Environmental Health Watch NZ

Mild Autism

Anytime something injures human beings (unless it’s highly lethal), less severe reactions will be much more common than severe injuries (e.g., far more were disabled than killed by the COVID vaccines⁵).

As such, individuals with minor neurological injuries from vaccination have changes that lightly overlap with those seen in severe injuries.

Because of this, “autism exists on a spectrum” with many of its characteristic changes being seen to lesser extents in individuals who are not severely disabled (e.g., Elon Musk has characteristic autistic traits and has admitted as such⁶).

Yet, rather than recognizing that the rise in autistic-like traits signals something is profoundly changing in the population — and that a smaller group may be developing severe brain damage and more extreme versions of these traits — the prevailing narrative claims the autism surge is simply due to people who were otherwise basically normal (aside from a few “autistic quirks”) being re-diagnosed as autistic.

As such, the autism epidemic is dismissed as an illusion, attributed to “selective data interpretation by anti-vaxxers” — a convenient explanation that allows many to avoid grappling with an uncomfortable possibility.

Likewise, whenever “autism” is equated to brain damage, a large chorus of people can be relied upon to denounce them by saying their (highly functional) autistic child is not brain damaged, thereby silencing and ending the actual debate (e.g., Elizabeth Warren has repeatedly done this to RFK⁷).

Similarly, once the societal conception of vaccine brain injuries was shifted from “mentally retarded” or “autism,” a push began to normalize autism (e.g., with terms like neurodiversity), thereby making it even more taboo to criticize the complications of this illness.

Fortunately, independent voices are beginning to sound the alarm over this issue. Gavin de Becker (a longtime advocate for vaccine safety), in an excellent newly released book points out that:

1.There is no clear definition for autism or a definitive way to diagnose much of it.

2.The same people who whitewashed the link between autism and vaccines by claiming there is “no evidence” also did the same for many other controversies, such as:

•Agent Orange being safe — when in reality (due to faulty production by Monsanto) it was extremely dangerous

•Vaccines causing SIDS (something there actually is a century of evidence for)

•Vaccines causing Gulf War Syndrome (a devastating military illness Congress’s GAO admitted was likely due to a poorly manufactured anthrax vaccine).

The book has many poignant quotes like this one:

“Promoting their work on vaccine safety, an IOM spokesperson said, ‘We looked very hard and found very little evidence of serious adverse harms from vaccines. The message I would want parents to have is one of reassurance.’

Since that’s the same ‘very little evidence’ the Government found with Agent Orange, burn pits, the anthrax vaccine, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, breast implants, and Gulf War Syndrome, I’m not sure how reassuring it ought to be to parents.“

Note: At this point, one of the primary obstacles we are facing in ending detrimental vaccine mandates is not a lack of data, but rather finding a way to reach people who are resistant to the idea that vaccines could be harmful. De Becker’s book (Forbidden Facts⁸) was specifically written to provide the rhetorical tools that could bring about this shift.

Autism Data

Given all of this, there are two critical, but almost never discussed data points to consider. First, one of the primary studies cited to support the argument that the rise in autism actually is due to diagnostic reclassification is a 2009 study from California⁹ (conducted when the word retarded was being banned). Rather than show minor traits were being relabeled as autism, it showed 26.4% of children who had previously been diagnosed as “mentally retarded” became “autistic” (as did another commonly cited study¹⁰).

Second, while the general public has been conditioned to believe in the amorphous autism label, since this is untenable for those actually working with severely disabled children (vs. those on the spectrum), within the autism field, the two are differentiated by the terms “profound autism” and the far less severe “non-profound” autism. CDC data¹¹ in turn, shows that roughly 26.7% of autistic children have “profound autism,” and that it is continually increasing (although at a much slower rate than non-profound autism):

However, since clarifying what autism is defeats the purpose of the label (having it be an ambiguous term that ultimately sweeps everything under the rug), this distinction is rarely if ever mentioned, and folks outside the autism community are seldom even aware of the term “profound autism” — they simply know “vaccines do not cause autism.”

The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act

The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act had a large number of supporters in Congress due to a recent public recognition (made possible by the mainstream media of that era not habitually censoring pharmaceutical injury stories) that the original DPT vaccine frequently caused brain damage and severe disability.

Because of that, the act was created with the intention of fixing many of the major safety issues with vaccines and providing for injured parents to have an easier time obtaining compensation (by having the government rather than vaccine manufacturers pay for injuries), with the industry, in turn, agreeing to the act as they needed a way to be shielded from injury lawsuits that were bringing them to bankruptcy.

However, while well-intended (e.g., it put into place many critical provisions we rely upon now, like VAERS), give or take, every key provision in the act was implemented at the H.H.S. Secretary’s discretion. As such, once it passed, most of the things it was intended to do never happened and the overall situation instead became much worse as vaccine manufacturers no longer had any legal liability for making injurious products, hence allowing a flood of them to enter the market.

Note: This was also enabled by a 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which erased a critical provision of the act that had previously allowed the public to sue manufacturers for defective products.¹²

As the act was structured:

•If someone was afflicted with a condition that was agreed to be linked to vaccination shortly after vaccination, the Federal government was responsible for paying compensation to them, and to do so through a “vaccine court” designed to be much easier to handle than the hostile court system parents of DPT-injured children had navigated.

Note: DPT brain injuries were so prevalent that after I posted an article on them, along with another on SIDS (a common complication of DPT), many readers shared they had witnessed the exact injuries I described following that vaccine — which, in short, is why DPT injury lawsuits were bankrupting the vaccine manufacturers.

•In the original act, after intense negotiation, a series of vaccine-linked injuries were put into it (forming the initial vaccine injury table), along with a stipulation requiring continuous research to identify other complications that could be linked to vaccination.

Since much of that was at the H.H.S. Secretary’s discretion, there was an incentive to never allow future research which could unveil additional injuries requiring compensation. As such, despite twelve new vaccines being added to the schedule and decades of science since 1986, virtually no additional neurological injuries have been added to the table.¹³

Likewise, at the time the original act was written, brain damage (encephalopathy) was a widely recognized complication of vaccination.¹⁴ Hence, this was one of the few neurological conditions for which it stipulated that coverage was required.

Note: Peter Marks, the head FDA official who relentlessly covered up all the reports of COVID vaccine injuries the FDA was receiving and overrode the FDA’s top vaccine experts to rush a formal approval of it (necessary to enact mandates) recently went on national television and made many false statements about MMR including that it “does not cause encephalitis.”¹⁵

As such, replacing encephalopathy with “autism” (which vaccines “do not cause”) made it possible to exempt the federal government from the massive liability it faced for these ever-increasing vaccine brain injuries.

Note: One of the things many people do not realize is that most of what RFK is trying to do with vaccines (which has provoked so much hysteria from the politicians and the media) is simply what the 1986 Act required the H.H.S. Secretary to do, but none ever have.

Conclusion

Despite endless attempts by the CDC to gaslight us about the COVID vaccines, more and more of the public is now awakening to the fact that they are, in fact, killing people. This was best shown by a recent poll that found 56% of American voters believe the COVID vaccines have caused mass deaths¹⁶ along with previous ones that showed:

•Two years ago 49% believed the vaccines had caused a significant number of deaths,¹⁷ while a year ago, 53% did.¹⁸

•That 34% of vaccine recipients had minor side effects¹⁹ and 7% had major side effects.²⁰

•Four years ago, 32% believed public health officials were lying about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines,²¹ and two years ago, 57% wanted Congress to investigate how the CDC handled assessing vaccine safety.²²

Note: The earliest poll I’m aware of — conducted on stage by Charlie Kirk at a large December 2021 event — found that nearly everyone in the audience either had personally experienced or knew someone who had suffered a severe adverse reaction to the COVID vaccine and that almost all attendees knew someone they believed had died as a result of the vaccine.

Similarly, while they’ve buried the link between vaccines and autism for decades, too many have now been affected that it can’t be swept under the rug anymore. Fortunately Trump’s recent historic press conference on Autism marked a turning point many parents have waited decades for.

There, the President stated he strongly believed vaccines caused autism, correctly identified simple measures to reduce this (e.g., spacing vaccines out) and emphasized that ending this tragedy was his top priority, after which RFK Jr. stated:

“Some 40 to 70% of mothers who have children with autism believe that their child was injured by a vaccine. President Trump believes that we should be listening to these mothers instead of gaslighting and marginalize them, marginalizing them like prior administrations.

Some of our friends like to say that we should believe all women. Some of these same people have been silencing and demonizing these mothers for three decades because research on the potential link between autism and vaccines has been actively suppressed in the past. It will take time for an honest look at this topic by scientists.”

Now that real change is on the table, the vested interests will fight much more fiercely to protect their status quo and it is upon each of us to do all we can to work together to protect humanity’s health.

Author’s Note: This is an abridged version of a longer article which goes into greater details of the points mentioned here. That article, along with additional links and references can be read here. Additionally, a companion article on how vaccines cause Autism can be read here.

A Note from Dr. Mercola About the Author

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician from the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate AMD’s exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and am grateful to share it. I also respect AMD’s desire to remain anonymous since AMD is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.

Food, Health, News

The Truth About Saturated Fat (Mercola)

October 18, 2025 Pam Vernon 3 Comments

Heart

From Dr Joseph Mercola

Story at-a-glance

For several decades, saturated fat was wrongly blamed for heart disease, while vegetable oils quietly caused a surge in obesity, inflammation, and chronic metabolic disorders
Newly appointed FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary is now leading efforts to revise outdated dietary guidelines that were built on cherry-picked data from Ancel Keys’ Seven Countries Study
A 2016 BMJ-published reanalysis found replacing saturated fat with linoleic acid-rich vegetable oils increased cardiovascular deaths, despite lowering cholesterol
Investigative journalist Dr. Maryanne Demasi faced vicious backlash after exposing the flawed science behind saturated fat demonization in her documentary “Heart of the Matter”
Industrial seed oils like canola and soybean are now linked to mitochondrial damage, inflammation, and chronic illness — while saturated fat is finally being recognized as metabolically supportive

For decades, the dominant narrative insisted that saturated fat was deadly — even though the actual data never proved it. As a result, the health advice shifted toward seed oils and processed margarine, which quietly ushered in new health problems, from metabolic disease to obesity and inflammatory disorders — all while the original hypothesis remained unchallenged by mainstream medicine.

Now, for the first time, high-ranking officials are openly criticizing these outdated guidelines. So, if you still believe that butter, beef, and full-fat cheese clog your arteries and are damaging your health, it’s time to relearn everything you know about these fat sources.

New FDA Commissioner Aims to End the 70-Year War on Saturated Fat

On July 14, 2025, Dr. Marty Makary, the newly appointed U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner, along with Sec. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. of the Department of Health and Human Services and Sec. Brooke Rollins of the Department of Agriculture, held a press conference addressing their plans to significantly overhaul the U.S. dietary guidelines.¹

•One of the primary areas that they will work on is revising the guidelines on saturated fat — During the press conference, Makary highlighted how the changes to the food guidelines will be made based on scientific findings. He mentions that the demonization of saturated fat began with a flawed study — the Seven Countries Study by Ancel Keys.

•Why the Seven Countries Study was significantly flawed — The study, which started in 1958 and continued until 1983, explored the heart health of different populations in several prominent Western countries. According to Keys’ hypothesis, there is a significant link between saturated fat and heart disease. When he published his data, it showed perfect correlations between cardiovascular disease and the dietary consumption of fat.²

However, there was just one problem with the research — Keys cherry-picked the data. He selectively chose the countries that fit his hypothesis while ignoring data from 16 other countries that went against his recommendations.³ Had he chosen a different set of countries, the data would have been the opposite — that increasing the percent of calories from fat actually reduces the number of deaths from coronary heart disease.

•Despite the methodological flaws in his data, the medical community accepted Keys’ study — This led to the promulgation of “low-fat, low-cholesterol” foods as healthy. Butter, coconut oil, red meat, dairy, and eggs were all shunned, while polyunsaturated fats (PUFs) like margarine, vegetable oils, and shortening were popularized.

•The medical establishment “locked arms and walked off a cliff together” — This was how Makary described the shift from saturated fat to polyunsaturated fat — basically, the health community back then took a look and decided that Keys’s study was gospel truth — despite many experts contesting his hypothesis and many studies^4,5 showing the opposite.

“The medical establishment started with a robust debate in the New England Journal of Medicine among academics of the National Academy. But that debate ended in the 1970s because there was groupthink,” Makary said.

“Well, that dogma still lives large and you see remnants of it in the food guidelines that we are now revising. So, we’re going to ensure that the new guidelines are based on science and not medical dogma.”⁶

To see the tide finally turning and the government health agencies taking the lead on these monumental changes is something I applaud. Over the past couple of decades, I’ve published countless articles about the flaws in Keys’ study — and why saturated fats are not to be feared, as they are actually integral to your health.

Documentary Exposed the Flaws and Received Fierce Backlash

Just like me, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., has been speaking out about the erroneous demonization of saturated fat for a long time. Several years ago, I wrote about a two-part documentary she produced called “Heart of the Matter,” which aired on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s show (ABC) Catalyst in 2014. I was extremely impressed by the film, as it did an excellent job of exposing the cholesterol/saturated fat myths and its financially links to cholesterol-lowering drugs called statins.

In her recent Substack post, Demasi detailed the severe backlash she received after she released the documentary, and her thoughts on these recent developments from the U.S. government agencies. “It was a stunning moment — not because the criticism was new, but because it was coming from someone in an official position to do something,” she said.⁷

•“Heart of the Matter” focused on two primary points — The first part examined the demonization of saturated fat, while the second part dwelled on the widespread use of statins.

“The medical dogma was firmly entrenched: saturated fat raised cholesterol, and cholesterol caused heart disease. But the science behind it was shaky — built on cherry-picked data and upheld more by consensus than by critical evaluation,” she said.

•The findings were supported by some of the top experts in the field of cardiovascular health — Among the interviewees featured were Dr. Michael Eades, an early advocate for low-carb, high-fat diets, cardiologists Dr. Stephen Sinatra and Dr. Ernest Curtis, nutritionist Dr. Jonny Bowden, and science journalist Gary Taubes. All of these experts voiced their concerns regarding the warnings against saturated fat. Demasi said:

“Eades, for instance, highlighted the absurdity of the prevailing narrative: ‘You very seldom see the words ‘saturated fat’ in the public press when they’re not associated with artery clogging. So it’s like it’s all one term — ‘artery clogging saturated fats.’’

And Taubes, author of Good Calories Bad Calories, known for his meticulous dismantling of diet dogma, cut to the core: ‘There’s no compelling evidence that saturated fat is involved in heart disease.’”

To present both sides equally, the documentary also featured experts who vigorously defended the warnings against saturated fat. Robert Grenfell, the director of the National Heart Foundation, and Professor David Sullivan, a cardiologist, shared their thoughts in the film.

•Still, the backlash was overwhelming — Demasi describes it as “immediate, vicious, and unrelenting.” The media not only turned against her, but they also went against the experts who challenged the saturated fat dogma. And even though no factual inaccuracies were found, ABC still pulled both episodes from its website.

Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now

Numerous Experts Have Sounded the Alarm on Keys’ Flawed Research

The fact that Ancel Keys’ hypothesis was purely observational and could not establish causation has long been raised by many health experts — even during the first years when the Seven Countries study came out. According to Demasi, John Yudkin, a British physiologist and nutritionist warned that sugar, not fat, was the real cause of heart disease. However, he was mocked and marginalized by Keys, who considered Yudkin his fiercest opponent.⁸

Yudkin was the first, but he wasn’t the only one — numerous researchers like Uffe Ravnskov and Malcolm Kendrick, also publicly challenged Keys’ hypothesis, co-authoring publications that exposed the flaws of this study. Many others soon followed, which Demasi outlined in her blog post.

•“Saturated fat is not the major issue” — In 2013, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra published a commentary on the BMJ, saying that the flawed advice from Keys caused people to aggressively lower cholesterol — which may have led to higher rates of heart disease.

“The mantra that saturated fat must be removed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease has dominated dietary advice and guidelines for almost four decades. Yet scientific evidence shows that this advice has, paradoxically, increased our cardiovascular risks,” Malhotra wrote.⁹

•”The Big Fat Surprise” — Nina Teicholz wrote her best-selling exposè in 2014,¹⁰ which helped bring the issue to public attention. Her deeply researched book challenged the conventional wisdom on dietary fats, especially saturated fat. “Teicholz documented how weak science, political pressure, and food industry lobbying created a false consensus that demonised fat and distorted public health policy,” Demasi remarked.¹¹

•“Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis” — In 2016, a group of researchers published a landmark re-analysis of the Minnesota Coronary Experiment in the BMJ, to evaluate the accuracy of Keys hypothesis. They found that when saturated fat was replaced with linoleic acid (LA) from vegetable oils, cholesterol levels were lowered — but paradoxically led to an increase in deaths, particularly from cardiovascular disease.

“Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid,” the researchers concluded.¹²

The Cholesterol Hypothesis Is a ‘Professional Litmus Test’

The plans to overhaul the U.S. dietary guidelines give hope to many researchers like Demasi, who have long raised their concerns about this flawed science — but were ostracized as a result.

“For the first time, real change may be coming — not from the margins, but from the very top of the U.S. health establishment…

It’s taken decades. The cholesterol hypothesis wasn’t just a scientific claim — it became a professional litmus test. To challenge it was to risk your funding, your career, your credibility. Many of us paid that price. Even now, entrenched interests remain,” she wrote.

•But why was the myth allowed to persist in the first place? Apparently, it’s all because of the food and drug industry. In a video podcast, Dr. Paul Saladino and Teicholz discussed how the low-fat, low-cholesterol myth rapidly led to dramatic changes in the food and drug industries — changes that have proven to be highly lucrative, financially speaking.¹³

•Acknowledging that saturated fat is healthy means to relinquish big industry profits — The Big Food industry is raking in millions of dollars from the low-fat and low-cholesterol (yet highly processed) foods, including industrial vegetable oils. To admit that these “healthier options” are actually decimating public health would lead to great financial losses. The healthy alternative is real food — however, there’s no big industry profits to be made from that.

•Moreover, statin sales and other Big Pharma profit areas would suffer — The whole point of prescribing statins was to lower cholesterol, but if the notion that cholesterol is bad would be overturned, then what would be the point of taking these drugs?

Personally, I believe that statins are among the most overprescribed — and unnecessary — medications on the market today. Not only do the harms far outweigh the benefits, but they’re also ineffective. In fact, in “Heart of the Matter,” the experts repeatedly say that statins only lengthen a life by a few days and, despite their hype and popularity, are shockingly ineffective for all but a few people. Learn more about these drugs in my article, “Statins Do More Harm Than Good.”

Vegetable Oils Undermine Your Health

Perhaps the worst effect of the demonization of saturated fats — including butter, tallow, lard, and coconut oil — is that it paved the way for vegetable oils like soybean, canola, and corn oil, which are loaded with linoleic acid, a polyunsaturated fat (PUF), to become a standard part of the modern diet.

Today, Americans consume LA at levels that would have been unimaginable a century ago. In the 1860s, we only consumed 2 grams of LA per day; that number has now increased to close to 30 grams per day for most people. It now makes up 15% to 25% of a typical American’s caloric intake. And the cost of this overload? Your cells become more vulnerable to oxidative stress.

•Excessive LA causes your mitochondria to break down — The mitochondria, which are the powerhouse of your cells, responsible for creating energy, are significantly damaged because of this fat. LA transforms into oxidized linoleic acid metabolites (OXLAMs), dangerous byproducts that damage DNA, disrupt energy production, and drive chronic inflammation throughout your body.

OXLAMs have been linked to not just heart disease, but nearly every chronic disease now plaguing the developed world, such as obesity, Type 2 diabetes, and even neurodegeneration.

•LA stays in your body for years — You don’t simply eliminate it; instead, it LA embeds in your body fat, where it continues to inflict damage even after you clean up your diet. I recommend reading my paper published in Nutrients to understand how this happens — and how you can reverse it. My paper also expounds on the long-term biological effects of this metabolic disruptor.

•Unfortunately, LA is rampant in the food supply — Even if you stop using seed oils, or don’t eat fried foods and fast food, you could still end up eating large amounts of LA mainly because it’s cleverly hidden in so many packaged products where you’d least expect it.

Lowering your intake of industrial seed oils starts with knowing where they hide. I recommend downloading my Health Coach app, which will be out soon. It has a unique feature called Seed Oil Sleuth™, which will help identify every hidden source of seed oils in your meals. It also calculates your daily LA intake to the nearest tenth of a gram.

Saturated Fat Is Not the Enemy — Misinformation Is

So how do you undo the damage of 70 years of misguided health policy? The good news is there are ways to help revert the damage, and it starts by focusing on the root cause — removing industrial seed oils loaded with linoleic acid (LA). Carefully read labels, even in so-called “healthy” snacks; remember, these harmful fats are lurking everywhere.

Once you’ve cleaned up all the unhealthy fats in your diet, start rebuilding your health with saturated fats from clean animal sources, which are stable and nourishing. Choose healthy options like grass fed butter, ghee, beef tallow, and coconut oil, which support your mitochondria, don’t oxidize easily, and provide steady energy. For more healthy lifestyle strategies to eliminate LA from your diet, I recommend reading “Linoleic Acid, Mitochondria, Gut Microbiome, and Metabolic Health — A Mechanistic Review.”

These new developments in the U.S. food supply are certainly a breath of fresh air, and if Makary and others who are part of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) campaign follow through, we may finally get dietary guidelines that reflect biological truth, not industry agendas. As Demasi concludes:

“[W]e may finally be seeing the collapse of one of the most destructive public health myths in modern history … For those of us who’ve waited decades, it’s not vindication we want (although that would be nice) — it’s change.”¹⁴

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About the War on Saturated Fat

Q: Why is the war on saturated fat finally ending?

A: For decades, saturated fat was wrongly blamed for heart disease due to flawed research like Ancel Keys’ Seven Countries Study. Now, top U.S. health officials, including FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, are acknowledging these mistakes and working to revise the dietary guidelines based on current science, not outdated dogma.

Q: What was wrong with the original research that demonized saturated fat?

A: Keys’ study selectively included countries that supported his hypothesis and ignored those that didn’t. This cherry-picking created a false link between fat and heart disease, leading to widespread promotion of low-fat, high-seed oil diets that have been harmful to public health.

Q: How have vegetable oils impacted health since replacing saturated fats?

A: Vegetable oils like soybean, corn, and canola are loaded with linoleic acid (LA), which damages mitochondria, promotes inflammation, and contributes to chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, and neurodegeneration. These oils now make up 15% to 25% of caloric intake in the average American diet.

Q: What role did media and government play in spreading misinformation?

A: Mainstream media and government agencies endorsed and enforced the cholesterol hypothesis without fully examining the evidence. Whistleblowers like Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., were attacked for speaking out, and even accurate documentaries were censored to protect the status quo.

Q: What changes are being proposed for the U.S. dietary guidelines?

A: Upcoming revisions may eliminate the cap on saturated fat and elevate full-fat foods like butter and dairy. Officials aim to base the guidelines on actual science, not outdated industry-driven dogma.

Medical Industry

ULTRASOUND: A century of forgotten research shows clear damage to fetal tissues

February 1, 2025 Pam Vernon Leave a comment

Analysis by A Midwestern Doctor
Via Dr Mercola

Story at-a-glance

The medical field has historically exposed mothers to harmful treatments for infants. After efforts to stop routine fetal X-rays, prenatal ultrasound (US) was introduced as a “safe” alternative
While ultrasound is considered safe, a century of forgotten research shows it can harm tissues
Evidence shows early fetuses are especially vulnerable to ultrasound, with trials in China that gave ultrasound before abortions revealing clear damage to fetal tissues
US harms are dose-dependent. In 1992, despite safety concerns, the FDA raised permissible US levels 8-fold, which may have contributed to the rise of chronic childhood illnesses
The benefits of prenatal US are often exaggerated, leading to unnecessary treatments that harm both mothers and infants

The earlier in life an input enters a human being’s system, the more of a profound impact it has. For example, abuse, neglect, or trauma early in childhood often pattern individuals for their entire lives (and in many cases their descendants as well).¹

Similarly, it’s well recognized that toxin exposure during pregnancy (especially in the first two months of life²) can create lifelong issues. Sadly, this principle is frequently neglected when convenient (e.g., by pushing the COVID-19 vaccine on pregnant mothers).

‘Safe and Effective’

One of the core beliefs medical students are taught from the very start is that vaccines are “safe and effective.” As such, they become unable to see the obvious dangers of vaccines (e.g., the century of evidence linking vaccines to “unexplained” sudden infant deaths — which coincidentally occur at the same time the early childhood vaccines are given).

A similar situation with ultrasound exists, as all doctors are taught that, unlike other imaging modalities, ultrasound is completely harmless. Rather, ultrasound’s only downside is that the image quality is operator dependent — even though many medical devices use high-powered ultrasound to destroy human tissues.

In truth, like vaccines, initially the medical profession was quite skeptical of ultrasound (as there was a great deal of evidence suggesting harm). However, as the decades passed and its ever increasing use was normalized, those concerns were forgotten entirely. For example, in 1983, CNN aired a program on the dangers of ultrasound (where the FDA acknowledged these dangers) almost no one knows about.

In 1993 CNN warned against pregnancy ultrasound and had the FDA admit it was aware of its dangers. Remarkably, the FDA raised the maximum allowable ultrasound dose by 8 times (despite data showing the old dose was too high) and all those dangers were forgotten. Ultrasound causes… pic.twitter.com/z2gonve5Dy
— A Midwestern Doctor (@MidwesternDoc) December 23, 2024

The Medicalization of Childbirth

Initially, doctors had no interest in childbirth. However, this changed in 1820 after a prestigious Harvard Doctor pointed out it could create lifelong customers due to the mother’s gratitude towards their doctor for helping her at her most vulnerable time.³

In turn, a variety of ploys were used to turn what had been a natural process into a medical intervention requiring a costly array of (often harmful) medical interventions.

Note: Despite those interventions making America by far the most expensive place to give birth to a child⁴ (besides Japan), 0.56% of American infants do not survive childbirth⁵ (the highest death rate amongst the affluent nations⁶) and the US ranks 65th in its maternal death rate.⁷ This indicates America’s approach to birth may be misguided.

After the idea of X-raying a fetus throughout pregnancy was proposed in 1923, it was quickly taken up by the medical profession.⁸ Before long, evidence accumulated that this was very dangerous, but it was not until 1975 that the obstetric field shifted away from it — a shift that largely occurred because an alternative way was found to conduct those routine exams.

Fortunately, at the time, many doctors, including one of the leading reformers of the era, Robert S. Mendelsohn, were aware of the dozens of studies showing ultrasound was not safe and recognized the same mistake was being repeated:

Fetal X-Rays began in 1923, but despite decades of evidence it severely harmed babies, it was not until 1975 that the medical field shifted away from it—largely due to ultrasound replacing it. Here, renowned Robert Mendelsohn MD explains how the x-ray mistake was being repeated. pic.twitter.com/iLcTOhZbGJ
— A Midwestern Doctor (@MidwesternDoc) December 23, 2024

Note: The developing fetus is very sensitive to external energy inputs (e.g., studies have linked prenatal EMF exposure to obesity, neurological impairment and autism).

Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now

‘Safe’ Levels of Ultrasound

Almost all of the ultrasound research showed its toxicity was dose-dependent. By the late 1970s, leading ultrasound researchers were explicitly warning against giving US to fetuses and that it was imperative to be very cautious of the dose.

Note: Much of this was based on the recognition that ultrasound could heat tissues (especially those close to dense bones like the brain) to levels known to be harmful to fetuses. This heating (along with the cavitation bubbles and mechanical stress ultrasound causes) is thought to be the primary mechanism of harm, although other explanations have also been proposed (e.g., ultrasound permanently muting many of the core frequencies of the body⁹).

Unfortunately, as the technology evolved, higher doses were needed to get the higher quality images customers wanted, so in 1992, the FDA made the controversial decision to raise the permitted ultrasound limits massively.

fda maximum allowed machine intensity per year

This limit (720 mW/cm²), however this vastly exceeded the standard accepted ultrasound dose¹⁰ which had already been demonstrated to damage tissues (and sadly, due to poor FDA oversight, many machines often use far higher intensities).

At the time, the change was justified by better training in ultrasound operators being a viable way to prevent fetal damage, but unfortunately, this never happened. Rather, ultrasound became declared “safe and effective,” the existing research was forgotten, funding for future safety research was blocked, medical guidelines gradually eliminated their cautions on ultrasound, and ultrasound operators lost almost any awareness they needed to be concerned about fetal safety.

Most importantly, this 1992 change coincided with the explosion of chronic illnesses that emerged in our children.¹¹

While the proliferation of vaccines is the most likely explanation for this epidemic, one study found¹² ultrasound increased the risk of autism in genetically susceptible children, suggesting ultrasound may have served a contributing role (which may relate¹³ to its ability to potentiate the cytotoxicity of antibiotics and other pharmaceutical drugs).

Likewise, many others found¹⁴ prenatal ultrasound significantly reduced fetal growth, impaired neuronal migration, and in children, increased:

Dyslexia	Delayed speech	Left-handedness
Schizophrenia	Poor academic and physical education performance	Passivity and tiredness

Note: We also periodically come across cases of parents who used home ultrasound throughout their pregnancy to observe their developing child (e.g., Tom Cruise attracted national controversy for this¹⁵) and noticed that their babies tended to be smaller and more sickly.

Fetal Reactivity

One of the first things that made me suspicious of ultrasound was noticing that once ultrasound was applied, fetuses would react to it, and often seem as though they were trying to get away from it as the probe was directed towards them — which suggested, contrary to what we were told, ultrasound was not inert. After some digging, I discovered:

Most midwives (and a few physicians) I’d spoken to had made similar observations and also hence questioned its safety.
Scientific research showed that ultrasound caused increased fetal movement.¹⁶
A hydrophone inside the uterus¹⁷ determined that ultrasound registers at 100 to 120¹⁸ decibels there (which is equivalent to a subway entering a train station¹⁹) — whereas OSHA limits workplace ultrasound exposure to between 105 to 115 decibels.²⁰

Fetal Demise

Another pivotal moment came when I saw a despondent mother in the emergency room having a miscarriage who kept saying, “I don’t understand what happened. We saw our gynecologist earlier today, she looked at my baby, and said he was in great health.” As I looked into this, I began to find many similar reports like this one (which includes many other instances she came across):

I first suspected fetal ultrasounds were dangerous after I saw a woman in tears at the ER who was having a miscarriage even though “the ultrasound this afternoon said I had a healthy baby.” Many more (eg. readers on my Substack and this mother) have experience that same tragedy. pic.twitter.com/5vkfLZ2vxM
— A Midwestern Doctor (@MidwesternDoc) December 23, 2024

NEWS: New Zealand – sees 400% increase in emergency chest pain visits from 2020 to 2023 in patients under age 40

Likewise, numerous large studies have shown ultrasound can cause miscarriages or premature labor,^21,22,23,24 and since I began this series, many readers have shared similar tragic experiences.

Evidence of Harm

Over the last century, hundreds of studies have demonstrated the dangers of ultrasound, over 200 of which I summarized here. Collectively they all show dose-dependent biological damage occurs (at levels that were frequently less than 1% of the FDA’s 720 mW/cm² limit). In cell studies, ultrasound has been repeatedly observed to:

Cause genetic damage similar to that induced by X-rays	Make susceptible cells become cancerous
Damage cellular structures (e.g., microtubules, mitochondria, the nucleus, and the endoplasmic reticulum)	Create damaging free radicals
Create abnormal cell motility	Initiate cell death

In animal studies, ultrasound has been shown to:

Cause the same damage observed in those cellular studies	Significantly impair mice and monkey behaviors (e.g., learning, memory, activity, and sociability)
Impair cardiac function	Inhibit embryonic growth or kill developing embryos
Damage nerves and create motor paralysis	Decrease white blood cell counts
Cause hemorrhages in the lungs and bones	Create a wide range of congenital malformations (e.g., in the heart, head, and spine)

Note: Many of these defects, particularly those of the heart increased in tandem with the widespread adoption of ultrasound.

For ethical reasons, similar studies cannot be conducted in humans. However, in the early 1980s, dozens of studies (e.g., I summarized 41 of them here) were conducted in China on pregnant women immediately prior to abortion, with half of them receiving abortions and the fetuses then being dissected (some of which can be found in PubMed). Collectively, they observed similar damage in each organ that was examined and that ultrasound caused:

The cell death process to initiate — something many Chinese investigators found extremely concerning given that small changes in the initial embryonic cells can be immensely consequential for the rest of life

An increase of the proteins associated with cell death

Mutagenic changes and cancerous transformations

DNA damage

Increased levels of malondialdehyde (a highly reactive molecule), TNF-α, and lipid peroxidation (a sign of oxidative damage)

Decreased activity of many antioxidant enzymes and nitric oxide

Cellular damage (e.g., swelling, degeneration, disintegration, disorganization, karyolysis, and necrosis)

Damage to many cellular structures (e.g., pyknosis, rarefaction, vacuolization, disintegration), particularly within the mitochondria

Depleted glycogen levels

Additionally, they found specific damage to the placenta, pituitary gland, eyes, immune system, kidneys, liver, ovaries, testicles (and sperm), and the brain’s neurons and glial cells.

Note: Ultrasound has been extensively explored as a male birth control method²⁵ and has been found to induce premature ovulation.²⁶ Additionally, a large 2012 study found that 1.25% of children who had an ultrasound as a fetus had urologic disorders (e.g., a urinary obstruction), whereas in those who did not get a prenatal ultrasound, only 0.66% did.²⁷

A few large randomized control trials (RCTs) published in premier medical journals have also demonstrated dangers with ultrasound:

• A 1990 RCT²⁸ gave 4691 women ultrasound. They experienced 20 miscarriages and 11 elective abortions (due to diagnosed birth defects), whereas zero of either occurred in the control group. Additionally, it was determined that of the 250 placenta previas diagnosed by ultrasound (a key reason for prenatal ultrasounds), only 4 were present at birth.

Note: Placenta previa typically resolves later in the pregnancy.

• A 1990 RCT compared 57 patients being surveilled for preterm labor who received weekly pelvic exams or cervical ultrasound. Premature labor occurred in 52% of those receiving US, and 25% of those receiving pelvic exams. Those receiving US were more likely to receive tocolytic (labor inducing) agents (55% vs. 21%) and did not see any benefits from ultrasound.²⁹

• A 1992 RCT published gave regular Doppler examinations (a stronger form of ultrasound) to 1,246 women.³⁰ Compared to controls, the perinatal death rate increased 2.4 times, the total pregnancy loss by 1.67 times, the emergency C-section rate by 17%, and the need for resuscitations at birth by 6% (along with a significant decrease in Apgar scores).

• A 1993 RCT gave 1,415 women regular Doppler examinations. Compared to those who only received standard ultrasound, they were 35% more likely to have an intrauterine growth restriction and 65% more likely to have a low birth weight.³¹

Sadly, rather than changing the standard of care, each of these were ignored.

Is Ultrasound Effective?

Numerous studies show ultrasound provides minimal overall benefit, especially if used early in pregnancy when the fetus is most vulnerable to its damaging effect. For example:

• A 2010 Cochrane review (the gold standard for evaluating medical evidence) of 11 trials comprising 37,505 women found early pregnancy ultrasound provided minimal benefit (there were no reductions in adverse outcomes for babies or in health service use by mothers and babies).³²

• A 2005 RCT of 4,187 pregnant women found that umbilical Doppler monitoring led to a significant increase in the number of ultrasonographic and Doppler examinations but had no effects on the outcome of the pregnancy.³³

• A 1993 meta-analysis found no improvement in birth outcomes or perinatal mortality from ultrasound, but noted it incorrectly diagnosed fetal malformations.³⁴

• A 1993 RCT³⁵ of 15,151 low-risk pregnancies found that routine ultrasound provided no benefit.

Note: Another use of ultrasound is to monitor a fetus’s heart rate continually through the labor process. Unfortunately, there is no evidence this practice improves neonatal outcomes. Rather it just increases the rate of C-sections (e.g., in 1970 when it began, 5.5% of deliveries were C-sections,³⁶ while in 2023, 32.3% of them were³⁷).

This lack of efficacy is largely because the primary “benefit” of ultrasound is that it can inform the parents if the baby has a severe defect and hence should be aborted. This is problematic as:

• Many parents would not agree to prenatal ultrasounds if they knew it would force them to make that choice.

• Ultrasounds frequently have ambiguous results which then require extensive evaluations throughout the pregnancy (or invasive tests like amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling which carry many severe risks including birth defects, a 0.5% to 1% chance of causing miscarriages,³⁸ and decreasing the likelihood of a successful pregnancy by 4.6%³⁹).

Most frequently, that ambiguity creates significant anxiety, depression, and hostility for the mother⁴⁰ (which is not good for the infant).

• Parents who abort “defective” children are wracked with guilt over the choice for years, whereas they quickly find peace with miscarriages (a common outcome for non-viable pregnancies) and stillbirths.

• Studies have shown a significant number of “defects” were erroneous diagnoses, and many well-publicized stories exist of completely healthy babies being born whose parents had been repeatedly pressured to abort them (likewise this happened to a few friends of mine).

Many of the other benefits of ultrasound are either unnecessary (e.g., getting a picture of their face), possible to determine with other methods (e.g., their age, if there are twins, or if they have a genetic defect), or possible to determine around the time of labor (e.g., if a C-section is necessary).

Rather, the primary benefit is to inform you if the baby has a high-risk condition that requires intrauterine surgery (which applies to roughly 1 in 2000 pregnancies)⁴¹ or requires specialized surgical care immediately following childbirth (which can typically be determined with a physical examination).

Note: A 1997 study of 36 children with congenital defects only detected 19% to 36% of them. In those whose defects were detected (and the management of their labor was thus altered), 77% survived, whereas for those whose defects were missed, 96% survived (and had better Apgar scores and birth weights and spent less time on the ventilator). Additionally, while it took 3 times as long for those who needed surgeries to get one, no difference in mortality resulted.⁴²

As such, I believe rather than being routine, prenatal ultrasounds should only be done when there is a specific medical necessity for them (e.g., in high-risk pregnancies where the results of the scan would change its management following unexplained bleeding or to clarify uncertainties during labor), and that when done, care should be taken to minimize fetal ultrasound exposure.

Conclusion

For medical specialties to be financially viable, they need to routinely perform profitable procedures on the patients they see (which are often referred to as the specialty’s “bread and butter” and are funded as a result of aggressive lobbying by the American Medical Association).⁴³

Unfortunately, many of these procedures provide minimal value to the patients and, in many cases, are actually harmful (e.g., pediatricians depend upon vaccine sales to keep their practices afloat). Sadder still, in many cases, the doctors don’t even understand the evidence for or against the practice (e.g., I’ve found this is the case for pediatricians who routinely perform circumcisions).

In my eyes, one of the greatest upsides to the tragedy of COVID-19 is that it’s made it possible to expose the abhorrent tactics the medical industry has used for decades to exploit us for profit. As such, the public is beginning to question many of the longstanding medical practices they’ve reflexively trusted, and similarly, leaders like RFK Jr. have begun proposing removing the AMA’s ability to set the exorbitant reimbursement rates for medical procedures.⁴⁴

As children are both the most vulnerable to medical injury and cannot speak out for themselves when these injuries occur (although as any judicious observer can tell you — they do try to tell us), it is my sincere hope the new era we are walking into will at last allow us to protect them from these predatory medical practices. Our children are our future and it is vital that we protect them.

Author’s note: This is an abridged version of a longer article that goes into much greater detail on the data mention here, safe alternatives to ultrasound, effective strategies we’ve found for preventing miscarriages and having a happy, healthy and alert child, and methods to prevent common complications of pregnancy (e.g., back pain, preeclampsia, edema). That article and its additional references can be read here.

A Note from Dr. Mercola About the Author

Covid-19 experimental injection, News

Some important studies that lamestream won’t be broadcasting

December 19, 2024 Pam Vernon 2 Comments

Just like New Zealand, an alarming increase in people going to hospital with chest pains after the rollout of covid “vaccines” is reported in Australia

BOMBSHELL Study: Covid ‘Vaccines’ Alter Human Behavior

Proof that the covid-19 vaccine causes mental illness

Leading Cardiologist: 100 Million Vaccinated Americans May Have IRREVERSIBLE Heart Damage

Revealed: The Hidden Pfizer Report That Shows Heart Conditions in the Vaccinated Getting Worse Over Time

Bombshell Study Exposes Toxic Effects of Covid mRNA ‘Vaccines’

FDA ‘s Process of Drug and Vaccine Evaluation, Part I

Part 2 on the evaluation of vaccine safety: Heavyweight Vaccine Pushers Demand Studies of Vaccine Safety “Postauthorization”

Pfizer Failed to Disclose the Deaths of Two Women From Their Covid-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials (FDA conspired to hide the deaths, too)

HORRIFIC: Heart Attacks in 2-Year-Olds…Courtesy of the Clot Shots

A disturbing new study has confirmed that sudden infant deaths surged dramatically after Covid mRNA “vaccines” were rolled out for public use.

HOW DID THEY SAY COVID VACCINES WERE “SAFE”?
Another trick you need to know about

Biden Extends Liability Protection For Pfizer and Moderns For Covid Injection Damage or Deaths Until 2029—In The Wake Of RFK Jr. Saying He Is Exploring Removing These Protections

News, Vaccines

Vaccinated Vs. Unvaccinated: The Study The CDC Refused To Do (Why Ever Would They?)— Interview with Dr. Weiler

January 20, 2024 Pam Vernon 2 Comments

Why ever would they refuse? It would prove to the nay sayers the needles were safe & effective. (On the SE topic check out Jon Rappoport’s latest comment, hint, it’s about the FDA). They won’t ever of course (even though some have already done smaller studies, never reported on) because well, they know who will lose hands down… (See also here, here, here & here). One of those links I had to retrieve from archives in Way Back Machine. See how this info is diligently scrubbed from everywhere? … EWNZ

Check out our sister site truthwatchnz.is for other news

Photo: pixabay.com

Covid-19 experimental injection, News

Dire warnings about the ‘safe & effective’

January 6, 2024 Pam Vernon 2 Comments

Check out our sister site truthwatchnz.is for other news

Featuring increasingly in the news feeds are words of warning about the ‘safe & effective’ … here are just a few …

Surgeon General Ladapo Calls to Stop the Use of mRNA Vaccines in Human Beings

“It’s a felony to lie about a drug and it’s a felony to make money off of a drug you know you lied about and it’s a felony to conspire with others to make money off a drug you all lied about together.” Read more

Florida Surgeon General Calls for Complete Halt of COVID-19 Vaccines

“These vaccines are not appropriate for use in human beings.”
The Pfizer COVID-19 “vaccine” injected into billions of arms was not the same one used in Pfizer’s clinical trials. There was a “bait-and-switch.” The public received vials contaminated with plasmid DNA.

Dr. Ladapo Addresses the FDA

“On December 6, 2023, Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo sent a letter to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding safety concerns after the discovery of billions of DNA fragments per dose in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines.” Read more

A further note below from Sasha Latypova @ Substack on this topic:

Assessment of Dr. Ladapo call to halt Poison-19 mRNA shots based on adulteration

Instead, he recommends non-mRNA shots, which are similarly unapproved EUA Countermeasures that can be legally adulterated and misbranded, can contain plasmids and were never tested for genotoxicity.

“COVID Was a Government DEEPSTATE PCR-Manufactured Fraud” – Says Dr Paul Alexander.

“Every single step by governments, their Task Forces, have failed. The vaccine has failed, its ineffective with negative efficacy, and its not properly safe. Its harmful. IMO, what we know indicates this vaccine must be stopped.” Read more

Scientist Issues Dire Warning About COVID Boosters and mRNA Shots

“mRNA ‘Vaccines’ Pose Grave Public Health Risks” Read more

Image by Walter Knerr from Pixabay

Covid-19 experimental injection, News

Scientist Issues Dire Warning About COVID Boosters and mRNA Shot

January 4, 2024 Pam Vernon Leave a comment

From mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

According to research published in December 2023, the mRNA COVID shots suffer high rates of ribosomal “frameshifting,” which causes your cells to produce off-target proteins that can trigger unintended immune reactions
According to the authors, off-target cellular immune responses occur in 25% to 30% of people who have received the COVID shot
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration are refusing to release the RNA stability data they supposedly relied on when approving a change to Pfizer’s shot that allowed it to be transported and stored at temperatures of -20 degrees Celsius instead of -70 C
The FDA also authorized Pfizer to swap the phosphate-buffered saline buffer used in the adult formulations, to a tromethamine (Tris) buffer in the children’s version. FDA did not require any kind of testing to be conducted, and no data have been released in support of its decision to allow the swap
According to research published in 2023, the nanolipid in Comirnaty, made by Pfizer/BioNTech, is toxic to cells and triggers proinflammatory cytokines and reactive oxygen species that can disrupt the mitochondrial membrane causing it to release its content, cause RNA mistranslation, DNA mutations, destruction of the nuclear membrane and more. Frequent repetitions of COVID boosters and/or using mRNA in other vaccines poses a grave public health risk, the scientist warns

According to research published in the December 6, 2023, issue of Nature, the mRNA COVID shots suffer from high rates of ribosomal “frameshifting,” which causes your cells to produce off-target proteins with unknown effects.^1,^2,³ As explained in that paper:⁴

“A key feature of therapeutic IVT [in vitro-transcribed] mRNAs is that they contain modified ribonucleotides, which have been shown to decrease innate immunogenicity and can additionally increase mRNA stability, both of which are favorable characteristics for mRNA therapies …

Pseudouridine (Ψ) is known to increase misreading of mRNA stop codons in eukaryotes, and can affect misreading during prokaryotic mRNA translation. 1-methylΨ does not seem to affect codon misreading, but has been shown to affect protein synthesis rates and ribosome density on mRNAs, suggesting a direct effect on mRNA translation …

Here we demonstrate that incorporation of N1-methylpseudouridine into mRNA results in +1 ribosomal frameshifting in vitro and that cellular immunity in mice and humans to +1 frameshifted products from BNT162b2 vaccine mRNA translation occurs after vaccination.

The +1 ribosome frameshifting observed is probably a consequence of N1-methylpseudouridine-induced ribosome stalling during IVT mRNA translation, with frameshifting occurring at ribosome slippery sequences …

[T]hese data highlight potential off-target effects for future mRNA-based therapeutics and demonstrate the requirement for sequence optimization.”

Synthetic RNA Is Frequently Misread

In layman English, the inclusion of synthetic methylpseudouridine causes the ribosomes (which are responsible for reading the code) to misread the RNA’s instructions. RNA code consists of groups of three bases (codons) that must be read in the correct order for a desired protein to be created.

Because the methylpseudouridine is not a perfect fit, it causes the decoding process to stall and shift (hence the term “+1 ribosomal frameshifting”). There’s basically a stutter in the decoding process, as your cells don’t understand what’s being asked for, and this stuttering causes the decoding to skip a letter, thereby garbling the entire code.

As a result, unintended “nonsensical” proteins are produced instead of the desired SARS-CoV-2 spike. That, in turn, means that your immune system will not produce antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, but rather against these aberrant proteins.

According to the authors, off-target cellular immune responses occur in 25% to 30% of people who have received the COVID shot, and as noted by molecular virologist David Speicher Ph.D.:⁵

“Whenever our cells create an abundance of unintended proteins or prevent production of appropriate proteins it could lead to an unintended immune response with a huge potential to cause harm.”

Not knowing exactly what proteins are being produced is far from the only problem with these gene-based shots, though.

Why Are Regulators Hiding RNA Stability Data?

As reported by investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration both refuse to release the RNA stability data they supposedly relied on when approving a change to Pfizer’s shot that allowed it to be transported and stored at temperatures of -20 degrees Celsius instead of -70 C.

Pfizer has also refused to disclose those data. Why is that? What do the data reveal that they don’t want us to see? Demasi writes:⁶

“… when the FDA granted authorization⁷ in December 2020, it specified the vaccine had to be stored between -80ºC and -60ºC, requiring special ultra-cold freezers, which proved challenging to areas with limited resources.

But by February 2021, Pfizer had apparently solved the problem. It submitted new ‘RNA stability data’ to the FDA demonstrating the vaccine could be stored in conventional freezers (-20ºC) and no longer required ultra-cold freezers.

The FDA approved⁸ the change swiftly. Two months later, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) also approved⁹ Pfizer’s application, allowing unopened vials to be stored at -20ºC for up to 2 weeks.

Storage temperature wasn’t the only change. Drug regulators also approved extensions to the vaccines’ expiry dates. Various batches of Pfizer’s vaccine, for example, had their expiry dates extended by one year (FDA¹⁰) or 6 months (TGA¹¹).

But given the sensitivity of RNA to changes in temperature and storage duration, what stability data did the regulators rely on to green-light these decisions?”

As it stands, we have no idea, and that’s a problem. As Phillip Altman, who has more than four decades of experience in clinical trials and regulatory affairs, told Demasi,¹² “It’s critically important to know about the stability of RNA in the vaccines because if the RNA disintegrates, then the efficacy of the vaccine goes down.”

Of course, over the past three years, evidence conclusively shows that the shots are near-useless when it comes to efficacy. What’s worse, efficacy actually becomes negative after a few months, meaning they leave you more prone to infection than your unjabbed peers.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

https://rumble.com/embed/v3xpoog/?pub=4 Video Link

Does RNA Instability Have Something to Do With ‘Hot Lots’?

Altman is also concerned about safety, because data reveal some shots contain far higher doses of mRNA than others, and such “hot lots” are associated with more adverse events and deaths.¹³ Mounting research shows the shots do not contain “nothing but intact RNA.”

They also contain fragments of RNA, as well as bits of DNA, both of which can have deleterious health effects. Demasi quotes David Wiseman, Ph.D., a research bioscientist involved in medical product development, who told her:¹⁴

“We need to know about the bits of RNA that are not intact. It’s possible that small fragments of mRNA also have biological effects such as inflammation or controlling how other RNA works.”

What Data Did FDA Rely on When Authorizing Buffer Swap?

The FDA also authorized another swap that affected RNA stability, and in this case, they appear to have done so without any testing whatsoever. In October 2021, Pfizer amended the formulation of its COVID jab for children aged 5 to 11 years, swapping out the phosphate-buffered saline used in the adult formulations, to a tromethamine (Tris) buffer.¹⁵

The reason for the swap was to improve the stability profile of the shot, allowing the mRNA to resist degradation so it could be stored for up to 10 weeks in a standard freezer. The FDA authorized the swap in mid-December that year,¹⁶ but as Wiseman told Demasi:¹⁷

“If the new buffer helped stabilize the mRNA, then it would probably impact the amount of spike protein being produced or alter the way the lipid nanoparticles behaved in the body. But where were the data when the FDA made that decision? The FDA never insisted the new formulation be tested, at least in animals, before it was injected into children.”

Considering the shots were intended for healthy children, why did they not insist on additional testing?

“It’s time for regulators to restore public trust and release these sorts of data. Until then, why should we inject anyone, especially children, with a vaccine without disclosing these, and other kinds of data?” Wiseman says.¹⁸

Scientist Warns of Intrinsic Cytotoxicity of Nanolipid

The safety of the nanolipid used to encase the mRNA in the shots is also being questioned. In the video above, independent researcher Gabriele Segalla, an Italian biochemist who specializes in the chemistry of microemulsions and colloidal systems, discusses his findings, presented in two peer-reviewed reports published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research (IJVTPR).

The first, published in late January 2023, titled “Chemical-Physical Criticality and Toxicological Potential of Lipid Nanomaterials Contained in a COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine,”¹⁹ details the toxic potential of the nanolipid in Comirnaty, made by Pfizer/BioNTech. Importantly, this paper highlights the potential for reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation in various organs, including the kidneys, liver, heart and brain. According to this paper:

“Of particular concern is the presence in the formulation of the two functional excipients, ALC-0315 and ALC-0159, never used before in a medicinal product, nor registered in the European Pharmacopoeia, nor in the European C&L inventory.

The current Safety Data Sheets of the manufacturer are omissive and non-compliant, especially with regard to the provisions of current European regulations on the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of nanomaterials.

The presence of electrolytes in the preparation and the subsequent dilution phase after thawing and before inoculation raise well-founded concerns about the precarious stability of the resulting suspension and the Polydispersity index of the nanomaterials contained in it, factors that can be hypothesized as the root causes of numerous post-vaccination adverse effects recorded at statistical-epidemiological level.”

mRNA ‘Vaccines’ Pose Grave Public Health Risks

The second paper, “Apparent Cytotoxicity and Intrinsic Cytotoxicity of Lipid Nanomaterials Contained in a COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine,”²⁰ published in mid-October 2023, focuses on the nanolipid ALC-0315.

The nanolipid in Comirnaty is toxic to cells and triggers pro-inflammatory cytokines and reactive oxygen species that can disrupt the mitochondrial membrane causing it to release its content, cause RNA mistranslation, DNA mutations, destruction of the nuclear membrane and more.

It describes how ALC-0315 — one of the molecules used to create Comirnaty’s nanoparticle delivery system — forms “proinflammatory cytokines and ROS that can disrupt the mitochondrial membrane and release its content, cause RNA mistranslation, polymerization of proteins and DNA, DNA mutations, destruction of the nuclear membrane and consequent release of its content.”

“Thus, the prospect of frequently repeated COVID ‘booster shots,’ and also that of extending mRNA technology to vaccines against other pathogens or non-infectious diseases, conjures up a very grave public health risk,” he writes.

According to Segalla, the ALC-0315 “is not suitable for intramuscular application” for a number of reasons, including the fact that it does not allow for the “proper transfection of host cells, despite what is stated by EMA (European Medicines Agency) in its Assessment report dated 19 February 2021, in flagrant contradiction with the same bibliographic source therein cited.”

In short, the nanolipid particles are toxic to cells, and can “shed in unpredictable biological locations, even far from the site of inoculation,” due to their “exceptional penetrability, mobility, chemical reactivity and systemic accumulation.” The nanolipid used in the shots “can lead to an unprecedented medical disaster,” Segalla warns. He’s now calling for the immediate suspension of their use.

Resources for Those Injured by the COVID Jab

Based on data from across the world, it’s beyond clear that the COVID shots are the most dangerous drugs ever deployed. If you already got one or more COVID jabs and are now reconsidering, you’d be wise to avoid all vaccines from here on, as you need to end the assault on your body. Even if you haven’t experienced any obvious side effects, your health may still be impacted long-term, so don’t take any more shots.

If you’re suffering from side effects, your first order of business is to eliminate the spike protein — and/or any aberrant off-target protein — that your body is producing. Two remedies shown to bind to and facilitate the removal of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein are hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. I don’t know if these drugs will work on off-target proteins and nanolipid accumulation as well, but it probably wouldn’t hurt to try.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has developed a post-vaccine treatment protocol called I-RECOVER. Since the protocol is continuously updated as more data become available, your best bet is to download the latest version straight from the FLCCC website at covid19criticalcare.com.²¹

For additional suggestions, check out the World Health Council’s spike protein detox guide,²² which focuses on natural substances like herbs, supplements and teas. Sauna therapy can also help eliminate toxic and misfolded proteins by stimulating autophagy.

Sources and References

^1, ⁴ Nature December 6, 2023
^2, ⁵ Trial Site News December 7, 2023
³ The Telegraph December 6, 2023
^6, ^12, ^14, ^17, ¹⁸ Blog.maryannedemasi.com December 18, 2023
⁷ Reuters February 25, 2021
⁸ FDA February 25, 2021
⁹ TGA.gov.au April 8, 2021
¹⁰ FDA December 22, 2022
¹¹ Australian Government Dept of Health and Aged Care
¹³ European Journal of Clinical Investigation March 30, 2023; 53(8): e13998
¹⁵ Blog.maryannedemasi.com July 26, 2022
¹⁶ FDA December 17, 2021
¹⁹ International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research January 2023; 3(1): 787-817
²⁰ International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research October 2023; 3(1): 957-972
²¹ Covid19criticalcare.com
²² World Council for Health Spike Protein Detox Guide November 30, 2021

Chemicals, News

Nearly 13,000 chemicals used in cosmetics & only 10% tested for safety – Here are the 10 most hazardous products

May 26, 2023 Pam Vernon 2 Comments

“The average fragrance product tested contained 14 secret chemicals not listed on the label. Among them are chemicals associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety in personal care products.” EWG

Story at-a-glance

From mercola.com

An analysis of personal care and cleaning products found the top 10 most hazardous products include a children’s shampoo, JLo Glow perfume, Kaboom with OxiClean, Axe body spray and Organix Shampoo
Over-the-counter products are not inherently safe as there are nearly 13,000 chemicals used in cosmetics and only 10% have been tested for safety. This loophole was created by the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, which does not force companies to disclose trade secrets
The Environmental Working Group found perfumes typically contain a dozen or more potentially hazardous chemicals, some of which are derived from petroleum. This chemical cocktail may be responsible for the rising number of adverse events reported after exposure to personal care products
Look for products without dangerous chemicals, including parabens, “fragrance,” triclosan and toluene, or consider making your own products at home from safe and natural ingredients

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published October 24, 2018.

Unfortunately, just because it’s sold over-the-counter does not mean a product is safe for you. In fact, of the nearly 13,000 chemicals used in cosmetics, only 10% have been tested for safety. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to regulate ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products, they often do not exercise it.¹

Adding insult to injury, the FDA tasks companies manufacturing and marketing cosmetics with ensuring their safety. Not only is this an obvious conflict of interest, but “neither the law nor FDA regulations require specific test to demonstrate the safety of individual products or ingredients.”²

So, while cosmetic companies are responsible for substantiating safety, there are no required tests and the companies do not have to share safety data. In fact, the FDA isn’t even authorized to order recalls of hazardous chemicals from the market.

Cosmetic³ companies may also fall back on a loophole in the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act,⁴ which allows companies to withhold information relating to “trade secrets,” under which fragrances and flavor ingredients fall.⁵

Participating with Environmental Defense and other U.S. groups, the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP) tested personal care products and cleaning products sold at major Canadian retailers in order to identify undisclosed fragrance ingredients.⁶ A lack of federal regulation in Canada and the U.S. results in an increased risk of exposure to consumers.

Your Right to Know

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a project of the BCPP, is a broad-based national coalition of nonprofit organizations whose mission it is to protect the health of consumers by securing reforms necessary to eliminate dangerous chemicals linked to adverse health effects.⁷

The research project was triggered by scientific literature and prior product testing indicating chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, endocrine disruption and other adverse effects were used heavily in beauty, personal care and cleaning products.

However, despite research evidence, there continues to be a lack of legislatively mandated labeling requirements, leaving consumers uninformed of the dangers in products they bring into their homes every day. For this test, BCPP and their partners purchased 140 different beauty, personal care and cleaning products for testing.

Of particular concern were products marketed to children, women of color and products marketed by celebrities as “good for the environment” or “green.” One of the more concerning results was that many of the personal care products tested contained more hazardous chemicals than the cleaning products.⁸

Millions of dollars and countless hours of lobbying have been poured into the industry’s fight against legislatively mandated ingredient disclosure. Fragrance is a big business as they are used in personal care products and cleaning products.

The value of the North American flavor and fragrance market is nearly $6 billion and forecast to reach $7.42 billion by 2020.⁹

Top 10 Most Hazardous Products Tested

The fragrance industry has nearly 4,000 fragrance chemicals at its disposal, which companies are not mandated to disclose. BCPP hired two independent third-party testing laboratories. The first assessed volatile organic compounds and the other performed two-dimensional gas chromatography on a subset of 32 products, including shampoo, deodorant, multipurpose cleaners and lotions.

There was an average of 136 chemicals in the cleaning products and an average of 146 in personal care products. The team then compared the product name against the type of chemicals triggering hormone disruption, asthma, developmental toxins and cancer.

From this data they ranked the top 10 products with the most hazardous chemicals in terms of the highest number linked to these health effects.¹⁰ The products making the top 10 dangerous products directly from the BCPP report were:¹¹

Just for Me Shampoo — A children’s shampoo, from a hair-relaxing kit marketed to kids of color by Strength of Nature.

JLo Glow Perfume — A fine fragrance made by Coty and endorsed by music, television and film icon Jennifer Lopez.

Kaboom with OxiClean Shower Tub & Tile Cleaner — Marketed as a “great cleaner that is safe and friendly to use,” made by Church & Dwight Co.

Olay Luminous Tone Body Lotion — Made by Procter & Gamble and marketed for its antiaging qualities.

Axe Phoenix Body Spray — A body spray made by Unilever and marketed to young men using an overtly sexual ad campaign.

Marc Jacobs Daisy Perfume — Another Coty fragrance carrying the famous designer’s name and using beatific, radiant young girls in its marketing campaigns.

Taylor Swift Wonderstruck Perfume — A Revlon fine fragrance endorsed by the beloved pop country singer Taylor Swift.

Organix (OGX) Shampoo — A Johnson & Johnson product marketed as part of a “green/sustainable” line of products to young women.

Formulation 64-RP — An industrial cleaner and disinfectant used by custodians firefighters and others.

White Linen Perfume — Created by Estée Lauder in 1978, marketed as “a beautiful perfume” for women young and old.

While these were the top 10 products, it is important to remember the team conducted tests on 140 personal care and cleaning products, the lowest of which, yellow soap, had 46 chemicals. Other cleaning products such as Kaboom with OxiClean Shower, Tub and Tile Cleaner had 229. Of the 25 personal care products tested, only three had less than 100 and none had less than 75.

Perfumes Tied to Chronic Disease

Are perfumes really the scent of danger? The Environmental Working Group (EWG) found the most popular perfumes, colognes and body sprays may contain trace amounts of natural essence, but they typically contain dozen or more potentially hazardous chemicals. Some of the synthetic chemicals are derived from petroleum.

In an independent laboratory test, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics¹² found 38 secret chemicals in 17 leading fragrances including top offenders from American Eagle, Coco Chanel, Britney Spears and Giorgio Armani. Following an analysis of the data, EWG commented:¹³

“The average fragrance product tested contained 14 secret chemicals not listed on the label. Among them are chemicals associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions, and many substances that have not been assessed for safety in personal care products.”

Makers of these popular perfumes often use marketing terms such as “floral,” “exotic” or “musky” without disclosing the complex cocktail of synthetic chemicals used to create the scent.

The average fragrance product tested by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics contains 14 chemicals not listed on the label, among those associated with hormone disruption, allergic reactions and substances without safety testing.

Undisclosed ingredients also include chemicals that accumulate in the human tissue, such as diethyl phthalates, found in nearly 97% of Americans and linked to sperm damage.

Their report¹⁴ also found the FDA was similarly uninformed, as a review of government records revealed a vast majority of the chemicals used in fragrances were not assessed for safety when used in spray-on personal care products.

Phthalates Continue To Be Used in Personal Care Products

However, it isn’t only the undisclosed chemicals under the generic label “fragrance” that are cause for concern. Some chemicals listed included ultraviolet protector chemicals associated with hormone disruption and nearly 24 chemical sensitizers responsible for triggering allergic reactions.

Some manufacturing companies are moving toward restricting or eliminating certain chemicals from fragrances, such as phthalates.¹⁵ Although phthalates are only one chemical of concern in fragrances, this is a step in the right direction.

Findings from a multicenter study made a strong correlation between a mother’s exposure to phthalates during pregnancy and changes to the development in a baby boy’s genitals.

Another study at an infertility clinic demonstrated exposure was correlated to DNA damage in sperm and a third study in children aged 4 to 9 linked behavioral problems to higher maternal exposure to low molecular-weight phthalates.¹⁶

Adverse Event Reports on the Rise

While FDA regulation is weak at best, it is completely ineffective when adverse effects are not reported. The FDA has an adverse event reporting system containing information on product complaints submitted to the FDA. The database is designed to support safety surveillance programs and includes symptoms, product information and patient outcome.¹⁷

The FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) adverse event reporting system was made publicly available in 2016.¹⁸ An analysis of events dated between 2004 and 2016, including voluntary submissions by consumers and health care professionals, showed over 5,000 events reported, at an average of 396 events per year.

However, the average number hides a growing trend. For instance, in 2015 there were 706 events reported and in 2016 there were over 1,500. The three most commonly reported products were hair care, skin care and tattoos. The authors of the report suggest more surveillance is needed, saying:¹⁹

“Unlike devices, pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements, cosmetic manufacturers have no legal obligation to forward adverse events to the FDA; CFSAN reflects only a small portion of all events. The data suggests that consumers attribute a significant portion of serious health outcomes to cosmetics.”

The spike in adverse effects reported to the FDA in 2016 occurred only after the agency appealed to consumers and physicians to report events related to products manufactured by Chaz Dean Cleansing Conditioners under the brand name Wen.²⁰

When adverse event complaints are made to a manufacturer they are not legally obligated to pass the reports to the FDA. Following an investigation, the FDA uncovered another 21,000 complaints made to Chaz Dean.²¹ It is highly likely adverse effects are commonly reported to the manufacturer and not to the FDA, indicating the total numbers in the CFSAN system are underreported.

Avoid These Toxic Chemicals in Your Personal Care Products

Despite over 21,000 consumer complaints to the contrary, Guthy-Renker, WEN’s marketing company, told NPR:²²

“We welcome legislative and regulatory efforts to further enhance consumer safety across the cosmetic products industry. However, there is no credible evidence to support the false and misleading claim that WEN products cause hair loss.”

Until control improves over chemicals used in personal care products, safety testing and regulation protecting the consumer, it’s important you read the label on every personal care and cosmetic product you purchase. Here’s a list of some of the more hazardous chemicals found in many personal care products:^23,²⁴

Parabens — This chemical, found in deodorants, lotion, hair products and cosmetics, is a hormone disruptor mimicking the action of the female hormone estrogen, which can drive the growth of human breast tumors. A study published in 2012 found parabens from antiperspirants and other cosmetics appear to increase your risk of breast cancer.²⁵

BHA and BHT — These chemicals are used as preservatives in makeup and moisturizers and are suspected endocrine disruptors.²⁶

Synthetic colors — FD&C or D&C are the labels used to represent artificial colors. The letters are preceded by a color and number, such as D&C Red 27. The colors are derived from coal tar or petroleum sources and are suspected carcinogens. They are also linked to ADHD in children.

Fragrance — This is a large category of chemicals protected as proprietary information, and manufacturers do not have to release the chemical cocktails used to produce the scents in fabric sheets, perfumes, shampoos, body washes — anything having an ingredient called “fragrance.”

Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives — While adding formaldehyde is banned as it is a known carcinogen, manufacturers have found other chemicals act as preservatives and release formaldehyde. Chemicals such as quaternium-15, diazolidinyl urea, methenamine and hydantoin are used in a variety of cosmetics and slowly release formaldehyde as they age.

Sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate — These are surfactants found in more than 90% of cleaning products and personal care products to make the product foam. They are known to irritate your eyes, skin and lungs and may interact with other chemicals to form nitrosamines, a known carcinogen.

Toluene — Toluene is made from petroleum or coal tar, and found in most synthetic fragrances and nail polish. Chronic exposure is linked to anemia, lowered blood cell count, liver or kidney damage, and may affect a developing fetus.

Triclosan — This antibacterial ingredient found in soaps and other products has been linked to allergies, endocrine disruption, weight gain and inflammatory responses, and may aggravate the growth of liver and kidney tumors.

Propylene glycol — This small organic alcohol is used as a skin conditioning agent and found in moisturizers, sunscreen, conditioners, shampoo and hairspray. It has also been added to medications to help your body absorb the chemicals more quickly and to electronic cigarettes. It is a skin irritant, is toxic to your liver and kidneys, and may produce neurological symptoms.^27,^28,²⁹

Prevent Exposure by Making Your Own

Your skin is an excellent drug delivery system, so what goes on your body is as important as what goes in your mouth. Chemicals you ingest may be filtered through a health gut microbiome, a protection you don’t get when they are absorbed through your skin.

Consider preventing exposure by making many of your own personal care products at home and consulting the EWG Skin Deep searchable database³⁰ to help you find personal care products free of potentially dangerous chemicals. Products bearing the “USDA 100% Organic” seal are among your safest bets if you want to avoid potentially toxic ingredients.

Seek out recipes to make your own homemade bath and handwashing products that don’t contain additional by-products and preservatives. For instance, coconut oil is a healthy skin moisturizer with natural antibacterial properties. Coconut oil may also be used as a leave in conditioner on your hair — be sure to start with very little.

Consider a 25% dilution of apple cider vinegar and water to wash your hair. Spritz your hair with the solution and leave it in for five minutes before thoroughly rinsing. You may have to tweak the dilution for your hair type as apple cider vinegar is a conditioning agent.

Sources and References

^1, ² U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Authority Over Cosmetics
³ U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Fragrances in Cosmetics
⁴ Federal Trade Commission, Fair Packaging and Labeling Act
⁵ Federal Food and Drug Administration, “Trade Secret” Ingredients
⁶ Environmental Defense, September 26, 2018 Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
^7, ^8, ^9, ^10, ¹¹ Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Right to Know
^12, ^14, ^15, ¹⁶ The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Not So Sexy
¹³ Scientific American, Scent of Danger
¹⁷ U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CFSAN Event Reporting System
¹⁸ FDA. January 3, 2017
¹⁹ JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Aug; 177(8): 1202–1204
²⁰ U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Statement on FDA Investigation of WEN
²¹ CNN, June 26, 2017
²² NPR, June 26, 2017
²³ David Suzuki Foundation, The “Dirty Dozen” Cosmetic Chemicals to Avoid
²⁴ Huffington Post, November 12, 2013
²⁵ Journal of Applied Toxicology, 2012;32(3)
²⁶ Environmental Working Group, November 12, 2014
²⁷ Skin Therapy Letters, 2011; 16(5):5
²⁸ Seminars in Dialysis 2007;20(3):217
²⁹ Laboratory Investigation 1990;62(1):114
³⁰ Environmental Working Group, Skin Deep

Photo: AVAKAphoto @ pixabay.com

Corporations, Health, News

The trend to allow a Pharma-controlled govt to silence your doctor & dictate basic components of your medical care is happening globally

February 7, 2023 Pam Vernon 3 Comments

From mercola.com

NOTE: Due to censorship Dr Mercola’s articles are archived to paid sub soon after publication, in which case the source link may no longer work. The article however is republished here in its entirety. EWR

Story at-a-glance

The 2023 omnibus appropriations bill includes 19 lines that could give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the power to ban off-label use of approved medications
If the little-noticed provision is passed, doctors’ ability to freely treat patients, and patients’ ability to use all available treatments after making an informed decision, will be lost
The amendment puts the FDA, and by proxy Big Pharma, at the helm of powerful health care decisions that should be made on an individual, personalized level between a patient and their health care provider
In California, law AB 2098, which went into effect January 1, 2023, gives the state power to take away doctors’ medical licenses if they spread “misinformation” that goes against the standard COVID-19 rhetoric
The trend to allow a Pharma-controlled government to silence your doctor and dictate basic components of your medical care is not confined to the U.S. — it’s happening globally

In the U.S., 1 in 5 prescriptions is written for an off-label use.¹ While sometimes this allows medications to be overused or misused, it also protects doctors’ ability to freely treat patients, and patients’ ability to use all available treatments after making an informed decision.

That 20% of medications are used off-label also indicates “a degree of freedom physicians currently have that will be foreclosed,” notes English comedian and actor Russell Brand,² if a little-noticed provision in the omnibus spending bill is passed. “Literally, this will mean that your doctor will not be able to do what’s best for you because they’ll work for Big Pharma now,” Brand says.³

19 Lines in 4,155-Page Bill Could Change Practice of Medicine

The 2023 omnibus appropriations bill — a 4,155-page tome involving $1.7 trillion in spending — includes 19 lines that could give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the power to ban off-label use of approved medications. In a commentary for The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Joel Zinberg wrote:⁴

“Physicians routinely prescribe drugs and employ medical devices that are approved and labeled by the Food and Drug Administration for a particular use. Yet sometimes physicians discern other beneficial uses for these technologies, which they prescribe for their patients without specific official sanction.

The new legislation amends the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, to give the FDA the authority to ban some of these off-label uses of otherwise approved products. This unwarranted intrusion into the physician-patient relationship threatens to undermine medical innovation and patient care.”

FDA Wants Power to Regulate Practice of Medicine

“The new provision was enacted at the FDA’s urging,” Zinberg says,⁵ in response to a 2021 legal ruling that limited the FDA’s power to meddle with the practice of medicine. In March 2020, the FDA banned the use of electric shock devices for particular uses, namely to treat patients engaging in self-harm or aggressive behaviors that could harm others.

The devices are FDA approved, and while the FDA banned their use for certain contexts, it still allowed them to be used for smoking addiction and other purposes.⁶ This led to a lawsuit — Judge Rotenberg Education Center v. FDA — in which the Judge Rotenberg Education Center, a school for people with severe behavioral and intellectual conditions, sued the FDA over the ban.

The court ruled in the school’s favor, stating that the FDA’s ban violated federal law because it interfered with health care practitioners’ authority to practice medicine. As it stands, the FDA does not have the power to ban medical devices for a particular use.

The school’s attorney, Mike Flammia, who also represented students’ parents in favor of the device’s use, told CNN the decision “protects what all of us cherish, and that is the ability to go to our doctor and have our doctor decide what is the best treatment.”⁷

As it stands, Section 360f of the FDCA⁸ only gives the FDA authority to ban a medical device if it poses “an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury.” It can ban the device outright, but it can’t pick and choose when it can and can’t be used.

“Barring a practitioner from prescribing or using an otherwise approved device for a specific off-label indication would violate another FDCA section, which bars the FDA from regulating the ‘practice of medicine,'” Zinberg says.⁹ The FDA is trying to change that.

Pharma — Not Your Doctor — Would Dictate Medical Decisions

The omnibus amendment would change Section 360f so that the FDA could ban a medical device if it poses an unreasonable risk for “one or more intended uses” while leaving it approved for others. “Since the new provision lets the FDA skirt the ban on interfering with the practice of medicine by banning devices for particular uses, the agency will likely claim this as a precedent allowing it to ban off-label uses of drugs as well,” according to Zinberg.¹⁰

This puts the FDA, and by proxy Big Pharma, at the helm of powerful health care decisions that should be made on an individual, personalized level between a patient and their health care provider.

Remember that in 1992, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) was created, which allows the FDA to collect fees from the drug industry. “With the act, the FDA moved from a fully taxpayer funded entity to one supplemented by industry money,” a BMJ article written by investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi explains.¹¹

Now, significant portions of regulatory agencies’ budgets come from the pharmaceutical industry that these agencies are supposed to regulate. In 1993, after PDUFA was passed, the FDA collected about $29 million in net PDUFA fees. This increased 30-fold — to $884 million — by 2016.¹²

It’s also revealing that at the FDA, 9 out of 10 of its former commissioners between 2006 and 2019 went on to work for pharmaceutical companies.¹³ As Brand noted:¹⁴

“What they’re looking for is a crafty, sly, insidious way to be able to intercede in your relationship with your physician. And as usual, it’s for your ‘safety’ and for your ‘benefit’ … Why would you want Big Pharma and a regulatory body that they fund interfering in your relationship with your doctor about your health?

Have they not found enough ways to extract revenue from you, to put your health second, to put your well-being way, way behind their profits and their list of priorities? Why is the bias moving even further in that direction? … This is not about medicine. This is about licensing. This is about profits, patents, the ability to extract revenue.”

Patients Suffer When Pharma’s in Control

During the pandemic, it became clear how patients suffer when health agencies are allowed to dictate what medications doctors are allowed to prescribe to their patients. Ivermectin — a generic medication that doctors had success treating COVID-19 with early on — was quickly vilified, as were the doctors who attempted to prescribe it for COVID-19 patients.

In his book, “The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the COVID Pandemic,” Dr. Pierre Kory details Big Pharma’s suppression of this drug when it was found to work against COVID-19. When he and colleagues first spoke out about the drug’s potential, however, he was naïve. He said during our 2022 interview:¹⁵

“I worked a lot and I got deeply expert on ivermectin. But what happened in the next few months is that everything started going sideways, and I could not figure it out. I saw hit pieces … The thing is, I didn’t know. I didn’t know that what I was really doing — bringing forth data supporting the efficacy of a generic drug — that is poking the bear.

And when I say poking the bear, what is anathema to the pharmaceutical industry and their whole business model is they cannot have generic off-patent drugs become standard of care. It obliterates the market for their pricing new pills.

I didn’t know I was stepping into a war. In the history of pharma, I don’t think any single medicine threatened as many [drug] markets and campaigns. The only other medicine that did that was hydroxychloroquine, but they already killed hydroxychloroquine in 2020.

I was coming out now with ivermectin, and it threatened hundreds of billions of dollars in perpetuity for these insanely lethal vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, paxlovid, molnupiravir — all of the markets for their novel new pills to enter. I mean, I don’t think any medicine has ever threatened that much of a market.”

‘A Problem for Many Reasons’

If the FDA is allowed to ban medications for certain uses, we’ll see more of what happened with ivermectin. It’s a “problem for many reasons,” Zinberg explains:¹⁶

“The statute gives the FDA the power, without any public input, to prevent patients’ access to off-label therapies even though their physicians and their patients have found the treatments to be beneficial or even essential.

… Allowing the FDA to ban certain off-label uses will impair clinical progress. Off-label use enables physicians to assess their patients’ unique circumstances and use their own evolving scientific knowledge in deciding to try approved products for new indications.

If the treatment proves useful, formal studies are performed and published. If enough evidence accumulates, the treatment becomes the standard of care, even if the manufacturer didn’t submit the product for a separate, lengthy and costly FDA review.

… Substituting regulators’ wisdom for the cost-benefit judgment of physicians and their patients will discourage attempts to use approved products in new and beneficial ways and deprive patients of valuable treatments. Congress should reconsider this ill-advised legislation.”

California Law Also Shackles Doctors’ Freedoms

In California, regulators are also interfering with the practice of medicine. Law AB 2098, which was signed into law September 30, 2022¹⁷ and went into effect January 1, 2023,¹⁸ gives the state power to take away doctors’ medical licenses if they spread “misinformation” that goes against the standard COVID-19 rhetoric.

Specifically, those who “disseminate or promote misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” could be “disciplined,” which includes loss of their medical license.¹⁹

It’s akin to putting shackles on their wrists, forcing them to conform to a narrative intent on pushing dangerous gene therapies and ineffective medications. It’s also a potential warning of darker things to come.

What constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation” worthy of taking away a person’s medical license? It’s anyone’s guess, really, but doctors afraid of being punished are likely to steer clear of anything that could possibly fit under this definition — to the detriment of their patients.

Bill 2098 itself is packed with misinformation and ignores the scientific truths about COVID-19,²⁰ such as the fact that prior infection with COVID-19 results in natural immunity — immunity that’s superior to that achieved via a COVID-19 shot.²¹

The bill, if it passes, will stop doctors from practicing medicine the way they deem best for the individual patient. It will also stop dissent — even when dissent is necessary and beneficial, and coming from people with expertise. And that’s precisely the point.²² In December 2022, Physicians for Informed Consent sued the state of California, arguing that AB 2098 violates the U.S. Constitution.

According to a news release, “The lawsuit argues that the State has weaponized the vague phrase ‘misinformation,’ thereby unconstitutionally targeting physicians who publicly disagree with the government’s public health edicts on COVID-19.”²³

This Shift Isn’t Just for the US

It’s important to note that the trend to let a Pharma-controlled government silence your doctor and dictate basic components of your medical care is not confined to the U.S. — it’s happening globally.

Proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), for instance, aim to erase the concepts of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms from the equation.²⁴ The first principle in Article 3 of the 2005 IHR states that health regulations shall be implemented “with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.” The amendment strikes that sentence.

Instead, international health regulations will be based on “principles of equity, inclusivity and coherence” only. This means they can force you to undergo whatever medical intervention they deem to be in the best interest of the collective.

Individuals won’t matter. Human dignity will not be taken into consideration. Human rights will not be taken into consideration, and neither will the concept that human beings have fundamental freedoms that cannot be infringed. Autonomy over your body will be eliminated. You’ll have no right to make personal health decisions.

While it may start slowly, such as with Pharma’s quiet move to ban off-label usage of medications for certain uses, it will soon expand, chipping away at your sovereignty until it’s gone. This is why it’s imperative to share this knowledge and support measures that protect our human rights and individual freedoms.

Sources and References

^1, ^4, ^5, ^9, ^10, ¹⁶ The Wall Street Journal Jauary 12, 2023
² YouTube, Russell Brand January 23, 2023, 5:30
³ YouTube, Russell Brand January 23, 2023, 2:08
^6, ⁷ CNN July 16, 2021
⁸ GovInfo 21 U.S.C. 360f – Banned devices
^11, ¹² BMJ 2022;377:o1538
¹³ YouTube, John Campbell, WHO, YouTube and funding November 7, 2022, 9:15
¹⁴ YouTube, Russell Brand January 23, 2023, 3:45-5:40
¹⁵ Bitchute, Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Pierre Kory, The War on Ivermectin October 5, 2022
¹⁷ FastDemocracy AP 2098
¹⁸ Spectrum News November 26, 2022
^19, ^20, ²² Common Sense April 12, 2022
²¹ N Engl J Med 2022; 387:21-34 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2203965
²³ GlobeNewswire December 7, 2022
²⁴ James Roguski Substack December 16, 2022

Photo: pixabay.com

Food

One of the Most Harmful Ingredients in Processed Foods

January 4, 2023 Pam Vernon 1 Comment

From Dr Mercola

Story at-a-glance

Two of the most harmful ingredients in processed foods are high fructose corn syrup and soybean oil, whether partially hydrogenated, organic, or made from newer soybean varieties modified in such a way as to not require hydrogenation
Completely unnatural man-made fats created through the partial hydrogenation process cause dysfunction and chaos in your body on a cellular level, and studies have linked trans-fats to health problems ranging from obesity and diabetes to reproductive problems and heart disease
Besides the health hazards related to the trans fats created by the partial hydrogenation process, soybean oil is, in and of itself, NOT a healthy oil
Add to that the fact that the majority of soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered, and as a result saturated with dangerous levels of the herbicide glyphosate, which may have additional health consequences as there are no long term safety studies
When taken together, partially hydrogenated GE soybean oil becomes one of the absolute worst types of oils you can consume
The genetically engineered (GE) variety planted on over 90% of U.S. soy acres is Roundup Ready engineered to survive being doused with otherwise lethal amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (glyphosate). GE soybeans have been found to contain residue levels as high as 17 mg/kg, and malformations in frog and chicken embryos have occurred at just over 2 mg/kg

Processed food is perhaps the most damaging aspect of most people’s diets, contributing to poor health and chronic disease. One of the primary culprits is high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), the dangers of which I touch on in virtually every article I write on diets. The second culprit is partially hydrogenated soybean oil.

These two ingredients, either alone or in combination, can be found in virtually all processed foods, and one can make a compelling argument that the reliance on these two foods is a primary contributing factor for most of the degenerative diseases attacking Americans today.

Part of the problem with partially hydrogenated soybean oil is the trans fat it contains. The other part relates to the health hazards of soy itself. An added hazard factor is the fact that the majority of both corn and soybeans are genetically engineered.

As the negative health effects from trans fats have been identified and recognized, the agricultural and food industry have scrambled to come up with new alternatives. Partially hydrogenated soybean oil has been identified as the main culprit, and for good reason.

Unfortunately, saturated fats are still mistakenly considered unhealthy by many health “experts,” so, rather than embracing truly healthful tropical fats like coconut oil, which is mostly grown outside the U.S., the food industry has instead turned to domestic U.S. alternatives offered by companies like Monsanto, now Bayer (which bought out Monsanto in 2018), which has developed modified soybeans that don’t require hydrogenation.

Why Hydrogenate?

Americans consume more than 16 million metric tons of edible oils annually, and soybean oil accounts for about 11,339 metric tons of it.¹ Until Monsanto genetically engineered its seeds to produce plants lower in linolenic acid, about half of it was hydrogenated, as regular soybean oil is too unstable otherwise to be used in food manufacturing.

One of the primary reasons for hydrogenating oil is to prolong its shelf life. Raw butter, for example, is likely to go rancid far quicker than margarine. The process also makes the oil more stable and raises its melting point, which allows it to be used in various types of food processing that uses high temperatures.

Hydrogenated oil² is made by forcing hydrogen gas into the oil at high pressure. Virtually any oil can be hydrogenated. Margarine is a good example, in which nearly half of the fat content is trans fat.

The process that creates partially hydrogenated oil alters the chemical composition of essential fatty acids, such as reducing or removing linolenic acid, a highly reactive triunsaturated fatty acid, transforming it into the far less reactive linoleic acid, thereby greatly preventing oxidative rancidity when used in cooking.

In the late 1990s, researchers began realizing this chemical alteration might actually have adverse health effects. Since then, scientists have verified this to the point of no dispute.

Be aware that there’s a difference between “fully hydrogenated” and “partially hydrogenated” oils. Whereas partially hydrogenated oil contains trans fat, fully hydrogenated oil does not, as taking the hydrogenation process “all the way” continues the molecular transformation of the fatty acids from trans fat into saturated fatty acids.

Fully hydrogenated soybean oil is still not a healthy choice, however, for reasons I’ll explain below. The following slide presentation explains the technical aspects relating to the hydrogenation process.

The Health Hazards of Trans Fats

The completely unnatural man-made fats created through the partial hydrogenation process cause dysfunction and chaos in your body on a cellular level, and studies have linked trans-fats to:

Cancer, by interfering with enzymes your body uses to fight cancer	Chronic health problems such as obesity, asthma, auto-immune disease, cancer and bone degeneration
Diabetes, by interfering with the insulin receptors in your cell membranes	Heart disease, by clogging your arteries (Among women with underlying coronary heart disease, eating trans-fats increased the risk of sudden cardiac arrest three-fold!)
Decreased immune function, by reducing your immune response	Increased blood levels of low density lipoprotein (LDL), or “bad” cholesterol, while lowering levels of high density lipoprotein (HDL), or “good” cholesterol
Reproductive problems by interfering with enzymes needed to produce sex hormones	Interfering with your body’s use of beneficial omega-3 fats

As usual, it took many years before conventional health recommendations caught up and began warning about the use of trans fats. Not surprisingly, as soon as the FDA notified them that it planned to require food manufacturers to list trans fat content on the label — which ultimately took effect January 1, 2006 — the industry began searching for viable alternatives to appeal to consumers who increasingly began looking for the “no trans fat” designation.

It didn’t take long before Monsanto had tinkered forth a genetically engineered soybean that is low in linolenic acid, which we’ll get to in a moment.

Be aware that some food manufacturers have opted to simply fool buyers — a tactic allowed by the FDA, as any product containing up to half a gram of trans fat per serving can still legally claim to have zero trans fat.³ The trick is to reduce the serving size to bring it below this threshold. At times, this will result in unreasonably tiny serving sizes, so any time you check a label and a serving is something like 10 chips or one cookie, it probably contains trans fats.

The Health Hazards of Soybeans

Besides the health hazards related to the trans fats created by the partial hydrogenation process, soybean oil is, in and of itself, NOT a healthy oil. Add to that the fact that the majority of soy grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered, which may have additional health consequences. When taken together, partially hydrogenated GE soybean oil becomes one of the absolute worst types of oils you can consume.

Years ago, tropical oils, such as palm and coconut oil, were commonly used in American food production. However, these are obviously not grown in the U.S., as with the exception of Hawaii, our climate isn’t tropical enough. Spurred by financial incentives, the industry devised a plan to shift the market from tropical oils to something more “home grown.”

As a result, a movement was created to demonize and vilify tropical oils in order to replace them with domestically grown oils such as corn and soy.

The fat in soybean oil is primarily omega-6 fat. And while we do need some omega-6, it is rare for anyone to be deficient in it, as it is pervasive in our diet. Americans in general consume FAR too much omega-6 in relation to omega-3 fat, primarily due to the excessive amount of omega-6 found in processed foods.

Omega-6 fats are in nearly every animal food and many plants, so deficiencies are very rare. This omega-6 fat is also highly processed and therefore damaged, which compounds the problem of getting so much of it in your diet. The omega-6 found in soybean oil promotes chronic inflammation in your body, which is an underlying issue for virtually all chronic diseases.

What About Organic Soybean Oil?

Even if you were fortunate enough to find organic soybean oil, there are still several significant concerns that make it far from attractive from a health standpoint. Soy in and of itself, organically grown or not, contains a number of problematic components that can wreak havoc with your health, such as:

• Goitrogens — Goitrogens, found in all unfermented soy whether it’s organic or not, are substances that block the synthesis of thyroid hormones and interfere with iodine metabolism, thereby interfering with your thyroid function.

• Isoflavones: genistein and daidzein — Isoflavones are a type of phytoestrogen, which is a plant compound resembling human estrogen, which is why some recommend using soy therapeutically to treat symptoms of menopause. I believe the evidence is highly controversial and doubt it works.

Typically, most of us are exposed to too many estrogen compounds and have a lower testosterone level than ideal, so it really is important to limit exposure to feminizing phytoestrogens. Even more importantly, there’s evidence it may disturb endocrine function, cause infertility and promote breast cancer, which is definitely a significant concern.

• Phytic acid — Phytates (phytic acid) bind to metal ions, preventing the absorption of certain minerals, including calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc — all of which are co-factors for optimal biochemistry in your body. This is particularly problematic for vegetarians, because eating meat reduces the mineral-blocking effects of these phytates.

Sometimes it can be beneficial, especially in postmenopausal women and in most adult men because we tend to have levels of iron that are too high, which can be a very potent oxidant and cause biological stress. However, phytic acid does not necessarily selectively inhibit just iron absorption; it inhibits all minerals. This is very important to remember, as many already suffer from mineral deficiencies from inadequate diets.

The soybean has one of the highest phytate levels of any grain or legume, and the phytates in soy are highly resistant to normal phytate-reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking. Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of soybeans.

• Natural toxins known as “anti-nutrients” — Soy also contains other anti-nutritional factors such as saponins, soyatoxin, protease inhibitors, and oxalates. Some of these factors interfere with the enzymes you need to digest protein. While a small amount of anti-nutrients would not likely cause a problem, the amount of soy that many Americans are now eating is extremely high.

• Hemagglutinin — Hemagglutinin is a clot-promoting substance that causes your red blood cells to clump together. These clumped cells are unable to properly absorb and distribute oxygen to your tissues.

Worst of All — Genetically Engineered Soybean Oil

The genetically engineered (GE) variety planted on over 90% of US soy acres is Roundup Ready — engineered to survive being doused with otherwise lethal amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The logic behind Roundup Ready crops such as soy is that you can decrease the cost of production by killing off everything except the actual soy plant.

However, animal studies reveal there may be significant adverse health effects from these GE soybeans, including progressively increased rates of infertility with each passing generation. By the third generation, virtually all the hamsters in one feeding study were found to be infertile. Second-generation hamsters raised on GE soy also had a fivefold higher infant mortality rate.

Are Low-Linolenic Soybeans the Answer?

We now also have other Monsanto-made soy crops to contend with. Responding to the growing demand for healthier diets, Monsanto launched Vistive low-linolenic soybeans in 2005. Most soybeans contain roughly 7% linolenic acid. The new varieties contain 1% to 3%, which reduces the need for hydrogenation.⁴ As explained by Monsanto:⁵

“Farmers are not the only beneficiaries of Monsanto’s efforts … Consumers will also benefit from the healthier crops that could result, such as soybeans that are low in linolenic acid. Linolenic acid, a precursor to trans fats, may contribute to cardiovascular disease … Low-linolenic soybeans reduce the need for hydrogenation in food processing, helping to reduce the amount of trans fats in processed foods.”

Yet another soybean variety created by Monsanto is the high stearate soybean, which also has the properties of margarine and shortening without hydrogenation. But are these soybeans any better or safer than either conventional soybeans or Roundup Ready soybeans, even though they don’t have to go through partial hydrogenation, and therefore do not contain trans fat? No one knows.

Another Hazard of GE Soybeans: Glyphosate

I keep stacking health risks upon health risks, and here’s another one: Research has shown that soybean oil from Roundup Ready soy is loaded with glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup — the broad-spectrum herbicide created by Monsanto.

According to a report in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, the highest MRL for glyphosate in food and feed products in the EU is 20 mg/kg. GE soybeans have been found to contain residue levels as high as 17 mg/kg, and malformations in frog and chicken embryos occurred at 2.03 mg/kg.⁶ That’s 10 times lower than the MRL.

This is an alarming finding because glyphosate is easily one of the world’s most overlooked poisons. Research published in 2010 showed that the chemical, which works by inhibiting an enzyme called EPSP synthase that is necessary for plants to grow, causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at far lower levels than used in agricultural and garden applications.⁷ The malformations primarily affected the:

Skull
Face
Midline and developing brain
Spinal cord

When applied to crops, glyphosate becomes systemic throughout the plant, so it cannot be washed off. And, once you eat this crop, the glyphosate ends up in your gut where it can decimate your beneficial bacteria. This can wreak havoc with your health, as 80% of your immune system resides in your gut (GALT, or Gut Associated Lymph Tissue) and is dependent on a healthy ratio of good and bad bacteria. Separate research has also uncovered the following effects from glyphosate:

Endocrine disruption	DNA damage
Developmental toxicity	Neurotoxicity
Reproductive toxicity	Cancer

To Avoid Harmful Fats, Ditch Processed Foods

If you want to avoid dangerous fats of all kinds, your best bet is to eliminate processed foods from your diet. From there, use these tips to make sure you’re eating the right fats for your health:

Use organic butter (preferably made from raw milk) instead of margarines and vegetable oil spreads. Butter is a healthy whole food that has received an unwarranted bad rap.
Use coconut oil for cooking. It is far superior to any other cooking oil and is loaded with health benefits.
Be sure to eat raw fats, such as those from avocados, raw dairy products, olive oil, olives, organic pastured eggs and raw nuts, especially macadamia nuts which are relatively low in protein. Also take a high-quality source of animal-based omega-3 fat, such as krill oil.

Following my comprehensive nutrition plan will automatically reduce your trans-fat intake, as it will give you a guide to focus on healthy whole foods instead of processed junk food.

Remember, virtually all processed foods will contain either HFCS (probably made from genetically engineered corn) and/or soybean oil — either in the form of partially hydrogenated soybean oil, which is likely made from GE soybeans, loaded with glyphosate, or from one of the newer soybean varieties that were created such that the y do not need to be hydrogenated. They’re ALL bad news, if you value your health.