Biden Regime Pressured Facebook To Suppress The Daily Wire, Boost Legacy Outlets Like The NYT
New internal documents reaveal
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | August 3, 2023
In a significant blow to the principle of free speech, recently disclosed documents reveal that President Joe Biden’s administration exerted considerable pressure on tech giant Facebook to constrain the reach of The Daily Wire and The New York Post, and promote content from established news outlets, within months of occupying the White House in January 2021. This revelation, coupled with the administration’s alleged intentions to alter the Facebook algorithm, has raised substantial concerns about government-sanctioned censorship.
These documents shed light on the Biden administration’s campaign to promote its Covid vaccine strategy, sidelining dissenting viewpoints.
The dialogues memorialized in the disclosed documents underline the charged interactions between then-White House Digital Director Rob Flaherty and Facebook representatives. The focus of these discussions was curbing The Daily Wire’s considerable influence on Facebook while simultaneously elevating legacy news outlets such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
For context, The Daily Wire’s popularity on Facebook had outstripped that of both NYT and WSJ, drawing significantly more audience engagement, and casting a more amplified conservative alternative.
The meeting notes underline the Biden administration’s apprehensions about “misinformation” leading to vaccine hesitancy, sparking a quest to mold public sentiment using Facebook’s vast reach.
White House representative Flaherty’s frustration with Facebook’s inability to readily produce data to support the administration’s agenda becomes evident in the correspondence.
Highlighting the confrontational tone of these correspondences, Representative Jim Jordan, chairing the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, reinforced the troubling indication of the administration’s attempts to stifle free speech via social media control.
Do The COVID Vaccines Affect Your Ability to Think?
Examining some of the common neurological injuries caused by vaccination
A Midwestern Doctor | The Forgotten Side of Medicine | July 20, 2023
When the COVID-19 vaccines were brought to market, due to their design I expected them to have safety issues, and I expected over the long term, a variety of chronic issues would be linked to them. This was because there were a variety of reasons to suspect they would cause autoimmune disorders, fertility issues and cancers—but for some reason (as shown by the Pfizer EMA leaks), the vaccines had been exempted from being appropriately tested for any of these issues prior to being given to humans.
Since all new drugs are required to receive that testing, I interpreted it to be a tacit admission it was known major issues would emerge in these areas, and that a decision was made that it was better to just not officially test any of them so there would be no data to show Pfizer knew the problems would develop. Sadly, since the time the vaccines entered the market, those three issues (especially autoimmunity) have become some of the most common severe events associated with the vaccines.
At the start of the vaccine rollout, there were four red flags to me:
• The early advertising campaigns for the vaccines mentioned that you would feel awful when you got the vaccine, but that was fine and a sign the vaccine was working. Even with vaccines that had a very high rate of adverse events (e.g., the HPV vaccine), I had never seen this mentioned. This signified it was likely the adverse event rate with the spike protein vaccines would be much higher than normal.
• Many of my colleagues who got the vaccine (since they were healthcare workers they were able to get it first) posted on social media about just how awful they felt after getting the vaccine. This was also something I had never seen with a previous vaccine. After some digging, I noticed those with the worse vaccine reactions typically had already had COVID and their reaction was to the second shot rather than the first, signifying that some type of increased sensitization was occurring from repeated exposures to the spike protein. Likewise, the published clinical trial about Pfizer’s vaccine also showed adverse reactions were dramatically higher with the second rather than first shot.
• Once it became available to the general public, I immediately had patients start showing up with vaccine reactions, many of whom stated they received their flu shot each year and never had experienced something similar with a previous vaccination. One of the most concerning things were the pre-exacerbation of autoimmune diseases (e.g., spots in their body they previously would occasionally have arthritis and felt like they were on fire). After I started looking into this I realized people were seeing between a 15-25% rate of new autoimmune disorders or exacerbations of existing autoimmune disorders developing after the vaccine (later shown in an Israeli survey), a massive increase I had never seen any previous vaccine cause.
• About a month after the vaccines were available to the public, I started having friends and patients share that they’d known someone who had unexpectedly died suddenly after receiving the vaccine (typically from a heart attack, stroke, or a sudden aggressive case of COVID-19).
This was extremely concerning to me, because reactions to a toxin typically distribute on a bell curve, with the severe ones being much rarer than the moderate ones. This meant that if that many severe reactions were occurring, what I could already see was only the tip of the iceberg and far, far more less obvious reactions were going to be happening, to the point it was likely many people I knew would end up experiencing complications from the vaccine.
I tried to warn my colleagues about the dangers of this vaccine, but even when I pointed out Pfizer’s own trial admitted the vaccine was more likely to harm than help you, no one would listen to me. Not being sure what else to do, but not be willing to do nothing, I decided to start documenting all the severe reactions I came across so I could have some type of “proof” to show my colleagues.
This was something that was extremely important at the time since no one was willing to take on the personal risk of publishing something went against the narrative (that vaccines were killing people) in the peer reviewed literature. Shortly after Steve Kirsch kindly helped launch my Substack, I decided to post the log I’d put together, and since there was a critical need for that information, the post went viral and created much of the initial reader base that made my substack possible.
It was immensely time consuming to do the project (especially the verification of the story that was reported to me), so I ended the project after a year. During that time, I came across 45 cases of either a death (these comprised the majority of the 45 cases), something I expected to be fatal later on (e.g., a metastatic cancer) or a permanent and total disability. Additionally, in line with the previously described bell curve, I also came across many more serious but not quite as severe injuries.
I’ve had a long term interest in studying pharmaceutical injuries because many of my friends and relatives have had bad reactions to pharmaceuticals. In most of these cases, ample data existed to show that reaction could happen (often to the degree it strongly argued against the pharmaceutical remaining on the market) and yet almost no one in the medical field was aware of those dangers, hence leading to my injured friends never being warned before they took the pharmaceutical or even while the injury was occurring.
My bell curve theory originally came about from examining all of their cases. I thus was interested to know if the distribution of adverse events from the spike protein vaccines would match what I had observed with previous dangerous pharmaceuticals and if what I saw personally did or did not match what everyone was reporting online.
One of the things that immediately jumped out at me were the multiple cases of a friend’s parent in a nursing home receiving the vaccine, immediately undergoing a rapid cognitive decline which was “diagnosed” as Alzheimer’s disease and then dying not long after. At the time, I assumed these were most likely due to undiagnosed ischemic strokes as that was the most plausible mechanism to describe what I’d heard, but I was not certain as I could never examine any of these individuals for signs a stroke had indeed happened.
These cases were very concerning to me, as they signified (per the bell curve) that there was going to be a much larger portion of people who would develop less severe (but nonetheless impactful) cognitive decline following vaccination.
Note: one of the most common types of injuries from pharmaceuticals are neurological injuries which both impair cognitive function and create psychiatric symptoms. This places patients in a difficult situation of being gaslighted by the medical system. This is because their doctors assume the psychiatric symptoms the patients are experiencing are the cause of their illness rather than a symptom of it, leading to the patient being told the illness is all in their head and continually referred for psychiatric help. One of the best examples with this occurred as a result of the abnormal heart rhythms (e.g., rapid anxiety provoking palpitations) caused by the vaccine damaging the heart which were consistently diagnosed as being a result of anxiety, even when a subsequent workup I requested showed heart damage was present.
As I began seeing more and more signs of cognitive impairment following vaccination, I realized that what I observed mirrored what I had previously seen with chronic inflammatory conditions such as mold toxicity, HPV vaccine injuries, and lyme disease. Some of the examples included:
• Many people reported having a “COVID” brain where it was just harder for them to think and remember things. I sometimes saw this after more severe cases of COVID, more frequently after vaccination, and repeatedly in patients who per their timeline clearly developed it from the vaccine but believed it had come from COVID.
• These issues tended to be more likely to affect older adults, but younger ones were more likely to notice (and complain) about them. In the case of older adults, I typically learned about them from someone else who had observed the cognitive decline rather than directly from the individual.
• I saw cases of vaccine injured individuals who had trouble remembering or recalling the word they knew expressed what they were trying to communicate (this is also a common mold toxicity symptom).
• I had friends and patients who told me their brain just didn’t work the same since they’d received the vaccine. As an example, a few colleagues told me they started losing the ability to remember basic things they needed to practice medicine (e.g., medication dosages for prescriptions). They shared that they were very worried they would need to take an early retirement and that they thought it came from the vaccine but there was no one they could talk to about it (which understandably created a lot of doubt and anxiety).
• I saw cases of coworkers demonstrating noticeable (and permanent) cognitive impairment after I’d assumed they’d received the vaccine. Their impairment was never mentioned or addressed (rather the physician kept on working, did not perform as well, and in some cases retired).
• I met significantly injured vaccine injured patients who told me one of the primary symptoms was a loss of cognitive functioning they had taken for granted throughout their life. In many cases following treatment of their vaccine injury, their cognition also improved.
• Colleagues who treated vaccine injured patients told me cognitive impairment was one of the common symptoms they saw and was particularly noteworthy because they had never seen anything like that happen to young adults.
• One of my friends (a very smart immunologist) developed complications from the first two vaccines and based on their symptoms was able to describe exactly which parts of their immune systems were becoming dysregulated. Against my advice, they took a booster and reported they suffered a significant cognitive impairment never experienced before in their lifetime. I feel this case was important to share as it illustrates how an exacerbation of a vaccine injury can also cause an exacerbation of cognitive symptoms.
Note: I also saw significant cognitive impairment occur in individuals who were acutely ill with COVID-19. This was not as unusual since delirium is a well known complication in patients hospitalized with a systemic illness (e.g., sepsis), but it seemed to happen more frequently than ususual.
At the same time I was observing these effects, many rumors were also swirling around online that the vaccines would cause severe cognitive impairment and that we would witness a zombie apocalypse from the vaccine injuries.
This apocalypse of course never happened, but many observed a suspicion cognitive impairment was occurring. For example to quote Igor Chudov’s recent article:
I own a small business and deal with many people and other small businesses. Most provided reliable service, would remember appointments, followed up on issues, and so on. I noticed that lately, some people have become less capable cognitively. They forget essential appointments, cannot concentrate, make crazy-stupid mistakes, and so on.
In my own case, the most evident change I noticed was a worsening of drivers around me and had a few near misses from impaired driving.
The challenge with these situations is that it’s very hard to tell if something is actually happening or your perception is simply a product of confirmation bias. For this reason, while I was comfortable asserting my belief the COVID-19 vaccines were causing the severe injuries on either end of the bell curve, I avoided doing so for many of the less impactful injuries in the middle where it was much more ambiguous if what I was observing was “real” or simply my own biased perception of the events around me. Because of this, amongst other things, I never mentioned the changes in driving I observed.
Note: after I posted the original article many of the readers stated they too had observed a significant worsening in the behavior of drivers around them. I was then pointed to this dataset, which suggests this issue was happening, but is difficult to properly assess because COVID-19 can also cause cognitive impairment and less people were driving in 2020.
Typically, when we have situations like this, large bodies of data or scientific studies are needed to tease out if a correlation is in fact occurring. Unfortunately, since there are political repercussions for dissenting from the dominant narrative, data which threatens tends not to be published. This creates the challenging situation where those who are looking for answers on a topic which challenges a vested interest have to look quite carefully for clues on the subject (e.g., by dissecting papers to see exactly what the data is actually showing).
Igor periodically finds those, and after I saw the most recent one he unearthed, I requested to write the original guest post. To quote his discovery from the Netherlands:
Primary care data for January to March 2023 showed that adults visited their GP more frequently for a number of symptoms compared to the same period in 2019. Memory and concentration problems were significantly more common than last year and in the period before COVID-19. Where these symptoms are concerned, the difference compared to 2019 is growing steadily in each quarter.
In the first quarter of 2023, there was a 24% increase in GP [general practioner] visits related to memory and concentration problems among adults (age 25 years and older) compared to the same period in 2020. This is evidenced by the latest quarterly research update from the GOR Network. The increase in memory and concentration problems of adults seems to be a longer-term effect of the coronavirus measures as well as SARS-CoV-2 infections.
More specifically they found:
• No increase was observed in adults under 25 years old.
• A 31% increase was observed in those 24-44 years old.
• A 40% increase was observed in those 45-74 years old.
• A 18% increase was observed in those over 75 years old.
Note: previous rounds of this survey, in addition to the cognitive issues described above, worsening mental health (e.g, anxiety, depression or suicidal thoughts), sleep problems, tiredness, and cardiovascular issues (e.g., shortness of breath, dizziness or heart palpitation) were also observed to have significantly increased since 2019.
Typically, patients, less than 75 years old are unlikely to visit their doctors for cognitive issues. Taken in context with this data, it means there is a stronger case that the (massive) increases in those under 75 were caused by something that happened after 2019. Additionally, since there were already a large number of visits for cognitive impairment in the elderly, the lower percentage increase is slightly misleading in quantifying the extent to which everyone was affected. For example to quote the previous report:
Primary care data showed that adults visited their GP somewhat more frequently for sleep problems in October–December 2022 than in the same period in 2019. This was particularly striking in the oldest age group (75 years and older).
All of this data put health officials in a bit of an awkward situation since publishing data demonstrating large scale cognitive impairment directly undermines the narrative they previously had committed themselves to. Nonetheless, the authors of the report were significantly more candid than many other before them:
The source of this increase in memory and concentration problems is unclear. A possible explanation could be that COVID-19 measures caused accelerated cognitive decline among people who were starting to have problems with memory and concentration (66 years on average).
COVID-19 was of course cited as a potential cause (which, as discussed above can sometimes cause long term cognitive impairment):
A supplementary explanation could be that some of these people have long-term symptoms after COVID-19. Various studies have shown that memory and concentration problems are common in post-COVID symptoms. Other infectious diseases, such as flu, can also cause these symptoms. However, recent studies have shown that long-term memory and concentration problems are much more common after COVID-19 than after flu. In addition, these symptoms are more common in older age groups. The figures provided by GPs are consistent with this expectation.
Fortunately, the authors acknowledged that long COVID could not be the primary explanation for what was occurring, and instead alluded to the elephant in the room—the vaccines.
Note: on VAERS, in the 23 years VAERS has operated, 2352 of the 3071 (76.6%) reports of memory impairment following vaccination came from the COVID-19 vaccines. Additionally, Ed Dowd has identified numerous government datasets demonstrating that widespread impairment and disability has occurred since the vaccine rollout.
My specific interest in studying spike protein vaccine toxicity arose because I suspected I would see many similarities to other pharmaceutical injuries I had observed previously and treatments that had developed for those injuries could be used to treat COVID-19 vaccine injuries. On Substack, I’ve tried to focus on explaining the areas that I believe are the most important to understanding this, zeta-potential, the cell danger response (CDR) and the treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. Note: Each of these is interrelated with and often causes the others.
Zeta Potential: Zeta potential (explained in detail here) governs if fluid in the body clumps together (e.g., forming a clot) or remains dispersed and capable of freely flowing. Additionally, it also influences if proteins will stay in their correct formation or misfold and clump together. Many different issues (discussed here) emerge when fluid circulation (be it blood, lymph, interstitial fluid or cerebrospinal fluid) becomes impaired. Since the spike protein is uniquely suited for impairing zeta potential, we have found restoring zeta potential (discussed here) often is immensely helpful during COVID-19 infections and for treating COVID-19 vaccine injuries. Many of those approaches were initially developed from working with other vaccine injuries and cognitive decline in the elderly.
Cell Danger Response (CDR): When cells are exposed to a threat, their mitochondria shift from producing energy for the cell to a protective mode where the cell’s metabolism and internal growth shuts down, the mitochondria release reactive oxygen species to kill potential invaders, the cell warns other cells to enter the CDR and the cell seals off and disconnects itself from the body. The CDR (explained further here) is an essential process for cellular survival, but frequently in chronic illness, cells become stuck in it rather than allowing the healing response to complete.
Understanding the CDR is extremely important when working with complex illnesses because it explains why triggers from long ago can cause an inexplicable illness, and why many treatments that seem appropriate (specifically those that treat a symptom of the CDR rather than the cause of it) either don’t help or worsen the patient’s conditions. Many of the most challenging patients seen by integrative practitioners are those trapped within the CDR, but unfortunately, there is still very little knowledge of this phenomena.
My interest was drawn back to the CDR after I realized that one of the most effective treatments for long COVID and COVID-19 vaccine injuries was one that directly treated the CDR. Since many of the therapies that have been developed to revive nonfunctional tissue was developed by the regenerative medical field, I wrote an article describing how these approaches are applied to restore localized regions of dysfunctional tissue (which is sometimes needed to treat vaccine injuries) and another on the regenerative treatments that treat systemic CDRs (and are more frequently needed for vaccine injuries).
Alzheimer’s Disease (AD): AD is one of the most devastating and costly conditions in existence (e.g., for the year of 2020 it was estimated to have cost America 305 billion dollars) and as a result, billions of dollars are spent each year in researching a cure for it. This research (which began in 1906) has gone nowhere and presently the FDA is working with the drug industry to push forward ineffective, quite dangerous but highly profitable treatments for AD.
However, effective treatments do exist for AD and my colleagues have developed a few different methods that have successfully treated the condition. Additionally, one neurologist, Dale Bresden developed a method for reversing AD that he proved worked in mulitiple publications (included a recent 2022 clinical trial).
All of these successful approaches utilize the following principles:
• Restore both the blood flow to the brain and the lymphatic drainage from it (which removes amyloid plaques). This often requires restoring the physiologic zeta potential and having a healthy sleep cycle.
• Treating the CDR (which causes chronic inflammation) and reactivating brain cells that became trapped in an unresolved CDR (which amongst other things requires reclaiming a healthy sleep cycle).
Note: Bresden’s approach also emphasizes the importance of addressing chronically elevated blood sugar or insulin levels.
One of the most important things to recognize about AD is that it is a slowly worsening disease which often progresses over decades. In the early stages of AD, minor cognitive changes occur, which (when possible to autopsy) correlate with tissue changes within the brain. In rare instances, individuals can instead have a rapidly progressing form of Alzheimer’s which strikes with a younger age and is often linked to the toxin exposure.
In the case of spike proteins illnesses, I have seen both the early signs of AD cognitive decline occurring in much younger patients, and exist in cases of AD rapidly progressing following COVID vaccination. Additionally, I have also seen cases of rapid cognitive decline in the elderly following the administration of other vaccinations—however they were far less frequent than those seen with the COVID-19 vaccines.
Anytime you attempt to perceive the world around you, you are always biased by the pre-existing filters you have which prevent you from seeing much of the world around you (discussed further here). To some extent, these filters are a necessary evil as without them, the world would be overwhelmingly complicated. However, if you cannot be open to the possibility a biased filter this is clouding your perception of reality, you become blind to a great deal of important things around you. Misleading filters for example, explain why many of those committed to the narrative cannot see the overwhelming evidence of COVID-19 vaccine injuries around them.
One of the most commonly used filters is “social proof,” which essentially says people will typically not act on something, believe it, or even see it unless their peers (the herd) already are. This creates a problem, because frequently when you need to know something, the herd does not yet believe it, forcing you to either make a decision no one else supports (which can be quite terrifying) or to wait until there is safety in doing it because the herd has now moved in that direction (which is often too late).
As I’ve gotten to know those who challenged the COVID-19 narrative, I’ve noticed they all had a tendency they’d learned through life experience to not follow the crowd and be willing to act on their initial impression of what preliminary data suggested before the rest of the crowd caught on. For example, Ed Dowd was a highly successful stock trader (e.g., he made Blackrock a lot of money) and his method boiled down to spotting early trends before anyone else and acting on them while they were still profitable to investors.
Like many, from the start of the vaccination campaign, based on the preliminary data points that were available, I suspected it was going to cause long-term cognitive issues. Now that the data which supports that trend is beginning to appear, and concerningly the issue appears to be gradually worsening, something commonly observed over time with factors that give rise to dementia. This is an important issue and I want to extend my thanks to Igor Chudov for drawing attention to this very important dataset.
Pfizer Ad Spreads Misinformation
BY DAVID ZWEIG | SILENT LUNCH | AUGUST 1, 2023
A Pfizer ad on Twitter claims that 3 out of 4 US adults are at “high risk” for severe Covid-19.
This ad is highly misleading or, arguably, outright false.
Problem 1: What is “high” risk?
We don’t know because Pfizer doesn’t define it.
The graphic in the ad cites a study as the source of its claim “3 out of 4 US adults are at high risk for severe Covid-19.” Except the study never uses the term “high risk.” Rather, the study is on people at “increased risk.”
“Increased risk,” of course is quite different from “high risk.” Obviously, high risk is worse than merely increased risk. I need not explain why Pfizer would choose language in its ad that exaggerates the risk of Covid.
Problem 2: The cited study itself doesn’t even define “increased risk.” Does that mean a 0.1% increase, a 1% increase, 20% increase, 1000% increase? On this point, the study includes the following caveat: “the effect size of each risk factor was not taken into account in our analysis, so this report does not address degree of risk. Effect estimates of severe COVID-19 risk factors are widely variable and ultimately unreliable.”
Digging a little deeper, the study links to a CDC webpage that gives a list of conditions for people who are “more likely to get very sick with COVID-19” and uses “higher risk,” “increased risk,” “greater risk” and “high risk” in its text, seemingly interchangeably. The page gives a long list of medical conditions—from cancer to diabetes to depression. Still, we don’t know what “more likely” or “increased risk” actually means. This webpage, in turn, links to another CDC webpage that describes “Underlying Medical Conditions Associated with Higher Risk for Severe COVID-19.”
We’ve gone from the scary “high” risk (not defined), to “increased” risk (also not defined), to “higher risk.” How is “higher risk” defined? Here is what the page says:
Higher risk is defined as an underlying medical condition or risk factor that has a published meta-analysis or systematic review or underwent the CDC systematic review process. The meta-analysis or systematic review demonstrates a conclusive increase in risk for at least one severe COVID-19 outcome.
So we are now three layers deep and we still don’t have a quantifiable definition for what, exactly, “high,” “increased,” or “higher” even means, nor a clear differentiation of what the first study acknowledges is a wide variability in estimates of risk factors. I’m sure there is a quantifiable threshold defined somewhere, but I stopped digging because this isn’t even the main problem.
Problem 3 (the main problem): The data from the cited study in the Pfizer ad saying 3 out of 4 US adults are at high (aka increased) risk of severe Covid are from 2015-2018. But this ad is being run in July 2023—after nearly the entire population has either already been infected, vaccinated, or both, each circumstance, we have been told, decreases one’s risk of severe Covid. In other words, Pfizer’s own ad suggests that prior infection and vaccination have not reduced the number of people at high risk of severe Covid. Does Pfizer want us to believe that its product—the vaccine—did not lower the rate of people at high risk of severe Covid?
The fact is, 3 out of 4 US adults are not at “high” risk of severe Covid. This statement is based on data from before accounting for the protective effect of infection and vaccination. Moreover, “high risk” is not defined and appears to simply be a made up description.
We’ve heard a lot about “misinformation” in the past few years. Generally, the government and media have pointed the finger at so-called “anti-vaxxers” and “conspiracy theorists.” A critical spotlight from the government has rarely seemed to shine on claims made by Pfizer. Advertisements like this misinform and unnecessarily scare people, perhaps pushing some of them into taking additional doses of the vaccine, or therapeutics like Paxlovid (also made by Pfizer), that have potential harms, and for many people, especially now, without clear benefit.
‘Facebook Files’ Reveal Despicable Disregard for the Constitution
By Ron Paul | July 31, 2023
Last week’s revelation that Facebook took orders from the Biden Administration to censor even accurate information about Covid is the latest example of the US government’s disregard for our Constitution. Thanks to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, we now know the extent to which the Biden Administration went in its proxy war against the First Amendment.
Getting the information wasn’t easy. It was only after Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was threatened with being held in contempt of Congress that he relented and shared information with the Judiciary Committee about Biden Administration pressure to censor Americans on Facebook who disagreed with White House policy on Covid.
What we have discovered thus far is disgusting. For example, in April 2021, a Facebook employee sent a message to top executives in the company complaining that, “we are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the [Biden] White House” to remove posts. In another example, senior executive Nick Clegg complained that Andy Slavitt, a Senior Advisor to President Biden, was “outraged… that [Facebook] did not remove” a particular post, according to Rep. Jordan’s report.
Rep. Jordan revealed that the “offending post” that the Biden Administration wanted removed was simply a joke making fun of possible vaccine injury down the road. The Biden Administration even wanted to “protect” us from jokes that it didn’t like.
The Administration did not stop at targeting what it called “misinformation.” As Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley noted in a recent column, “the administration also demanded the removal of ‘malinformation’ that is ‘based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.’” So the Biden Administration wanted to “cancel” even truthful information counter to its own preferred narrative.
This level of contempt for our Constitution is shocking. As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. – who was himself censored at the behest of the Biden Administration – testified recently before Congress: “A government that can censor its critics has license for every atrocity. It is the beginning of totalitarianism.”
Who knows how many thousands of Facebook accounts were banned or restricted at the behest of the Biden White House. Early last year I received notice that my own Facebook Page was “restricted” for 90 days because I pointed out that the CEO of Pfizer once claimed that his Covid shot was “100 effective” but later changed his story. The post was completely accurate but still my page was targeted.
Although some are using this information for partisan gain against the Democrats in power, Americans should not delude themselves: left unchecked, there is little reason to believe a Republican Administration would show any more respect for the Constitution than the Biden Administration. Both parties have shown themselves to be selective in their pledged oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution.
It is just as unconstitutional – and thus illegal – for the US Government to violate the First Amendment by proxy – through so-called private companies – as if the government directly attacked our free speech. We must remember that the unprecedented US government censorship of Americans during Covid was just the test run. Be assured that when the next “crisis” comes – and it will – the authoritarians in charge will again ramp up the censorship machine unless we do something about it.
Copyright © 2023 by RonPaul Institute
Mask Indoctrination is Strong in Boston
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | July 28, 2023
Boston.com, a regional website providing news and information about the Boston, Massachusetts region, posted an article a few days ago that reads as if it was from 2021.
Many businesses in the Greater Boston area have decided to continue requiring masks in stores because they are concerned about the 745 confirmed Covid cases! With that in mind, Boston.com asked their readers whether they agree with the businesses who still require masks. 87% of 2,300 readers who responded agreed that wearing masks is the right thing to do.
One of the main reasons given for masking was to protect the immunocompromised and vulnerable. Great if that worked or made a difference, but it doesn’t.
Sammie H. from Boston says that wearing masks to stop the spread can show that one cares about others.
“Preventing spread of illness shows that you care about others around you,” she said. “Masking is one small way to do just that. You might even save some lives, like the lives of those who are immunocompromised.”
Readers also decided masking was the correct course of action to prevent Long Covid.
“[Long COVID] took out myself, my partner, and many people I know with fatigue, lung issues, cold like symptoms and weird stuff like stomach issues. Masks help limit the spread and save people years of pain for a few minutes of minor discomfort, like a seatbelt,” said reader Berinthia from Somerville.
Many readers still think that preventative measures are needed for good now that Covid is endemic and will always be around.
“Nothing has changed, there is still a virus circulating that has killed millions and is continuing to do so, as well as disabling countless more,” she said. “When we all wear masks, we are all protected. It’s good for business and it’s good for people’s health.”
Other reasons given included:
- “I think essential services, especially medical settings, and transportation should still require masks so they are safe for people who can’t avoid them, and I applaud any businesses that choose to require masks — it reduces community spread and helps everybody.”
- “It would be much more physically safe for me, both as a retail employee and as a customer, if masks were still required in businesses around town.”
- “I want to stay alive and want others to be alive too.”
- “Because I care about keeping others safe(r) from COVID and other airborne disease. And because ‘high risk’ people (which include people who’ve been infected with COVID once or more) deserve to have access to spaces that are too high risk if everyone is unmasked. “
- “We should follow the science, not the latest fashions of political fanaticism. Wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience; long COVID or death is not.”
- “COVID-19 is still very much with us — killing and disabling a mass amount of people every day. Masks are an effective way to protect yourself and others, especially the most vulnerable. I want those that I know and love, and even those that I don’t, to live a long, long time.”
- “Business owners who require masks are doing community service by keeping themselves safe (thus able to stay healthy enough to continue operations) and our communities safer by reducing viral spread.”
The brainwashing is strong in Boston.
How Real-World Evidence Contradicts ‘The Science’
BY DR CLARE CRAIG | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JULY 29, 2023
In September 2020, I became one of the first U.K. doctors to speak out about damaging Covid policy. Since January 2021, I have co-chaired the multidisciplinary HART group, publishing evidence-based analysis on Covid issues in an attempt to educate the public.
In 2021 it became clear that it was very challenging to persuade people face-to-face that the Government had chosen a dangerous path with its Covid policies. If someone listened long enough to understand one crucial point, the conversation would end with them in cognitive dissonance, unable to reconcile their other beliefs with what they had just learned.
The obvious answer to requiring someone’s attention for a little longer was to write a book. The challenge was to write in a way that ensured no reader would feel angry or foolish. The result was, Expired – Covid the untold story, a book that tackles 12 key Covid myths related to virus spread, lockdowns, asymptomatic infections and the efficacy of masks. Each one is addressed from the starting point of what was the dominant belief system before showing where the arguments did not fit. Each of these beliefs is interspersed with chapters which investigate the psychology of our beliefs, why we believe what we believe, the impact of fear and what it takes to change our minds.
It is a readable book for a layperson and consequently it is not the maths book that many people expected me to write. Instead, it is a summary of what the evidence shows and leaves the details to be referenced elsewhere. It is rich with metaphors and analogies to ensure that even complex concepts are digestible. It also covers far more than just science and psychology. To fully understand the issues requires a history lesson, a bit of religion and plenty of understanding of human failing!
A central theme is the significantly overlooked role of aerosols in exhaled breath – a crucial factor in virus transmission. A comprehensive understanding of this sheds light on why lockdowns and other restrictions failed to yield expected results. However, the physicists specialising in aerosols, despite their expertise, were disregarded and silenced by the medical community, which was tenaciously holding on to a misinformed belief about aerosols that almost unbelievably centred on the wrong number being used in a textbook.
Complicating the matter, the medical community still held onto echoes of a 150 year-old debate between germ theory and miasma theory, causing physicians to dismiss the possibility that microorganisms could be airborne via aerosols, despite a substantial body of evidence supporting this.
The irony is that the proponents of germ theory, who had to fight fiercely for their views to be accepted, adopted some beliefs, specifically about close-contact transmission and asymptomatic transmission, which were not supported by empirical evidence. Because these ideas had been entrenched in medical education and textbooks, they were perceived as fact and seldom challenged.
I have always enjoyed reading non-fiction but was always in awe of how much work the authors must have put into their books. It turns out I was right about just how much work such a book takes! The meticulous research meant that I learnt a lot on the way too so I hope that even if some of the story is familiar to you, there will be plenty for you to learn too.
More than any of the above, Expired is a call to action to reinforce the ethical principles that have guided Western societies for centuries, highlighting the damage done by overriding them during the pandemic and the urgent need to restore them.
Now that the fear and panic era of Covid is finally dissipating it is time for a rational and calm reanalysis of events. The Covid Inquiry is years away from reporting on political decision-making and so far there is marked evidence of bias in the approach being taken. Expired makes sense of the real-world evidence and exposes how ‘The Science’ was based on flawed assumptions that led to devastating policy.
I thoroughly explored avoiding Amazon altogether and using independent publishers, warehousing and shipping but it was simply not economically viable. It is therefore available exclusively on Amazon. It is available as a paperback, on Kindle or as an audiobook (read by me). The reviews so far have been overwhelmingly positive and I would really appreciate your feedback too.
Dr. Clare Craig is a diagnostic pathologist and co-Chair of the HART group. She is the author of Expired – Covid the untold story.
Increase in Miscarriages, Stillbirths Directly Linked to COVID Shots, Data Show — Health Officials ‘Should Have Known’
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 28, 2023
A major increase in spontaneous abortion among pregnant women was directly linked to the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine in Switzerland, according to a new analysis by statistician and Luzern University professor Dr. Konstantin Beck.
Beck, a former adviser to the German Minister of Health and the Swiss Parliament, analyzed publicly available Swiss and German data from scientific publications, health insurance companies and the Swiss Federal Office of Statistics (FOS).
He found that miscarriages and stillbirth rates in 2022 corresponded directly to COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women in Switzerland nine months earlier.
And, he said, vaccine makers and public health officials either knew or could have known this information at the time, if they cared to look. Instead, they presented the information to the public in a way that obscured the risks.
Beck presented his groundbreaking research findings on Wednesday to Doctors for Covid Ethics.
Also, contrary to public statements by Swiss authorities that, “There is no relevant excess mortality among young people ” in Switzerland, Beck’s re-examination of the government’s own data reveals significant patterns of excess mortality among young people emerged in late 2021 and early 2022.
He said these findings show that during the COVID-19 pandemic, “We exposed the most vulnerable unnecessarily to new risks that outweigh by far the original pandemic risk.” And that “today, more and more heavy consequences of our Corona measures pop up in our official statistics, but only a few are interested to know [about them].”
“By analyzing the rollout of these vaccines, especially for pregnant women and their unborn, I found plain evidence from the very beginning that rethinking and postponing the vaccination strategy would have been imperative,” he said.
COVID shots led to ‘the baby gap’
Switzerland saw a historic drop in the rate of live births in 2022.
Every month that year, there were fewer births than there had been on average over the previous six years, for an overall reduction of 8.5% in the national birth rate, according to Beck’s analysis.
In some places, the drop was even more significant — Zurich had a 16.5 % drop in its birth rate.
The last comparable drop in births, 13%, Beck said, was during the 1914 mobilization of the Swiss Army at the start of World War I.
The 2022 plummet in birth rates came on the heels of a small “Corona baby boom” — a 3% spike in birth rates in 2021, that had followed the pandemic lockdown.
According to data compiled by analyst Raimund Hagemann, COVID-19 vaccination rates among Swiss women in 2021 and early 2022 corresponded very closely to the drop in birth rates nine months following vaccination.
Figure 1 (below), which adjusts the birth rate timeline by nine months to account for the time of pregnancy, shows this strong correlation between rates of vaccination and decline in the birth rate — the two numbers mirror one another.
Figure 1
Researchers have offered a few different hypotheses for this “baby gap,” which Beck evaluated.
Some proposed a behavioral explanation, hypothesizing that people changed their behavior out of fear associated with the pandemic itself or the associated economic uncertainty.
But Beck said this hypothesis did not match historical behavior patterns — the baby boom itself happened in the middle of World War II. And, it can’t account for the baby boom that followed the beginning of the pandemic, when public fear and unemployment were both at their height.
He also dismissed the hypothesis that COVID-19 infection reduced fertility. If that were the case, he said, there would not have been a 2021 spike in the birth rate following the first wave of infection in 2020, and there was no evidence of reduced fertility following the Omicron virus wave.
In fact, Beck said, there is no evidence of reduced fertility at all. On the contrary, the data show women were becoming pregnant at the same rates as before the pandemic.
Using German health insurance data — because Swiss data are not yet available — he showed the number of women seeking pregnancy tests and visiting doctors to be treated for pregnancy remained constant throughout 2021 and 2022.
There was even slight ongoing growth, and a spike related to the mini-baby boom of 2021.
That makes COVID-19 vaccine-induced spontaneous abortion the most plausible hypothesis for the drop in birth rates — because the same number of women were becoming pregnant, but fewer of them were carrying their pregnancies to term.
Supporting that claim, data from German health and Swiss insurers show that beginning in the fourth quarter of 2021, there are clear and significant increases in the number of pregnancy complications treated and in the length of hospital stays following birth — both of which had been trending downward for years.
German data also indicate that the number of stillbirths was up 20% in the fourth quarter of 2021.
Although data on stillbirths were not available for Switzerland, he said, there is no reason to believe that it would be substantively different.
‘Anyone who had read the leaflet, would have been informed’ of dangers
The vaccines’ impact on pregnancy was not simply a tragic and unanticipated outcome, because it was already evident in the vaccine manufacturers’ own data or lack thereof, Beck said.
Anyone who had “read a leaflet from the manufacturer,” he added, “would have been informed” that there were no pregnancy data, but that there were serious concerns about the possible effects of vaccines on infants.
The German version of the Moderna Spikevax warning said, essentially, “We have no clue what the risk is for pregnant women. There are no good controlled studies done. There is not enough data available,” Beck said.
The leaflet also recommended against vaccination for breastfeeding mothers, but strongly recommended it for pregnant women, Beck said.
“But isn’t pregnancy usually preceding breastfeeding?” he asked, “And what should you then do after giving birth to get rid of vaccination?”
On April 20, 2021, Pfizer sent its report regarding the mRNA vaccine and pregnancy to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), according to the Pfizer documents.
The following day, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published preliminary findings on COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnant women based on an analysis of V-safe and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
On April 23, in a White House press conference, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky recommended pregnant women get vaccinated based on the findings of that paper.
The paper explicitly stated that researchers found no safety signals with respect to pregnancy or neonatal outcomes in the third trimester, but that it could make no conclusions about the first or second trimesters.
Given that the first and second trimesters are the highest risk periods for pregnancy, Beck said, the NEJM paper concedes the researchers didn’t know what additional risks the vaccines might pose to pregnant women at their most vulnerable time.
The paper also included an irrelevant comparison of the most frequent symptoms post-vaccine between pregnant and non-pregnant women, and used live birth as the only measure of the potential health effects on the newborn.
And perhaps most importantly, it explicitly stated that “The most frequently reported pregnancy related adverse events were spontaneous abortion.”
The paper reported 46 spontaneous abortions related to vaccination out of 104 total reported. That, Beck said, is a 73.1% increase in spontaneous abortion.
Making calculations based on that NEJM data, Beck found that the reported vaccination rate of 75% of pregnant women in Switzerland, 1 in 10 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage or stillbirth.
He concluded that alternative existing hypotheses can’t account for this phenomenon, and the vaccine-induced miscarriage hypothesis corresponds to both the manufacturer’s data and the relevant findings reported as the basis of the CDC’s campaign to vaccinate pregnant women.
125% spike in pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrest and stroke, and cerebral infarction among children ages 0-14
The presentation also raised a series of concerns about the impacts of COVID-19 vaccination on young people and how statistical manipulation can obscure those potential effects.
Based on several examples of how the health and mortality of young people worsened over the course of the vaccination period, Beck posed the question, “Why did we vaccinate children? I mean, they were not the target group of this virus.”
An examination of data from major health insurers, for example, showed that during 2020-2021, people ages 19-39 had the highest growth in healthcare costs, while they typically have the lowest costs, indicating a change in the health of that demographic.
Data on the frequency of pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrest and stroke, and cerebral infarction among children ages 0-14 showed a 125% spike in events. While the numbers were still small, they went from an average of 20 events per year over the several preceding years to a total of 45 events in 2021.
A second look at data analysis by the FOS, which had reported that there was no excess mortality for young people in 2022, raised red flags, Beck said.
Excess mortality measures the difference in reported deaths versus expected deaths in a given period. Baseline projections of excess mortality are typically based on previous averages.
Re-analyzing the FOS mortality data, but keeping the expected number of deaths in line with previous averages — which the FOS had not done — Beck found a 12% increase in overall excess mortality.
When he analyzed the excess mortality by age groups, Beck found that for young adults ages 20-39, there was a spike in excess mortality beyond normal expectations in late 2021 and in 2022. And for children ages 0-19, he identified a similar trend.
Excess mortality data, he said, can be easily hidden by widening confidence intervals for predictions, combining demographic groups with different health profiles or changing the baseline expected number of deaths to hide variation, which made it possible for Swiss officials to announce there was no excess mortality for young people.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a 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.
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.
Bill to Allow Whole Milk in Schools Supported by Science, Experts Say
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 25, 2023
For years, children at public schools have been offered only nonfat and 1% milk — but that may soon change, thanks to a bill that aims to put whole milk back on kids’ lunch trays.
The “Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023” would override the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) current guidelines on milk by amending the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow school cafeterias to offer unflavored and flavored whole milk.
The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce on June 30 advanced the bill, which has been scheduled for a floor vote. The date of the vote is not yet publicly available.
According to the bill’s lead sponsor, Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pa.), “Bad federal policy has kept whole milk out of our school cafeterias for too long. … Milk is the number one source of 13 essential nutrients.”
The bill would bypass the USDA and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services advisory committee, which determine U.S. dietary guidelines — which in turn determines what foods schools can serve.
Whole milk banned in public schools since 2012
In what they said was an effort to curb childhood obesity, lawmakers passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which revamped the National School Lunch Program to conform to the standing dietary guidelines recommending reduced saturated fat in children’s diets.
The National School Lunch Program provides low-cost or free lunches to roughly 30 million children in nearly 100,000 public and nonprofit private schools, as well as residential childcare institutions.
This led two years later to a ban of 2% and whole milk at participating schools.
Since then, schools have served non-fat and low-fat milk, including sweetened flavored varieties.
This experiment was “clearly a failure,” said Dr. Michelle Perro, “as rates of obesity continued to rise, now affecting 1 in 4 to 1 in 5 children.”
Perro, an integrative pediatrician with more than 38 years of experience, applauded Thompson’s “recognition that food policies can be revisited and changed,” telling The Defender:
“Fat is good for children. It is one of the three macronutrients the body needs for growth, nervous system health, hormone production, prostaglandins, etc. Additionally, fat in the diet helps with the absorbable and key vitamins A, D, E, and K, and are a concentrated energy source.”
The Nutrition Coalition, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group that “aims to improve health in America by ensuring that the public receives evidence-based nutritional advice,” last month sent a letter to Thompson in support of the legislation.
The group noted that whole milk was removed from schools in 2010 “due to longtime fears that saturated fats cause heart disease” — but “those fears are now outdated, as they are not supported by the current science.”
Health writer James Capon tweeted his support for the amendment:
Drinking less milk – particularly less whole milk, has not helped slow increasing rates of obesity and diabesity in the US.
Why still ban its consumption in US schools? Are things about to change? (graph from @bigfatsurprise). pic.twitter.com/Mjfky7LiwP— Fat is our Friend (@fatisourfriend) July 12, 2023
‘We got it wrong on saturated fats’
According to the Nutrition Coalition, an “authoritative 2020 ‘State of the Art Review’” in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that there is “no robust evidence that current population-wide arbitrary upper limits on saturated fat consumption in the United States will prevent CVD [cardiovascular disease] or reduce Mortality.’”
“More than 20 other review papers by independent teams of scientists around the world have concluded the same,” the Nutrition Coalition added.
USDA’s 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) found that the evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease was “strong.” However, a 2021 peer-reviewed investigation by outside scientists showed 88% of the studies reviewed by the DGA committee did not support that conclusion.
The scientists noted that of the 39 studies the DGA committee reviewed, 25 had null or negative findings — meaning saturated fats were found either to have no effect on cardiovascular disease or coronary heart disease, or were associated with lower risk.
Additionally, the DGA committee looked at 11 studies on saturated fatty acids and stroke. Of those 11 studies, 8 had null findings and 3 reported higher intake of saturated fatty acids was associated with a lower risk of stroke, the scientists pointed out.
Despite those findings, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), an independent consumer advocacy organization, on June 6 issued a statement against bringing whole milk back into schools, calling it “troublesome” that most U.S. children exceed the recommended limits on saturated fat and claiming that “too much saturated fat is linked to raises in LDL (‘bad’) cholesterol, a known cause of heart disease.”
Science journalist, author and founder of the Nutrition Coalition Nina Teicholz on June 12 pushed back against CSPI’s statement, noting that the committee for the current U.S. Dietary Guidelines found that there was “‘insufficient evidence’ to show that restricting saturated fats in childhood could prevent heart-disease or mortality in adulthood.”
Teicholz — who in her 2014 book, “The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet,” reviewed thousands of scientific studies and argued that the saturated fats in animal foods have been unfairly maligned based on weak, inconclusive evidence — said in a recent Substack post:
“Over the past 13 years, nearly 25 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, of both clinical trial and observational data, by independent teams of scientists have been published, and nearly all concluded that we got it wrong on saturated fats.
“The most rigorous clinical trial data show that these fats do not cause cardiovascular mortality or total mortality. Mortality (death) data is definitive. That should be the last word.”
Nonetheless, the USDA and the American Heart Association managed “simply to ignore these findings on mortality,” Teicholz said, “even when presented personally with these data by top scientists in the field … as reported in the BMJ.”
Meanwhile, the CSPI — which says it values “independence, scientific rigor, and transparency” — depicts the fight to get whole milk into schools as being led by “Big Dairy.”
But according to Teicholz, this claim lacks evidence:
“Interestingly, I’ve discovered that dairy behemoths like Danone make more money by skimming the fat off the milk and charging for it in other products, like ice cream, rather than selling the whole milk itself. These multinationals have shown themselves to be dis-interested in promoting whole milk.
“From what I can see, whole-milk advocacy seems mainly to be driven by people concerned about child health and farmers from the rapidly diminishing number of dairy farms in the U.S., 95% of which are family-owned.”
Teicholz questioned why CSPI would go to such lengths to keep whole milk out of schools. Part of the answer, she said, likely is that the group for decades has adamantly opposed saturated fats, so they are slow to acknowledge that current science no longer supports their stance:
“CSPI was so much against saturated fats that in the late 1980s, the group ran a major campaign in favor of replacing these harmful fats with trans fats, billed by the group’s newsletter as ‘healthy’ and ‘not a bad bargain’ for combatting heart disease (whoops! trans fats turned out to be even more of a heart-disease threat than saturated fats and were ultimately banned from the food supply).”
Studies ‘build the case for possible benefits’ of dairy fat
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in November 2019 featured three peer-reviewed studies that called into question the narrative that the saturated fat in whole milk is harmful to people’s health.
The first study examined dairy fat consumption and the onset of diabetes in three cohorts of U.S. health professionals and found that higher dairy fat intake — when compared with calories from carbohydrates intake — was associated with lower diabetes risk in one cohort and not significantly associated with diabetes in the other two cohorts.
In an editorial about the study, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, dean emeritus and distinguished professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University in Boston, wrote that the findings added to a “growing body of literature which call into question the soundness of conventional dietary recommendations to avoid dairy fat.”
The second study reported reductions in Type 2 diabetes were correlated with yogurt consumption and increases in cheese consumption, but could not form a conclusion on whole milk because few people in their study reported drinking it.
The third study looked at dairy consumption and death from cancer, cardiovascular disease and all causes in Italy.
The researchers found that compared with no milk consumption, moderate milk intake (≤200g or ∼6.5 ounces per day) was associated with around 25% lower mortality overall and 50% lower cardiovascular mortality. However, higher levels of milk consumption — either low-fat or whole milk — were not associated with lower mortality risk.
The three studies together, Mozaffarian said, provide “little support” for the notion that consuming dairy, or dairy fat, is “harmful,” but rather, “They continue to build the case for possible benefits.”
Americans more obese, unhealthy after push for low-fat diets
According to pediatrician Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, “Low-fat diets have been pushed by the health, medical and food industries for many decades.”
He said:
“Fat was demonized as a health hazard, and, as low-fat or non-fat items were pushed into American society, Americans became more overweight, obese and unhealthy. Why?
“Polyunsaturated fats (more inflammatory omega-6 seed, vegetable, corn and soybean oils than healthy anti-inflammatory omega-3 oils) were substituted for saturated fats, and processed bleached white sugars and high fructose corn syrup sugars were added to low-fat and non-fat foods to make them more palatable.
“These changes, all in what we were told were in the best interests of our health, only made Americans sicker and more overweight.”
Perro, too, believes the attack on fat and promotion of carbs stems from industry advocacy. The USDA food pyramid — originally designed by former USDA Director of Dietary Guidance and Nutrition Education Research Luise Light — was “hijacked and thwarted by the wheat and corn industries,” according to Perro.
Palevsky said he is not afraid of saturated fats in the diet. “What I do fear is the consumption of saturated fats from animal sources that are poorly fed with inappropriate and toxic diets, and those animals that are abused and poorly cared for in concentrated animal feed operations.”
These inappropriate diets and toxic exposures and living conditions, he said, make consuming the fat of the animals unhealthy:
“Most people are unaware that toxins are stored in animal fat tissue and that is what makes the saturated fats unhealthy for us when we consume milks and products from these animals.
“When animals are grass-fed and pasture-raised, and allowed to live in the wild, and we choose to cook them in a way that doesn’t destroy the quality of the fat, these saturated fats will generally not harm us. In fact, we may gain many benefits from consuming them.”
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.
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.
Featured Video
Ian Proud: Economic Reset with Russia to Save Europe
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Magic Hour for Gates
By Gary Jordan | Wake The F*** UP | March 15, 2021
Bill Gates wants to know everything about you.
He wants to control every aspect of your life.
His insatiable thirst for the supervision and scrutiny of every human being alive has sparked a US$1 billion investment that will blanket the earth in video surveillance satellites, providing real-time feedback with a mere one-second delay. He advocates for Orwellian digital tools to track your every move and has bankrolled US$1.7 billion to provide artificial intelligence that will be used to scan each and every visitor to major event venues worldwide. He wants to do away with end-to-end encryption, so he can snoop on your private conversations. He wants to know when and where you travel and who you travel with. He wants you to eat whatever he says you should eat, drink whatever he says you should drink, think how he wants you to think and know only what he wants you to know. Plus he wants to dictate what goes inside your body.
But he doesn’t want you to know a lot about him.
For instance… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- ‘Fox guarding the henhouse’: AMA, Vaccine Integrity Project to conduct their own vaccine safety and efficacy reviews
- Macron, Merz, and von der Leyen Defend Expanded Speech Controls
- Keir Starmer-tied think tank paid PR firm to target The Grayzone
- ‘Israel’ threatens to genocide Gaza if Hamas refuses disarmament
- Apple Just Bought A Sinister ‘Pre-Speech’ Tech Company Implicated In Genocide
- Israel’s new West Bank registration process declares Palestinian land ‘state property’
- Two children killed in Palestinian Authority ambush in West Bank; Hamas slams attack as ‘black mark’
- Israel Needs Time Before Another Iran War—Here’s Why
- US seizes oil tanker for ‘defying Trump’s quarantine’
- Ian Proud: Economic Reset with Russia to Save Europe
- If Americans Knew
- In Gaza, “rats run over our faces” – Not a ceasefire Day 129
- Israel-backed border guards, GHF-linked aid – Not a ceasefire Day 128
- Israel battles Palestinian right of return, one Palestinian at a time – Not a ceasefire Day 127
- Noor’s short life of unimaginable suffering
- Israel Destroyed Gaza’s Hospitals. Now It’s Banning Doctors Without Borders.
- Is Spite of What Zionists Say, It’s a Good Thing to Criticize Governments
- Palestinian mother, daughter recount strip searches, harsh conditions in Israeli detention
- Israel used weapons in Gaza that made thousands of Palestinians evaporate
- ADL’s Stats Twist Israel’s Critics Into Antisemites
- Why Is the World Silent When the Gaza Genocide Is Not Over?
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: A 4°C Warmer Beaufort Sea Had ‘No Sea Ice’ 11,700 – 8200 Years Ago
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
Aletho News 