Appellate Decision Sides with Physicians Rights to Free Speech
Several medical credentialing boards instituted COVID-19 Misinformation Policies in September of 2021 and have used them to censor and retaliate against academics and practicing physicians who performed research, clinical care, and presented their findings on the early treatment of acute COVID-19 and vaccine safety. The boards’ position is that they and the government agencies they agree with, hold agency over the truth. By establishing that power dynamic, members who disagree with them are spreading misinformation and can be convicted in closed panel meetings without the member being allowed to present their views based upon the data and evidence at hand.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons sued three medical specialty boards for their threatened actions against the board certifications of physicians because of speaking out on medical controversies. Physicians earned and need these board certifications in order to hold professorships, practice medicine in most hospitals, and remain in most insurance networks.
Defendants are the American Board of Internal Medicine (“ABIM”), the American Board of Family Medicine (“ABFM”), and the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology (“ABOG”). In addition, Alejandro Mayorkas, Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary, is a defendant due to alleged government interference with freedom of speech.
The Fifth Circuit also invalidated Galveston Local Rule 6, by which that federal district court has infringed on plaintiffs’ right to amend their lawsuits. The Fifth Circuit agreed with AAPS that this district court rule is contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus must be voided.
“AAPS can now pursue its claim against censorship by the Biden Administration,” AAPS Executive Director Jane Orient, M.D., stated.
Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho agreed with the panel majority on the key issues and wrote separately to decry attempts by some today to impose censorship on others. “In America, we don’t fear disagreement—we embrace it. We persuade—we don’t punish. We engage in conversation—not cancellation,” Judge Ho wrote.
“We know how to disagree with one another without destroying one another. Or at least that’s how it’s supposed to work,” Judge Ho added as he sided fully with this lawsuit against censorship.
The precedent-setting ruling in favor of the First Amendment was issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This influential Court established the right to object in court to censorship of physicians’ speech on topics ranging from government Covid policies to abortion. AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly should be congratulated for this stalwart effort in defense of our civil liberties.
June 8, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
Dr. Deborah Birx, the Trump administration’s coronavirus response coordinator, told CNN’s Kasie Hunt the U.S. is making the “same mistakes” with bird flu that it made with COVID-19, which she said spread because there wasn’t enough testing for asymptomatic infection.
Birx is now calling for every cow to be tested for bird flu weekly and for regular pooled tests for dairy workers. She also said it’s likely that undetected cases are circulating in humans.
“We have the technology,” Birx said. “The great thing about America is we’re incredibly innovative and we have the ability to have these breakthroughs.”
The technology Birx referenced is polymerase chain reaction or PCR testing — the same diagnostic tool that came under fire during the COVID-19 pandemic for producing inaccurate results, including false positives.
Speaking out on X (formerly Twitter), critics like Simon Goddek, Ph.D., pushed back, accusing Birx of “deliberately using the same strategy to fabricate another fake health emergency.”
On Wednesday, the day after Birx’s interview, JAMA published its own article advocating for more widespread bird flu testing.
“No animal or public health expert thinks that we are doing enough surveillance,” Keith Poulsen, DVM, Ph.D., director of the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told JAMA.
Andrew Pekosz, Ph.D., from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told JAMA that more testing should be conducted to find asymptomatic and mild infections. Workers at infected farms should be tested twice weekly, he said, and cows should be tested once a week.
Inventor: PCR test never intended for use as diagnostic tool
PCR testing works by starting with tiny fragments of DNA or RNA called nucleotides and replicating them until they become large enough to identify. The nucleotides are replicated in cycles, and each cycle doubles the amount of genetic material in the sample. The number of cycles required to create an identifiable sample is the “cycle threshold” (Ct).
PCR tests became a household name during the COVID-19 pandemic because they were treated as the “gold standard” for identifying positive cases, especially among asymptomatic people.
However, as early as December 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned that using a high-cycle threshold would lead to false-positive results. The agency encouraged healthcare providers to consider the test in concert with other factors — namely the presence of symptoms — when diagnosing patients.
The WHO also cautioned those using the tests to read the instructions carefully to determine whether the cycle threshold ought to be changed to account for any background noise that could lead to a high-cycle threshold being mistaken for a false positive.
“When specimens return a high Ct value,” the press release said, “it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.”
Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR test, said it was inappropriate to use the test as a diagnostic tool to detect a viral infection.
Even Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted during the pandemic that a high cycle — which was used often — detected only “dead nucleotides,” not a viral infection.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not immediately respond to The Defender’s inquiry about which cycle thresholds are used to test animals for bird flu.
Mass testing ‘will only serve to raise a false case count’
As of Tuesday, the latest circulating bird flu virus has reportedly infected 81 herds of dairy cattle in nine states and poultry farms in 48 states. The virus can be fatal for poultry but does not generally cause serious illness in cattle.
Bird flu is rare among humans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) maintains it poses only a low risk to public health.
In the latest wave of bird flu, only three people in the U.S. have tested positive for the virus after close exposure to an infected cow. All three experienced mild symptoms — two experienced eye irritation and one also had a cough and sore throat. All recovered without incident.
The WHO reported Wednesday that a resident of Mexico died from a bird flu infection, but WHO officials also maintain the virus’ threat to the general population is low.
Bird flu cannot be transmitted among humans, but that hasn’t stopped health officials such as the WHO’s Chief Scientist Jeremy Farrar and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf from publicly stoking fears that the virus could suddenly mutate, become more infectious and transmissible among humans, and cause a pandemic.
Mainstream media outlets like Scientific American warned that the bird flu isn’t a pandemic “yet,” but it could evolve to become one if people do things like continue to drink raw milk. And The New York Times warned yesterday that the virus “may not be done” adapting.
The CDC reported on Tuesday that it monitors genetic changes in the virus and “few genetic changes of public health concern have been identified.”
Nevertheless, the U.S. government is building up its national stockpile of existing vaccines produced by CSL Seqirus and is nearing contracts with Moderna and possibly Pfizer to fund the development of an mRNA vaccine for the virus.
On Tuesday, Finland announced it will begin offering the vaccine to selected groups of people.
Other public health experts have dismissed the alarmism as “overblown,” with some suggesting the “fearmongering” is motivated by profit.
Dr. David Bell, a public health physician and biotech consultant, told The Defender last month the bird flu scare was “farcical.”
“We did not have a bad outbreak for over a century, and there is every likelihood that we won’t again,” Bell said. “We are using technology to pretend that new threats are occurring because we can now detect them.”
Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough said last month that mass testing of healthy animals — as Birx is suggesting — will only serve to “raise a false case count.”
Feds using PCR testing on animals, wastewater, farmworkers, meat and milk
The federal government last month announced a new round of funding to reduce the impact of bird flu. The plan appropriated $93 million for the CDC to do virus genomic sequencing, increase monitoring of farmworkers, and improve and expand testing on a national scale for bird flu in animals, wastewater, farmworkers and meat.
The FDA also appropriated an additional $8 million to surveil and test the commercial milk supply.
Lactating dairy cows must be tested for bird flu before they can cross state lines, per an April 24 Federal Order issued by the USDA.
The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) also encourages farmers to voluntarily test cattle and herds with suspected infection, showing symptoms like reduced milk production or respiratory issues. APHIS covers the cost of the tests if conducted at an approved laboratory and if the farmers agree to have the tested cattle and premises tracked.
The approved laboratories conduct PCR tests for several different flu strains that could be bird flu markers, including “FluA matrix, H5 and optionally H5N1 2.3.4.4b,” to determine whether the cattle are infected.
All laboratories, whether or not on the USDA’s approved list, must report all positive influenza A test results to the USDA weekly by 5 p.m. on Mondays. Farms with positive cases are quarantined.
KFF Health News reported that additional testing of farmworkers would make it possible for researchers to “track infections.” The problem is that “people generally get tested when they seek treatment for illnesses,” but farmworkers don’t tend to go to doctors unless they are very ill.
Farmworkers have been actively monitored for symptoms since the first case was detected but not PCR-tested. In response, federal authorities announced in May they would pay farmworkers to get tested for the virus as part of a program that also offers incentives to farmers to allow their dairy herds to get tested.
Workers are paid $75 for giving the CDC a blood sample and nasal swab.
The federal money also goes to support new wastewater surveillance using PCR tests. The CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, launched in 2020, collects and makes public viruses identified in facilities across the country.
That wastewater testing is done by organizations including WastewaterSCAN, an infectious disease monitoring program based at Stanford University, in partnership with Emory University and funded through philanthropy, including the Sergey Brin Family Foundation created by the founder of Google.
The organization has most recently detected bird flu in San Francisco, although it is unclear whether it comes “from animal waste, milk, people or a combination of sources, according to the Los Angeles Times. WastewaterSCAN on June 3 began publicly reporting H5 data from its 190 sampling sites across the country in its online dashboard.
Other private companies that do PCR-based wastewater surveillance, like Biobot Analytics, are funded by venture capital firms in addition to the CDC.
The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service is also testing meat from condemned cows. Late last month the agency announced that 95 of 96 culled cows tested negative for viral particles and that none of their meat entered the food supply.
It also reported that ground beef from retail facilities in states with cows that have tested positive for bird flu was all PCR-negative for the virus.
The agency also experimented with inoculating meat with high levels of the virus and then cooking it and testing for the virus. The virus was not detected in the meat patties cooked to medium or well-done, and it was “substantially inactivated” in the rare patties.
The FDA also tested retail dairy products in 17 states. The agency noted that PCR-positive results “do not necessarily represent live virus that may be a risk to consumers,” so when they found PCR-positive samples, they further tested them through a process called “egg inoculation.”
The agency found many samples with positive PCR tests, but none tested positive for the live virus.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
June 7, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | FDA, United States |
Leave a comment
Remember Deborah Birx, the “scarf lady” United States bureaucrat who joined President Donald Trump and chief coronavirus fearmonger Anthony Fauci for regular televised briefings to whip up fear of coronavirus and support for crackdowns and new health practices supposedly required by “the science”?
She was there day after day pushing mask wearing and social distancing that had not been shown to produce any net reduction in disease spread, mass PCR testing that proved unreliable, elimination of early treatment efforts, implementation of conveyor belt to death ventilators and remdesivir hospital protocols, production and distribution of Operation Warp Speed “vaccines” that proved to be both ineffective and dangerous, closure of businesses, prohibition of gatherings, and other tyrannical quackery. Birx also was conniving behind the scenes to strengthen national crackdown-related measures and traveling around the country promoting coronavirus fear and encouraging state governments to implement, maintain, and expand their crackdown measures.
In other words, Birx was a primary villain behind the coronavirus crackdowns in America.
Well, Birx is back. And she is pursuing a similar mission again. She is stirring up fear of a new disease du jour — bird flu — and calling for new crackdowns in response. In an interview this week at CNN, Birx declared, “we should be testing every cow weekly” with PCR tests for bird flu. She also wants to test every “dairy worker” as well as test “to really see how many people have been exposed and got asymptomatically infected.”
Birx seems to be jonesing for a replay of the coronavirus crackdown approach, this time in the name of countering bird flu. Indeed, she may want to take the crackdown bigger this time. In the interview, she suggests that the failure to already be doing the extensive testing she supports for bird flu means “we’re making the same mistakes today that we made with covid.” Got that? For Birx, a big mistake with the government response to coronavirus was that it didn’t do enough soon enough. With time, however, Americans have increasingly come to realize that government actions taken in the name of countering coronavirus created much more suffering than did coronavirus.
Don’t let Birx and other authoritarians succeed in using bird flu as an excuse to roll out a new crackdown dangerous to both health and liberty. Let’s end this tyrannical push now. Just say no to Birx and her new scheme.
June 5, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | Human rights, United States |
1 Comment
Excess death data from 47 countries in the Western world show that excess mortality has remained high for the last three consecutive years — despite COVID-19 lockdown measures and COVID-19 vaccines, concluded the authors of a peer-reviewed study published Monday in BMJ Public Health.
“This is unprecedented and raises serious concerns,” said the team of Dutch researchers, who analyzed all-cause mortality reported in the “Our World in Data” database.
The open-access database included reports from the Human Mortality Database — known as “the world’s leading scientific data resource on mortality in developed countries” — and the World Mortality Dataset, which researchers used to track excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition to presenting excess death figures, the Dutch authors cited research showing negative health outcomes related to COVID-19 vaccination programs and lockdown measures.
The researchers called on government leaders and policymakers to “thoroughly investigate underlying causes of persistent excess mortality.”
The Telegraph — a prominent mainstream U.K. newspaper — today ran a front-page article on the study with the headline, “Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths.”
Dr. Meryl Nass posted a photo of the article on Substack, writing, “The dam has broken.”
Earlier this year, Norwegian researchers published a peer-reviewed study in BMC Public Health, showing an increase in excess non-COVID-19 mortality — or deaths attributed to causes other than a COVID-19 infection — in Norway in 2021 and 2022. TrialSite News reported on the Norway study last week.
The study authors noted a “temporal concordance” between Norway’s increase in non-COVID-19 excess mortality and the country’s increase in mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.
Dr. Pierre Kory told The Defender, “This is unsurprising and totally in line with what we have argued is the effect of the mRNA vaccines.”
Kory — who has written numerous op-eds calling for an investigation into what’s causing excess deaths — said there are “numerous mechanisms of the spike protein used in the shots [that] cause endothelial damage and hypercoagulability [excessive blood clotting] leading to heart attacks, strokes, aortic aneurysms.”
“Other mechanisms increase the risk of cancer,” he said, “in particular the ubiquitous findings of DNA contamination of the vials with cancer-promoting sequences such as SV40.”
‘Every death needs to be acknowledged’
The Dutch team’s study on excess deaths in 47 countries showed that excess mortality in 2020 was documented in 41 of the 47 countries.
Over the next two years, that number increased to 42 and 43 countries in 2021 and 2022, respectively.
Overall, there were 3,098,456 excess deaths from Jan. 1, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2022, with just over 1 million of those occurring in 2020.
“In 2021,” they wrote, “the year in which both containment [i.e., lockdown] measures and COVID-19 vaccines were used to address virus spread and infection, the highest number of excess deaths was reported: 1,256,942 excess deaths.”
They reported that in 2022 — “when most containment measures were lifted and COVID-19 vaccines were continued” — there were 808,392 excess deaths.
The authors pointed out that during the pandemic, politicians and the media emphasized “on a daily basis that every COVID-19 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines.”
“In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same morale should apply,” they said. “Every death needs to be acknowledged and accounted for, irrespective of its origin.”
The authors of the Dutch study called for government transparency in cause-of-death data so researchers can do “direct and robust analyses to determine the underlying contributors.”
This also means that autopsies need to be done to determine the exact reason for death, they added.
The Dutch authors noted that the data they analyzed may not have recorded all actual deaths because “countries may lack the infrastructure and capacity to document and account for all deaths.”
Record-keeping mishaps or delays may also cause deaths to go unrecorded.
Cardiovascular deaths driving non-COVID excess mortality in Norway
The Dutch authors’ findings were corroborated by the earlier Norwegian study on non-COVID-19 excess mortality in Norway from 2020 to 2022.
Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health analyzed death records in which a COVID-19 infection was not listed as the cause of death to discover the causes of non-COVID-19 excess deaths.
They used data from the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry, known for high data quality and reliability.
The Norwegian authors found “significant” excess mortality in 2021 and 2022 for all causes (3.7% and 14.5%), for cardiovascular diseases (14.3% and 22.0%), and for malignant tumors in 2022 (3.5%).
When discussing their findings, the authors noted that some people opposed COVID-19 mass vaccination campaigns “due to concerns about potential harmful effects of allegedly insufficiently tested vaccines.”
They noted that the uptick in non-COVID-19 excess deaths happened at the same time that most Norwegians had received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine — but they were careful to avoid outright stating a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and excess deaths.
“From data available to us, it was not possible to compare excess mortality in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals,” they said.
They said preliminary analyses from the National Preparedness Register for COVID-19 in Norway did not show signs of increased mortality among vaccinated older people.
TrialSite News speculated that the study’s authors avoided suggesting that the surge in excess cardiovascular deaths could be tied to Norway’s mass vaccination program because they may have faced difficulty getting their work published.
The Norwegian authors said lockdowns may also have contributed to the increase in non-COVID-19 excess deaths.
“There has been concern that lockdowns have resulted in less use of health care, leading to diseases that otherwise would have been discovered remaining undiagnosed, possibly with increased mortality,” they wrote.
Studies need to be done to assess this possibility, they said.
“Researchers,” they added, “should also investigate whether the [lockdown] restrictions have resulted in deterioration of lifestyle factors, such as less physical activity, a less healthy diet and even social and mental health issues that influence mortality.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
June 5, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
IHR amendments were approved last night at the World Health Assembly.
James Roguski and I just had a chat about what this means.
https://x.com/lawrie_dr/status/1797344388667814140
Corbett | June 4, 2024
After years of build-up and anticipation, the 77th World Health Assembly has come and gone. So, what did the would-be lords of global health gavel down on? And what does it mean for the future of the fight for health freedom? Joining us today to talk about these important issues is James Roguski.
WATCH ON: 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
SHOW NOTES
James Roguski Substack
All WHA docs
IHR amendments
The Amendments to the IHR have been adopted
Watch the World Health Assembly sessions
Oklahoma SB 426 (prohibiting enforcement of policies required or recommended by the World Health Organization)
Louisiana SB 133 (anti WHO, WEF, UN)
“Climate change and health” resolution adopted at the World Health Assembly
James Roguski:
The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.
JamesRoguski.com
JamesRoguski.substack.com/about
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
310-619-3055
June 5, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | Human rights |
Leave a comment
Today, the largest protest against the World Health Organization (WHO) began, with an opening speech by Kazuhiro Haraguchi, a former Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications in Japan and a current member of the House of Representatives. The massive gathering aimed to highlight several critical issues, as Haraguchi delivered a powerful and heartfelt address that resonated with many.
Haraguchi began by addressing the grief and loss felt by countless individuals and families due to the pandemic. With a deep sense of sincerity, he extended his condolences and took responsibility for the failings of those in power. “I apologize to all of you. So many have died, and they shouldn’t have,” he said. His words reflected a deep empathy and regret for the preventable tragedies that have occurred, setting a somber yet resolute tone for the event.
One of the key points in Haraguchi’s speech was his criticism of the ban on Ivermectin, a drug developed by Dr. Satoshi Omura, which he believed could have played a significant role in combating the pandemic. Haraguchi questioned the motives behind the ban, suggesting that economic interests were prioritized over public health. “Why? Because they are cheap. They don’t want it because it will interfere with the sales of the vaccines,” he argued. This statement drew loud applause from the crowd, many of whom felt that corporate profits had taken precedence over human lives.
Haraguchi then shared a deeply personal story about his own health struggles. After receiving vaccines, he developed a severe illness, specifically a rapidly progressing form of cancer. “This time last year, I had neither eyebrows nor hair. Two out of the three supposed vaccines I received were lethal batches,” he revealed. This candid account of his battle with cancer, which included significant physical changes like hair loss, struck a chord with the audience. He recounted an incident where his appearance became a point of distraction in the Diet, with an opponent focusing more on his wig than the issues at hand.
Adding to the conversation, Haraguchi disclosed that he was not the only member of Japan’s National Diet to suffer adverse effects from vaccines. He mentioned that three of his colleagues had been severely affected, with some even hospitalized. “They are falling to pieces, some hospitalized. But they don’t speak up,” he explained. This revelation underscored a broader issue: the reluctance or inability of public figures to discuss their personal health challenges openly.
Haraguchi was particularly passionate about the attempts to silence those who question current policies and government actions. He recounted a recent incident where he was banned from speaking on Channel 3 after an interview with its president. “The other day, I spoke with the President of Channel 3, and I was banned. They are trying to silence our voices,” he stated. This attempt to censor dissenting voices highlighted a critical concern about freedom of speech and expression. Haraguchi urged the audience to remain steadfast in their resolve, saying, “They are trying to block our freedom, our resistance, our power. But we will never lose.”
In the conclusion of his speech, Haraguchi issued a rallying call for action. He urged the people to stand united in challenging the government and its questionable decisions. “Let’s overthrow this government,” he proclaimed, emphasizing the need for change and accountability. He called on legislators to continue fighting for the people’s lives and freedoms, “Let’s make it happen,” he concluded.
The protest that is happening right now (31st May 2024), which aims to draw tens of thousands of participants, marked a significant moment in the global discourse about pandemic management and health policies. Haraguchi’s speech, filled with personal anecdotes and strong criticisms, resonated deeply with the attendees.
June 3, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine, Japan |
1 Comment
Dr. Michael Nehls, Physician and Molecular Geneticist, returns to The HighWire with shocking stats on vitamin D’s proven health effects on COVID-19 patients and how health regulators world wide censored this life saving information from the public from the early days of the pandemic. He also discusses lithium orotate, and how it may be helpful in treating those suffering from and at risk for the debilitating conditions of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | May 30, 2024
We continue our coverage from last week, following the shocking revelation that NIH officials were purposely communicating in methods to avoid FOIA’s. Following these discoveries made through Senior Advisor to the Deputy Director of NIAID, David Morens, testimony in Congress and emails, we now know that Francis Collins and other senior officials at NIH used encrypted non-governmental email accounts, and replaced letters of scientists with symbols to avoid having to disclose their communications to the public. All eyes are on Tony Fauci who is set to testify publicly this Monday for the first time since this scandal broke.
June 3, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video |
Leave a comment
Spoiler: they don’t care about your health and they never have, not really
In 2019 the World Health Organization listed “vaccine hesitancy” as one of the top ten threats to global health.
“The reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines,” this multi-billion-dollar agency explained, “threatens to reverse progress made in tackling vaccine-preventable diseases.”
According to the WHO: “Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective ways of avoiding disease—it currently prevents 2-3 million deaths a year, and a further 1.5 million could be avoided if global coverage of vaccinations improved.”
In 2019 a lot of people believed this to be true, shaking their heads in dismay at “those crazy antivaxxers.”
Five years later there’s a shift happening.
More people than ever before—especially those in healthcare professions—are starting to do their own research, use their own human brains to think about things that they always took at face value, and change their minds about vaccines.
According to a peer-reviewed article published last week in Nature’s Scientific Reports, there has been a “global rise in vaccine hesitancy.”
One of my readers, Beth, would likely agree.
An M.D. colleague of mine, who has been squarely pro-vaccine his entire career, has started to change his mind about vaccines.
The reason?
He’s spending most of every day in his clinical practice treating mainstream patients who are suffering from severe adverse reactions to the vaccines they’d been so eager to get.
After seeing the reactions for himself, he did something he did not used to do as a busy clinician in private practice: he started looking beyond the CDC’s recommendations and reading scientific studies for himself.
Several studies he read, and alternative news articles about them, left him with so much cognitive dissonance that he almost decided to quit medicine for good.
Three of these peer-reviewed scientific studies about COVID-19 vaccine safety caught his attention:
1) A 2022 study by Italian scientists that showed that 94 percent of vaccinated patients who went to the doctor with subsequent health problems presented with abnormal blood. The three Italian scientists who examined freshly drawn blood of more than a thousand patients noted that though they had no clear explanation for their findings, they were so unusual that they felt the need to alert the medical community.
2) A 2022 study published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology by an international team of researchers that included an MIT senior scientist and one of the world’s foremost and most respected cardiologists, presented evidence that the mRNA vaccines impaired type 1 interferon signaling, which has diverse—and sometimes devastating—consequences to human health, including a “causal link” to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, and cancer.
3) An extended analysis conducted by a team of nine experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and several other elite universities that found that COVID-19 booster shots for young people actually caused many more serious adverse events for every one (1) theoretical COVID-19 infection-related hospitalization they prevented. Among the team of scientists that published this paper was Dr. Salmaan Keshavjee, M.D./Ph.D., the director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Global Health Delivery. The paper concluded that, given efficacy and safety concerns, mandating COVID-19 vaccines for college students was unethical.
This doctor had previously testified in favor of allowing state officials to bar unvaccinated or partially vaccinated children from attending public school, private school, and daycare. The bill he supported, thankfully, was not passed into law.
Why would he have supported taking medical freedom and vaccine choice away from parents?
I choose to believe that nearly all doctors have human health and their patients’ wellbeing at the forefront of their minds.
Yes, doctors like the respect they get from being medical doctors.
Sure, they love the money and the houses they can buy with it, the vacations they can take, and the elite colleges they can afford to send their children to.
But most doctors also care, deeply, about the people who come to them for help.
This doctor once believed that by protesting against allowing unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children to attend school he was helping make America a healthier, happier place.
In his mind—programmed by four years of medical training, a residency, continuing education courses, most if not all of his colleagues, the billboards he passed on the highway on his commute to the office every day, the advertising he saw on TV, and the news channels he tuned into several times a day—vaccines were synonymous with health.
And the more vaccinated a child, the healthier.
You don’t know what you don’t know.
Screenshot of educational material about over-vaccination produced by the National Vaccine Information Center, a non-profit based in Washington, D.C., that was founded by a parent whose child was severely and irreversibly vaccine-injured based
He didn’t know that, due to federal law, vaccine manufacturers in America are not liable for vaccine-related adverse events caused by the products they manufacture.
And he admitted, in a confessional tone of voice, that before COVID he probably wouldn’t have cared anyway.
He didn’t believe in vaccine adverse events, had never filed a VAERS report, and had always dismissed patients’ concerns that the problem their child experienced right after being vaccinated as an “unfortunate coincidence.” In his mind, bad vaccine reactions simply didn’t exist.
He’d never bothered to peruse a single peer-reviewed article about vaccine safety, read a vaccine critical book, or attend a holistic health conference.
Why would he?
Reading a book about safety, efficacy, and necessity issues related to vaccines would have been like reading a book about the safety of broccoli or the efficacy of drinking water to hydrate the body.
But now this doctor has changed his mind.
He’s caring for hundreds of patients trying to heal from adverse reactions to the COVID vaccines. He’s been in practice for over twenty years but is currently seeing turbo cancers, heart problems, neurological problems, blood clots, and immune dysfunction that he has never seen before.
Most of these patients have had both COVID infections and at least two—sometimes as many as five or six—COVID vaccines.
It’s hard to pinpoint the exact cause of these problems and the mechanisms by which they are happening.
Could it be due to the COVID infections? The vaccines? The boosters? The conventional treatments, including Paxlovid? Or some combination of all of these?
Though he does not know, he has now filed over a dozen VAERS reports to alert the CDC. To date, no one at the CDC has responded to any of his reports.
This doctor has over a thousand families in his practice. He employs another medical doctor, a nurse practitioner, and front-end staff.
For the past three plus years he’s chosen to work quietly from behind the scenes, trying to gently educate his mainstream allopathic-minded patients about his new vaccine safety concerns without alienating them.
While the world needs more medical doctors to speak publicly about the vaccine safety concerns and the adverse events they’re seeing firsthand, this doctor is afraid to come out of the closet. He accepts insurance, has a diverse patient population, and doesn’t want to lose his license.
He’s also trying very hard to avoid being witch-hunted as so many COVID critical doctors, including my co-author Dr. Paul Thomas, M.D.; my colleague Dr. Steven LaTulippe, M.D.; and my friend and colleague Dr. Meryl Nass, M.D.; already have.
Medicine is big business.
These mRNA vaccines have proven their worth as money makers, allowing pharmaceutical executives to buy luxury real estate and put their newly minted billions into off-shore bank accounts.
The more people get vaccinated, the more money everyone in the industry makes.
There’s nothing wrong with making money.
But becoming rich at the expense of our children’s health and continuing to promote a toxic so-called preventative despite clear evidence that the harms outweigh the benefits is antithetical to the practice of medicine.
Still, as Beth so eloquently pointed out, the good news about this COVID nonsense is that more Americans than ever before are becoming aware of medical malfeasance. We may be on the cusp of a collective shift: a new national awareness about the importance of avoiding toxins, individualizing medicine, and thinking for ourselves.
June 2, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
On the Nature of Cartel Medicine
What would the world look like without Obstetricians and Pediatricians?
I don’t need to wonder.
It would be a better place.
With everything I’ve recently read and written about Hysterectomy and Childbirth, let alone Childhood Vaccination, I’ve been thinking about the Nature of Cartel Medicine.
I’ve described Cartel Medicine as predatory many times, but what am I really describing?
I’m describing its Nature.
The same as if I was describing the Nature of a Wolf.
A wolf sees me as prey because that is its Nature.
I am trying to understand what IT is, why it behaves the way it does, and I’m trying to help others orient themselves correctly to this creature.
Its Nature is to eat, to feed, to prey.
We are the Prey.
The “clothing” for this Nature are the Doctors.
The well intentioned, naïve sheep that are poured into The Academy to be “educated” by the most sophisticated indoctrination technology the world has ever seen.
They emerge, shiny and sparkling with their white coats that coincidentally are a similar color to that of a sheep’s coat.
The Wolf manages to perpetually drape itself with a constantly renewed Sheep’s Clothing.
The Sheep don’t understand their purpose.
Dr Robert Mendelsohn understood their purpose more than anyone else I have read so far, and to our eternal loss only got to write three books about it.
This stack is about the Wolf and how it preys on mothers and newborns via the assault on breastfeeding and the industrial propaganda of the Baby Formula Cartel.
We will start with an excerpt from Mendelsohn’s masterpiece Male Practice.
We will then look at a Q&A drawn from a chapter of Your Baby, Your Way, by Jennifer Margulis.
And I will end with a Q&A based on four Mercola articles.
With thanks to all three of these giants.
Male Practice by Dr Robert Mendelsohn
Chapter 23 – “I Know What’s Best for Your Child.”
A mother is doubly victimized by Modern Medicine. In addition to the abuses she suffers, she must also worry about what a doctor may do to her child. Creative diagnosis and the harmful intervention that often follows isn’t limited to adults. Doctors will practice it on any available victim, regardless of size.
The damage inflicted on children begins, as noted earlier, when silver nitrate drops are placed in their eyes. It continues throughout childhood in an endless succession of useless examinations, worthless medications, and needless surgery that serve only to make pediatricians rich.
The child’s health is often placed at risk shortly after birth when the doctor discourages breast-feeding and urges the mother to raise her baby on formula milk. There is virtually no medical or physical reason, short of a bilateral mastectomy, why doctors should urge substitution of nutritionally deficient formula for a perfect food like mother’s milk. Breast-feeding may be impractical for some working mothers, of course, but that doesn’t explain why doctors seem so determined to deny the benefits of breast-feeding to all the rest. Many aspects of obstetrical intervention mitigate against breast-feeding and, if these are not sufficient to discourage the mother, pediatricians always seem able to find another excuse. They tell her that her breasts are too small, her milk is too thin, or that she has a cold and should stay away from the baby.
I blame three factors for the failure of doctors to urge that mothers breast-feed their children. First, they learn nothing about nutrition in medical school and are actually taught that formula is just as good as mother’s milk. Second, this belief is reinforced by the misleading medical journal advertising purchased by the formula manufacturers. It stops just short of citing women as defective because their breasts aren’t calibrated and encased in tin. Finally, I believe doctors oppose breast-feeding for the same reason they oppose natural childbirth. It denies them too many lucrative opportunities to intervene.
Rather than discouraging breast-feeding, conscientious doctors should be doing everything they can to promote it because of its enormous importance to both mother and child. It strengthens the bond between them in a way that no amount of holding and hugging will achieve. It stimulates hormones that reduce postpartum bleeding and discomfort and causes the uterus to contract more rapidly to its normal size. It gives the mother sensual pleasure. It helps protect her from cancer of the breast.
Breast-feeding also stimulates the production of prolactin by the pituitary gland, which enhances maternal behavior. It also has a tranquilizing effect (without drugs) that helps the mother adjust to the pressures of having a new baby in the home. The prolactin also suppresses production by the ovaries of the hormone that triggers ovulation, thus providing natural birth control for a much longer time.
The baby benefits because breast-feeding provides it with nourishment superior to that supplied by formula milk. It provides better bone maturation and intellectual development. It protects the child from asthma and other hereditary allergies. Because nursing babies are not locked into rigid feeding schedules they eat when they are hungry. This makes them less prone to the digestive upsets seen in babies who are allowed to cry until the clock says mother can shove a bottle in their mouths. There is even evidence that the resulting avoidance of emotional disturbances and the breast-fed baby’s closer bond to its mother reduce the danger of hypertension later in life.
One of the most important benefits that the baby receives from mother’s milk is protection from infectious diseases that the mother has fought off through her well-developed immune system. The bottle-fed baby is much more likely to suffer a nightmare of illnesses that include diarrhea, colic, gastrointestinal and respiratory infections, meningitis, asthma, hives, other allergies, pneumonia, eczema, obesity, arteriosclerosis, dermatitis, growth retardation, hypocalcemic tetany, neonatal hypothyroidism, necrotizing enterocolitis, and sudden infant death syndrome. Babies raised on canned formula milk may also be affected by ingesting too much lead.
Not long ago the American Academy of Pediatrics finally discovered the virtues of breast-feeding and took a strong position in favor of mother’s milk. With an enthusiasm usually reserved for products of the pharmaceutical labs, it said that “Human milk is nutritionally superior to formula,” and it urged all elements of the medical profession to encourage breast-feeding.
That’s mildly encouraging, but I’m not so naive as to believe that the Academy’s recommendations will prevail. Hospital personnel don’t like breast-feeding because it involves more work for them and upsets their routine. Pediatricians don’t like it for the opposite reason. It means less work and fewer office call fees for them. When babies are breast-fed, pediatricians are hard put to justify their existence. There are no diets to juggle and the babies enjoy a natural immunity to most ailments. There’s nothing more useless than a doctor who has nothing to treat.
Breastfeeding provides numerous physical and emotional benefits for mothers. Physically, breastfeeding helps the uterus contract and return to its pre-pregnancy size, reduces postpartum bleeding, and helps women lose pregnancy weight more easily. Emotionally, breastfeeding releases the hormones oxytocin and prolactin, which promote feelings of bonding, relaxation, and well-being. The skin-to-skin contact during breastfeeding also enhances the emotional connection between mother and baby.
Breastfeeding facilitates a strong bonding experience between mother and baby. The close physical contact, skin-to-skin touch, and eye contact during breastfeeding sessions create an intimate and nurturing environment. The release of oxytocin, known as the “love hormone,” during breastfeeding promotes feelings of attachment and affection. Mothers who breastfeed often report feeling a deep sense of connection and satisfaction in providing nourishment and comfort to their babies.
Breastfeeding offers several long-term health benefits for women. Studies have shown that women who breastfeed have a lower risk of developing breast cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes later in life. Breastfeeding also helps with natural child spacing, as exclusive breastfeeding can delay the return of ovulation and menstruation.
Despite the well-established benefits of breastfeeding, the United States has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates among industrialized countries. While 77% of American women initiate breastfeeding, only 36% are exclusively breastfeeding at three months postpartum. This means that out of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States each year, only 1.5 million are still being nursed at three months of age.
Several factors contribute to the low breastfeeding rates in the United States. These include insufficient support and education from healthcare providers; aggressive marketing practices by formula companies; and cultural attitudes that may view breastfeeding as inconvenient or embarrassing. Additionally, the medicalization of childbirth and common hospital practices that separate mothers and babies after delivery can hinder the initiation and establishment of breastfeeding.
Medical interventions during labor and delivery can significantly impact a woman’s ability to breastfeed. Procedures such as induction of labor, epidural analgesia, and cesarean section can lead to prolonged labor, delayed skin-to-skin contact, and separation of mother and baby, all of which can interfere with the initiation of breastfeeding. Medications used during labor may also cause drowsiness in the newborn, making it more difficult for the baby to latch on and feed effectively.
Pediatricians and other medical professionals can undermine breastfeeding by providing inaccurate information, encouraging unnecessary supplementation with formula, or failing to offer adequate support to breastfeeding mothers. Some healthcare providers may lack sufficient knowledge about breastfeeding and its challenges, leading them to recommend formula supplementation prematurely. Additionally, the influence of formula company marketing on medical professionals can lead to a bias toward formula feeding over breastfeeding.
Formula companies use various misleading advertising tactics to promote their products. They often make claims that their formula provides benefits similar to breast milk, such as promoting brain development, eye health, and immune function, despite the lack of scientific evidence to support these claims. Formula advertisements may also depict unrealistic and idealized images of formula-fed babies, suggesting that formula feeding is a superior or more convenient choice for mothers.
Formula companies employ several tactics to undermine breastfeeding and increase their sales. These include providing free formula samples to new mothers in hospitals, which has been shown to decrease breastfeeding rates; offering coupons and discounts on formula products; sponsoring parenting events and baby fairs; and marketing directly to pregnant women and new mothers through advertisements, websites, and social media. Formula companies also partner with hospitals and healthcare providers to distribute promotional materials and samples, effectively endorsing their products.
Formula companies influence nurses and other medical professionals by providing free samples, gifts, and educational materials that promote their products. They may offer sponsored continuing education courses, conferences, and workshops that present information biased toward formula feeding. Formula representatives often develop personal relationships with nurses and hospital staff, providing meals, gift baskets, and other incentives. This subtle influence can lead healthcare professionals to view formula as an acceptable or even preferred alternative to breastfeeding.
Professional medical organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), receive funding from formula companies through sponsorships, grants, and donations. In the five years following the AAP’s endorsement of exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, formula manufacturers donated more than $6.7 million to the organization. This financial relationship raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of formula companies on the AAP’s policies and recommendations regarding infant feeding practices.
Breastfeeding offers several neurological advantages for babies. Breast milk contains essential nutrients, such as long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (DHA and ARA), that are crucial for brain development. The act of breastfeeding also provides important sensory stimulation through skin-to-skin contact, which promotes optimal brain development. Studies have shown that breastfed infants have higher scores on cognitive and developmental tests compared to formula-fed infants, and these benefits may extend into childhood and adulthood.
Breast milk is a dynamic, living substance that adapts to the changing needs of the growing infant. It contains a perfect balance of nutrients, including proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals, as well as immune-boosting components such as antibodies, white blood cells, and enzymes. In contrast, cow’s milk and infant formula are static, processed products that cannot replicate the complexity and adaptability of human milk. While formula attempts to mimic the composition of breast milk, it lacks many of the bioactive components and living cells found in human milk.
Breastfeeding rates in Norway have undergone significant changes over time. In the 1960s, breastfeeding rates reached an all-time low, with only one out of five Norwegian babies being breastfed at three months of age. This decline was largely attributed to the medicalization of childbirth and hospital practices that discouraged breastfeeding. However, with the rise of mother-to-mother support groups and changes in hospital policies, breastfeeding rates began to increase in the 1980s. Today, Norway has one of the highest breastfeeding rates in the industrialized world, with nearly 100% of mothers initiating breastfeeding and 80% still breastfeeding at six months postpartum.
Norway has implemented several policies and practices to support breastfeeding. These include paid maternity leave, which allows mothers to stay home and breastfeed their infants for an extended period; restrictions on the marketing of infant formula, in accordance with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes; and the establishment of the National Resource Center for Breastfeeding, which provides education and support to healthcare professionals and parents. Norwegian hospitals also prioritize skin-to-skin contact between mother and baby immediately after birth, encourage rooming-in, and provide lactation support to new mothers.
Infant mortality rates in the United States are significantly higher than those in Norway. A baby born in the United States is almost twice as likely to die in infancy compared to a baby born in Norway. Breastfeeding plays a crucial role in this difference, as it has been shown to reduce the risk of infant death, particularly from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and necrotizing enterocolitis. Norway’s high breastfeeding rates and supportive policies contribute to its lower infant mortality rates, while the United States’ low breastfeeding rates and lack of support for breastfeeding mothers may contribute to its higher infant mortality rates.
Formula feeding is significantly more expensive than breastfeeding. The cost of formula for an infant for 12 months is estimated to be around $2,366, while the cost of breast milk is essentially zero. In addition to the direct cost of formula, there are indirect costs associated with formula feeding, such as increased healthcare expenses due to the higher rates of illness and infection among formula-fed infants. Breastfeeding, on the other hand, provides significant cost savings for families and the healthcare system as a whole.
The National Resource Center for Breastfeeding in Norway is an academic center that aims to promote and support breastfeeding through research, education, and information dissemination. The center, overseen by Dr. Gro Nylander, uses scientific evidence to provide accurate and up-to-date information about breastfeeding to healthcare professionals, parents, government agencies, and the media. By serving as a centralized resource for breastfeeding information and support, the National Resource Center for Breastfeeding plays a crucial role in maintaining Norway’s high breastfeeding rates and ensuring that both healthcare providers and parents have access to reliable, evidence-based guidance on breastfeeding practices.
Norwegian hospitals implement several practices to support breastfeeding and minimize the use of formula. These practices include encouraging skin-to-skin contact between mother and baby immediately after birth, promoting rooming-in (keeping the baby in the same room as the mother), and allowing babies to breastfeed on demand. Norwegian hospitals also avoid giving newborns supplemental feedings of formula or sugar water, which can interfere with the establishment of breastfeeding. If a baby does require formula for medical reasons, it is given via alternative methods, such as a syringe or spoon, rather than a bottle, to avoid nipple confusion and maintain the baby’s ability to latch and breastfeed effectively.
Supplementing breastfed babies with sugar water or formula in the early days of life can pose several potential dangers. First, it can interfere with the establishment of a healthy milk supply, as the baby’s suckling stimulates milk production. If a baby receives supplemental feedings, they may not nurse as frequently or effectively, leading to decreased milk production. Additionally, sugar water can cause digestive issues, such as stomach discomfort and diarrhea, while formula can alter the gut microbiome and increase the risk of infections and allergies. Supplementation can also disrupt the natural bonding and attachment process between mother and baby, as well as undermine the mother’s confidence in her ability to nourish her child.
Formula feeding carries several risks, as evidenced by product recalls and contamination incidents. In recent years, there have been several instances of formula being recalled due to contamination by harmful substances, such as insects, larvae, and bacteria. These contaminants can cause serious health issues in infants, including gastrointestinal distress, infections, and even life-threatening illnesses. Additionally, formula products have been recalled for issues such as off-odors, unusual consistencies, and the presence of foreign objects. These incidents highlight the importance of strict quality control in formula manufacturing and the potential dangers of relying on a processed, artificial product to nourish infants.
The profits of major formula companies are substantial, particularly when compared to the cost of formula for families. In 2011, Abbott Laboratories, the maker of Similac, reported global sales of $38.9 billion, while Mead Johnson Nutrition, the manufacturer of Enfamil, reported $3.7 billion in sales. Nestlé, the company behind Gerber formula, earned $10.1 billion in profits in the same year. In contrast, the average cost of formula for a family over a 12-month period is estimated to be $2,366. This disparity highlights the significant financial burden that formula feeding places on families, while formula companies continue to generate substantial profits.
If American women followed the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) breastfeeding guidelines, which recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life and continued breastfeeding for at least one year, the potential cost savings in healthcare could be significant. According to one study, if 90% of U.S. families followed the AAP guidelines, the country could save $13 billion in healthcare costs annually. These savings would be primarily due to the reduced incidence of illness and infection among breastfed infants, as well as the long-term health benefits for both mothers and children.
If American women breastfed according to the recommendations set forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization, a significant number of infant deaths could potentially be avoided. One study estimated that if 90% of U.S. families followed the AAP breastfeeding guidelines, approximately 900 infant deaths could be prevented annually. This reduction in infant mortality would be largely attributed to the protective effects of breastfeeding against sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), necrotizing enterocolitis, and other life-threatening conditions. By increasing breastfeeding rates and duration, the United States could make substantial progress in improving infant health outcomes and reducing preventable infant deaths.
Formula weakens the baby, versus breastfeeding, and makes them less resilient to the assault of vaccination. So, it’s an indirect relationship rather than a direct causal one.
Most Baby Formula Claims Not Backed by Science (substack.com)
How to Mitigate the Infant Formula Disaster (substack.com)
The US Campaign Against Breastfeeding (substack.com)
Infant Soy Formula – A Risky Public Experiment (substack.com)
According to a study published in February 2023, only 26% of the infant formula products surveyed attempted to support their health and nutrition claims with a clinical trial or a review. Of these, only 14% used clinical trials in humans, and 90% of those trials carried a high risk of bias due to missing data or conclusions that were not supported by the data.
The 2023 Lancet Series on breastfeeding called for greater regulation over the “predatory” nature of the infant formula industry’s marketing campaigns aimed at new mothers. These marketing techniques and strategies have influenced families, policy, and science, often portraying commercial milk formula products as solutions to common infant health and developmental challenges in ways that systematically undermine breastfeeding.
Grocery store conglomerate Albertsons has entered the digital health space with its app “Sincerely Health,” which encourages customers to connect data from wearable monitoring devices and track their prescriptions, grocery store purchases, and vaccination appointments. This merger between Big Food and Big Pharma uses tracking technology to gather details about consumers’ activities, potentially leading to a database of private health decisions that could be used against individuals during future public health emergencies or to limit their access to food based on their medical history.
By gathering and analyzing this data, companies and government entities may create detailed profiles of individuals’ health status, medical history, and purchasing habits. This information could then be used to restrict access to certain products or services based on a person’s health profile or vaccination status. For example, unvaccinated individuals or those with specific medical conditions could be denied access to certain foods or be subject to higher prices. Such practices could lead to discrimination and infringe upon personal freedoms and privacy rights, ultimately limiting consumer freedoms in various ways.
Breastfeeding offers numerous evidence-based benefits for both mother and baby. For mothers, breastfeeding is associated with a lower risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, ovarian or breast cancer, and high blood pressure, as well as reduced stress and improved sensitivity to their infant’s needs. Breastfed infants have a lower risk of obesity, asthma, ear infections, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants. Breastfeeding also promotes cognitive development and socio-affective response in children.
Most commercial infant formulas are nutritionally inferior to breast milk and contain questionable added ingredients. While breast milk contains hundreds of unique substances, including over 100 different types of fats and complex sugars called oligosaccharides that nourish healthy gut bacteria, infant formulas are primarily composed of processed sugars, dried skim milk, and refined vegetable oils. Many formulas also contain synthetic vitamins, inorganic minerals, excessive protein, and harmful contaminants like glyphosate and perchlorate.
In 2018, the World Health Assembly introduced a nonbinding resolution to encourage breastfeeding and emphasize its health benefits. The U.S. delegation opposed this resolution, demanding the removal of language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breastfeeding.” They threatened countries with trade sanctions and the withdrawal of crucial military aid if they did not reject the resolution. Additionally, the American delegation insisted on adding the phrase “evidence-based” to references to breastfeeding initiatives, which critics saw as an attempt to undermine these programs. The international response was one of shock and dismay, with many delegates expressing astonishment at the U.S. government’s aggressive tactics to prioritize the interests of the infant formula industry over global public health.
The infant formula industry’s aggressive marketing practices have negatively influenced the perception and prevalence of breastfeeding over time. Following the development of manufactured infant formula, mothers were told that breastfeeding was unnecessary and that formula offered greater freedom for busy moms. The promotion of the idea that breastfeeding in public is shameful also contributed to the decline in breastfeeding rates, as more mothers opted for bottle-feeding to avoid social stigma.
Soy-based infant formulas are considered among the worst options for babies due to the potential dangers associated with their high levels of phytoestrogens, such as genistein. These formulas have been linked to a number of troubling side effects, including altered age of menarche in girls, uterine fibroids, endometriosis, tumors, disrupted thyroid and reproductive function, inhibited testosterone in boys, and autoimmune diseases. The estrogen content in soy formulas can be equivalent to at least five birth control pills per day, posing significant risks to infant development.
For mothers who cannot breastfeed, healthy alternatives include using donated breast milk from a trusted source or making homemade infant formula using high-quality, organic ingredients. Homemade formulas, such as those based on raw cow’s milk or liver, can provide a more nutritious option compared to commercial formulas. These homemade recipes often include essential nutrients like lactose, whey, probiotics, acerola powder, cod liver oil, and coconut oil, while avoiding the processed sugars, synthetic vitamins, and harmful additives found in many commercial products.
Predatory marketing practices by infant formula companies can undermine breastfeeding efforts and contribute to suboptimal infant nutrition in several ways. These practices often portray infant formula as a superior alternative to breast milk, making unsubstantiated claims about its ability to solve common infant health and developmental challenges. By promoting the idea that formula is a convenient and effective substitute for breastfeeding, these marketing tactics can discourage mothers from breastfeeding, leading to lower breastfeeding rates and depriving infants of the unique benefits of breast milk.
Breast milk contains several unique components that provide benefits for infants, many of which are not found in commercial formulas. One example is the presence of over 150 different oligosaccharides, which are complex sugars that nourish healthy gut bacteria and support the development of a strong immune system. Breast milk also contains antibodies that provide passive immunity to the infant, as well as growth factors and hormones that promote optimal development. In contrast, commercial formulas are primarily composed of processed sugars, dried skim milk, and refined vegetable oils, lacking the diverse array of beneficial components found in breast milk.
Excessive sugar consumption, particularly in the form of processed corn syrup, has been linked to an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and metabolic disorders later in life. Other concerning ingredients, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), synthetic vitamins, and harmful contaminants like glyphosate and perchlorate, may negatively impact infant health and development. These ingredients can disrupt the gut microbiome, contribute to inflammation, and expose infants to potentially toxic substances during a critical period of growth and development.
Societal attitudes and marketing campaigns have significantly influenced the perception of breastfeeding in public, often portraying it as shameful or indecent. Formula companies have promoted the idea that bottle-feeding is a more convenient and socially acceptable alternative, contributing to the stigmatization of public breastfeeding. This negative perception has led to lower breastfeeding rates, as many mothers feel discouraged from breastfeeding in public spaces for fear of judgment or legal consequences. In some cases, women have faced fines or charges of public indecency for breastfeeding in public, further reinforcing the idea that it is an unacceptable practice. As a result, many mothers have opted for formula feeding, even when they may have preferred to breastfeed, leading to suboptimal infant nutrition and health outcomes.
The high levels of phytoestrogens, particularly genistein, found in soy-based infant formulas pose several specific hormonal and developmental risks. These phytoestrogens can mimic the effects of estrogen in the body, leading to potential disruptions in endocrine function and development. Some of the risks associated with soy formula include altered age of menarche in girls, increased risk of uterine fibroids, endometriosis, and tumors, disrupted thyroid function, and inhibited testosterone in infant boys, which may impede appropriate male development. Additionally, exposure to high levels of phytoestrogens in infancy has been linked to an increased risk of autoimmune diseases and reproductive issues later in life.
There are several key differences between the composition of breast milk and commercial infant formulas that can significantly impact infant health and development. Breast milk contains a unique blend of nutrients, including easily digestible proteins, healthy fats, and complex sugars called oligosaccharides that support the growth of beneficial gut bacteria. It also contains antibodies, growth factors, and hormones that promote optimal immune function and development. In contrast, commercial formulas are typically made from processed ingredients, such as corn syrup, refined vegetable oils, and synthetic vitamins and minerals, which may be harder for infants to digest and absorb. Formula also lacks many of the beneficial compounds found in breast milk, such as antibodies and growth factors, which can leave infants more vulnerable to infections and developmental issues. Furthermore, the high sugar content and lack of complex oligosaccharides in many formulas can disrupt the development of a healthy gut microbiome, increasing the risk of obesity, diabetes, and other chronic health conditions later in life.
June 2, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | United States |
Leave a comment
In a new lawsuit, Webseed and Brighteon Media have accused multiple US government agencies and prominent tech companies of orchestrating a vast censorship operation aimed at suppressing dissenting viewpoints, particularly concerning COVID-19. The plaintiffs, Webseed and Brighteon Media, manage websites like NaturalNews.com and Brighteon.com, which have been at the center of controversy for their alternative health information and criticism of government policies.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
The defendants include the Department of State, the Global Engagement Center (GEC), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and tech giants such as Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook), Google, and X. Additionally, organizations like NewsGuard Technologies, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), and the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) are implicated for their roles in creating and using tools to label and suppress what they consider misinformation.
Allegations of Censorship and Anti-Competitive Practices:
The lawsuit claims that these government entities and tech companies conspired to develop and promote censorship tools to suppress the speech of Webseed and Brighteon Media, among others. “The Government was the primary source of misinformation during the pandemic, and the Government censored dissidents and critics to hide that fact,” states Stanford University Professor J. Bhattacharya in support of the plaintiffs’ claims.
The plaintiffs argue that the government’s efforts were part of a broader strategy to silence voices that did not align with official narratives on COVID-19 and other issues. They assert that these actions were driven by an “anti-competitive animus” aimed at eliminating alternative viewpoints from the digital public square.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs have suffered substantial economic harm, estimating losses between $25 million and $50 million due to reduced visibility and ad revenue from their platforms. They also claim significant reputational damage as a result of being labeled as purveyors of misinformation.
The complaint details how the GEC and other agencies allegedly funded and promoted tools developed by NewsGuard, ISD, and GDI to blacklist and demonetize websites like NaturalNews.com. These tools, which include blacklists and so-called “nutrition labels,” were then utilized by tech companies to censor content on their platforms. The plaintiffs argue that this collaboration between government agencies and private tech companies constitutes an unconstitutional suppression of free speech.
A Broader Pattern of Censorship:
The lawsuit references other high-profile cases, such as Missouri v. Biden, to illustrate a pattern of government overreach into the digital information space. It highlights how these efforts have extended beyond foreign disinformation to target domestic voices that challenge prevailing government narratives.
Webseed and Brighteon Media are seeking both monetary damages and injunctive relief to prevent further censorship. They contend that the government’s actions violate the First Amendment and call for an end to the use of these censorship tools.
As the case progresses, it promises to shine a light on the complex interplay between government agencies, tech companies, and the tools used to control the flow of information in the digital age. The outcome could have significant implications for the future of free speech and the regulation of online content.
May 30, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Yet another existential chaos avalanche in American foreign policy.
The pier took two months and $350m to build, lasted 12 days, and delivered less than 60 trucks’ worth of food (most of which was stolen after it reached Gaza) before it broke and had to be towed away for repairs. Think through the process: ships provide a mass delivery mechanism for cargo and the draft of a ship prevents it from getting close to shore hence the need for pier structures for off-loading and the US spends a third of of billion dollars for a temporary structure to facilitate the off-loading. Weather conditions and sea states are not a mystery and for those keen enough to observe, the facilitators of this disaster had access to all the historical data to know what to do and whether to proceed ahead with the project.
And, remember, this is the same US foreign policy that provides military aid, even now, that necessitated the need for the temporary pier in the first place.
This debacle is a demonstration project of the American experience in the Middle East.
May 30, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Science and Pseudo-Science | United States |
1 Comment
Cyprus saw a “substantial, statistically significant,” increase in mortality from all causes in late 2021 and early 2022 following the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines, TrialSite News reported last week.
Researchers from Cyprus, the University of Liverpool and Harvard University found that during the third and fourth quarters of 2021, total deaths in the island nation increased 34.1% and 11.8% respectively. During the first quarter of 2022, total deaths increased 30.7%.
Cyprus began its COVID-19 vaccine rollout in December 2020, but the peaks in monthly vaccination rates occurred in May 2021 and December 2021 and were followed by jumps in the mortality rates.
“We concluded that excess mortality occurs in unprecedented levels in Cyprus,” the researchers wrote. “Our findings raise serious concerns regarding the potential impact of the vaccination campaign and other causes on mortality.”
The authors published their findings in the Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health. Based on the association they identified, they said, “a detailed cause-specific investigation of such a significant excess number of deaths is warranted to explore the potential factors leading to this concerning and unexplained increase in population mortality.”
The researchers analyzed mortality data from 2016-2022, as reported by the Cyprus Ministry of Health to the European Statistical Office, or Eurostat. They also analyzed weekly data on COVID-19 vaccinations and related deaths collected during the pandemic by the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control.
Using that data, they determined average all-cause mortality rates and excess deaths over time, deaths reported from COVID-19 and total COVID-19 vaccines administered for Cyprus by age group.
They compared excess deaths before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and examined how those numbers related to the vaccine rollout.
Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., all-cause mortality researcher and former physics professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada who was not involved in the study, told The Defender :
“There’s clearly a temporal association here between vaccines and excess all-cause mortality. This association is robust, it’s unambiguous, it’s clear, it’s in the data itself.”
Rancourt’s team of scientists at the Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest has also conducted several studies that found strong associations between vaccine rollouts and excess mortality.
He said the mortality rates and the association with the vaccine reported in the Cyprus study are similar to what his team found in their own analysis of Cyprus, which is part of a larger study not yet published.
However, to confirm what caused the deaths, Rancourt said, “You have to dig deeper as the authors correctly point out to find out what is really going on here,” Rancourt added.
Data on excess deaths in Cyprus
Epidemiologists use all-cause mortality — a measure of the total number of deaths from all causes in a given time frame for a given population — as the most reliable data for detecting and characterizing events causing death and evaluating the population-level effect of deaths from any cause.
Excess death, or excess mortality, refers to the number of deaths from all causes during a crisis above and beyond what would be expected under ‘normal’ conditions.
Excess mortality is a “more comprehensive measure” of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality than the confirmed COVID-19 deaths because it captures deaths from other causes, like vaccines, treatment protocols or other factors that are attributable to the “overall COVID-19 crisis,” the authors wrote.
“COVID-19 death data is notoriously not reliable,” Rancourt agreed.
Research also shows that the trends identified in Cyprus are consistent with broader regional and global trends, the authors said. Across the EU, the authors wrote, excess deaths increased in 2020 and continued through 2023, albeit at variable rates.
Cyprus, they noted, was one of the EU member states with the highest excess mortality — in 2022 it had the highest excess mortality rate in Europe, reaching 26.4%.
This was consistent with findings worldwide. For example, a study found the U.S. experienced substantial excess mortality during the pandemic. And the authors’ previously published research showed a substantial increase in mortality in Cyprus in 2021 compared to 2020, even when excluding deaths reported to be caused by COVID-19.
For their current study, the authors calculated the average all-cause mortality using pre-pandemic data from 2016-2019 and assessed how mortality deviated from that level. Before 2020, they found very little excess mortality.
They presented their findings in a series of tables and graphs.
They found two peaks in vaccination across Cyprus’s population of 904,705 people. In May 2021, when the first peak happened, 42% of the population was vaccinated. In December 2021 at the second peak, 71% of the population was vaccinated. They found that after each vaccination peak, there was a higher rate of excess deaths, which was more severe after the second peak.
They also noted that excess deaths remained low during the period between the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Cyprus and the start of the vaccination campaign, only beginning to climb substantially after the vaccine was introduced.
Overall there were approximately 3,000 excess deaths in 2021-2022.
High mortality rate in summer ‘unheard of’
Rancourt said there were a few interesting things in the data that the authors didn’t highlight. Cyprus typically has higher mortality in the winter and low in the summer, he said.
“It’s unheard of to have a high mortality in the summer. But in 2021, just after the main first wave of vaccination rollout, after a large number of vaccine doses had been given, there was a very large summer peak in excess mortality.”
Then, there was another peak in the spring and summer following the winter 2022 vaccine push.
In their study, the researchers again found that when they excluded the reported number of deaths from COVID-19, the increase in all-cause mortality persisted. This finding is also consistent with other studies, the authors reported.
The authors said their study was limited by their inability to explore what caused the documented excess mortality. They blamed a lack of access to detailed death certificates, which haven’t been made available to researchers.
“We call for official authorities to share information on diagnoses and causes of death from corresponding death certificates in order to further explore the underlying causes of these troublesome increased mortality findings,” they wrote.
They did note several issues identified in the existing literature that provide hypotheses about the causes of the rise in all-cause mortality and highlight “the concerns that the vaccination campaign may have contributed to this worldwide observed excess mortality.”
Many researchers have identified links between the toxicity of vaccine batches and adverse events, they noted. Rancourt and his team have linked the vaccine rollouts to unprecedented peaks in all-cause mortality in a study of 17 countries.
Rancourt said they are currently completing a study of 125 countries, including Cyprus, and their analysis of that country produced similar results to the current study.
The study authors also noted that during the pandemic, pressures on the healthcare system undermined access to and quality of care, increasing mortality. They also noted that lockdowns had documented serious health effects including increased mortality.
Rancourt said his work demonstrated that there may be multiple causes of all-cause mortality from different pandemic-response-related practices, including vaccination and the application of different COVID-19 treatment protocols or the psychological stress of lockdowns and isolation.
However, frail, elderly and otherwise sick people were consistently most vulnerable to death.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
May 29, 2024
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine, Cyprus |
Leave a comment
Aletho News 