WHO

now browsing by category

 

No Proof MMR Vaccine Is ‘Safer’ than Measles, Mumps or Rubella Infection, Physician Group Says

© January 14th 2025 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc.
Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense?
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense.
Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Reproduced from original article:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/measles-mumps-rubella-infection-mmr-vaccine-risk

The risk of permanent disability or death from the MMR vaccine may be greater than the risk from a measles, mumps or rubella infection because large enough vaccine safety studies haven’t been done, according to a collection of new documents released by Physicians for Informed Consent.

word "risk" and mmr vaccine

The risk of permanent disability or death from the MMR vaccine may be greater than the risk posed by measles, mumps or rubella infection because large enough vaccine safety studies haven’t been done, according to a collection of new documents released by Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC).

The collection includes disease information statements for measles, mumps and rubella, and a vaccine risk statement for the MMR vaccine.

According to the Mayo Clinic, measles is a viral infection typically accompanied by a skin rash, fever, cough, runny nose, sore throat, inflamed eyes and tiny white spots on the inner cheek.

Mumps and rubella also are viral infections. According to PIC, all three viral infections typically resolve on their own with proper rest and hydration in almost all cases.

Dr. Shira Miller, PIC’s founder and president, told The Defender, “The main takeaway is that the MMR vaccine has not been proven safer than measles, mumps and rubella.”

PIC is a nonprofit that delivers data to doctors and the public so they can “evaluate the data on infectious diseases and vaccines objectively, and voluntarily engage in informed decision-making about vaccination.”

Miller explained that the MMR vaccine clinical trials didn’t include enough subjects to be able to prove that the risk of permanent disability or death from the vaccine is less than the risk of permanent disability or death from measles, mumps or rubella.

The number of measles, mumps or rubella infections that result in permanent disability or death is so low that researchers would need to have at least 50,000 subjects in a clinical trial to be able to show that the vaccine is safer than the disease.

The MMR vaccine’s clinical trials fall very short of that benchmark, according to PIC’s statement on MMR vaccine risk.

Prelicensure clinical trials for vaccines, including the MMR shot, are “relatively small and usually last no longer than a few years,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) 2024 “Manual for the Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases.”

The 2024 edition of the CDC manual doesn’t specify exactly how many subjects are in these “relatively small” trials. However, the 2011 edition stated that “relatively small” meant that such trials are “usually limited to a few thousand subjects.”

The rate of disability or death among healthy children from any of those three diseases is incredibly rare. PIC wrote:

“For children under age 10 at normal risk (i.e., with normal levels of vitamin A and infected after birth), the pre-vaccine annual risk of death or permanent disability from measles, mumps, and rubella respectively was 1 in 1 million, 1 in 1.6 million, and 1 in 2.1 million. …

“Therefore, the cumulative annual risk of a fatal or permanently disabling case of any of those diseases was about 1 in 500,000, and the risk over a 10-year span was 1 in 50,000.”

In other words, clinical trials would need at least 50,000 subjects to detect one case of death or disability from a measles, mumps or rubella infection.

Meanwhile, no safety studies on the MMR vaccine have been done that looked for possible genetic mutations, impaired fertility or cancer, according to the product’s package insert.

Also, seizures from the MMR vaccine occur five times more often than measles-related seizures.

Dr. Liz Mumper, a pediatrician, praised PIC for releasing the collection of data on measles, mumps and rubella, and on the MMR vaccine.

“Most parents have not had access to the information contained in the thoughtful analysis done by Physicians for Informed Consent. Parents should recognize that the risk of bad outcomes from a measles infection — if their child lives in a developed country with clean water and is not immune-deficient — is extraordinarily rare, as PIC reports.”

Unfortunately, she added, recent U.S. media reports “sensationalized” the risks of measles.

What’s typically missing from measles media reports

PIC’s statement on measles cited numerous facts commonly overlooked in many media reports on measles outbreaks, including:

  • The U.S. measles mortality rate dropped dramatically before a measles vaccine was introduced in 1963.
  • Immunity from the MMR vaccine wanes so that by age 15, roughly 60% of vaccinated children are susceptible to subclinical measles virus infections.
  • Studies have suggested a link between a naturally acquired measles infection and a reduced risk of Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas.
  • Studies also suggested a link between a naturally acquired measles infection and a lower risk of asthma, eczema and hay fever.
  • Malnutrition — particularly vitamin A deficiency — is a primary cause of over 100,000 measles deaths in underdeveloped countries.

Mumper said that the risk of bad outcomes from a measles infection drastically declined with improved public health and better nutrition long before MMR vaccines were available.

“The risk of bad outcomes has always been more for children in developing countries who are more likely to have nutritional deficiencies including vitamin A and lack access to clean water,” Mumper added.

The Trump Administration Must Bring Moderna to Heel

Reproduced from original article:
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-trump-administration-must-bring-moderna-to-heel

The Trump Administration Must Bring Moderna to Heel

The Trump Administration Must Bring Moderna to Heel

Last week, independent journalist Alex Berenson reported that a preschool-aged child died of “cardio-respiratory arrest” after taking a dose of Moderna’s Covid mRNA vaccine during its clinical trials. Despite federal requirements to report all trial information, the company withheld the truth for years as it raked in billions from its Covid shots.

The extent of the cover-up remains unknown, but Moderna, headed by CEO Stéphane Bancel, disregarded federal law requiring companies to report “summary results information, including adverse event information, for specified clinical trials of drug products” to clinicaltrials.gov. The company, not the government, is responsible for posting all results, and failure to report the death of a child constitutes a clear breach of US law, which threatens civil action against any party that “falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact.”

To this point, pharmaceutical companies have remained largely immune for their role in perpetrating globally-scaled deception resulting in thousands of vaccine injuries and billions in profits. They have enjoyed a liability shield courtesy of the PREP Act, which offers protections for injuries resulting from vaccines; that indemnity, however, does not extend to non-compliance with federal regulations, material misstatements or omissions of fact, or other offenses.

The death of the child only became known because of an obscure European report released last year, which revealed that Moderna has known about the death for over two years while it continues to advertise Covid shots to children as young as six months old.

Moderna’s European filing also revealed that the company withheld trial results demonstrating that children under 12 who received the vaccine were ten times more likely than those who received the placebo to suffer “serious side effects.” Without any evidence, Moderna claimed that the side effects, including the death of a child, were unrelated to the shots.

The incoming Trump administration offers a rare opportunity to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable and to investigate the depth of the cover-up.

The FDA is responsible for enforcing the reporting of vaccine trial results, but recent heads of the agency such as Scott Gottlieb and Robert Califf have been fanatical supporters of Big Pharma. Trump’s choice for FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, presents a stark contrast to his predecessors. Makary has criticized the US Government’s reluctance to acknowledge the role of natural immunity in preventing Covid infection, and he opposed the widespread vaccination of children. He testified to Congress, “In the U.S. we gave thousands of healthy kids myocarditis for no good reason, they were already immune. This was avoidable.”

President-elect Trump has tapped Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., perhaps the most well-known critic of the Covid vaccines, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA. He has named Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an author of the Great Barrington Declaration, as his choice to head the National Institutes of Health. Further, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Berenson that he plans to subpoena the FDA once Republicans become the majority party in the Senate this month.

President Trump’s first term was ultimately defined by his failure to fulfill his pledge to “drain the swamp.” A corrupt bureaucracy, personified in many ways by Dr. Anthony Fauci, aided and abetted by advisors like his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, hijacked the president’s agenda. Now, the Trump administration has an unlikely yet monumental opportunity for health reform, which can start on January 20 with an investigation into Moderna’s cover-up.

The Covid response doomed Trump 1.0. Whether one regards this as a monumental error, the betrayal of a president by his advisors, an event beyond the president’s control, or a deeper and more complex plot involving everything and everyone associated with the government, both in the US and around the world, there is no question of the scale of the calamity for the public. The shots are part of that, the capstone failure of a long line of foreshadowing with lockdowns and all that was associated with pre-pharmaceutical interventions. The antidote came not as a cure but, for many, the disease itself.

There must be truth if not justice.


Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

Author

  • Brownstone Institute

    Articles by Brownstone Institute, a nonprofit organization founded in May of 2021 in support of a society that minimizes the role of violence in public life.

 

How DMSO Safely Eliminates ‘Incurable’ Pain


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/01/03/dmso-chronic-pain.aspx


Analysis by A Midwestern Doctor     
January 03, 2025

dmso chronic pain

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • NSAIDs (e.g., ibuprofen) and opioids are the standard for pain management but pose significant risks, causing tens of thousands of deaths annually
  • Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) provides powerful pain relief, even helping individuals disabled by conditions like failed spine surgeries or severe arthritis regain health
  • It is also effective for hard-to-treat pain cases like complex regional pain syndrome, trigeminal neuralgia, fibromyalgia, migraine headaches and post-surgical pain
  • DMSO works through multiple mechanisms to relieve pain, including blocking nerve conduction, reducing inflammation, relaxing muscles, and improving circulation
  • Unlike opioids where tolerance develops over time, DMSO often becomes more effective with continued use, and many patients require it less frequently or not at all as their conditions resolve
  • This article reviews the science behind DMSO, clinical evidence from thousands of cases, and home treatment protocols for pain, arthritis, and injuries, plus tips on sourcing DMSO

Decades of research have demonstrated DMSO treats a wide range of illnesses, and recently, I’ve provided extensive evidence for how it treats:

Challenging neurological conditions (e.g., strokes, Down syndrome, dementia, brain and spinal cord injuries) Many autoimmune conditions
Eye, ear, nose, and mouth disorders A myriad of skin disorders
Tissue injuries Disorders of the internal organs

However, while DMSO often produces remarkable results for those conditions (e.g., over the last few months, I’ve received more than a thousand testimonials from readers who tried using DMSO with great results), it is best known for its use in treating pain. This is because:

  1. The response it creates is rapid and dramatic, to the point multiple people with chronic untreatable pain have shared with me it “left them laughing because it was so unbelievable.”
  2. It accelerates the healing of acute and chronic injuries linked to chronic pain.
  3. It also helps chronic rheumatic diseases like arthritis.

Why DMSO Stands Out

Drugs like NSAIDs and opioids are linked to severe side effects, including tens of thousands of deaths each year.1 NSAIDs cause heart, kidney, and stomach damage, while opioids carry addiction and overdose risks.2

In contrast, DMSO has demonstrated remarkable safety for over 60 years without a single death reported. Its side effects, most commonly mild skin irritation or a garlic-like odor, are minor and temporary. Even at doses 30 times higher than normal, studies show no toxicity.3

DMSO’s unique combination of safety, efficacy, and versatility makes it a transformative option for pain relief and injury recovery — proving that effective medicine doesn’t have to come with dangerous trade-offs.

This program about DMSO on 60 Minutes, for example, provides a context to how impactful it has been for many Americans in pain:

How DMSO Treats Pain

In addition to rapidly treating injuries4 or autoimmune conditions5 (which are often the root cause of pain) DMSO’s has a few therapeutic properties that make it uniquely suited to safely treat a wide variety of pain conditions.

• Conduction blocking — Many different nerves exist in the body. One group, known as the “small fibers” are responsible for transmitting specific sensations and they (particularly the C fibers) are frequently linked to debilitating chronic pain syndromes (e.g., small fiber neuropathy — characterized by sensations of pins-and-needles, pricks, tingling, and numbness alongside burning pain and electrical shocks).

Note: The five most common symptoms of COVID vaccine injuries, in order, are fatigue, post-exertional malaise, brain fog, small fiber neuropathy, and dysautonomia.

DMSO selectively blocks the conduction of the small fibers, thereby stopping the pain without causing significant damage to the rest of the body or having a tolerance develop to it (rather DMSO typically becomes more effective with time). To illustrate:

A study found 5% to 10% DMSO blocked the after discharges of C-fibers6 (a process associated with painful stimuli).
DMSO has been observed to suppress NMDA and AMPA induced ion fluxes in neurons,7 each of which are receptors linked to chronic pain (e.g., NMDA is linked to central pain sensitization8).

Note: This property has been hypothesized to account for DMSO treating complex regional pain syndrome and cancer pain.9

DMSO has also been observed to block sodium and calcium ions’ entry into cells10 (likewise, many local anesthetics work by blocking sodium ion entry). This effect has also been proposed to explain how DMSO can help cancer pain.11
DMSO has also been reported to significantly enhance the potency of local anesthetics.12,13,14,15
In a human study, 50% DMSO was found to produce partial anesthesia (numbness) to pin pricking sensation.16
Isolated sciatic nerves immersed in 6% DMSO for 30 to 120 minutes developed a temporary 40% decrease in conduction velocity.17 A complete blocking of condition has also been observed with 75% DMSO in radial nerves18 and with 5% DMSO in small peripheral nerve fibers.19

• Choline esterase inhibition — Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors increase acetylcholine (the neurotransmitter of the parasympathetic nervous system) by blocking their degradation. Numerous studies show DMSO is an effective acetylcholine esterase inhibitor,20,21,22,23,24,25,26 and that it blocks the inhibitory effects of the sympathetic nervous system.27

Chronic pain has been linked to excessive sympathetic activity, and counterbalancing that with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor has shown promise for treating chronic pain.28 However, unlike those drugs, DMSO does not have a risk of creating excessive acetylcholine levels (possibly because at higher doses it instead blocks cholinergic transmission,29 or because it is a competitive rather than irreversible inhibitor30).

• Anti-inflammatory — Many of my colleagues who used DMSO in practice find it to be one of the most effective anti-inflammatory agents out there. DMSO in turn, has been repeatedly shown to:31,32

◦ Reduce inflammatory cytokines, prostaglandins, and pathologic inflammatory responses to tissue injury.

◦I ncrease anti-inflammatory prostaglandins.

◦ Neutralize (scavenges) free radicals, which are both a cause and result of chronic inflammation and a common cause of tissue injury, degenerative illness, and chronic pain.

Research also shows DMSO prevents experimentally induced edema,33,34,35 (including severe forms36), allergic eczema,37 contact dermatitis,38,39 tissue necrosis,40,41 granuloma formation,42 arthritis,43,44,45 and joint stiffness following injury.46

Since inflammation is a key cause of pain (e.g., “chronic inflammatory pain” is well recognized47), this likely accounts for some of DMSO’s analgesic properties.

• Muscle relaxation — DMSO tends to relax skeletal muscle48 while simultaneously enhancing the contraction of other muscles49 (e.g., 3% to 6% DMSO enhances the contraction of the heart and stomach).

DMSO applied topically to the skin of patients produces electromyographic evidence of muscle relaxation 1 hour after application,50 while another study found 50% DMSO prevented the contraction of frog skeletal muscles.51

A 1966 study found that (as shown by electromyography) muscles in spasm will relax within 60 minutes of topical application. It also found that this relaxation could be used to treat headaches associated with cervical disease and complex regional pain syndrome.52

As muscle tension is a frequent cause of pain and musculoskeletal disorders, this property likely accounts for some of its efficacy for those conditions.

• Circulatory enhancement — DMSO removes blood clots and increases blood circulation53 and has been recognized to eliminate the pain associated with blood clots. This aligns with Chinese medicine’s view that poor blood flow causes sharp, piercing pain.54

Note: One of the most common side effects of vaccinations is them creating tiny blood clots (discussed further here), which then trigger microstrokes throughout the body that can often be detected with an appropriate neurological examination. To this point, many of the injuries reported from the original smallpox vaccine matched the same unusual pains and neurological symptoms associated with blood stasis in Chinese Medicine.

Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now

Download PDF

Treating Pain with DMSO

As opioids are seen as the gold standard for pain control, there is very little awareness research has shown a comparable analgesic exists. To illustrate:

• A 1983 study55 using a common research metric (how mice respond to heat and tail flicks) found that DMSO produced an analgesic effect comparable in strength to morphine.

However, this effect was assessed to be due to a different mechanism as an opioid receptor blocker (naloxone) did not affect DMSO’s ability to eliminate pain, DMSO did not produce any of the side effects seen with opioids, and DMSO’s effect lasted far longer (4 to 6 hours and in some cases over 24 hours — whereas in contrast morphine typically lasted less than 2 hours).

Note: Another mouse study using similar tests also found that DMSO blocks pain.56

However, unlike other analgesics (pain killers), DMSO has a variety of unique properties. These include:

• It treats a very wide range of pain conditions, including ones other analgesics can’t address. For example, case reports exist of DMSO treating phantom pain57 (pain outside the body where an amputated limb had previously existed).

• Rather than the body developing a resistance to it (which is what commonly happens with opioids), DMSO often becomes more effective at eliminating pain with subsequent doses, and in many cases, is needed less and less frequently (or not at all because the condition is resolved).

Because of this, while acute pain rapidly responds to DMSO, chronic pain conditions often take 4 to 7 days of applications for DMSO to begin taking effect and 6 to 8 weeks for lasting relief to occur (e.g., to quote one patient, “after twenty-four DMSO injections, I was completely pain-free”).

• In many cases, as is seen with other applications of DMSO, due to DMSO rapidly spreading throughout the body, the effect is systemic. For example, one study found 65% of patients experienced pain relief if DMSO was applied at the site of pain,58 whereas 61.5% experienced comparable relief when DMSO was applied somewhere further away in the body. Because of this, DMSO has been found to help a wide range of pain conditions.

Headaches

Tension headaches (e.g., those caused by muscular tension of the neck) and sinus headaches tend to respond to DMSO (with relief typically lasting 4 to 6 hours), whereas migraine and cluster headaches are less responsive to DMSO. For example, these results were reported59 by two doctors:

headache neck pain cranial neuralgia

Note: Many headaches are incorrectly categorized as migraine headaches. Additionally, while I have received reports of readers with life-changing improvements in migraine headaches, those headaches typically only respond to DMSO if it’s applied during the early stages of the headache.

• Stanley Jacob MD reported on 59 patients with headaches from a variety of causes, of whom over 75% responded to DMSO.

This included 13 out of 17 patient with years of chronic neck pain from cervical arthritis that triggered headaches, (who then required a gradually decreasing DMSO dose), 4 out of 5 patients with sinus headaches improved from DMSO, 2 out of 2 patients with temporal arteritis (causing severe head pain) who fully recovered after DMSO and 26 out of 35 patients who’d had trigeminal neuralgia for more than a year with numerous failed treatments (13 of whom then had a full recovery).60

• Another study found DMSO both relaxes the cervical musculature and alleviates tension headaches.61

Fibromyalgia

The pioneer of DMSO reported that DMSO helped 70% of Fibromyalgia patients62 (with none experiencing side effects), and there are many published examples of it healing this condition.63

Over the years, I have also heard of quite a few cases of individuals with fibromyalgia having a massive improvement in their quality of life from DMSO but simultaneously, I’ve also seen quite a few cases where it needed to be done slowly for a sensitive patient (as otherwise the initial detoxification response was too much for the individual).

Note: This principle is also important to keep in mind when working with other “sensitive patients.”

Spinal Pain

Many of the most profound benefits from DMSO are found in patients with spinal issues (e.g., spinal stenosis, a failed back surgery, surgical scars, severe arthritis, previous spinal cord injuries, or bulging discs), and numerous testimonies (e.g., many can be found in the 1980 Congressional hearing on DMSO64) exist of individuals who had been in years of crippling pain suddenly getting their lives back because of how effectively DMSO treated their pain and restored their mobility.

However, while I frequently read case reports of this (and I’ve now received dozens from readers), I have only located one that specifically evaluated it. In that 1968 study,65 38 patients with lumbar and cervical disc problems received conventional (nonsurgical) treatments, and half also received DMSO — which was found to halve the required treatment time.

Note: Topically applied DMSO is often extremely helpful for herniated discs (and much safer than systemic steroids). Additionally, a few people found injecting DMSO mixed with lidocaine into the vertebral musculature was quite helpful for spinal pain.

Additionally, there are also many instances of quadriplegics who initially took DMSO to alleviate their chronic pain and then gradually regained motor function as a “side effect” of DMSO. In turn, there are many cases of individuals overcoming lifelong paraplegia, (including cases where their “miraculous” improvement could be traced to DMSO as it stopped once DMSO was withdrawn).

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition involving autonomic and inflammatory issues, often triggered by trauma like surgery and linked to small fiber neuropathy. Its causes remain unclear, and treatment usually relies on multiple drugs targeting symptoms.

DMSO is one of the few effective alternative therapies for CRPS, as it blocks pain from small fibers. Unfortunately, its potential for treating CRPS remains largely overlooked.

Note: Complex regional pain syndrome was an adverse event associated with the HPV vaccine.

The supporting evidence is as follows:

A 1985 study demonstrated that 50% DMSO reduced the inflammation associated with CRPS and improved symptoms associated with the condition.66
A 1996 study of 32 patients with acute CRPS (e.g., heat, redness, pain, swelling, reduced range of motion) gave them 50% DMSO or placebo for 2 months, and a significant improvement was seen in the DMSO group.67
A 2003 study randomized 64 patients with CRPS to receive topical 50% DMSO and 67 patients to receive N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for 17 weeks to a year. This study found that DMSO was a cost effective therapy that produced good to excellent results for the patients, especially when their CRPS was associated with inflammatory symptoms and when it was done earlier in the illness.68
Another 2003 study of 146 patients also comparing 50% DMSO to NAC (over 24 months) found DMSO was effective, particularly for hot (inflammatory) CRPS.69
A 2012 study gave 29 patients (who had had CRPS for less than a year) 50% topical DMSO and found DMSO significantly reduced their pain (with results approaching a complete absence of pain), brought back the functionality of the affected limb and improved their quality of life.70
A 2012 study used a combination of treatments including 50% DMSO for CRPS and found this combination was effective for treating the condition.71
Finally, a 2005 review of the existing therapies for CRPS concluded 50% DMSO had evidence of efficacy and, compared to the other treatment options, was the least likely to cause harm.72

Cancer Pain

Many cancer patients experience severe pain (which increases as the cancer becomes terminal), and in 10% to 20% of cases, it does not respond to standard opioid management.73 In many cases however, it does to DMSO. For example:

• A study included two older patients with cancer pain DMSO, one of whom had an excellent response to treatment and one who had a good response.74

• Another study found that of 7 patients with metastatic cancer pain, DMSO gave 2 a full remission and 2 a partial remission.75

• One of the most well known examples was Otis Bowen MD (a popular second term Indiana governor) who “illegally” used topical DMSO to treat his wife’s pain from terminal multiple myeloma and then publicly denounced the FDA’s absurd embargo on it at the AMA’s 1981 national meeting.76

Remarkably, a few years later, Bowen became Reagan’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, but even then, with this highly ethical doctor at the helm of the HSS, DMSO was unable to overcome the FDA’s prohibition of it.77

Note: For decades, the FDA has relentlessly stonewalled life-changing natural therapies to protect the medical industry from competition, and one of their most egregious campaigns was directed towards DMSO.

Surgical Pain

Since DMSO both accelerates wound healing and reduces pain,78 it is uniquely suited to post-operative pain. Numerous studies support this. For example:

• A rat study found administering DMSO into a wound before closing it significantly reduced the subsequent pain and guarding the rats had, suggesting this approach could address a common complication of surgery.79

• A 1967 study found that DMSO applied to the incision sites of thoracotomy (open chest surgery) patients in concentrations of 60% to 80% resulted in significant pain relief, and reduction of the opioids needed (which in turn led to fewer gastrointestinal complications).

These patients as a group were able to cough more effectively, move more easily both in and out of bed, resume early motion of the arm and shoulder, and in general enjoy a more rapid and less complicated postoperative course.80

• Another study gave 90% DMSO to 64 postpartum women with episiotomy pain and found that over half had pain relief and a reduction in swelling and that there was a significant improvement in mobility (with some patients who had left the hospital then requesting to resume DMSO to alleviate subsequent pain).81

Conclusion

Since the pharmaceutical industry revolves around indefinitely selling pills that temporarily “treat” an illness, pain is one of its most coveted markets. DMSO’s remarkable ability to safely eliminate pain (and that being well-known to hundreds of thousands of Americans over 60 years) hence provides some of the most substantial proof I know of that effective therapies are being deliberately withheld from us to protect the medical monopoly.

Fortunately, the internet’s rapid dissemination of information which challenges prevailing narratives, and the unprecedented ascendency of the Make America Healthy Again has created a window to break this medical monopoly. As such, the results many are now having from DMSO are providing critical first hand experiences that will open eyes to the dysfunctional medical paradigm we are stuck within, and I am immensely grateful to see that this is happening in my lifetime.

Author’s note: This is an abridged version of a longer article that goes into greater detail on the data discussed here, how DMSO is used for pain, arthritis and musculoskeletal injuries (e.g., sprains), and provides guidance for personal DMSO use (e.g., dosing, therapeutic precautions and where to obtain it). That article and its additional references can be read here.

A Note from Dr. Mercola About the Author

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician from the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate AMD’s exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and am grateful to share it. I also respect AMD’s desire to remain anonymous since AMD is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.

 

– Sources and References

WHO Cancer Agency Predicts 77% Rise in Cancers by 2050


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/04/17/rising-cancer-rates.aspx


Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola     
April 17, 2024

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer estimates more than 35 million new cancer cases in 2050
  • This represents a 77% increase from the estimated 20 million cancer cases that occurred in 2022
  • WHO blamed the rising cancer rates on an aging population, along with tobacco, alcohol, obesity and exposure to air pollution
  • WHO ignored the emergence of rapid-growing “turbo cancers” in people who have received one or more COVID-19 shots
  • Many of these cancers are showing up in young people, many under age 30, with no family history of cancer; treatment protocols are available to help recover from post-jab injuries

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a daunting prediction of the global cancer burden. It estimates more than 35 million new cancer cases in 2050 — a 77% increase from the estimated 20 million cancer cases that occurred in 2022.1

While WHO named an aging population as a key driver behind the increasing cancer burden, along with tobacco, alcohol, obesity and exposure to air pollution, what they’re ignoring is the concerning trend of turbo cancers that occur shortly after COVID-19 shots.

Cancer Cases Set to Increase Significantly by 2050

The IARC cancer burden estimates are based on the “best sources of data available in [185] countries in 2022.”2 That year, there were an estimated 20 million new cancer cases and 9.7 million deaths, with WHO reporting, “About 1 in 5 people develop cancer in their lifetime, approximately 1 in 9 men and 1 in 12 women die from the disease.”3

About two-thirds of the new cancer cases and deaths were caused by 10 types of cancer. Lung cancer was most common, followed by female breast cancer, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer and stomach cancer. When broken down by sex, breast cancer was the most commonly diagnosed — and the leading cause of cancer death — among women. For men, it was lung cancer.

Lung cancer and colorectal cancer accounted for the second and third most diagnosed types and cause of most deaths among women. However, for men, prostate and colorectal cancers were second and third most common, while liver and colorectal cancer caused the second and third most cancer deaths.4

There were also disparities revealed based on human development index (HDI), a statistical tool that assesses three dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge (schooling) and a decent standard of living. According to WHO:5

“In terms of the absolute burden, high HDI countries are expected to experience the greatest absolute increase in incidence, with an additional 4.8 million new cases predicted in 2050 compared with 2022 estimates. Yet the proportional increase in incidence is most striking in low HDI countries (142% increase) and in medium HDI countries (99%). Likewise, cancer mortality in these countries is projected to almost double in 2050.”

What’s Driving Up Cancer Rates?

WHO blamed the projected cancer burden increase on a combination of age and environmental factors, stating:6

“The rapidly growing global cancer burden reflects both population ageing and growth, as well as changes to people’s exposure to risk factors, several of which are associated with socioeconomic development. Tobacco, alcohol and obesity are key factors behind the increasing incidence of cancer, with air pollution still a key driver of environmental risk factors.”

But it did not mention the emergence of rapid-growing cancers of the breast, colon, esophagus, kidney, liver, pancreas, bile duct, brain, lung and blood — including exceedingly rare types of cancer. As noted by Canadian oncologist and cancer researcher Dr. William Makis in the Highwire interview above,7 these cancers are showing up in young people, many under age 30, with no family history of cancer.

They’re showing up in pregnant women and young children. Equally odd is the fact that most are Stage 3 or 4 by the time they’re diagnosed, with symptoms arising only days or weeks before. The cancers grow and spread so rapidly, many of these patients die before treatment can even begin. Most of them are also resistant to conventional treatment.

The phenomenon has become common enough that the term “turbo cancers” was coined to describe these rapid-growing cancers in people who have received one or more COVID jabs.

Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now

Download PDF

Turbo Cancer Cases Reported Following COVID-19 Shots

In a case report described by board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough and colleagues, basaloid carcinoma, a type of aggressive cancer, developed in a 56-year-old man shortly after he received an mRNA COVID-19 shot.

Early symptoms, which began just four days after the jab, were similar to those caused by Bell’s palsy, and involved head pain — but soon a tumor developed on his ear and face. According to the study:8

“We place this within the context of multiple immune impairments potentially related to the mRNA injections that would be expected to potentiate more aggressive presentation and progression of cancer. The type of malignancy we describe suggests a population risk for occurrence of a large variety of relatively common basaloid phenotype cancer cells, which may have the potential for metastatic disease.

… Since facial paralysis/pain is one of the more common adverse neurological events following mRNA injection, careful inspection of cutaneous/soft tissue should be conducted to rule out malignancy.”

This is just one example. Another case report, published in Frontiers in Medicine,9 also found a “rapid progression” of angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) — a rare type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) — following an mRNA COVID booster shot. AITL is a cancer that affects the lymph system, primarily involving T-cells, a type of white blood cell that plays a crucial role in the immune system.

“Since nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccines strongly activate T follicular helper cells, it is important to explore the possible impact of approved SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines on neoplasms affecting this cell type,” the study notes.10

The cancer occurred in a 66-year-old man, mere days after he got his third Pfizer shot. Ironically, he got the shot to protect him during chemotherapy, and in eight days, the cancer just exploded and spread like wildfire.

According to Makis, that kind of progression would normally take a couple of years, or at least a few months. “Such a rapid evolution would be highly unexpected in the natural course in the disease,” according to the study.11

How Might COVID-19 Shots Trigger Cancer?

In May 2021, I interviewed Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT for over five decades, about the likely hazards of replacing the uracil in the RNA used in the COVID shots with synthetic methylpseudouridine.12 Uracil is one of the four nucleobases in the nucleic acid of RNA that are represented by the letters A, G, C and U.

This process of substituting letters in the genetic code is known as codon optimization, which is known to be problematic.

At the time, Seneff predicted the shots would cause a rise in prion diseases, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases at younger ages, blood disorders and heart failure, and one of the primary reasons for this is because they genetically manipulated the RNA in the shots with synthetic methylpseudouridine, which enhances RNA stability by inhibiting its breakdown.

But when substituting parts of the code in this way, the resulting protein can easily get misfolded, and this has been linked to a variety of chronic diseases,13 including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease and heart failure.14 As explained by Makis, the pseudouridine insertion can also suppress your innate immune surveillance by dampening the activity of toll-like receptors, and one downstream effect of that is reduced cancer surveillance.

“The more mRNA shots you take, the greater the immune system damage, the greater your risk of impaired cancer surveillance and hence, the greater your risk of turbo cancer,” Makis says.

DNA Contamination Discovered in COVID Shots

In a preprint study, microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project15 — and colleagues assessed the nucleic acid composition of four expired vials of the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots. “DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDAs 10ng/dose requirements” was found.16

So, in addition to the spike protein and mRNA in COVID-19 shots, McKernan’s team discovered simian virus 40 (SV40) promoters that, for decades, have been suspected of causing cancer in humans, including mesotheliomas, lymphomas and cancers of the brain and bone.17

Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, called for an end to the use of COVID-19 mRNA shots, citing concerns about DNA fragments in the products.18 In a December 6, 2023, letter sent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Ladapo outlined findings showing the presence of lipid nanoparticle complexes and the SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA.

While there are limits on how much DNA can be in a vaccine due to concern over DNA integration, the guidelines don’t consider lipid nanoparticles and other factors in COVID-19 shots that could enhance how much DNA can enter a cell.

“Lipid nanoparticles are an efficient vehicle for delivery of the mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines into human cells and may therefore be an equally efficient vehicle for delivering contaminant DNA into human cells.

The presence of SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA may also pose a unique and heightened risk of DNA integration into human cells,” according to a news release from the Florida Department of Health (DOH).19 Further, according to the Florida DOH, the FDA’s own 2007 guidance states:20

  • “DNA integration could theoretically impact a human’s oncogenes – the genes which can transform a healthy cell into a cancerous cell.
  • DNA integration may result in chromosomal instability.
  • The Guidance for Industry discusses biodistribution of DNA vaccines and how such integration could affect unintended parts of the body including blood, heart, brain, liver, kidney, bone marrow, ovaries/testes, lung, draining lymph nodes, spleen, the site of administration and subcutis at injection site.”

How to Recover From Post-Jab Injury

If you’ve had a COVID-19 shot, there are steps you can take to repair from the assault on your system. Remember, the more mRNA shots you take, the greater the immune system damage. So, the first step is to avoid getting anymore COVID jabs. Next, if you’ve developed any unusual symptoms, seek out help from an expert.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) also has a treatment protocol for post-jab injuries. It’s called I-RECOVER and can be downloaded from covid19criticalcare.com.21

Dr. Pierre Kory, who cofounded the FLCCC, has transitioned to treating the vaccine injured more or less exclusively. For more information, visit DrPierreKory.com. McCullough is also investigating post-jab treatments, which you can find on PeterMcCulloughMD.com.

The World Health Council has also published lists of remedies that can help inhibit, neutralize and eliminate spike protein, which most experts agree is a primary culprit. I covered these in my 2021 article, “World Council for Health Reveals Spike Protein Detox.”

The Tragic Toll Exacted by Medical Errors


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/03/30/medical-errors.aspx


Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola     
March 30, 2024

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Medical errors are a significant global issue, with the World Health Organization estimating they cause 2.6 million deaths annually worldwide. In the U.S., this number could be as high as 440,000, making it the third leading cause of death
  • 10% of all deaths in the U.S. are attributable to some kind of medical error, and it continues to be a leading cause of death today, ranking somewhere between third and first place, depending on the scope of medical mistakes you include in the equation
  • The documentary “Medical Errors: Why Doctors Make Mistakes” underscored a crucial issue in the medical community: the reluctance to openly discuss mistakes, which can hinder learning and improvement, contributing to ongoing errors
  • A mix of inexperience, fatigue and diagnostic challenges contributes significantly to medical errors, complicating the efforts to reduce these mistakes
  • To minimize your risk of harm from medical errors, consider creating a “Caregivers and Consent” document that spells out what your doctor may or may not do to you while you’re hospitalized. Also be sure to always bring family member or friend who can act as your advocate and keep track of what’s being done to you

The documentary above, “Medical Errors: Why Doctors Make Mistakes,” explores the causes behind medical errors, which according to the World Health Organization claim 2.6 million deaths each year, worldwide, with at least 250,000 of those in the U.S.1

In July 2022, the National Institutes of Health updated their library on medical errors, saying that number could be as high as 440,000 — and possibly even higher due to poor reporting — making it the third leading cause of death in the U.S.2

A Historical Look at Statistical Data on Medical Errors

In July 2010, Dr. Barbara Starfield published an article in JAMA titled “Is U.S. Health Really the Best in the World?”3 Buried in the tables of that article were data showing that physicians were the third leading cause of death in the United States. I created that headline 24 years ago and it has been a meme ever since.

For over 15 years, when you typed in “doctors are the third leading cause of death,” my article from 2000 came up first. Of course, those days are now long gone, since Google began censoring me from its search engine eight years ago. Sadly, the claim that “doctors are the third leading cause of death” remains true to this day.

One of the first indications that medical errors were a significant problem emerged in 1989, when professor Lucian Leape from the Harvard Medical School — a pioneer in patient safety who is featured in the documentary — published a study on medical errors. (He also published the book “Making Healthcare Safe: The Story of the Patient Safety Movement”4 in 2021, which you can read and download for free here.)

Leape analyzed 30,000 medical records from 50 New York hospitals, concluding that nearly 4% had suffered an injury caused by treatment, and of those, two-thirds “were caused by an error in care and therefore are potentially preventable,” Leape said.

Extrapolating from that data, Leape estimated that 1.3 million American patients are injured each year due to medical mistakes and 180,000 die — the equivalent of three jumbo-jet crashes every two days. In the UK, according to statistics cited in the documentary, medical mistakes claim the lives of an estimated 40,000 Britons each year.

Properly Prescribed Drugs Are the Fourth Leading Cause of Death

In 1998, another eye-opening study was published. Researchers at the University of Toronto, led by professor Bruce Pomeranz, concluded that properly prescribed and correctly taken pharmaceutical drugs were the fourth leading cause of death in the U.S.5,6

Pomeranz’s analysis was the largest and most complete of its kind at that time. In all, they calculated that somewhere between 76,000 and 137,000 American patients died each year from correctly administered drugs.

Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now

Download PDF

Might Doctors Be the No. 1 Cause of Death?

In a 2003 article aptly titled, “Death by Medicine,”7 Dr. Carolyn Dean, Gary Null, Ph.D., Dr. Martin Feldman, Dr. Debora Rasio and Dorothy Smith, Ph.D., described in excruciating detail how the modern conventional American medical system has bumbled its way into becoming the LEADING cause of death and injury in the United States, claiming the lives of nearly 784,000 people annually.

Using those figures, that would put the health care system as the No. 1 cause of death in the U.S., bypassing cardiovascular disease. These iatrogenic deaths (meaning deaths resulting from the activity of physicians) include everything from adverse drug reactions and avoidable medical errors to hospital-acquired infections, surgeries gone bad and deaths from unnecessary medical procedures.

The authors took statistics straight from the most respected medical and scientific journals and investigative reports by the IOM, showing that overall, American medicine is causing more harm than good. For clarity, the reason Dean et. al. came up with a much higher number than anyone else, even in later years, is likely because they included a broader range of mistakes.

Medical errors have been the third leading cause of death for years, with 10% of all deaths being attributable to some kind of medical error, and it continues to be a leading cause of death today, ranking somewhere between third and first place, depending on the scope of medical mistakes you include in your equation.

Medicine Is Still a Leading Cause of Death

In 2010, a report in The New England Journal of Medicine,8 and another in the Journal of General Internal Medicine,9 revealed just how little things had changed since 2003.

Out of 62 million death certificates dated between 1976 and 2006, nearly 250,000 deaths were coded as having occurred in a hospital setting due to medication errors,10 and an estimated 450,000 preventable medication-related adverse events occurred every year.

Three years later, in 2013, a Journal of Patient Safety study11,12,13,14 concluded preventable medical errors kill anywhere from 210,000 to 440,000 patients a year. In 2016, Johns Hopkins patient safety experts, led by Dr. Martin Makary, calculated that more than 250,000 patients died each year from medical errors — the same death count found by Starfield in 2010.

Then, in 2022, the WHO announced that unsafe care by medical professionals and hospitals result in a “horrifying” 2.6 million deaths annually, worldwide, with at least 250,000 of those deaths occurring in the U.S.15 And, as mentioned, that summer the NIH stated the death toll might be closer to 440,000, or more.16

So, medical errors have been the third leading cause of death for years, with 10% of all deaths being attributable to some kind of medical error,17,18 and it continues to be a leading cause of death today, ranking somewhere between third and first place, depending on the scope of medical mistakes you include in your equation.

Misdiagnosis Rates Are on the Rise

Death isn’t the only outcome of medical mistakes. Permanent disability is another. When permanent disability and death are lumped together, the toll from medical mistakes reaches as high as 795,000 annually in the U.S. alone, according to data published in 2023.19

Researchers at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine have described diagnostic errors as “the most under-resourced public health crisis we face.”20 When you visit a doctor, whether you’re at a doctor’s office or hospital, you depend on getting expert care, including a correct diagnosis. But about 11% of the time, medical conditions are misdiagnosed.21,22

The likelihood of misdiagnosis varies widely, however, depending on the type of medical problem and the symptoms presented. For instance, only about 1.5% of heart attacks are misdiagnosed, compared to 62% of spinal abscesses, a rarer condition.

But even among strokes, a leading cause of disability in the U.S., misdiagnosis occurs more than 17.5% of the time.23 When a stroke occurs, some patients may experience only dizziness or headaches, which can easily be confused with other conditions. In all, 15 diseases account for 50.7% of the serious harms due to misdiagnosis while just five — stroke, sepsis, pneumonia, venous thromboembolism and lung cancer — account for 38.7%.24

A 2023 review25 of nearly 300 studies by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality also found that a startling number of patients who visit U.S. emergency rooms get an incorrect diagnosis.

Overall, their research showed about 1 in 18 people who visit an emergency room will be misdiagnosed, 1 in 50 will suffer an adverse event as a result, and 1 in 350 will suffer from permanent disability or death. Out of the 130 million visits to emergency departments (EDs) that occur every year in the U.S., this amounts to 7.4 million misdiagnoses, 2.6 million related adverse events and 370,000 serious harms from diagnostic error. According to the authors:26

“Put in terms of an average ED [emergency department] with 25,000 visits annually and average diagnostic performance, each year this would be over 1,400 diagnostic errors, 500 diagnostic adverse events, and 75 serious harms, including 50 deaths per ED …

The strongest, most consistent predictors of ED diagnostic error were individual case factors that increased the cognitive challenge of identifying the underlying disorder, with nonspecific, mild, transient, or ‘atypical’ symptoms being the most frequent.”

Effort to Reduce Medical Mistakes in the UK

As noted in the documentary, the UK has implemented something called “League tables” in an effort to cut down on medical mistakes. League tables are rankings that compare the performance of National Health Service (NHS) hospitals based on various quality and performance metrics such as patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, waiting times and efficiency measures, among others.

The purpose of these tables is to provide transparency, stimulate improvements in healthcare delivery, and reduce medical mistakes by:

Enhancing transparency — By publicly reporting on the performance of hospitals and healthcare providers, league tables aim to make information about healthcare quality more accessible to patients and the public. This transparency encourages hospitals to maintain or improve their standards of care.
Promoting competition — The publication of league tables fosters a sense of competition among hospitals and Trusts. The desire to be ranked favorably can drive healthcare providers to enhance their services, adopt best practices, and strive for higher standards of patient care.
Identifying best practices — League tables can highlight hospitals and Trusts that perform exceptionally well in certain areas. This can help other institutions identify and adopt best practices from high performers, leading to overall improvements in the healthcare system.
Facilitating informed choices — For patients, league tables provide valuable information that can help them make informed decisions about where to seek care. This patient-driven demand for high-quality services incentivizes healthcare providers to improve their performance.
Targeting improvements — By breaking down performance into specific metrics, league tables help healthcare providers identify areas needing improvement. Hospitals can focus their efforts on these areas, whether it’s reducing waiting times, improving surgical outcomes, or enhancing patient satisfaction.
Reducing medical mistakes — By emphasizing performance metrics that relate to patient safety and clinical outcomes, league tables incentivize healthcare providers to adopt practices that reduce medical errors. For example, hospitals might implement more rigorous surgical checklists or improve their infection control practices to improve their rankings.
Enhancing accountability — League tables hold hospitals and healthcare providers accountable for their performance. Poorly performing institutions may face scrutiny from regulators, the public, and the media, which can prompt immediate efforts to address deficiencies.

While league tables can drive improvements in healthcare quality and patient outcomes, they are not without criticism. Concerns have been raised about the potential for these rankings to oversimplify complex issues, penalize hospitals serving disadvantaged populations, or encourage gaming of the system. Nevertheless, they remain a key tool in the NHS’s strategy to improve healthcare quality and reduce medical mistakes in England.

How Is the US Tackling Medical Mistakes?

In the U.S., several mechanisms and tools parallel the concept of league tables in England, aiming to improve medical care quality and reduce medical mistakes. These tools include hospital rankings, reporting systems and quality improvement programs, which serve to enhance transparency, promote best practices, and ensure accountability in healthcare.

For example, the U.S. News & World Report Hospital Rankings is a publication that ranks hospitals nationally in various specialties, conditions, and procedures. The rankings are based on several factors, including patient outcomes, patient experience, nurse staffing levels, and expert opinions.

The Leapfrog Group also assigns letter grades to hospitals based on their performance in preventing medical errors, injuries, accidents, and infections. Leapfrog’s Hospital Safety Grade is intended to help consumers choose the safest hospital for their care.

There are also a variety of quality improvement organization (QIOs) that work with healthcare providers, including hospitals and physicians, to help them improve the care they provide to Medicare beneficiaries, as well as reporting and surveillance systems that track data on things like hospital-acquired infections.

Patient safety organizations also exist, as do clinical practice guidelines intended to help healthcare providers make consistent, evidence-based decisions to reduce variability in care and prevent medical errors. The electronic health records system is also intended to help prevent medication errors, ensure timely follow-ups, and support adherence to clinical guidelines.

Why Do Doctors Make So Many Mistakes?

Yet despite all these tools, the rates of medical mistakes aren’t dropping. According to the film, there are many potential reasons for this, including the taboo among doctors to discuss their mistakes openly.

Junior doctors also make mistakes due to inexperience. As noted in the film, doctors fresh out of medical school are literally “practicing” medicine on their patients, performing procedures they’ve never done before without oversight. Other factors include fatigue, as hospital doctors typically work very long shifts, and the fact that many conditions share symptoms.

In short, diagnosis isn’t necessarily easy, even with advanced medical tests. The same goes for treatment. Even with a correct diagnosis, choosing the best treatment isn’t black-and-white.

Experience comes into play and, I would say, a certain level of intuition, which requires your doctor to have a strong connection to his or her consciousness or Spirit. Unfortunately, that’s rare these days, as solid intuition requires a certain level of biological optimization that few have, even if they’re doctors.

How to Reduce Your Risk of Misdiagnosis

As a patient, taking an active role in your health care may help you receive the best care possible and reduce your risk of getting an incorrect diagnosis. This starts with choosing healthcare providers who listen to your concerns and have a holistic view of health.

Seek a healthcare practitioner who will help you understand the foundational causes of your health challenges, and create a customized and comprehensive — i.e., holistic — treatment plan for you.

What’s more, you can have an impact on your doctor’s tendency to recommend natural alternatives, as when you inquire about them, some do in fact listen. If they don’t, then keep shopping. Further, if something doesn’t sound right about the diagnosis you’re given, ask questions and get a second, or third, opinion if needed.

Remember, your doctor works for you, not the other way around. Ideally, health care should be a partnership, where you work together with your providers to identify the best solutions. Either way, if you’re not satisfied with their know-how or the tools in their toolbox, find another doctor. If you’re hospitalized or in an emergency situation, this is more challenging since you can’t always choose who’s providing your care.

There are many cases when it’s in your best interest to avoid hospitals, particularly for elective procedures or chronic conditions, but if you’re hospitalized due to a life-threatening emergency, be sure to have an advocate with you who can manage your care and act as a power of attorney if necessary.

If you’re seriously ill, it can be very difficult to explain what’s wrong while keeping tabs on what they’re asking you to sign and the medications and treatments they’re giving you, so having someone there who can double-check everything and advocate for you is essential. And no matter where you’re receiving medical care, be sure to explain all symptoms you’re experiencing thoroughly. The more information you provide, theoretically the better the outcome should be.

Create a Caregivers and Consent Document

Last but not least, I strongly recommend creating a “Caregivers and Consent” document, as detailed in “How to Save Your Life and Those You Love When Hospitalized.” A template for this was created by Laura Bartlett and Greta Crawford in response to the abhorrent medical mistreatment experienced by patients during the COVID pandemic.

Bartlett and Crawford have founded an organization to address the lethal and, in many cases, forced treatments patients receive when they’re hospitalized for COVID-19, but the same strategy can be used to protect yourself against other medical hazards as well.

When you enter a hospital, you must sign a general consent authorization form. This is basically a contract between you and the hospital. Since you have bodily autonomy, they need your consent before they can do anything to you.

Typically, the general consent form authorizes hospital staff to test, treat and care for you in whatever way they see fit — and when a patient signs the general consent authorization, physicians feel justified that they can implement a hospital protocol without further explaining the risks, benefits or alternatives of that protocol to the patient.

Now, if you’re well enough to read the entire document, and see something in there that you don’t agree with, you can strike the sentence or paragraph and initial it, to indicate that you do not consent to that specific detail. However, that still doesn’t offer you much protection.

What you need is a much more specific document where you detail the types of treatments you consent to and the ones you don’t.

You need to carve out a niche from the general consent form that specifies exactly what you do (and do not) consent to. And you need to be clear. Fortunately, the Caregivers and Consent document carves out that niche to communicate clearly to all physicians your exact consent wishes. And, they are legally required to respect your written directives.

A template Caregivers and Consent document can be found on OurPatientRights.com. Also be sure to read through “How to Save Your Life and Those You Love When Hospitalized,” as there are specific procedures that must be followed to make the document binding.

Will Disease X Be Leaked in 2025?


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/01/23/disease-x.aspx
The original Mercola article may not remain on the original site, but I will endeavor to keep it on this site as long as I deem it to be appropriate.


Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola     
January 23, 2024

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The WHO’s pandemic treaty is the gateway to a global, top-down totalitarian regime, a one world government. The reason we can be sure there will be additional pandemics, whether manufactured using either fear and hype alone or an actual bioweapon created for this very purpose, is because the takeover plan, aka The Great Reset, is based on the premise that we need global biosecurity surveillance and centralized response
  • A new contagion will likely be born in 2025, and media are already preparing us for it
  • January 15-19, 2024, global leaders met at the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Davos summit where the key topic of discussion was “Preparing for Disease X,” a hypothetical new pandemic predicted to kill 20 times more people than COVID-19
  • In August 2023, a new vaccine research facility was set up in Wiltshire, England, to begin work on a vaccine against the unknown “Disease X”
  • The U.S. Congress introduced the “Disease X Act of 2023” (H.R.3832) in June 2023. The bill calls for the establishment of a BARDA program to develop “medical countermeasures for viral threats with pandemic potential.” The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health in early June 2023 but has not yet been passed

The COVID-19 pandemic allowed for an unprecedented shift in power and wealth distribution across the world and, as predicted, it was not to be a one-off event. A new contagion will likely be born in 2025, and media are already preparing us for it.

January 15-19, 2024, global leaders met at the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Davos summit where the key topic of discussion was “Preparing for Disease X,”1 a hypothetical new pandemic predicted to emerge in 2025 and kill 20 times more people than COVID-19.2 As reported by the Mirror:3

“The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned of a potential Disease X since 2017, a term indicating an unknown pathogen that could cause a serious international epidemic …

Public speakers at the ‘Preparing for Disease X’ event next Wednesday [January 17, 2024] include Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the WHO, Brazilian minister of health Nisia Trindade Lima, and Michel Demaré, chair of the board at AstraZeneca.

In their first post-pandemic meeting held in November 2022, the WHO brought over 300 scientists to consider which of over 25 virus families and bacteria could potentially create another pandemic.

The list the team came up with included: the Ebola virus, the Marburg virus disease, Covid-19, SARS, and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Others included lassa fever, nipah and henipaviral diseases, zift Valley fever, and zika — as well as the unknown pathogen that would cause ‘Disease X.’”

I’ve interviewed Meryl Nass about how the WHO is trying to take over aspects of everyone’s lives. She just published an important piece over the weekend, Why Is Davos So Interested in Disease? about how the WEF and the WHO have become partners to terrify the world.

Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq., political director for the Organic Consumers Association, did some digging into the participants of this WEF event, and the two things they all have in common are 1) dumping the AstraZeneca COVID shot on the developing world (primarily India and Brazil) after rich countries rejected it due to its admitted blood clotting risk, and 2) pushing for the implementation of medical AI systems that will eliminate doctors along with patient choice and privacy.

Practice Runs or Responsible Planning?

In a January 11, 2024, tweet, Fox News analyst and former assistant secretary for public affairs for the U.S. Treasury Department, Monica Crowley, wrote:4

“From the same people who brought you COVID-19 now comes Disease X: Next week in Davos, the unelected globalists at the World Economic Forum will hold a panel on a future pandemic 20x deadlier than COVID …

Just in time for the election, a new contagion to allow them to implement a new WHO treaty, lock down again, restrict free speech and destroy more freedoms. Sound far-fetched? So did what happened in 2020. When your enemies tell you what they’re planning and what they’re planning FOR, believe them. And get ready.”

Dr. Stuart Ray, vice chair of medicine for data integrity and analytics at Johns Hopkins’ Department of Medicine, dismissed such warnings, telling Fortune magazine5 that “Coordination of public health response is not conspiracy, it’s simply responsible planning.”

I’d be willing to believe him if it wasn’t for a now-obvious trend: Whatever the globalists claim will happen actually does happen at a remarkable frequency, and their prognostic capabilities become easier to explain when you consider that most lethal pandemics have been caused by manmade viruses, the products of gain-of-function research. It’s pretty easy to predict a new viral outbreak if you have said virus waiting in the wings.

With that in mind, recent research from China certainly raises concern, to say the least. According to a January 3, 2024, preprint,6 a SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronavirus — described as a “cell culture-adapted mutant” called GX_P2V that was first cultured in 2017 — was found to kill 100% of the humanized mice (ACE2-transgenic mice) infected with it.7

The primary cause of death was brain inflammation. According to the authors, “this is the first report showing that a SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronavirus can cause 100% mortality in hACE2 mice, suggesting a risk for GX_P2V to spill over into humans.”

However, if this virus mutated as a result of passaging through cell cultures, then it’s not likely to emerge in the wild. It’s another unnatural lab creation, so rather than saying it may spill over from pangolins to humans, it would be more accurate to admit that it may pose a (rather serious) risk to humans were a lab escape to occur.

COVID Dress Rehearsals

In 2017, Johns Hopkins Center of Health Security held a coronavirus pandemic simulation called the SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028 scenario.8 Importantly, the exercise stressed “communication dilemmas concerning medical countermeasures that could plausibly emerge” in a pandemic scenario.

Then, in October 2019, less than three months before the COVID-19 outbreak, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in collaboration with Johns Hopkins and the World Economic Forum hosted Event 201.

The name itself suggests it may have been a continuation of the SPARS Pandemic exercise. College courses are numbered based on their prerequisites. A 101 course does not require any prior knowledge whereas 201 courses require prior familiarity with the topic at hand.

As in the SPARS Pandemic scenario, Event 201 involved an outbreak of a highly infectious coronavirus, and the primary (if not sole) focus of the exercise was, again, how to control information and keep “misinformation” in check, not how to effectively discover and share remedies.

Social media censorship played a prominent role in the Event 201 plan, and in the real-world events of 2020 through the present, accurate information about vaccine development, production and injury has indeed been effectively suppressed around the world, thanks to social media companies and Google’s censoring of opposing viewpoints.

In March 2021, an outbreak of “an unusual strain of monkeypox virus” was simulated.9 In late July the following year, the WHO director-general declared that a multi-country outbreak of monkeypox constituted a public health emergency of international concern,10 against his own advisory group.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

‘Catastrophic Contagion’ Exercise

Considering both of these simulations, SPARS (“Event 101”?) and Event 201, foreshadowed what eventually occurred in real life during COVID, when Gates hosts yet another pandemic exercise, it’s worth paying attention to the details.

October 23, 2022, Gates, Johns Hopkins and the WHO cohosted “a global challenge exercise” dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,”11,12 involving a fictional pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25).

Enterovirus D6813 is typically associated with cold and flu-like illness in infants, children and teens. In rare cases, it’s also been known to cause viral meningitis and acute flaccid myelitis, a neurological condition resulting in muscle weakness and loss of reflexes in one or more extremities.

Enteroviruses A71 and A6 are known to cause hand, foot and mouth disease,14 while poliovirus, the prototypical enterovirus, causes polio (poliomyelitis), a potentially life-threatening type of paralysis that primarily affects children under age 5. So, the virus they modeled in this simulation appears to be something similar to enterovirus D68, but worse.

Vaccine Drug Trials Begin for Deadly Nipah Virus

One known virus that bears some resemblance to the fictional SEERS-25 is the Nipah virus. This virus has a kill rate of about 75%,15 and survivors oftentimes face long-term neurological issues stemming from the infection. Nipah is also said to affect children to a greater degree than adults.16

Incidentally, human trials for a vaccine against the deadly Nipah virus were recently launched.17 Volunteers received their first shots in early January 2024. The experimental injection uses the same viral vector technology used to produce AstraZeneca’s COVID shot.

The trial is reportedly being carried out by the University of Oxford in an undisclosed area where Nipah is actively infecting victims. (India seems to be indicated, as an outbreak in Kerala killed two people and hospitalized three in September 2023.18)

The disease is thought to spread via interaction with infected animals such as goats, pigs, cats and horses. It may also spread via tainted blood products and food. Symptoms can emerge anywhere from a few days after exposure to as long as 45 days.

Initial symptoms include fever, headache and respiratory illness, which can rapidly progress to encephalitis (brain swelling), seizures and coma within just a couple of days. According to the WHO, pigs are known to be “highly contagious” during the incubation period, and it’s possible that humans may be as well, although that has yet to be confirmed.

Training African Leaders to Go Along With the Narrative

Tellingly, the Catastrophic Contagion exercise focused on getting leadership in African countries involved and trained in following the script. African nations went “off script” more often than others during the COVID pandemic, and didn’t follow in the footsteps of developed nations when it came to pushing the jabs.

As a result, vaccine makers now face the problem of having a huge control group, as the COVID jab uptake on the African continent was only 6%,19 yet it fared far better than developed nations in terms of COVID-19 infections and related deaths.20

The Catastrophic Contagion exercise predicts SEERS-25 will kill 20 million people worldwide, including 15 million children, and many who survive the infection will be left with paralysis and/or brain damage. In other words, the “cue” given is that the next pandemic may target children rather than the elderly, as was the case with COVID-19.

Vaccine Against Unknown ‘X’ Pathogen Is Already in the Works

Video Link

In August 2023, a new vaccine research facility was set up in Wiltshire, England, fully staffed with more 200 scientists, to begin work on a vaccine against the unknown “Disease X.” As reported by Metro:21

“It took 362 days to develop the Covid-19 vaccine. But the Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre team wants to reduce that time to 100 days. Scientists at the facility will develop a range of prototype vaccines and tests.

The new lab is a part of a global effort to respond to global health threats. The UK and other G7 countries signed up to the ‘100 Days Mission’ in 2021. The government has invested £65 million into the lab.

Professor Dame Jenny Harries, the head of the UK Health Security Agency, said the new facility would ‘ensure that we prepare so that if we have a new Disease X, a new pathogen, we have as much of that work in advance as possible.’”

In the U.S., Congress also introduced the “Disease X Act of 2023” (H.R.383222) back in June 2023. The bill calls for the establishment of a BARDA program to develop “medical countermeasures for viral threats with pandemic potential.” The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health in early June 2023 but has not yet been passed.

The Disease X Act amends a section of the Public Health Service Act with two new clauses that call for “the identification and development of platform manufacturing technologies needed for advanced development and manufacturing of medical countermeasures for viral families which have significant potential to cause a pandemic,” and “advanced research and development of flexible medical countermeasures against priority respiratory virus families and other respiratory viral pathogens with a significant potential to cause a pandemic, with both pathogen-specific and pathogen-agnostic approaches …”

Needless to say, since it’s impossible to customize vaccines using the conventional method of growing viruses in eggs or some other cell media in 100 days, it seems inevitable that all these efforts are about the expansion of gene-based technologies. This, despite the fact that the mRNA technology used for the COVID jabs has proven to be disastrous from a safety standpoint, and ineffective to boot.

Why Manufactured Pandemics Will Continue

At this point, it’s quite clear that “biosecurity” is the chosen means by which the globalist cabal intends to seize power over the world. The WHO is working on securing sole power over pandemic response globally through its international pandemic treaty which, if implemented, will eradicate the sovereignty of all member nations.

The WHO’s pandemic treaty is the gateway to a global, top-down totalitarian regime, a one world government. Ultimately, the WHO intends to dictate all health care. But to secure that power, they will need more pandemics. COVID-19 alone was not enough to get everyone onboard with a centralized pandemic response unit, and they probably knew that from the start.

So, the reason we can be sure there will be additional pandemics, whether manufactured using either fear and hype alone or an actual bioweapon created for this very purpose, is because the takeover plan, aka The Great Reset, is based on the premise that we need global biosecurity surveillance and centralized response.

Biosecurity, in turn, is the justification for an international vaccine passport, which the G20 has signed on to, and that passport will also be your digital identification. That digital ID, then, will be tied to your social credit score, personal carbon footprint tracker, medical records, educational records, work records, social media presence, purchase records, your bank accounts and a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC).

Once all these pieces are fully connected, you’ll be in a digital prison, and the ruling cabal — whether officially a one world government by then or not — will have total control over your life from cradle to grave.

We’re Already Suffering Under a Pseudo-One World Government

We actually already have a pseudo-one world government, in the form of Bill Gates’ nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). They are making health care decisions that should be left to individual nations and/or states, and they’re making decisions that will line their own pockets, regardless of what happens to the public health-wise.

They coordinate and synchronize pandemic communication during simulated practice runs, and then, when the real-world situation emerges that fits the bill, the preplanned script is played out more or less verbatim.

Between the G20 declaration to implement an international vaccine passport under the auspice of the WHO, and the WHO’s pandemic treaty, everything is lined up to take control of the next pandemic, and in so doing, further securing the foundation for a one world government.

As discussed in my 2021 article, “COVID-19 Dress Rehearsals and Proof of the Plan,” the pandemic measures rolled out for COVID-19 were the culmination of decades of careful planning to radically and permanently alter the governance and social structures of the world.

The medical system has been used in the past to drive forward a New World Order agenda — now rebranded as “The Great Reset” — and it’s now being used to implement the final stages of that longstanding plan. COVID-19 was a real-world practice run, and showed just how effectively a pandemic can be used to shift the balance of power, and strip the global population of its wealth and individual freedoms.

So, there’s no doubt in my mind that additional pandemics will be declared, because they’re the means to the globalists’ ends. To prevent this global coup, we need everyone to speak and share the truth to the point that you’re able. Only then will our voices outnumber the voices of the propaganda machine.

Door To Freedom (doortofreedom.org), an organization founded by Dr. Meryl Nass, has a poster that explains how the pandemic treaty and International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments will change life as we know it and strip us of every vestige of freedom. Please download this poster and share it with everyone you know. Also put it up on public billboards and places where communities share information.

Exposing COVID-19 Crimes


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/12/09/exposing-covid-19-crimes.aspx
The original Mercola article may not remain on the original site, but I will endeavor to keep it on this site as long as I deem it to be appropriate.


Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola     
December 09, 2023

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • In an October 2023 lecture, David E. Martin, Ph.D., detailed how we can know that SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade bioweapon that has been in the works for 58 years
  • The virus called “coronavirus” was first described in 1965. Two years later, the U.S. and U.K. launched an exchange program where healthy British military personnel were infected with coronavirus pathogens from the U.S. as part of the U.S. biological weapons program
  • In 1992, Ralph Baric at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, took a pathogen that used to infect the gut and lungs and altered it with a chimera to make it infect the heart, causing cardiomyopathy. This research was part of the efforts to produce an HIV vaccine
  • In November 2000, Pfizer patented its first spike protein vaccine. Between 2000 and 2019, vaccine trials using this technology proved it was lethal, yet in the summer of 2020, the clinical trials for the SARS-CoV-2 shots went straight into human trials
  • mRNA spike protein was publicly described as a bioweapon 18 years ago. In 2005, at a conference hosted by DARPA and The Mitre Corporation, the mRNA spike protein was hailed as a “biological warfare-enabling technology,” i.e., a biological warfare agent

The video above features a lecture David E. Martin,1 Ph.D., gave in Dornach, Switzerland, in late October 2023. Martin is a national intelligence analyst and founder of IQ100 Index, which developed linguistic genomics, a platform capable of determining the intent of communications.

This technology has allowed Martin to scan and review millions of patents, resulting in a paper trail2,3 that conclusively proves SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade bioweapon that has been in the works for 58 years.

Unambiguous Admission of a Premeditated Plandemic

As he is now in the habit of doing, Martin opens his lecture with a quote by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance. During a March 27, 2015, forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events, Daszak noted4 that unless an infectious disease crisis is at an emergency threshold, it tends to be ignored.

“To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs (medical countermeasures) such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine,” Daszak said, adding:5

“A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”

Martin comments:

“This is the admission, unambiguously, which states without any equivocation, that the reason for the global terror campaign that began officially in the minds of most people in late 2019, was a premeditated plan of terrorism, collusion, coercion and, ultimately, murder … This quote is the admission of four felonies, regardless of which side of the Atlantic you’re on.”

What Felonies Did Daszak Admit to in 2015?

Martin then goes on to explain how, in that quote from 2015, Daszak admitted to several different felonies. In summary:

• “To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis …” — Daszak is not speaking of expanding or benefiting public health here. He’s also not referring to an actual health crisis that was taking place when the comment was made.

No, according to Martin, “the crisis was that there was a reduction in funding of biological weapons programs sponsored by the World Health Organization. The crisis was not a health crisis. It was a funding crisis for the people who were running out of money for their bioweapons programs. Those are two crimes.”

• “A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the hype.” — This, according to Martin, is an admission of two additional crimes. “Hype” refers to psychological terror. In other words, funding will follow provided the psychological terror is great enough, and he admits the media will be used to push that fear porn.

The second felony is economic conspiracy, because “economics that follow hype is not informed consent,” Martin notes. “That’s not willing buyer, willing seller, informed of all the facts.” Using psychological terror to secure funding implies “an intent to defraud.”

Martin explains: “Under Crown Law we call it ‘fraudulent conveyance’ when you don’t inform the counterparty of the risks associated with a contract … Why is this important?

The reason why fraudulent conveyance is such an important principle in the law, is … [because] the fraud-perpetrating party is required under the law to not just recompense the damage.

Their legal obligation is to return the damaged party to their pre-damaged state. It’s not, ‘We’re going to give you a couple bucks for your pain and suffering. No, you are legally required to return the condition to the pre-damage state.”

So, to reiterate, financial compensation is not the legal standard when it comes to fraudulent conveyance. The party that engaged in the fraud is legally required to make the defrauded whole again. And why is THAT important? Because “we’re not even asking for what we should ask for,” Martin says.

Is there a dollar amount that can cure the myocarditis you suffered after the shot? Or the turbo cancer that’s killing your mother? Or the blood clots that killed your father? “If we followed the law, we would actually recommend, not a financial compensation, we would recommend a return to the pre-damaged state,” Martin says.

• “We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues.” — What are “the real issues”? To get investors to respond with funding, which they will do if they can “see profit at the end of the process.” In other words, investors will open their pocketbooks if they can confirm that psychological terror makes people line up to receive an injection.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Why Do We Need a Vaccine for an Eradicated Infection?

Martin goes on to note that a Pan-Coronavirus Vaccine Program was actually publicly announced during the moratorium on gain of function on coronaviruses in the United States, which was in place from 2014 until 2017.6

“That gain of function moratorium was going on while we were announcing a global plan of global terrorism, a pan-coronavirus vaccine, which, by the way, the World Health Organization … declared eradicated a year earlier,” Martin says.

“How do we need a vaccine for an eradicated disease, during a gain of function moratorium, when there’s theoretically no chance that we could have a reason to need a vaccine for a thing that doesn’t exist? Well, because we were making it — professor Baric. We were hyping it — Peter Daszak … And we were going to hijack liberty with it.”

The 58-Year Timeline of SARS-CoV-2

As explained by Martin, the virus called “coronavirus” was first described in 1965. Two years later, the U.S. and U.K. launched an exchange program where healthy British military personnel were infected with coronavirus pathogens from the U.S. — “as part of our biological weapons program.”

In 1992, Ralph Baric at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, took a pathogen that used to infect the gut and lungs and altered it with a chimera to make it infect the heart, causing cardiomyopathy.

“Pause and think about what I just said,” Martin says. “What what goes on in the head of a person who says, ‘This was a little glitch in my tummy, it was a little sniffle in my nose. Let’s see if we can make it hit hearts and … create cardiomyopathy,’ one of the most lethal heart inflammations possible …”

In November 2000, Pfizer patented its first spike protein vaccine. So, Operation Warp Speed really didn’t produce a spike protein vaccine in a few months. No, that research had been going on since late 2000. So, the COVID shots were 19 years in the making by the time they were rolled out.

The problem is that during those 19 years, none of the coronavirus vaccines worked. “Every single trial, from November of 2000 until [2019], had killed all of the animals into which the experimental injections were placed,” Martin says.

Despite that, the University of California San Francisco’s institutional review board was told, in the summer of 2020, that the clinical trials for the coronavirus vaccine were a “straight to humans protocol.” In other words, it didn’t need to go through preliminary animal research.

As noted by Martin, it would be quite inconvenient to have safety data showing it kills animals. No one would line up for a shot like that, no matter how many free cheeseburgers you throw at them.

How Can We Know That SARS Was a Weapon?

While all of that is disturbing enough, there’s more. Martin continues:

“You kind of can’t make this egregious level of a crime up unless you realize that behind this, there must be another crime. Each one of these, in and of themselves, is horrific. But the sum of them becomes much, much, much more problematic.

Let’s go ahead and jump to the wonderful creation of the patent that was filed in 2002, which is actually the reason why I am done with everybody who ask the question ‘Was there a novel virus; was there novel disease?’ Let’s stipulate, with the facts, that there were neither.

There’s not a novel virus. There WAS a variety of biological weapons designed off the back of the patent that was filed in 2002, which was the ‘infectious replication-defective clone of coronavirus.’

Now let’s slow down and answer the question, what does that phrase mean? Infectious replication-defective. ‘Infectious’ means we want to target a cell in the body to make sure the thing that we’re injecting goes into the cell …

‘Replication-defective’ means we want the information that we inject to infect that cell, but not replicate and spread to others, which means that the bioweapon itself was engineered as a weapon to hit a target, but not proliferate.

That’s what the patented technology is, which is the reason why, when we had SARS 1.0 in 2002 and 2003 … we were [told there would be] dead people everywhere. [But] as hard as we tried to make it into a pandemic … we [could] only kick 900 people off the mountain. That was the global pandemic. Why? Because the weapon worked.

If you exposed somebody to the toxic agent, they died. But they didn’t spread it to others, which is the reason why we did not have the transmission of SARS 1.0, because you can’t transmit a thing that’s designed not to replicate.

But worse still: What is the definition of a virus? … A virus is a replicating protein sequence. Guess what this isn’t? Replication-defective means we took the virus out of a virus. It was not a replicating device. It was in fact a weapon.

Now, I’ve got tons of people who go, ‘Dave, you’re crossing the line, don’t say it’s a weapon. It’s not a weapon … You offend people who kill people when you call it a weapon.’ Well, guess what, if you’re offended, I don’t care, because I didn’t call it a weapon — the guy who built it called it a weapon.”

mRNA Spike Protein Is a Biological Warfare Agent

Indeed, mRNA spike protein was publicly described as a bioweapon 18 years ago. In 2005, at a conference hosted by DARPA and the Mitre Corporation in the U.S., the mRNA spike protein was hailed as a “biological warfare-enabling technology.” Does that sound like it has any public health-related applications? No, as Martin insists, “biological warfare-enabling technology” means it’s a biological warfare agent.

“So, I’m not the one saying that it’s a biological weapon. I’m not the one saying it’s biological warfare,” Martin says.

“The perpetrator called it that in 2005, and was rewarded with a dual entry budget, where … the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, received money from Anthony Fauci’s NIAID/NIH budget, and exactly at the same time … Fauci had a second checkbook [that] came from the Department of Defense pandemic preparedness program. And guess what that was? An equal matching noncompetition grant …

In Europe, that’s a violation of anti-competition laws. You’re not allowed to double down on a public grant without competition or transparency, saying that this agency is going to give you $10 million … and [a second] one is going to give you $10 million … because [the first] one gave you $10 million —

Not because it was fair, not because it was open, not because it was transparent, not because there was actually grant competition, but by virtue of the determination of one side, the other side facto matched the money. And that started in 2005, not in 2019.”

Big Pharma Owns All North Carolina Universities

Over the past two years, a lot of information has come out exposing how Daszak funneled millions of research dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China for gain of function research on coronaviruses. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. According to Martin, at least $141 million went to the U.S. bioweapons program led by the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Martin continues:

“I have been the most ardent advocate for shaming the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill for a very good reason … and the reason is because in 1984, the state of North Carolina, not just the university, sold itself to … GlaxoSmithKline and the Wellcome companies.

The reason why you’ve heard the term ‘Research Triangle Institute’ or ‘Research Triangle Park’ — which is University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Duke University and North Carolina State University — is because the state of North Carolina sold its universities to GlaxoSmithKline Wellcome, and they did it because of AZT.

AZT was on patent, and we needed a state in the United States to be ground zero, to make sure that AZT became the drug of choice for the treatment of HIV. So in 1984, we invent HIV, conveniently for the purpose of making sure we have one treatment: AZT.

Here’s the interesting little fact that very few people know. If you go back and look at the videos of Anthony Fauci in 1985 and 1986 … he’s talking about [getting] a vaccine for HIV. But he suddenly got a knock on the door from GlaxoSmithKline going, ‘Hey Mr. Fauci, don’t start that project until the patent on AZT runs out.’

I’m not making this up. It’s actually videos that you can see. And so, mysteriously, courtesy of the Wellcome AZT protest, from 1991 to 1996, the world was told that the only treatment for HIV was AZT, and as such, the patent and the rest of the patent life on AZT could expire, so that GlaxoSmithKline Wellcome could get all of the money for the patented technology for a thing that was killing patients that allegedly had HIV.

Murder for hire. North Carolina sold the state so that could happen. Conveniently, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) decided that UNC Chapel Hill was its go-to institution, while AZT was in its monopoly run, to begin the process of doing HIV vaccine research …

So, ‘91 to ‘96 is the AZT cover story. Underneath that you have Ralph Baric genetically modifying and making chimeras of this coronavirus thing to create an HIV vaccine, which is going to conveniently roll out in 1997, as the patent on AZT expires.

[This] is the reason why you need to figure out how to get the gastrointestinal and flu problem to become a heart problem: Because you need to get that package, that little envelope around what we call coronavirus … to deliver the HIV vaccine.

So all of the funding for the HIV vaccine that was going to this program was actually going to use coronavirus as the packet in which the HIV vaccine was going to be delivered. That’s the model. [There are] hundreds of papers on this.

And, this is why this question of … is there HIV fragments somewhere in [the COVID shots]? The answer is, of course there is. It was designed into it. And it was designed into it, not a couple of years ago, not by Moderna, not by BioNtech. This was designed in many, many years earlier.

Not surprisingly, from ‘96 to ’99, Ralph Baric begins the weaponization of this allegedly synthetic coronavirus envelope to become a vaccine vector. 1999 comes along, and lo and behold, Baric and Fauci create what I affectionately call FrankenCoV.

What’s that? That is the monster, that’s the chimera. That’s the idea that we can change surface glycans, we can change surface spike proteins, we can change surface oligomerization, we can do all kinds of things to modify this thing.

So we can actually have this … package shell, the outer edge of coronavirus, we can allow that to be the carrier of getting anything we want into any cell we want. Which is the reason why the 2002 patent becomes interesting.”

NIAID Funded Research to Increase Human Pathogenicity

Next, Martin shows a letter, dated October 21, 2014, from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, declaring that Baric’s grant I1077810-02 had been deemed subject to the moratorium on gain of function research involving coronaviruses. However, at the bottom of the page 1, it also states that:

“As this grant is already funded, the pause is voluntary and you can continue to conduct the applicable GOF [gain of function] research until the end of the currently active budget period.”

In other words, the NIAID gave Baric a free pass to decide whether he wanted to abide by the moratorium or not. What’s more, the grant actually didn’t have a termination date, because it was a noncompetitive, perpetually funded grant. So, Baric was given a free pass to conduct gain of function research indefinitely.

And what was this grant for? To increase the “human pathogenesis” of coronavirus in vivo, meaning inside the body. “Two billion people are going to be incapacitated or killed — because of this letter,” Martin says.

Who Can Be Held Accountable?

Alright. So, why can’t we just prosecute Baric, Fauci and whomever else and be done with it? Because this research project was placed under the World Health Organization’s GAVI Vaccine Alliance, and under Article 5, Section 13 of the WHO’s charter, they cannot be investigated or prosecuted for any crimes committed. GAVI, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, also has diplomatic immunity and cannot be investigated by local authorities there either.

“They knew that if they put the project under the WHO, it was shielded from all criminal investigation and all criminal liability — forever,” Martin says.

But that’s not all. 2010 to 2020 was declared The Decade of Vaccines. GAVI devised a global vaccine action plan that included global acceptance of a “universal influenza-coronavirus vaccine” by 2020, to protect against “accidental or intentional release” of a respiratory pathogen. As noted by Martin, “release” is “an active, intent-filled word. It is not an ‘oops’ accident.”

Recall, the same person who said they needed to create media hype to create sustained funding, Daszak, was appointed to lead the WHO’s investigation into the lab leak theory. Not surprisingly, his team decided there was no evidence to support the lab leak theory and it was probably a case of zoonotic transference after all.

A Crime That Keeps Going and Going

Martin also stresses that this crime is not just about the creation of COVID. It’s a crime that keeps going and going. He explains how children were murdered in 2011 clinical trials for a malaria vaccine. Sixty-six of the children in the vaccine group suffered serious and/or fatal adverse events, as did 28 in the control group. However, controls were not given saline, but rather a cocktail of other vaccines.

“When people attempted to hold the clinical trials agents accountable for their actions, guess what they referred to? They referred to Article [5 Section] 13 of their representative as members [of the WHO, which gives them] ‘immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure personal baggage and respect to words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their official capacity, immunity from legal process of every kind.’

That’s in the charter of what we call the World Health Organization. That ladies and gentlemen is the mafia, and we should stop pretending it’s something else.

It is an embarrassment to the Swiss people. It is embarrassment to the Swiss government that the World Health Organization exists in this place. Because the Swiss have enabled the organized crime of the World Health Organization, and they have enabled it so that real individuals can murder children under the age of three months …

We the People cannot allow this to happen. We’re talking about the [WHO pandemic] treaty … [when] we should be talking about the World Health Organization itself, not the treaty. And as long as Section 13 of Article 5 remains in the charter, I don’t care what treaties they pass, it doesn’t matter, because the institution is corrupt at its core, and you can’t fix that. That is a license to kill.”

Martin also provides a quick review of the history of how the WHO came to be, and how, in 1952, then-director-general of the WHO, Brock Chisholm, declared that “the role of the WHO is population control.”

Aside from being in charge of population control, the WHO is a marketing and distribution arm for private sector interests that sponsor it (Bill Gates being a primary one), while simultaneously providing them with immunity from prosecution.

According to Martin, Gates various organizations provide so much money to the WHO that “By every definition of the law, [the WHO] is a wholly owned subsidiary.”

Timeline

Toward the end of his speech, Martin summarizes some of the key items on the timeline of the conspiracy to commit global genocide:

• In 2002, U.S. scientists developed the weapon.

• In 2003, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention patented the weapon in its first commercial deployment (SARS).

• In 2005, mRNA spike protein was declared a biological “warfare-enabling” technology.

• In 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published “SARS-Like W1V1-COV Poised for Human Emergence.”7 The W1V1-COV refers to the first COVID-like virus made at the WIV. In that article, they not only state that the virus is ready for release, but they also detailed the best ways to release it.

At the bottom of the article, you also learn that the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill impaneled two separate institutional review board reviews of this study, the first to review the ethics of the research and a second to review the ethics of violating the gain of function moratorium, which is unusual to say the least. As noted by Martin:

“You do not usually have an ethics board going ‘Well, should we do this? It’s probably a bad idea.’ And then somebody goes, ‘It’s illegal’ … ‘OK, should we do the illegal thing?’ ‘Yeah, let’s go ahead do that. The guys over here said it was ethical to do the illegal thing to kill people.’ That happened and is published in this 2016 article.”

• September 18, 2019, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, jointly founded by the WHO and the World Bank,8 warned that “a rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen (whether naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released) poses additional preparedness requirements.”

Furthermore, the “Progress indicator by September 2020” section specified the commitment by donors and member countries to finance and develop a universal influenza vaccine and other therapeutics.9

“This is the admission by the World Health Organization that they are going to do a release of a respiratory pathogen,” Martin says, adding:

“And, by the way, the reason why this is particularly important is they say ‘a lethal respiratory pathogen.’ They knew they were going to kill people. That’s why they use the word lethal …

This is the evidence that we can use in a criminal case to say, ‘This was not an accident. This was an actual premeditated act of lethality.’ They not only told you when it was going to happen. They told you the deadline for the outcome response. ‘We’re going to release the pathogen so that by September 2020, the world has accepted a universal vaccine.’ That is prima facia terrorism, collusion, racketeering, criminal conspiracy and … murder.

So that’s why we have the Wanted posters … [for] Peter Daszak … Ralph Baric … Jeremy Farrar … Chris Elias … Ghebreyesus … Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, the World Health Organization, DARPA, the United Nations … Rockefeller Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation.

These individuals, in violation of racketeering, antitrust and anticompetition laws, colluded to create the largest act of global terrorism known to Earth and announced the plan to do it on September 18, 2019, with premeditation and with the intent to kill.

This was entirely a premeditated act. They told us it would happen in 2011. They announced the event horizon in 2019 … Conspiring to commit acts of terror, restraint of trade, deceptive medical practices, price fixing, fraudulent conveyance. These are the crimes that the World Health Organization not only allowed to happen, but [it also] promoted these crimes and gave political cover for those crimes …

All-cause mortality in the ages of 18 to 55 is now 40% higher in the people that were injected with a biological weapon. That number is not going down. That number is going up in every jurisdiction. And here’s the saddest part about it. That number will continue to go up. If they [meet] their 2011 objective, that number will go up to 2 billion people.”

The Damage Is Done

Martin points out that even if they don’t unleash any other bioweapons, the desired death toll may still be achieved, because they used pseudouridine in the mRNA shots, which is causing “turbo cancers.”

Pseudouridine suppresses cancer-controlling agents and promotes oncogenic activity in the body, and this has been known since 2018, so its inclusion was hardly an accident.

The shots are also targeting reproduction, which is a key target if you want to depopulate. It’s not just infertility. Prostate, ovarian and uterine cancers make it more difficult to have sex, and hence more difficult to have children.

According to Martin, the evidence is clear. None of this is accidental. It’s a conspiracy, alright. But not a conspiracy theory in the dismissive sense. It’s a global conspiracy by identifiable agents who have, for nearly 60 years, plotted to commit, and profit from, the greatest genocide the world has ever seen, while hiding behind the false veneer of “public health.”

 

WHO declares popular artificial sweetener possible carcinogen

Reproduced from original article:
https://www.naturalhealth365.com/who-declares-popular-artificial-sweetener-possible-carcinogen.html


by:  | 

aspartame-declared-possible-carcinogen(NaturalHealth365)  The artificial sweetener aspartame has long been considered the dieter’s friend because of its ability to sweeten foods without the caloric or glucose impact of table sugar.  Since 1974, some of the biggest brands in the food industry have used it to replace sugar in their “diet foods and drinks”.

However, a recent study raised some serious concerns about the use of aspartame for human consumption, leading the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency under the purview of the World Health Organization (WHO), to declare the substance “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

And the big food brands are not very happy about it.

Editor’s note: We do NOT consider the World Health Organization a trustworthy health “authority” … but, when this corrupt agency declares artificial sweeteners a cancer trigger – you can imagine how bad this is for human health.  We’ve been warning our readers about the danger for years!

Breaking News: Alarming evidence emerges as WHO considers declaring aspartame a potential carcinogen

Aspartame has long been the sugar replacement go-to for many major food brands.  It was discovered by James Schlatter in 1965 and, by 1974, had gained favor with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which approved its use as a sweetener and dry base for gelatins, puddings, dairy, drinks, and other foods.  In 1996, the FDA approved it as a general sweetener, and the big food brands eagerly jumped on the bandwagon.

While aspartame is considered a “diet food” product because it is up to 200 times sweeter than sugar but does not have the caloric impact of sugar, it is also found in other foods.  Today, it is one of the most common sweeteners on the market, and the most popular mega brands in the world use it in their diet products.

Now the IARC is looking to add aspartame to its list, Group 2B, as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”  However, this is not the first issue raised about the substance.  It has a long list of health conditions it is linked to, such as birth defects, diabetes, epilepsy, emotional disorders, migraine, and more.

Study reveals disturbing link between high aspartame consumption and elevated cancer risk

The IARC is poised to take a significant step forward, prompted by a groundbreaking study published in 2022 in PLOS Medicine.  The study establishes a disturbing connection between high aspartame consumption and an elevated risk of obesity-related cancer and breast cancer.  While the IARC’s evaluation does not consider safe consumption thresholds, it does rely on this study as a pivotal basis for its guidance.

Furthermore, mounting scientific evidence reveals that aspartame poses more harm than benefit to the human body.  A study conducted in December 2022 has even linked this artificial sweetener to anxiety in mice, corroborating earlier research findings.  Most concerning is that this particular study uncovered a potential transgenerational effect, with anxiety persisting for up to two generations.

These findings cannot be taken lightly, as they underscore that the dangers of aspartame reach far beyond temporary discomforts like headaches or stomach upsets.  Scientific evidence paints a grave picture of the potential for severe damage to the human body.

What do major food brands say?

As expected, the major food brands are none too happy about the declaration.  This has the potential to upset many mega food brand apple carts, and they are railing back.  American Beverage, a trade association representing brands like Coca-Cola Co, PepsiCo, and others, issued a statement to Forbes defending the use of aspartame.

Naturally, they attempted to discredit the IARC by downplaying its ability to effectively assess food safety, saying that it is not a food safety agency.  At the same time, it countered that the FDA is a food safety agency and it, as well as others, have found aspartame to be safe.

In 1981, the FDA set aspartame’s acceptable daily intake (ADI) as 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day.

But this was 1981.  Science has made tremendous strides in so many areas since then.  For instance, in 1981, smoking was largely accepted.  People were able to smoke on airplanes, in restaurants, and even in hospitals.  Further, it wasn’t until the mid to late 1980s that scientific research established the dangers of smoking during pregnancy.

And the tobacco companies railed against those studies, too – but those studies were proven to be absolutely true.

We can’t hold on to research from decades ago just because it supports the agenda of mega food companies whose primary motivation is profit.

Cut your cancer risk by saying NO to aspartame

The best way to cut your cancer risk is to avoid the use of aspartame.  That may be easier said than done, but it can be done.

Read food labels, even on foods that you would never suspect of having aspartame.  It is added to many foods, even those that are not marketed as “diet” or “sugar-free.”

Focus on eating fresh organic foods.  Avoid all highly processed foods and stick to fresh, organic fruits and vegetables, nuts, seeds, and grass-fed meats.

Avoid “diet” sodas and juices.  Stick to water or make your own fresh juice.  Beware of using water enhancers, though.  Many contain aspartame.  Again, read the labels.

Just say NO to aspartame.  If enough people put those products down, it will spark changes in the food industry on a much larger scale.

Sources for this article include:

News-Medical.net
IARC.WHO.int
NIH.gov
Forbes.com
AmericanBeverage.org
Academic.OUP.com
LiveMint.com

 

Why Do Vaccines Keep Failing to Live Up to Their Promises?


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/07/08/covid-19-vaccine-failure.aspx
The original Mercola article may not remain on the original site, but I will endeavor to keep it on this site as long as I deem it to be appropriate.


Analysis by A Midwestern Doctor     
July 08, 2023

covid 19 vaccine failure

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Vaccines are often ill-suited to contain the diseases they are made for. Because of this, false promises have to be made so the public will agree to a vaccination campaign. So as time moves forward, the goalposts have to be continually moved as the vaccines fail
  • The ways vaccines fail are relatively consistent, so both those failures and the policy responses to those failures are pretty easy to predict. Almost everything that has happened with the COVID-19 vaccines should have been known before their deployment upon the American people
  • The failures of the COVID-19 vaccines provide an immensely valuable lesson for understanding the critical issues underpinning the practice of vaccination. These lessons are essential for everyone to learn so that the same vaccine scam cannot be pulled with the next infectious disease that comes along

In October 2019, my relatives decided to go on a trip to China in December, and for reasons I can’t explain, I began to have a strong feeling something terrible was going to happen there. When they got back shortly before Christmas, however, nothing had happened. I wasn’t sure what to make of it until a coworker who spent a lot of time on anonymous message boards asked if they’d gotten “that virus in China.”

I looked it up and quickly realized something concerning was happening in China. However, rather than it being mentioned in the media (which always sensationalizes every infectious disease), its (real) danger was being censored, and both the media and the Democrat party were actively attacking anyone who suggested it could be a problem.

At the end of 2019, I had a flash of everything that would happen over the next three years, and my experience since then has been the surreal experience of watching that nightmare manifest into reality and — despite my best efforts — being powerless to stop it. The best analogy I found for the experience was being a grain of sand near the seashore that was powerless against the ocean’s waves that were moving me all over the place.

Similarly, when the much-heralded NEJM study on Pfizer’s vaccine came out, after spending thirty minutes going through the study, I saw exactly what was going to happen with the vaccine over the next few years.

I told many of my colleagues, almost all of whom — despite the correct but highly unorthodox predictions about the course of the pandemic I’d already provided over the last year — thought I was crazy or did not understand vaccinology and did not listen to me. Many have since apologized to me because my predictions (which were heretical then) subsequently came true, and much of the collective hypnosis around the vaccines has broken.

The reason I was able to make these predictions had nothing to do with me being a clairvoyant; rather, they were a result of me using already established principles or precedents and taking them to their logical conclusion. In turn, a lot of my work over the last year and a half has been to try to bring awareness to those principles so the disaster we witnessed over the past three years (and others that preceded it) cannot continue to repeat.

The Lead-up to COVID-19

In 2015, a coordinated campaign kicked off to mandate vaccines across America, initially justified by a small measles outbreak that occurred in California at the end of 2014. No one died, but the media started a hysterical campaign about it, and before long SB277, a bill mandating vaccines in California, was proposed.

It provoked mass political protest (many parents in California have vaccine-injured children), and after a divisive debate at the Capitol, the governor eventually signed the bill. In his signing message, he explicitly stated that it had been agreed any medical exemption to vaccination must be respected.

After this, vaccine mandates were pushed across the country, where in all cases, regardless of the public protest or testimony given against the bills, legislators voted down party lines (all Democrats wanted mandates, all Republicans opposed them — with the closest defeat of the mandates happening in Colorado).

I also vividly remember learning that in Colorado, one of the activists witnessed a pharmaceutical lobbyist typing messages on her laptop to the Democratic legislators that were then repeated verbatim during a public hearing on the proposed law.

This was quite surreal to watch (since previously, the Democrat party had stood up to Big Pharma), and I believe this rapid change of the political landscape was one of the key reasons why Trump adopted vaccine skepticism into his populist presidential campaign.

When all of this was happening, Sherri Tenpenny warned us that this was simply the opening salvo in the WHO’s and Bill Gates’s decade of vaccines plan, and mandatory adult vaccinations would be enacted in a few years.

When she said this, I fully admit I believed something like that could never happen because it would require an almost impossible emergency (e.g., a highly contagious bioweapon entering the population) to occur. So as you can imagine, I became very, very worried at the end of 2019.

To illustrate how relentless and well coordinated all of this was, after SB277 passed, demand for medical exemptions to vaccination in California understandably increased as well. This led to a PR campaign (e.g., see this article) being launched to go after the doctors who wrote the medical exemptions (which, as noted above, SB277 was supposed to protect).

This “emergency” of unscrupulous medical exemptions was then used to draft SB276, which both revoked the right of a physician to write a medical exemption to vaccination and for the medical board to end the career of any doctor who did (along with systematically revoking all existing exemptions).

This bill also met massive protest but nonetheless was signed into law two months before the start of COVID-19. After several examples made out of anyone who wrote an exemption, California doctors were unwilling to take on the risk of writing an exemption.

So not surprisingly, once the COVID-19 vaccines came out, I heard numerous stories of egregious ethical lapses by physicians (e.g., after someone was placed in a California ICU for a near-fatal blood clot the ICU doctors agreed came from the vaccine, none of them were willing to write the patient a vaccine exemption for work for the second dose of the vaccine).

Note: I covered what happened during this period in more detail here.

Vaccine Mythologies

Our society regards vaccination as the salvation which brought us out of the dark ages of rampant infectious disease. Because of this (inaccurate) mythology, most physicians view vaccines as completely safe and effective. As a result, physicians are typically resistant to considering anything that casts doubt on the merits of vaccination (since doing so would directly challenge their identity as medical doctors), and they have a variety of cognitive blind spots on the issue.

For example, because vaccines are assumed to be safe and effective, doctors will often not even consider a “vaccine-preventable illness” in vaccinated individuals with signs of the illness. This is why outbreaks of diseases like pertussis (few doctors know the vaccine does not prevent pertussis infection or transmission) initially are not recognized in vaccinated populations.

The two fundamental misunderstandings that were pervasive throughout the medical field at the time of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign were as follows:

1. Vaccination does not guarantee herd immunity — Instead, vaccines typically fail to prevent disease transmission and trigger the evolution of variants that are resistant to the vaccine. As this is a complex subject, it is explained in a longer article where I reviewed how this has occurred with many other vaccinations and the typical patterns of how vaccines fail.

In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, the manufacturers did not even bother to test if the vaccines would prevent transmission and this was well known in 2020 before the vaccines had even hit the market.

“Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either (table 1). None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”

2. Every vaccine causes harm — and often in very similar ways — In most cases, the odds a vaccine will cause an injury are significantly greater than the odds a vaccine will prevent an injury of equivalent severity from the disease the vaccine “protects” you against.

This is also a complex subject, so it was covered in a previous article on the relative risks and benefits of each vaccine which was written since many parents asked me which vaccines they needed to opt out of giving to their children (some vaccines are much more dangerous than others).

Because of these, we typically see a similar pattern with vaccination.

Initially, the vaccine is portrayed as being dramatically safer and more effective than it is. This is used to convince the public to support a voluntary and limited mass vaccination campaign.

Note: In recent decades, pervasive corruption has entered the academic publishing industry, and as a result, a fairly consistent playbook has been developed for concealing the adverse effects observed in clinical trials and making an ineffective drug appear effective.

This fraud is relatively easy to recognize (e.g., it’s covered in this book and this book), but unfortunately, the medical journals are financially dependent on the pharmaceutical companies and thus never expose it.

For example, when I read the NEJM paper on the COVID-19 vaccine, I had a very good idea of the research fraud that likely occurred due to my familiarity with the horrendous HPV vaccine trials. Because of this, much of the research fraud and gaslighting of injured clinical trial participants I predicted would happen was later confirmed by whistleblowers and participants within the trials.

Once a certain threshold of people receives the vaccine, the fact that so many people have been vaccinated is used to create the political justification to create some mandate for the vaccine.
The vaccine fails to achieve what it was promised to do and injures numerous vaccinated people, creating widespread resistance in the population.

Note: Aggressive marketing of a vaccine over a short period suggests there will be significant issues with the vaccine that thus requires hitting the necessary threshold for mandates before widespread resistance emerges against the vaccine.

This vaccine failure is interpreted as a sign that not enough people were vaccinated, rather than the vaccine being unable to prevent disease outbreaks (and in some cases worsening them).
Typically, in nature, if something fails to work or causes an undesirable state to be reached, a corrective measure will stop it from continuing to occur (this is known as negative feedback). The failure of vaccines, coupled with the unbreakable faith in them instead, results in a positive feedback loop where their failures increase the zeal to vaccinate.
In a few cases (specifically with the most dangerous vaccines), this has led to widespread protests against their use (e.g., there was a widespread protest in the military against the anthrax mandates). The earliest example was the mass protests against the failed smallpox vaccines over a century ago which eventually ended the mandates and not long after smallpox as well.

Everything we’ve witnessed with the public protest against the COVID-19 vaccines is a deja vú of the smallpox debacle, which serves to illustrate how deeply these patterns are ingrained within our collective psyche.

Note: Recently, The Times published an investigation which at last acknowledged SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab (something exceedingly evident from the very start of the pandemic that we were nonetheless gaslighted and censored over throughout the pandemic). One quote in that article caught my eye:

“The investigators believe the Chinese military had taken an interest in developing a vaccine for the viruses so they could be used as potential bioweapons. If a country could inoculate its population against its own secret virus, it might have a weapon to shift the balance of world power.”

For context, China’s attempts to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2 were a failure, and to address outbreaks, China had to institute a variety of draconian policies which met widespread resistance from the populace (who actually managed to force China’s authoritarian government to back down).

This quote is hence noteworthy because it either illustrates China’s inability to recognize their faith in vaccination was preventing them from recognizing that strategy could only backfire on them or that the investigator’s own blind faith in vaccination led them to assume China’s military must have shared that faith as well.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

The Flawed COVID-19 Vaccine Design

When the COVID-19 vaccines hit the market, there were a few major issues with them many were not aware of. First, there were serious questions about if it was realistic to develop a COVID-19 vaccine:

• It’s challenging to make vaccines against coronaviruses (e.g., they rapidly mutate).

• Despite SARS first emerging over twenty years ago and a great deal of research being dedicated to making a vaccine against this more dangerous coronavirus, there had been no successes, and SARS vaccines tested in animals, through antibody-dependent enhancement, worsened rather than improved a SARS infection in vaccinated animals.

• Vaccines that are (at least somewhat) successful take years to develop. Developing one, testing it on humans, and mass producing it in under a year bordered on impossible. Because this was impossible, every possible corner had to be cut to make that timeline.

Because of this, much of the necessary research was skipped (but given a pass by the regulators), and there were unprecedented quality control issues with the vaccines that were eventually produced.

• Vaccinating once most of the population had already been exposed to COVID-19 meant that it was unlikely the vaccine could do anything meaningful to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and if anything, would worsen the course of the pandemic by creating harmful variants (e.g., Geert Vanden Bossche repeatedly tried to warn the public about this).

Many of these issues were known within the mainstream vaccinologist community, so even the most extreme vaccine zealots like Peter Hotez (who testified to a Congressional committee) warned there were severe issues with attempting to make this vaccine.

In short, making a safe and effective vaccine in a year bordered on impossible. Second, there were serious issues with the vaccine design:

The safety of the lipid nanoparticles was not established before vaccination, and specific concerning characteristics of them (such as their use of polyethylene glycol, a known allergen that many in the population had already been sensitized to) were ignored.
The mRNA vaccines functioned by mass-producing the spike protein throughout the body. It was never established where the vaccine would end up or how long it would last in the body (Pfizer and Moderna were allowed to skip testing this before their approval).

Many of the problems we have since encountered with the vaccines are due to the persistence and spread of the mRNA and spike protein throughout the body. You may remember that they were initially promised to only get into the cells of your muscles (excluding where the DNA was) and then rapidly disappear.

Since lipid nanoparticles were already known to spread throughout the body and the vaccine mRNA was modified to resist being broken down by the body, it should have been assumed this would happen if there were no data to refute the possibility.

The spike protein was one of the most rapidly mutating parts of the coronavirus. Historically, vaccines made only against one antigen (“monovalent vaccines”) tend to fail, even in cases where the antigen mutates more slowly, as they create a selective pressure for the pathogen to no longer carry the vaccine’s antigen.
The vaccines directly injected into the body created an immune response to the spike protein in the blood. They did not, however, create an immune response to it in the lining of the respiratory tract (e.g., the nasal mucosa). Because of this, while the vaccine had the potential to reduce symptoms, it was unlikely the vaccine could ever prevent transmission, and this same issue has been observed in numerous other vaccines.

However, even though this principle was well-known to vaccinologists and Pfizer’s own paper never claimed their vaccine prevented transmission, it was assumed to and used as a justification to turn the population against each other and institute mandates.

The spike protein was highly immunogenic. Furthermore, it had many unusual matches with human tissue, something known to create autoimmunity and which many academics warned against before the spike protein vaccines hit the market. Worse still, the spike proteins were expressed on the surface of the cells that the synthetic mRNA had transfected, which would likely trigger the immune system to attack those cells.

Not surprisingly, the mRNA vaccines ended up having an extraordinarily high rate of triggering autoimmune diseases, and as far as I know, no other pharmaceutical has done anything comparable.

The spike protein appeared to be a highly effective agent at collapsing the zeta potential of the body (this was a distinguishing characteristic of COVID-19 infections).

This is a common mechanism of harm with all vaccines, but typically they have a much smaller adverse effect on zeta potential. This is why amongst other things, blood clots are so common after vaccination and why vaccine injuries often respond to treatments that restore the physiologic zeta potential.

All of this meant that a vaccine based on mass-producing the toxic spike protein in the body was unlikely to be effective and likely to cause harm. As time has passed, we have seen that on an unprecedented scale and discovered a variety of other “unexpected” ways it messed up the immune system.

Sadly, none of this mattered, and despite our best efforts (e.g., we brought up the least controversial red flags), we could not prevent our colleagues from vaccinating, quite a few of whom are now injured and regret taking the vaccine.

Although I’ve seen similar things in the past, it was still almost surreal to observe how effective the marketing campaign for these vaccines was and how many doctors believed they were a modern-day miracle that would end the pandemic.

Because of how badly the vaccines were designed (many of their issues could have easily been avoided, and this should have been apparent to Pfizer’s scientists), many of us have wondered if the vaccines were deliberately designed to fail.

Although this seems nonsensical at first, it makes a lot of sense if the goal was to sell as many products as possible, given that there was no accountability for the vaccine’s failures and those failures could be attributed to new variants that needed new boosters.

Note: A longer discussion of why the COVID-19 vaccines could never work can be found here.

Moving the COVID-19 Goal Posts

“Moving the goalposts is a metaphor, derived from goal-based sports, that means to change the rule or criterion (goal) of a process or competition while it is still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an advantage or disadvantage.”

Since vaccines inevitably fail to live up to their impossible promises, new reasons must be continually invented to justify pushing them on the population.

As you may remember, the COVID-19 vaccines were initially presented as being voluntary (in fact, they were originally marked under a scarcity model with each recipient being privileged to get a vaccine), it was claimed the pandemic would soon be over with the miracles of two dose mRNA vaccines, and not a peep was ever mentioned about the potential need for boosters.

The goalposts were then eventually moved to mandatory vaccinations, the vaccines only reducing your chance of dying, the virus being with us for the foreseeable future, and requiring multiple boosters each year. This reversal was entirely predictable as it followed the playbook already developed with previous vaccinations.

Fortunately, because of how unfeasible the vaccines were and just how aggressively their impossible promises were dishonestly promoted to the population (many of which I cataloged here), a lot of people woke up to the entire scam — especially after a Pfizer representative admitted to Europe’s parliament that they lied about the vaccine preventing transmission (ironically justifying this lie under the fact the unrealistic timeline to produce the vaccine forced them to). I thus frequently saw memes like this:

who meme

In addition to the meme’s accuracy, since it was created, every remaining justification for the COVID-19 vaccines has been demolished. First, numerous datasets have shown that vaccines actually increase one’s risk for COVID-19 and that this risk increase as you receive more vaccinations. This was most clearly shown by the Cleveland Clinic’s study of 51011 people):

cummulative incidence of covid

Likewise, more and more datasets have emerged showing vaccination campaigns were correlated with an increase in death:

biden's vaccine mandate

In some data sets that could show it, this mortality was also shown to be directly associated with being vaccinated:

ever vaccinated vs unvaccinated

Furthermore, this risk was shown only to increase following vaccination:

israeli ministry of health report

Note: Medicare data (summarized here) also showed an increased risk of death following vaccination.

Recently another Substack author dug up a study that destroyed the last goalpost. It was a retrospective study of Merck’s highly questionable COVID-19 therapy on patients within the VA (which provided a larger and relatively homogenous dataset). However, this study inadvertently did something that is typically not permitted — it compared the severe COVID-19 outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. To quote Igor Chudov:

control group

Note: These results are both highly concerning (drugs with a much smaller risk profile have been pulled from the market) and, as shown above, consistent with everything else that has been observed with the vaccines.

Conclusion

Two fundamental issues are responsible for the COVID-19 debacle that, in many ways, are two halves of the same coin.

The first is the vaccine-positive feedback loop (which the pharmaceutical industry has been eager to encourage). If something novel were to be introduced, you would initially be cautious about adopting it.

Then if you saw signs the new thing was harmful and had the opposite effect of what was intended (e.g., killing people instead of saving lives), you would back off of it. However, due to the vaccine positive feedback loop, the exact opposite occurs, and the proponents of the vaccination campaigns double down on doing even more of it. As I tried to show with the smallpox example, we have lived with the consequences of that dysfunctional mindset for over a century.

That unshakable faith in vaccination, in turn, is why we still won’t follow practices that could dramatically reduce the rate of harm from vaccination (e.g., spacing vaccinations out, not giving the most harmful vaccines, and not giving Tylenol after a vaccine-induced fever).

It’s also why so few healthcare professionals understand many of the signs and mechanisms of vaccine injury (despite those mechanisms having been worked out decades ago) and why simple treatments for vaccine injuries (e.g., restoring the physiologic zeta potential) are still almost unknown.

The second is how much money goes into our medical system and how the medical industry reciprocally focuses on how to get more money rather than meeting its duty of making people healthy (which it arguably has an inherent conflict of interest in doing as you can’t sell medicine to people who aren’t sick). This trend is best exemplified by the fact each year, more and more of our money goes to healthcare spending:

healthcare expenditures

Yet despite almost a fifth of all the money spent in the USA going to healthcare, we have significantly worse healthcare outcomes than the other developed nations, all of whom pay much less than we do on healthcare, and nothing has been done to break this positive feedback loop. Instead, we keep spending more on our dysfunctional healthcare apparatus.

Once you see things through this lens, everything makes much more sense. For example, clinical trials cost a lot of money, so if a profit-focused pharmaceutical company gets data that suggests they will lose the money they invested in the clinical trial, why wouldn’t they fake the data to suggest otherwise?

Similarly, if medical journals, the media, and government regulators are responsible for catching this fraud but depend on pharmaceutical money, how could you expect them to expose a fabricated trial? As the years go by, the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and the corruption I’ve seen in all the parties responsible for preventing it keeps increasing. During COVID-19, it accelerated to such a degree that much of the public could see it too.

It also entered other industries like Big Tech (which reciprocally invested in the industry which was followed by taking the unprecedented step to zealously censor anything online that threatened the pandemic boondoggle) and made the corrupt leadership within the Federal Government become more and more brazen in their advocacy for the industry over the American people.

Recently, for example, I covered the industry’s annual conference for investors (which sets the tone for the drug campaigns we will see over the next year). That conference had the head of the FDA, Califf (who had a long history of working hand in hand with Big Pharma), be invited as a keynote speaker.

Furthermore, right before the conference started, Califf presided over the non-traditional approval of a new drug, and it just so happened that the financial opportunities created by that drug (and a few others the FDA had recently enthusiastically approved) were the focus of the conference.

Note: I specifically covered that conference because while the drugs they promoted for treating these new franchises had many huge issues, safe, affordable, and effective treatments for Alzheimer’s disease and treatments for obesity have existed for years and, in many cases, decades. Unfortunately, like many other effective therapies, they are simply forgotten sides of medicine because no one can make money off of them.

However, while the medical profession and our societal institutions have been unable to break the downhill spiral created by this positive feedback loop, one functioning negative feedback system still exists — the American Public. Consider, for example the results of this recent survey of 1000 American adults:

survey

I sincerely believe the pharmaceutical industry overplayed its hand, and the choice to push the COVID-19 vaccines on the public will be immensely costly to the industry in the long term due to the widespread loss of public trust in Big Pharma. The best parable I can think of for this situation is “The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs,” which tells the story of a goose that periodically did just that for its previously impoverished owners.

After becoming fabulously wealthy, its owners decided they needed even more money and killed the goose to get the rest of the eggs inside it — only to discover there was no gold in the goose, thus squandering the immense source of prosperity that had fallen into their laps. Like many others, I am therefore doing my best to utilize the unprecedented window the industry has given us to get their golden goose, and I thank each of you for helping to do so too.

A Note From Dr. Mercola About the Author

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I’m grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.

More Reasons to Quit Using Any Artificial Sweeteners


Reproduced from original article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/06/21/more-reasons-to-quit-artificial-sweeteners.aspx
The original Mercola article may not remain on the original site, but I will endeavor to keep it on this site as long as I deem it to be appropriate.


Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
     Fact Checked     June 21, 2023

more reasons to quit artificial sweeteners

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The World Health Organization (WHO) warned people not to consume aspartame (Equal), sucralose (Splenda) or other artificial sweeteners for weight control
  • According to WHO, artificial sweeteners don’t offer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children
  • A WHO systematic review also revealed “potential undesirable effects from long-term use” of artificial sweeteners, including “increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults”
  • Newborns from mothers who consumed a lot of sucralose during pregnancy experienced a number of negative metabolic and inflammatory effects
  • Other research linked aspartame consumption to anxiety and found the mental health changes were passed on to future generations

Thousands of popular foods and drinks are made artificially sweet with chemical sweeteners. Long claimed to be a healthy choice because they contain no calories or sugar, evidence continues to emerge that consuming artificial sweeteners is a good way to wreck your health.

It doesn’t matter if you choose aspartame (Equal), sucralose (Splenda) or another artificial sweetener. Consuming these products is putting your health at risk, so much so that even the World Health Organization warned people not to consume them.

WHO Warns Against Non-Sugar Sweeteners for Weight Loss

Diet foods and drinks are among the most common products that contain artificial sweeteners. Marketed as tools for weight loss, this deceptive practice lures people into thinking they’re a smart way to shed extra pounds.

Yet, a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by the World Health Organization revealed “there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance, or if they are linked to other long-term health effects at intakes within the ADI.”1

In May 2023, WHO released a new guideline, advising not to use non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) for weight control because they don’t offer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children.2

What’s more, the systematic review suggests “potential undesirable effects from long-term use of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults.” In a news release, Francesco Branca, WHO director for nutrition and food safety, said:

“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages. NSS are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health.”

The WHO guidance to avoid artificial sweeteners applies to all categories of the chemicals, including acesulfame K, aspartame, advantame, cyclamates, neotame, saccharin and sucralose. The systematic review and meta-analysis included 283 studies, which revealed artificial sweeteners are linked to an increased risk of:3

Obesity Type 2 diabetes
High fasting glucose All-cause mortality
Cardiovascular events Death from cardiovascular disease
Stroke High blood pressure
Bladder cancer Preterm birth and possible adiposity in offspring later in life

According to the WHO study:

“Mechanisms by which NSS as a class of molecules might exert effects that increase risk for obesity and certain NCDs [non-communicable diseases] have been reviewed extensively and include interaction with extra-oral taste receptors, possibly with alteration of the gut microbiome.

Because sugars and all known NSS presumably elicit sweet taste through the TAS1R heterodimeric sweet-taste receptor, which has been identified not just in the oral cavity but in other glucose-sensing tissues, it is not surprising that such a group of vastly different chemical entities could be responsible for similar effects on health.”

Reasons To Be Wary of Sucralose

In the U.S., sucralose is the most commonly used artificial sweetener. It’s found in more than 6,000 food products, including many diet beverages. When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved sucralose in 1998, none of the studies it reviewed involved humans.4

One of sucralose’s key marketing claims has long been that it neither metabolizes nor bioaccumulates in the human body, thus making it a basically inert substance. In 2018, however, an animal study found sucralose was metabolized in the gastrointestinal tract and accumulated in fat tissue.

This was “not part of the original regulatory decision process for this agent and indicate that it now may be time to revisit the safety and regulatory status of this organochlorine artificial sweetener,” the researchers wrote at the time.5

Based on these findings, consumer group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate whether sucralose’s marketing claims are deceptive. According to USRTK:6

“Sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar and itself contains no calories. Although it has been marketed as a healthy product that can help fend off obesity and diabetes, sucralose consumption has been linked to leukemia, weight gain, obesity, diabetes, liver inflammation, metabolic dysfunction and other illnesses.”

In 2022, a study published in Microorganisms also revealed that consuming sucralose — in “amounts, far lower than the suggested ADI”7 — for just 10 weeks was enough to induce gut dysbiosis and altered glucose and insulin levels in healthy, young adults.

The bacteria most affected by sucralose appeared to belong primarily to the phylum Firmicutes, which are centrally involved in glucose and insulin metabolism. However, it doesn’t end there. Animal studies suggest the sucralose-altered gut microbiome could be involved in inflammation of the gut and liver, as well as cancer.

Additionally, a new study published May 29, 2023, in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health found that a chemical broken down in the body when you consume sucralose is genotoxic and breaks up your DNA.8 The fat soluble compound, sucralose-6-acetate, is produced in your gut during digestion at a threshold exceeding the European Food Safety Authority’s maximum allowance for a single sucralose-sweetened drink in one day.

In their abstract,9 study authors noted the DNA-damaging implications of such toxicity: “Sucralose-6-acetate significantly increased the expression of genes associated with inflammation, oxidative stress and cancer … Overall, the toxicological and pharmacokinetic findings for sucralose-6-acetate raise significant health concerns regarding the safety and regulatory status of sucralose itself.”

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

A Warning About Sucralose Intake During Pregnancy

A 2023 study published in Biomedicines also raised red flags about consuming sucralose during pregnancy.10 Animal studies have previously found that sucralose intake during pregnancy may increase the risk of weight gain, metabolic disturbances and low-grade systemic inflammation in offspring. The research team found similar effects in humans.

The study evaluated newborns from women who had heavy sucralose intake — defined as more than 36 milligrams (mg) of sucralose a day during pregnancy — or light sucralose ingestion, defined as less than 60 mg a week. Newborns from mothers with heavy sucralose intake experienced a number of negative metabolic and inflammatory effects compared to newborns of light intake women, including:

  • Significant increases in birth weight and insulin
  • Substantial increase in the percentage of inflammatory nonclassical monocytes
  • Higher IL-1 beta and TNF-alpha with lower IL-10 expression

From 2000 to 2010, the consumption of artificial sweeteners increased 54% in adults and 200% in children. The researchers called for urgent investigation into the effects of artificial sweetener intake during pregnancy, which could significantly increase chronic disease burden in adulthood:

“Together with numerous studies in animal models, present results expand on the notion that sucralose and other NNS [non-nutritive sweeteners] may act as obesogenic factors during fetal development, influencing the onset of obesity and metabolic disease in childhood.

We encourage other research teams to conduct prospective cohort studies to follow up on newborns intrauterinally exposed to sucralose across the years to draw significant conclusions regarding the possible role of NNS in programming obesity and metabolic disease later in life.

The urgent need for additional investigation in this field is justified when considering that up to 50% of obese children become obese in adulthood with a 4-fold increased risk of developing chronic non-communicable diseases such as T2D.”

Is Aspartame Making You Anxious?

Artificial sweeteners’ detrimental effects aren’t limited to the physical realm. Mental health effects have also been reported, including for aspartame. Approved by the FDA in 1981, aspartame can be found in close to 5,000 food and beverage products. Worldwide, 3,000 to 5,000 metric tons of aspartame are produced annually, and, like sucralose, it’s widely consumed by adults, including pregnant women, and children.11

When you consume aspartame, it’s broken down into aspartic acid, phenylalanine — a precursor of monoamine neurotransmitters — and methanol, which may have “potent” effects on your central nervous system, Florida State University (FSU) College of Medicine researchers noted.

Their study, published in PNAS, linked aspartame consumption to anxiety and found the mental health changes were passed on to future generations. The FDA’s recommended maximum daily intake value for aspartame is 50 milligrams per kilogram.

The FSU study involved mice drinking water that contained aspartame at a dosage of approximately 15% of the FDA’s maximum daily intake for humans. The dose was equivalent to a human drinking six to eight 8-ounce cans of diet soda daily.12

The mice consumed the aspartame-laced water for 12 weeks, which led to “robust, dose-dependent anxiety.”13 “It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see,” study author Sara Jones said. “It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes.”14

The study came about after the research team looked at the transgenerational effects of nicotine, revealing epigenetic changes in sperm cells. Similar effects may be occurring from artificial sweeteners. Study co-author Pradeep Bhide, the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Eminent Scholar Chair of Developmental Neuroscience in the Department of Biomedical Sciences, explained:15

“What this study is showing is we need to look back at the environmental factors, because what we see today is not only what’s happening today, but what happened two generations ago and maybe even longer.”

Mice exposed to aspartame had changes in the expression of genes that regulate excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a region of the brain involved in regulating anxiety and fear. The changes were also seen in up to two generations from the aspartame-exposed mice.16

Aspartame Linked to Cancer, Weight Gain

There’s no reason to consume aspartame if you value your health. Like sucralose, it’s linked to a number of serious health problems, including:17

Cancer Cardiovascular disease Alzheimer’s disease
Seizures Stroke and dementia Intestinal dysbiosis
Mood disorders Headaches Migraines

Adding insult to injury, since many people consume aspartame thinking it will help them “diet,” it’s also linked to weight gain, increased appetite and obesity-related diseases.

In a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis18 published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, consuming artificial sweeteners was associated with increases in weight and waist circumference along with increased incidence of obesity, high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome, Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular events.

Regarding cancer, a 2022 population-based cohort study published in PLOS Medicine, which involved 102,865 adults, revealed artificial sweeteners — especially aspartame and acesulfame-K — were associated with increased cancer risk, including breast cancer and obesity-related cancers.19

Are You Ready to Ditch Artificial Sweeteners?

It’s clear that artificial sweeteners have no place in a healthy diet. Fortunately, as you work to eliminate ultraprocessed foods from your meals, you’ll naturally consume less artificial sweeteners, which are primarily found in products like diet drinks, desserts, candies, snacks and flavored yogurts. Be aware, however, that they’re also hidden in condiments, salad dressing and medications, so you’ll need to read labels to ensure you avoid them.

If cravings are stopping you from giving up these toxic sweeteners, the video above shows how to use the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), a psychological acupressure tool, when you feel a craving coming on. It can help you overcome the urge to consume a poisonous artificial sweetener.

Other natural craving-busters include sour foods like fermented vegetables or water with lemon juice. When you feel the urge to eat something artificially sweet, grab a glass of water or tea with citrus juice added for a much healthier treat.