Health & Fitness

A structural model of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein as the virus fuses with host human cells reveals an opportunity to disrupt dynamics and halt transmission.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3kFvsmC

A rare but serious inflammatory condition that affects children who contract COVID-19 produces a distinctive pattern of biomarkers that may help physicians predict disease severity and also aid researchers in developing new treatments, according to a new study.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3kKgyv8

A new linguistic study sheds light on the nature of languages spoken before the written period, using computational modeling to reconstruct the grammar of the 6500-7000 year-old Proto-Indo-European language.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/38r9r5e

Laboratory and retrospective analyses suggest that MMR and Tdap memory T cells are activated by SARS-CoV-2 and decrease COVID-19 severity.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3zArkKL

By Dr. Mercola

In its latest move against small farmers who dare to operate outside the umbrella of CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) and Monsanto-dominated crops, the U.S. government has seized $70,000 from a small dairy farmer in Maryland. The feds did this under the "Bank Secrecy Act," which requires that paperwork be filled out for any cash deposit in excess of $10,000.

The farmers, Randy Sowers and his wife Karen, made deposits totaling more than $295,000 from May 2011 to February 2012, but each transaction was less than $10,000.

Now they are being accused of "structuring," a violation of federal currency reporting requirements, as the feds are accusing them of deliberately depositing money in increments of less than $10,000 in an attempt to evade Currency Transaction Reporting requirements.

Government Seizes $70,000 On What Grounds?

The dairy farmer's "crime" stems from his weekly sales at local farmers' markets. The sales averaged about the same amount each week and, dutifully, the Sowers deposited them. They'd reportedly never even heard of the Bank Secrecy Act or "structuring," but that was of no interest to the feds—the consistency of the amount the Sowers deposited, always less than $10,000, raised red flags to the feds, who claimed that this was indicative of a crime.

The government promptly seized about $70,000 from the bank account, then issued a warrant for the seizures. As reported by Food Freedom News:¹

"The Dept. of Justice has since sued to keep $63,000 of the Sowers' money, though they committed no crime other than maintaining their privacy. Without funds, they will be unable to make purchases for the spring planting. When a similar action was taken against Taylor's Produce Stand last year, the feds seized $90,000, dropped the charges, and kept $45,000 of Taylor's money.

Knowing that most farms operate on a very thin margin, such abuse of power wipes out a family's income, and for a bonus, the feds enhance the monopoly power of Monsanto, Big Dairy and their supply chain.… Former Maryland assistant U.S. attorney Steven Levin told the paper [City Paper], "The emphasis is on basically seizing money, whether it is legally or illegally earned. It can lead to financial ruin for business owners, and there's a potential for abuse here by the government.""

The raid on the Sowers was conducted by an agency created in 2009 to go after money-laundering criminals. The agency started out with a bang by seizing $1.2 billion from a real money launderer, but it appears that what it's interested in now is making criminals out of small business persons, including small farmers.

Why Are Family Farms Under Attack?

If they're not seizing bank accounts, it seems the government will find other ways to attack small farmers. A family farm in rural Michigan—and possibly others—may be shut down by a new state law that designates certain breeds of hogs as a threat to neighboring hog breeders and croplands.

Basically, the fight is over the definition of feral hogs vs. domestic hogs. The dictionary definition of "feral" refers to an animal running wild. But Michigan authorities have taken it a step further and extended the definition to include enclosed private hunting preserves and small farms that house what authorities call an "invasive species" of hogs.

There is no genetic test to determine whether the species on these farms are truly invasive, so authorities are basing their cases against these farmers solely on visual observations. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) uses this vague description to describe the prohibited hogs, and makes it clear that this does not apply to the domestic hogs raised on CAFOs:²

"Wild boar, wild hog, wild swine, feral pig, feral hog, feral swine, Old world swine, razorback, eurasian wild boar, Russian wild boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus). This subsection does not and is not intended to affect sus domestica involved in domestic hog production."

Other descriptions supplied by the MDNR include such a wide variety of characteristics that virtually any pig other than the familiar pink domestic breed raised on CAFOs could potentially be deemed "feral":

• Erect or folded/floppy ear structure
• Straight or curly tail
• Solid black, wild/grizzled, solid red/brown, black and white spotted, or black and red/brown spotted coat colorations
• "Other characteristics" not currently known to the MDNR

Interestingly, the Big Pork industry has been planning this anti-feral pig campaign for years, and even bragged about it in a 2010 newsletter.³ It was the same newsletter where they declared a win against the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in Ohio, where HSUS was seeking legislation to end the practice of sow gestation stalls (cages so small the sow can't turn around or move).

What this means for residents of Michigan is that soon they will be unable to purchase sustainably and humanely grown meat from the Mangalitsa "wooly" hogs raised on Baker's Green Acres farm. This particular breed is being raised by only a handful of small farms across the country; whereas more than 2 million pigs are slaughtered each week in the United States, only about 50 of them are Mangalitsas (which have been called the "it" pig by the New York Times, as several high-end restaurants and specialty markets have featured the rich, naturally raised meat⁴).

But, of course, this issue is about much more than pasture-raised pork from a heritage breed ... it's about your ability, your right, to purchase and consume pure, unadulterated food – a right that continues to be threated for those living in the United States.

FDA Also Threatens Your Right to Food Choice …

Another glaring example of government going out of its way to prohibit your access to pure, unprocessed food is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) war against raw milk. When the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) filed a lawsuit against the FDA over their raw milk ban, stating that banning raw milk in interstate commerce is unconstitutional, the FDA rebutted with the following extremely concerning and outrageous statements:

• "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food."
• "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds."
• "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."
• FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health."
• "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract."

Since when did the FDA have authority to tell you what you can and cannot eat and feed your children? Apparently they believe they've had it all along. If you go by these assertions, it means the FDA has the authority to prohibit any food of their choosing and make it a crime for you to seek it out. If, one day, the FDA deems tomatoes, broccoli or cashews capable of causing you harm (which is just as ludicrous as their assertions that raw milk is harmful), they could therefore enact such a ban and legally enforce it.

What this means is that freedom of food choice is a myth if you live in the United States, and this simply is not acceptable. No one, and certainly not any government agency, should be able to restrict your access to pure, unadulterated food, but the dairy industry and other industrial farmers that depend on CAFOs employ powerful lobbyists will stop at nothing to persuade government to remove the small farmers from the market entirely. The truth is, if enough people start demanding naturally, sustainably and humanely raised meat, dairy and produce, the giant farming monopolies that currently dominate the market would not be able to compete.

Their businesses depend on pesticides, CAFOs, genetically modified seeds, growth hormones and the like … so when they see all-natural creameries like the one operated by Randy Sowers and his wife Karen, or natural farms like Bakers Green Acres gaining loyal and growing customer bases, they get nervous – and they get the government involved in any way they can.

Please Support Your Local Small Farms

The healthiest food choices are nearly always those that come from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources.

This is why I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs. Now that summer is almost here in the United States, fresh produce and other wonderful whole foods are available in abundance. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. An artificially lit, dreary supermarket -- home to virtually every CAFO food made -- just can't compete.

If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:

1. Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
2. Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets
3. Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
4. Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
5. Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
6. FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes "Find Good Food" map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA's, and markets near you.

Finally, for more information on the ongoing attacks against small family farms in the United States consider watching Farmageddon: The Unseen War on American Family Farms, a documentary by Kristin Canty. But I warn you … the injustices it contains may just make your blood boil.

from Articles : GMO, Finances https://ift.tt/3995XoI
via IFTTT

B-SOiD is an open source, unsupervised algorithm that can discover and identify behaviors without user input.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3mOrk6h

A new family of materials that could result in improved digital information storage and uses less energy may be possible thanks to a team of researchers who demonstrated ferroelectricity in magnesium-substituted zinc oxide.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3mWqvbA

A research team investigated whether electrical therapy, coupled with exercise, would show promise in treating tendon disease or ruptures. They found that tendon cell function and repair can be controlled through electrical stimulation from an implantable device powered by body movement.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3BrByOb

Researchers have developed a blood test that, they believe, could one day offer a highly sensitive and inexpensive approach to detect cancer early in people with NF1. The blood test could also help doctors monitor how well patients are responding to treatment for their cancer.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3zzNb51

Researchers identify proteins that drive cancer stem cells. Targeting and suppressing a particular protein called galectin1 could provide a more effective treatment for glioblastoma, in combination with radiation therapy.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3yAFQRo

By Dr. Mercola

Reaching puberty is a rite of passage that we've all been through, but children nowadays are reaching it earlier than ever before -- a trend that has both health experts and parents alarmed.

Precocious puberty, which is the appearance of secondary sex characteristics like pubic hair or breast growth before age 8, or the onset of menarche before age 9, impacts at least 1 in 5,000 U.S. children, and the rate is on the rise.¹

Even in the last three decades, children (particularly girls) are maturing at younger and younger ages (precocious puberty is 10 times more common in girls than in boys).

Puberty, Once the Norm at Age 15, Now Occurring in 7-, 8- and 9-Year-Olds

In the 19th century the onset of menstruation occurred around the age of 15. Now the average age of the first period, or menarche, is around 12. The time during and before puberty is one of rapid development and change, which is why even months matter when it comes to first menstruation. Before menstruation, girls will show beginning signs of development, such as breast "budding" and growth of pubic hair.

These signs are now becoming unsettlingly common among 7-, 8- and 9-year-old girls, to the extent that many health care providers, rather than labeling these children with a diagnosis that something is wrong, have simply changed the definition of what's normal... but is it really "normal" for girls to mature at such a young age?

There are more questions than answers in the case of precocious puberty, but what is certain is that girls are developing earlier than they have even 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

One study in the journal Pediatrics revealed that by age 7, 10 percent of white girls, 23 percent of black girls, 15 percent of Hispanic girls and 2 percent of Asian girls had started developing breasts, with researchers noting:²

"The proportion of girls who had breast development at ages 7 and 8 years, particularly among white girls, is greater than that reported from studies of girls who were born 10 to 30 years earlier."

Early puberty can set the stage for emotional and behavioral problems, and is linked to lower self-esteem, depression, eating disorders, alcohol use, earlier loss of virginity, more sexual partners and increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases. There is also evidence that suggests these girls are at increased risk of diabetes, heart disease and other cardiovascular diseases, as well as cancer, later in life.

Environmental Chemicals a Likely Factor

Scientists have brought forth a number of potential explanations for the rising rates of early puberty, but one that deserves special attention is environmental chemicals, and particularly estrogen-mimicking, "gender-bending" chemicals that easily leach out of the products that contain them, contaminating everything they touch, including food and beverages.

As the featured New York Times article reported:

" ...animal studies show that the exposure to some environmental chemicals can cause bodies to mature early. Of particular concern are endocrine-disrupters, like "xeno-estrogens" or estrogen mimics. These compounds behave like steroid hormones and can alter puberty timing.

For obvious ethical reasons, scientists cannot perform controlled studies proving the direct impact of these chemicals on children, so researchers instead look for so-called "natural experiments," one of which occurred in 1973 in Michigan, when cattle were accidentally fed grain contaminated with an estrogen-mimicking chemical, the flame retardant PBB.

The daughters born to the pregnant women who ate the PBB-laced meat and drank the PBB-laced milk started menstruating significantly earlier than their peers."

This is an extreme case, but the truth is we are all part of a "secret experiment" of sorts, because hormone-disrupting chemicals are all around us. Bisphenol A (BPA), an industrial petrochemical that acts as a synthetic estrogen, is found in our plastics and our tin can linings, in dental sealants and on cash-register receipts. Laboratory tests commissioned by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) detected BPA in the umbilical cord blood of 90 percent of newborn infants tested -- along with more than 230 other chemicals. As written in the New York Times:

"One concern, among parents and researchers, is the effect of simultaneous exposures to many estrogen-mimics, including the compound BPA, which is ubiquitous."

No one knows what happens when a developing fetus or young child is exposed to hundreds of chemicals, many of which mimic your body's natural hormones and can trigger major changes in your body even as an adult, let along during the most rapid and vulnerable periods of development (in utero and as a young child).

BPA is, unfortunately, but one example. Others include phthalates, a group of industrial chemicals used to make plastics like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible and resilient. They're also one of the most pervasive of the endocrine disrupters, found in everything from processed food packaging and shower curtains to detergents, toys and beauty products like nail polish, hair spray, shampoo, deodorants, and fragrances.

Other environmental chemicals like PCBs and DDE (a breakdown product of the pesticide DDT) may also be associated with early sexual development in girls. Both DDE and PCBs are known to mimic, or interfere with, sex hormones.

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), found in non-stick cookware, also falls into this dangerous category, as does fluoride, which is added to the majority of public water supplies in the United States. Research showed that animals treated with fluoride had lower levels of circulating melatonin, as reflected by reduced levels of melatonin metabolites in the animals' urine. This reduced level of circulating melatonin was accompanied -- as might be expected -- by an earlier onset of puberty in the fluoride-treated female animals.

These Chemicals Also Increase Your Risk of Cancer and Heart Disease

If a chemical is capable of influencing the rate of your reproductive development, it stands to reason that it would be capable of influencing other hormone-sensitive growth processes as well, and this is indeed the case.

For instance, new research has detected the presence of paraben esters in 99 percent of breast cancer tissues sampled.³ Parabens are chemicals with estrogen-like properties, and estrogen is one of the hormones involved in not only puberty but also the development of breast cancer. They are widely used in household products such as:

✓ Deodorants and antiperspirants	✓ Shampoos and conditioners	✓ Shaving gel	✓ Toothpaste
✓ Lotions and sunscreens	✓ Make-up / cosmetics	✓ Pharmaceutical drugs	✓ Food additives

Recent research has also confirmed the existence of a previously unknown class of cancer-causing estrogen-mimicking compounds: metals. Yes, a broad range of metals have been shown to act as "metalloestrogens" with the potential to add to the estrogenic burden of the human body, thereby increasing the risk of breast cancer and also possibly early puberty. The following metals, which are added to thousands of consumer products, including vaccines, have been identified as being capable of binding to cellular estrogen receptors and then mimicking the actions of physiological estrogens:⁴

✓ Aluminum	✓ Antimony	✓ Arsenite	✓ Barium	✓ Cadmium	✓ Chromium	✓ Cobalt
✓ Copper	✓ Lead	✓ Mercury	✓ Nickel	✓ Selenite	✓ Tin	✓ Vanadate

Data from a long-running British health survey, meanwhile, has shown that if you have high levels of the chemical BPA in your urine, you may be at an increased risk of heart disease. Some of the greatest concern surrounds early-life, in utero exposure to BPA, which can lead to chromosomal errors in your developing fetus, causing spontaneous miscarriages and genetic damage. But evidence is also very strong showing these chemicals are influencing adults and children, too, and leading to decreased sperm quality, early puberty, stimulation of mammary gland development, disrupted reproductive cycles and ovarian dysfunction, obesity, cancer and heart disease, among numerous other health problems.

Avoiding Hormone-Disrupting Substances is Crucial for Children and Adults Alike

While young girls may show obvious signs of exposure to hormone-disrupting substances via early puberty, other signals are more insidious and may not show up until a disease is already present. Here are 11 measures you can implement right away to help protect yourself and your children from common toxic substances that could cause precocious puberty and other long-term health problems:

1. As much as possible, buy and eat organic produce and free-range, organic meats to reduce your exposure to added hormones, pesticides and fertilizers. Also avoid milk and other dairy products that contain the genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST)
2. Eat mostly raw, fresh foods. Processed, prepackaged foods (of all kinds) are a major source of soy and chemicals such as BPA and phthalates.
3. Store your food and beverages in glass rather than plastic, and avoid using plastic wrap and canned foods (which are often lined with BPA-containing liners).
4. Use glass baby bottles and BPA-free sippy cups for your little ones.
5. Make sure your baby's toys are BPA-free, such as pacifiers, teething rings and anything your child may be prone to suck on.
6. Only use natural cleaning products in your home to avoid phthalates.
7. Switch over to natural brands of toiletries such as shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants and cosmetics. The Environmental Working Group has a great safety guide to help you find personal care products that are free of phthalates, parabens and other potentially dangerous chemicals.
8. Avoid using artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners or other synthetic fragrances, many of which can also disrupt your hormone balance.
9. Replace your non-stick pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.
10. When redoing your home, look for "green," toxin-free alternatives in lieu of regular paint and vinyl floor coverings.
11. Replace your vinyl shower curtain with one made of fabric.
12. Avoid non-fermented soy, especially if you're pregnant and in infant formula.

Theo Colburn's book Our Stolen Future is a great source for further investigation as it identifies the numerous ways in which environmental pollutants are disrupting human reproductive patterns. I believe it is one of the best resources on this topic and highly recommend it.

Vitamin D Also Linked to Early Puberty

It has been suggested that girls who live closer to the equator start puberty at a later age than girls who live in Northern regions. Since this indicates a potential connection with sun exposure, researchers decided to investigate whether vitamin D was, in fact, related. Upon measuring vitamin D levels in 242 girls aged 5-12, researchers from the University of Michigan School of Public Health found that those who were deficient were twice as likely to start menstruation during the study period as those with higher levels.⁵

Specifically, among the vitamin-D-deficient girls, 57 percent started their period during the study, compared to 23 percent with adequate vitamin D. However, researchers defined adequate vitamin D as ≥ 30 ng/mL, which is actually still a deficiency state! For optimal health, vitamin D levels should be a minimum of 50 ng/mL, which means the number of vitamin-D-deficient girls with early puberty was probably much higher than the study reported.

The earlier you enter puberty, the longer you're exposed to elevated levels of the female hormone estrogen, which is a risk factor for certain cancers such as breast cancer. This has been the primary "link" between early puberty and cancer that has been explored, but it's important to understand that vitamin D deficiency is also a major risk factor for cancer, heart disease and many other diseases. So it could be that some of the increased risks that come from early puberty are linked to low vitamin D levels.

What You Should Know About Obesity, Stress and Exercise

Obesity (which exposes girls to more estrogen because estrogen is both stored and produced in fat tissue) is another likely factor in early puberty. The New York Times reported:

"As Robert Lustig, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco's Benioff Children's Hospital, explains, fatter girls have higher levels of the hormone leptin, which can lead to early puberty, which leads to higher estrogen levels, which leads to greater insulin resistance, causing girls to have yet more fat tissue, more leptin and more estrogen, the cycle feeding on itself, until their bodies physically mature."

As for stress, this, too, has been linked to early puberty, with girls whose parents divorced when they were between 3- and 8-years-old significantly more likely to experience precocious puberty. "Evolutionary psychology offers a theory," the New York Times reports. "A stressful childhood inclines a body toward early reproduction; if life is hard, best to mature young. But such theories are tough to prove." Interestingly, in addition to avoiding environmental chemicals, obesity and stress, and optimizing your vitamin D, regular exercise appears to be one of the best known ways to help prevent early puberty.

from Articles : Hormones, Children's Health https://ift.tt/1zllNRJ
via IFTTT

As plastic ages or is exposed to heat or stress, it can release trace amounts of some of its ingredients. Of particular concern are bisphenol-a (BPA), used to strengthen some plastics, and phthalates, used to soften others.

These chemicals are used in hundreds of household items; BPA is in everything from baby bottles to can linings, while phthalates are found in children‘s toys as well as vinyl shower curtains. They enter your body through the food, water and bits of dust you consume, or are simply absorbed through your skin.

BPA and phthalates are endocrine disrupters, which mimic hormones. Estrogen and other hormones in relatively tiny amounts can cause vast changes, so researchers worry that BPA and phthalates could do the same, especially in young children.

To cut down on your exposure, avoid plastic bottles and toys labeled with the numbers 3 or 7, which often contain BPA or phthalates, and canned foods, especially those with acidic contents like tomatoes. You should also avoid heating plastic in microwaves.

from Articles : Hormones, Children's Health https://ift.tt/3dboMc4
via IFTTT

More than 80 percent of schools in America use toxic pesticides as a preventative measure, whether it‘s needed or not.

Mark Lame, an entomologist and professor at Indiana University‘s School of Public and Environmental Affairs, believes this is an entirely unnecessary practice that carries more risks than benefits to students and faculty.

The most widely used pesticides are, in fact, nerve poisons. They cause uncontrolled nerve firing, and disrupt the delicate hormone systems.

The link between pesticide exposure and health problems in children is already well established. Research has connected these endocrine-disrupting pesticides to health problems such as ADHD, autism, and infertility -- all of which are on the rise.

Professor Lame says pest problems are better managed through an integrated approach -- by preventing the conditions that attract pests into school facilities in the first place.

Lame serves as a consultant for schools around the country, helping them reduce the toxic load by implementing his Integrated Pest Management (IPM) process.

Science Daily July 21, 2007

from Articles : Hormones, Children's Health https://ift.tt/3m1SKn4
via IFTTT

Breast cancer rates dropped by half in tandem with the discontinuation of hormone replacement therapy, according to a study published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The study was reported in the Telegraph in the United Kingdom.

The Telegraph said:

"Dr Prithwish De, of the Canadian Cancer Society, and colleagues, found that use of HRT dropped from 12.7 per cent in 2002 to 4.9 per cent in 2004.

During the same period breast cancer rates dropped by 9.6 per cent even though the same number of women were having mammography tests.

Between 2004 and 2006 use of HRT remained stable at around five per cent of women aged 50 to 59 but breast cancer rates began to increase again.

Dr De wrote: 'The results support the hypothesised link between the use of hormone replacement therapy and invasive breast cancer incidence and indicate that the sharp decline in breast cancer incidence in 2002 is likely explained by the concurrent decline in the use of hormone replacement therapy among Canadian women.'"

The study's authors said these numbers support existing evidence of the link between HRT and breast cancer.

from Articles : Hormones, Aging https://ift.tt/13bQkWb
via IFTTT

By Ron Rosedale, M.D.

It is amazing how the little twists and turns of researchers can have such a profound impact on what we generally come to realize as “scientific truth.” Let me share a recent fascinating example of how this impacted one of the most powerful hormones in your body.

The Ob mouse is a strain of mouse that has a genetic mutation that makes it obese and unhealthy. It has been used for many years as a model of obesity to do research on, though the reason that it was obese had eluded scientists.

This changed when, in 1994, Jeffrey Friedman discovered that this mouse lacked a previously unknown hormone called leptin, and when it was injected with leptin it became thin, vibrant, and very healthy within weeks. This made headlines around the world, "the cure for obesity found" and pharmaceutical companies started tripping over themselves with trillion dollar signs in their eyes to be the first to genetically manufacture leptin on a large-scale.

This did not last long. When people were tested for leptin, it was found that, unlike the Ob mouse, they did not lack leptin; on the contrary almost all overweight and obese people have excess leptin.

These people were ^"leptin resistant^" and giving extra leptin did little good.

The financial disappointment was extreme and scientists working for pharmaceutical companies said that leptin wasn't important anymore since they could not find a drug to control it, and therefore the industry couldn't make money on it. To make big money in medicine one needs a patent and this generally means remedies which are not commonly or easily available -- that are not natural.

This illustrates two extremely unfortunate principles in modern medicine; only those therapies that will make lots of money (generally for the pharmaceutical industry or hospitals), ever get pursued and then taught to physicians (since most of medical education after medical school takes place by drug reps), and these therapies, almost by definition, will be unnatural.

This inhibition of extremely important knowledge is not only unfortunate, it is deadly, and is exemplified by how few people, including doctors, know anything about leptin, though I would consider it to be the most important chemical in your body that will determine your health and lifespan.

Two Hormones that are Vital for Optimal Health

Each and every one of us is a combination of lives within lives. We are made up of trillions of individual living cells that each must maintain itself. Even more significantly, the cells must communicate and interact with each other to form a republic of cells that we call our individual self.

Our health and life depends on how accurately instructions are conveyed to our cells so that they can act in harmony. It is the communication among the individual cells that will determine our health and our life.

The communication takes place by hormones. Arguably therefore, the most important molecules in your body that ultimately will decide your health and life are hormones.

Many would say that genes and chromosomes are the most important molecules, however once born your genes pretty much just sit there; hormones tell them what to do. Certainly, the most important message that our cells receive is how and what to do with energy, and therefore life cannot take place without that.

The two most important hormones that deliver messages about energy and metabolism are insulin and leptin.

Metabolism can roughly be defined as the chemistry that turns food into life, and therefore insulin and leptin are critical to health and disease. Both insulin and leptin work together to control the quality of your metabolism (and, to a significant extent, the rate of metabolism).

Insulin works mostly at the individual cell level, telling the vast majority of cells whether to burn or store fat or sugar and whether to utilize that energy for maintenance and repair or reproduction. This is extremely important as we shall see, for on an individual cell level turning on maintenance and repair equates to increased longevity, and turning up cellular reproduction can increase your risk of cancer.

Leptin, on the other hand, controls the energy storage and utilization of the entire republic of cells allowing the body to communicate with the brain about how much energy (fat) the republic has stored, and whether it needs more, or should burn some off, and whether it is an advantageous time nutritionally-speaking for the republic --you-- to reproduce or not.

What Exactly is Leptin?

Leptin is a very powerful and influential hormone produced by fat cells that has totally changed the way that science (real science, outside of medicine) looks at fat, nutrition, and metabolism in general.

Prior to leptin^'s discovery, fat was viewed as strictly an ugly energy storage depot that most everyone was trying to get rid of. After it was discovered that fat produced the hormone leptin (and subsequently it was discovered that fat produced other very significant hormones), fat became an endocrine organ like the ovaries, pancreas and pituitary, influencing the rest of the body and, in particular, the brain.

Leptin, as far  as science currently knows, is the most powerful regulator that tells your brain what to do about life's two main biological goals: eating and reproduction. Your fat, by way of leptin, tells your brain whether you should be hungry, eat and make more fat, whether you should reproduce and make babies, or (partly by controlling insulin) whether to "hunker down" and work overtime to maintain and repair yourself.

I believe I could now make a very convincing and scientifically accurate statement that that rather than your brain being in control of the rest of your body, your brain is, in fact, subservient to your fat -- and leptin.

In short, leptin is the way that your fat stores speak to your brain to let your brain know how much energy is available and, very importantly, what to do with it. Therefore, leptin may be "on top of the food chain^" in metabolic importance and relevance to disease.

How Leptin Regulates Your Weight

It has been known for many years that fat stores are highly regulated. It appeared that when one tried to lose weight the body would try to gain it back. This commonly results in "yo-yo" dieting and in scientific circles one talks about the "set point" of weight. It has long been theorized that there must be a hormone that determines this.

Science points now to leptin as being that hormone.

In our ancestral history, it was advantageous to store some fat to call upon during times of famine. However, it was equally disadvantageous to be too fat. For most of our evolutionary history, it was necessary to run, to obtain prey and perhaps most importantly, to avoid being prey. If a lion was chasing a group of people it would most likely catch and eliminate from the gene pool the slowest runner and the one who could not make it up the tree -- the fattest one.

Thus, fat storage had to be highly regulated and this is done, as is any regulation, through hormones, the most significant being leptin.

If a person is getting too fat, the extra fat produces more leptin which is supposed to tell the brain that there is too much fat stored, more should not be stored, and the excess should be burned.

Signals are therefore sent to an area of the brain in the hypothalamus (the arcuate nucleus) to stop being hungry, to stop eating, to stop storing fat and to start burning some extra fat off.

Controlling hunger is a major (though not the only) way that leptin controls energy storage. Hunger is a very powerful, ancient, and deep-seated drive that, if stimulated long enough, will make you eat and store more energy. Asking somebody to not eat, to voluntarily restrict calories even though they are hungry, is asking the near impossible. The only way to eat less in the long-term is to not be hungry, and the only way to do this is to control the hormones that regulate hunger, the primary one being leptin.

How Leptin Resistance Leads to Disease

More recently, it has been found that leptin not only changes brain chemistry, but can also ^"rewire^" the very important areas of the brain that control hunger and metabolism. I'm not aware of any other chemical in the body that has been shown to accomplish this "mind bending" event.

This has really caught the attention of the scientific community. Further studies have now shown that leptin, or more correctly the inability of the body to properly hear leptin^’s signals, in other words leptin resistance, plays significant if not primary roles in heart disease, obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis, autoimmune diseases, reproductive disorders, and perhaps the rate of aging itself.

It helps to control the brain areas that regulate thyroid levels and the sympathetic nervous system which also has huge impacts on blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis and aging. Leptin's stimulatory effect on the sympathetic nervous system also helps determine the adrenal stress response including cortisol levels.

Leptin May Be Even More Critical Than Insulin

The importance of insulin in health and disease is becoming well-known. Aside from its obvious role in diabetes, it plays a very significant role in hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

I was one of the first to speak publicly to doctors about insulin’s critical role in health well over a decade ago (see the transcribed talk Insulin and its Metabolic Effects) and I am even more convinced now.

However leptin may even supersede insulin in importance, for new research is revealing that in the long run glucose and therefore insulin levels may be largely determined by leptin.

It had been previously believed that the insulin sensitivity of muscle and fat tissues were the most important factor in determining whether one would become diabetic or not. Elegant new studies are showing that the brain and liver are most important in regulating a person’s blood sugar levels especially in type 2 or insulin resistant diabetes.

It should be noted again that leptin plays a vital role in regulating your brain^’s hypothalamic activity which in turn regulates much of a person’s ^"autonomic^" functions; those functions that you don't necessarily think about but which determines much of your life (and health) such as body temperature, heart rate, hunger, the stress response, fat burning or storage, reproductive behavior, and newly discovered roles in bone growth and blood sugar levels.

Another very recent study reveals leptin's importance in directly regulating how much sugar that the liver manufactures via gluconeogenesis.

Many chronic diseases are now linked to excess inflammation such as heart disease and diabetes. High leptin levels are very pro-inflammatory, and leptin also helps to mediate the manufacture of other very potent inflammatory chemicals from fat cells that also play a significant role in the progression of heart disease and diabetes. It has long been known that obesity greatly increased risk for many chronic diseases including heart disease and diabetes, but no one really knew why.

Leptin appears to be the missing link.

Could Leptin Also Affect  How Fast You Age?

Leptin will not only determine how much fat you have, but also where that fat is put. When you are leptin resistant you put that fat mostly in your belly, your viscera, causing the so-called "apple shape" that is linked to much disease. Some of that fat permeates the liver, impeding the liver's ability to listen to insulin, and further hastening diabetes.

 

Leptin plays a far more important role in your health than, for instance, cholesterol, yet how many doctors measure leptin levels in their patients, know their own level, even know that it can be easily measured, or even what it would mean?

Leptin appears to play a significant role in obesity, heart disease, osteoporosis, autoimmune diseases, inflammatory diseases and cancer. These are the so-called ^"chronic diseases of aging^".

Could it perhaps affect the rate of aging itself?

The Biology of Aging

Scientists who study the biology of aging are beginning to look at that question. There are two endeavors, two drives that life has been programmed, since its inception, to succeed at and to succumb to. These are to eat and to reproduce.

If every one of our ancestors had not succeeded in eating and reproducing we would not be here, and this paper would be moot. All of your morphological characteristics from your hair to your toenails are designed to help you succeed at those two activities. That is what nature wants us to do. Nature's purpose is not necessarily to have you live a long and healthy life, but to perpetuate the instructions, the genes that tell how to perpetuate life.

Even so-called "paleolithic" diets, though undoubtedly far better than what is generally eaten today, were not necessarily designed by nature to help us live a long and healthy life but, at best, to maximize reproduction. Nature appears to not care much about what happens to us after we have had a sufficient chance to reproduce. That is why we die.

But there are clues as to how to live a long and healthy life. And that brings us once again to fat--and leptin.

It takes energy to make babies; lots of it. Energy was and always will be a coveted commodity. Nature, and evolution, hates wasting it. It makes no sense to try and make babies when it appears that there's not enough energy available to successfully accomplish that goal.

Instead, it seems that virtually all living forms can ^"switch gears^" and direct energy away from reproduction and towards mechanism that will allow it to "hunker down" for the long haul and thus be able to reproduce at a future more nutritionally opportune time. In other words nature will then let you live longer to accomplish its primary directive of reproduction.

It does this by up regulating maintenance and repair genes that increase production of intracellular antioxidant systems, heat shock proteins (that help maintain protein shape), and DNA repair enzymes. This is what happens when you restrict calories (without starvation) in animals, and that has been shown convincingly for 70 years to greatly extend the life span of many dozens of species. Thus, there is a powerful link between reproduction, energy stores, and longevity.

Genetic studies in simple organisms have shown that that link is at least partially mediated by insulin (which in simple organisms also functions as a growth hormone), and that when insulin signals are kept low, indicating scarce energy availability, maximal lifespan can be extended--- a lot; several hundred percent in worms and flies.

Glucose is an ancient fuel used even before there was oxygen in the atmosphere, for life can burn glucose without oxygen; it is an anaerobic fuel. The use of fat as fuel came later, after life in the form of plants soaked the earth in oxygen, for you cannot burn fat without oxygen.

The primary source of energy stores in people by far is fat, as many unfortunately are all too aware of. The primary signal that indicates how much fat is stored is leptin, and it is also leptin that allows for reproduction, or not.

It has long been known that women with very little body fat, such as marathon runners, stop ovulating. There is not enough leptin being produced to permit it. Paradoxically, the first pharmaceutical use of leptin was recently approved to give to skinny women to allow them to reproduce.

Leptin’s Role in Improving Your Metabolism

Leptin also is instrumental in regulating body temperature, partly by controlling the rate of metabolism via its regulation of the thyroid.

 

Metabolic rate and temperature has long been connected with longevity. Almost all mechanisms that extend lifespan in many different organisms result in lower temperature. Flowers are refrigerated at the florist to extend their lifespan. Restricting calories in animals also results in lower temperature, reduced thyroid levels, and longer life.

 

It should be noted that reduced thyroid levels in this case are not synonymous with hypothyroidism. Here, the body is choosing to lower thyroid hormones because the increased efficiency of energy use and hormonal signaling (including perhaps thyroid) is allowing this to happen.

Anything will dissolve faster in hot water than cold water. Extra heat will dissolve, disrupt and disorganize. This is not what I try to do to make someone healthy. It is commonly advised to "increase metabolism" and increase "thermogenesis" for health and weight loss.

Yet how many of you would put a brand of gasoline in your car that advertised that it would make your engine run hotter? What would that do to the life of your car? It is not an increase in metabolism that I am after; it is improved metabolic quality.

That will be determined at the quality of your leptin signaling.

If it is poor, if you are insulin and leptin resistant, your metabolism is unhealthy and high in what I call "metabolic friction". If you then increase its rate you will likely accelerate your demise. To increase the quality of your metabolism you must be able to properly listen to insulin and especially to leptin.

If your fasting blood serum level of leptin is elevated you are likely leptin resistant and you will not be healthy unless you correct it.

How Do You Become Leptin Resistant?

This is the subject of much research. I believe people become leptin-resistant by the same general mechanism that people become insulin-resistant; by overexposure to high levels of the hormone.

High blood glucose levels cause repeated surges in insulin, and this causes one's cells to become "insulin-resistant^" which leads to further high levels of insulin and diabetes. It is much the same as being in a smelly room for a period of time. Soon, you stop being able to smell it, because the signal no longer gets through.

I believe the same happens with leptin. It has been shown that as sugar gets metabolized in fat cells, fat releases surges in leptin, and I believe that those surges result in leptin-resistance just as it results in insulin-resistance.

The only known way to reestablish proper leptin (and insulin) signaling is to prevent those surges, and the only known way to do that is via diet and supplements.

As such, these can have a more profound effect on your health than any other known modality of medical treatment.

When leptin signaling is restored, your brain can finally hear the message that perhaps should have been delivered decades ago; high leptin levels can now scream to your brain that you have too much fat and that you better start burning some off for your life is in danger.

Your brain will finally allow you access into your pantry that you have been storing your fat in. Your cells will be fed the food from that fat and they will be satisfied. They will not know whether that food came from your belly fat or from your mouth; nor will they care. They will be receiving energy that they need and will not have to ask for more. You will not be hungry.

This also makes counting calories irrelevant, for the calories that you put into your mouth today are not necessarily what your cells will be eating; that will be determined primarily by leptin. Whether or not you put food into your mouth, your cells will be eating, and if they cannot eat fat they must eat sugar.

Since little sugar is stored, that sugar will be had by making you crave it, or by turning the protein in your muscle and bone into sugar. This contributes in a major way to weakness and osteoporosis. Whether or not this lean tissue wasting happens is determined by your capacity, or incapacity, to burn fat, and that is determined by your ability to listen to leptin.

A strategic diet that emphasizes good fats and avoids blood sugar spikes coupled with targeted supplements (as recommended in my Rosedale Diet and Dr. Mercola’s Take Control of Your Health), will enhance insulin and leptin sensitivity so that you can once again hear their music, allowing your life to be the symphony it was meant to be.

from Articles : Hormones, Aging https://ift.tt/3lV9cp2
via IFTTT

Mice lacking the insulin receptor substrate are more resistant to aging than normal mice, according to University College London researchers.

The finding further confirms the link between insulin signaling pathways and aging, and may have implications on aging in humans.

In the study, mice were engineered to lack either insulin receptor substrate IRS-1 or IRS-2, both proteins that are activated by the hormone insulin, which regulates glucose and fat metabolism. Compared with normal mice, the mice lacking IRS-1 had:

• A 20 percent increase in their average lifespan (30 percent for female mice)
• Better health as they aged

In contrast, mice lacking IRS-2 had shorter lives than normal mice, and developed signs of obesity and type 2 diabetes. 

• The FASEB Journal October 10, 2007
• UPI.com October 23, 2007

from Articles : Hormones, Aging https://ift.tt/2h6W0yN
via IFTTT

Despite widespread publicity, the 2002 landmark study on the potential dangers of hormone therapy for postmenopausal women is completely unknown to most women. 

New research from the Stanford University School of Medicine discovered that only 29 percent of the women surveyed knew anything about the study two years later. Additionally, only 40 percent of the women were able to identify possible risks and benefits linked to hormone therapy. 

Hormone therapy is used to ease your symptoms of menopause, but has also been widely prescribed for preventive purposes, based in part on earlier observational studies that had suggested it could help protect women against heart disease, weak bones, and dementia. 

In July 2002, the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) abruptly ended its combination of estrogen and progestin therapy study, as their data discovered higher rates of breast cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and blood clots in the population taking the hormones, compared to those taking placebos. 

Later, in April 2004, WHI also halted the portion of the study for estrogen-only therapy, after finding the hormone did not offer any protective heart disease prevention, but rather increased your risk of stroke and blood clots. 

The WHI findings triggered enormous changes in the use of hormone therapy, and prescriptions had dropped 38 percent by 2003. 

Senior author Randall Stafford, MD, PhD, said their latest survey indicates there's a huge problem in communicating crucial health information to patients effectively, which in turn is indicative of an even larger problem – ensuring that people can make informed decisions about their medical care. 

Menopause April 10, 2007

Women's Health Initiative June 21, 2007

WHI March 2, 2007 (The Estrogen-Alone Study Links)

Women's Health Initiative (The Estrogen-Plus-Progestin Study Links)

Eurekalert September 18, 2007

from Articles : Hormones, Aging https://ift.tt/38s6otU
via IFTTT

Many consumers have long known their favorite lotions and sunscreens contained parabens, or synthetic chemicals used as preservatives. But with more and more products being touted as “paraben-free," many are now wondering, "What, exactly, are parabens, and are they dangerous?"

Parabens, which inhibit the growth of bacteria, yeast, and molds, have been used in personal-care products like shampoos, conditioners, deodorants, and sunscreens for years, allowing these products to survive for months, or years, during shipping and on store shelves.

Studies have now shown that parabens mimic the activity of the hormone estrogen, which is associated with certain forms of breast cancer.

Organic Consumers Association September 4, 2007

 

from Articles : Hormones, Aging https://ift.tt/2RBQkQJ
via IFTTT

Hamlet opens up about being a professional athlete at a young age and how her approach to wellness has evolved over time.

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/3Bqoit1

August 23, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted full approval¹ to the COVID-19 mRNA injection developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, sold under the brand name Comirnaty, for use in people aged 16 and older.

It’s the fastest approval in history,² granted less than four months after Pfizer filed for licensing May 7, 2021.³ It’s also based on just six months’ worth of data from 44,047 people aged 16 and older. Half of them got the shots and half initially received a placebo.

However, in the second week of December 2020, Pfizer unblinded the control group and 93% of controls opted to get the real injection⁴ rather than remain in the control group for the remainder of the trial, which is slated to continue for another two years.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla commented on the FDA’s approval, saying it “affirms the efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine,” and that he’s “hopeful this approval will help increase confidence in our vaccine …”⁵

According to STAT News,⁶ public health officials hope the approval “will persuade some people who remain hesitant about the vaccine to get the shot,” and will “make it easier for some public and private organizations to require vaccination.”

FDA Ditches Public Hearing, Circumventing Established Norms

Normally, the FDA will hold a formal hearing and allow for public and expert input before a drug is moved from emergency use authorization to full approval, but nothing is normal when it comes to COVID.

In this instance, no such hearing was held, and an FDA spokesperson called it unnecessary, because the public had been allowed to comment on all three COVID-19 jabs — Pfizer’s, Moderna’s and Johnson & Johnson’s — during a December 20, 2020, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting. According to many, that isn’t good enough.⁷ As reported by The BMJ:⁸

“Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who serves as a consumer representative on the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, said the decision removed an important mechanism for scrutinizing the data.

‘These public meetings are imperative in building trust and confidence especially when the vaccines came to market at lightning speed under emergency use authorization,’ she said.

‘The public deserves a transparent process, especially as the call for boosters and mandates are rapidly increasing. These meetings offer a platform where questions can be raised, problems tackled, and data scrutinized in advance of an approval.’

Witczak is one of the more than 30 signatories of a citizen petition calling on the FDA to refrain from fully approving any COVID-19 vaccine this year to gather more data. She warned that without a meeting ‘we have no idea what the data looks like.’

‘It is already concerning that full approval is being based on 6 months’ worth of data despite the clinical trials designed for two years,’ she said. ‘There is no control group after Pfizer offered the product to placebo participants before the trials were completed.

Full approval of covid-19 vaccines must be done in an open public forum for all to see. It could set a precedent of lowered standards for future vaccine approvals.’”

Media Are Lying About Pfizer’s FDA Approval

Before we go any further, let’s clear up what the FDA actually approved, because they did not approve the Pfizer shot currently given. In the interview above, Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine platform, explains how we are being misled, yet again.

The injection that got the FDA approval is a Pfizer/BioNTech collaboration, to be sold under the brand name Comirnaty, and this injection is not currently available. Malone explains:

“The little trick that they’ve done here, is they’ve issued two separate letters for two separate vaccines. The Pfizer vaccine, which is what is currently available, is still under emergency use authorization and it still has the liability shield. Once again, the mainstream media have lied to you …

The product that’s licensed is the BioNTech product, which is substantially similar but not necessarily identical, called Comirnaty, and it’s not yet available. They haven’t started manufacturing it or labeling it. And that’s the one the liability waiver will no longer apply to.

So, the one that’s actually licensed is not yet available, and when it does become available it will no longer have the liability shield. In the interim, the one that does have the liability shield is the Pfizer product and that is what is currently available and it’s still under emergency use authorization.”

What this means is, if you want to get the licensed COVID shot, you have to wait. This also means that if employers demand that employees get vaccinated because there’s now a licensed COVID injection, employees should then demand to actually receive the FDA licensed Comirnaty,⁹ not the emergency use only¹⁰ Pfizer product that is currently being given.

FDA ‘Tricking Us Into Giving Up Our Right to Refuse’

Now, while the two products are not necessarily identical, the FDA in its infinite wisdom has decreed that the two can be used interchangeably, but their legal statuses, however, are not interchangeable. As explained by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Meryl Nass in a recent article:¹¹

“There is a huge real-world difference between products approved under EUA compared with those the FDA has fully licensed. EUA products are experimental under U.S. law. Both the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations provide that no one can force a human being to participate in this experiment.

Under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), ‘authorization for medical products for use in emergencies,’ it is unlawful to deny someone a job or an education because they refuse to be an experimental subject. Instead, potential recipients have an absolute right to refuse EUA vaccines. U.S. laws, however, permit employers and schools to require students and workers to take licensed vaccines.

EUA-approved COVID vaccines have an extraordinary liability shield under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act. Vaccine manufacturers, distributors, providers and government planners are immune from liability.

The only way an injured party can sue is if he or she can prove willful misconduct, and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.

The government has created an extremely stingy compensation program, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, to redress injuries from all EUA products …

At least for the moment, the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine has no liability shield. Vials of the branded product, which say “Comirnaty” on the label, are subject to the same product liability laws as other U.S. products …

Just as with Ford’s exploding Pinto, or Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, people injured by the Comirnaty vaccine could potentially sue for damages. And because adults injured by the vaccine will be able to show that the manufacturer knew of the problems with the product, jury awards could be astronomical.

Pfizer is therefore unlikely to allow any American to take a Comirnaty vaccine until it can somehow arrange immunity for this product.

Given this background, the FDA’s acknowledgement in its approval letter that there are insufficient stocks of the licensed Comirnaty, but an abundant supply of the EUA Pfizer BioNTech jab, exposes the “approval” as a cynical scheme to encourage businesses and schools to impose illegal jab mandates.

The FDA’s clear motivation is to enable Pfizer to quickly unload inventories of a vaccine that science and the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System have exposed as unreasonably dangerous, and that the Delta variant has rendered obsolete.

Americans, told that the Pfizer COVID vaccine is now licensed, will understandably assume COVID vaccine mandates are lawful. But only EUA-authorized vaccines, for which no one has any real liability, will be available during the next few weeks when many school mandate deadlines occur.

The FDA appears to be purposefully tricking American citizens into giving up their right to refuse an experimental product … Here’s what you need to know when somebody orders you to get the vaccine: Ask to see the vial. If it says ‘Comirnaty,’ it’s a licensed product.

If it says ‘Pfizer-BioNTech,’ it’s an experimental product, and under 21 U.S. Code 360bbb, you have the right to refuse. If it comes from Moderna or Johnson & Johnson (marketed as Janssen), you have the right to refuse.

The FDA is playing bait and switch with the American public — but we don’t have to play along. If it doesn’t say Comirnaty, you have not been offered an approved vaccine.”

Approval by Captured Agency Hardly Affirms Safety

While the notion of full approval might sway some fence-sitters, especially if they don’t understand that the licensed product is not what you get if you get a Pfizer shot right now, it’s unlikely to influence those who have kept an eye on the skyrocketing number of adverse event reports logged into the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

As of August 13, 2021, VAERS had logged 595,620 adverse events following COVID injection, including 54,142 hospitalizations and 13,608 deaths.¹² While these numbers are completely unheard of — with reported deaths from COVID-19 shots exceeding the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years — they may still be just the tip of the iceberg.

Previous investigations have shown VAERS reports account for a mere 1%^13,14 to 10%¹⁵ of all vaccine-related injuries, which means the death toll from these jabs may be in the six-digits already.

The notion that a “vaccine” that has killed more people in nine months than all other vaccines combined in three decades is considered safe really stretches the bounds of credulity. It’s simply not believable, and to many simply reaffirms the suspicion that the FDA is a captured agency working for the benefit of Big Pharma rather than safeguarding the public from dangerous drugs.

As noted by a commenter on BMJ associate editor Peter Doshi’s article “Does the FDA Think These Data Justify the First Full Approval of a COVID-19 Vaccine?” republished by The Defender:¹⁶

“The Fraud and Death Administration has really outdone itself this time. Owned by pharma, serving pharma, to the extreme detriment to humanity. They deserve to be shuttered permanently, they are an organization of criminals.”

Risk of Heart Inflammation Acknowledged

The FDA didn’t go so far as to give the Pfizer shot a completely clean bill of health, however. As reported by STAT News:¹⁷

“The FDA’s prescribing information for the vaccine includes its associated risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, two types of heart inflammation that have appeared rarely among people who’ve received the mRNA vaccines, mostly within seven days after the second shot, health officials said. Men under 40 appear to be at higher risk than women and older men, with the highest observed risk in boys age 12 to 17.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, As of August 18, 2021, VAERS had received 1,339 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis in people under the age of 30 following COVID injection, with a majority of these cases being associated with the Pfizer shot.¹⁸

Pfizer’s new Comirnaty package insert¹⁹ also clearly states at the top of its first page under “Warnings and Precautions” that “postmarketing data demonstrate increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within seven days of the second dose.”

Then, under Section 5.2 of the insert, Pfizer has added an entire section explaining the details of those adverse effects, and directing readers to a CDC webpage²⁰ that addresses those effects in adolescents and young adults.

Heart Inflammation Study Won’t End Until 2025

In its approval letter for Comirnaty,²¹ the FDA orders Pfizer/BioNTech to conduct research to investigate the risk of inflammation in and around the heart, as voluntary reporting mechanisms are insufficient:

“We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis.

Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks.

Therefore, based on appropriate scientific data, we have determined that you are required to conduct the following studies: 4. Study C4591009, entitled ‘A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in the United States,’ to evaluate the occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY.”

The FDA accepted Pfizer’s suggested timetable for the post-approval study to evaluate incidence of heart and heart sack inflammation, which includes the submission of an interim report at the end of October 2023, a study completion date of June 30, 2025, and submission of a final report October 31, 2025.

Modern-Day Child Sacrifice?

The notion that the current Pfizer shot or the BioNTech product, Comirnaty, are “safe” is rather ludicrous in light of all this, and the idea that the FDA is even considering approving the shot for children as young as 12²² — and are running trials on babies — is completely incomprehensible. Even worse, Fauci is pushing for infant approval by the end of the year.²³

The myocarditis study for Comirnaty (which may or may not be as dangerous as the current Pfizer shot) won’t be completed until four years from now, yet they see it fit to give this experimental injection to every last child in the United States? What are they thinking? Is it really wise to trade the risk of flu-like illness for heart damage? From the start of this pandemic, children have proven very resistant to SARS-CoV-2 infection and rarely ever suffer any significantly ill effects.

As reported by NPR,²⁴ Pfizer’s youth trial, which includes children between the ages of 6 months and 11 years, doesn’t even test “to see whether the vaccine actually prevents children from getting sick.” Instead of assessing actual symptoms, the trial “will look at their blood to see if they are making the kinds of antibodies that have been shown to prevent disease.”

In other words, all they’re looking for is the antibody against the synthetic spike protein your body produces. But that antibody is not the best way to assess protection, as the protection is very narrow. Actual viruses contain several different proteins against which your body produces both antibodies and memory T cells when you’re infected naturally.

This is why natural immunity is far more robust and long-lasting, and why the claim that vaccine-induced protection is superior to natural immunity is false. In my view, experimenting on children and not even doing a comprehensive job of it is simply unconscionable.

Do Data Justify Full Approval of Pfizer’s COVID Jab?

In the morning of August 23, 2021, mere hours before the FDA announced its approval of the Pfizer shot, Doshi published a BMJ blog questioning whether available data could really support full approval. He wrote:²⁵

“On 28 July 2021, Pfizer and BioNTech posted updated results for their ongoing phase 3 covid-19 vaccine trial. The preprint came almost a year to the day after the historical trial commenced, and nearly four months since the companies announced vaccine efficacy estimates ‘up to six months.’

But you won’t find 10 month follow-up data here. While the preprint is new, the results it contains aren’t particularly up to date. In fact, the paper is based on the same data cut-off date (13 March 2021) as the 1 April press release, and its topline efficacy result is identical: 91.3% … vaccine efficacy against symptomatic covid-19 through ‘up to six months of follow-up.’

The 20 page preprint matters because it represents the most detailed public account of the pivotal trial data Pfizer submitted in pursuit of the world’s first ‘full approval’ of a coronavirus vaccine from the Food and Drug Administration. It deserves careful scrutiny.”

Doshi points out that while Pfizer has touted a 95% efficacy rate, and even higher against severe disease, this refers to relative risk reduction, not absolute risk reduction, which is actually an insignificant 0.7%²⁶ to 0.84%.²⁷ Moreover, “measuring vaccine efficacy two months after dosing says little about just how long vaccine-induced immunity will last,” Doshi says.

6-Month Preprint Showed Evidence of Waning Immunity

Rapidly waning immunity is the proverbial elephant in the room, according to Doshi, who points to Israeli data showing Pfizer’s shot went from a 95% effectiveness at the outset, to 64% in early July 2021 and 39% by late July, when the Delta strain became predominant. “This is very low,” Doshi says, pointing out that the FDA’s expectation for any vaccine is an efficacy rate of at least 50%.

The FDA cannot claim it doesn’t know the protection offered is pathetically short, as Pfizer’s preprint, which contained six months’ worth of data, showed evidence of rapidly waning immunity as early as March 13, 2021.

By the fourth month into the trial, efficacy had dropped from 96% to 90%, and one month after that, it was down to 84%. Curiously, while Pfizer had this data in April 2021, they didn’t publish it until the end of July 2021. Still, that’s what the FDA is basing its decision on.

What’s more, this rapid drop in effectiveness could hardly be due to the emergence of the Delta variant, Doshi adds, because 77% of trial participants were in the U.S., where the Delta variant didn’t become established until months after the data cut-off date.

“Waning efficacy has the potential to be far more than a minor inconvenience; it can dramatically change the risk-benefit calculus,” Doshi writes.²⁸ “And whatever its cause — intrinsic properties of the vaccine, the circulation of new variants, some combination of the two, or something else — the bottom line is that vaccines need to be effective.

Until new clinical trials demonstrate that boosters increase efficacy above 50%, without increasing serious adverse events, it is unclear whether the 2-dose series would even meet the FDA’s approval standard at six or nine months.”

There’s NO Control Group in This Mass Experiment

Making matters even worse, Pfizer, like all other COVID jab developers, went ahead and eliminated their control groups at the end of 2020. So, we’re figuratively flying blind, having nothing to compare the vaccinated treatment group against.

This is a recipe for disaster, as it effectively hides side effects. If large numbers of people suddenly start developing a health problem, it can simply be written off as a new normal and/or can be blamed on some other environmental factor. Doshi comments on how this decision impacts our ability to evaluate any data coming out of these trials:²⁹

“Despite the reference to ‘six month safety and efficacy’ in the preprint’s title, the paper only reports on vaccine efficacy ‘up to six months,’ but not from six months.

This is not semantics, as it turns out only 7% of trial participants actually reached six months of blinded follow-up (‘8% of BNT162b2 recipients and 6% of placebo recipients had ≥6 months follow-up post-dose 2.’) …

This all happened because starting last December, Pfizer allowed all trial participants to be formally unblinded, and placebo recipients to get vaccinated. By 13 March 2021 (data cut-off), 93% of trial participants (41,128 of 44,060 …) were unblinded, officially entering ‘open-label followup’ …

So despite this preprint appearing a year after the trial began, it provides no data on vaccine efficacy past six months, which is the period Israel says vaccine efficacy has dropped to 39%.

It is hard to imagine that the <10% of trial participants who remained blinded at six months (which presumably further dwindled after 13 March 2021) could constitute a reliable or valid sample to produce further findings.”

With the approval of Comirnaty, a formal package insert³⁰ has been released, and in section 6.1, they clearly state they’ve not had placebo participants since December 2020, not even among teenagers:³¹

“Section 6.1 — Upon issuance of the Emergency Use Authorization (December 11, 2020) for COMIRNATY, participants were unblinded to offer placebo participants COMIRNATY. Participants were unblinded in a phased manner over a period of months to offer placebo participants COMIRNATY.”

While a formal package insert now exists for Pfizer’s mRNA shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will not issue Vaccine Information Statements (VIS) for it, but will continue to use online fact sheets. (The use of online fact sheets is why all package inserts for the COVID shots have been completely blank.)

If You’re ‘Vaccinated’ You May Be High-Risk for COVID

As discussed in yesterday’s lead article (August 30, 2021), data are now mounting showing people over the age of 50 who are “fully vaccinated” actually make up the bulk of COVID-19 related hospitalizations and deaths in that age group. One possible explanation for this is that antibody dependent enhancement is afoot, which makes people more prone to serious illness rather than less.

To be on the safe side, I recommend considering yourself “high-risk” for severe COVID if you’ve received one or more shots, and implement known effective treatment at the first sign of a respiratory infection.

Options include the Zelenko protocol,³² the MATH+ protocols³³ and nebulized hydrogen peroxide, as detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper³⁴ and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” Whichever treatment protocol you use, make sure you begin treatment as soon as possible, ideally at first onset of symptoms.

from Articles https://ift.tt/38xQQ7r
via IFTTT

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, published a commentary July 7, 2021¹ asking an important question about the rising number of deaths being reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in conjunction with the COVID-19 injection program.

Her credentials² are many: She's a clinical lecturer in medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. She received her medical degree from Columbia University and is the author of several books. And, as president of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and chairman of the Public Health Committee of the Pima County (Arizona) Medical Society, she asks: Why haven't there been autopsies of healthy people who are dying unexpectedly after receiving a COVID jab?

It's a reasonable and logical question since autopsies often reveal important information about diseases and illnesses — and it's information that can help guide future medical treatment to reduce the risk of long-term disability and death after the vaccine.³ After all, without autopsy results, the ability to treat cardiovascular diseases,⁴ cancers,⁵ hereditary diseases like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy⁶ and even catch murderers⁷ would be incompetent.

Dr. Dylan Miller chairs the autopsy resource committee for the College of American Pathologists. He spoke with a reporter from The Wall Street Journal, saying,⁸ "We think we always know what's going on inside our patients, but that's a fallacy. There's as much to be gained from an autopsy as ever."

The nature of an autopsy is diagnosis.⁹ It can help family members come to terms with what caused a loved one's death, identify unknown diseases and offer clinicians an opportunity for a greater understanding of what happened before a patient dies. It also can provide a valuable educational opportunity for health officials and even students, who study disease processes.

It's been over eight months since the first COVID-19 vaccine was administered in the U.S. in December 2020.¹⁰ Since then, VAERS reports show there have been over 12,000 people who have died after the shot.¹¹ Since autopsies are so incredibly important in the identification of disease and pathological processes, why haven't healthy people who have died after the COVID jab been autopsied?

Lack of Autopsy Results May Mean Data Are Hidden

At the time of Orient's published commentary,¹² she quoted a death toll after the COVID shot of nearly 7,000 people as reported in VAERS. This was in early July. By the end of July that number had risen to 12,366 people.¹³ That's a jump of over 5,000 people in less than 30 days who reportedly had died after the COVID injections.

Orient comments that while it's the best system available now for recording adverse events from vaccines, VAERS is likely missing 90% or more of the actual number of individuals who are hospitalized, have suffered anaphylactic reactions, have Bell's Palsy, had heart attacks or had life-threatening reactions. The lack of accurate recording also includes the actual number of people who have died after receiving an injection.

When it comes to death certificates, data from The Johns Hopkins Hospital were published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2001,¹⁴ demonstrating that the accuracy and reliability of the recorded cause of death, on death certificates, was a significant problem, indicating the continued need for autopsies to correctly identify the cause of death.

According to Orient, the death of a 45-year-old mother after receiving the COVID-19 shot that was required for her to start work at the same institution, Johns Hopkins University, will likely not be investigated by autopsy. Additionally, the hospital has not paused their demand for the injection program for mothers and potential mothers who want to work at the university.

In the past, when an individual died without significant medical illness, they were designated a case for the medical examiner, who would decide whether an autopsy was needed. Any evidence that was related to the death was gathered and considered along with the autopsy report.

The most important reason for requesting and performing an autopsy was to ensure quality health care and at one time was required for hospital accreditation.¹⁵ However, that requirement has been dropped, and dropped along with it the number of autopsies routinely performed on patients who have died inside or outside the hospital.

The average rate for autopsies in the 1940s was 50%. That dropped to 41% in 1970, just before the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals removed the requirement that 20% of deaths in the hospital were to be autopsied to maintain accreditation.¹⁶

By 2018, experts estimated only 4% of in-hospital deaths were autopsied and only approximately 8% of all deaths. Since an estimated 700,000 die each year in the hospital, this means only approximately 28,000 of those deaths are autopsied. Experts have proposed three explanations for the falling rates, including:¹⁷

• Fear of finding mistakes leading to a malpractice lawsuit
• Lack of reimbursement for an autopsy
• The belief that medical technology has made autopsies obsolete

However, it's important to note that knowledge of why a person dies after vaccination will not help the family recover damages since the pharmaceutical industry is immune from liability.^18,19 Even so, this information should be used to inform public health policy and help people decide how they want to proceed with the genetic therapy injection program.

Death Certificates Are Notoriously Inaccurate

Orient also notes that death certificates, which researchers use to gather statistics on the cause of death, "are known to be extremely unreliable."²⁰ An evaluation of 494 death certificates at The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions²¹ in 2001 showed 41% had improperly completed forms and the reliability and accuracy of the death certificates listing cause of death was a significant problem.

A study published in the Southern Medical Journal²² also found "major discrepancies" between the death certificates issued in the hospital and the information gathered on autopsy.

In 25% of the cases, the death was erroneously attributed to acute myocardial infarction, while an autopsy showed the deaths were actually from sepsis, cerebral hemorrhage, pneumonia and cardiac tamponade. Autopsy showed there were 52 myocardial infarctions that caused death, but death certificates accurately documented only 27. The researchers concluded:

"1) Death certificates are often wrong. 2) The time-honored autopsy is more valuable than ever. 3) Physicians need to write better death certificates and correct them. 4) Death certificate-based vital statistics should be corrected with autopsy results. 5) Vital statistics should note deaths confirmed by autopsy. 6) More autopsies would improve vital statistics and the practice of medicine."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's document on understanding death data quality, hospitals and health care providers should use the following criteria when filling out cause of death on a patient's death certificate:²³

"When a person dies, the cause of death is determined by the certifier — the physician, medical examiner, or coroner who reports it on the death certificate.

Certifiers are asked to use their best medical judgment based on the available information and their expertise. When a definitive diagnosis cannot be made, but the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty, certifiers may include the terms "probable" or "presumed" in the cause-of-death statement."

In other words, data being reported about cause of death can be manipulated with a "probable" or "presumed" assumption if the certifier makes a subjective evaluation and believes the "circumstances are compelling." This poor degree of accuracy only adds to the already notoriously inaccurate information found on death certificates.

Treatment for COVID-19 Improved After Autopsy Results

As Orient points out, there were tens of thousands of patients who died from COVID disease after being placed on ventilators before a small series of 12 autopsies done in Germany showed that most of these patients had blood clots and using a ventilator may have caused more damage.²⁴

The improvement and treatment modalities for COVID-19 came after patients had been autopsied. Mechanical ventilation can easily damage lung tissue because it forces air into the lungs. Patients with COVID-19 who were ventilated had at best a 50-50 chance of surviving.²⁵

However, risk analysis being reported indicated this chance of survival was higher than what was being seen clinically. China reported²⁶ of 22 patients on ventilators, 86% of them did not survive the treatment. A British study found two thirds of patients on mechanical ventilation died and a study of 320 mechanically ventilated patients in New York showed 88% of them died.

COVID-19 Jab: More Death Reports Than All Vaccines Combined

Imagine if you would, a vaccine so "safe" officials are threatening those who won't take it for a disease so deadly most people must be tested to know if they have it. Autopsies and accurate death certificates are part of an evaluation of safety for treatment protocols. If a reasonable safety standard had been in place, the campaign to inject the world would have stopped in early January 2021.

The voluntary reported death rate from the shots now exceeds that of more than 70 vaccines combined over 30 years and shows that it's 500 times deadlier than the flu vaccine,²⁷ which historically has been the most hazardous.

Trial Site News²⁸ reports that Pfizer documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency [EMA] reveal the company "did not follow industry-standard quality management practices during preclinical toxicology studies … as key studies did not meet good laboratory practice (GLP)."

Neither reproductive toxicity nor genotoxicity (DNA mutation) studies were performed, both of which are considered critical when developing a new drug or vaccine for human use. The problems now surfacing matter greatly, as they significantly alter the risk benefit analysis underlying the vaccines' emergency use authorization.

On the flip side of the risk-benefit analysis is the fact that effective treatment protocols have been developed by infectious disease specialists²⁹ who have a high rate of success and therefore negate the need for emergency use authorization of a dangerous gene therapy injection program.

Unfortunately, people not only are dying from the shot itself, but data now show countries that have launched a massive vaccination campaign have more cases of COVID-19.³⁰ In fact, data from the CDC show 74% of people who recently became sick with COVID-19 in Massachusetts were fully vaccinated.³¹

In a report from CNBC, the reporter announced that "public health experts" point out the majority of breakthrough cases in fully vaccinated people that lead to hospitalization and death are occurring in the elderly and those with comorbid conditions.³²

In other words, the shot has increased the risk for severe disease in the very populations of people the shot is supposed to protect. In addition, the CDC changed how they count breakthrough cases in vaccinated individuals:

"As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance."

Autopsy on Vaccinated Man Raises Questions

The case³³ of an 86-year-old man who died after his first dose of the mRNA COVID-19 injection, but before he received the second, is posing questions about the safety, side effects, immunogenicity and possibility of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) after receiving just one dose.

Writing in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, study authors said the man died from acute renal and respiratory failure. Although he tested positive for the virus two days before he died, his autopsy attributed his death to acute bronchopneumonia and tubular failure. “These results might suggest that the first vaccination induces immunogenicity but not sterile immunity,” study authors said.

In a Twitter feed, however, at least one doctor³⁴ questioned the circumstances under which the patient died, and suggested that the vaccine may set the stage for antibody dependent enhancement (ADE). ADE occurs when antibodies help a virus infect cells, rather than prevent it.

“This is a very important case, as it highlights the difference in the body’s immune response to sarscov2 after vax but before fully neutralizing titers,” AMM MD tweeted. “It also makes me wonder if this isn’t what is happening in breakthrough covid cases (develop covid months after complete vaccination, when immunity is waning). This could all serve as evidence for antibody dependent enhancement.”

What Can You Do if Someone You Love Dies Unexpectedly?

If someone you love dies unexpectedly after receiving the COVID shot, you have the right to ask for an autopsy. The medical examiner for your county is charged with maintaining public health.

If your loved one had no previous underlying medical conditions, there's a higher likelihood you can convince the medical examiner to do an autopsy that may reveal how the genetic therapy affected the vascular and organ systems of your loved one.

If you or a loved one received the vaccine and you're looking for information on how to protect yourself, please watch the video above. If you don't have a chance to watch it in its entirety search for it or bookmark it on BitChute under "How Covid-19 Shots Might Reduce Lifespan — Drs. Vladimir Zelenko And Joseph Mercola" In the interview we talk about the acute, subacute and long-term risks associated with the shot.

As you may know, this article will no longer be available 48 hours after being published. I would encourage you to copy and paste the information so you can share it with friends and family. Although I've published several steps you can take to help protect your health, because the information is no longer freely available, I'll share a list here:

In the first three months after the shot there is a higher risk of blood clots. A natural anticoagulant with great promise is n-acetyl cysteine (NAC), as it has anticoagulant35 and antithrombotic effects.36 This means it prevents clots and breaks up those that have formed.

In the subacute phase it's important to avoid antibody dependent enhancement (ADE). The key is to implement a prophylactic protocol. Any symptoms of upper respiratory infection should be treated immediately. COVID is a multiphase disease. The first phase lasts five to seven days and is most easily treated. After Day 7, it typically progresses to the inflammatory phase, which requires different treatment.

A combination of a zinc ionophore such as quercetin, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, plus zinc is an important component of early treatment and prevention. If you want to use either hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and live in a state that restricts their use, look for online telehealth options. The American Frontline Doctors is one resource. Most only charge $90 for a consultation and you will be able to get the prescription that you need. Do not use Ivermectin from veterinary sources as it may be contaminated and is not designed for human use.

Optimize your vitamin D level in the range of 60 ng/mL to 80 ng/mL year-round. After a blood test to determine your current level, consider the Grassroots calculator to determine the necessary dose.

Vitamin C is another important component, especially if you're taking quercetin, as they have synergistic effects. To effectively act as a zinc ionophore, quercetin needs vitamin C.

The take-home message here is that if you've gotten the jab, consider yourself high risk for COVID and implement a daily prophylaxis protocol. This means optimizing your vitamin D, and taking vitamin C, zinc and a zinc ionophore daily, at least throughout the cold and flu season.

It would also be useful to do a daily sauna, ideally one that can heat up to 170 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, nebulized hydrogen peroxide may help. If you would like to watch a video on this protocol, you can view all of them here on Substack. If you're having post-vaccination symptoms, you could consider:

• Low-dose interferons such as Paximune, to stimulate your immune system
• Peptide T (an HIV entry inhibitor derived from the HIV envelope protein gp120; it blocks binding and infection of viruses that use the CCR5 receptor to infect cells)
• Cannabis, to strengthen Type I interferon pathways, which are part of your first line of defense against pathogens
• Dimethylglycine or betaine (trimethylglycine) to enhance methylation, thereby suppressing latent viruses
• Silymarin or milk thistle to help cleanse your liver

from Articles https://ift.tt/3gOxX4Z
via IFTTT