosion of your privacy.
Nonetheless, this blatant move toward an ever-increasing surveillance state is being welcomed by many who have been led to believe the passports are necessary to protect public health and safety.
Vaccine Passports Are in Development

It’s likely only a matter of time before you’ll be asked to prove your vaccination status in order to carry on with your daily life. “The government seems to be developing vaccine passports by stealth, making sure the technology is in place for anyone who needs it,” wrote Lara Prendergast, The Spectator’s assistant editor.1
She’s referring to the U.K. government, which has given sizable grants to a number of private companies developing such technology. This includes more than $86,000 to Logifect, which is slated to launch a vaccine passport app in March 2021, and more than $104,000 to iProov and Mvine, which are developing digital certificates that show vaccination status.
As Prendergast noted, “Your phone would most likely be your vaccination passport. Everyone’s vaccination status is already being logged centrally by the National Immunization Vaccination System using their NHS number. This information could be easily linked with an app.”2
Around the world, vaccine passports are rapidly being rolled out, including in Denmark, which will begin issuing them in February 2021. Sweden. Spain, Italy, Cyprus and Malta have also expressed positivity toward vaccine passports to revive tourism, while in the U.S., plans for vaccine IDs are under evaluation.3 International efforts are also underway.
The Commons Project and the World Economic Forum created the Common Trust Network, which developed the CommonPass app that’s intended to act as a health passport in the near future.
The app allows users to upload medical data such as a COVID-19 test result or proof of vaccination, which then generates a QR code that you will show to authorities as your health passport.4 The proposed common framework “for safe border reopening” around the world involves the following:5

Every nation must publish their health screening criteria for entry into the country using a standard format on a common framework

Each country must register trusted facilities that conduct COVID-19 lab testing for foreign travel and administer vaccines listed in the CommonPass registry

Each country will accept health screening status from foreign visitors through apps and services built on the CommonPass framework

Patient identification is to be collected at the time of sample collection and/or vaccination using an international standard

The CommonPass framework will be integrated into flight and hotel reservation check-in processes

Eventually, the CommonPass framework will be integrated with already existing personal health apps such as Apple Health and CommonHealth. If you want to travel, your personal health record will be evaluated and compared to a country’s entry requirements, and if you don’t meet them, you’ll be directed to an approved testing and vaccination location.
Majority Are in Favor of ‘Privacy-Encroaching Technology’

Even as mortality data show COVID-19 is hardly the deadly pandemic it’s been made out to be, fear-mongering remains in full effect — including warnings that a more infectious, mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2 is on the loose. With fear still omnipresent, acceptance of “privacy-encroaching technology” that promises an illusion of safety is high.
In the U.K., researchers from the University of Bristol conducted two large surveys about such technologies, with overwhelming positivity reported.6 The first measured public acceptance of location tracking through your cellphone that would allow health agencies to monitor your contact with others to target social distancing and quarantine measures.
About 70% of the respondents said they would accept such an app that they could choose to download and, surprisingly, 65% also said they would accept such an app even if it was mandated by the government and used to locate those violating lockdown orders and issue fines and arrests.7
A second survey evaluated acceptance of vaccine passports, with 60% stating they were in favor and only 20% stating they were strongly opposed. The study’s lead author, professor Stephan Lewandowsky, described those opposed as “surprisingly low, adding, “It’s fascinating how people seem increasingly receptive to their personal data being used to inform themselves and others about what they can and can’t do.”8

Prendergast put this widespread acceptance into further context for the British, who “have traditionally been deeply suspicious of the idea of an official asking for ‘papers, please’:9

“[This] … is why there was such a backlash against Blair’s ID cards. As one journalist at the time put it:
‘If I am ever asked to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am, when I have done nothing wrong and when I am simply ambling along and breathing God’s fresh air like any other freeborn Englishman, then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.’
That journalist is now our Prime Minister. It would be an extraordinary turn of events if Boris Johnson ended up being the man who introduced an immunity identity system in Britain.”

US Universities Institute Jail-Like Restrictions

At every turn, long-standing societal norms — like college students gathering with friends in their dorm or even leaving their rooms for work and exercise — are disappearing. As of February 7, 2021, for instance, the University of Massachusetts Amherst was in a “high risk” operational mode due to a “continuing surge in COVID-19 cases.”10
The status, which was to be in place for a minimum of 14 days, made all classes remote and ordered all students, whether residing on or off campus, to self-sequester in their residences, except to get meals, attend medical appointments or undergo twice-weekly COVID testing.
Violating these orders would result in “disciplinary action,” according to a university press release, which could include removal from residence halls or suspension.11 Students were also informed that, should they decide to leave campus to self-sequester at home, “it is highly unlikely we will be able to accommodate your return.”
Even within a residence hall, students were told to remain in their rooms at all times except when using a restroom on their floor. Outdoor exercise or attending to the immediate needs of a pet was allowed, but only when wearing a mask and maintaining social distancing.12
This wasn’t the case at UC Berkeley, however, which banned outdoor exercise in addition to extending dormitory lockdowns in February 2021. The only times students are allowed to leave their rooms during the lockdown are to obtain medical care, get required COVID tests, to use an assigned bathroom or to obtain food from an outdoor dining kiosk, after which “you are required to return immediately to your room.”13
Are You Clean Enough to Travel?

While many countries have suggested that the COVID-19 vaccine will not be mandated, by giving special privileges to the vaccinated, such as the ability to travel, attend social events or even enter a workplace, it essentially amounts to the same thing and insinuates a “cleaner” class of people in those who have been vaccinated.
It’s reminiscent of the early days of the pandemic, when hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes were flying off store shelves in a frenzy to clean away COVID. Now we know that transmission of COVID-19 by fomites — the term used for inanimate surfaces and objects that can transmit a pathogen — has been exaggerated.
Emanuel Goldman, a microbiology professor at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, suggested this in July 2020, when he stated that studies suggesting SARS-CoV-2 was easily spread via surfaces did not present real-life situation.14
“In my opinion, the chance of transmission through inanimate surfaces is very small,” he said, and while period disinfection of surfaces, especially in hospitals, was a reasonable precaution, in public settings, he noted, “this can go to extremes not justified by the data.”15 In February 2021, an editorial in Nature supported Goldman’s work, suggesting that costly and toxic disinfection efforts are misguided.
“Catching the coronavirus from surfaces is rare. The World Health Organization and national public health agencies need to clarify their advice,” the editorial reads.16 The New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority alone is spending an estimated $380 million annually on COVID-related sanitation, and when it asked the U.S. government whether they should be focusing on fomites or solely aerosols, they were told to continue their focus on fomites.17
Writing in The Atlantic, Derek Thompson describes this as a type of “hygiene theater,” in which Americans are going through the motions of dutifully cleaning and, likely, over-disinfecting surfaces when the virus spreads most efficiently through the air.18
Indeed, much of the COVID-19 pandemic response has been embroiled in theatrics, including mask mandates, for which the scientific evidence has been described as “astonishingly weak.”19 Hygiene theater, much like the theater for vaccine passports, provides an illusion of safety, not one grounded in reality.
Discussion to Ban Florida Travel for Disobedience

In the U.S., Florida announced in December 2020 that it would have no more lockdowns and no statewide mask mandates.20 The act resulted in retaliation by federal government, which entertained the idea of a domestic travel ban to the state, reportedly to curb the spread of new COVID-19 variants.
In a press conference, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis stated, “Any attempt to restrict by the federal government would be an attack on our state done purely for political purposes.” Sen. Marco Rubio agreed, calling the act unconstitutional: “So now that they’re considering actual restrictions on Americans inside the country, I think it is unconstitutional. I think it’s going to be challenged in court successfully.”21
The “technocratic fascist vision”22 of professor Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum who wrote the book on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, is moving ahead full-steam. He announced the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Initiative in June 2020, which includes stripping all people of their privately owned assets.
Getting health passports to become a new normal has, in fact, been part of the plan all along for the Commons Project, which began developing software that tracks medical data well before the COVID-19 pandemic. “But spikes in virus cases around the world this spring accelerated its work,” The New York Times reported.23
While the vaccine passports are starting out with the COVID-19 vaccine for international travel, it’s setting a precedent for expansion that can be extended to other vaccines and medical information, and then to domestic travel and even leaving your house, as the passports will be carried on your phone that has location-tracking abilities.
And it’s clear that when the fascists come, they’ll be wearing masks — probably two or three of them depending on their level of loyalty. For now, getting informed and sharing your knowledge is the first step to protecting your freedom.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/24/covid-vaccine-passport.aspx

In a collaboration between researchers1 from the University of Queensland and the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, scientists discovered quercetin has proneurogenic effects in the hippocampus of the brain.
The hippocampus is located within the temporal lobe and is part of the limbic system.2 This is a part of the brain where behavioral and emotional responses are generated. These responses are central to survival and include reproduction, caring for babies, feeding and the fight-or-flight response. Other parts of the limbic system include the thalamus, hypothalamus, basal ganglia and amygdala.
The hippocampus is a well-studied part of the brain, which takes its name from the shape that resembles a seahorse. This area plays a crucial role in memory consolidation, coding and learning.3 Another of its major functions is forming a cognitive map, which is related to your ability to acquire new knowledge, store it and recall it.
Your behavior is dependent on your ability to acquire new knowledge and represent the information accurately. Damage to this area can produce maladaptive behaviors. “Evidence supports the role the hippocampus plays in decision-making as it relates to memory deficits that result from an Alzheimer’s type of dementia.”4
According to the Alzheimer’s Association,5 the number of people living in the U.S. who have Alzheimer’s disease is growing. There were an estimated 5.8 million people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in 2020. Nearly two-thirds are women. Experts estimate that as the population of people over 65 continues to grow, the number with Alzheimer’s will also rapidly increase.
By 2050, it is projected 13.8 million will have Alzheimer’s disease. This new data offer more information about caring for the health of your memory and learning centers that are often hardest hit by Alzheimer’s disease. As I discuss below, there are also other strategies you can use to protect your brain health.
Quercetin Stimulates Proneurogenic Activity

The research design of the featured study in Stem Cell Reports6 was built on past studies that have demonstrated the benefits of phytochemicals found in plant foods. As the researchers wrote, one of the interesting processes is the brain’s plasticity, which is necessary for structural and functional modifications to happen when exposed to internal and external stimuli.
The researchers said they chose apples as they are widely consumed across the globe resulting in a generalized exposure.7 The study began with an in vitro examination of quercetin, which is an abundant flavonoid found in apple peel.
The second half of the study was an in vivo study using an animal model. After their data analysis, the researchers ultimately found that apples contained compounds in the peel and the flesh that helped promote neurogenesis.
Quercetin from the peel and another active compound from the apple flesh, 3,5-Dihydroxybenzoic acid (DHBA), demonstrated the ability to increase precursor cell proliferation and neurogenesis.
The researchers measured the effect on neural precursor cells, which are stem cells that can generate neural cell types within the brain. They found the effect was like that reported in past studies for other compounds such as resveratrol and epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), which is found in green tea.8
During the lab portion of the study, the researchers found that stem cells generated from a mouse brain were protected and exhibited more neurogenesis when quercetin and DHBA were added to the cell cultures.9 During the animal study, they found structures in the brain that were associated with learning and memory had more neurons when the mice were given doses of quercetin or DHBA.
Exercise Also Stimulates Brain Growth

Another stimulus that promotes neurogenesis is exercise. One study10 from the University of British Columbia discovered that aerobic training could increase the volume of the hippocampus in older women who had mild cognitive impairment.
The scientists engaged 86 women ages 70 to 80 years and assigned them to a twice-weekly program over six months. The women engaged in aerobic activity, resistance training or balance and tone training. Those enrolled in the aerobic training showed significant improvement in hippocampal volume.
As reported in Science magazine,11 neurogenesis without exercise may not be enough to protect memory and learning. One animal model demonstrated that increasing levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) were required before the animals could outperform the control mice on testing.
BDNF is a key molecule produced in the brain with exercise and may help to explain the neuroprotective and cognitive benefits people experience with exercise.12 Much less is known about the interaction between exercise, BDNF and neurogenesis in the human brain as the inaccessibility of human brain tissue is the limiting factor.
More is known about the benefits from animal models, while indirect measurements of neurogenesis are used in human participants. Senior author of the paper published in Science, Rudolph Tanzi, Ph.D., commented on the results of chemically induced neurogenesis with exercise:13

“In our study we showed that exercise is one of the best ways to turn on neurogenesis and then, by figuring out the molecular and genetic events involved, we determined how to mimic the beneficial effects of exercise through gene therapy and pharmacological agents.

Although exercise-induced AHN [adult hippocampal neurogenesis] improved cognition in Alzheimer’s mice by turning on neurogenesis, trying to achieve that result by using gene therapy and drugs did not help.

That was because newly born neurons, induced by drugs and gene therapy, were not able to survive in brain regions already ravaged by Alzheimer’s pathology, particularly neuroinflammation. So, we asked how neurogenesis induced by exercise differs.

The lesson learned was that it is not enough just to turn on the birth of new nerve cells, you must simultaneously ‘clean up’ the neighborhood in which they are being born to make sure the new cells survive and thrive. Exercise can achieve that …”

More Strategies to Protect Brain Health

There are additional strategies you can use to help promote brain health. Astaxanthin is one. This powerful antioxidant is a naturally occurring carotenoid responsible for the pink or red color found in salmon, trout, lobster and other seafood.14
It’s often referred to as the “king of antioxidants”15 and is derived from haematococcus microalgae that produce it as a protective mechanism to shield it from ultraviolet light.16 In your body, it helps protect against reactive oxygen species and oxidation that play a role in heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and aging.
In one review of the literature,17 scientists identified several pathways astaxanthin may take to help slow brain aging. They also found it increases BDNF levels and attenuates oxidative damage to DNA, lipids and proteins. Another nutrient found in fatty fish that helps protect your brain health is omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3 fats are long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids that include EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid).
They are crucial for cell membranes and play an anti-inflammatory role in the body.18 DHA is especially crucial for brain health as it is an essential structural component that is found in high levels in the neurons.
As I have written before, and covered in my book “Superfuel,” co-written with James DiNicolantonio, Pharm.D., when there is an inadequate amount of omega-3, the nerve cells become stiff and are prone to inflammation. This reduces proper neurotransmission from cell to cell and the cells become compromised.
Low levels of DHA have been linked to both memory loss and Alzheimer’s disease, and some studies have suggested degenerative brain diseases may potentially be reversible when sufficient DHA is provided.19,20 However, it is important to choose wild-caught Alaskan salmon, krill oil or other sources of safe fish, such as sardines, to meet these nutritional requirements. I discuss why in “The High Cost of Salmon Farming.”
There are also many benefits to nutritional ketosis, only one of which is providing adequate fuel to your brain for optimal functioning. You’ll find more information about the metabolic and antiaging benefits, as well as the importance of cyclical ketosis, in the article “Ketones: The Fourth Fuel.”
Strategies to Slow Brain Aging

There are strategies you can use to improve brain function and others you should avoid as they have a negative impact on brain health. To protect your brain health, processed foods and sugar are two dietary culprits to avoid.
Regular consumption of foods high in sugar is also linked to a higher risk of Type 2 diabetes21 and Type 2 diabetes is associated with a 60% higher risk for any type of dementia.22 One study found people who were recently diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes also had a 16% increased risk for dementia, indicating even after having diabetes for a short time you are still at increased risk for dementia.
An increased risk for dementia may also be present with higher levels of glucose without Type 2 diabetes. In one study,23 researchers found that even without a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes, people with higher hemoglobin A1c and glucose measurements had significantly lower scores on memory testing. Also, participants with higher blood sugar levels had lower hippocampal volume.
Another source of carbohydrates and blood glucose is alcohol. Chronic excessive alcohol consumption is known to cause neuronal dysfunction and brain damage.24 Yet, even moderate alcohol consumption can reduce brain volume and is associated with neuronal changes.25
In a large study evaluating brain aging and alcohol,26 researchers from the University of Southern California examined 17,308 brain scans of cognitively normal participants.
They found that for every gram of alcohol consumed each day, the participants’ brain aged 0.02 years, which is equivalent to 7.3 days. To put this in perspective, 12 ounces of regular beer have approximately 14 grams of alcohol.27
Chronic sleep deprivation is another lifestyle component that can trigger poor brain health. When you don’t get enough sleep, your brain cannot do the necessary housekeeping.
Researchers from Marche Polytechnic University in Italy28 show that astrocytes, which are a type of glial cells in the brain that normally get rid of unnecessary nerve connections, start to break down healthy nerve synapses when you are chronically sleep-deprived.
The researchers looked at astrocyte activity in four groups of mice and found that chronically sleep-deprived mice had more than double the activity of the well-rested mice and instead of targeting only damaged cells, astrocytes were beginning to destroy healthy synopsis, an activity that could lead to neurodegenerative diseases.
Quercetin and Exercise Serve Important Roles in Immunity

Together, exercise and quercetin help to support your immune system. The interaction of lifestyle choices with your immune system has become even more important in 2020 after the release of SARS-CoV-2. In one review of the literature,29 researchers describe a “remarkable increase in the number of descriptive studies on exercise and immune system” than occurred in the 1990s.
The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates exercise has an important positive and complex effect on the immune system. The compelling link between physical activity and a strong immune defense system continues to be supported by research data.30
There is a clear inverse relationship between your risk of illness and moderate exercise. While athletes can experience an increased risk after intense training, habitual moderate exercise delays the onset of age-related immune dysfunction and reduces your risk of illness.
In 2020, scientists also began calling for regular exercise, even in isolation without access to gyms or sports clubs, as it can play an important role in supporting the immune system.31 Regular exercise of adequate intensity has been suggested as an auxiliary tool for preparing the immune system,32 even in the elderly.33
Quercetin has also been highlighted in the medical literature as it acts as a zinc ionophore, helping move zinc into the cells where it can halt viral replication, and as a synergistic partner with vitamin C. Yet, on its own, quercetin acts as a natural antihistamine and anti-inflammatory that can also lower your risk for viral illnesses.
Researchers have also found that quercetin can inhibit the expression of casein kinase II (CK2),34 which down-regulates the ability of the cell to generate type 1 interferon when it is attacked by a virus. By inhibiting the expression of CK2, quercetin may help slow the replication of RNA viruses.
In addition to apple peel, you can find quercetin in foods such as plums, red grapes, green tea, elder flower and onions.35 Considering its wide-ranging benefits, quercetin may also be a useful supplement for many, either acutely, for times you feel you’re coming down with something, or more long-term for metabolic health and, potentially, brain health.
If you choose to supplement, I believe that quercetin is best taken at night (with zinc) before you go to bed, and you haven’t eaten for at least three to four hours. You will sleep for eight hours, and if you are metabolically flexible, this is the time that you will dive into nutritional ketosis.
The other benefit of taking quercetin at night is to take advantage of its senolytic action. This helps to remove senescent cells, which are similar to nonreplicating cancer cells that secrete powerful proinflammatory cytokines. You can optimize quercetin’s senolytic properties if you take it while you are fasting. I talk more about quercetin in “Another Reason to Add Quercetin to Your Daily Supplements.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/25/quercetin-found-to-stimulate-new-brain-cells.aspx

When an investigation is led by individuals with financial and professional stakes in the outcome, what happens? Nothing. And that’s where we’re at with the World Health Organization’s investigative team1 tasked with getting to the bottom of SARS-CoV-2’s origin.
The WHO’s investigative commission includes Peter Daszak, Ph.D.,2 the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that has a close working relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), having outsourced several gain-of-function research projects to it. When SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in Wuhan, China, the EcoHealth Alliance was actually funding the WIV to collect and study novel bat coronaviruses.
Not only has Daszak gone on public record dismissing the possibility of the pandemic being the result of a lab leak,3 calling the notion “crackpot,” “preposterous” and “pure baloney,”4 he was also the mastermind behind the publication of a scientific statement, published in The Lancet and signed by 26 additional scientists, condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”5,6
This manufactured “scientific consensus” was then relied on by the media to “debunk” theories and evidence showing the pandemic virus most likely originated from a laboratory.
WHO’s Investigative Team Dismisses Lab Origin Theory

Considering Daszak’s personal involvement with gain-of-function research in general, and research efforts at WIV in particular, he has plenty of motivation to make sure the blame for the COVID-19 pandemic is not laid at the feet of researchers such as himself, especially those at WIV.
So, it was no surprise whatsoever when the WHO, February 9, 2021, announced its investigators had concluded the WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak, and that the lab-escape theory would no longer be part of the team’s investigation.7,8,9
Interestingly, Alina Chan, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, points out that SARS-related work has also been done in BSL2 and BSL3 labs, which were excluded from the investigation.10 The team also was not equipped or designed to conduct a forensic examination of laboratory practices.11 Rather, they relied on information obtained directly from the Chinese team.
According to the WHO team leader, Danish food safety and zoonosis scientist Ben Embarek, the officials at WIV “are the best ones to dismiss the claims and provide answers” about the potential for a lab leak. However, that line of reasoning hardly passes the smell test.
As noted by GM Watch, it “defies common sense: Suspects in an investigation should clearly not be treated as ‘the best ones’ to dismiss any possible charges against them.”12 Embarek further insisted that lab accidents are “extremely rare,” hence it’s “very unlikely that anything could escape from such a place.”13 Yet this is another entirely unconvincing argument.
According to the Cambridge Working Group in 2014, “biosafety incidents involving regulated pathogens have been occurring on average over twice a week” in the U.S. alone,14,15 and a Beijing virology lab accidentally released the original SARS virus on no less than four separate occasions.16 Three of those four instances led to outbreaks.17
Experts Condemn Conflicted WHO Inquiry

Many experts are now condemning the WHO’s inquiry as a sham and a political stunt to exonerate the Chinese government.18 And, at the front of this sham investigation is Daszak himself, who was hand selected by Chinese authorities to be on the WHO’s investigative team in the first place. As reported by GM Watch:19

“The lengths that China is going to in order to control the WHO’s narrative was highlighted in John Sudworth’s report20 on the press conference for the BBC. It showed Chinese officials preventing him from interviewing a WHO team member after the press conference.
Nobody tried to prevent him interviewing Peter Daszak, however. In fact, Daszak has given so many media interviews during the WHO team’s time in China that he has, in the words of one commentator, established himself as ‘the public voice of the WHO team.’”

Unherd also reported on the controversial WHO investigation:21

“The experts were adamant: there is no need for further inquiries into this concept since it is ‘extremely unlikely’ to be the cause of this global catastrophe. It was no surprise to hear such claims from Liang Wannian, the Chinese professor on the podium.
He is, after all, head of the Covid-19 panel at their National Health Commission who led Beijing’s response to the crisis. He has defended his government’s ‘decisive’ approach, despite the silencing of doctors trying to warn their fellow citizens, the denials of human transmission, the deletions of key data and the reluctance to share genetic sequencing22 …
Yet how shameful to see the WHO … diminish itself again by kowtowing to China’s dictatorial regime in such craven style. Beijing fiercely resisted this mission for months, even imposing sanctions on Australia after it called for such an inquiry.
It gave consent after considerable haggling in return for the right to vet the team of scientists. Lo and behold, those picked included … Daszak, who has worked with Wuhan scientists for years on their controversial experiments and led efforts to dismiss claims of any lab leak as ‘baseless.’ Now suddenly this is a ‘WHO-China Joint Study’ — and it seems the chosen experts see their task as selling China’s story to the planet.”

Indeed, China appears to be purposely hiding much of the scientific data the world needs if we are ever to get to the bottom of where SARS-CoV-2 came from, which makes the WHO’s catering to China all the more suspicious.
As reported by OpIndia23 and others,24 a critical database in China that holds the genetic sequences of more than 22,000 samples, including more than 100 unpublished sequences of bat coronaviruses and all bat coronavirus gain-of-function research data from the WIV, was brought offline in September 2019. The WIV-affiliated database created by the National Virus Resource Center was also made inaccessible to the outside world.
According to OpIndia, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has stated there is “reason to believe” WIV researchers became ill in the fall of 2019 which, if true, would coincide with the takedown of these crucial databases.25 Below, I’ll also review additional evidence suggesting WIV staff may have gotten ill as early as August 2017.
WHO Sticks to Natural Origin Theory

According to the WHO team and its Chinese counterparts, one theory still in the running is that SARS-CoV-2 piggybacked its way into the Wuhan market in shipments of frozen food from other areas of China, where coronavirus-carrying bats are known to reside, or even other countries.26,27 Australian beef was apparently offered up as one possible overseas source.28
In an interview with CNN, Daszak referred to finding SARS-CoV-2 on frozen animal foods as “a striking piece of evidence,” as the animal meats in question, including ferret badgers, have been identified as potential intermediate hosts.29
And that brings us to another promoted theory, which is that the virus mutated and jumped species naturally, going from bats to an intermediary host such as pangolin, cat or mink, before mutating into a virus capable of infecting a human host.
A third theory is that an infected individual brought the virus into the Wuhan market, although no details on who that might have been, or where they might have contracted the infection in the first place have been presented.
WHO has now declared its China investigation completed, and is considering expanding its scope to look into other countries as the potential source of the virus. Not surprisingly, Chinese state media are reporting that Wuhan has been “cleared of guilt” and is no longer a suspected origin of the pandemic. The Chinese Foreign Ministry is also calling for an investigation into American-based laboratories.30
New Evidence of Lab Origin Emerges

Meanwhile, just two weeks before the WHO officially dismissed the lab leak theory and took it off the table for future inquiries, a new study31 by Dr. Steven Quay — a highly respected and one of the most-cited scientists in the world32 — was published, claiming to show “beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived.”
It is a 99.8% probability SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory and only a 0.2% likelihood it came from nature. ~ Dr. Steven Quay

In the short video above, Quay summarizes the findings of his Bayesian analysis. His 193-page paper goes into the full details and can be downloaded from zenodo.org33 for those who want to dive into the nitty gritty of this statistical analysis.
Bayesian analysis,34 or Bayesian inference, is a statistical tool used to answer questions about unknown parameters by using probability distributions for observable data. As reported by PR Newswire:35

“Beginning with a likelihood of 98.2% that it was a zoonotic jump from nature with only a 1.2% probability it was a laboratory escape, 26 different, independent facts and evidence were examined systematically. The final conclusion is that it is a 99.8% probability SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory and only a 0.2% likelihood it came from nature.

‘Like many others, I am concerned about what appear to be significant conflicts of interest between members of the WHO team and scientists and doctors in China and how much this will impede an unbiased examination of the origin of SARS-CoV-2,’ said Dr. Quay.

‘By taking only publicly available, scientific evidence about SARS-CoV-2 and using highly conservative estimates in my analysis, I nonetheless conclude that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a laboratory.

The additional evidence of what appears to be adenovirus vaccine genetic sequences in specimens from five patients from December 2019 and sequenced by the Wuhan Institute of Virology requires an explanation. You would see this kind of data in a vaccine challenge trial, for example. Hopefully the WHO team can get answers to these questions.’”

Well, we now know that the WHO team got no such answers, and have moved on to less fertile fields of inquiry. Ironically, Quay based the starting probabilities used for his analysis on the work of Daszak himself, among others.
Suspicious Activity at WIV in Fall of 2019

At the same time, more evidence of “suspicious activity” at the WIV just before the official announcement of the COVID-19 outbreak has also emerged. As mentioned, there are suspicions that WIV laboratory staff may have gotten sick as early as August 2019. According to a January 24, 2021, report by Australian Sky News,36 a January 16, 2021, fact sheet released by the U.S. State Department states:

“The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.”

The fact sheet further accuses the Chinese Communist Party of “systematically” preventing “a transparent and thorough investigation of the origin of the pandemic, instead choosing to devote enormous resources to deceit and disinformation,” while stressing that the U.S. government still does not know where, when or how SARS-CoV-2 initially infected humans.
They do not rule out a lab accident, however. The fact sheet also noted that China has a biological weapons program, and that the WIV has collaborated with the Chinese military on “secret projects.”
Scientific Hubris Is a Serious Threat to Us All
December 18, 2020, Colin David Butler,37 Ph.D., of the Australian National University, published an editorial38 in the Journal of Human Security in which he reviews the history of pandemics from antiquity through COVID-19, along with evidence supporting the natural origin and lab escape theories respectively. As noted by Butler:

“If the first theory is correct then it is a powerful warning, from nature, that our species is running a great risk. If the second theory is proven then it should be considered an equally powerful, indeed frightening, signal that we are in danger, from hubris as much as from ignorance.”

Indeed, scientific hubris may well be at the heart of our current problem. Why are certain scientists so reluctant to admit there’s evidence of human interference? Why do they try to shut down discussion? Could it be because they’re trying to ensure the continuation of gain-of-function research, despite the risks?
We’re often told that this kind of research is “necessary” in order to stay ahead of the natural evolution of viruses, and that the risks associated with such research are minimal due to stringent safety protocols.
Yet the evidence shows a very different picture. For the past decade, red flags have repeatedly been raised within the scientific community as biosecurity breaches in high containment biological labs in the U.S. and around the world have occurred with surprising frequency.39,40,41,42,43
As recently as 2019, the BSL 4 lab in Fort Detrick was temporarily shut down after several protocol violations were noted.44 Asia Times45 lists several other examples of safety breaches at BSL3 and BSL4 labs, as does a May 28, 2015, article in USA Today,46 an April 11, 2014, article in Slate magazine47 and a November 16, 2020, article in Medium.48
Is Gain-of-Function Research Justifiable?

Clearly, getting to the bottom of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial if we are to prevent a similar pandemic from erupting in the future. If gain-of-function research was in fact involved, we need to know, so that steps can either be taken to prevent another leak (which is not likely possible) or to dismantle and ban such research altogether for the common good.

As long as we are creating the risk, the benefit will be secondary. Any scientific or medical gains made from this kind of research pales in comparison to the incredible risks involved if weaponized pathogens are released, and it doesn’t matter if it’s by accident or on purpose. This sentiment has been echoed by others in a variety of scientific publications.49,50,51,52

Considering the potential for a massively lethal pandemic, I believe it’s safe to say that BSL 3 and 4 laboratories pose a very real and serious existential threat to humanity.
Historical facts tell us accidental exposures and releases have already happened, and we only have our lucky stars to thank that none have turned into pandemics taking the lives of tens of millions, as was predicted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Seeing how scientists have already figured out a way to mutate SARS-CoV-2 such that it evades human antibodies, as detailed in “Lab Just Made a More Dangerous COVID Virus,” having a frank, open discussion about the scientific merits of this kind of work is more pertinent than ever before, and we shouldn’t allow the WHO’s dismissal of the lab origin theory dissuade us from such discussion.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/26/origin-of-coronavirus-who.aspx

Some commercially prepared baby foods can contain as much sugar and unhealthy fats as junk food. A recent Congressional report has also found some of the largest commercially prepared baby food brands also contain significant levels of toxic heavy metals.1,2
Commercially prepared baby food may also contain other questionable ingredients, including genetically modified soy, synthetic vitamins, inorganic minerals and excessive levels of protein. These are packed into convenient containers of baby food, which also lack the immune-boosting nutrients found in breast milk.
Although many pediatricians continue to advise parents to feed rice cereal mixed with breastmilk or formula as a baby’s first meal, I believe this is irresponsible advice. Feeding carbohydrate-packed white rice3 can set babies up for a lifetime of bad eating habits and place them at risk for diabetes.4
During processing, the vitamins, fiber and other nutrients in white rice are stripped away, leaving carbohydrates that turn to sugar and raise insulin levels. The result of this congressional review also supports a 2019 study that found toxic metal in 95% of the baby food tested and also found the neurotoxic contaminant perchlorate.5
Congressional Report Finds Heavy Metals in Baby Food

The report, published in February 2021, revealed there were significant levels of arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury found in some of the most popular commercial baby foods on grocery store shelves. The tests were requested by the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy after receiving reports there were high levels of heavy metals in baby food.6
Products from seven manufacturers of baby foods in the U.S. were tested. Four of the companies also provided their internal test policies and results. Some companies tested the ingredients and finished products and others tested only one or the other. However, there were three companies, including Walmart, Campbell Soup company and Sprout Organic Foods, that did not cooperate.7

“The Subcommittee is greatly concerned that their lack of cooperation might be obscuring the presence of even higher levels of toxic heavy metals in their baby food products than their competitors’ products.”

Campbell Soup company sells baby food under the Plum Organics baby food brand and Walmart baby food brand is Parent’s Choice. Chair of the subcommittee Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., spoke with a journalist from The Washington Post after the report was released, saying:8

“Over the last decade advocates and scientists have brought this to the attention of the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA must set standards and regulate this industry much more closely, starting now. It’s shocking that parents are basically being completely left in the lurch by their government.”

While it may have been shocking to Krishnamoorthi, it fits with past actions from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The report discovered that one of the dangers of testing only ingredients was in some cases the finished product tested up to 93% higher in heavy metals than when just the ingredients were tested.9
For instance, when the levels of heavy metals in Hain Celestial Group baby foods were tested, the difference in results between testing the ingredients and the finished product may have been the result of added ingredients, such as vitamin and mineral premix.10
Testing Revealed Significant Heavy Metal Levels

Arsenic is found in soil and water, poses a significant risk to human health and is the leading substance on the priority list from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).11
The Washington Post reports that only rice cereal has a maximum set for inorganic arsenic, 100 parts per billion (ppb). Yet the FDA has set “maximum allowable levels in bottled water,” which are far below the level set for baby food, at 10 ppb.12
Documents from Hain Celestial Group, makers of Earth’s Best Organic baby food, showed many of the ingredients had arsenic levels as high as 309 ppb and at least 24 ingredients in the company’s baby food products measured higher than 100 ppb of arsenic.13
The second substance on the ATSDR list is lead. The Washington Post reports that to date, there is no set federal standard for lead allowed in baby food. Although some experts may believe 1 ppb is an acceptable exposure level in baby food, the American Academy of Pediatrics writes, “Lead exposure has been associated with health, learning and behavior problems, and no amount is considered safe.”14
The congressional report shows that ingredients used in Beech-Nut baby food measure as high as 886.9 ppb of lead and 483 ingredients had levels measuring over 5 ppb. Jason Jacobs, vice president of food safety, quality and innovation at Beech-Nut, commented on the results of the report, saying:15

“Beech-Nut established heavy metal testing standards 35 years ago, and we continuously review and strengthen them wherever possible. We look forward to working with the FDA, in partnership with the Baby Food Council, on science-based standards that food suppliers can implement across our industry.”

Environmental Defense Fund16 analyzed raw data from the FDA’s Total Diet study from 2014 to 2016. The analysis showed lead levels in food designed for babies and children, including teething biscuits, arrowroot cookies, carrots and sweet potatoes, were high.
They analyzed data from August 2019 and found when results for baby food were compared against samples of fruit and vegetables, baby carrots and peeled, boiled carrots had significantly lower lead levels than baby food carrot puree. In fact, 83% to 100% of samples of baby food root vegetables, crackers and cookies had detectable levels of lead.
The report17 also found high levels of cadmium and mercury in baby foods from all the companies tested and the levels tested in baby food for each of the heavy metals is “multiples higher than allowed under existing regulations for other products.” The congressional report found:18

“The test results of baby foods and their ingredients eclipse those levels: including results up to 91 times the arsenic level, up to 177 times the lead level, up to 69 times the cadmium level, and up to 5 times the mercury level.”

Does the Dose Make the Poison?

FoodNavigator-USA19 interviewed executive director of the Clean Label Project (CLP) Jackie Bowen, whose organization has been advocating for manufacturing companies to think carefully about how raw materials are sourced and what ends up on the label.
Bowen pointed out that food safety regulations in the U.S. are often focused on microbial contaminants rather than toxins. In the absence of regulatory guidance, manufacturers are left to determine what they believe is safe for release to the grocery stores.
However, as reported by The Washington Post,20 even when baby foods have tested higher than the companies’ limit set for heavy metals, the products continue to be sold to the public. In answer to the question of whether the dose makes the poison, Bowen points to the responsibility and power that consumers have.21

“Consumers are new arbiters of truth and safety with Mom’s serving as the Chief Operating Officer of their households. Over the past five years, there have been at least four consumer advocacy calls to action about heavy metals in baby food. Low level of repeat exposure to heavy metals has been linked to cancer and infertility. It is past time for brands to recognize that parents expect better.

As to the old adage that the dose is the poison, contaminants like lead are the exception that proves the rule: the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all independently stated there is no safe level of lead for children. In this case, the poison is the poison.”

Heavy Metals Have Long-Term Effect on Babies

Dan Fabricant, CEO and president of the Natural Products Association, once called the CLP’s statements on contaminants in protein powder “defamatory.” He attempted to justify the toxic exposure, saying:22

“Just look at the language and how they use the term ‘detectable levels.’ It’s all made to look very scandalous and salacious. Everything suggests implicitly that there is a critical public health issue. We believe this is bad for the brands themselves and bad for the industry.”

It’s important to remember that any detectable level of heavy metals is concerning since they are not easily removed by the body. A paper in the British Medical Bulletin called exposure to cadmium, lead, arsenic and mercury — the heavy metals found in many baby foods — a “main threat to human health.”23
By far the most studied of the heavy metals is lead, which has demonstrated a particular danger as a neurotoxin in children.24 Scientists have been aware of this for the last 100 years and research has focused on the effects of the poison on the developing nervous system for the past 60 years. Despite this growing body of evidence and public awareness, legislation has not been effective.
One review of the literature25 in emerging market countries reported on blood and urine concentrations of heavy metals. These were generally found to be higher than U.S. reference values. The analysis identified the health effects that were associated with this exposure.
They found associations between gestational age, birth weight and cognitive scores with levels of arsenic in the blood or urine. Children drinking arsenic contaminated water demonstrated skin lesions and different degrees of peripheral neuropathy.
With cadmium exposure, researchers found low birth weight, slightly decreased IQ and smaller head circumference. In the 55 articles focused on lead exposure, there were negative associations between measured blood levels and mental development, and neurological and behavioral test scores.
Other health conditions included low birth weight, stunted growth and aplastic anemia. Twelve studies were focused on mercury exposure and found lower mental and psychomotor developmental test scores as well as children ages 9 to 17 years with ataxia, dysdiadokinesis and pathological reflexes.
Consider Homemade Baby Foods When Possible

There is no denying that prepackaged baby foods are convenient when you are traveling. However, you do have options to lower the risk of exposure to heavy metals and other toxins by making baby food at home using organically grown and locally sourced fruits and vegetables. As I mentioned earlier, steer clear of rice paste cereals as they are high in arsenic and carbohydrates and low in nutrients.
When you make your own food at home, you also have greater control over what goes into the foods as you can select higher quality fruits and vegetables and steer clear of preservatives, additives and added sugar. It reduces food waste and it saves you money in the long run.
For instance, Happy Family Organics26 compares the price of two to three containers of baby food against that of six pears, which can be pureed for 10 or more meals. With a vegetable peeler, steamer basket and blender or food processor you have all you need to get started making and freezing baby food.
Most pediatricians recommend exclusively breastfeeding to at least 6 months of age and introducing your baby’s first spoons of solid food at around 6 months.27 Making baby food at home also improves the nutrient value, since many baby food purees have a long shelf life, which may even be older than your baby.
You also can control the thickness of the puree you make at home, which helps you transition your baby from purees to solid food as they grow older. Once you finish making the food you can add it to an ice cube tray, cover it and let it freeze for at least five hours before transferring to a freezer-safe container.
Remove the food the day before and place into the refrigerator to thaw. It can also be warmed on the stovetop over medium to low heat. Just be sure to stir the food completely so there are no hot spots and test the food yourself, so you don’t burn your baby’s tongue.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/23/more-poison-found-in-baby-food.aspx

In this interview, Ari Whitten, author of “The Ultimate Guide to Red Light Therapy,” reviews the mechanics and basic benefits of red light and infrared light. Whitten, who has a degree in kinesiology, exercise science and movement science, has studied natural health, fitness and nutrition for over 20 years. He’s been a personal trainer, health coach and nutritionist for many years, and went on to do a Ph.D. program in clinical psychology.
Light as Nutrition
Red and near-infrared light are, of course, a subset of natural sunlight, which actually acts and has value as a nutrient. Red light and near-infrared light therapies are ways to get some of those benefits. It may be particularly valuable and beneficial for people who aren’t getting enough natural sunlight exposure, and that’s a majority of people. As noted by Whitten:
“There’s a mountain of literature showing that regular sun exposure is one of the most powerful and important things you can do for your health and to prevent disease. Simultaneously, we have a general public that is afraid of sunlight.
Even the subject of melanoma is rife with misunderstanding because there is research showing, mechanistically, that if you expose cells in a Petri dish to lots of UV light, you can absolutely induce DNA damage and induce cancer formation.
You can take rats and expose them to tons of isolated UV light and induce cancer. You can even find an association between sun burns and increased melanoma risk.
Despite all of those things, it is also the case that when you compare people with regular sun exposure to people with much less sun exposure, they do not have higher rates of melanoma.
In fact, there’s a bunch of studies comparing outdoor workers to indoor workers, showing that outdoor workers have lower rates of melanoma despite three to nine times more sun exposure.”
One of the reasons for this is because indoor workers are exposed to fluorescent lighting, which is loaded with dirty electricity or high voltage transients that cause biological harm. So, not only do they not get sunlight exposure, but they also get harmful EMF exposure.
But the biggest factor has to do with the frequency of exposure. Intermittent exposure – occasional exposure followed by many days or weeks of little to no exposure – tends to be more problematic than regular, frequent sun exposure, as you’re more likely to burn and cause DNA damage in your skin.

Regular exposure, on the other hand, ameliorates this risk, as it engages innate adaptive systems in your skin, your melanin in particular, that are explicitly designed to prevent DNA damage from UV light exposure.
“So, we have this system built into our bodies that’s designed to allow us to get all these benefits of sunlight without the DNA damage and the increased skin cancer risk,” Whitten says.”Framing light as a nutrient is the best way of understanding this.
Just as we require adequate nutrients from the food we eat, just as our bodies require physical movement to express normal cell function, we also require adequate light exposure to express normal cell function. The absence of that exposure to sunlight creates abnormal cell function. And there are myriad mechanisms through which this occurs.
Vitamin D is obviously the most well-known one that regulates over 2,000 genes related to immune health, musculoskeletal health and many other things. But there are many other mechanisms [as well].”
Bioactive Wavelengths
As explained by Whitten, there are specific bioactive wavelengths, and they work through different mechanisms. One mechanism is through your eyes, which is why you’re typically better off not wearing sunglasses on a regular basis. When you’re outdoors on a sunny day, without sunglasses, blue and green wavelengths enter your eyeballs and feed through nerves into the circadian clock in your brain.
Your circadian clock, in turn, regulates a variety of bodily systems, from neurotransmitters involved in mood regulation to hormones involved in immune function. A dysregulated circadian rhythm has been linked to dozens of diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease and neurological diseases.
“I consider disrupted circadian rhythm and poor sleep to be probably the single most common cause of low energy levels and fatigue,” Whitten says. Fatigue is the key focus of his Energy Blueprint brand, and in the interview, he reviews some of the other root causes for poor energy and fatigue, aside from light exposure.
In summary, your body’s resilience, i.e., your ability to tolerate environmental stressors, is directly dependent on the robustness, both in terms of quantity and quality, of your mitochondria. When your resilience threshold is exceeded, disease processes are activated, and fatigue can be viewed as the initial universal symptom prior to overt disease. For more information about this side topic, be sure to listen to the interview or read through the transcript.
Red Light Therapy
Modern day red light and near-infrared light therapy is an extension of the original Helio therapy or sun-based therapy, which has a long and rich history of use for a number of diseases, including tuberculosis.
Over the past few decades, more than 5,000 studies have been published about red and near-infrared light therapy, a.k.a, photobiomodulation, for a wide range of ailments, from combating wrinkles and cellulite to hair regrowth, sports performance, accelerated injury recovery, increased strength and much more.
“You get improvements in strength adaptations, improvements in muscle protein synthesis and the amount of muscle that’s gained, amplified fat loss, increased insulin sensitivity — all when combined with exercise, compared with exercise alone,” Whitten says.
“There’s also research on people with Hashimoto’s hypothyroidism showing profound reductions in thyroid antibodies, as well as thyroid hormone levels. There are also hundreds of studies on random niche things like helping people with diabetic ulcers … combating arthritis pain and chronic pain, joint health, tissue and bone healing …
There are at least dozens, if not hundreds, of studies on using red light therapy in the context of people undergoing chemotherapy to combat oral mucositis, which is inflammation of the oral mucosa that happens as a side effect of some chemotherapy drugs. One of the most, if not the most, effective treatment for that is red light therapy.”
There are also studies showing benefits for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s patients. The difficulty is getting the light to sufficiently penetrate the skull. According to Whitten, near-infrared at 800 to 900 nanometers will penetrate about 20% to 30% deeper than red wavelengths in the range of 600 to 700 nanometers.
“So, if you’re trying to treat the brain, you need a pretty powerful device to be able to emit a strong enough beam of light to penetrate through the skull bone to actually deliver some of that light — which is a relatively small portion, probably less than 20% or something of the overall light being emitted — into the brain,” he says.
More Is Not Necessarily Better
A common fallacy is that if something is beneficial, then the more the better. But this can be a hazardous assumption. As explained by Whitten, there is a bi-phasic dose response to red and near-infrared light therapy. Basically, you need to do enough of it to experience its effects, but if you overdo it, you can cause negative effects. So, it’s all about finding the sweet spot.
That said, as a general rule, your risk of exceeding the beneficial dose with light therapy is lower than it is with something like exercise. Meaning, it’s much easier to overdo exercise and end up with tissue damage from that than it is to overdo red and near-infrared light therapy.
“I interviewed Dr. Michael Hamblin, who’s widely recognized as the world’s top researcher on red and near-infrared light therapy, and I asked him explicitly about this biphasic dose response. I was actually pretty shocked by his response.
He kind of blew off the whole thing as not really significant, [saying] ‘It’s really hard to overdo it, and I’m not worried about really negative side effects from overdoing it.’ Having said that, he is a researcher and he’s doing things in a lab.
And what I’ve seen in my group of about 10,000 people that have gone through my program, many people with severe chronic fatigue or debilitating chronic fatigue syndrome, is there seems to be a small subset of people, I’m guessing somewhere between 1% and 5% of people, that have a really negative reaction to it, even at really, really small doses, let’s say two minutes of red light therapy …
So, there seems to be this small subset of people that is really hypersensitive and prone to negative effects. Generally, in my experience, those people are usually in very poor health overall.”
One potential reason for this is because, like exercise and fasting, light therapy is a type of hormetic stress, which works in part by transiently increasing free radicals or reactive oxygen species.
People with extremely poor mitochondrial health will have a very low resilience threshold, so their capacity to tolerate that burst of reactive oxygen species will be low. At that point, they’re simply creating damage, and their bodies don’t have the resilience to effectively recover from it.
Mechanisms of Action
As noted by Whitten, there are several accepted mechanisms of action, and then there are more speculative mechanisms. One of the most well-known mechanism is cytochrome c oxidase, a photo receptor on your mitochondria that literally captures photons of red and near-infrared light.
Cytochrome c oxidase, photo receptors on your mitochondria, capture photons of red and near-infrared light. The most effective wavelengths that activate this system are in the 600 to 700 nanometer and the 800 to 1,000 nanometer ranges. In response to those light photons, your mitochondria will produce energy more efficiently.
The most effective wavelengths that activate this system are in the 600 to 700 nanometer range, and the 800 to 1,000 nanometers range. In response to those light photons, your mitochondria will produce energy more efficiently. “In general, cells — whether it’s skin cells, your thyroid gland, your muscle cells — they work better if mitochondria are producing more energy,” Whitten explains.

This is one general principle of how light therapy can help heal such a diverse range of tissues and conditions. Another mechanism is related to the benefits of hormesis and the transient spike in reactive oxygen species. That burst of reactive oxygen species creates a cascade of signaling effects that stimulate the NRF2 pathway and heat shock proteins, for example.
As a result, your intracellular antioxidant response system is strengthened and your mitochondria are stimulated to grow bigger and stronger. It also stimulates mitochondrial biogenesis, the creation of new mitochondria. Ultimately, all of this increases your resistance to a broad range of environmental stressors.
“If hormesis is dosed properly, it should not create lasting harm. It should stress the system temporarily and stimulate adaptive mechanisms that ultimately make the whole system more resistant to any kind of harm,” Whitten says. “But you shouldn’t be doing hormesis at a dose that is actually creating damage.”
Light Therapy Modulates Gene Expression
A third mechanism of action involves retrograde signaling and the modulation of gene expression. Your mitochondria play a key role here as well. As explained by Whitten:
“Mitochondria are not just mindless energy generators, but they are also environmental sensors that pick up on what’s going on in the environment. Are there toxins present, is there a pathogen present? Is there increased inflammatory cells present?
They’re picking up on these signals. They’re also picking up on light signals … and reactive oxygen species from hormetic stress. And they’re relaying these signals back to the mitochondria in a way that modulates gene expression.”
There’s a specific set of genes that are expressed in response to red and near-infrared light therapy. In summary, it activates genes involved in cell repair, cell regeneration and cellular growth, depending on the tissue.
For example, in your brain, it activates brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), in your skin, it increases expression of fibroblasts that synthesize collagen, in your muscles, it locally increases expression of IGF1 and factors involved in muscle protein synthesis. “So, you’re getting these local effects in those specific tissues that upregulates genes involved in cell healing, growth and repair,” Whitten says.
Exposure to UVA, red light and near-infrared light also increases the release of nitric oxide (NO) which, while being a free radical, also has many metabolic benefits in optimal concentrations. Many of the benefits of sun exposure cannot be explained solely through the production of vitamin D, and the influence of NO may be part of the answer.
There’s also a speculative line of research suggesting that red and near-infrared light interact with chlorophyll metabolites in a way that helps recycle ubiquinol from ubiquinone (the reduced version of CoQ10).
So, those specific wavelengths of light may help recycle reduced CoQ10, which also enhances energy production. “So, there may be this really interesting synergy between your diet and red and near-infrared light therapy were consuming more chlorophyll-rich compounds may enhance this effect,” Whitten says.
Light Structures Water
Yet another mechanism of action has to do with the structuring the water that surrounds your cells. One of the best ways to build this structured water is through exposure to sunlight. Simply drinking structured water is ineffective. Whitten explains:
“The structuring of water is a really fascinating layer of the story. There’s research showing that the water near membranes, and our mitochondria are composed of membranes, can actually change in viscosity in response to red and near-infrared light therapy.
There are a couple things that happen there. One is that reduced viscosity actually helps the physical rotation of the ATPAs, the ATP synthase pump on the mitochondria, which is the last part of the respiratory chain in mitochondria that creates ATP molecules. That’s a physical rotary mechanism.
So, you have this rotary pump that needs to move in water, and there’s some research suggesting that it moves more efficiently with less resistance when the viscosity of that surrounding water is reduced, and that this may, at least partly, be responsible for the enhanced energy production.
But there’s one other layer to the story. I’ve dug really deep into the literature on light and deuterium. It was tough to find any literature on this, but I did find one really interesting study. Basically, what they found is that, when the viscosity of this water around the mitochondrial membranes is reduced, it does two things.
It pushes the deuterium molecules — which is this isotope of hydrogen that tends to damage mitochondria — away from the mitochondria and makes it less likely to go through the mitochondrial ATP synthase pump where it can create damage.
It also enhances the movement of hydrogen ions — normal hydrogen not deuterium — across the membrane, so more hydrogen can move faster and more efficiently through the mitochondria, whereas deuterium moves less efficiently.

So, it doesn’t necessarily deplete deuterium from your body … but it almost mimics deuterium depletion in a way by making the deuterium much less likely to actually get into the mitochondria where it would create damage.”
On Saunas
We cover far more in this 1.5-hour interview than I’ve summarized here, so for more information, be sure to listen to the interview in its entirety. For example, we delve into the benefits of sauna bathing and the hormetic response to heat stress, which helps repair misfolded proteins.
We also discuss the different types of saunas, the problem posed by electromagnetic fields and why most near-infrared saunas really aren’t. As a quick summary review, there are no pure near-infrared saunas, as part of the near-infrared spectrum is non-heating. Incandescent heat lamps, which is what most people are referring to when talking about near-infrared saunas, emit mostly mid- and far-infrared.
Only about 14% of that light is in the near-infrared spectrum. That said, these kinds of incandescent heat lamps could potentially still deliver a therapeutic dose if you use them for about 20 minutes.
“Let’s frame it this way,” Whitten says. “If you have a heat a near-infrared style sauna, a heat lamp style sauna, where you’re sitting in a chamber that is 110 degrees to 120 degrees Fahrenheit, you cannot claim that it has the same benefits of a sauna when the research on sauna uses sauna chambers that are massively hotter than 110 to 120 degrees. They’re using temperatures of 170 to 220 degrees.
So, if it’s 100 degrees less, you can’t just say it has all the benefits of saunas. Maybe it does have the same benefits, or maybe it has some of the benefits, or maybe it even has superior benefits. But all of those are speculative claims that you can’t make until you’ve done the studies …
We know, for example, that in animal studies, heat stress extends lifespan. It stimulates all kinds of mechanisms that are involved in longevity, autophagy, increased resilience via these hormetic pathways. And in general, when it comes to hormesis, I believe you do need to get a bit uncomfortable.

It should be something that pushes you into your edge of discomfort. And my experience with the heat lamp style sauna is that by themselves, these 110-, 120-degree F chambers, don’t really push the edge of discomfort apart from maybe the local area that’s being exposed to the light from the heat lamps.”
One way to get around this and eliminate the EMF problem, is to preheat your far-infrared sauna as high as it’ll go, then turn it off and turn on your near-infrared bulbs. As for benefits, heat stress is known to:

Preserve muscle mass and prevent the loss of muscle if you’re unable to exercise for a period of time
Lower your risk of infections
Improve detoxification
Reduce your risk of depression, cardiovascular and neurological disease
Reduce all-cause mortality

More Information
To learn more, be sure to pick up a copy of Whitten’s book, “The Ultimate Guide to Red Light Therapy.” On his website, TheEnergyBlueprint.com, you can also access his Energy Blueprint podcast, articles, programs and testimonials.
In his book, Whitten provides specific recommendations for red- and near-infrared therapeutic devices, which can save you a lot of research time if you’re considering this kind of therapy. As noted by Whitten:

“There are a few good brands. It really matters what device you get. I want to put this caution out there because there are a lot of junk devices. There are a lot of devices that are one-fiftieth the power output of the devices that I recommend, and somebody who isn’t savvy to that, isn’t knowledgeable about why the power output of these devices matters, might just go on Amazon and buy some $30 device.
If you get an underpowered device, you’re not doing the same red light therapy, or near-infrared light therapy as [when you’re using] a real high-powered device. So, it is very important to do this the right way, to get the right quality device and to dose it the right way.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/28/red-light-near-infrared-light-therapy-benefits.aspx