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.
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.
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.
“Many of us have learned about the vaccine industry”
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.
“Yes, the best thing to happen in all this covid nonsense is that many of us have learned more about the vaccine industry,” Beth wrote in a comment on an article I wrote about how people were bribed to get COVID-19 vaccines. “I’m a nurse, and won’t get another.”
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.
Vaccine studies that should give you pause
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
And he admitted, in a confessional tone of voice, that before COVID he probably wouldn’t have cared anyway.
Most doctors, before COVID, never filed a VAERS report
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.
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.
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.
Staying in the closet
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.
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.
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.
Your Baby, Your Way by Jennifer Margulis
Chapter 7 – Bottled Profits: How Formula Manufacturers Manipulate Moms
Question 1: What are some of the physical and emotional benefits of breastfeeding for mothers?
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.
Question 2: How does breastfeeding impact the bonding experience 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.
Question 3: What are the long-term health benefits of breastfeeding for women?
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.
Question 4: Despite the known benefits, how do breastfeeding rates in the United States compare to other industrialized countries?
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.
Question 5: What factors contribute to the low breastfeeding rates in the United States?
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.
Question 6: How can medical interventions during labor and delivery impact a woman’s ability to breastfeed?
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.
Question 7: What role do pediatricians and other medical professionals play in undermining breastfeeding?
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.
Question 8: How do formula companies use misleading advertising to promote their products?
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.
Question 9: What tactics do formula companies employ to undermine breastfeeding and increase their sales?
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.
Question 10: How do formula companies influence nurses and other medical professionals?
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.
Question 11: How do professional medical organizations, like the AAP, receive funding from formula companies, and what is the potential impact of this relationship?
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.
Question 12: What are the neurological advantages of breastfeeding for babies?
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.
Question 13: How does breast milk composition compare to cow’s milk and infant formula?
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.
Question 14: How have breastfeeding rates in Norway changed over time, and what factors contributed to these changes?
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.
Question 15: What policies and practices have been implemented in Norway to support breastfeeding?
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.
Question 16: How do infant mortality rates in the United States compare to those in Norway, and what role does breastfeeding play in this difference?
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.
Question 17: What are the financial costs of formula feeding compared to breastfeeding?
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.
Question 18: What is the purpose of the National Resource Center for Breastfeeding in Norway?
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.
Question 19: How do Norwegian hospitals support breastfeeding and minimize the use of formula?
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.
Question 20: What are some of the potential dangers of supplementing breastfed babies with sugar water or formula in the early days of life?
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.
Question 21: What are some of the risks associated with formula feeding, as highlighted by product recalls and contamination incidents?
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.
Question 22: How do the profits of major formula companies compare to the cost of formula for families?
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.
Question 23: What is the estimated cost savings in healthcare if American women followed the AAP breastfeeding guidelines?
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.
Question 24: How many infant deaths could potentially be avoided if American women breastfed according to recommendations?
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.
Questions and Answers based on these four Mercola articles:
Question 1: What percentage of infant formula health and nutrition claims are supported by clinical trial evidence, according to a 2023 study?
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.
Question 2: How have infant formula marketing techniques influenced families, scientists, and policy makers, as discussed in the 2023 Lancet Series on breastfeeding?
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.
Question 3: How is the grocery industry aligning with Big Pharma through apps like Albertsons’ “Sincerely Health,” and what are the potential implications for consumers in terms of limiting their freedoms?
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.
Question 4: What are some of the evidence-based benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and baby?
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.
Question 5: How do most commercial infant formulas compare to breast milk in terms of nutritional composition and added ingredients?
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.
Question 6: What was the controversy surrounding the U.S. delegation’s opposition to the World Health Assembly’s resolution to encourage breastfeeding in 2018, and what specific actions did they take?
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.
Question 7: How has the infant formula industry’s marketing influenced the perception and prevalence of breastfeeding over time?
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.
Question 8: What are the potential dangers associated with soy-based infant formulas, and why are they considered among the worst options for babies?
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.
Question 9: What are some healthy alternatives for mothers who cannot breastfeed, and how do homemade formulas compare to commercial options?
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.
Question 10: How can predatory marketing practices by infant formula companies undermine breastfeeding efforts and contribute to suboptimal infant nutrition?
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.
Question 11: What are some of the unique components of breast milk that provide benefits for infants, and how do these differ from the ingredients found in commercial formulas?
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.
Question 12: How do the added sugars and other questionable ingredients in many commercial infant formulas contribute to health risks for babies?
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.
Question 13: How have societal attitudes and marketing campaigns influenced the perception of breastfeeding in public, and what impact has this had on breastfeeding rates?
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.
Question 14: What are the specific hormonal and developmental risks associated with the high levels of phytoestrogens found in soy-based infant formulas?
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.
Question 15: What are some of the key differences between the composition of breast milk and commercial infant formulas, and how do these differences impact infant health and development?
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.
Most cultures have a long-standing prohibition against gloating at an untimely death, even of a sworn enemy, and deep down that prohibition serves a very important function of preserving a sense of shared humanity amidst entrenched hatred and polarizing differences. The catastrophic death of the Iranian president and his team in a helicopter crash elicited solemn condolences from much of the world, except for the West. What values are endorsed by this act of dancing on the grave? To discuss this, Oksana is joined by Mohammad Morandi, a political analyst and professor at the University of Tehran.
The combatants in the largest land conflict in Europe since World War II may be Russia and Ukraine, but there is no mistaking that it is really NATO’s war. It has claimed it for itself. Whether by intention or unforeseen consequence, it is so deeply enmeshed in the strategies, intelligence, supplies, tactics and weapons employed by Kiev that it is impossible to become disentangled, and that means it cannot afford to let Ukraine lose.
What this also means, of course, is that for as long as fighting between the two countries continues, NATO is committed to supporting Ukraine militarily. Its military leaders believe that Russia no longer has the power to overwhelm Ukraine, but it is also the case that Russia is not about to lose the war any time soon. Does this mean an eternal and bloody stalemate?
NATO’s commitment to a nation which is not even a member of its bloc is almost total. This week the alliance’s Military Committee – its highest military authority – met at the organization’s Brussels headquarters with Ukraine crisis high on the agenda and high-ranking Ukrainian military officials present, despite their country’s lack of membership credentials. Also present were the defence chiefs of NATO member states, and NATO’s top brass, including secretary general Jens Stoltenberg.
Three separate sessions in a day-long conference covered NATO’s multi-domain readiness to wage war on land, sea, and air, and in space and cyberspace. They were briefed by Ukraine’s armed forces chief Anatoliy Barhylevych of the reality on the ground. The committee’s chair Admiral Rob Bauer declared, rather pompously: “There is nothing they [Ukraine] cannot do.” Then he pointedly added: “All they need… is our help”.
That help is no small consideration. In addition to the many billions in support already given by NATO members, the US has additionally just approved a $61bn package of aid which includes missiles, ammunition, and air defence systems. The real danger, however, is of NATO being drawn into the conflict itself.
The Military Committee’s attitude is understandable, predictable even. Its comprises military personnel, and wars – how to fight them, how to win them, and how to avoid losing them – are their soldierly stock-in-trade. However, there is scant evidence of this military activity being balanced by any serious political activity to try to prevent escalation or seek an end to the slaughter. Words like “truce” and “ceasefire” are difficult to find among the political rhetoric. On the contrary, when serious proposals are made for ending the fighting they are dismissed out of hand by NATO.
It scoffed at China’s 12-point plan as firstly an attempt to distract from what it claimed was Beijing’s support for Moscow, and then criticized the proposals for not condemning Russia. This misses the entire point that China could not claim to be an honest broker if it were to blame one of the combatants for the entire war. Little coverage was given to the fact that Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy gave China’s plan a cautious welcome. Earlier this month Viktor Orban, the president of Hungary – a NATO ally for 25 years – renewed his endorsement of Beijing’s peace plan.
He said: “Today, Europe is on the side of war”. Hungary is the sole NATO nation calling for an immediate ceasefire and peace negotiations.
Meanwhile NATO’s own commanders have been talking up the possibility of war. Already this year several of them have warned their own nations to prepare for war with Russia, positing the reintroduction of conscription and mooting the idea of a citizen army. That’s their only idea: to let Ukrainians continue to die on their behalf in NATO’s proxy war until it escalates to a full-on, direct conflict with Russia. It is a strategy for the hard-of-thinking, with consequences which are the stuff of nightmares.
Those opposed to an urgent cessation to the killing are fond of saying that to stop hostilities would be tantamount to rewarding what they see as Russia’s aggression. That aggression should not be rewarded, is a fine principle. Surely it is finer to believe that further slaughter should be prevented? Both sides are mourning tens of thousands, yet continued fighting guarantees only that more will be mourned. There will be no winner, only more victims.
What kind of principle rigidly precludes the triumph of compromise, negotiation, and common sense? If I was living there and my friends and family were among the slaughtered, I would ache for justice and for revenge: I would want the war to be fought to the last man or woman standing, because that is the natural human reaction. This would be human, and understandable, but I would be wrong. NATO’s single, relentless strategy to just keep fighting, guarantees only enduring misery. Its path to so-called peace could lead us all on a journey to war.
The author is a journalist and lecturer in Britain. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
After the failed attempt to keep digital passports online after the pandemic, Jefferey Jaxen discusses how a newly passed digital ID bill in the Australian parliament may be paving the way for the country to go completely cashless. Then, learn how private banks are using your purchasing data to sell to advertisers, and how fast food restaurants are beginning to use biometrics when you buy your next burger.
For 20 days now, the occupation army has been committing massacres that have caught the attention of the entire world in Jabalia and the city’s refugee camp.
Everyone is asking what makes this small spot the subject of this continuous destruction. This narrow area, which does not exceed 1.4 square kilometres, holds the highest population density in the world. It is home to 116,000 people and is the largest refugee camp in Palestine.
At the beginning of the current war, the occupation army poured out its anger on Jabalia camp, carrying out four of the most violent and brutal massacres of this war so far.
It later announced victory over Jabalia and began to head south. So why has it returned?
Due to Jabalia’s steadfastness, the occupation army bombed its neighborhoods with dumb bombs, killing hundreds of people in each strike. It went on to starve Palestinians in the north.
And now, Netanyahu’s army is trying a second entry/invasion, perhaps wanting to destroy the camp.
What is happening is a repeat and intensification of what happened long ago, as my father told me. In 1967, Jabalia camp was the site where the first resistance against the occupation began. The occupation went crazy then, wondering how a freedom fighter dared to shoot at a helicopter.
They sent truckloads of soldiers and carried out field executions and the army dropped napalm bombs.
To this day, no one knows how many were killed in that crime, but in the camp, entire families were erased from the civil registry.
And in 1987, the spark of the First Intifada was ignited from Jabalia. After that, everyone started calling it “the revolution camp.”
Among its brave freedom fighters was Hatem Al-Sisi who was the first martyr of the intifada, which extended from 1987 until the Oslo Accords in 1993. The shedding of his blood was the catalyst to the spread of the intifada across the West Bank and Gaza. This inspired my father to name my brother Hatem in his honor. The martyr fell in our neighborhood, near my grandfather’s house.
During the era of the war criminal Ariel Sharon, known as “the bulldozer of Israel”, the occupation’s tanks and planes destroyed Jabalia camp in 2003. The same criminal repeated the attack in 2004. Despite all his attempts, he failed to diminish the resistance, which forced him to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, defeated in 2005.
And today, after 20 years, his successor Netanyahu returns to attack Jabalia camp in multiple assaults. It seems that the desperate Netanyahu has not learned anything from history.
The policy of the “parents die and children forget” will not succeed with Palestinians. In Palestine, parents are martyred and children grow up and do not forget. Rather, they follow the same path as their parents. They call upon the world in all languages, wanting a dignified life and a future for their children.
But the occupation practices genocide against them.
The leaders of the occupation army discuss openly and secretly, shouting and holding conferences all the time; in their minds there is only one question: How do we erase Jabalia camp from the map? Should we drop a nuclear bomb on it, as if 40,000 tonnes of explosives have not quenched their thirst for death.
As if they are asking: “How many tonnes of bombs do we need to drop on them to make them die?”
In 1998, Jabalia camp was visited by then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. No other place could make the official understand our cause better.
I was 13 years old then, and I remember participating in the campaign to clean the school that he was visiting and the main street from the market to the school gate. I was a member of my school’s health committee, which Annan visited. I was the diligent student who greeted him in English, proudly saying, “Welcome to Jabalia camp.”
Yes, I am the son of Jabaliya and I am proud to have been born in that crowded spot. And I am saddened by what I am witnessing today.
For seven months, the occupation starved the people of northern Gaza, focusing on Jabalia camp. Perhaps they hoped the people would die of hunger or flee, making it easier to accomplish their mission of destroying the area completely, levelling it as they did to Beit Hanoun, Beit Lahiya and Khan Yunis.
But Jabalia camp remained unbreakable; many were killed, but it stood firm and tall.
Yes, I know that those who remain in the camp are starving, tired and exhausted, but they are steadfast.
As if this steadfastness is a curse, the Israeli occupation’s tanks return to Jabalia as if the war has begun anew. Bombs drop from the sky. 1000lb, 2000lb bombs fall from warplanes aiming to kill more innocent civilians inside homes. Their only fault is that they said: “We will not leave our homes, we will not flee.”
It pains me to hear that the rabid army has now destroyed about 70 per cent of the camp’s landmarks. Its most prominent locations have disappeared.
Today, the news tells us that tanks are besieging the street which has four UNRWA schools; two primary and two elementary. This is the same street that Kofi Annan visited.
Those who remain in Jabalia know what displacement is. They lived as displaced people. They know it means permanent exile. They know another displacement means leaving Palestine and moving to Sinai, which would mean the end of our cause forever. They understand the occupation’s lies.
We see and hear them on television, dying of hunger and thirst, eating grass and animal feed, but they will not leave their land. Among them was my uncle, Abu Taysir Al-Ajrami, the father of three martyrs from the resistance who were martyred at the beginning of the Second Intifada between 2002 and 2003. He appeared on Al Jazeera saying: “We eat animal feed, but we will not leave our land. We die but do not leave.”
Everyone knows that if it weren’t for the steadfastness of Jabalia Camp and the patience of its people and the people of Gaza, Netanyahu’s goals of displacing them to Sinai would have been achieved.
Perhaps this is the reason for Netanyahu and his army’s anger towards Jabalia and its residents.
But, as they rebuilt Jabalia Camp after the first massacre in 1967 and the First Intifada in 1987, the second massacre in 2003, and the third massacre in 2004, Palestinians will rebuild the camp once again after the current massacres.
A recent column in The Economist magazine asking if America is dictator-proof got me to thinking if our constitutional guarantees are secure. Stated differently: Can the custodians of our constitutional norms be trusted to restrain a deliberate attempt to ignore, diminish or evade the Constitution? The short answer is: NO.
The history of what I will charitably call constitutional indifference is long and tortuous. It goes back to the earliest days of the republic when, in a period of eight years, Congress enacted and Presidents George Washington and John Adams signed into law legislation that directly defied restraints imposed upon the federal government.
And this constitutional indifference gave birth to the steady radical growth of government — usually in wartime and based on fears of foreign persons — at the expense of personal liberty.
In 1791, over a fierce and eloquent objection by then-Congressman James Madison — largely the author of the Constitution — Congress enacted a series of statutes that created the first National Bank of the United States. The bank’s purpose was to enable elites to enrich themselves by controlling the flow of cash.
Madison, in his famous Bank Speech, the best articulation of limited constitutional government by any Founding Father, argued that because the Constitution intentionally did not authorize Congress to establish a bank — it reserved banking regulation to the states — Congress was without the lawful authority to establish one. Congress enacted the legislation nevertheless.
In 1792, Congress enacted the Insurrection Act, also over Madison’s objections. That law enabled the president to declare an emergency and call upon the military to address the emergency. The definition of emergency has been and today remains the subjective choice of the president. This statute enabled the president to use federal troops to enforce federal and state laws, and to seize state militias from state governors and use them in presidentially declared emergencies for presidentially directed purposes.
And in 1798, again over Madison’s objections, and in utter defiance of the First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which criminalized public criticism of the government’s foreign policy and of the president personally.
These are the initial monstrous examples of constitutional indifference that set the government’s path on the vector of regular, consistent and systematic growth, ignoring the restraints that Madison had built into the Constitution. These early constitutional aberrations have established the precedent and the pattern in Congress for giving power to any president that will enable him or her to become an American Caesar.
Today there are around 135 of these largely unknown-to-the-public statutes that permit the president to close federal highways, confiscate bank accounts in federally insured banks and shut down the internet — all to address a self-willed emergency, all without due process, all in defiance of basic constitutional norms.
What is an emergency? The courts have defined it as a state of affairs whereby the courts cannot sit to address due process. By that definition, we have never had an emergency in our history, including during the War Between the States and immediately after 9/11 in New York City.
Yet, with the congressionally indifferent attitude that emergency somehow creates lawful power where none existed before the so-called emergency, presidents have from time to time become Caesar.
When President Abraham Lincoln declared speech critical of his war machine to be an emergency, he claimed he was thereby able to use federal troops to arrest more than 3,000 journalists and editors in the North and confine them without charges. By the time one of those cases reached the Supreme Court, after the war’s end and Lincoln’s death, the court ruled that the Constitution tolerates no emergency powers and its plain meaning applies in good times and in bad.
Nevertheless, constitutionally indifferent presidents have defined emergency to suit their political needs and violated constitutional norms.
President Woodrow Wilson declared the prevalence of anti-war speech during World War I to be an emergency, and thereby he claimed the emergency enabled him to arrest Princeton University students who recited the Declaration of Independence aloud outside draft offices in Trenton, New Jersey.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared the presence of Americans of Japanese ancestry in the western parts of the United States to be an emergency, and thereby he claimed the emergency enabled him to arrest without charge and incarcerate more than 120,000 Americans without trial until the end of World War II.
President George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 was an emergency that somehow authorized him to authorize the National Security Agency to spy on all Americans without suspicion, probable cause or search warrants.
President Barack Obama claimed that the presence of Moammar Gadhafi as the leader of Libya was an American emergency such that he needed to be removed from office without a congressional declaration of war, and so he had the CIA bomb Libya.
President Donald Trump declared the entry of undocumented immigrants into the United States at the Texas/Mexico border to be an emergency, and thereby he claimed this so-called emergency enabled him to begin construction of a border fence, in defiance of Congress, which had refused to fund it.
President Joe Biden declared the unfulfilled obligation of former students to repay their college loans to be an emergency; thereby permitting him to forgive the loans in defiance of the Supreme Court, which ruled that only Congress can do this.
And last month, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken filed documents with Congress claiming that the Israeli war in Gaza was an American emergency of such magnitude that weapons and supplies needed to be sent to the Israeli government before Congress could authorize them, and so they were sent.
The national bank is still with us, today as the Federal Reserve. The Insurrection Act remains available today for all presidents to employ on a whim. And the Alien and Seditions Acts have been reborn under the guise of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2024.
Why do we repose the Constitution for safe-keeping into the hands of those deliberately indifferent to it? Can anyone seriously argue that America is dictator-proof? Who or what will save us from those who’d crush our freedoms to enhance their own powers?
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.”
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.
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.
Memorial Day, originally called Decoration day, started on May 30, 1868. The purpose of the holiday was to remember fallen Union soldiers in the War Between the States. Due to the World Wars and other conflicts the holiday evolved to honor all those that died in combat and in 1971 the date was changed from May 30th to the last Monday of May. The origin of the holiday is not so clear, however, as there are other claims that occurred in the south and the north before, during, and after the War Between the States.
In the United States we have not had to suffer a true war fought on American soil since the War Between the States. As such, we honor our soldiers rather than the civilian victims of the combat. Arguably, this is because we have not incurred large civilian deaths as a result of war. Well, at least that was the case until now.
The campaign of biological and technological warfare conducted against Americans and the human race is catastrophic and is an ongoing holocaust. According to Dr. James Thorpe, M.D. the number of dead and injured from the COVID 19 injections estimates are mind blowing:
Best estimates are 585 million global citizens killed or injured from the COVID-19 “vaccines” and you have inflicted massive harm to pregnant women, preborn, and newborns on a global scale.
Estimates of the dead alone place the numbers at 17 million and higher. This would place the numbers at over 700,000 in the United States. This data is not static. It is dynamic. With each passing day more people get injured and die. Individuals are getting turbo cancers, heart attacks, strokes, autoimmune diseases, neurological problems, and the list goes on. Each year that passes the mortality rate will increase as will the incidents of all these diseases and health conditions. The problem will not go away. It appears that it will get worse with each year. There is a massive campaign to normalize this and convince people that all the illnesses and diseases developing are normal.
Pfizer whistle blower Melissa McAtee recently reported that another whistle blower Justin Leslie reported that mRNA is in the flu shots. This is an extremely serious problem as not only will many of the people getting the flu shots get injured, many others will get injured from the shedding. The shedding phenomenon is real and very well documented. Pfizer’s own documents discuss shedding and the risk of the shedding. Many of the Pfizer documents can be read on PHMPT.org.
Dr. Ana Mihalcea, M.D., PhD. has repeatedly documented the self assembling nanotechnology in the blood from COVID shot victims, and victims of shedding. Unfortunately, her research points to a distinct possibility that the shedding process may be ongoing as she has recording the self assembly in the blood of an eight month old cadaver. My understanding is that this technology is hijacking the energy of our cells and self replicating biosynthetic cells.
Not only is the continued shedding of this technology a problem as time goes on, so is the progression of the damage this technology does to the human body over time. There is no reason as far as I am aware to think that the damage caused is not permanent and will not progress over time. There are likely a myriad of factors to determine how bad the damage is and how fast the progression of illness will be for each individual.
Still, the reality is that life spans are being shortened and birth rates are going down. Simply giving someone an autoimmune disease shortens their lifespan. There is also no way to know how offspring will be affected by this technology. The full extent of the damage is incalculable. It appears that besides the obvious depopulation goal and transhumanist goals, one of the purposes of this campaign of biological and technological warfare is to weaken the human population to a condition that they are not only easily manageable, but also so sickly that they will need constant medical treatment of some kind to live.
The truth is that it is necessary to engage in some speculation regarding the full scope of the agenda. There are simply too many moving parts. The global conspirators have multiple goals with each action they take.
The military was targeted too. Back in early 2022, Senator Ron Johnson’s hearing revealed Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) data of some of the increases of multiple diagnosed conditions in the military as a result of the injections. These included increases in the following:
Hypertension – 2,181%
Diseases of the nervous system – 1,048%
Malignant neoplasms of the esophagus – 894%
Multiple sclerosis – 680%
Malignant neoplasms of digestive organs – 624%
Guillain-Barre syndrome – 551%
Breast cancer – 487%
Demyelinating – 487%
Malignant neoplasms of thyroid and other endocrine glands – 474%
Female infertility – 472%
Pulmonary embolism – 468%
Migraines – 452%
Ovarian dysfunction – 437%
Testicular cancer – 369%
Tachycardia – 302%
The reality is that if you are reading this you know people that have died from COVID 19 injections. You also know people that have developed serious diseases such as cancer, heart disease, autoimmune diseases, neurological conditions, and more. I speculate that the numbers are actually much higher than reported above because I think many illnesses and deaths are not being linked to the shots that should be linked to them. The heart attack or cancer death a couple years after the shots are not likely to be linked to the shots.
Still, if 700,000 Americans were murdered with biological and technological weapons in the form of COVID and mRNA injections, should we honor these victims of war?
Raising awareness to the fact that people are being murdered in mass is necessary or there will never be enough outrage to correct the situation. Honoring the victims of the ongoing holocaust in an official capacity may help raise awareness and wake people up to the fact that their friends and family members have been murdered and are continuing to be murdered by this mRNA technology.
Ideally, we would have a specific holiday for the victims of the COVID injection holocaust. Until then, this Memorial Day, I will personally spend some time remembering the victims of the COVID mRNA injection holocaust and the victims of the deadly hospital protocols. These are all innocent victims of war.
Many were understandably exhilarated when on May 20th, International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan issued a statement outlining why he was seeking international arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Security Minister Yoav Gallant, for “crimes against humanity” committed in Gaza since “at least” October 8th 2023.
To anyone who has been spectating the Gaza genocide in the wake of that fateful day, the roll-call of heinous charges leveled at Netanyahu and Gallant will hardly have been surprising. To have the details so forcefully spelled out by an international legal body was nonetheless astonishing. “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare; willfully causing great suffering; willful killing; murder; intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population; extermination; persecution; inhumane acts.” The list goes on, and on.
Khan charged that these “crimes against humanity” were “committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population, pursuant to State policy.” Moreso, these horrors, in the “assessment” of ICC prosecutors, “continue to this day.” The statement went on to note Khan’s office had collected extensive evidence, attesting that the Zionist entity “has intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population in all parts of Gaza of objects indispensable to human survival.”
For the countless millions around the world who have marched, boycotted, or advocated in support of the Palestinian cause, or who have simply implored their elected representatives to take decisive action to halt the systematic, industrial-scale slaughter of the Palestinian people—while Gaza has been crucified—the ICC announcement surely provided some degree of relief. Yet, it must be remembered that “international justice” is at best a comforting fable, and at worst an outright fraud.
In a televised interview following Netanyahu’s indictment, Khan made a number of startling admissions. He revealed that while the ICC built cases against Israeli officials, he was threatened by numerous Western sources – including “elected leaders” – to back off. One “senior official” openly warned him that the Court was “built for Africans and thugs like Putin,” not the West and its allies. The veteran prosecutor stridently countered that the ICC had universal jurisdiction:
“We don’t view it like that. This Court is the legacy of Nuremberg. This Court should be the triumph of law over power and brute force!”
A cynic might suggest Khan was simply playing for the cameras. Given his professional history, he is uniquely well-placed to know the fundamentally hegemonic and discriminatory nature of “international justice”. Khan cut his teeth in the field during the late 1990s and early 2000s, as a senior legal advisor to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). It was set up to prosecute political and military officials in the region for war crimes and atrocities committed during Yugoslavia’s catastrophic breakup.
In theory, Bosniak, Croat, and Serb figures were all in the ICTY firing line. In practice, Serbs were targeted to a far greater degree and punished considerably more severely, than any other ethnicity in the former Yugoslavia. Some have argued this is reflective of and proportionate to the crimes committed during the brutal wars of the 1990s. Yet, anti-Serb bias – and a need to diminish the crimes of Washington’s Bosniak and Croat proxies – was hardwired into the Tribunal even before its inception.
A February 1993 CIA memo outlining “Yugoslavia policy options” proposed “establishing a war crimes tribunal”, for the express purpose of “publicizing Serbian atrocities.” It markedly warned against “even treatment of Bosniak transgressions,” which could be perceived regionally, and among US allies, as “tilting in Belgrade’s favor.” So it was that the ICTY was created three months later. It then spent the next 24 years convicting Serbs for grave crimes, up to and including genocide. Frequently, they were jailed for extremely lengthy periods amounting to life imprisonment.
Several of these convictions were secured via the highly controversial doctrine of “Joint Criminal Enterprise”, also derisively known as “Just Convict Everyone”. Under JCE’s terms, defendants can be guilty of crimes that they did not personally commit, approve of, or even know about at the time. By contrast, many Bosniak and Croat military and political figures who were indicted were acquitted or received extremely meager sentences, despite overwhelming evidence directly implicating them in the planning and commission of horrendous crimes against humanity.”
For example, consider Naser Oric, a Bosniak military commander. He had a fearsome reputation for taking no prisoners, torturing, mutilating, and murdering civilians and prisoners of war in the most repulsive ways imaginable. Moreover, he made no secret of this, to the extent of proudly showing Western journalists footage of his butchery. In July 1995, a Toronto Star reporter was given exclusive access to “a shocking video version of what might have been called Naser Oric’s Greatest Hits”:
“There were burning houses, dead bodies, severed heads, and people fleeing. Oric grinned throughout the video, admiring his handiwork. ‘We ambushed them,’ he said. The next sequence of dead bodies had been caused by explosives: ‘We launched those guys to the moon,’ he boasted. When footage of a bullet-marked ghost town appeared without any visible bodies, Oric hastened to announce. ‘We killed 114 Serbs there.’ Later there were celebrations, with singers with wobbly voices chanting his praises.”
General Philippe Morillon, who commanded UN peacekeeping forces in Bosnia in 1992/93, testified at the ICTY trial of Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic, that Oric was responsible for “terrible massacres”, and openly “confessed to killing Bosnian Serbs every night.” Morillon had personally seen a mass grave filled with villagers slain by the Bosniak commander and his soldiers. However, the Tribunal only convicted Oric for failing to prevent the inhumane treatment of prisoners. He received a two-year sentence but was released immediately due to time served.
The sense the ICTY deliberately fudged Oric’s trial to insulate him from justice is ineluctable, and this was widely suspected at the time. A leaked 2006 diplomatic cable records how the head of Belgrade’s Tribunal liaison office, “normally a stalwart defender” of the ICTY, privately complained to US officials it was “becoming increasingly obvious” that Tribunal judgments were “politically driven.” Even local liberals who supported the prosecution of their former leaders were disturbed by the “vastly different treatment of Serb and non-Serb indictees.”
To this day, hardline Bosniak nationalists cite Oric’s ICTY exoneration as proof of his innocence, despite his self-avowed bloodlust. In this context, it must be remembered that the ICC is formally a successor to the Tribunal, and all that implies. Were the Court to ultimately acquit Netanyahu and Gallant of war crimes, the ruling would inevitably be cited ever after as a validation and justification of the Gaza genocide. And no doubt embolden and encourage Zionist entity military and political chiefs to – somehow – even greater savagery.
The unrelenting, perverse profusion of photo and video evidence of Israeli Occupation Forces perpetrating a 21st century Holocaust, combined with so many self-incriminating statements of Zionist entity officials, and intense public attention focused on the ICC as a result of South Africa’s pioneering case against ‘Tel Aviv’, no doubt gave the Court little choice but to indict Netanyahu and Gallant. The question of whether the pair will ever be in the ICC’s dock, let alone convicted for their monstrous deeds, remains an open one.
Until or unless Netanyahu and Gallant are convicted, we cannot place faith in the Court to ensure justice is done in Gaza. Even if the pair are rendered to the Hague for trial, there is no guarantee the ICC will be allowed to convict either, no matter the evidence against them. This is the bleak reality of an “international justice” system created explicitly and exclusively to prosecute “Africans and thugs like Putin”, not Western imperialist warlords, and their overseas proxies, puppets, and pets.
This edited audio is from a paper prepared by Professor Salman Abu Sitta as a speech to present to the Global Anti-Apartheid Conference on Palestine held in Johannesburg, South Africa on May 10-12, 2024. Images have been added by If Americans Knew.
Abu Sitta is the founder and president of the Palestine Land Society, London, dedicated to the documentation of Palestine’s land and People. https://www.plands.org/en/home
He is the author of six books on Palestine including the compendium “Atlas of Palestine 1917- 1966,” English and Arabic editions, the “Atlas of the Return Journey” and over 300 papers and articles on the Palestinian refugees, the Right of Return, and the history of al Nakba and human rights. He is credited with extensive documentation and mapping of Palestine’s land and people over 40 years.
His widely acclaimed memoir “Mapping my Return” describes his life in Palestine and his long struggle as a refugee to return home. https://mondoweiss.net/2020/09/the-lo…
In 2000, everything about Bill Gates’ public persona changed. He morphed from a hardnosed and ruthless technology monopolizer into a soft, fuzzy and incredibly generous philanthropist when he and his wife launched the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.1
It was a public relations coup. May 18, 1998, the U.S. Justice Department, in collaboration with 20 state attorneys, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.2 At that time, the company was 23 years old and was ruling the personal computer market. The Seattle Times described the fallout from the antitrust lawsuit:3
“The company barely escaped being split up after it was ruled an unlawful monopolist in 2000 for using its stranglehold on the PC market with its Windows operating system to cripple competitors, such as Netscape’s Navigator Web browser.”
How would the world be different today if the company had been split? Yale law professor George Priest described the antitrust lawsuit as “one of the most important antitrust cases of its generation.”4 In 2002, a court settlement placed restrictions on Microsoft to curb some of its practices for five years.
It was later extended twice and then expired May 12, 2011. The lawsuit had a dramatic effect on “the emergence of an entirely new field called IP (intellectual property) antitrust,” Iowa law professor Herbert Hovenkamp told the Seattle Times.5
Later, large sums donated from the foundation made the news multiple times, including $9.5 million to GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines), a second $7.5 million to GAVI and $6.8 million to the World Health Organization in 2017.6
By June 2020, in the middle of a global pandemic, the Gates Foundation’s donations totaled 45% of WHO’s funding from nongovernmental sources.7 Once mainstream media’s attention was no longer on Gates’ antitrust activities and focused on the philanthropist actions of the foundation, Gates publicly turned his attention to vaccinating the world, long before COVID-19.8
Event 201: A Preplanned Pandemic
In a deep dive into the Gates Foundation’s charitable donations, The Nation found there were $250 million in grants to companies where the foundation held corporate stocks, including Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi and Medtronic. The money was directed at supporting projects “like developing new drugs and health monitoring systems and creating mobile banking services.”9 … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 