Health & Fitness

Buried in the massive $3.5 trillion "reconciliation" bill is an unconstitutional vaccine enforcement mechanism that threatens to bankrupt businesses unless they force their employees to get a COVID-19 injection. If the measure is enacted into law, even employers that respect their employees' rights to health freedom and informed consent would be left with an impossible decision — mandate COVID-19 jabs or essentially go out of business due to unbearable fines.

The White House announced in September 2021 that companies with 100 or more employees would have to ensure staff have gotten a COVID-19 injection or were tested regularly for COVID-19. The Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is to be in charge of enforcing the rule, which will affect more than 80 million U.S. workers.¹

In order to carry out this draconian measure, OSHA plans to use an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) — a drastic measure used to accelerate new orders that has only been attempted 10 times in the agency's 50-year history. OSHA would also be able to enforce fines of up to $13,600 per violation of the rules — but the new measure tucked into the reconciliation bill raises the fines for noncompliance astronomically.

Before we get any further, it should be noted that the mandate doesn’t actually exist yet, in that it hasn’t been sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for approval, and it’s not yet a legally enforceable mandate. Still, by announcing it as though it’s an inevitable rule, it may have the same effect of triggering workers to get vaccinated — or allowing companies to enact mandates under the veil of the government “mandate.”²

$700,000 Fines for Businesses That Don't Force Injections

On page 168 of the 2,465-page bill³ is wording that should send an authoritarian chill down the back of anyone who believes in health freedom. It outlines fines for employers that "willfully," "repeatedly" or seriously violate the labor law, including by not requiring COVID-19 jabs or regular COVID-19 testing. As Forbes reported:⁴

"The increased fines on employers could run as high as $70,000 for serious infractions, and $700,000 for willful or repeated violations — almost three-quarters of a million dollars for each fine. If enacted into law, vax enforcement could bankrupt non-compliant companies even more quickly than the $14,000 OSHA fine anticipated under Biden's announced mandate."

In case you missed it, that $700,000 fine is for each violation, meaning it would bankrupt all but the very largest corporations if they don't fully comply with COVID-19 jab mandates or take on the cost of weekly COVID-19 testing of their employees.

Currently, the fines only apply to businesses with 100 or more employees, but there's nothing stopping them from changing it to 50 employees — or one employee. Anything could happen at this point. Some, such as Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, have called on businesses to "openly rebel" against the OSHA rule. But as Forbes put it:⁵

"It's one thing to defy a $14,000 fine. It's quite another to risk incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. One or two disgruntled employees, for example, could bring an employer $70,000-$140,000 in OSHA fines. If considered 'willful,' as per Rep. Roy's tweet — just three 'violations' could quickly become a $2.1 million OSHA fine."

The Mandate Doesn’t Actually Exist

As mentioned, the mandate that President Biden announced is currently a “mirage.”⁶ Speaking with The Federalist, a spokeswoman for the Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration explained, “There is nothing there yet that gives employers any mandate. The president made an announcement on this asking OSHA to do it, but we’ve not yet seen anything come from it yet.”⁷

An ETS may take six months to go into effect even after the mandate is put in the Federal Register — which hasn’t happened yet. OSHA’s COVID-19 Healthcare ETS also makes no mention of vaccine mandates at this time.⁸ ETS rules are also often overturned in court. In the last five decades, courts have challenged six of the 10 ETS standards that have been suggested, with five of the six getting overturned.⁹

However, using the ETS for the “mandate,” the Federalist pointed out, “allows the Biden administration to push its demands faster and without any public input or requirement of responding to public input, which is normally required of even legally laughable federal rule making like this one would be.”¹⁰

This may be why more lawsuits haven’t been filed to challenge the mandate — there’s nothing to challenge just yet. It’s also worth mentioning that less than 2% of U.S. businesses will be affected by the mandate, as more than 98% of U.S. businesses have fewer than 100 employees, exempting them from the mandate. Still, those 2% account for about two-thirds of U.S. employees, so they’re a sizeable minority.¹¹

Many of these large corporations have already put injection mandates into place or were planning to. The “mandate” announcement allows these mega-corporations to mandate the jabs without having to be the bad guy.

Congressmen Try to Block 'Tyrannical Vaccine Mandate'

Roy and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, introduced a bill — the No Taxation Without Congressional Consent Act — September 30, 2021, that would prohibit the federal government from imposing a fine, fee or tax on individuals or businesses for violating a COVID-19 vaccine mandate issued by OSHA or other agencies. If it passes, it would prevent the outrageous fines threatening to bankrupt small businesses under the reconciliation bill. Roy said:¹²

"Your decision about whether or not to get a COVID vaccine should be yours and yours alone … [the] proposed mandate is unconstitutional, and flat-out tyrannical. No freedom-loving American should comply. This country needs, and her people deserve, healthcare freedom.

That means taking control over our care back from politicians and bureaucrats. I am proud to introduce this legislation with my good friend Senator Mike Lee to gut the federal government's ability to enforce this unconstitutional mandate."

Further, being unvaxxed is not a crime. Allowing for these exorbitant fines only further attempts to segregate society into one of vaxxed versus unvaxxed. But, as Lee added:¹³

"Unvaccinated Americans aren't the enemy. We should not be forcing employers to fire some of their valuable, and now hard to find, workers. We shouldn't be threatening business owners with closure who do not wish to police their workforce's decisions. Many simply cannot incur the cost of this enforcement in this economy."

Jab Mandates Are Spreading

Vaccine mandates are targeting every angle, from places of employment to restaurants, gyms and sports arenas. Los Angeles recently approved one of the strictest mandates in the U.S. and will require a vaccine passport to enter indoor public spaces like shopping malls, museums, restaurants, spas and other locations.¹⁴

California also became the first U.S. state to require students in kindergarten through grade 12 to receive COVID-19 shots following full FDA approval.¹⁵ Council president Nury Martinez called the move "a necessary step towards returning to normalcy," but there's nothing "normal" about presenting proof of an injection to go about your daily life.¹⁶

This, however, is what the "new normal" is all about — increasing surveillance and authoritarian control while removing personal liberties, and vaccine passports have always been part of the plan.

The World Economic Forum's (WEF) 2030 agenda is part and parcel of what is now advertised as The Great Reset,¹⁷ a plan that originated in something called the Global Redesign Initiative, drafted by the WEF in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis. The Transnational Institute's website describes the initiative as "multi-stakeholderism," a "corporate push for a new form of global governance."¹⁸

Vaccine Passports as Part of the 'New Normal'

WEF and the Commons Project created the Common Trust Network, which developed the CommonPass app that's acting as a health passport. The app allows users to upload medical data such as a COVID-19 test result or proof of injection, which then generates a QR code that you show to authorities as your health passport.¹⁹

Eventually, the CommonPass framework will be integrated with already existing personal health apps such as Apple Health and CommonHealth. If you want to travel, your personal health record will be evaluated and compared to a country's entry requirements, and if you don't meet them, you'll be directed to an approved testing and vaccination location. WEF is pushing for the World Health Organization's collaboration, stating:²⁰

"Rather than building a set of rules that would be left to the interpretation of member states or private-sector operators like cruises, airlines or conveners of gatherings, we support the WHO's effort to create a standard for member states for requesting vaccinations and how it would permit the various kinds of use cases.

It is important that we rely on the normative body (the WHO) to create the vaccine credential requirements. The Forum is involved in the WHO taskforce to reflect on those standards and think about how they would be used."

This, too, is disturbing, since WHO's history clearly illustrates its allegiance to Big Pharma and other industries. A review in the Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy went so far as to say the corruption of WHO is the "biggest threat to the world's public health of our time," particularly as it relates to WHO's drug recommendations — including its "list of essential medicines" — which it believes is biased and not reliable.²¹

Given the strong and ongoing evidence that WHO is heavily conflicted and controlled by industry, its usefulness as a guardian of public health — and an arbiter of vaccine passports — needs to be seriously reevaluated.

Obey or You'll Get Fined

Threats of punishment like fines have become increasingly common and accepted during the pandemic. Both Roy and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green, R-Ga., were fined for not wearing face masks on the House floor, for instance. The initial fine for such an offense is $500, but since this was Greene's second "offense," she was fined $2,500.²²

In the U.K., meanwhile, there's the NHS COVID app, which notifies you if you've been in close contact (defined as within 6 feet for 15 minutes or more) with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. If you don't self-isolate after being notified, you can be fined £1,000 ($1,390) or more.²³

Other penalties are also being rolled out for those who choose not to get the injection. On August 25, 2021, Delta Air Lines announced that unvaccinated employees who are on the company health plan will have a $200 monthly surcharge added, beginning November 1, 2021.²⁴

It's yet another example of the injection-only mindset that has proliferated since the start of the pandemic. Meanwhile, in the U.S. and much of the world, COVID-19 is still being regarded as a disease that should only be treated once a person is hospitalized. At that point, the person is already seriously ill and has missed the opportunity for inexpensive, early treatment options that have shown significant success in reducing rates of hospitalization and death.²⁵

The penalties and punishments also reek of coercion. One of the principles of the Nuremberg Code is that humans must give voluntary consent when participating in medical experiments, and that consent must be given, among other things, "without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion."²⁶

Given the emergency use authorization, not approval, the mass jab administration constituted a research trial. While the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 jab received FDA approval August 23, 2021, the injection's approval represents the fastest approval in history,²⁷ granted less than four months after Pfizer filed for licensing May 7, 2021.²⁸ So, for all intents and purposes, it's still in the research phase.

It's quite possible that the decision to penalize people for choosing to avoid a COVID-19 injection could be seen as a form of coercion.

What About Natural Immunity?

The other glaring issue is there's no mention of natural immunity. It's the elephant in the room that the mainstream COVID-19 narrative refuses to acknowledge. A sizable number of Americans already have natural immunity from a prior COVID-19 infection.

How can you threaten a person with fines or loss of employment to get an injection for a disease to which they're already immune? This is likely to prompt more than a few lawsuits, especially since it's been shown that natural immunity may protect you significantly better than an injection.

Data presented July 17, 2021, to the Israeli Health Ministry revealed that, of the more than 7,700 COVID-19 cases reported since May 2021, only 72 occurred in people who had previously had COVID-19 — a rate of less than 1%. In contrast, more than 3,000 cases — or approximately 40% — occurred in people who had received a COVID-19 vaccine.²⁹

It's important to keep your eyes open at this point in history and resist the insidious removal of freedoms from society that's currently occurring. In their place are empty promises to give you your freedom back if you submit to an injection, a mask, a lockdown.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, for example, recently stated that vaccine passports are "all about" letting you know that "if you've done the right things, you get to be safe" wherever you go.³⁰ And those who refuse to do "the right thing," well, they simply aren't entitled to those same "freedoms."

The disease countermeasures we currently see for COVID-19 won't end with COVID-19, and fines for business owners who choose not to force their employees to make a certain medical decision are only the beginning. We must not continue down this rabbit hole. Now is the time to speak out in peaceful protest in order to compel positive changes in support of health and overall freedom.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3DQK5LO
via IFTTT

In 2019, 97% of countries in Western Europe were not adding fluoride to their water.¹ While a handful use fluoridated salt, the majority do not. Yet, despite the lack of fluoridated water or salt in their diets, the rates of tooth decay have declined significantly in all the countries.²

In September 2021, Great Britain's health secretary Sajid Javid announced he would be adding fluoride to all public water supplies,³ forcing citizens to consume the neurotoxin. The statement came in conjunction with approval by the United Kingdom's chief medical officers from England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.⁴

Paradoxically, his announcement comes one year after a consumers’ group in the U.S. filed a federal lawsuit challenging water fluoridation that supplies 200 million U.S. citizens. The suit was brought against the Environmental Protection Agency and would require water utilities to stop fluoridation.⁵

Fluoride is a naturally-occurring mineral in water and soil that scientists in the 1940s found might help prevent tooth decay.⁶ Water fluoridation began in the U.S. in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1945 and other Michigan communities and then states adopted the practice in the years that followed.

Ninety-six percent of the fluoride⁷ used in U.S. water systems comes from apatite ore, the source of phosphate fertilizers. While the mineral’s composition also includes “high concentrations” of hydroxide, fluoride and chloride, the CDC calls the addition of this neurotoxic chemical “one of public health's greatest success stories.”⁸ Yet, this “great success story” originates with highly toxic by-products in the production of fertilizer.⁹

The production process involves mixing the apatite with sulfuric acid derived from molten sulfur, which the American Water Works Association describes as “a waste product from cleaning petroleum feedstock.”¹⁰

Once the toxic vapors are converted to a dangerous liquid waste, it is transported from fertilizer factories to water reservoirs where it is added to drinking water.¹¹ However, unlike pharmaceutical grade fluoride in toothpaste, this is “an untreated industrial waste product, one that contains trace elements of arsenic and lead.”¹²

Unfortunately, not many are aware of the effects fluoride has as a cradle-to-grave neurotoxin or the origin of the waste product added to the water supply. Although there has been some pushback against the proposal in the U.K.,¹³ Javid “is understood to be keen to press ahead with adding the mineral to the water supply and will gain powers to do so across England under laws going through parliament.”¹⁴

Despite Evidence of Danger, UK to Force Fluoridation

In a concerted effort to convince the public to accept the proposal, the U.K.’s chief medical officers came out together endorsing water fluoridation across the U.K. countries.¹⁵ In an effort to make it look like adding fluoride to the water is a benefit to U.K. citizens’ health, they added the proposal to legislation called “The Health and Care bill,”¹⁶ which is set to go before the MPs, which will then give Javid the authority needed to order fluoridation.¹⁷

In response to this, three British scientists sent a public letter to Great Britain's prime minister, Boris Johnson. In the press release published from the U.K Freedom from Fluoride Alliance they write,¹⁸ “This is not a good time for the British government to mislead the public on the dangers posed by the practice of water fluoridation.”

The scientists believe that the statements from the chief medical officers from the four U.K. countries extol the weak benefits of fluoridation, but ignore stronger evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin. According to the scientists,¹⁹

“The dental lobby has controlled this debate for far too long. You can repair a damaged tooth but early damage to the brain (especially during fetal development and infancy) cannot be repaired or reversed.

This is so serious for the future of our country that the matter should not be resolved by the kind of ‘sleight of hand’ used by those who wrote the script for the CMOs’ statement.”

In their statement²⁰ there are two short paragraphs that deal with the risk of fluoridation, which the scientists refer to as “sleight of hand.” Within the paragraphs, the CMOs do not mention the numerous studies demonstrating neurotoxicity and do not mention the lawsuit against the U.S. EPA. These points were made in their open letter to the prime minister in which they said they:²¹

“... sincerely hope that your health advisers will acknowledge the strong scientific evidence of fluoride’s neurotoxicity (and other ill health effects) and put the health of our people above promoting what appears to be a well-intended but clearly outdated practice of water fluoridation.

This would not be the first time that a well-entrenched medical or dental practice has had to give way to advances in scientific understanding of unexpected side effects.”

However, as reported in The Times,²² “Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, has dismissed safety concerns over the compounds, saying there is no evidence that it causes cancer and that claims about health risks are 'exaggerated and unevidenced'.”

Strong Evidence Fluoride Is Neurotoxic

One of the first studies demonstrating fluoride has an adverse effect on children's IQ was originally published in 1989 in the Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases. Since then, the Fluoride Action Network²³ has recorded dozens of studies that have analyzed the relationship between IQ and fluoride. 

Of these, 70 human studies and 60 animal studies have demonstrated an association between exposure and a reduction in learning or memory capacity. The human studies had children and adult participants that provide compelling evidence of damage. The Fluoride Action Network also published an analysis of the challenges associated with the studies that did not find an association.²⁴

Some of the strongest studies demonstrating an association were published in 2019 and 2020. The claims made by proponents of fluoridation that there is only “one or two studies” finding harm, or that they are only from areas with naturally high fluoride levels, are no longer relevant. The scientific evidence can now be considered overwhelming and undeniable. The studies include:

Green 2019 — published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s journal on Pediatrics.25 It reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation.26

Riddell 2019 — published in Environment International.27 It found a shocking 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to nonfluoridated ones.28

Till 2020 — published in Environment International.29 It reported that children who were bottle-fed in Canadian fluoridated communities lost up to 8.8 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities.30

Uyghurturk 2020 — published in Environmental Health,31 It found that pregnant women in fluoridated communities in California had significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than those in nonfluoridated communities. The levels found in their urine were the same as those found to lower children’s IQ in past studies.32,33

Malin 2019 — published in Environmental Health.34 It linked a doubling of symptoms indicative of sleep apnea in adolescents in the U.S. to levels of fluoride in the drinking water. The link between fluoride and sleep disturbances may be through fluoride’s effect on the pineal gland.35

Malin 2019 — published in Environment International.36 It reported that exposure to fluoridated water led to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents in the U.S. and suggested those with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride bodies. The National Institutes of Health funded this study.37

The level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline. A recent review by Danish scientist, Harvard professor and neurotoxicity expert Dr. Philippe Grandjean also concluded that:³⁸

“… there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development.

Given that developmental neurotoxicity is considered to cause permanent adverse effects, the next generation’s brain health presents a crucial issue in the risk-benefit assessment for fluoride exposure.”

Fluoride Is an Endocrine Disrupter That Affects the Brain

Evidence shows that fluoride as an endocrine disrupter affects both sleep and the brain. It contributes to the rising rate of children and adults with attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD). One study³⁹ published in 2015 demonstrated that children with higher rates of medically diagnosed ADHD resided in states where there was a greater proportion of people consuming fluoridated water.

In 2006, the National Resource Council of the National Academies labeled fluoride an endocrine disruptor.⁴⁰ According to the National Institutes of Health in 2014,⁴¹ “Research shows that endocrine disruptors may pose the greatest risk during prenatal and early postnatal development when organ and neural systems are forming.” The NIH has since removed that statement from their website.⁴²

Exposure to fluoride is also linked to thyroid disease,⁴³ which in turn contributes to heart disease, obesity, depression and other health problems. Fluoride has an adverse effect on sleep patterns. One study⁴⁴ found chronic low-level exposure altered sleep patterns in adolescents aged 16 to 19.

They found fluoride levels of .52 mg per liter was associated with a 1.97 times higher likelihood of sleep apnea at least once per week. This level is lower than the current recommendation of 0.7 mg/L.⁴⁵

The researchers theorized⁴⁶ that the accumulation of fluoride in the pineal gland may affect sleep patterns. Additionally, the researchers wrote that in adults, fluoride concentrations in the pineal gland correlate with calcification, which in turn is associated with a decrease in melatonin production, lower sleep time and lower REM sleep percentage.

Health and Human Services Lowers Level of Fluoride in 2015

In 2010, a study⁴⁷ published in the Journal of the American Dental Association concluded that there was an association between fluorosis and children's teeth and intake from infant formula and other dietary sources. They wrote:

“Results suggest that prevalence of mild dental fluorosis could be reduced by avoiding ingestion of large quantities of fluoride from reconstituted powdered concentrate infant formula and fluoridated dentifrice.”

The CDC also followed suit in 2010, warning that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula with fluoridated water could increase the chance of a child developing enamel fluorosis.⁴⁸ These recommendations have since been deleted.⁴⁹

However, your teeth are the window to your bones, and when you see damage to your teeth you must ask the question: What kind of damage to your bones is occurring?

In April 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services admitted the fluoride levels they had been promoting damaged children's teeth.⁵⁰ Major dental fluorosis was apparent in 41% of teenagers,⁵¹ which includes white spots, yellow coloring or pitted enamel.

Despite levels of fluoride that were high enough to cause fluorosis, the CDC⁵² also reported that 42% of children and adolescents ages 6 to 19 years and 90% of adults had cavities in their permanent teeth. Although some health experts continue to promote fluoride as protection against cavities, it’s apparently not doing the job.

Instead of completely removing fluoride from the water to protect bone health in 2015, the HHS announced they would simply reduce the level of fluoride in the water to minimize “the risk of cosmetic fluorosis in the general population.”⁵³ To stress the idea that fluorosis is solely a cosmetic issue negates the potential risk to bone health.

By 2020, the American Dental Association was fully on board with fluoridating water in the U.S. In a letter⁵⁴ to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, they noted their members agreed that the 2018 edition of Fluoridation Facts, the ADA’s resource on community water fluoridation, answered questions on the relationship between consumption and lowered intelligence or behavioral disorders.

Choosing to blatantly ignore all the studies showing fluoride is a dangerous neurotoxin, they stated, “The evidence from individual studies and systematic reviews does not support claims of a causal relationship.”⁵⁵ Additionally, they urged that the National Toxicology Program Monograph on Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health should move its classification of fluoride from a “presumed” neurotoxin to an “unknown” neurotoxin.

Their justification for this was to claim:⁵⁶ “There is not a wide body of literature examining fluoride as a potential neurotoxin.” In other words, 70 human and 60 animal studies were not enough to “support claims of a causal relationship” and is not a “wide body of literature examining fluoride as a potential neurotoxin.”

Help End the Practice of Water Fluoridation

What might be assumed from statements made by politicians and experts, is there is a greater concern over tooth decay than there is over loss of intelligence, brain health in adults and children and damage done through endocrine disruption.

For citizens in the U.K., a petition has been initiated in Parliament recommending that instead of adding fluoride to compel the entire nation to ingest a neurotoxin, “it would be better if people brush their teeth with toothpaste daily and monitor intake of sugar.”⁵⁷

U.K. citizens can sign the petition at this link. If it reaches 100,000 signatures, Parliament must consider it for debate. For those who live in an area with fluoridated water, you can protect your health by filtering the water supply.

Because fluoride is a very small molecule, it's difficult to filter once added, but reverse osmosis filtration can be effective.⁵⁸ Clean pure water is a prerequisite for optimal health; thus, the only real solution is to stop the practice of artificial water fluoridation.

from Articles https://ift.tt/2Z0kscP
via IFTTT

This article was previously published February 2, 2021, and has been updated with new information.

By February 2021, round the world, reports were already pouring in of people dying shortly after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. In many cases, they die suddenly within hours of getting the shot. In others, death occurs within the span of a couple of weeks.

One notable case is baseball legend Hank Aaron, 86, who died January 22, 2021, 17 days after publicly getting vaccinated for COVID-19.^1,2 He said at the time that he hoped other Blacks would follow his lead and get their vaccines too.

According to news reports, he died "peacefully in his sleep" of natural causes, with the medical examiner claiming there was no indication the vaccine was connected to his death.³ Aaron was famous for being the home-run king of baseball, and broke Babe Ruth's record when he hit homerun No. 715; he had hit 755 by the time he retired from the sport.

29 Dead in Norway

In related news, Norway recorded 29 senior citizen deaths in the wake of their vaccination push.⁴ Most were over the age of 75. A total of 42,000 Norwegians had by that time received the vaccine.

While health officials initially downplayed any connection to the vaccine, a report in Bloomberg suggests the Norwegian Medicines Agency are now reconsidering. At the time of the deaths, the Pfizer vaccine was the only COVID-19 vaccine available in Norway, so "all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine," the agency told Bloomberg.⁵

"'There are 13 deaths that have been assessed, and we are aware of another 16 deaths that are currently being assessed,' the agency said. All the reported deaths related to 'elderly people with serious basic disorders,' it said.

'Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition' …

The findings have prompted Norway to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines may be too risky for the very old and terminally ill, the most cautious statement yet from a European health authority.

The Norwegian Institute of Public Health judges that 'for those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side effects can have serious consequences. For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant.'"

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, commented that the deaths have to be "put into context with the population they occurred in."⁶

In other words, they were old and old people die. It's hypocrisy at its finest. When seniors die before vaccination, it's due to COVID-19 and something must be done to prevent it, but when they die after vaccination, they die of natural causes and no preventive action is necessary.

The World Health Organization added that since there was "no certain connection" of the vaccines to Norway's deaths, there is no reason to discontinue giving it to senior citizens.

Questionable Coincidences

Interestingly, several areas have reported that deaths are rapidly increasing AFTER vaccination programs are implemented. The news stories don't actually say it straight out, but if you look at dates given, it raises questions. One such example is what happened in Gibraltar at the southern tip of Spain, which has a population of 34,000.

The area rolled out its vaccination program January 9, 2021, using the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. By January 17, 2021, 5,847 doses had been administered (about 17% of the population), according to a report by MedicalXpress.⁷

The curious thing about it is that the area's first recorded death from COVID-19 didn't occur until mid-November 2020. By January 6, three days before the vaccination program began, the total COVID-19-related death toll reportedly stood at 10.

Then, by January 17, the total death toll had suddenly skyrocketed to 45. In other words, 35 people died in the first eight days of the vaccination program. Most were in their 80s and 90s.

Chief Minister Fabian Picardo said, "This is now the worst loss of life of Gibraltarians in over 100 years. Even in war, we have never lost so many in such a short time."⁸ None of the deaths was being blamed on the vaccine, however. Instead, they loosely blamed them on the new variant of SARS-CoV-2.

Vaccine Rollout Coincides With Outbreak

Other areas are also reporting "outbreaks" of COVID-19, resulting in increased death tolls, after the rollout of vaccinations. Case in point: In Auburn, New York, a COVID-19 outbreak began December 21, 2020, in a Cayuga County nursing home.^9,10 Before this outbreak, no one in the nursing home had died from COVID-19.

The next day, December 22, they started vaccinating residents and staff. The first death was reported December 29, 2020. Between December 22, 2020, and January 9, 2021, 193 residents (80%) received the vaccine, as did 113 staff members.

As of January 9, 2021, 137 residents had been infected and 24 had died. Forty-seven staff members had also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and one was on life-support.

Considering we're also seeing cases in which healthy young and middle-aged individuals die within days of receiving the vaccine, it's not inconceivable that the vaccine might have something to do with these dramatic rises in deaths among the elderly in various parts of the world. In fact, I'd expect it.

You can rest assured, however, that the public health authorities and media will not report these observations. Anything that conflicts with vaccine safety and effectiveness will be intentionally and universally buried. This is precisely their modus operandi of the past three decades, so it's really up to each individual to do their own research.

Massive Amounts of Serious Side Effects Emerging

When the global vaccine campaign was less than a month old in most places, reports of serious side effects had already started pouring in. Many shared their personal experiences on social media networks. Disturbingly, many also had their stories censored as misleading or false. Videos, in particular, tend to be taken down.

Aside from sudden death within hours or days,^{11,12,13,14,15} examples of side effects among survivors of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines include:

• Persistent malaise^16,17 and extreme exhaustion¹⁸
• Severe allergic, including anaphylactic reactions^19,20,21
• Multisystem inflammatory syndrome²²
• Chronic seizures and convulsions^23,24
• Paralysis,²⁵ including Bell's Palsy²⁶

To get a feel for what's really happening, check out prezi.com, where someone has started collecting stories from various social media posts. It's a rather shocking compilation that is well worth sharing with family and friends who are still on the fence about getting the vaccine.

Many say they "feel weird" and that they "don't feel like myself." Dizziness, racing heart and extreme high blood pressure seem to be a common complaint, as is severe, chronic seemingly "unbreakable" headache that does not respond to medication. Many describe the pain they feel in their body as "being run over by a bus" or "being beaten with a bat."

Some report swollen and painful lymph nodes, severe muscle pain and gastrointestinal issues. Symptoms mimicking stroke are being reported, even though CT scans show nothing of concern. One such report is from a 19-year-old girl. Several report lethal heart attacks claiming the lives of someone they love.

Psychological effects are also starting to creep in. One woman who is on chemotherapy reports "mood changes with intermittent periods of elation and mild euphoria." Bouts of anxiety, depression, brain fog, confusion and dissociation are also being reported, as is an inability to sleep.

One person reports having lost "the voice in my head," which I suspect is the ability to hear yourself think. Another reports losing the ability to formulate words about half an hour after getting the first dose of vaccine, and a third reports "struggling for lost words." Loss of taste and/or smell are also being reported, as well as taste alterations. Several say they have developed a metallic taste since their vaccination.

One pregnant woman reported spontaneous rupture of the amniotic sac resulting in premature delivery. Another woman's baby was found to have no heartbeat two days after her vaccination and was delivered stillborn. Several describe effects suggesting vascular problems, such as skin blotchiness and fingers turning blue.

While people are hoping and praying their side effects will be temporary, a significant portion say they're still struggling with the effects one or two weeks after their shot. Time will tell whether they turn out to be permanent, but considering the fact that the mRNA vaccines reprogram your DNA, there's certainly the possibility that they might be long-lasting.

Side Effects Were Predictable

I recently interviewed cellular and molecular biologist Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., about the mechanics of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, which are in actuality gene therapy. They're not conventional vaccines. Compare the summary of reported side effects in the section above to the longer-term side effects she suspects will become commonplace, based on the mechanics and biological effects of these gene therapy "vaccines":

Migraines	Involuntary muscle movements, tics and spasms
Parkinson's disease	Microvascular disorders
Cancers	Severe pain syndromes
Bladder problems	Kidney disease
Psychological disorders such as psychosis and autism spectrum	Neurodegenerative diseases
Sleep disorders	Infertility and other reproductive problems

The underlying causes, according to Mikovits, are neuroinflammation and dysregulation of the immune system and endocannabinoid system.

"It's the brain on fire," she says. "You're going to see ticks, you're going to see Parkinsonian disease, you're going to see ALS, you're going to see things like this developing at extremely rapid rates, and it's inflammation of the brain.

We see mass cell activation syndromes. The clinical symptoms are going to be the inflammatory diseases. We hear everybody calling it 'long haul COVID' — the extreme, profound, crippling fatigue, the inability to produce energy from your mitochondria.

It's not long haul COVID. It's exactly what it always was — myalgic encephalomyelitis, inflammation of the brain and the spinal cord. What they're intentionally doing is killing off [certain] populations."

Discrepancies in Moderna's FDA Report

According to a recent report by The Defender,²⁷ there are significant discrepancies in the data Moderna submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration:

"Moderna's reported death rate for its COVID vaccine, based on clinical trials, is 5.41 times greater than Pfizer's. Yet neither are representative of national death rates — that's a red flag …

The Moderna vaccine arm death rate of 0.36 deaths/100K/day) is 5.14 times higher than Pfizer's (0.07 deaths/100K/day). This large discrepancy deserves notice and requires explanation.

If Moderna's on-vaccine death rate is so far below the national death rate and also simultaneously more than five times greater than Pfizer's on-vaccine death rate, then Pfizer's study sample appears even less representative of the entire population. This, too, requires due consideration …

When comparing [Moderna's] study-wide number of deaths per day per 100K for the study to that of the entire U.S. population from 2019, I was shocked: the national number of deaths per day per 100K is 2.44.

Moderna's screening process and exclusion criteria in the trial led to evidence that the general population is dying at a rate 6.3 times greater than the death rate in the Moderna trial — which means the Moderna study, including its estimated efficacy rate and the vaccine's alleged safety profile — cannot possibly be relevant to most of the U.S. population.

The super-healthy cohorts studied by Moderna are in no way representative of the U.S. population. Most deaths from COVID-19 involve pre-existing health conditions of the types excluded from both Pfizer and Moderna trials …

Those enrolling in the post-market surveillance studies deserve to know the abject absence of any relevant information on efficacy and risk for them. In their zeal to help humanity, or to help themselves, these people may very well be walking into a situation that will cause autoimmunity due to pathogenic priming, potentially leading to disease enhancement should they become infected following vaccination."

Why Is Moderna's Gene Therapy Deadlier Than Pfizer's?

What might account for Moderna's gene therapy "vaccine" causing more than five times more deaths than Pfizer's? One possibility raised in The Defender's article is that they failed to "screen out unsafe epitopes to reduce autoimmunity due to homology between parts of the viral protein and the human proteome."

According to a 2020 paper²⁸ in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, "Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity," noting that the same may apply post-vaccination.

As explained in this paper, all but one of SARS-CoV-2 immunogenic epitopes are similar to human proteins. Epitopes²⁹ are sites on the virus that allow antibodies or cell receptors in your immune system to recognize it.

This is why epitopes are also referred to as "antigenic determinants," as they are the parts that are recognized by an antibody, B-cell receptor or T-cell receptor. Most antigens — substances that bind specifically to an antibody or a T-cell receptor — have several different epitopes, which allow it to be recognized by several different antibodies.

According to the author, some epitopes can cause "autoimmunological pathogenic priming due to prior infection or following exposure to SARS-CoV-2 … following vaccination."

In other words, if you've had the infection once, and get reinfected (either by SARS-CoV-2 or a sufficiently similar coronavirus), the second bout has a great potential to be more severe than the first. Similarly, if you get vaccinated and are then infected with SARS-CoV-2, your infection may be more severe than had you not been vaccinated.

For this reason, "these epitopes should be excluded from vaccines under development to minimize autoimmunity due to risk of pathogenic priming," the paper warns. The abstract lays out the basics of the pathogenic priming process.³⁰ As noted in The Defender:³¹

"Thus, concern over vaccine-induced pathogenic priming is not zero, but it may be less than COVID-19 vaccines that use more than one SARS-CoV-2 protein. However, the hyper-focused IgG response to the fewer antigens could cause hyperimmunization, a condition considered ripe for off-target autoimmunity attacks."

Are Lethal Effects Being Hidden?

The Defender points out that vaccine trials never use inert placebos. Instead, many use another vaccine. By doing so, they effectively hide side effects. In the case of Moderna, a total of 13 people died in the trial, seven in the vaccine group and eight in the placebo group. One severe adverse event in the placebo group, however, was relabeled as a death, and one death in the vaccine group was relabeled as a severe adverse event.

In the vaccine group, deaths were listed as cardio-respiratory arrest, heart attack, multisystem organ failure, head injury and suicide. None of the deaths was linked to the vaccine.

However, as noted in The Defender, heart attacks can involve autoimmunity and have been seen in post-vaccinations before. Multisystem organ failure is also "consistent with autoimmunity against ubiquitously expressed proteins as a result of vaccination."

"The suicide cannot be ruled out as not due the vaccine, either," The Defender writes, noting it could be related to "autoimmunity against oxytocin or serotonin receptors," which might result in "devastating depression."

Indeed, prezi.com includes a number of reports of people saying they've experienced anxiety and depression following their vaccination. Depression is also a possible outcome of neuroinflammation, as noted by Mikovits.

Do a Risk-Benefit Analysis Before Making Up Your Mind

While both Pfizer and Moderna report low rates of side effects — Moderna's being just 0.5% — the rates of side effects in the real world appear to be extraordinarily high. Data are still hard to come by, but if we go by initial data reported in early 2021 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,³² we end up with a side effect rate in the real world of 2.79%.

By December 18, 2020, 112,807 Americans had received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Of those, 3,150 suffered one or more "health impact events," defined as being "unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional." If you divide the number of reported side effects with the number that received the vaccine, you get a side effect rate of 2.79%.

If you then extrapolate that to the total U.S. population of 328.2 million, we may be looking at 9,156,780 Americans suffering vaccine injuries if everyone gets vaccinated.

In an interesting turn of events, a TV station used its Facebook page to ask people who had lost an unvaccinated loved one to COVID-19 to contact them for a story, but what they got was an avalanche of stories of vaccine injuries and deaths instead.^33,34 Below is a sampling of comments posted on the site. As of October 12, 2021, more than 254,000 people had responded, with tens of thousands of them talking about the vaccine's adverse reactions.

To avoid becoming a sad statistic, I urge you to review the science very carefully before making up your mind about this experimental gene therapy. Also remember that the lethality of COVID-19 is actually surprisingly low. It's lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.³⁵

If you're under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you're metabolically flexible, insulin sensitive, and vitamin D replete.

So, really, what are we protecting against with a COVID-19 vaccine? These mRNA vaccines aren't even designed to prevent infection, only to reduce the severity of symptoms and hospitalization. Meanwhile, they could potentially make you sicker once you're exposed to the virus, and/or cause persistent serious side effects such as those reviewed above.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3FZSWN6
via IFTTT

'I’m supposed to be having a mid-life crisis, not a middle-section spasm.'

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

Meningitis is a very serious brain infection with limited treatment options. In a new study performed in rats, researchers present an alternative treatment based on immune cells that helps rinse away toxins that accumulate during the infection.

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

Researchers have identified a chemical compound that may be suitable as an active agent against several different unicellular parasites. Among these are the pathogens that cause malaria and toxoplasmosis. The point of attack for this promising substance is the protein tubulin: It helps cells divide and therefore is essential for the multiplication of the parasites.

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

A new study has uncovered neuronal circuitry in the brain of rodents that may play an important role in mediating pain-induced anhedonia -- a decrease in motivation to perform reward-driven behaviors. Researchers were able to change the activity of this circuit and restore levels of motivation in a pre-clinical model of pain tested in rodents.

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

Scientists have discovered a new link that could bring the scientific and medical community closer to understanding why glioblastoma, the most common malignant brain tumor, is deadlier in males than females.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2YZaGaT

The scientists' new 'binder-tag' technique allows researchers to pinpoint and track proteins that are in a desired shape or 'conformation,' and to do so in real time inside living cells. The scientists demonstrated the technique in, essentially, movies that track the active version of an important signaling protein -- a molecule, in this case, important for cell growth.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3j9alcr

Americans may respect and admire how individual billionaires -- think Oprah Winfrey or Bill Gates -- made their billions, even as they rage against the "top 1%" as a group, new research finds.

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

A new study in mice has identified new treatment targets for glaucoma, including preventing a severe pediatric form of glaucoma, as well as uncovering a possible new class of therapy for the most common form of glaucoma in adults.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3ASp9lQ

It’s the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australian women, with one in seven experiencing the disease in their lifetime. It can be a scary journey into the unknown, but survivor Georgette Hewitt has some advice for others.  

from Health | body+soul https://ift.tt/3G0etW0

Despite the prevalent view that some 98% of our genome is junk DNA, new research shows that one piece of junk DNA -- the promoter of a virus-based transposon -- plays a critical role in cell proliferation and timing of embryo implantation in mice. The group found virus-based promoters linked to genes involved in development in other mammals, including humans, suggesting that transposons have been broadly repurposed for important regulatory roles.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3jacVP9

A study suggests our brains are not optimized to calculate the shortest possible route when navigating on foot. Instead, pedestrians use vector-based navigation, choosing 'pointiest' paths that point most directly toward their destination, even if the routes are longer.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3FYOv55

Over the last few decades, scientists have discovered that long-term calorie restriction provides a wealth of benefits in animals. Researchers have largely assumed that reduced food intake drove these benefits by reprogramming metabolism. But a new study finds that reduced calorie intake alone is not enough; fasting is essential for mice to derive full benefit.

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

Circadian clocks, which regulate most of the physiological processes of living beings over a rhythm of about 24 hours, are one of the most fundamental biological mechanisms. By deciphering the cell migration mechanisms underlying the immune response, scientists have shown that the activation of the immune system is modulated according to the time of day. Indeed, the migration of immune cells from the skin to the lymph nodes oscillates over a 24-hours period. Immune function is highest in the resting phase, just before activity resumes -- in the afternoon for mice, which are nocturnal animals, and early morning for humans. These results suggest that the time of day should possibly be taken into account when administering vaccines or immunotherapies against cancer, in order to increase their effectiveness.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2XrTMRo

Are animals born to seek rewards or avoid punishment? Researchers found that mice have pre-programmed neurons and circuits that process 'positive' and 'negative' stimuli. Their findings may be useful for studying neurological and psychiatric disorders in humans.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2XlRyTo

A recent study examining the therapeutic potential of photoreceptor precursors, derived from clinically compliant induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC), has demonstrated the safety and therapeutic potential of clinically compliant iPSC-derived photoreceptor precursors as a cell replacement source for future clinical trials.

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

A new study examines how the extracellular matrix (ECM) -- an underlying network of molecules and proteins that provide the structure for tissue growth -- can trigger invasive cancer-related genes.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3jfJs6u

A research team led by Dr Karen Wing Yee YUEN, Associate Professor from the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), revealed the mechanism of artificial chromosome (AC) formation in the embryos of the model organism Caenorhabditis elegans, a 1-mm long, transparent nematode.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3G1v2Rw

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

Interviews with two dozen emergency medicine residents in academic medical center found most placed importance on learning to deliver high-quality care to diverse populations. However, many did not feel their programs made enough effort to incorporate effective cultural competency education into the curriculum.

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

An EPFL scientist has pinpointed the signs of brain activity that make up our brain fingerprint, which -- like our regular fingerprint -- is unique.

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

By Dr. Mercola

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:

Cancer: Women who take birth control pills increase their risk of cervical and breast cancers, and possibly liver cancer as well.	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
• Ovarian cysts may occur
• Bleeding and spotting

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:

1. The Ovulation Method: Natural Family Planning, by John J. Billings
2. Taking Charge of Your Fertility: The Definitive Guide to Natural Birth Control, Pregnancy Achievement, and Reproductive Health, by Toni Weschler
3. Honoring Our Cycles: A Natural Family Planning Workbook, by Katie Singer

References:

---

• ⁱ See All References

from Articles : Hormones, Heart Health, Women's Health https://ift.tt/2euHStK
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, Heart Health, Women's Health https://ift.tt/38s6otU
via IFTTT