The premise that hunger makes food look more appealing is a widely held belief.
Prior research studies have suggested that the hunger hormone ghrelin, which your body produces when it's hungry, might act in your brain to trigger this behavior.
New studies suggest that ghrelin might also work in your brain to make you keep eating "pleasurable" foods when you're already full.
Scientists previously have linked increased levels of ghrelin to intensifying the rewarding or pleasurable feelings that can be obtained from cocaine or alcohol.
Researchers observed how long mice would continue to poke their noses into a hole in order to receive a pellet of high-fat food. Animals that didn't receive ghrelin gave up much sooner than the ones that did receive ghrelin.
Humans and mice share the same type of brain-cell connections and hormones, as well as similar architectures in the "pleasure centers" of the brain.
from Articles : Hormones, Fructose/Sugar https://ift.tt/1noFbwd
via IFTTT
Researchers have found that a single, one-hour treatment that involves breathing in a mixture of oxygen and the anesthetic drug nitrous oxide -- otherwise known as laughing gas -- can significantly improve symptoms in people with treatment-resistant depression.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3wfGKmg
A study of nearly 2,500 adults found that having trouble falling asleep, as compared to other patterns of insomnia, was the main insomnia symptom that predicted cognitive impairment 14 years later.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2TLjT3k
A 15-year longitudinal study shows that childhood insomnia symptoms that persist into adulthood are strong determinants of mood and anxiety disorders in young adults.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3x9nGG3
A new study identifies a novel biomarker indicating resilience to chronic stress. This biomarker is largely absent in people suffering from major depressive disorder, and this absence is further associated with pessimism in daily life, the study finds.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3cvp4ed
Research shows that children from lower-income backgrounds and those who go through greater adverse childhood experiences get their first permanent molars sooner. The findings align with a broader pattern of accelerated development often seen under conditions of early-life stress.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/355pOD2
Scientists have developed polypeptide-based materials that act as effective vectors for delivering gene therapies. The new platform enables the vectors to be adapted to suit the specific gene therapy cargo.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3crOARx
New research has revealed that people with the ability to visualize vividly have a stronger connection between their visual network and the regions of the brain linked to decision-making. The study also sheds light on memory and personality differences between those with strong visual imagery and those who cannot hold a picture in their mind's eye.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/354cOxh
An international team of collaborators has made the first direct observation of the anionic redox reaction in a lithium-rich battery material. The research opens up pathways for improving existing battery cathodes--and designing new ones.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3xayfsx
Scientists have developed a new, highly sensitive analytical method that can detect degraded beta-lactam antibacterial agents used in the treatment of bacterial infections. With this method, researchers found that reactive sulfur species produced by bacteria degrade and inactivate beta-lactam antibiotics.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2T9eVx7
Indigenous peoples pass on their knowledge of medicinal plants orally. If their languages go extinct, valuable medical knowledge will be lost. A study estimates that 75% of the world's medicinal plant applications are only known in one language.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3gkBUgx
A phenomenon in which an RNA named NORAD drives a protein named Pumilio to form liquid droplets in cells, much like oil in water, appears to tightly regulate the activity of Pumilio. A new study suggests that such RNA-driven 'phase separation,' in turn, protects against genome instability, premature aging, and neurodegenerative diseases, and may represent a previously unrecognized way for RNAs to regulate cellular processes.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3iAH5Ml
Scientists studying the link between cholesterol and breast cancer report that a byproduct of cholesterol metabolism causes some cells to send out cancer-promoting signals to other cells. These signals are packaged in membrane-bound compartments called extracellular vesicles.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3zfkPxq
As 'visual recognition memory' emerges in visual cortex, one circuit of inhibitory neurons supplants another and slower neural oscillations prevail, according to a new study.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3waCwMn
Swapping traditional, whole foods grown by small farmers for mass-produced fake foods grown in a laboratory is part and parcel of the Great Reset. The EAT Forum, co-founded by the Wellcome Trust, developed a Planetary Health Diet that’s designed to be applied to the global population and entails cutting meat and dairy intake by up to 90%, replacing it largely with foods made in laboratories, along with cereals and oil.1
Sadly, this is not what your body needs to thrive, but it’s being pushed as a healthy, green and sustainable alternative to animal foods. The fake meat industry is already well-established. Consulting firm Kearney forecast that animal protein will peak in 2025, while plant-based meat will continue to grow, reaching $450 billion by 2040, at which point it would represent up to 25% of the meat market — a $1.8 trillion industry.2
Many tech big-wigs are invested in fake meat products, which they plan to peddle to feed the masses. However, the fake food market is expanding, and it’s not only plant-based meat that’s being pushed as the future of food but also animal-free dairy, including ice cream.
‘Real Milk Proteins’ Made From GE Fungi
Perfect Day, a company that’s using genetically engineered (GE) Trichoderma reesei fungus to produce synthetic versions of the dairy proteins casein and whey,3 was founded in 2014 by two vegan bioengineers looking for a better-tasting, animal-free milk.4 The company states it’s producing “real milk proteins — identical to what cows produce,”5 but even though it may be molecularly identical, it’s far from the same.
Popular Science named Perfect Day’s animal-free whey protein as one of the 100 greatest innovations of 2020, stating:6
“[T]he next generation of lab-grown animal products isn’t meat — it’s dairy. To achieve their synthesized milk, Perfect Day inserted a bit of cow DNA into Trichoderma reesei fungus. When fed sugar, the engineered microbes churn out the dairy proteins, casein and whey.
Combine those with water, plant-based fats, vitamins, and minerals, and you get dairy products — without having a cow. Smitten Ice Cream and Brave Robot have turned the proteins into delicious vegan, dairy-based ice cream, but Perfect Day is hoping to expand into a whole range of creamy products.”
Fake Food Made in a Setting ‘Isolated From the Outside World’
The process to make lab-grown, animal-free milk proteins is far from natural, but Perfect Day is trying to get around that, describing their process as involving “nature’s code,” which is another way of describing the DNA that they are manipulating:7
“All proteins in nature are encoded by specific sequences of DNA called genes. Amazingly, every living creature on Earth can understand the same genetic code. So to create an animal-free version of milk proteins, we simply had to introduce these animal genes to an organism other than a cow.
The actual cow genes are possible to obtain non-invasively, from hairs or even a cheek swab. For us, it was even easier; these genes are already catalogued in free scientific databases.”
They use GE fungi microflora, which they go so far as to say “grazes” on plant-based inputs, hoping your mind’s eye will revert to a cow grazing in a field, rather than the “large tanks” in which their GE fungi are actually grown. It’s quite telling that, while the healthiest dairy products come from grass fed cows that are integrated into their surrounding environment, Perfect Day’s fake milk proteins can only be produced in a system that’s “isolated from the outside world”:8
“By following a strict cleaning regimen for our tanks and ensuring they’re a closed system isolated from the outside world, we can ensure we’re making the purest, safest milk proteins in the world.”
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already given the GE proteins GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status, as it also did with Impossible Foods’ soy leghemoglobin, even though it’s unknown what the long-term consequences of consuming this novel fake food will be.
World’s Most Sustainable Ice Cream?
Brave Robot is one of the ice cream brands using Perfect Day’s GE non-animal whey, which is billing its product as “the world’s best tasting and most sustainable dairy ice cream.”9 While pointing out the obvious — that conventional and factory farmed dairy production is not good for animals or the planet — they suggest that the only alternative is to create a synthetic food produced in a laboratory.
Brave Robot, by the way, is essentially the same company as Perfect Day. Three months after the FDA gave the GE whey protein GRAS status in April 2020, Perfect Day co-founded The Urgent Company, which created Brave Robot as its first brand.10
Perfect Day is marketing itself as environmentally friendly, citing a greenhouse gas life cycle analysis that found Perfect Day’s GE whey protein is 85% to 97% lower in emissions than comparative bovine dairy proteins.11 According to the findings:12
“If US consumers switched entirely to Perfect Day whey protein, this would save up to 246 million tons of CO2e emissions, which is the equivalent of up to 28 million homes' energy use for one year (all the homes in New York and California combined) or up to 53 million passenger vehicles driven for one year (all the cars in NY, CA, TX, and FL combined), according to the US EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.”
This is just merely fabricated fantasy PR spin, as it’s comparing its product to conventional dairy, a notoriously polluting industry. Ben & Jerry’s similarly greenwashed its brand, and although it’s made with animal products — not fake lab-created proteins — its emphasis on sustainability and environmentally friendly practices is a farce, as their ice cream has long been made with concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) milk that’s destroying the environment.
Lake Carmi in Franklin, Vermont, is one of the areas hardest hit by industrial dairy. Home to more than 36,000 CAFO cows, which supplied most of the dairy for Ben & Jerry’s, the once pristine lake in Franklin is now in environmental crisis, plagued by blue-green algae, also known as cyanobacteria.13
As fertilizer and manure from industrial dairy farms runs off and enters waterways, it leads to an overabundance of nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, in the water — nutrients that fertilize the growth of the algae blooms now taking over.14 The point is, virtually anything would appear to be an improvement when compared to the environmental atrocities of industrialized dairy, but it’s much harder to show a benefit if compared to the gold standard — grass fed.
Grass Fed Is Better Than Lab Fed
Like Perfect Day, fake meat company Impossible Foods claims that they have a better carbon footprint than live animal farms, and they’ve hired Quantis, a group of scientists and strategists who help their clients take actions based on scientific evidence, to prove their point via a life cycle analysis.
According to the executive summary published on the Impossible Foods website, their fake meat product reduced environmental impact between 87% and 96% in the categories studied, including global warming potential, land occupation and water consumption.15 As is the case with Perfect Day, however, this compares fake meat to meat from CAFOs.
White Oak Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia, which produces high-quality grass fed products using regenerative grazing practices, commissioned the same analysis by Quantis and published a 33-page study showing comparisons of White Oaks Pastures emissions against conventional beef production.16
While the manufactured highly processed meat reduced its carbon footprint up to 96% in some categories, White Oaks had a net total emission in the negative numbers as compared to CAFO produced meat. Further, grass fed beef from White Oak Pastures had a carbon footprint that was 111% lower than a typical U.S. CAFO and its regenerative system effectively captured soil carbon, which offset the majority of emissions related to beef production.17
This — grass fed, regenerative farming — is the true environmental and sustainability winner, but it’s being overshadowed by the “New Normal”, intent on forcing you to eat fake food.
Resetting the Food Supply
The EAT Forum’s largest initiative is called FReSH, which aims to transform the food system as a whole. It’s working with biotech and fake meat companies to replace whole foods with lab-created alternatives.18,19
Bill Gates is among the technocrats investing in artificial processed meat companies and buying up U.S. farmland at a frenzied pace. Tech billionaire Gates, co-founder and former CEO of Microsoft, may seem a strange fit for the role of America’s top farmer.
But he’s been quietly amassing massive tracts of U.S. land under the cover of investment firm Cascade Investment LLC, and now owns a minimum of 242,000 acres of U.S. farmland20 in Washington, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, California and multiple other states.
The acreage seems earmarked for GE corn and soy crops — the base foods for what will become an increasingly synthetic, ultraprocessed food supply make up of imitation meats. The strong recommendation to replace beef with fake meat is also made in Gates’ book,21 a recommendation that stems from an overreaching theme of arrogance and the desire for recolonization and a global empire.
The idea is to imply, or to create the environment in which survival isn’t possible without technology. “It is a denial of the richness of agroecological knowledges and practices that are resurging around the world,” according to a report by Navdanya, a nonprofit organization promoting biodiversity, organic farming and seed saving founded by Vandana Shiva.22
Real Food Connects Us With the Land
Shiva explains that, by embracing lab-grown food, we’re breaking the sacred relationship with food and severing humans’ age-old connections to their food and the land on which it’s grown.23
Regenerative agriculture and animal husbandry are the next and higher stage of organic food and farming — free from toxic pesticides, GMOs, chemical fertilizers and CAFOs, and regenerative in terms of the health of the soil, the environment, the animals and rural farmers.
As Shiva put it, "Regenerative agriculture provides answers to the soil crisis, the food crisis, the climate crisis, and the crisis of democracy."24 Fake meat and dairy produced in a lab simply can’t compare, both in terms of the environment and human health.
As has become an overriding theme of 2020 and 2021, it’s time to look past the fake food propaganda being increasingly promoted and turn back to our real roots — those that embrace the necessity of living with the land and shun the experimental technologies that threaten to take it from us.
On a small scale, you can help by supporting your local organic and regenerative farmers by purchasing their goods at local farmers markets or purchasing your meat and dairy products directly from your local farm, while avoiding lab-produced fake food for the sake of your health and the planet’s.
Saint Anthony's halo is tarnishing and hanging more crooked by the day. Dr. Anthony Fauci — whose medical expertise has been held as indisputable by mainstream media since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic — is now facing mounting scrutiny and critique as correspondence obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Buzzfeed reveals he's lied both to the public and the U.S. Senate on a number of issues.
The emails were released to the public in the early-morning hours of June 2, 2021. All 3,234 pages of emails can be found on Document Cloud.1 News media pounced on the release, with each reporter offering their own spin on what the fallout of the emails might be.
In the video above,2 "The Next Revolution" host Steve Hilton details how Fauci and National Institute of Health director Dr. Francis Collins have both repeatedly lied about the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
'Utter Fraudulence'
In a no-holds-barred monologue Wednesday, June 2, 2021, Fox News host Tucker Carlson (above) called for a criminal investigation of Fauci in the aftermath of the release of thousands of emails, exchanged in the early days of the pandemic between Fauci and numerous individuals, including Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and billionaire Bill Gates.
Carlson blasted Fauci for what he said was "utter fraudulence" that should put Fauci under criminal investigation. After previously hosting him on many Fox newscasts, including Carlson's own, the emails show Fauci is "just another sleazy federal bureaucrat — deeply political and often dishonest," Carlson said.
What's worse, the emails implicate Fauci "in the very pandemic he'd been charged with fighting." While Fauci has denied funding gain-of-function research, emails now reveal he did indeed support "the grotesque and dangerous experiments that appeared to have made COVID possible," Carlson said, adding that the emails are so damning that "in retrospect it looks a lot like perjury."
Sen. Rand Paul apparently agrees. In a recent Fox News interview (below), Paul said the released emails reveal a "disturbing picture" that "should preclude [Fauci] from the position that he's in."
Fauci Lied About Not Funding Gain-of-Function Research
Some of the emails show Fauci, early in 2020, was concerned that Americans might think the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. Why would he be concerned about that? As noted by Carlson, this makes perfect sense if he knew he had funded the very research that now looked like the source of the pandemic.
January 31, 2020, Kristian Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in California, emailed Fauci stating that "The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered."
He later wrote that he and his team "all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory." Interestingly, some six weeks later, Andersen published a paper in which he and his team insisted the virus could not have been created in a lab. I'll have more to say on this later, as the email cache also reveals Fauci had a hand in the creation of that paper. On a side note, four days after the release of the emails, Andersen deleted his entire Twitter account.3
The next day, Fauci sent an urgent email to Dr. Hugh Auchincloss, the principal deputy director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), titled "IMPORTANT." "It is essential that we speak this AM," Fauci wrote. "Keep your cell phone on … Read this paper as well as the e-mail that I will forward to you now. You will have tasks today that must be done."
Attached to the email was a file titled "Baric, Shi et al - Nature medicine - SARS Gain of function.pdf." This paper was written by Ralph Baric, Ph.D., a virologist in the U.S., and Shi Zhengli, a researcher at the WIV who specializes in bat coronaviruses.
May 11, 2021, Fauci testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.4 During an exchange with Sen. Rand Paul, Fauci insisted that "the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology." He also insisted that Baric does not engage in gain-of-function research. This is the same Baric whose paper Fauci sent to Auchincloss, clearly marked as "SARS gain-of-function."
As reviewed in "The Biggest Flip-Flop Ever — Who's Going to Jail?" the kind of research Fauci funded has long been referred to as gain-of-function, yet now he's trying to redefine what's covered by that term.
As noted by Carlson in his June 2, 2021, report, social media platforms aggressively censored and deplatformed people for the "crime" of talking about the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 being a lab creation that got loose, and they did so largely based on the word of Fauci himself. Fauci said it wasn't so, and that became the gospel repeated by fact checkers everywhere.
Now all of a sudden, there appears to have been a coordinated U-turn. The question is, why did they lie to us for so long? In the video report above, Carlson reveals part of the answer: Scientists were afraid to lose their funding, funding which, by the way, comes from the American taxpayers.
Fauci Lied About the Origin of the Virus
In an April 17, 2020, White House press briefing, Fauci lied again, when he said the science was "totally consistent with a jump from an animal to a human." Yet "what he asserted as conclusively known could not have been known," Carlson points out.
Two days after this press briefing, EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak, Ph.D., wrote to Fauci thanking him for his help in deflecting the lab origin theory. The email reads:
"As the PI of the R01 grant publicly targeted by Fox News reporters at the Presidential press briefing last night, I just wanted to say a personal thankyou on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
Who is Daszak? He's none other than the middle-man between Fauci's NIAID/NIH and the WIV. EcoHealth Alliance received several NIH grants for millions of dollars involving gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, which were then farmed out to Zhengli and others at the WIV. So, Daszak certainly had cause to want to deflect attention from the lab leak theory.
He was also well aware of how risky this research was. In 2015, he spoke at a National Academies of Science seminar on reducing risk from emerging infectious diseases, warning of the danger of experimenting on "humanized mice,"5 meaning lab mice that have been genetically altered to carry human genes, cells or tissues.
That same year, Daszak also published a paper in which he warned a global pandemic might occur from a laboratory incident and that "the risks were greater with the sort of virus manipulation research being carried out in Wuhan."6
January 2, 2020, he sent out a tweet announcing he'd successfully isolated SARS coronaviruses "that bind to human cells in the lab," and that the work of other scientists show some of these viruses have pandemic potential as they can infect humanized mice.7
Yet, from the get-go, Daszak did everything he could to dispel discussion about SARS-CoV-2 being anything but all-natural. He went on record dismissing the lab-origin theory as "pure baloney."8,9
He was also the mastermind behind the publication of a scientific statement published in The Lancet10 condemning such inquiries as "conspiracy theory,"11,12 which was then relied on by the media to "debunk" theories and evidence showing the pandemic virus most likely originated from a laboratory.
To further ensure the lab-leak theory would die out, Daszak was chosen to be on two separate commissions charged with investigating the origin of SARS-CoV-2, one by the World Health Organization13 — which, of course, dismissed the lab theory out of hand — and one by The Lancet.14
'Hidden Hand' Behind Natural Origin Theory Revealed
Now, finally, all these efforts to obfuscate the truth are falling apart. Fauci's role in the obfuscation is also becoming much clearer. In the documentary "Plandemic — Indoctornation," Dr. Meryl Nass stated there had to have been "a hidden hand behind the Nature Medicine paper"15 that became the basis for the natural, zoonotic origin theory.
This paper is not to be confused with the other Nature Medicine paper cited earlier, published by Baric and Shi. The paper Nass is referring to was created by Scripps researcher Kristian Andersen who, in January 2020, told Fauci that some of the features of the genomic sequence "(potentially) look engineered."
Andersen's paper "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2"16 — published March 17, 2020, and co-written by Andrew Rambaut, Ian Lipkin, Edward Holmes and Robert Garry — became the preeminent "proof" that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin and couldn't possibly come from a lab.
"Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus," the paper states.17 The email cache now identifies who comprised the "hidden hand" behind this paper. They were none other than Fauci himself, NIH director Collins and Jeremy Farrar, head of the Wellcome Trust.
In the email on page 2,401, dated March 6, 2020, Andersen thanks Fauci, Collins and Farrar for their "advice and leadership" on the paper. His four co-authors are cc'd, along with the Salk Institute's communications director, Chris Emery.
Fauci, Collins and Farrar — A Tag-Team of Coverup Artists
This is huge. "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2"18 was the scientific underpinning of the natural origin claim, and now we find out Fauci himself was involved in its creation. Farrar and Collins are also neck-deep in this cover-up.
Farrar cosigned the scientific statement in The Lancet,19 which turned out to have been orchestrated by Daszak, as mentioned earlier. Farrar was also involved in the WHO Solidarity Trial,20 which poisoned patients with toxic doses of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). In this trial, which was clearly designed to prove HCQ was "dangerous," they used a cumulative dose of 8,800 mg over 10 days.
Meanwhile, doctors across the world who reported success with the drug were using standard doses around 200 mg per day for just a few days. Farrar, having spent 18 years leading a clinical research unit in Vietnam,21 would have (or should have) been aware that such high doses of HCQ — a widely used anti-malaria medication — would be toxic.
As for Collins, he promoted the cover-up by publishing a March 26, 2020, blog post22 in which he said Andersen's Nature Medicine paper proved a natural origin, and to ignore rumors to the contrary. What's more, after Fauci unconvincingly tried to claim that the NIAID/NIH has never funded any gain-of-function research, Collins came to his rescue with a public NIH statement23 in which he backed Fauci's claim.
Bombshell Emails on What Fauci Knew
In a June 3, 2021, report, Carlson reviewed Fauci's "surreal" media appearances following the release of the emails. As just one example, he simply laughed off the question of why so much of a particular email between him and Collins was redacted.
In the unredacted part, Collins warns Fauci that a "conspiracy theory" about the virus' origin is gaining speed. Why, exactly, was this email redacted? What did the remainder of the email say? Fauci claims ignorance on the matter, and the mainstream media are letting him off the hook.
Now, when a document is redacted, a classification is assigned, explaining why parts must remain secret, and in this case, those classifications are interesting indeed. Redacted emails between Fauci and nongovernment individuals such as Zuckerberg and Daszak bear codes such as:24,25
(b)(4), which refers to information that would impair the application of state-of-the-art technology within a U.S. weapon system
(b)(6), which refers to information, including foreign government information, that would cause serious harm to relations between the U.S. and a foreign government, or to ongoing diplomatic activities of the U.S.
(b)(7), which refers to information that would impair the current ability of U.S. government officials to protect the president, vice president and other protectees for whom protection services, in the interest of national security, are authorized
Fauci Lied About Masks
The email cache also shows Fauci lied about other things, including masks and vaccines. In one email, Fauci explained that surgical masks don't work against viruses because the viruses slip right through the material, which is the truth. But when it comes to his public statements about masks, Fauci has been a serial liar.
He started off saying Americans shouldn't wear them because they offer little to no protection — which is true — and the benefits are mostly psychological, as it might make you feel safer. Then he changed his mind, urging everyone to wear a mask all the time. When confronted about this U-turn, he said he lied about masks not being effective because he wanted to make sure there would be enough for frontline workers.
Well, in reality, he lied about lying, because he told the truth that first time. Everything since then, however, has been one fib after another. One mask wasn't even sufficient. Fauci started recommending two. Then he insisted people had to keep wearing them even after they get vaccinated. There's no scientific rationale for this at all, and Fauci knows it.
Fauci Still Has Not Told the Truth About Natural Immunity
Fauci has also been dishonest about the need for COVID-19 vaccination. In early March 2020, a former Obama official emailed Fauci asking if people who recover from COVID-19 can expect to be immune thereafter. Fauci replied, "No evidence in this regard, but you would assume that their [sic] would be substantial immunity post infection."
Here, it's fairly safe to make assumptions because it's a well-established medical fact that when you recover from a viral infection, you are immune, and that immunity can be lifelong in many cases. It would be quite unusual if immunity were not incurred after recovering from a viral infection. As noted by Carlson, that robust immunity occurs post-COVID-19 has also been confirmed in studies over the past year.
Now, if you have natural immunity against an illness, you do not need to be vaccinated. Period. Yet to this day, Fauci has never admitted this publicly, and he has not publicly opposed recommendations to vaccinate those who have recovered from COVID-19, even though there's evidence to suggest such individuals are at higher risk of vaccine injury. Not even those who can prove they have antibodies are excluded from the vaccine push.
Fauci Tried to Derail Florida
Other emails from March 2020, discussed in The Beltway Report,26 show Fauci also promised to put pressure on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to close down gyms, bars and beaches.
The recipient of this email exchange was a Florida HIV specialist named Doug Brust, who wrote, "I'm the HIV doc here. I'm it … I am putting my life on the line so folks can go pump iron, drink beer, have a burger, and get a tan." In response, Fauci wrote, in part:27
"Regarding the bars and beaches, I have been screaming on TV 2 to 5 times per night to tell the younger generation to start taking this seriously … I am very surprised that Gov. DeSantis has not completely closed the bars, even if they serve food. Take out only. I will bring this up at the Task Force meeting tomorrow."
Fauci's Book Release Scrubbed Amid Backlash
In light of Fauci's rapidly waning star power, his book, "Expect the Unexpected: Ten Lessons on Truth, Service, and the Way Forward," slated for release in November 2021, has now been scrubbed from Amazon and Barnes & Noble. We found an archived copy of the original Amazon listing, but even the cached version disappeared within a week. If you search for the book on either of these book vendors now, you won't find it. As reported by Just the News June 2, 2021:28
"The scrubbing of the book comes after backlash from critics who accused Fauci of profiting off of the deadly pandemic the U.S. response to which he has overseen.
Among those criticizing Fauci is Fox News Channel contributor Joe Concha, who compared him to New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signing a seven-figure book deal about his efforts during the pandemic, which resulted in a high number of death among assisted-living residents.
'If you look at the numbers again, you had Cuomo profiting off a pandemic, a government official,' said Concha, also a media reporter for The Hill newspaper. 'Now we have Fauci doing it as well. I think this is appalling.'
Daily Caller writer Greg Price slammed Fauci for 'publishing a book and [becoming] the highest paid federal government employee while you lost your business and had your kids out of school for a year.'"
Truth may be slow to surface, but eventually, the truth usually breaks through. And that certainly appears to be the case here. The truth about the lab leak theory — that it's actually the most plausible and not a wild goose-chase — is now emerging just about everywhere. I'm sure many of you remember we have been exposing this information since early last year.
Even Vanity Fair29 has an in-depth article detailing the drama. The theory that mere weeks ago was derided as debunked hogwash conspiracy theory, if acknowledged at all, is now suddenly getting the level-headed attention it should have, and probably would have, received all along, had it not been for Fauci and his co-conspirators. This case ought to establish one thing, and that is that "conspiracy theories" are not automatically untrue.
If you think your birth control pill is the best pregnancy prevention tool there is, you may be surprised by new research looking into its failure rates.
Compared to other forms of protection, the Pill failed miserably, which only adds to the myriad of reasons why you should heavily question its use.
The Pill Fails 20 Times More Often
About 99 percent of sexually active women use at least one method of birth control, the most common of which is the birth control pill (oral contraceptives). The Pill was used by nearly 11 million U.S. women from 2006-2008.i
Meanwhile, nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.ii Certainly not all of these are due to a birth control failure, but some of them -- estimates suggest about half -- undoubtedly are. Which brings me to a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.iii Out of the 7,500 women in the study, who used various forms of birth control including an intrauterine device (IUD), implant, birth control pills, patch, ring and contraceptive injection, 334 became pregnant, 156 of which were due to birth control failure.
The contraceptive failure rate among pills, patch or ring was 4.55 percent, compared to 0.27 percent among participants using reversible contraception such as intrauterine devices. The effectiveness—or non-effectiveness—was no different in adolescents or young women. The implications—that birth control pills are 20 times more likely to fail than IUDs—should give some women a pause to think about the method of contraception they want to use.
As for the varying degrees of effectiveness, the Pill must be taken daily, preferably around the same time for it to work its best. Study author Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, noted:iv
"This study is the best evidence we have that long-acting reversible methods are far superior to the birth control pill, patch and ring. IUDs and implants are more effective because women can forget about them after clinicians put the devices in place ... If there were a drug for cancer, heart disease or diabetes that was 20 times more effective, we would recommend it first."
Hormone-Based Contraceptives Have Steep Risks
Unintended pregnancy is clearly a big one, but artificially manipulating your hormones using oral contraceptives, the patch or ring, or an injection like Depo-Provera is also a very risky proposition. Most birth control pills are a combination of the derivatives of the hormones estrogen and a synthetic progesterone(progestin). They work by disrupting the hormones in your body, essentially fooling your intricate hormonal reproductive system into producing the following effects:
Preventing your ovaries from releasing eggs
Thickening your cervical mucus to help block sperm from fertilizing an egg
Thinning the lining of your uterus, which would make it difficult for an egg to implant, should it become fertilized
However, it is naive to believe that these are the only impacts the synthetic hormones are having. Your reproductive system does not exist in a bubble ... it is connected to all of your other bodily systems as well. The Pill, too, does not only influence your reproductive status; it's capable of altering much more.
Ten years ago, in 2002, one of the largest and best-designed federal studies of hormone replacement therapy was halted because women taking these synthetic hormones had a such a higher risk of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke and blood clots that continuing forward with the study would have been unethical. The news made headlines because millions of women were already taking these synthetic hormones, but fortunately it prompted many of them to quit. And what do you think happened a year after millions of women quit taking hormone replacement therapy? Incidents of breast cancer fell dramatically -- by 7 percent!
What does this have to do with the Pill? Birth control pills contain the SAME type of synthetic hormones -- estrogen and progestin -- that were used in the ill-fated study!
That's just one risk. Oral contraceptives have been linked to more than two dozen conditions, including heart disease, liver cancer, deep vein thrombosis and inflammatory bowel disease.v Research suggests they are not only carcinogenic (cancer-causing) but also cardiotoxic (toxic to your heart) and endocrine disrupting.
Why I Advise Most Women to Stop Hormonal Contraceptives
Birth control pills are rarely, if ever, necessary or beneficial. In exchange for the convenience of preventing pregnancy (which you can do naturally perhaps even more effectively, and I'll explain how below), you are putting yourself at risk of a myriad of health issues.
A new study in the New England Journal of Medicine revealed that several types of hormone-based birth control methods increased women's risk of heart attack and stroke.vi The link was found between oral contraceptives as well as contraceptive patches and the vaginal ring. Women using the ring were found to have a 2.5 times greater risk of stroke compared to those not using hormonal contraceptives, whereas the other methods increased the risk to varying degrees.
Other known health risks of hormone-based birth control include:
Fatal blood clots: All birth control pills increase your risk of blood clots and subsequent stroke.
Thinner bones: Women who take birth control pills have lower bone mineral density (BMD) than women who have never used oral contraceptives.
Impaired muscle gains: A study found that oral contraceptive use impairs muscle gains from resistance exercise training in women.vii
Long-term sexual dysfunction: The Pill may limit the availability and/or action of testosterone, leading to long-term sexual dysfunction, including decreased desire and arousal.
Heart disease: Long-term use of birth control pills may increase the buildup of arterial plaque, which may raise your risk of heart disease and cardiac mortality.viii
Migraines and nausea
Weight gain and mood changes
Irregular bleeding or spotting
Breast tenderness
Yeast overgrowth
Yeast infection
The other hormonal-based options are not much better. Birth control patches (Ortho Evra) have resulted in an avalanche of lawsuits over the past several years due to the overwhelming health problems women have experienced from using them. One of the reasons the patch is so risky is that you absorb up to 60 percent more synthetic estrogen than if you were taking an oral contraceptive. Side effects of the patch include:
Raised risk of heart attack and stroke
Irregular bleeding
Problems wearing contact lenses
Fluid retention or raised blood pressure
Nausea
Headache
Breast tenderness
Mood changes
Menstrual cramps
Abdominal pain
Skin irritation or rashes at site of patch
As far as injections like Depo-Provera, or depo medroxyprogesterone (DMPA), go, this synthetic analogue of natural progesterone known as a progestin interferes with hormone signaling to prevent your ovaries from releasing eggs. Progestins carry with them a vast array of negative side effects, including:
Side Effects of Depo-Provera
Weight gain
Headaches
Breast swelling and tenderness
Decreased sexual desire
Depression
Bloating
Swelling of the hands and feet
Nervousness
Abdominal cramps
Dizziness
Weakness of fatigue
Leg cramps
Nausea
Vaginal discharge or irritation
Backache
Insomnia
Acne
Pelvic pain
Lack of hair growth or excessive hair loss
Rashes
Hot flashes
Joint pain
Convulsions
Jaundice
Urinary tract infections
Allergic reactions
Fainting
Paralysis
Osteoporosis
Lack of return to fertility
Deep vein thrombosis
Pulmonary embolus
Breast and cervical cancers
Abnormal menstrual bleeding
Increased risk for STDs
Unexpected breast milk production
Changes in speech, coordination, or vision
Swelling of face, ankles or feet
Mood changes
Unusual fatigue
Is an IUD a Better Option?
Intrauterine devices are small, plastic, T-shaped sticks with a string attached to the end. The IUD is placed inside the uterus and prevents pregnancy by rendering the sperm unable to fertilize an egg, and by changing the lining of the uterus so that it is less supportive for an embryo. It also works by releasing hormones into your body, specifically a progestin hormone called levonorgestrel, which is often used in birth control pills.
One of its major advantages, and what contributes to its increased effectiveness rate, is that it essentially eliminates the compliance failure issue as all you do is insert it once. There is no daily task to remember to do. However, it, too, carries significant risks, including some that are unique to a foreign body being placed inside your uterus. Among them:
Pelvic infection: IUDs may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, a serious infection
The device may attach to or go through the wall of the uterus
Pregnancy while using an IUD can be life threatening, and may result in loss of the pregnancy or fertility
Take Charge of Your Body Using Natural Birth Control Methods
You may not be aware that there are many effective and safe methods for preventing pregnancy. Some of the more common, barrier methods are:
Male condoms: Condoms have a 98 percent effectiveness rate when used correctly. A water-based lubricant will increase the effectiveness; do not use an oil-based lubricant, however, as they break the latex and usually are petrochemical in origin.
Female condoms: These thin, soft polyurethane pouches fitted inside the vagina before sex are 95 percent effective. Female condoms are less likely to tear than male condoms.
Diaphragm: Diaphragms, which must be fitted by a doctor, act as a barrier to sperm. When used correctly with spermicidal jellies, they are 92 to 98 percent effective.
Cervical cap: This heavy rubber cap fits tightly against the cervix and can be left in place for 48 hours. Like the diaphragm, a doctor must fit the cap. Proper fitting enhances the effectiveness above 91 percent.
Cervical sponges: The sponge, made of polyurethane foam, is moistened with water and inserted into the vagina prior to sex. It works as a barrier between sperm and the cervix, both trapping and absorbing sperm and releasing a spermicide to kill them. It can be left in for up to 24 hours at a time. When used correctly, the sponge is about 89-91 percent effective.
Many people are familiar with these barrier methods, and less familiar with natural family planning (NFP) tools, which a woman uses to track when she is ovulating, and then avoid sex during that time (or does so only using a back-up barrier method). Many women feel empowered by NFP because it allows them to get in touch with their fertility cycle.
Some of the most popular methods include:
Calendar Method: Abstention from sex during the week the woman is ovulating. This technique works best when a woman's menstrual cycle is very regular. The calendar method doesn't work very well for couples who use it by itself (about a 75 percent success rate), but it can be effective when combined with the temperature and mucus methods described below.
The Temperature Method: This is a way to pinpoint the day of ovulation so that sex can be avoided for a few days before and after. It involves taking your basal body temperature (your temperature upon first waking) each morning with an accurate "basal" thermometer, and noting the rise in temperature that occurs after ovulation.
Illness or lack of sleep can change your body temperature and make this method unreliable by itself, but when it is combined with the mucus method, it can be an accurate way of assessing fertility. The two methods combined can have a success rate as high as 98 percent.
The Mucus Method: This involves tracking changes in the amount and texture of vaginal discharge, which reflect rising levels of estrogen in your body. For the first few days after your period, there is often no discharge, but there will be a cloudy, tacky mucus as estrogen starts to rise. When the discharge starts to increase in volume and becomes clear and stringy, ovulation is near. A return to the tacky, cloudy mucus or no discharge means that ovulation has passed.
I encourage you to become actively involved in fertility awareness, and embrace natural family planning or barrier methods that will not interfere with your hormones and health. Some excellent reading to get you started on this path include:
The Ovulation Method: Natural Family Planning, by John J. Billings
Taking Charge of Your Fertility: The Definitive Guide to Natural Birth Control, Pregnancy Achievement, and Reproductive Health, by Toni Weschler
Honoring Our Cycles: A Natural Family Planning Workbook, by Katie Singer
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.
