Electronic Pen

Editor's Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published December 21, 2018.

Sweet marjoram (Origanum majorana) is an aromatic herb native to the Mediterranean region known for its aromatherapeutic and culinary uses. Its botanical name means "joy of the mountain" in Greek, and was used to make wedding wreaths, as Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, was believed to wear wreaths made with marjoram.1

Marjoram is classified as a perennial, and can grow as high as 2 feet tall, and sometimes a little bit higher. It has woody square stems, an upright appearance and opposing pairs of leaves.2 It's closely related to (and often confused with) oregano, because of their similarity in appearance.

To make things even more confusing, their botanical names defy logic. Origanum vulgare, which is commonly known as the common oregano, is also known as wild marjoram. It can be very tricky, so thorough research must be done first before you purchase either of these plants.

Also keep in mind that oregano and marjoram will cross-pollinate, so if you grow them near each other, you'll end up with a cross that will make proper identification near-impossible.

Top 5 Health Benefits of Marjoram

Marjoram can be used in cooking, or in aromatherapy in its essential oil form. The herb also has a long history of use in folklore medicine for gastrointestinal, ocular, nasopharyngeal, respiratory, cardiac, rheumatologic and neurological disorders, just to name a few.3

Its pharmacological activities include antioxidant, hepatoprotective, cardioprotective, anti-platelet, gastroprotective, antibacterial and antifungal, antiprotozoal, antiatherosclerosis, anti-inflammatory, antimetastatic, antitumor, antiulcer and anticholinesterase inhibitory activities.4

Oregano, meanwhile, is known for its antioxidant and anticancer activities, with the highest antioxidant activity found in Oregano fulgare ssp. Hirtum, and the lowest in Oregano vulgare L.5 Depending on how it's used, marjoram is known to provide the following health benefits:6,7

• Improved digestive function — When used to make tea, marjoram can improve your digestion by increasing production of digestive enzymes that help break down food. In addition, marjoram tea can help alleviate common digestive disorders such as flatulence, constipation, diarrhea and stomach cramps.
• Protection against common illnesses — Marjoram contains various compounds that have effective antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal properties. As such, it can help reduce your risk of diseases such as the common cold, measles, mumps, influenza, food poisoning and various staph infections.
• Improved heart health — Marjoram can help improve your overall cardiovascular health by maintaining normal blood pressure levels, which lowers your risk of hypertension. It's also known for helping reduce the buildup of cholesterol in your arteries, which can prevent heart disease.
• Anti-inflammatory effects — When added to food, marjoram can help reduce your risk of developing inflammatory reactions. It can help with conditions such as asthma, fever, muscle aches, sinus headaches and migraines.
• Psychological well-being — Marjoram, in its essential oil form, can help uplift your mood and improve your psychological well-being. It can be used to help relieve insomnia and reduce stress and anxiety.

The Various Uses of Marjoram

The beauty of marjoram is that it can be added to various dishes that use different cooking methods, such as:

• Soups — It gives vegetable soups more flavor8
• Roasted meats — Marjoram can add an herbal aroma to roasted meats, such as chicken9
• Sautéed vegetables — Side dishes such as sautéed vegetables become more flavorful with a dash of marjoram10
• Marinades — Upgrade the taste of your marinated meat and fish dishes by adding marjoram to the marinade11

Adding marjoram to your garden can reap benefits as well. Not only does it create a beautiful atmosphere, but it also helps attract butterflies and other insects that feed on pests and decomposing matter, and help pollinate plants.12,13

Oregano can be used as a substitute for marjoram if you don't have it in storage at the moment. Just remember that although these two plants are very similar in appearance, they do differ in flavor. Oregano has a stronger pine taste, while marjoram is sweeter and milder. If you want to use oregano in place of marjoram, only use small amounts to mellow out its strong taste.14

How to Grow Marjoram

Marjoram is quite easy to grow in the comfort of your own home. It can be placed in an indoor container, window box or outdoors in your garden. For basic instructions, see the video above. While marjoram can grow in almost any type of soil, for best results, use sandy and fast-draining soil, as the plant only requires minimal watering. If the soil is too wet, the quality of the plant will suffer.15

Plant marjoram seeds during the late winter or early spring, because the extremely cold temperatures will damage the plants and may even cause seedlings to die out.16 If you're just starting out, plant indoors first and when the snow has melted, transfer the plants to your outdoor site. Make sure the location has plenty of sunlight. When grown in shade, the plant tends to lose its flavor.17

Start planting seeds by placing them just beneath the surface of the soil. As the seedlings grow, thin them out so that they're spaced about 10 inches apart. The plants are ready for harvesting once they reach a height of 3 inches. To get the best flavor, harvest before the flowers start to open.

Once picked, dry the plant to seal in taste and aroma. An easy way is to simply group several stems together in a small bundle, and hang it upside down in a dark room with good ventilation. Once dry, remove the leaves from the stem. Crush or grind the dry leaves before using.18

Try This: Spicy Roast Chicken With Tomatoes and Marjoram

This recipe from Bon Appétit19 uses marjoram to provide the chicken with a wonderful aroma and flavor once it's roasted. With the addition of tomatoes and red pepper, this dish is not only delicious, but warm and inviting as well.

Spicy Roast Chicken With Tomatoes and Marjoram

Ingredients

• 24 ounces of cherry tomatoes (about 4 cups), stemmed
• 1/4 cup of coconut oil
• 5 garlic cloves, pressed
• 1 1/4 teaspoons of dried crushed red pepper
• 2 tablespoons of chopped fresh marjoram
• 4 pasture-raised chicken breast halves with ribs
• Himalayan salt and freshly ground pepper, to taste

Procedure

1. Heat the oven to 450 degrees Fahrenheit.
2. Toss the tomatoes, coconut oil, garlic, crushed red pepper and 1 tablespoon of marjoram in a large bowl.
3. Place the chicken slices on a rimmed baking sheet.
4. Pour the mixture over the chicken, while arranging the tomatoes in a single layer on a sheet around the chicken breasts.
5. Sprinkle the chicken generously with salt and pepper.
6. Roast until the chicken breasts are cooked through and the tomatoes are blistered, about 35 minutes.
7. Transfer the chicken to plates and spoon the tomatoes and juices over. Sprinkle the plates with the remaining marjoram and serve.

Marjoram Essential Oil Has Unique Benefits, Too

Marjoram oil happens to be popular among aromatherapy enthusiasts, and is known for providing a warm, spicy, woody and camphoraceous scent that can provide a vast array of benefits, such as:20

• Analgesic — Helps alleviate pain related to colds, fevers, inflammation and headache.
• Antiseptic — Applying marjoram essential oil on wounds can help prevent them from becoming infected and developing tetanus.
• Antibacterial — Helps kill bacteria that may cause various skin and digestive infections.
• Carminative — Can help solve digestive problems such as flatulence by relaxing the muscles in the abdominal region.
• Diuretic — Can help increase your frequency and quantity of urination, thereby helping improve your ability to eject excess water and harmful toxins from your body.

Before using marjoram essential oil (or any essential oil), you need to be aware of any potential allergic reactions. If you have any pre-existing medical conditions or are pregnant, it's important to visit your doctor first and let them know of your intention to use marjoram essential oil.

Once you've gotten permission from your doctor, do a skin patch test on your arm. Place a drop of the oil on your arm and check for any allergic reaction or irritation. Should something occur, stop using the oil immediately.

 Comments (12)

A 2023 study1 published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) demonstrated that participants with poor diet quality and low intake of flavanols experienced improved memory when flavanols were added to their diets. Flavanols are readily available in certain foods, but for the purposes of this study participants took a pill-form supplement.2

The large-scale study was conducted over a three-year period with supplements containing 500 mg of flavanols and 80 mg of epicatechins, an amount normally recommended that adults consume through the foods they eat. While participants with a baseline flavanol deficiency benefited from the supplementation, researchers noted that it had "no effect on people who don’t have a flavanol deficiency."

There is a range of normal memory and learning in the elderly. You likely know an older adult who is cognitively sharp and rarely forgets anything and others who may forget things occasionally. The National Institute on Aging3 calls mild forgetfulness a normal part of aging.

However, serious forgetfulness and memory problems are an indication there may be something wrong. Poor memory and learning skills make it difficult to live independently, pay your bills and do everyday things like driving a car or using a phone.

In the featured study, researchers were interested in how nutrient deficiencies may impact hippocampal function in memory. The hippocampus is a brain structure important for encoding and retrieving events in episodic, or long-term, memories. Animal models have demonstrated that lesions in this area make it difficult to remember the sequential ordering of scent despite the ability to recognize the odor.4

The nutrient the scientists evaluated was flavanol, which is a type of flavonoid with high antioxidant properties. Flavanols are commonly found in green tea, cinnamon, red wine, grapes, apples and cocoa products.5

Flavanol Deficiency Contributes to Memory Loss in the Elderly

The result of this study brings to mind the old expression that an apple a day may keep the doctor away. It's the flavanols in apples that were the focus of the study, the first to conclusively establish that a diet low in flavanols is one driver behind age-related memory loss.6

This was the most recent study from the same team that has been researching age-related memory loss for over 15 years. The studies began with animal models and the most recent data was gathered from the COcoa Supplements and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS), which involved 21,442 men and women from across America.7

The arm of the COSMOS study designed to evaluate the impact flavanols may have on cognitive aging in the hippocampus is called COSMOS-Web. Data was gathered from 3,562 older adults who were randomly assigned to receive either a daily supplement of flavanol in pill form or a placebo for three years.

At the start of the study, the researchers assessed the participants’ diet and short-term memory using web-based activities at home. These same tests were repeated at the end of years one, two and three. Additionally, roughly one-third of the participants also sent urine samples so researchers could identify biomarkers indicating levels of dietary flavanols. This offered greater accuracy in measuring if flavanols were associated with the participants’ cognitive performance.8

The researchers found what you may have expected — memory scores increased greatest when compared to baseline in the participants who had the lowest level of flavanol intake in their diet. The 16% improvement was measured in year one and was sustained for the following two years. Memory scores for the entire group improved only slightly.

These results suggest that a deficiency in flavanol is one driver of age-related memory loss, but additional flavanols over and above what the body requires does not provide added benefits. Adam M. Brickman, Ph.D., professor of neuropsychology and co-leader of the study commented in a press release:9

"The improvement among study participants with low-flavanol diets was substantial and raises the possibility of using flavanol-rich diets or supplements to improve cognitive function in older adults."

What Are Flavanols, Flavonols, Flavonoids and Flavones

Although the terms are very similar, the structures of flavanols, flavonols, flavonoids and flavones are different. Flavonoids are a family of polyphenolic compounds in plants. Within that family are six large subclasses of compounds. These include flavanols, flavonols, flavones, isoflavones and anthocyanidins.10

Flavones are a large subgroup of flavonoids and can be found in flowers and fruits such as parsley, red peppers, ginkgo biloba and celery.11 Flavonols have a ketone group and are the building blocks of proanthocyanins. They can be found in abundance in fruits and vegetables. The most studied of these are kaempferol, quercetin and myricetin.

Flavanols, the subject of the featured study, are also called catechins or flavan-3-ols in reference to a hydroxyl group in the compound. You may recognize two flavanols that are found in tea, chocolate and berries — epicatechin and gallocatechin.12

Flavonoids Are Key to a Sharp Mind

The results of the featured study support the results of a 2021 study13 from the same team published in Scientific Reports. In this shorter 12-week study, researchers engaged 211 healthy adults and investigated the effects of daily administration of 260 mg, 510 mg and 770 mg of cocoa flavanols. The primary outcome was an object recognition task that engaged the hippocampus.

The findings suggested that flavanols "may be associated with memory function of the aging hippocampus and normal cognitive decline." Another 2023 study14 looked at the association between dietary intake of flavonols with changes in cognition.

The study engaged 961 people between 60 and 100 years in the Rush Memory and Aging Project. This is a prospective cohort of community-dwelling people living in Chicago. The participants were followed for an average of 6.9 years, during which cognitive performance and flavonol intake was assessed.

They found the participants who had higher levels of dietary intake had a slower rate of decline in global cognition and across other cognitive domains. The researchers wrote:

"Results suggest that dietary intakes of total flavonols and several flavonol constituents may be associated with slower decline in global cognition and multiple cognitive abilities with older age."

The key to this study was that the researchers did not use supplementation, but only looked at whole food intake. Nutritional researchers who spoke with CNN15 about the findings stressed that since whole food was used and contains many other bioactive compounds, we cannot be certain that it was flavanols that warded off dementia.

However, it's worth noting that the synergistic effect between compounds in whole food is what creates the best benefits. So, the take-home message here is that fruits and vegetables are good for you, especially for your brain.

Take Care to Include Kaempferol and Quercetin

Many people used quercetin supplements for early treatment of COVID-19 once access to hydroxychloroquine was restricted. Both are zinc ionophores, which means they help shuttle zinc into the cell where it has potent antiviral activity. Initially, researchers thought this was the only reason why quercetin worked so well against the virus but later discovered several other beneficial mechanisms that impact COVID.

For those interested in general long-term health, you can get quercetin from a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, including onions and shallots, apples, broccoli, asparagus, tomatoes, strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, red leaf lettuce and green tea.16

The quercetin content in the food is dependent on light exposure, so depending on where the food was harvested, the foods that top the quercetin-rich list will differ. Aside from slowing cognitive decline, quercetin also is helpful in the prevention and/or treatment of:

High blood pressure and triglycerides17

Cardiovascular disease18

Obesity and metabolic syndrome19

Certain types of cancer20

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)21

Gout22

Arthritis23

Mood disorders24

Aluminum-induced neurodegenerative changes,25 such as those seen in Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)

Like quercetin, kaempferol selectively inhibits the growth of cancer cells.26 Good sources of this nutrient include kale, spinach and other green leafy vegetables, onions, chives, dale, tarragon, wild leeks, asparagus and berries.27 Kaempferol is also found in ginkgo biloba and is one of the plant’s most important constituents.

Ginkgo is a tree native to China that's been used in traditional Chinese medicine for thousands of years. Ginkgo’s ability to improve memory and cognition and to prevent or treat dementia has also been studied for decades. In general, Ginkgo is believed to positively affect your body by increasing blood supply, reducing blood viscosity, boosting neurotransmitters and reducing harmful free radicals.28

A word of caution though — the seeds of the Ginkgo tree contain ginkgotoxin (4'-O-methylpyridoxine), an "antivitamin" that may lead to neurological problems in certain people, particularly those who are deficient in certain B vitamins.29

More Strategies to Help Protect Memory and Cognition

In addition to ensuring that you consume a nutrient-dense diet and adequate amounts of the appropriate vitamins and minerals, there are more strategies that you can use to help protect your cognitive health and memory, such as:

• Staying hydrated — In 2013,30 CBS News reported that it was possible up to 75% of Americans were chronically dehydrated. While it may be the simplest way to support your overall health and your cognitive health, it is apparent that many people have difficulty staying hydrated.

The best way to determine if you have had enough to drink is the color of your urine. Aim to urinate every 2 to 3 hours and for urine that is a light straw color.

• Keeping active — Exercise encourages your brain to work, stimulating nerve cells to multiply and strengthening their interconnections. During exercise, nerve cells release neurotrophic factors such as brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which triggers other chemicals that promote neural health and directly benefit cognitive functioning.

Exercise improves brain structure and function, and research has shown it significantly increases hippocampal volume in older adults with probable mild cognitive impairment.31

• Getting good sleep — Sleep is vital to brain health. Research from Harvard suggests that people are 33% more likely to infer connections between distantly related ideas after sleeping, but few realize that their performance has improved.32 Data have also shown that a midday nap can dramatically boost and restore the brain's learning capacity.33

You can improve the quality of your sleep by using a sleep mask to eliminate light during the night. In a two-part study, the results of the first part showed participants who wore light-blocking sleep masks had "Superior episodic encoding and an improvement on alertness."34 Further testing showed the participants perform better on word pair association tests and tests to measure reaction times.

In the second part of the study, those wearing light-blocking sleep masks had an increased ability to learn new information and form memories and had more slow-wave sleep, which may be beneficial for memory.35

• Avoiding anticholinergics — One risk factor that may impair memory development and increase the risk for dementia is a class of drugs known as anticholinergics. These compounds block acetylcholine, which is a neurotransmitter that performs important functions within your brain such as triggering muscle contractions and pain responses and the regulation of your endocrine system and REM sleep cycle.

In your brain, it's a key player in attention, concentration,36 memory formation and consolidation,37 which is precisely why these drugs can cause symptoms identical to dementia. Anticholinergic drugs are widely prescribed for depression, motion sickness, insomnia, allergies and dizziness.

You’ll find a long list of these medications on TheSeniorList.com,38 some of which you may recognize such as diphenhydramine (Benadryl), Tylenol PM, pseudoephedrine and Xanax.

 Comments (21)

June 5, 2023, the World Health Organization and the European Commission announced the launch of a “landmark digital health initiative to strengthen global health security.”1,2

As explained in the press release,3 as of this month, the WHO will establish a global COVID-19 vaccination certification system based on the European Union’s (EU) already existing Digital COVID Certificate (EU DCC) to “help facilitate global mobility and protect citizens across the world from ongoing and future health threats.”

Eventually, this vaccine passport system will be expanded into a Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN) run by the WHO that will include “a wide range of digital products to deliver better health for all.” The vaccine passport will also, in time, cover all recommended vaccinations, not just COVID-19.4 The press release continues:5

“This partnership will work to technically develop the WHO system with a staged approach to cover additional use cases, which may include, for example, the digitization of the International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis. Expanding such digital solutions will be essential to deliver better health for citizens across the globe.

This cooperation is based on the shared values and principles of transparency and openness, inclusiveness, accountability, data protection and privacy, security, scalability at a global level, and equity. The European Commission and WHO will work together to encourage maximum global uptake and participation.”

Why Implement COVID Passport When Shots Don’t Work?

As reported by The Daily Sceptic, the announcement raises many questions:6

“Vaccine passports are controversial, even in the United Nations ... June 30th 2021 ... the UNESCO World Commission for the Ethics of Science and Technology and the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee released a joint statement warning that ‘any COVID-19 certificate ... should account for scientific uncertainty regarding the degree of protection that specific vaccines, past infections and negative COVID-19 test results provide’ ...

In light of these concerns, the UN agencies proposed that ‘a research program should be developed to assess their impact on society and public health, and the risks they might bring.’

The new press release from the WHO and EU makes no mention of the progress of this research program, or whether it has been established at all. Is it not necessary to ascertain the effectiveness and cost-benefit profile of an intervention before rolling it out globally and making it permanent?

Given how leaky COVID vaccines are, and how short-lived any protection offered by them might be — some studies even show the vaccinated suffering higher infection rates than the unvaccinated — it’s hard to imagine that vaccine passports delivered any real limitation of disease transmission.

But the WHO and EU don’t appear to regard this as a relevant question to ask. Is that because they blindly assume they are beneficial, or because they have other reasons for wanting to roll out this restrictive technology globally?”

The implementation of a vaccine passport system — which the WHO claimed it did not support when concerns were initially raised about it in 20217 — is a clear sign that the WHO fully expects to take the reins on global health, and that public health is not the primary incentive behind this power grab.

WHO Takeover Moves Full Speed Ahead

Already, WHO members have approved a $6.83 billion budget for the next two years (2024 through 2025), which will require a 20% hike in mandatory member fees.8,9 “Strategic priorities” that will receive large chunks of this funding include:10

• Expanding universal health coverage to at least 1 billion people who do not currently have it
• Ensuring 1 billion more people are “better protected from health emergencies”
• Ensuring 1 billion more people can enjoy “better health and well-being”
• Developing more effective and efficient WHO support to member countries
• Eradicating polio (most likely through expanded vaccination programs)

That budget increase is also needed because the WHO is being set up as the sole decisionmaker over public health globally through the proposed pandemic treaty and International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments, each of which reinforces the WHO’s authority and power through different avenues while erasing national sovereignty and human rights.

If the WHO gets its way, it will no longer be a body that makes recommendations that countries can choose to follow. Rather, its “advice” will be akin to declarations of international law. Member states will be required to follow the WHO’s “recommendations” or face costly consequences.

Once the pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments are implemented, the WHO will have the authority to impose everything from climate lockdowns and border closures to mandatory vaccinations of all kinds. We’ve also warned that the WHO would implement a mandatory vaccine passport system for population control purposes, and with the announcement above, we can consider that a done deal.

The WHO will even have the authority to dictate what is truth and what is misinformation that must be censored. The WHO will essentially outlaw democracy worldwide because democracy cannot exist unless there is freedom of speech in public discourse.

Member states will have no choice but to censor what the WHO wants censored, because each country is also required to set up an enforcement agency to ensure the WHO’s edicts are followed nationwide, and that includes censorship activities.

Understand Where We’re Headed

For a further review of the WHO’s new Global Digital Health Certification Network, see John Campbell’s video review above.

It’s now beyond imperative that people understand where we’re headed, and that the COVID measures weren’t just responses to a given pandemic, but rather were the foundation for a totalitarian one world government where human rights and freedoms will no longer exist.

Indeed, the pandemic treaty redefines human rights as “health equity” and nothing else. The IHR amendments also eliminate individual rights and freedoms specifically. IHR Article 3 is being amended as follows (strikethroughs in the text indicate that the text is to be deleted, and the additions or revisions are underlined in bold):

“The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities of the States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development.”

In other words, bodily autonomy and personal choice are being replaced by one-size-fits-all medicine that has no regard for human dignity, human rights or fundamental freedoms. The right to opinions that differ from the WHO’s is also being removed on the national level.

IHR Article 2 is also being amended in such a way that the WHO will have the authority to take action on ANYTHING that has the “potential to impact public health,” and this includes everything from climate and pollution to agricultural land use and the food industry, as specified under the One Health agenda,11,12 which is baked into the pandemic treaty.

To understand what’s at stake, please review the article-by-article compilation of the proposed IHR amendments,13 found here, and then compare that to the proposed treaty. A “Zero Draft” dated February 1, 2023, can be found here.14

As explained by the WHO back in 2021, the treaty is the “framework that recognizes the central role of the IHR.”15 So, these two instruments are designed and intended to work as a unit, with the treaty giving recognition to the IHR, and the IHR amendments stripping nations of their sovereignty.

But that’s not all. Baked into the pandemic treaty we also have One Health, which perfectly dovetails with The Great Reset narrative. When you add these three things together — the treaty, the IHR amendments and One Health — it becomes clear that the WHO is being set up as the de facto power center of the deep state, and this One World Government will rule everything.

Treaty Expands WHO’s Power Beyond Pandemics

As illustrated in the graphic16 below, the One Health agenda is based on the premise that a broad range of aspects of life and the environment have the potential to impact human health.

In addition to the life segments listed on this graph, the scope of One Health, according to a One Health Commission document,17 also includes communications, economics, civil society, global trade, commerce and security, public policy and regulation, research, noncommunicable diseases and much more.

Under the new treaty, the WHO will have unilateral power to make decisions about all of these areas, and its dictates will supersede and overrule any and all local, state and federal laws. In short, if the pandemic treaty is enacted, the WHO will not merely have the authority to dictate how countries prepare for and respond to pandemic threats: It will have the authority to dictate every aspect of our lives.

The WHO, in turn, is beholden to and does what its funders want, and the largest funder is Bill Gates (when you add together all his various donation sources). Gates, of course, is invested in all primary Great Reset necessities, including fake food, drugs, vaccines, surveillance and climate modification technologies.

One Health Is the Subversion of Holistic Health

As noted by David Bell, a senior scholar at Brownstone Institute, a public health physician and former medical officer and scientist at the WHO, the One Health agenda is really the subversion of the age-old holistic concept of health:18

“Ill health is a lever for fear, and death even more so, especially to those who believe that we are simply organic constructs that end in dust and decay. A cult feeding off these fears, holding that the entire biosphere is threatening us with diseases and death, would therefore have real potential for mass control.

Convince followers that humans are the poison that made this world so destructive, and you will also have a means to stoke hate against non-believers whilst adding guilt to the tools for compliance.

A cult based on fear of the world and the people who poisoned it, dressed up in philanthropy and virtue, has risen amongst us. Co-opting One Health terminology, it is now funded by the spoils of COVID, and empowered by technology that can take this medieval witch-hunting sect global.

The environment, everywhere, should be managed and protected for human benefit — physical, mental, and social. The One Health concept, centered in such common sense, was once no more than this. It is a rational way to express an age-old principle ... Sanitation and improved nutrition will save more lives than the next round of profiteering brought to us by Pfizer.

However ... One Health has been hijacked by self-proclaimed philanthropists ... One Health is being corrupted in two ways, but for the same ends and by much the same people. Understanding one tells us about the people we are dealing with, the other reveals their motives.”

The One Health Ideology Is Anti-Human

As explained by Bell, One Health is an ideology that places human life and welfare on par with all other life, including plants and animals. This means that your life, and the lives of your children, are no more important than the lives of polar bears, trees, waterways and soil.

If your actions cause ecological harm, and the polar bear doesn’t, then you are the one who must be eliminated from the equation. That’s really the crux of this ideology. It’s not pro-environment but, rather, anti-human at its core.

“Within this ‘equitable’ worldview, humans become a pollutant,” Bell writes.19 “Ever-growing human populations have driven other species to extinction through environmental change, from the megafauna of ancient Australasia to the plummeting insect populations of modern Europe.

Humans become a plague upon the earth, and their restriction, impoverishment and death may therefore be justified for a greater good.

It is difficult for people to grasp that this is a guiding ideology of public figures, as it runs counter to most human moral systems or Natural Law ... We must understand the ideology driving this movement, as they intend for us to follow their dictates, and they intend to indoctrinate our children.”

Expose the Barren Ideology of One Health

One Health is also designed to control the masses through fear. We’re constantly bombarded with predictions of doom and told we must be protected for our own good.

“Expanding this approach from a single virus to any aspect of the biosphere impacting human well-being, such as climate, provides an opportunity to use this totalitarian tool of population control to reshape society to the model that the purveyors of fear desire,” Bell notes, adding:

“Through amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and a new ‘pandemic treaty,’ the WHO is coupling this broad definition of One Health with a definition of ‘emergency’ that simply requires recognition of a threat rather than actual harm.

When applied to the WHO’s broad definition of health, ‘physical, mental and social well-being,’ almost all aspects of normal life could be included in its scope. Addressed through a proscriptive public health paradigm that encompasses global mandates, restrictions and censorship, and those running this agenda have an opportunity for unprecedented power ...

[In] 2019, the WHO stated in its recommendations for pandemic influenza that border closures, quarantine, and prolonged business closures should never be undertaken in response to a pandemic. These measures would drive inequality and disproportionately harm low-income people, destroying both economies and social capital.

In 2020, refocusing priorities on a new constituency, the WHO promoted these same inequitable policies. The evidence did not change, but the constituency did. Wealthy people and corporations had become significant directive funders of WHO programs. Those who benefit from improved nutrition and sanitation cannot fund the WHO’s growing staff, but those profiting from the largesse of the COVID response can ...

Evil is not defeated by hiding from it. It is fought by exposing the ideology that drives it, the greed, the lies, and the deceit ... In the end, mad ideologues collapse under the weight of their own deceit and the shallowness of their dogmas.

The earth-mother religion of a corrupted One Health and the feudalist ambitions of its priests will be no different. We should not fear public health or a holistic view of the world. They are ours and can be a force for good. Rather, we should expose the hollowness of the people who would subvert them, driven by their own greed and barren ideologies.”

We’re Running Out of Time

Importantly, as noted by comedian Jimmy Dore in the featured video above, the pandemic treaty is not something that member nations must opt into. It’s an opt-out proposition. If a nation fails to opt out before the deadline, they automatically accept the treaty.

Based on the current timeline, the World Health Assembly (WHA) will vote on the pandemic treaty in May 2024, and it will take force 30 days later. That gives us just under a year and a half to get the U.S. to either opt out, or better yet, exit the WHO altogether.

The IHR amendments will also be voted on in May 2024. The 10-month deadline for member states to reject the amendments will expire in March 2025, and the amendments will come into force for any nation that did not reject them in May 2025. For any member that rejects the amendments, the 2005 IHR will apply.

Strangely enough, some of the IHR amendments have been adopted already. As reported by author and researcher James Roguski,20 they were adopted during the 75th World Health Assembly, May 27, 2022, even though nothing was signed. This is yet another testament to the rampant lawlessness and subversive tactics we’re dealing with.

Disturbingly, many Americans aren’t even aware that the U.S. government is about to relinquish our national sovereignty and everyone’s personal bodily autonomy to the WHO21 because mainstream media aren’t talking about it.

So, please, share this and any other articles you find on this subject with everyone you know, and continue to educate yourself. By far, these are the greatest threats to freedom the world has ever seen, and the risks apply evenly to everyone, no matter where you live.

Fact Checkers Take Advantage of Confusion

Keep in mind that while the IHR amendments and treaty address different areas of the WHO’s new power structure, they will work together to massively empower the WHO once both come into force. Also be aware that since the global takeover is happening on several fronts at the same time, it’s easy to get confused on the details, and this confusion can easily become fodder for fact checkers. As reported by The Defender:22

“The AP recently ‘fact-checked’ claims that the pandemic treaty endangers national sovereignty. According to the AP, it ‘does not overrule any nation’s ability to pass individual pandemic-related policies’ and ‘does not overrule any nations’ individual health or domestic policies.’ There would be ‘effectively no legal consequences for signatories who fail to adhere to it or violate its terms.’

The AP ‘fact-check’ doesn’t mention the proposed IHR amendments. [Author and researcher James] Roguski cited this as an example of the frequent conflation of the pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments. He said language eroding national sovereignty is not found in the pandemic treaty — but is found in the IHR amendments.

‘Everyone’s paying attention to the treaty,’ Roguski said. ‘They’re completely and totally cross-pollinating the details that are in the amendments, attributing them to the treaty, and getting ‘fact-checked’ to high heaven.”

Call on Congress to Withdraw US From the WHO

While the U.S. House and Senate have introduced identical bills to thwart the WHO’s power grab through the proposed pandemic treaty, that still might not protect us, because the treaty is specifically written to circumvent the Senate-approval process.23

A far more effective strategy would be for Congress to withhold its annual contributions to the WHO, and then withdraw the U.S. from the WHO altogether. I believe it may be worth supporting all these strategies. So, please, contact your representatives and urge them to:

• Support the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act24,25,26,27,28
• Withhold funding for the WHO
• Support U.S. withdrawal from the WHO

We also need to protect our nation against the IHR amendments. To that end, the World Council for Health has launched a global #StopTheWHO campaign. Here’s how you can get involved:29

Speak — Raise awareness on the ground and online. Use articles, posters, videos

Act — Campaign through rallies, political mobilization, legal notices and cases and similar campaigns

Collaborate with health freedom coalitions such as the World Council for Health

Explore activist toolboxes such as the World Council for Health Stop the Who Campaign and stopthewho.com

Engage global indigenous leadership to take a united stand against the WHO’s IHR

Activate people’s parliaments, legislatures or referendums to oppose the amendments

 Comments (123)

Editor's Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published November 8, 2018.

More and more, scientists are confirming and validating recommendations to consume healthy dietary fats, and typically in far greater amounts than recommended by U.S. dietary guidelines. Healthy fats are, in my view, so important for health, I've dedicated my last two books to this topic.

"Fat for Fuel" details how to implement a cyclical ketogenic diet high in healthy fats, low in net carbs and moderate in protein, delves even further into the specifics of dietary fats and how to discriminate between healthy and harmful ones.

This is really crucial information, as unhealthy fats can do more harm than excess sugar. Unfortunately, if you pay attention to government dietary guidelines (or many conventional doctors), you'll be grossly misinformed about which types of fat to eat, and how much.

For example, in the past 100 years, our omega-6 intake has nearly tripled largely due to misleading or outright incorrect marketing and government health campaigns while our intake of omega-3 has decreased tenfold, causing a severe imbalance in our omega-3 to omega-6 ratio.

Hence, this was the incentive for writing "Superfuel" to set the record straight. A majority of the research for this book was compiled by James DiNicolantonio, Pharm.D., author of "The Salt Fix."1 In a nutshell, "Superfuel" guides you back to a diet reminiscent of that during Paleolithic times, with particular focus on animal-based omega-3 fats, specifically those bound to phospholipids.

At that time, much of the omega-3 came from animal brains. Today, brains is unlikely to make the menu, but phospholipid-bound omega-3 can still be had from krill oil and fish roe.

To learn how fats are truly an extraordinary fuel for your body and brain, and why it's so vitally important to eat the right ones, be sure to order a copy of "Superfuel" today. All preorders will also receive three free gifts.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

DHA Is Crucial for Cellular Health

The fats recommended by U.S. health authorities — primarily vegetable oils — are very high in processed (and hence damaged) omega-6 fats. One of the most significant dangers of vegetable oils is that the damaged fats are integrated into your cell membranes, including mitochondrial membranes, and once these membranes become dysfunctional it sets the stage for all sorts of complications and ill health.

For example, as DiNicolantonio explains in our interview, the inner membrane of your mitochondria contains a component called cardiolipin, which needs to be saturated in the omega-3 fat docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in order to function properly.

Cardiolipin can be likened to a cellular alarm system that triggers programmed cell death (apoptosis) by signaling caspase-3 when something goes wrong with the cell. However, if the cardiolipin is not saturated with DHA, it cannot signal caspase-3, and hence apoptosis does not occur. As a result, dysfunctional cells continue to grow and may turn into a tumor. DHA is particularly crucial for brain health. In your brain, DHA:

• Stimulates Nrf2, a transcription factor that regulates cellular oxidation and reduction, and aids in detoxification
• Increases heme oxygenase 1, a protein produced in response to stress, including oxidative stress
• Upregulates antioxidant enzymes

All of this is important for optimal brain health and function. DHA and EPA are also actual structural elements that make up all of your cells, including those in your brain, so their importance really cannot be overstated.

However, the source of your DHA also matters. Industrially processed omega-3 fish oils can actually cause problems similar to those caused by excessive amounts of omega-6. This is a topic we examine at greater depth in "Superfuel."

About half of all fish oils also have problems with oxidation. So, when buying a fish oil supplement, you really need to look for a product that tests the hydro peroxide levels. The lower the level the better, but I recommend staying below 5%.

The Importance of Phospholipids

For years, I've recommended krill oil over fish oil if you don't regularly eat cleaner, small fatty fish such as anchovies and sardines. Krill has a number of benefits over fish oil, but one in particular has been highlighted in research, namely that of phospholipids.

While fatty acids (including DHA and EPA) are water soluble, they cannot be transported in their free form in your blood. They must be "packaged" into lipoprotein vehicles such as phospholipids.

In krill oil, the omega-3s DHA and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) are naturally bound to phospholipids, which makes them more readily absorbed by your body compared to fish oil, where the omega-3s are bound to triglycerides.

Phospholipids are also one of the principal compounds in high-density lipoproteins (HDL), which you want more of, and by allowing your cells to maintain structural integrity, phospholipids help your cells function optimally. Importantly, your brain cannot absorb DHA unless it's bound to phosphatidylcholine, and while krill oil contains phosphatidylcholine naturally, fish oil does not.

When you consume fish oil, your liver has to attach it to phosphatidyl choline in order for it to be utilized by your body, and this is yet another reason for its superior bioavailability. As the name implies, phosphatidyl choline is composed partly of choline, the precursor for the vital neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which sends nerve signals to your brain.

Choline is important to brain development, learning and memory. Since it plays a vital role in fetal and infant brain development, it's particularly important for pregnant and nursing women.

Research Highlights Value of Phospholipid-Bound DHA

Research2 by Rhonda Patrick, Ph.D., highlights the value of DHA bound to phospholipids — such as that found in krill oil — showing this particular form may actually reduce the risk of Alzheimer's in those with the apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) gene.

The APOE4 gene, which predisposes you to this degenerative brain disorder and lowers the typical age of onset, is thought to be present in about one-quarter of the population, so this information could prove invaluable for many. Having a single copy of the gene raises your risk two- to threefold. Being a carrier of both copies can raise your risk fifteenfold.

Two hallmarks of Alzheimer's are amyloid beta plaques and tau tangles, both of which impair normal brain functioning. Alzheimer's patients also have reduced glucose transport into their brains, and this is one of the reasons why plaque and tangles form and accumulate. As explained by Patrick in her press release:3

"DHA promotes brain glucose uptake by regulating the structure and function of special proteins called glucose transporters located at the blood-brain barrier, the tightly bound layer of cells that limits passage of substances into the brain …

DHA … naturally occurs in a triglyceride form and a phospholipid form. Eating DHA-rich fish slows the progression of Alzheimer's disease and improves symptoms in APOE4 carriers. However, some evidence suggests that taking DHA supplements, which largely lack the phospholipid form, does not."

DHA in Phospholipid Form May Be Ideal

According to Patrick, this variation in response appears to be related to the different ways in which the two forms of DHA are metabolized and ultimately transported into your brain.

When the triglyceride form of DHA is metabolized, most of it turns into non-esterified DHA, while the phospholipid form is metabolized primarily into DHA-lysophosphatidylcholine (DHA-lysoPC). While both of these forms can cross the blood-brain barrier to reach your brain, the phospholipid form does so far more efficiently. Patrick explains:4

"Whereas non-esterified DHA passes through the blood-brain barrier via passive diffusion, the phospholipid form, DHA-lysoPC, enters via a special transporter called Mfsd2a.

Previous studies have found APOE4 disrupts the tight junctions of the blood-brain barrier, leading to a breakdown in the barrier's outer membrane leaflet and a subsequent loss of barrier integrity. One end result of this loss is impaired diffusion of non-esterified DHA."

According to Patrick, people with APOE4 have a faulty non-esterified DHA transport system, and this may be why they're at increased risk for Alzheimer's. The good news is that DHA-lysoPC can bypass the tight junctions, thereby improving DHA transport, and for those with one or two APOE4 variants, taking the phospholipid form of DHA may therefore lower their risk of Alzheimer's more effectively.

"When looking at the effects of DHA on cognitive function in people with APOE4-related Alzheimer's disease, it's important that researchers consider the effects of DHA in phospholipid form, especially from rich sources such as fish roe or krill, which can have as much as one-third to three-quarters of the DHA present in phospholipids," Patrick says.5

"That's where we're most likely to see the greatest benefits, particularly in vulnerable APOE4 carriers."

Omega-3 Fats Linked to Healthy Aging

In other related news, researchers have again linked omega-3 intake to healthier aging. This prospective cohort study6 included data from more than 2,600 seniors collected between 1992 until 2015. Blood levels of omega-3 were obtained at the beginning and end of the study.

In that period, only 11% of participants experienced healthy aging, quantified as the number of years a person lives without physical or mental health problems or disability. Those with the highest omega-3 blood levels were 18% to 21% more likely to live longer, healthier lives.

Interestingly, EPA was found to be the most important factor in this study. Those with the highest levels of EPA were 24% less likely to experience unhealthy aging, compared to those with the lowest EPA levels.

Other omega-3s measured included the animal-based docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) and the plant-based alpha linolenic acid (ALA). DPA was the second-most important factor, while ALA, like DHA, had no significant impact on healthy aging. The researchers speculate that one of the reasons for these findings is omega-3s beneficial impact on heart health. For example:

• Two parallel studies7,8 published in 2008 found fish oil supplements worked better than placebo and the cholesterol-lowering drug Crestor in patients with chronic heart failure.
• Research published in 2016 found eating fatty fish and other omega-3 rich foods may lower your risk of a fatal heart attack by about 10%.9,10
• Heart attack survivors who took 1 gram of marine-based omega-3 per day for three years were found to have a 50% reduced risk of sudden cardiac death.11

EPA Also Lowers Heart Disease Risk

EPA specifically has also been linked to a lower risk for heart disease. A different study12 involving a highly-processed form of EPA (a proprietary prescription formulation of fish oil called Vascepa) found it lowered cardiovascular health risks by 25% compared to a placebo containing mineral oil. This included heart attacks, strokes, bypass surgery and chest pain requiring hospitalization.

The drug trial was called REDUCE-IT and was done for five years. Perhaps the most unusual aspect of this trial is that they used a far higher dosage than is typically used in these types of studies. Participants received 4 grams of EPA per day, which is two to four times more EPA than typically given.

A 25% reduction in cardiovascular risk is typically what you see with the use of statins, and this significant reduction is believed to be a byproduct of EPA's ability to lower triglycerides. Now, while this study strongly supports the use of marine-based omega-3s, it's important to realize that Vascepa is a highly-processed form of omega-3.

With a price tag of $2,500 a year, it's also one of your more expensive alternatives. Aside from being far less expensive, I still believe krill oil may be a superior choice, in part because it's bound to phospholipids, which increases absorption and may be particularly important for those at high risk for Alzheimer's. Krill also naturally contains astaxanthin, a very potent and powerful antioxidant, and the reason krill oil is far less prone to oxidation than fish oil.

Studies such as the REDUCE-IT trial do confirm and support health predictions made in "Superfuel," though, with a key point being that most people need far higher doses than previously thought. As suggested in the REDUCE-IT trial, an ideal dose appears to be between 3 and 4 grams of DHA and EPA combined (although the only way to be sure is to measure your omega-3 blood level, which I'll discuss below).

To learn more about the ins and outs of omega-3 and omega-6 fats, be sure to order your copy of "Superfuel." Remember, all preorders will receive three free gifts, so place your order today.

>>>>> Pre-order now <<<<<

Your Blood Level, Not the Dosage, Is Key for Optimization

While identifying an ideal dosage is important, it's not the most crucial consideration. The fact that some studies have failed to find any health benefits from omega-3 suggests dosage is a flawed parameter. For example, a Cochrane Collaboration review13 concluded omega-3 supplementation has little to no discernible benefit for heart health or longevity.

One explanation for this is the fact that many nutritional studies look at dosage rather than blood levels. GrassrootsHealth vitamin D researchers have clearly demonstrated the importance of looking at achieved blood levels of a nutrient.

When studies look at dosage, no apparent benefits of vitamin D supplementation are found. However, when you look at people's blood level — the concentration of the nutrient in the body — truly dramatic effects are detected. A similar situation exists with omega-3, as the most important parameter is your blood level, known as your omega-3 index, not any particular dose.

The reason for this is because people metabolize nutrients at different rates, and while one may need a very small dose to achieve a certain blood level, another may need several times that dose. Requirements for omega-3 will also vary depending on your lifestyle; your intake of fatty fish, for example, and your level of physical activity.

For this reason, I recommend getting your omega-3 level tested on an annual basis, and to adjust your dosage based on what you need to achieve an omega-3 index of 8% or higher. So, while a general recommendation is to take 3 to 4 grams of omega-3 per day, the only way to really know whether this is too much or too little is to get tested. We offer a convenient, no doctor required, omega-3 index test for your convenience.

 Comments (26)

This interview was recorded in November 2018 at the annual Academy for Comprehensive and Integrative Medicine (ACIM) convention in Orlando, Florida, but this is the first time it was ever run on the site. At the time there was concern that the topic was too controversial, but now that five years has passed and COVID changed the controversial landscape we thought it would be good to release the video on this important topic.

I had the opportunity to interview two experts on autism and dirty electricity, Peter Sullivan and Dr. Martha Herbert, who cowrote “The Autism Revolution: Whole-Body Strategies for Making Life All It Can Be.”1 Here, we discuss some of the toxic factors that contribute to the development of autism, especially the role of electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) and dirty electricity.

Sullivan’s Journey

Sullivan has struggled with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and still does to some degree, which was his primary motivation for learning more about it. He’s become a fount of knowledge as a result. As a software engineer in Silicon Valley in the 1990s, he was passionate about personal technology.

“I studied in Stanford. I did all kinds of human-computer interactions. I worked at multiple companies: as a troubleshooter in Silicon Valley, an engineer and a software designer at the very end. I worked at Netflix and some other companies people would know of,” he says.

In the early 2000s, problems began to take root. Fatigue and food allergies cropped up, and his children were struggling with developmental delays. He eventually realized he had toxic levels of mercury in his system.

“I eventually just took time off from work, in about 2005. I just said it’s ridiculous, with all these things going on, to have two people in the family working. I was focusing on my kids’ health and my health and really had some time and energy to really go deep and find out what was really out there.

I had a great doctor, Dr. Raj Patel … an integrative medical doctor who would talk about Candida overgrowth, mercury and all that stuff. He got us on track. Eventually, the kids slowly got better, but even after detoxing, I did not. I kept getting worse.

I got down to 131 pounds. I became electrically sensitive. My brain kept telling me, ‘All the stuff is safe and well-tested. I love technology.’ But my body was reacting like there was something really wrong. I was catching myself just throwing a cellphone away — feeling cellphones and then transformers when I plugged them in.”

He eventually learned about dirty electricity, and once he started addressing his exposure, he regained 10 pounds in a couple of months, along with his health. Today, he’s passionate about sharing information about the dangers of EMFs and dirty electricity, and how to address electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

“We’re just trying to share the information, make the field credible, because it’s very credible, and make sure people don’t have to suffer,” he says.

He even created an EMF-free tent that he brings with him to different seminars and conferences that people can sit in, as many of these events are held in places where you’re exposed to very high amounts of EMF. He’s also funded some of Herbert’s research.

Herbert’s Story

I first met Herbert at a Cure Autism Now event (now Autism Speaks) in 2009. Herbert’s two children struggled with symptoms of autism when they were young. Today, they’re both grown and have fully recovered. Her initial focus was on mercury toxicity, looking at ways of doing noninvasive screening for toxic metals.

A lifelong environmentalist, Herbert went to medical school after getting a Ph.D. in history of consciousness at the University of California Santa Cruz. She studied pediatric neurology, and fell into working with autism after inheriting magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans from the first MRI study performed on autistic children in 1989.

“I was one of the first people — but not the only one — to identify white matter abnormalities in autism through brain imaging, not through gray tissue,” Herbert says. “That really violated the paradigm that behavior comes from the cortex. I was already kind of a whole-body person. I was seeing patients.

[Few of them] had these rare neurogenetic diseases that you’re trained for in pediatric neurology. But everybody was coming in with diarrhea and eczema, and they couldn’t sleep. It was almost like primary care in neuropsychiatry. That’s where I sort of edged my way into the whole-body approach.

I had an epiphany in 1999 … that all the stuff I was seeing in my patients really could connect with the environment … I started putting together and figuring out that this was really a systems [biology] approach to these conditions.”

A Systems Biology Approach to Autism

Systems biology looks at everything in biology as a web, in which everything is connected to everything else. When you tug at one part of the web, the rest of the web changes. In conventional science, individual components and variables are studied in isolation. That’s how clinical research is designed.

“We’re looking for pure forms of disease. But mostly in these conditions that we’re talking about, it’s a mess,” Herbert says. “Everybody has a bunch of different [symptoms], some of which are more prominent than others. Early on in figuring out autism as a systems problem, I was looking at specific language problems or developmental language disorder.

But if you look at these people carefully, they have coordination issues … You see this subtle breakdown of the precision and fine-tuning of the brain … I finally … I found a great article about the networks in the brain that are messed up in psychiatric illnesses (not just autism but also schizophrenia, depression and so forth).

The hubs of these networks have very high-frequency gamma frequency … It turns out that this gamma frequency is driven by cells that are very high-energy demand mitochondrially centered cells …

We now have enough studies showing that the metabolic stuff going on in the brain match onto the networks going on in the brain. The proportion of network disturbance in some of these cases has been shown to be proportional to the amount of mitochondrial dysfunction.”

The Transcend Research Program

Herbert has created a brain research program at Harvard called TRANSCEND2 (Treatment, Research and Neuroscience Evaluation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders). They use MRI, magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalogram (EEG). MEG measures the magnetic activity of the brain, whereas EEG measures the electrical activity.

“When you have electrical activity, the magnetic is at 90 degrees. They measure the same thing, but in somewhat different ways,” Herbert explains. Her hypothesis is that autism is not something you’re born with. It’s something you develop in response to environmental factors.

“In order to study that, I started studying babies from the time they were in their mother’s womb. We got biosamples from the mothers. We got biosamples at birth, and then — until the mothers stopped nursing — we get biosamples from them, plus EEG and autonomic … using wristbands … to see how things deteriorated in the kids who developed autism.

What we found was something that could be interpreted in a variety of ways. We’re working on publishing this. We have EEG dated of 2-week-old babies, predicting their outcome at 13 months.

Now, I just finished saying that I think that autism is something you developed. That would sound like something you’re born with, but you can’t say that they have autism. The way I think about it is if their brains are really excited and irritated. So, it matters very much what happens [in their early environment to make them] more predisposed.”

Whole-Body Wellness Approach Can Minimize Autism Risk

Using this early predictive ability, a small number of primary care pediatricians have started implementing whole-body approaches to the parents and children, showing that when whole-body lifestyle modification is implemented, such as avoidance of toxins and allergens, virtually none of these predisposed babies actually develop autism.

“My feeling is what we need is a public health intervention where people are taught how to keep healthy from preconception to pregnancy to infancy. If they get an EEG that says that their brain is irritable, you don’t want to do a drug … You want to do safe and healthy things, because [drugs and toxins are] the problem in the first place,” Herbert says.

There are many anecdotal stories from families with autistic children suggesting EMF causes problems, and Herbert and Sullivan are working on setting up an online database to capture this data.

“That when you reduce the Wi-Fi, the symptoms abate a lot. I know a kid who was stimming like crazy. He liked to stim by the dishwasher. Guess what, there was dirty electricity in this dishwasher. They fixed it and he stopped that, and a lot of his symptoms remitted,” Herbert says.

Common Risk Factors

Essentially, Herbert believes autism can be predicted by looking at the level of brain irritability in the child. But what might contribute to this kind of irritability? Sullivan believes mercury, EMF and glyphosate are three major triggers, even more so than vaccines.

Herbert believes processed food is another major contributor. “Simply reducing allergens in the mother’s diet from preconception to pregnancy is a really big deal,” Herbert says. That said, it’s really the total load that matters, not any particular given factor.

“There are 10,000 different ways to injure mitochondria. It all piles up. All these little seemingly innocuous exposures add to the pile, so they all matter,” she says. Sullivan has created a video talk and booklet, “Simplifying Autism Improvement and Recovery,”3,4 which includes a list of suspects for parents to consider.

One big one that few people consider is de novo mutations resulting from sperm being exposed to wireless radiation from cellphones and laptops. Men desiring healthy children would do well to avoid carrying their cellphone in their pants pocket while it’s on, as the cellphone radiation can mutate the genes in the sperm. If you’re going to keep it in your pocket, make sure it’s off or in airplane mode.

Herbert is currently enrolling patients for her Child Health Inventory for Resilience and Prevention (CHIRP) study, which will gather information about the associations between the total burden of environmental stressors and exposures and chronic disease in children. If you have a child between the ages of 1 and 15, you can apply5 by filling out two prescreening questionnaires to determine your eligibility.

Most Parents Start Treatment at the Wrong End

Herbert and Sullivan have worked with autistic children and have advised parents for a long time. What are some of the common mistakes they see people make? Sullivan replies:

“People assume it’s a problem with the child. They jump in and start treating the child. They assume it’s genetic or whatever, and they’re doing behavioral therapy. The things that I would do again for myself, if I could do it all again, is I would start with the environment. I would start with EMF, especially at night.

We turn off the baby monitor, the cordless phone base station, Wi-Fi, and even sometimes the circuit breaker for the bedroom … A wired baby monitor is safe … Plug everything into a power strip. Put the strip in the wall. When you go to bed, just pull out the power strip. In the morning, plug it back in. It’s not hard. Or, put it on a timer.

I would say it’s a state of overload not just for the kids, but for the entire family … There are [many] things you need to do [to clean up your environment]. The key is in the sequence. Do the easiest things that get you the most impact.

That’s why we’re starting with EMF. Because once you reduce that, you start sleeping better, and then you start to have more capacity. You want to build a spiral of capacity. You start an upward spiral …

Martin Pall’s paper6 on the neuropsychiatric effects from microwaves and EMFs show it’s a big factor, as is sleep, because sleep and [lowering] inflammation are fundamental to good mental health.”

More Information

For more information about autism and wireless radiation, how EMFs affect sleep, and recommendations for EMF meters and tips for EMF safety, see Sullivan’s website, ClearLightVentures.com.

On Herbert’s site, HigherSynthesisHealth.com, you can find information about how to improve your overall health and lower your total body stress burden for a healthy pregnancy and baby.

 Comments (48)

In this video, I interview Mike Benz, executive director for the Foundation for Freedom Online. Benz started off as a corporate lawyer representing tech and media companies before joining the Trump administration, where he worked as a speech writer for Dr. Ben Carson, the former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and President Trump.

He also advised on economic development policy. He then joined the State Department as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Communications and Information Technology. There, he ran the cyber desks at state, meaning all things having to do with the internet and foreign policy.

“This is toward the end of 2020, which was a really fascinating time to witness the merger, in many respects, of big government and big tech companies themselves,” he says. “I had grown up, I think, like many Americans, with a belief that the First Amendment protected you against government censorship.

The terms of engagement that we had enjoyed from 1991, when the worldwide web rolled out, until 2016, the election in the U.S. and Brexit in the U.K., which is, really, the first political event where the election was determined, in many respects, by momentum on the internet.

There was that 25-year golden period where the idea of being censored by a private sector company, let alone the government, was considered something, to me, very deeply anathema to the American experience.

What I witnessed at the State Department — because I was at the desk, basically, that Google and Facebook would call when they wanted favors abroad, when they wanted American protection or American policies to preserve their dominance in Europe, or in Asia or in Latin America.

And the U.S. government was doing favors for these tech companies while the tech companies were censoring the people who voted for the government. It was a complete betrayal of whatever social contract typically underlies the public-private partnership.”

The Internet Was Founded by the National Security State

Ostensibly, the rapid expansion of censorship started post-2016, but you can make a strong argument that the internet was never intended to remain free forever. Rather, the intention for it to be used as a totalitarian tool was likely baked in from the start when the national security state founded it in 1968.

The worldwide web, which is the user interface, was launched in 1991, and my suspicion is that the public internet was seeded and allowed to grow in order to capture and make the most of the population dependent upon it, knowing that it would be the most effective social engineering tool ever conceived. Benz comments:

“I totally agree ... A lot of people, in trying to understand what's happening with the net censorship, say ‘We had this free internet, and then suddenly there was this age of censorship and the national security state got involved at the censorship side.’

But when you retrace the history, internet freedom itself was actually a national security state imperative. The internet itself is a product of a counterinsurgency necessity by the Pentagon to manage information during the 1960s, particularly to aggregate social science data. And then, it was privatized.

Opening it up to all comers in the private sector, it was handed off from DARPA [the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] to the National Science Foundation, and then went through a series of universities on the infrastructure side.

And then, right out of the gate in 1991, you had the Cold War coming to an end, and then simultaneously, you had this profusion of Pentagon-funded internet freedom technologies. You had things like VPNs, encrypted chat, TOR.

All of the early internet freedom technologies of the ‘90s were funded by the Pentagon, the State Department, and developed by the intelligence community, primarily, as a way of using internet freedom as a means to help dissident groups in foreign countries be able to develop a pro-U.S. beachhead, because it was a way to evade state-controlled media.

This was, basically, an insurgency tool for the U.S. government, in the same way that Voice of America and Radio Free Liberty, and Radio Free Europe were tools of the CIA in the Cold War, to beam in, basically, pro-U.S. content to populations in foreign countries in order to sway them towards U.S. interests. It was a way of managing the world empire.

The internet served the same purpose, and it couldn't be done if it was called a Pentagon operation, a State Department or CIA operation. But all of the tech companies themselves are products of that. Google started as a DARPA grant that was obtained at Stanford by Sergey Brin and Larry Page.

In 1995, they were part of the CIA and NSA's [National Security Agency’s] massive digital data program. They had their monthly meetings with their CIA and NSA advisers for that program, where the express stated purpose was for the CIA and NSA to be able to map so-called ‘Birds of a feather’ online ... so that they could be neutralized.”

How It All Began

As noted by Benz, the idea of having the intelligence community map political “Birds of a Feather” communities in order to either mobilize or neutralize them was (and still is) justified in the name of counterterrorism. Nowadays, as we’ve seen during the pandemic, it’s used to control public discourse, suppress truth, and promote propaganda angles.

The technology used to control public discourse is an artificial intelligence (AI) technique called natural language processing (NLP). It’s a way of aggregating everyone who believes a certain thing online into community databases based on the words they use, the hashtags, the slogans and images.

“Emerging narratives, all manner of metadata affiliations, all that can be aggregated to create a topographical network map of what you believe in and who you're associated with, so that it can all be turned down in a fast, precise and comprehensive manner by content moderation teams, because they're all birds of the same feather,” Benz explains.

“The fact that this grew out of the U.S. National Security state, which is running the show, essentially, today, to me says that there's a continuation between the internet freedom and internet censorship. They simply switched from one side of the chess board to the other.”

What Is the National Security State?

For clarity, when Benz talks about the "National Security State,” what he’s referring to are the institutions that uphold the rules-based international order. Domestically, that includes the Pentagon, State Department, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), certain aspects of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the 17 intelligence agencies.

Of those, the Pentagon, State Department and the intelligence community (IC) are the three central ones that have managed the American world empire since the 1940s. None of them are supposed to be able to operate domestically, but in a sense their power has expanded so much that they essentially control domestic affairs.

As explained by Benz, the Pentagon, State Department and IC are not supposed to be able to operate domestically. “But in a sense, they really control domestic affairs, because their power has expanded so much that they've developed an extraordinary laundering apparatus to be able to fund international institutions that then boomerang back home and effectively control much of domestic political affairs, including discourse on the internet.”

As for the CIA, it was created in 1947 under the National Security Act. It was created as a cloak-and-dagger mechanism, to do things the State Department wanted done but couldn’t get caught doing due to the diplomatic repercussions — things like election rigging, assassinations, media control, bribery and other subversion tactics.

The Birth of Hybrid Warfare

Benz continues his explanation of how and why internet censorship emerged when it did:

“So, there's the U.S. National Security State, and then there's the transatlantic one involving NATO. The story of Western government involvement in internet censorship really started after the 2014 Crimea annexation, which was the biggest foreign policy humiliation of the Obama era.

Atlanta's School of Foreign Policy was deeply inflamed by this event and blamed the fact that there were these breakaway Russia-supporting entities in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea on a failure to penetrate their media, and this idea that hearts and minds were being swung towards the Russian side because of pro-Russian content online.

NATO then declared this doctrine of so-called hybrid warfare — this idea that Russia had won Crimea not by a military annexation, but by winning, illicitly in a sense, the hearts and minds of Crimeans through the use of their propaganda. And the doctrine of hybrid warfare, born in 2014, was this idea that war was no longer a kinetic thing.

There hadn't been a kinetic war in Europe since World War II. Instead, it had moved sub-kinetic into the hearts and minds of the people. In fact, NATO announced a doctrine after 2014 called ‘From tanks to tweets,’ where it shifted its focus, explicitly, from kinetic warfare to social media opinions online.

Brexit, which happened in June 2016 ... was blamed on Russian influence as well. And so all of these institutions that argued for control over the internet in Eastern Europe said, ‘Well, it needs to come now. Now it's an all-of-Europe thing.’

When Trump was then elected five months later, explicitly contemplating the breakup of NATO, all hell broke loose. This idea that we need to censor the internet went from being something that was touchy and novel, in the view of Pentagon brass and State Department folks, to something that was totally essential to saving the entire rules-based international order that came out of World War II.

At the time, the reasoning was, Brexit, in the U.K., was going to give rise to Frexit, in France, with Marine Le Pen and her movement there. Matteo Salvini was going to cause Italexit In Italy, there’d be Grexit in Greece, Spexit in Spain, and the entire European Union would come undone, just because these right-wing populist parties would naturally vote their way into political power.

They would vote for working-class, cheap energy policies that would make them more closely aligned with Russia naturally, because of the cheaper oil prices, or cheaper gas prices. Then, suddenly, you've got no EU, you've got no NATO, and then, you've got no Western military alliance.

So, from that moment, after Trump's election, immediately, there was this diplomatic roadshow by U.S. State Department officials, who all thought they were getting promotions in November 2016. They thought they were going to get promoted from the State Department to the National Security Council. Turns out, they all got fired, because someone with a 5% chance of winning ended up winning that day.

So, they took their international connections, their international networks around the Atlanta Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, the entire think tank, quasi-intelligence, quasi-military, government-funded NGO soup, and they did this international roadshow, starting in January 2017, to convince European countries to start censoring their internet ...

Out of that came NetzDG [Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, the Network Enforcement Act] in Germany, which introduced a necessity of artificial intelligence-powered social media censorship.

All of that was, essentially, spearheaded by this network of State Department and Pentagon folks who then used their own internal folks in the government to procure government grants and contracts to these same entities. Eventually, they all rotated into those tech companies to set the policies as well.”

Threat From Within

So, to summarize, the infrastructure for worldwide internet censorship was largely established by IC veterans who were forced out by the Trump administration, and that infrastructure was then used to catalyze the international censorship response during COVID in late 2019, early 2020. Benz continues:

“Right. And those veterans were not alone. The full story is not just the shadow security state and exile. The fact is this. The Trump administration never had control of its own defense department, State Department or intelligence community.

It was the intelligence community that, essentially, drove his first impeachment, that drove a two-and-a-half year special prosecutor investigation that rolled up 12 to 20 of Trump's closest associates. You had a chief of staff there who was hiding the military figures from the government. The careers at state threatened the political appointees from the inside. I experienced that myself.

This permanent aspect of Washington, with unfireable careers in high places, combined with a turf war in the GOP [Republican Party] between the populist right and the neo-conservative right, with the neo-conservative right having many well-placed Republicans in the Defense Department, State Department, in IC, to thwart the previous president's agenda there, allowed this political network and exile, on the censorship side, to work with their allies within the government to create these censorship beach heads.

So, for example, that's how they created the Department of Homeland Security’s ... first permanent government censorship bureau in the form of this entity called CISA [the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, founded in November 2018], which is supposed to just be a cybersecurity entity.

It was done because of media and intelligence community laundering of a never-substantiated claim that Russia had potentially hacked the 2016 election, hacked the election machines or voting software, or might be able to do so in the future, and so we need a robust armed-to-the-teeth DHS unit to protect our cybersecurity from the Russians.

It's the mission creep of the century. After the Mueller probe ended in June 2019, this unit, CISA, within DHS [Department of Homeland Security] — which had set up all of this, and which is only supposed to do cybersecurity — said ‘Well, if you squint and look at it, discourse online is a cybersecurity threat because if it undermines public faith or confidence in our elections, and it’s done using a cyber nexus, i.e., social media post, then that’s a form of cybersecurity threat, because democracy is essential to our security.’

And so you went from this cybersecurity mission to a cyber censorship bureau, because if you tweeted something about mail-in ballots in the 2020 election, that was deemed to be a cyber attack on critical infrastructure, i.e., elections.

When they got away with that in 2020, DHS then said, ‘Well, if you squint and look at it, public health is also critical infrastructure.’ So, now, DHS gets to direct social media companies to censor opinions about COVID-19.

Then they worked their way into saying the same thing about financial systems, financial services, about the Ukraine war, about immigration. It got to the point where, by late 2022, the head of CISA declared that cognitive infrastructure is critical infrastructure.”

Cracks only appeared after Republicans got a majority in the House of Representatives in November 2022 and Elon Musk acquired Twitter. Public support for government also dwindled as Musk’s release of the Twitter Files revealed the extent of government’s involvement in the censoring of Americans.

So far, though, public awareness hasn’t changed anything. The very entities that once stood for internet freedom, like the National Science Foundation, are still actively funding and furthering government censorship activities.

AI Gives Censors God-Like Powers

Benz first became “gripped by the stakes of what was happening on the internet” in August 2016, after reading a series of papers discussing the use of NLP to monitor, surveil and regulate the distribution of information on social media based on the words used.

“DARPA provided tens of millions of dollars of funding for this language processing, this language chunking capacity of AI in order, ostensibly, to stop ISIS recruiting on Facebook and Twitter,” Benz says.

“As part of the predicate for putting military boots on the ground in Syria, there was a lot of talk about ISIS coming to the U.S., and they were recruiting on Facebook and Twitter. And so the Pentagon, DARPA and the IC developed this language spyware capacity to map the dialectic of how ISIS sympathizers talk online, the words they use, the images they share, the prefixes, the suffixes, all the different community connections.

And then, I saw that this was being done for purposes of domestic political control instead of foreign counterterrorism, and the power that it has. It is what totally changed the internet forever. Before 2016, there was not the technological capacity to do mass social media censorship. That was the age of what censorship insiders like to call the whack-a-mole era. Censorship was reactive.

It was done by forum, by moderators, essentially. Everything had to be flagged manually before it could be taken down, which meant millions of people had already seen it, or it had already gone viral, it had already done its damage, so to speak, and you were just cutting off the backend with an act of censorship.

You could never have a permanent control apparatus in that setting, because there would always be a first mover advantage to whoever posted it. What AI censorship technology breakthroughs enabled after 2016 was a kind of nuclear weapon, if you will, on the censorship side, to be able to end the war immediately.

You don't need a standing army of 100,000 people to censor COVID. You need one good developer, working with one manic social scientist who spends her entire life mapping what Dr. Mercola says online, and what he's talking about this week, what his followers are saying, what they're saying about this drug, or what they're saying about this vaccine, or what they're saying about this institution.

All of that can be cataloged into a lexicon of how you talk. And then, all of that talk can just be turned down to zero. At the same time, they can super amplify the language that they themselves are doing. So it gives a God-like control to a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of people who can then use that to control the discourse of the entire population.

What's also so terrifying about the National Security State's involvement in this is, when they discovered the power of this by mid-2018, they began to roll it out to every other country in the world for purposes of political control there — to the Ghana desk, to the Ecuador desk, to Southeast Asia, all over Europe.”

Can We Get Out of the Grip of Censorship?

At the time of this writing, we’re in a lull. The COVID pandemic has been declared over and aside from the Russia-Ukraine conflict, there are no major political crises going on that warrant heavy censorship. The networks and technologies for radical suppression are already in place, however, and can be turned up at a moment’s notice.

We’ve also recently seen just how easy it is for alternative media to be infiltrated and upended, so the fact that there are alternative platforms doesn’t guarantee that future censorship efforts will fail.

“There are so many threat vectors,” Benz says. “There are a lot of questions about what's going on, for example, at Project Veritas, with how quickly it ousted James O'Keefe after releasing the most viral video ever, on Pfizer. It was about one week later — after their biggest accomplishment, perhaps, ever — that it was totally overthrown.

A similar thing has happened with Fox News with [the firing of] Tucker Carlson, the most popular cable TV host in the country — the guy who gets three times more concurrent viewership than CNN, in the opposing spot. Institutions can absolutely be penetrated and co-opted when enough pressure is applied.”

Transatlantic Flank Attack 2.0 Underway

As mentioned earlier, the U.S. censorship really began with NATO. Benz refers to this as the transatlantic flank attack. Basically, when U.S. intelligence want to impact the internet domestically, they first work with their European partners to enact regulatory changes in Europe first. This then ends up spilling into the U.S. market, and the IC appears to have had nothing to do with it.

The first transatlantic flank attack took place in early 2017 with the NetzDG. We’re now under transatlantic attack again, through the Digital Markets Act. This law, Benz says, will make it very difficult for Rumble and other free speech platforms to maintain that posture during the next pandemic. Once these platforms are forced to comply with the Digital Markets Act on the European side, the changes will be felt everywhere.

Cause for Cautious Optimism

While Benz remains hopeful that solutions to global censorship will present themselves, he still recognizes that the forces at play are enormous and the risks are high.

“It's one of these things where the more you see what we're up against, the more sobering it becomes. I think you need to maintain hope in order to maintain energy, to maintain momentum. With momentum, weird things can happen, even if you're not supposed to win. Strange things break, or take a life of their own, or resurface.

All the little weaknesses of the system get tested, simply by a momentum here and there. For example, Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter is probably the reason that the GOP got over the hump in doing all of these congressional investigations into the government's role in censorship.

They felt like they had an ally at Twitter, that they had billionaire backing. There was a waterfall, cascade impact. So, I am hopeful. DHS is on the run right now. They purged their website of all their domestic censorship operations that they listed and were loud and proud about for two whole years after the catastrophe of the disinformation governance board in April 2022.

They already had a Ministry of Truth at DHS. They just gave one hypothetical board the wrong name. They didn't call it the CISA. They made the mistake of calling it by the right name, and that's what ended the entire political support for the underlying apparatus.

So, the importance of an Orwellian name is essential for maintaining the political support. But I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm hopeful, and I'm honored to be a part of this rebel fleet of folks trying to take on the empire behind the censorship situation.

But having seen, in so many iterations the toolkit they use, it is a medieval torture toolkit that can do strange things. Pressure can do strange things, even to great people. And so I'm cautiously optimistic.”

Essential Internet Backbone Is Not Politically Neutral

In my view, internet decentralization is one key innovation that could break the grip of censorship. That said, other aspects, such as cybersecurity, must also be reinvented.

CloudFlare, for example, a content delivery and cloud cybersecurity service, basically controls the internet because they protect online businesses and platforms from hackers using Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks. Without it, you cannot survive online if you’re a big business. Even with a decentralized internet, CloudFlare might still be able to exert control by leaving sites open to DDoS (distributed denial of service) attacks.

Disturbingly, CloudFlare got political for the first time after 2016, when it decided to remove protection from a site called Kiwi Farms, which expressed anti-transgender views. As a result, the site had to move over to a Russian server to get back online.

Basically, U.S. citizens had to look for internet freedom in Russia because their architecture could not be supported in the U.S. — all because a government-integrated backbone of the internet made a political decision, likely at the behest of the IC.

“If there is another pandemic, for example, and there's a push for certain medical interventions or countermeasures that certain sites don't go along with, the CloudFlare, absolutely, could be a weapon in that respect,” Benz says.

“One of the things I found so troubling is that CISA, this DHS censorship agency, after the 2020 election set up a private sector liaison subcommittee for mis- and disinformation policies in the private sector. It was a seven-person subcommittee, with all of the top censorship experts at the University of Washington and Stanford.

Vijaya Gadde, the former head of censorship at Twitter, was a part of this board. I thought it was very troubling that the CEO of CloudFlare was also one of the seven people on the DHS censorship board.”

Major Challenges to a Decentralized Internet

Benz continues:

“To proceed to the various challenges to a decentralized internet, when you move up the stack of censorship ... they can move up to cloud servers, to payment processors, and even to things like CloudFlare and your infrastructure protection.

In the early era of censorship, there was a rebuttal by censorship advocates that if you don't like what private sector companies are doing, start your own social media companies. Build your own Google, build your own YouTube, build your own Facebook, build your own Twitter.

And then, what started to happen as censorship got completely insane, when it went from being troubling to disturbing, to saturating ... you started to see these alternative social media platforms like Gab and Parler ... that tried to escape the content moderation policies with Big Tech. But what started to happen is, those social media companies, like Parler, were completely destroyed.

Parler was de-platformed from, basically, the entire internet, when the president had just moved there, after being kicked off Twitter. That was a very instructive moment, and one that censorship insiders have reflected on, I should say, many, times as a moment of, ‘Should we have done that? We did it, but it costs us a lot of political capital.’

Parler was kicked off of Amazon Web Services. They were kicked off of all of the banks. They were banned from email providers. They could not hook to the internet, essentially, to even maintain the ability to post anything there. So, it went from build your own social media company to build your own bank.

Now you need to build your own bank and get a banking license for the payment processors. You need to build your own email distribution. You need to build your own cloud servers.

You need to build your own software service providers. And, eventually, are you going to need to lay your own subsea cables across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans? The social media companies didn't invent the internet. They are superimposed on Pentagon infrastructure.”

The House Needs to Defund the Censorship Industry

Without doubt, there will be another crisis, whether it be another pandemic or war or something else, that will send the censorship machine into full gear yet again. Right now we’re in a lull, so this is the time to think ahead and get prepared. The question is, what can we do? How do we prepare and fight back?

According to Benz, one of the most effective strategies that would have immediate effect, and could be done right now, would be to strip the censorship industry of its government funding. He explains:

“Right now, there's a Republican controlled House. The advantage of the House is that it controls appropriations, the purse strings of the federal government. If the House Appropriations Committee took seriously the government subsidization of censorship networks in the private sector, you could defund the speech police, even though, on the AI side, it only takes one good coder to be able to take out an entire political philosophy.

The fact is, they can only do that job because of an army of social science folks across 45 different U.S. colleges and universities who get paid. There are tens of thousands of them who are paid through the National Science Foundation, through DARPA grants and State Department grants, to map communities online as a matter of social science, and then provide that to the computer scientist to censor it.

My foundation, the Foundation for Freedom Online, has detailed $100 million, just in the past 18 months, that have gone from the federal government institutions directly into social media censorship insiders. Censorship is not an act anymore, it's an industry, and you can cripple their capacity building.

When you pump it full of money, you go from having a couple of people do it, to tens of thousands of people doing it. The censorship capacity is built on an infrastructure of an industry that relies on government to pay for it, and it relies on government to spearhead their penetration into the institutions.

Right now, there are about eight different congressional committees trying to solve this problem from different aspects. I've personally briefed eight different congressional committees ... But only a few of those committees are taking it seriously enough to pursue the issue deeply, and where that will shake out remains uncertain.

CISA worked with dozens of social media companies and private sector cutouts to launder censorship from the government into the private sector, but the institution I worked with more than anyone was the University of Stanford, the Stanford Internet Observatory in particular.

Jim Jordan's Weaponization Subcommittee just subpoenaed Stanford for what I call the perfectly preserved First Amendment crime scene. Stanford meticulously kept logs of all of its censorship activities with government officials for the COVID-19 pandemic, and for two election cycles.

They detailed 66 narratives that they censored online, having to do with everything about vaccines, efficacy of masks, opposition to lockdown mandates. And then, they had a fourth category for conspiracy theories, basically anything that someone said about the World Economic Forum, or Bill Gates.

They're now refusing to comply with that subpoena. But the stakes keep getting escalated, because who's going to enforce that subpoena? Steve Bannon, regardless of your opinion of him, just got indicted for not complying with a subpoena, but is this Justice Department going to pursue criminal penalties against Stanford, for withholding congressional subpoena for their government?

This is for their government, because they were the formal partners. They had a formal partnership with the DHS. That stuff should be FOIA-able, first of all. You shouldn't even need a subpoena for it. The only reason you can't FOIA it is because they laundered it through Stanford. Standord holds the records rather than DHS.

I tried to FOIA that from DHS, and DHS says, ‘We don't have it, even though they were our communications.’ So this is the way the CIA structures in an operation, through a web of cutouts and offshore banks, so you can never really get transparency. They're now doing that for the censorship industry at home ...

Whether they will continue to raise the stakes is now a terrifying open issue. And the fact that it's the inside guys who are running the censorship situation means there may be other tactics that need to be pursued here, which is why I talked about, simply, going to the appropriations committee and zeroing it out, so you don't even need to enforce subpoenas, necessarily.”

Building a Whole-of-Society Solution

As explained by Benz, the censorship industry was built as a so-called whole-of-society effort. According to the DHS, misinformation online is a whole-of-society problem that requires a whole-of-society solution. By that, they meant that four types of institutions had to fuse together as a seamless whole. Those four categories and key functions are:

1. Government institutions, which provide funding and coordination
2. Private sector institutions that do the censorship and dedicate funds to censorship through corporate-social responsibility programs
3. Civil society institutions (universities, NGOs, academia, foundations, nonprofits and activists) that do the research, the spying and collecting of data that are then given to the private sector to censor
4. News media/fact checking institutions, which put pressure on institutions, platforms and businesses to comply with the censorship demands

What the Foundation for Freedom Online is doing is educating people about this structure, and the ways in which legislatures and the government can be restructured, how civil society institutions can be established, and how news media can be created to support and promote freedom rather than censorship.

To learn more, be sure to check out foundationforfreedomonline.com. You can also follow his very active Twitter account Benz on Twitter.

 Comments (88)

Editor's Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published March 18, 2018.

Dr. Dan Engle, board-certified in adult psychology and neurology, and who completed psychiatric fellowships in child, adolescent and forensic psychiatry, has written an indispensable guide to recovering from traumatic brain injury (TBI), "The Concussion Repair Manual: A Practical Guide to Recovering From Traumatic Brain Injuries."

TBI is incredibly pervasive. An estimated 80% to 90% of people have had some form of TBI. Military personnel and athletes such as football players and boxers tend to be at particularly high risk, but TBI can happen to anyone, for a range of reasons. Engle has had personal experience with it, which is what motivated him to pursue this discipline of medicine and write a book about it.

"I went to college to play soccer … Boxers … who get slugged in the face — that's about 20 pounds of pressure to their brain. Soccer players, if you go in for a full volley or a full header, take 70 pounds of pressure to the brain … I had a series of concussions that led up to me choosing medical school," he says.

"Two weeks before medical school, I broke my neck. That was a big entry point in a recalibration of my direction … I started [medical school] in a Halo Device, where they screw it into your skull and you're walking around fixated.

For the first three months of med school, I was in this Halo. It was the first thing that finally slowed me down. It helped me self-reflect. It helped me realize that I was driving at a level of intensity in my life that I didn't really enjoy.

I ended up having much more fun in med school and residency than I did in high school and college, just because I wasn't so intense with everything. It oriented me from ER and surgical medicine into neurology and psychiatry.

[My focus] was … the neuroreparative aspects of brain injury and spinal cord injury, as well as the more humanistic side of understanding people, the stories of what make us who we are and the mindset of healing, and how very [important] that is to recovery."

TBIs Are Pervasive, yet Many Don't Get Proper Rehabilitation

A common myth is that unless you've suffered complete loss of consciousness, you didn't have a concussion or significant head injury, but this simply isn't true, Engle says. Generally speaking, a concussion is a mild TBI, and will score higher on assessment using the Glasgow Coma Scale (a scoring system that grades your level of consciousness after a TBI). More severe TBIs that are moderate or severe will respectively score lower.

An estimated 4 million to 6 million people are on disability due to chronic severe conditions resulting from their TBI, but many more have undocumented TBIs — be it from a car accident, slip and fall incident or simply hitting your head on a cabinet. Most of these injuries are mild and heal on their own, but even mild TBI can have lingering effects that can become chronic unless you address them.

"Most people, if they just hit their head on the door or cabinet, it's not going to be enough to have a significant neurological sequela moving forward, but sometimes, it will. Oftentimes, the thing that happens in the home that will have negative long-term impacts is a fall.

If you slip on a rug or slip going down the stairs, there's a significant momentum that jostles the brain inside the skull to what's called a coup contrecoup injury, or back-and-forth kind of injury. That's going to be noticeable," he says.

Telltale Signs of TBI

Oftentimes the injury doesn't seem severe enough to have caused TBI, which is why telltale signs are often overlooked — things like poor concentration, mood changes or changes in your ability to focus and follow through on mental tasks. Word recall may also suffer. Emotional dysregulation, irritability, foggy thinking and sleep problems are also common effects.

Whenever you experience an injury to your head, regardless of how severe it appears to be, pay careful attention to any psychological changes that might occur over the coming week or two. Signs such as those just mentioned are indications that your nervous system is on high alert due to an inflammatory cascade, which presents itself as psychological and cognitive downstream effects.

"The old adage, ‘Go home and rest. It'll be OK,' has some merit," Engle says. "But when I had my concussions — the last of which was after I broke my neck … — I knew something was off because I had problems with attention, focus, concentration, memory, sleep, kind of like the classic post-concussive syndrome …

This was 20 years ago. We didn't really have appreciable technologies and therapeutics to heal it. I put myself in the lab. It was not fine for me that things were going to continue to be subpar. I wanted to try everything out … The things that worked for me or had worked significantly for friends, family and clients are the things that I ended up putting in the manual …

Some people will experience hypersomnolence, particularly in the acute concussion phase, because the system needs to go into a quiet mode, convalesce and rest … So, get into a low stimulation environment. Being away from electronic stimulation, stressful work, stressful engagements at home; being able to really bring the energy home or rest the nervous system [is important]."

TBI Assessment

There are now novel and portable infrared imaging techniques that can help assess TBI damage, such as whether there's active or acute bleeding inside the skull. In professional football, they now have neurodiagnostics and a neurologic exam that will allow the doctor to assess whether the player is fit to return to the field.

"We've seen variable efficacy of that in the National Football League just this last year. Those protocols are getting more specific and refined all the time.

But suffice it to say, it's important, as soon as somebody has a significant injury, to be able to get evaluated, whether it's by a professional on the sideline, in the emergency department or somebody who's trained in concussion care management, to assess what their level of safety is, and what their level of potential risk should they have another impact," Engle says.

Adults injured at home will be able to self-reflect and notice psychological and neurological changes, but what about children? It's important for parents to know how to assess their child's neurological state, and be observant enough to notice changes in behavior. "Because kids are rambunctious … if there is a significant injury and there's a change in function within the next few days to few weeks, then that means further workup and more assessment is needed," Engle says.

If your child plays soccer or football, Engle recommends having a "really clear conversation with the coach about what their stylistic tackling profiles look like. Are they asking them to lead with their head? Is there a clear discussion about the importance of brain health and the necessity for recuperation after a concussion? Do the players themselves know what the long-term potential downstream effects are? All of those things."

Long-Term Effects of Accumulative TBIs

Long-term, chronic traumatic encephalopathy — low-grade accumulation of concussions over time — accelerates the process of dementia, raising your risk for neurological dysfunction and disease later in life. Many football players and boxers start showing these signs in their 30s and 40s. If you are genetically predisposed to Alzheimer's by having one or two ApoE4 alleles and suffer a TBI, your risk of Alzheimer's increases at least tenfold.

"And, if you look at dietary issues and chronic inflammatory issues, for example [eating a] high-sugar diet, not fasting and these sorts of things, and then you stack on lifestyle mismanagement or not being optimized for brain performance, then you're going to accelerate that process even further," Engle warns.

Engle discusses a number of prevention strategies in his book, including nutritional components that optimize brain function and help repair neurological function in case of injury. Among the most important are the animal-based omega-3 fats docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA).

According to Engle, the department of surgery at Oregon Health and Science University now even advocates use of omega-3 supplements presurgery, because outcomes are better. Another potent anti-inflammatory is curcumin. Both of these are also valuable for the prevention of dementia.

The Benefits of Floatation Therapy

Engle is a strong proponent of floatation therapy, noting "flotation therapy is on the front line of many different recovery and regenerative medicine protocols, because it has the opportunity to reset so many different systems."

"When somebody drops into a float tank experience or a sensory deprivation experience, it's essentially the first time since they were conceived that they're without environmental stimuli … [Y]ou're floating in about a foot of water. [The tank] is about the size of a king-size bed. There's about 1,000 to 1,200 pounds of Epsom salts [in it]. It's very buoyant, kind of like the Dead Sea. There's no gravity; there's no appropriate [sensory] reception.

There's no skin temperature differentiation, because the water is the same temperature as the skin, not core temperature. It's hard to tell where you end and the rest of the universe begins. There's no sight and there's no sound. Everything is offline, so to speak. Eighty percent of what the brain is consistently bringing in is environmental stimuli. Now, there's more energy toward the recuperative mechanisms.

It's both a brain technology and a consciousness technology, because … [the] flotation tank [experience] is like meditation on steroids. If somebody's using [for] recuperative and regenerative [purposes], they may well find more peace in their lives outside of the tank as well … because it starts to reset the neuroendocrine system.

Cortisol levels normalize. Global inflammatory markers normalize. Blood pressure normalizes. The relationship between the brain and the endocrine or the hormonal systems starts to optimize …"

Engle recommends doing a series of eight to 10 floating sessions within a three to four-week period. By the end of that series, you should notice significant improvement in your symptoms. You may also find yourself more at ease in general, sensing a better "flow" in your life. For maintenance, do one or two sessions per month.

Other Treatment Aids

Other helpful interventions include:

Hyperbaric oxygen — By saturating your tissues with oxygen, the oxygen is able to get into all of the neuroreparative mechanisms in your entire neurologic system from head to toe. It accelerates all wound repair processes, be it in peripheral vasculature or in central vasculature, around the nervous system, brain and spinal cord.

An alternative for home use would be Exercising with Oxygen Therapy (EWOT). It's not as effective as hyperbaric oxygen treatment for neurological recovery because you're not saturating the tissues with oxygen, just your blood, but you can still benefit if you have a low partial pressure of oxygen (low oxygen in your blood).

Low-light laser therapy (LLLT), also known as photobiomodulation, which can be done using either lasers or light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

"There are a lot of different studies that show light is beneficial," Engle says. "When we're talking about neurologic recovery or building adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production, driving mitochondrial function, there are certain wavelengths that seem to be optimal for that.

Most of the wavelengths for neurologic recovery are going to be in the near-infrared (810 to 830 nanometers) and far-infrared spectrum. There are some handheld devices that can be used." Red light in the 660 nanometer frequency is also beneficial, and many technologies will combine red with near- and far-infrared.

Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) — Engle explains, "If we're optimizing voltage and frequency into the cell, then there are going to be energy thresholds below which disease happens, and above which optimized function happens. PEMF tends to raise the voltage and the energy in the cell, in the system globally, to improve physiologic function …

I use a combination of both low-voltage systems and high-voltage systems. There's a low-voltage system called a Bio Electromagnetic Energy Regulation (BEMER). There's a high-voltage system called the Pulse. I found benefits in both … There's also a subset of pulsed frequencies called transcranial magnetic stimulation, which is more based in magnetic impulse to the brain."

Transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) — TDCS provides a more global stimulation, so while some patients experience good results, others do not, due to lack of specificity. According to Engle, if it's going to work, you'll notice results quickly. If no benefit is noticed in the first few sessions, move on to some other therapy.

Electroencephalography (EEG) and neurofeedback are similar technologies of varying complexity.

"You go in to master your ability in real time to see where your brainwave patterns are firing, and then to lock into the necessary thought modalities and internal states to be able to consistently access an alpha state," Engle explains. Alpha states are indicative of calmness and centeredness.

"If I can access that and find that place within myself, then I'm starting to generate my own sense of personal empowerment." The Evoke system is an easy one to use. It involves watching a movie for 20 to 30 minutes. Your focused attention will keep the movie playing. When your attention drifts, it slows down and loses volume.

Cannabidiol (CBD) oil — "CBD is up there with fish oil for neuroreparative support," Engle says. "Cannabis has two primary therapeutic components; one is tetrahydrocannabidiol (THC) and one is CBD. THC has a psychoactive component. CBD has a neuro-reparative component.

There seems to be an upregulation effect or an enhanced effect if there's a little bit of THC with CBD. The CBD to THC ratio will be like 20-to-1. We've consistently seen benefit in the neurologic system, whether it was stroke recovery, concussion recovery or seizure and epilepsy support … There seems to be this neurologic repair effect.

The CBD receptors are globally affiliated with neurologic function throughout the entire brain. When we're engaging and stimulating those receptors, we see the neurochemical cascade toward repair, regardless of the input, but particularly with concussion.

That's why during the acute phase, if somebody has an injury that is significant, I say, first and foremost, do [these] things: 1) Lifestyle management. Get quiet. Float if you can. 2) Take fish oil, take CBD, vitamin D and melatonin, particularly if there are issues with sleep. Boost the antioxidants." CBD may actually be a really potent stimulator of nuclear factor-like 2 (Nrf2) pathway, which stimulates the hermetic production of antioxidants in your body.

More Information

If you have TBI or you know someone who does, be sure to pick up a copy of "The Concussion Repair Manual." You'll need it. There are far more details in the book than we have time or space to discuss in this interview. It's an amazing resource. Engle spent the last 20 years doing the research for you, so you now have it all in one convenient place.

In addition, if you've had a concussion or TBI, Engle has put together a free Concussion Repair Checklist to help you recover. It covers exactly what you need to know, along with the Top 10 foods for supporting your brain health. You can download it free of charge at ConcussionRepairChecklist.com.

"I wanted to write it as a fairly available user's manual for the person going through the experience," he says.

"There are a lot of different methodologies, a buffet of options. The encouragement is to get clear on what tools are available tools in your immediate environment that you can try, and then stay consistent with that methodology while tracking your symptom over a 30-day period. If there was improvement, great, then continue.

If there was improvement but you think there could be more improvement, then you may need to up the intensity or the frequency. We didn't even talk about ketogenic diet. It might be going even more keto, going even lower carb, or doing that in a more intense way, stacked with flotation and low-level laser therapy. Find a hyperbaric oxygen tank and do that regularly.

Pick the top two or three methods that you want to try. Stay with that over a period of time, be diligent, get support and make sure you're tracking your top symptoms from the concussion or the neurologic injury — sleep, irritability, focus, concentration and so on. I put a part in the book as a workbook to make it easy to track [symptoms] on a daily basis.

Even more important than that, I think, is staying diligent and knowing deeply that everything is possible to heal. The brain is super plastic. We know that being consistently engaged in optimized modes of thinking, optimized modes of inspiration and empowerment, affect people's healing. It's as much of a mindset as it is a neuroanatomy and a neurochemical thing."

 Comments (35)

Introduction

The pharmaceutical business model requires pharmaceuticals that are "effective" enough to somehow justify pushing them on patients but not effective enough to actually fix the issue the drug is prescribed for, thus requiring each patient to take the drug indefinitely. Furthermore, the larger the potential drug market is, the more aggressively the pharmaceutical industry will push to promote it to every available customer.

In some cases, such as for the dangerous and ineffective COVID-19 vaccines, this greed is so blatant even the general public can see it. Conversely, in other cases, it is typically invisible to any besides those directly affected by the drugs and their immediate family.

Recently, for example, I reviewed the statin catastrophe after Aseem Malhotra on the Joe Rogan show brought the public's attention to the danger and ineffectiveness of these drugs and how the same reprehensible forces we saw push the COVID-19 vaccines have been operating for decades within the cholesterol industry.

Although it's challenging to claim any one class of drugs is the "worst," a good case can be made for psychiatric medications. In addition to the drugs being dangerously addictive and most of their "benefits" coming from doctored research data, they have some disturbing side effects.

Beyond already tragic complications like fatal heart attacks (which happened to a close friend of mine), individuals on these drugs can become partially psychotic, and there are many tragic cases of suicides and homicides following their use.

Unfortunately, because of just how large this market is, the industry and the FDA have gone to extreme lengths to cover up the harms of these drugs for decades, and business as usual continues in the psychiatric sector.

Note: Much of this is difficult to believe, so I chronicled exactly what can now be proven happened with the antidepressants. I did this because what the FDA did back then is one of the closest precedents we have for understanding how the COVID-19 vaccines were handled and what to expect will happen in the future.

After I published an article summarizing the evidence for the psychotic, violent, and often deadly behaviors these drugs caused, Kim Witczak reached out to me to share her story. Soon after Zoloft entered the market, Kim's husband Woody was unnecessarily put on the drug and, not long after, suddenly killed himself in a manner characteristic of a Zoloft suicide.

Kim decided the best thing she could do with this tragic situation was to work to prevent it from happening to anyone else. She had numerous successes and was instrumental in a black box warning for suicides being placed on SSRI antidepressants (something she believes would have been impossible to accomplish in today's much more corrupt political climate).

Due to her work, Kim became the consumer representative on the FDA's Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee and is frequently the only dissenting vote on unjustifiable drug approvals.

Note: This is analogous to how Ron Paul earned the nickname Dr. No during his time in Congress because he was frequently one of the only dissenting voices against unconstitutional legislation. Kim periodically shares distressing things she observes with me:

"I am going to write about it, but I was once again the only no vote. This meeting was about using the antipsychotic Rexulti for an "unmet" need of Alzheimer's Agitation indication. The data was minimal, and yet the death analysis was double the antipsychotic rate that the FDA calculated from a meta-analysis of other antipsychotics.

Anyway, the committee voted 9-1 to recommend approval for the "unmet" need. The reality is that the government has been cracking down on [dangerous and difficult to justify] antipsychotic use in nursing homes.

They have noticed a rise of [likely fraudulent] schizophrenia diagnoses. So this will help the industry get their drugs covered [by insurance] and used in nursing homes. I told the FDA they need to watch the marketing and communication around this product to ensure the benefits are not overstated, and death downplayed.

It is so discouraging, and yet I know there are people like you that are out speaking the truth. But hey, at least I got the media to call me out for being the lone dissenting vote on this one!"

Note: A much more detailed summary on the absolute absurdity of this approval written by Kim can be viewed here. Recently, Kim shared something I believe has immense value for the entire public to know. However, to fully appreciate it, we must first take a quick detour into Alzheimer's disease.

Alzheimer's Research?

Alzheimer's disease currently is one of the most devastating diseases in existence, both for the individual who experiences it (along with their family) and more broadly for society, as over 1% of global GDP is spent on caring for dementia (likewise in 2021 Alzheimer's was estimated to cost the United States 355 billion dollars), and its cost has not stopped increasing.

Because of this, Alzheimer's disease is a "national research priority," and in 2021, 3.1 billion was allotted for Alzheimer's and dementia research. Yet despite over a century of research (amyloid was first identified as the cause of Alzheimer's in 1906), cures for Alzheimer's remain elusive.

The conventional view of Alzheimer's is that amyloid plaques, for some reason, accumulate in the brain and gradually destroy the brain as their concentration increases. Because of how aggressive the amyloid contingent has been, researchers exploring other Alzheimer's models frequently refer to this contingent as the "Amyloid Mafia."

Sadly, despite being studied for a century and often receiving billions of dollars in research funding each year (last year, 1.6 billion was allotted for amyloid research), the amyloid model has brought us no closer to treating the disease.

I originally wrote about this topic because an independent academic discovered that the data in a pivotal 2006 Nature paper (which "proved" the amyloid model and ended the growing dissent against it within the scientific community) had been fabricated.

Put differently, this meant that almost two decades of research (along with billions spent funding it) resulted from this fraud (e.g., one of its focuses which never received research support before 2006, received 287 million in research grants just for 2021).

Curiously, despite this fraud being investigated and confirmed by a premier scientific journal, the paper has not been retracted (there has just been a notice for the last year that it is being investigated). The lead author (Lensé) likewise has not suffered any consequences for his scientific misconduct (despite having since been found to have a much more extensive record of fraud in the many papers he's published that "reconfirmed" his hypothesis). Instead:

"He [Lensé] became a leader of the University of Minnesota's neuroscience graduate program in 2020, and in May 2022, 4 months after Schrag delivered his concerns to NIH, Lesné received a coveted R01 grant from the agency, with up to 5 years of support. The NIH program officer for the grant, Austin Yang — a co-author on the 2006 Nature paper — declined to comment."

In short, there is immense corruption in this field of research. This, I believe, is a result of the pharmaceutical industry wanting to bury any research that threatens this cash cow (the scale of Alzhiemer's makes it one of the most potentially profitable drug franchises in existence).

The scale of this corruption is possible because Fauci worked for decades to reshape the NIH to function as a pharmaceutical production pipeline where the NIH and its researchers are paid significant royalties for questionable pharmaceuticals they push through the approval process.

In the case of Alzheimer's, this is particularly tragic because numerous viable treatments already exist for it — however, since they threaten the Alzheimer's market, they have never been allowed to see the light of day.

What Causes Alzheimer's Disease?

I know of a few methods that have shown promise in treating Alzheimer's, yet sadly most researchers are unaware of them. All of my colleagues who have successfully treated the condition (or more commonly, slowed its progression) have arrived at similar conclusions on how to treat it (their approaches are discussed in more detail here):

Restore the blood flow to the brain.

Restore the lymphatic drainage from the brain.

Avoid unnecessary toxin exposure (e.g., gas anesthesia is a common offender here).

Remove toxins from the brain (e.g., heavy metals with EDTA chelation).

Provide essential nutrients to the brain (e.g., aluminum-free subcutaneous B1 and B12 shots).

Identify and treat chronic infections contributing to dementia (e.g., HHV6 or Lyme).

Of these, the first two appear to be the most important and often require improving the zeta potential of the body. Additionally, I have one colleague who also utilizes stem cells in his regimen treating the condition, and while this does help, he emphasizes that stem cell therapy is unlikely to benefit the patient if the other areas listed above remain unaddressed.

Note: Conversely, the spike protein excels at triggering many of the causes of Alzheimer's disease (e.g., it damages the blood circulation to the brain). One of the saddest complications of the COVID-19 vaccines has been their tendency to induce a rapid cognitive decline in the elderly (this, for instance, has happened to the parents of numerous friends). In each case, that decline is assumed to be a normal result of aging.

Likewise, I have seen many anecdotal examples of minor cognitive impairment following COVID-19 vaccination and more significant cognitive impairment in COVID-19 vaccine-injured patients and watched physicians present data showing this issue is widespread.

Since the successes of the above approaches utilized to treat Alzheimer's are anecdotal, only used by a few practitioners, and have no clinical trials to support their efficacy, I can understand why the scientific community has not embraced or even tried to explore them. However, there is one integrative model for treating Alzheimer's that has been proven to work in clinical trials, and yet despite this being the case, it too has been ghosted by the massive Alzheimer's industry.

Note: In this trial, 84% improved, 12% declined, and 4% had no change in cognition from the RE-CODE protocol.

The brain always has processes that preserve neurons and processes that eliminate them (as this is necessary for the brain to adapt to the needs of the environment). Dale Bredesen, MD, in The End of Alzheimer's, in turn, has made an excellent case that Alzheimer's represents the destruction of neurons outpacing their creation and advocates for lifestyle practices and functional medicine interventions that reverse that balance so your neurons are protected.

The RE-CODE protocol was his attempt to do this, and unlike the approximately 400 failed studies which preceded it, this one actually worked.

Lead author Dr. Kat Toups noted, "I have been the Principal Investigator on more than 20 long-term clinical trials for patients with MCI and dementia where the benchmark for success was merely a slowing in cognitive decline. This trial is the first to show actual improvement in multiple domains of functioning, as well as improvements in MRI brain scans."

One of the most critical points, Bredesen has made (I agree with) is that amyloid functions as a protective mechanism the brain utilizes against factors that would otherwise damage it. This means targeting amyloid, at best, is an exercise in futility and at worse, highly detrimental to the brain.

Amyloid Drugs

Given the scope of this problem and the continual failure of amyloid drugs (again, there are hundreds of failed clinical trials), it is quite surprising that Bredesen's work has been completely ignored (although patients around the country seek out neurologists who Bredesen trained). Fortunately, at long last, the current FDA was able to find a solution to our inability to address the lack of a viable treatment for Alzheimer's disease.

On June 17th, the FDA granted an accelerated approval for the first amyloid therapy. To quote their press release:

"This approval is significant in many ways. Aduhelm is the first novel therapy approved for Alzheimer's disease since 2003. Perhaps more significantly, Aduhelm is the first treatment directed at the underlying pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease, the presence of amyloid beta plaques in the brain.

The clinical trials for Aduhelm were the first to show that a reduction in these plaques — a hallmark finding in the brain of patients with Alzheimer's — is expected to lead to a reduction in the clinical decline of this devastating form of dementia."

Note: I could not help but notice how much each of the FDA press releases I read for this article sounded like promotional material for the drugs written by the pharmaceutical industry.

The approval of Aduhelm was immensely controversial, to the point ten of the eleven members of the FDA panel voted against approving it (which is something not even the atrocious COVID-19 vaccines could achieve).

Three, in turn, resigned following the panel being ignored and Aduhelm nonetheless being approved, with one stating in their resignation letter that this was "probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history." What, then could have accounted for the panel's unprecedented rejection of a new lucrative product?

Simply put, Aduhelm failed to show any improvement for Alzheimer's disease, while brain swelling or brain bleeding was found in 41% of patients enrolled in its studies.

More importantly, because the drug was priced at $56,000 a year (and therefore capable of bankrupting Medicare), this approval was followed by numerous calls for this approval to be investigated. Before long, a congressional committee convened for that purpose (which is highly unusual; even the COVID-19 vaccines have not met the bar for a formal congressional investigation).

Following an 18-month investigation, it found that serious irregularities occurred within the FDA's approval process. For example, the agency sidelined its scientists who raised concerns about Aduhelm, and the FDA helped Biogen (Aduhelm's manufacturer) prepare its presentation to the outside committee — something that has only happened nine times in the past (all for cancer drugs).

In short, while it was widely known that Biogen manufacturers and the FDA worked together on Aduhelm, to quote STAT News: "The back-channel relationship between the two started earlier and was far more extensive than disclosed."

Similarly, because of the political backlash against the approval, the FDA was forced to conduct its own investigation, which, while less damaging than the congressional findings, identified similar issues and admitted the agency's collaboration with Biogen "exceeded the norm in some respects."

Additionally, one of the more interesting gems found within the congressional investigation was how Biogen planned to address the fact they were charging an exorbitant amount of money for an ineffective and extremely dangerous drug:

"Internal documents showed the company set "an unjustifiably high price" of $56,000 a year for Aduhelm because it wanted a history-making "blockbuster" to "establish Aduhelm as one of the top pharmaceutical launches of all time," even though it knew the high price would burden Medicare and patients, the report found.

The investigation said Biogen was prepared to spend up to several billion dollars — more than two-and-a-half times what it spent developing the drug — on aggressive marketing to counter expected "pushback" over whether Aduhelm was worth its price [consider for a moment its cost, efficacy and safety].

The report said the campaign planned to target doctors, patients, advocacy groups, insurers, policymakers and communities of color, who were drastically underrepresented in its clinical trials of the drug."

Note: Since this time, Biogen has halved the price for Amgen as many of its expected buyers decided the benefits did not justify its cost (likely due to the bad press the drug created).

Then on January 6, 2023, a second amyloid drug (with a slightly different target) was approved by the FDA, also produced by Biogen (this time in partnership with Eisai), and again was accompanied by a glowing press release from the agency.

Leqembi did a bit better than Amgen; only 21% experienced brain bleeding and swelling (compared to 9% in the placebo group), and 26.4% experienced infusion-related reactions. Conversely, there may have been a tiny benefit observed. When the 898 subjects with early-stage dementia who received Leqembi were compared to the 897 who received a placebo over 18 months, a small delay (27%) in cognitive decline was observed in those receiving the drug.

Furthermore, while this change was deemed to have reached statistical significance, the actual difference in symptoms between the treatment and placebo group in the trial was 0.45 points on an 18-point scale. To quote Medical Xpress:

"Most clinicians in the field suggest that a greater difference is needed to impact patients' lives, for example 1 to 2 points."

Based on how the data was collected, this small difference was likely an artifact rather than anything meaningful. Nonetheless, the field was overjoyed since, after decades of work, this was the first clinical trial ever to show a potential benefit for treating Alzheimer's disease (a slight delay in its progression which nonetheless comes at a severe cost).

Responses like these help to illustrate the systemic blindness throughout the medical field given that Dale Bredesen already put forward a much cheaper, safer, and most importantly, dramatically more effective clinical trial that all of these researchers (who receive billions each year) are somehow unaware of.

The Revolving Door in Washington

One of the most important points RFK Jr. shared during his presidential campaign relates to his experience in spending decades litigating against federal agencies collaborating with corporate America in harming the American people. His observation was that the federal agencies were full of good people trying to do the right thing, but a corrupt leadership tied their hands.

This RFK Jr. argued was because our government structure favors unethical people who do not have America's interests at heart ascending to the top of the bureaucracy (e.g., because corporate America lobbied for their promotion), and I fully agree with his assessment. Consider, for example, that the second official appointed by Trump to head the FDA (and helped pave the way for Operation Warp Speed), Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, is now on Pfizer's board.

At the same time, the commissioner who was in charge of the FDA for the entirety of Operation Warp Speed, Stephen Hahn, is now a CEO-partner for the venture capital firm that launched (and owns) Moderna.

Sadly, bribing officials by promising them high-paying jobs after they leave office is not exclusive to medicine. Our current Secretary of Defense was initially a four-star general, then hired onto the board of Raytheon (a defense contractor), then appointed to his current position, and since he came to office, the most dangerous war in modern history has broken out, and Raytheon has made a lot of money.

To further support RFK Jr.'s argument, when the COVID-19 relief bills were passed, they contained a provision for the Government Accountability Organization (congress's watchdog and one of the least corrupt agencies in the federal government) to investigate how the responsible federal agencies (the NIH, CDC, FDA, and ASPR) handled the pandemic.

This investigation (summarized here) found that employees in all four agencies observed political interference occurred, which prevented evidence-based scientific policies from being followed. Furthermore:

"Respondents from CDC and FDA told us they did not report potential political interference in scientific decision-making because:

• They feared retaliation.
• Being unsure how to report issues. Respondents from CDC and FDA stated they were not sure how to report the potential political interference in scientific decision-making they observed. For example, a CDC respondent told us they were not aware of any existing internal procedures that could be used to report potential political interference in scientific decision-making.
• Believing agency leaders were already aware. Respondents from CDC, FDA, and NIH stated they did not report potential political interference in scientific decision-making because they thought leadership was already aware of the issue."

Note: This is also very similar to what members of the CDC have shared when attempting to draw attention to the significant corruption within their agency.

Furthermore, the GAO found that most of the policies that should have been in place to prevent this from happening (which were very simple and widely recognized as essential) were not:

"The absence of specific procedures may explain why the four selected agencies did not identify any formally reported internal allegations of potential political interference in scientific decision-making from 2010 through 2021."

Furthermore, the GAO repeatedly observed officials argue that the lack of reported issues was proof those issues did not exist, and therefore meant nothing more needed to be done.

"Officials at CDC and FDA told us that there was not a specific reason why CDC and FDA lack such procedures and that the agencies did not intentionally omit this information [necessary for reporting fraud or violations of scientific integrity] from their existing policies and procedures."

I hope that these examples help to illustrate how a significant number of FDA employees, for good reasons, could oppose Aduhelm's approval — but nonetheless were overridden by the agencies leadership.

Note: Following the approval of Aduhelm and its successor, Billy Dunn, the Director of the Office of Neuroscience, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (which was the division of the FDA responsible for approving these drugs) left the FDA and became a board member of a biotech company developing therapeutics for degenerative neurological conditions.

JP Morgan's Healthcare Conference

When Kim contacted me, it was specifically about JP Morgan's annual healthcare conference, a private invitation-only event described by JP Morgan as "the industry's biggest gathering." The 41st conference, from January 9-12, 2013, was the first one hosted in person since the pandemic started resumed being in person (it was hosted in San Francisco). Given this event's impact on the year to come, Kim made a point to gleam as much as she could from its website.

Given what she found on public display, I can only imagine what was said behind closed doors. Since behind the scenes footage of the pharmaceutical industry is quite difficult to obtain, we only have a few examples to illustrate what actually transpires in this culture:

This circa 2000 clip of shows how Pharma sales reps are trained behind the scenes. Like Pfizer, GSK aggressively and illegally promotes drugs (like this one) and has received billions in fines.

I can't even imagine how much wilder the industry has become since this was leaked. pic.twitter.com/gO1E1s2xfn

— A Midwestern Doctor (@MidwesternDoc) February 1, 2023

I now want to share some of the most important points Kim alerted me to. First, if you consider who was chosen to speak there, it says more than I ever could about where the priorities of the healthcare industry lie.

What this lineup essentially says is that the priority of the entire industry is how everyone can make as much money as possible and how interlinked all of this is with the financial sector. That's not exactly a new revelation, but I rarely see it stated this overtly.

Note: Califf became Biden's second FDA commissioner on February 15, 2022 (having previously served as Obama's for 11 months from 2016-2017). At the time, there were serious questions of whether his extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry made it appropriate for him to lead the agency. To quote Wikipedia:

"Califf worked very closely with pharmaceutical companies at the Duke clinical trials center "convincing them to do large, expensive, and, for Duke, profitable clinical trials." He was a paid consultant for Merck Sharp & Dohme, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly per ProPublica from 2009 to 2013.

The largest consulting payment was $87,500 by Johnson & Johnson in 2012, and "most of funds for travel or consulting under $5,000", which has been called "minimal for a physician of his stature".

From 2013-2014 he was paid a total of $52,796; the greatest amount being $6,450 from Merck Sharp & Dohme, followed by Amgen, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi-Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca.

He was a director of Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from July 2012 to January 26, 2015, an advisor for Proventys, Inc., chairman of the medical advisory board of Regado Biosciences, Inc. and has been a member of that board since June 2, 2009, and a member of the clinical advisory board of Corgentech Inc.

Forbes wrote that his close ties to the drug industry were why he was not nominated for the FDA Commissioner position in 2009. Califf's ties to the pharmaceutical industry were criticized by the magazine The American Prospect, and Democratic Senators Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin, who announced their intention to vote against his 2021 renomination [Califf was ultimately confirmed 50-46]."

When Kim sent me this story, she requested for me to review this particular presentation:

Video Link

Note: I saved the video (linked above) in case it gets pulled. You may also want to watch it directly on their website (the sound quality is better). The background music they presented in concurrence with this talk (if you see through its euphemisms) highlights how these people see the world and how unconcerned the healthcare industry is with the human costs of their business model.

For this article, I transcribed the analyst's presentation:

"We've seen the pharmaceutical group meaningfully outperform the market in 2022. Now, specifically looking at 2023, I'm most focused on two new therapeutic areas, and these are obesity and Alzheimer's.

In the obesity market, we have new drugs coming to market, so we see patients effectively not getting diabetes, lower rates of heart attacks, and strokes. So it effectively moves obesity from an aesthetic market to a medical market. We're forecasting this could be over a 30 billion dollar annual opportunity."

[Screen flashes to say Obesity — Shifts from an aesthetic market to a medical market $30B+ annual opportunity].

"The other market I mention is Alzheimer's, and this has been by far the largest unmet need in the healthcare industry. I'm encouraged this year we'll see the first two drugs approved that can actually modify and slow down the rate of Alzheimer's progression."

[Screen flashes to say Alzheimer's — New Treatment Options $20-25B annual opportunity].

"When I think of some of the headwinds we could face for this sector in 2023, that could offset some of these positive trends that I mentioned, one that comes to mind is really the sector's patent cycle, so we're still facing a number of very large patent expirations as we look out to the end of the decade and I think the investors are increasingly focused on how the industry will manage through those.

What I think about the inflation reduction act and what it means for the pharmaceutical sector as a whole, we view the impact as pretty manageable."

[Screen flashes to say Inflation Reduction Act impacts: Caps out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 for Medicare beneficiaries].

"The bill basically caps out-of-pocket costs for seniors in Medicare at 2000 dollars [this is something people have been fighting for decades]. The more challenging part for the industry is price negotiation. This will be the first time the US government can negotiate drug pricing, and it's on a relatively limited number of drugs, but it's something we'll have to watch closely.

Now going forward and looking out to 2023, the outlook's still pretty positive in our view. We've got core products across the sector performing nicely, we've got pipelines continuing to advance and really broaden out, and the sector is not exposed at all to some of the macroeconomic and supply chain volatility that we're seeing elsewhere in the market."

There are two main takeaways from this. The first is that the industry (and the investors who enable it) are concerned they may lose some of their ability to price gouge their customers (again, nothing new, but rare to see so overtly admitted). The second is that medications for Alzheimer's disease and obesity are expected to become two of the biggest franchises in the near future for an industry desperate to develop new drug markets. Kim's specific reason for sharing all of this was as follows:

"Interesting to also note, FDA Commissioner Califf was keynote speaker on opening day and out of the blue, the FDA granted accelerated approval to the second controversial Biogen Alzheimer drug on Friday [three days before the conference] without an Advisory Committee. How great to be able to announce to the healthcare biotech industry that one of their new drugs was just granted accelerated approval."

I wish I had more to say, but there isn't; that, in a nutshell, is the current healthcare industry.

Note: Accelerated approvals for "unmet needs" is a common way the FDA allows pharmaceutical companies to bypass the typical requirements of proving safety and efficacy in order for their drugs to be approved. Kim has witnessed many tragic examples of this during her time on the FDA panel.

Protecting Recurring Sales

Across the globe, the over-the-top censorship and stonewalling of any repurposed (off-patent) pharmaceutical drug for the treatment of COVID-19 opened many people's eyes to the reality that the pharmaceutical industry (in lockstep with the government) suppresses treatments that threaten the industry's business model.

Because of the consequences of this stonewalling (e.g., lockdowns predicated on there being no way to treat COVID-19, dangerous hospital protocols instead becoming the standard of care, and disastrous vaccine mandates), it also led them to ask if these monopolistic practices went beyond COVID-19. For example, I repeatedly heard this stated:

"If they went this far for the COVID-19 market does that mean they've also done the same with cures for cancer?"

The pharmaceutical business model always aims to have proprietary products that partially improve a chronic condition and must be taken indefinitely (as this ensures the largest amount of sales). If a product is an off-patent pharmaceutical* (so it is no longer possible to make a lot of money selling it) or effectively cures a condition (which quickly destroys its market), that is unacceptable.

Similarly, a non-pharmaceutical treatment must be kept off the market if it does this. The most explicit admission of this situation I've seen came from a financial report a few years ago:

"The potential to deliver 'one shot cures' is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies," analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday.

"While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.

In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines ... Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise."

In a recent series on emotional well-being and coping with trauma, I focused on the treatment options for insomnia because proper sleep is essential for mental health (and healing many other chronic conditions). Presently, while Americans spend over 30 billion dollars annually on sleeping aids (it's quite a large franchise), most of them don't work very well.

For example, most sleeping pills sedate you and likewise sedate the brain rather than putting it to sleep — which is a problem because a sedated brain has difficulty performing the vital restorative functions of sleep.

Oddly enough, there is one sleeping medication that is both highly effective in putting the recipient to sleep, and that does not suppress the normal sleep process.

When it was still available, my colleagues found it was a vital component of their treatment plans for chronic illnesses; unfortunately, in the 1990s, it was taken off the market because the media, in a coordinated fashion, whipped up hysteria about it being used for sexual assault, despite no evidence existing to support this (now disproven) claim.

One form of the drug is still possible to obtain (and frequently is very helpful with profound sleeping disorders), but it is challenging to qualify for it. The only way I could interpret those events was that because of how large a market insomnia was, it was unacceptable to have an effective but off-patent treatment for it on the market.

Similarly, suppose you consider the Alzheimer's examples above because of how much this market is worth. In that case, we have seen billions upon billions be spent to "find a cure" for it (e.g., just for 2021, the NIH spent 2.8 billion), while at the same time, proven treatments for the disease are ignored by the scientific community.

Instead, we have two drugs that cause brain bleeds in 20-40% of the recipients, do not provide any benefit for treating the disease, and yet are so "revolutionary" the FDA commissioner who helped push them through decided to give a keynote address to the entire industry right after approving one of them.

One thing that is often not appreciated about the pharmaceutical industry is that much more money is spent on marketing pharmaceuticals than on developing them. This is because the industry figured out long ago that as long as some case can be made that a product "works," irrespective of how unsafe or ineffective it is, it can easily be mass marketed to the population.

In turn, because of how much money exists in maintaining this model, many other facets of our society (e.g., doctors, the media, medical journals, and the FDA) have been groomed to support it.

Note: After I completed an article on the causes and treatments of Alzheimer's disease, multiple readers informed me that they had observed coconut oil noticeably improve the dementia of their ailing parent. I then looked this up and found out there is also scientific evidence to support the observations that were shared with me (e.g., this study).

I share this story because in addition to everyday coconut oil being dramatically cheaper and safer than these "revolutionary" drugs, it also appears to be more effective — which is quite the sad synopsis of our current profit centered healthcare model.

Treating Obesity

The implicit message of the entire conference (and why Kim ultimately sent it to me) was that in the next year, we would start seeing a lot of marketing for treating Alzheimer's and obesity since these represent the new growth sectors for the industry.

For example, consider this recent article from the Economist, which states that an overwhelming amount of data shows being overweight impairs your chance of financial success and that "it is economically rational for ambitious women to try as hard as possible to be thin." That is then followed by lamenting how hard it is to lose weight with the presently available options.

This sequence follows the classic American marketing formula — make the viewer experience negative emotions and then present the marketer's product as a solution to those problems, which I recently argued is a root cause of the emotional distress pervasive throughout modern society.

What I found particularly noteworthy about The Economist's article was that until recently, stating something like this was taboo as it constituted "fat shaming" because it is understandably hurtful to overweight individuals and thereby creates a variety of harms such as low self-esteem, body dysmorphia, and anorexia.

However, once a profitable product exists to "address" those negative feelings, all of that goes out the window, and those feelings are instead encouraged. So, I can only imagine how much more of this marketing we will see in the near future.

Ozempic

The same corruption in the medical field also exists within the nutritional area. As a result, the processed food industry has convinced much of the nutritional profession that a processed food diet is appropriate for the general population. Because of this widespread ignorance, Americans follow an unhealthy lifestyle, which creates widespread obesity and many other illnesses.

As I discussed here, this, in turn, has led to an endless number of fad diets that don't really work and torture those trying to follow them (who then inevitably beat themselves up and blame themselves for their failure to lose weight).

I find this a real shame because numerous effective weight loss methods exist (some of which I fully admit I've had to use), but like every other competitor to an established medical franchise, they have never been allowed to enter the conversation.

One of the most significant consequences of our flawed nutritional model is the epidemic of diabetes. Most of us know what diabetes is, but unless you work in healthcare (where you will most likely see multiple diabetic patients each day), it is quite challenging to appreciate the magnitude of this problem or how severely it can affect those with it. Similarly, recently the CDC estimated it had cost the United States 327 billion dollars in one year.

While almost everyone recognizes that diet and lifestyle (e.g., basic exercise) can have a massive impact on diabetes, very little focus is given to these areas. Instead, the focus is just on giving more and more pills to lower blood sugar, something which the benefits of doing are often overstated.

One of the medical profession's hopes for diabetes is that a magic pill will eventually emerge that addresses the disease. While I am seriously doubtful that will ever be the case due to the underlying causes of obesity, many of my colleagues have been quite surprised to see how much semaglutide (branded as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Rybelsus) appears to help diabetics with more severe presentations of the illness.

Many of these benefits result from it reducing the desire to eat, and not surprisingly, weight loss is a common side effect of taking the medication.

Frequently when pharmaceuticals are brought to the market, they are approved for very limited use and then marketed off-label for other uses resulting from the side effects of the drug. Since Ozempic creates that effect, many non-diabetics, in turn, are craving the drug to the point we are facing supply shortages of it.

This situation reminds me of what happened with Viagra in 1999 (discussed in a series about the common patterns seen by Pfizer's whistleblowers). When Viagra was initially developed, it was created to treat cardiovascular disease (as it dilates blood vessels by increasing nitric oxide production — which is often very good for you).

While its results were promising (and arguably superior to any of the standard treatments), during its clinical trial, Pfizer also noticed that Viagra treated erectile dysfunction and decided to scrap the initially proposed use of the drug to focus on the much larger sexual enhancement market.

Once Viagra hit the market, people were clamoring for the drug (e.g., many urologists told the Pfizer sales rep and later whistleblower that it was the drug they had been waiting their entire career for).

Pfizer instructed all their sales reps not to promote Viagra for anything besides its limited FDA approval (erectile dysfunction in older men with pre-existing circulatory impairment). Still, before long, that was impossible because everyone wanted it (to the point that doctors frequently had to worry about running out of their Viagra samples because staff were stealing it for their personal use).

Since its approval, numerous (sometimes fatal) side effects Pfizer knew about when it brought the drug to market (e.g., heart attacks, strokes, blindness, hearing loss, or melanoma) have been reported, and numerous Viagra lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer.

When Ozempic was first approved in 2017, it was intended to be an adjunctive therapy (along with diet and exercise) for improving blood sugar control in adults with type 2 diabetes. After it was observed that the drug helped with weight loss, a new formulation was made (Wegovy), and in June of 2021, Wegovy was approved for weight loss either overweight adults with a weight-related condition (e.g., diabetes) or those with a BMI of 30 or more.

Shortly after, in May of 2022, a similar drug (Mounjaro) received a similar approval to Ozempic's 2017 one (as an adjunctive therapy for blood sugar control). Once people realized this drug could help with weight loss, like Viagra, everyone else tried to get these drugs, too, including adults who are not overweight and do not have diabetes. Given that these drugs:

• Have side effects (e.g., nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and constipation are commonly reported — additionally, some evidence suggests pancreatic cancer and other severe complications are also associated with this class of drugs).
• The weight loss reverses after stopping the drugs (e.g., one year after stopping semaglutide, participants regained two-thirds of their prior weight loss).

They thus may not represent the best approach for weight loss. Nonetheless, I am sure many normal-weight individuals will pursue them, and both I and colleagues have observed that this is quite detrimental for those normal weight individuals.

Furthermore, unlike in the past, where the FDA to some extent focused on safety, based on Califf's recent actions (and his long track record of being in bed with the pharmaceutical industry), I suspect that the FDA will do everything they can to allow widespread use of these weight loss drugs.

Note: To illustrate how things had changed at the FDA, in addition to pressuring Pfizer not to market Viagra for off-label uses when it came out in 1998, it also pulled fen-phen in the 1990s because the drug, while effective, created severe complications for its users.

What I find particularly noteworthy about fen-phen is that despite its dangers (and the class action lawsuits that followed) being well known, I periodically heard of cases where desperate healthcare professionals stole it (e.g., from pharmacies) to lose weight.

In short, given the current regulatory environment, I think it is very likely JP Morgan's prediction will hold, and obesity medications will become a massive drug franchise, especially given that all the currently available ones will require indefinite usage by the consumer. This is a shame because there are much safer and infinitely cheaper ways to accomplish the exact same things these drugs seek to do.

Conclusion

In a recent article on the War in Ukraine, I discussed how, like many others, I have observed that over and over again, once people occupy a certain position of power in the government or corporations, a certain degree of sociopathic thought emerges where they stop caring about the human costs of fulfilling their objectives (such as making more money). Because of this, I have always followed a rule given to me — don't invest in death.

Friends and relatives throughout their lives have seen countless cases where human suffering or death resulted from investors looking to make a profit without thinking of the human consequences of their actions (e.g., funding mercenaries, investing in defense contractors, or investing in food commodities and thereby making them too expensive for the poor to afford).

While there may be some skepticism to this claim, I, my teachers, who I trust the judgment of, and famous figures throughout history (e.g., Rudolph Steiner) sincerely believed there were real spiritual consequences if an individual left their money with someone who would use it for evil.

For this reason, I've lost count of how many investment opportunities I have seen throughout my lifetime (e.g., I discussed the one Biden created with Raytheon in that recent article), I chose not to engage in because the blood that would indirectly be on my hands was not worth a higher rate of return.

I mention this because many encourage investors to focus on investing within their industry because one will typically have a much deeper understanding of that market and which things within it are presently the best bet. Given that the pharmaceutical industry has long been considered one of the best sectors to invest in, and I now know more than I ever wanted to know about the industry, I've always thought it was ironic there were the only ones I could not invest in.

Sadly as the recent JP Morgan conference shows, the healthcare industry, and now our regulators as well follow a very different set of ethics.

The tenure of Califf (who is one of the officials most directly responsible for the current vaccine disaster) is enigmatic of the corruption that has seeped into our democracy; Califf's ties to the industry in just a few years went from being unacceptable to sufficient for multiple tenures as the head of the FDA where Califf can be clearly seen working hand in hand with the pharmaceutical industry.

The best metaphor I can think of for this situation comes from a scene in one of my favorite (satirical) dystopian movies where a sports drink company bought out the entire US government and then had their product replace water throughout the United States. We are at one of those moments in history where everyone needs to work together to reverse the direction we are heading in.

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.

 Comments (27)

More Than a Billion People Have Seen ‘Plandemic’

Mikki Willis’ documentary, “Plandemic Part 1” was released May 4, 2020, and has since been viewed over 1 billion times, a record, for sure, for any documentary. This, despite it being heavily censored. “Plandemic Part 2: Indoctornation” has been viewed more than 200 million times.

One of the keys to the videos’ remarkable successes was Willis’ decision to allow (and encourage) people to download the movie files and upload them anywhere they pleased, without restrictions.

This virtually guaranteed he wouldn’t make any money from the films, but he viewed them as a gift to humanity. Putting the truth out there was more important than making a buck. Besides, hosting the films on any given platform would allow the opposition to simply nuke that one site, ensuring the films wouldn’t be seen by anyone.

‘Plandemic 3’ Will Expose Power Players and Their Intentions

“Plandemic: Indoctornation” features the brilliant David Martin, Ph.D., who has documented and tracked white collar crime for decades and invented technologies that help trace the flow of funding. Willis explains:

“We decided in ‘Plandemic 2’ to really follow the paper trail. And I'm very glad we made that decision because it has been bulletproof. Every single claim that David Martin made in the film has been 100% validated at this point.

He's the one that actually helped educate [Sens.] Rand Paul and Ron Johnson when they started to go after [Dr. Anthony] Fauci to finally hold him accountable for his decades of crimes.

[Martin] had the paper trail of how much money had been spent, that had been moved through a company called EcoHealth Alliance, and where it ended up in Wuhan at the lab.

But as important as it is to know where the virus originated, it goes so far beyond that in the next [film]. We are, I will announce right now, producing ‘Plandemic 3.’ And that one's going to go even further into who's behind this [virus] and why. Is this really about money? The answer is, for the most part, no. The people at the top of the pyramid, they can just print their own money.

It's really about ultimately creating a state of dependency, through which you can then control the human population. We're going to go deeper and really show the trail on how that works, the history of that, and how it's led us to this moment right now.

Psychological diversion has literally brainwashed a great deal of our population into fighting for these very wicked forces, unknowingly, unwittingly.”

After the release of “Plandemic 1,” Willis offered $10,000 to anyone who could debunk any claim made in the film.

“People tried,” he says, “but they would give us these phony fact-checker reports and we would debunk them. And so, they just went away after about six months of me offering that challenge. I really wanted to show people that there's a whole other world behind the smoke screen of propaganda that is used to get people to ignore important information.

So, with ‘Plandemic 3,’ we're going to go further. Once again, in real time, we're going to say, ‘Here's what we said, here's what they said about us, now here's what they're finally saying one year later.’”

It’s Not Incompetence. It’s a Plan

While many blame the encroaching tyranny on incompetence, the evidence suggests it’s not incompetence at all. It was planned this way. Willis says:

“I always want to believe the best in people. So, it took me a long time before I would be willing to say anything out loud about Bill Gates or Anthony Fauci, because I thought:

‘If I'm wrong, and these men are really trying to help the world, then even if they're doing it in a horrible way, I don't think I have the [right] to actually slander somebody in that way. If they're really trying their hardest, I hope somebody educates them so they can do a better job.’

But as I delved into this with a really incredible team of researchers, and started to learn the history of Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci, and many others … I realized that there has to be, at this point, a real knowing of what they're doing and a plan behind what they're doing.

As soon as I started looking there, that's when I saw that every bit of evidence pointed in one direction, and that is, they're fully aware of what they're doing. And that's the sad part of this …

COVID's plan was to kill all the mom and pop shops, all the personal businesses, so that we're all dependent upon these multinational corporations that are under the control of the same people that are behind all of this.

They can then make sure that all of our supplies, everything we need to get by in our lives, are controlled by people that are controlled by them so that they can then control our lives. That's really what this game is about.”

Willis does believe, however, that a great awakening is underway, and that at least half the population, or maybe more, are starting to wake up to the fact that we’re being manipulated by forces that do not have our best interest at heart. As for how this drama will play out, Willis points to the history of human mythology.

We’re in a Mythological Battle

In virtually all myths, there’s a reluctant hero who, faced with a life or death challenge, goes in search of a savior, only to in the end realize that he is the one; that the force to overcome the challenge is within himself, and that he must rise up and face the challenge himself.

“We're at that point right now,” Willis says. “My prediction is that we haven't quite reached the fiery crescendo yet that all movies feature, to some degree, in their third act. So, my prediction is it will get worse before it gets better.

We're going to have a succession of attacks, from cyberattacks, to food chain attacks, to attacks on our power [grid] and perhaps even some form of war that we'll be engaged in. But the end of that story is that we win. I have no doubt about that.

And everyone I know that really studies this deeply has the same conclusion. In the end, this is the human story. We are the David against the Goliath. The Goliath is incredibly powerful, but will be defeated. But it requires us to do the one thing that we're all afraid to do right now, and that is to stand up and speak out …

We have to be willing to be uncomfortable, we have to be willing to let our friends go. If we lose friends over us simply speaking our truth, whether it's 100% accurate or not, then they're not our friends in the first place. So, we have to get over that, rise up, speak out and deal with the attacks that come.”

How Do We Rebuild?

“Plandemic 3” will also cover ideas for how to rebuild society. This is something Martin and Willis have started collaborating on.

“For me, that's the most important thing that we can get into right now,” Willis says. “We’re creating new curriculums for schools, where we want to make sure that parents understand what's being injected into the curriculums of schools around the world.

They're now attacking our youngest. For decades, they've gone after people at the collegiate level, but now they're going after K through 12.

And when you get into the heads of little people and you convince them that all of America is racist, that white people are bad, that everyone is oppressed just by their skin color, that police are bad … ultimately it leaves people in this place of being easily controlled and subverted to what ultimately will look a lot like communism.

If you understand the history of the way that other nations have been overcome and infiltrated by communist ideologies, and you then take a look at what's happening here in America, you realize that this is actually what's taking place here …

It's almost good that we're going to go through more suffering … because unfortunately, people need to see that. You can't just tell them, ‘It would be bad, let's divert from this.’ They actually have to experience it.

Like right now, people thought Biden was going to come in and save the day, and now they're going, ‘What is going on here? The border is worse, kids are being treated worse, there's sex trafficking with young people, the economy's collapsing. We’re on the verge of new wars.’

They needed to see it, to actually understand that Trump was used as a big boogeyman to get them to look away from what they're doing. That's the game of politics. ‘Look over here, look how bad this guy is. Let's keep him in the press all day long. Look what he said right now.’ All this trivial stuff.

And then over here, we're actually rearranging your lives, stripping away your civil liberties, changing the structures of your curriculums in your schools, and nobody sees it until it's too late …

So, for me, one of the first things that we have to do is come to grips with what's really happening. To say the word ‘communism.’ To understand that we actually have globalists that are working very hard to create a one-world government …

So, we need to identify the people that are behind this, and we need to peacefully use the power of our voice, the power of numbers, to make sure that these people know we're aware of them, and to find a way to get them out of their powers of position. Then we can start talking about new systems.”

An important part of any new and improved system would be decentralization of power and control. One way to do this could be to form councils where people are represented by an actual peer.

The Last Stand for Freedom

Willis, like many others, is convinced America is the last stand for freedom. He even moved to Texas recently in order to become “a functioning part of the incredible people who have been raised with the constitutional understandings that I knew nothing about, being a California boy.”

Interestingly, Willis was a supporter of the progressive left up until just a few years ago, when he started noticing the creeping in of communist ideologies that he knew can never work.

“I wanted something new, something progressive, not understanding that it's the history of the foundation of what built this country that makes it so amazing. So, I had to go back and reeducate myself on what the forefathers said.

And there's some incredible insights, incredibly profound, prophetic words within our constitution and beyond, that were set up to protect us against moments just like this. They knew this was coming. At a certain point, I was all for gun control. And now here I am in Texas, going to the gun range and appreciating the fact that it was set up to protect the people from a tyrannical government.”

On God and Faith

Willis also admits being raised without religion, and that he lived most of his life with a lot of judgment about people who are religious. That all changed over the past year and a half, when he suddenly started appreciating the importance of having faith in something greater than ourselves.

“I found a deeper understanding of my own fate and faith,” he says. “And I have learned that the people that impressed me the most, that are humble, that are not doing this for any kind of profit, but that are simply here to stand for the organism of life, all have some form of a foundation of faith in God in their lives …

We all need to realize that when we think we are the dominant force, then we do things like Bill Gates does and like Anthony Fauci does. And at this point, after knowing what I know now … I really deeply consider that there is some entity of darkness, of evil, that's behind this agenda.

It's the only thing that explains to me how people could knowingly allow children to be brutalized the way that they're, knowingly, just for political power. I mean, if that's not evil, I don't know what is.”

It’s Not Too Late to Stand for Freedom

Clearly, this is a battle that will affect everyone on this planet. It’s planned this way, that no one will be free from the grips of The Great Awakening’s global cabal, who plan to rule us all at their beck and call, who plan our submission by making us totally dependent on them for the roof our heads, the food we eat and even the very air we breathe.

If you haven’t seen “Plandemic 1” and “Plandemic 2: Indoctornation” yet, click on the links now and watch the truths, so you can prepare to fight back and stand for freedom before it’s too late. Then watch “Plandemic 3: The Great Awakening” to see how, together, we can take back our planet, and our lives.

More Information

• Support the creators of this movie
• Official Plandemic 3: The Great Awakening on Rumble
• PlandemicSeriesOfficial on Rumble
• Plandemic Series Website

 Comments (148)

Editor's Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published February 11, 2018.

Maryn McKenna is an investigative journalist and senior fellow at the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University who has written a number of health-related books. Her latest, "Big Chicken: The Incredible Story of How Antibiotics Created Modern Agriculture and Changed the Way the World Eats," exposes many aspects of the chicken industry that most people are completely unaware of.

The book grew out of an interest in antibiotic resistance, which she began investigating about 10 years ago. As noted by McKenna, antibiotic resistance is a vastly underestimated health threat.

An estimated 23,000 Americans die each year from drug-resistant infections, and even though health officials are growing increasingly concerned that drug-resistant STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) are rising at alarming rates, the issue remains largely ignored. Globally, the death toll attributed to drug-resistant infections is thought to be around 700,000 annually, and it’s only getting worse.

Agriculture plays a major role in this; in the U.S., four times as many antibiotics are used in livestock as are used in human medicine. On the one hand, scientists warn we need to preserve and protect antibiotics lest they end up losing their effectiveness, and on the other, the food industry is feeding them to animals, most of which are not sick. "That contradiction is what set me on the journey that ended up in this book," McKenna says.

How It All Began

Historically, chickens were rather scrawny little birds that no one thought to consume as a primary meal on a regular basis. Today, Americans consume an average of 91 pounds of chicken each year. "Chickens are growing fastest in consumption around the world because they’re very easy to raise," McKenna notes. They don't require a lot of land, for example, and can eat scraps.

"If we go back to the time of our grandparents and great grandparents, almost everyone raised chickens … But the reason they were there wasn't primarily to be a meat source. It was to be a source for eggs, because eggs were very inexpensive, very easy to produce protein. For the most part, we ate chicken after a hen's egg-laying days were done.

If you imagine a hen that's been running around for a couple of years chasing chicks around the barnyard, flapping up into a tree to avoid the family dog, scratching for insects … that bird is going to be scrawny and muscular. Not very delicious.

Probably with a very rich flavor from all of that muscular development, but not tender and juicy the way our chickens are now. The only [exception] would have been … baby roosters … [which are] fed for a couple of months and then sold. They were called spring chickens and were considered uniquely delicious …

Then, out of a really interesting confluence of accidents, chicken moves forward as a meat source — first, because it turns out that chickens are so easy to raise that farmers in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia … convert from being farmers of vegetables to farmers of chickens … Their market for these meat chickens is New York City, which … [had] the largest concentration of Jewish population in the world.

Jews who want to observe the Sabbath and want to have a lovely, exotic, luxurious meal for the Sabbath can't eat pork, obviously … You could go into a live market and watch the chicken get killed in front of you, and know that it was religiously appropriate. So, chicken became the meat of New York City."

How Antibiotics Created the Modern Chicken Industry

But these facts alone did not create the chicken industry we have today. Antibiotics played a crucial role in this development. It used to be that most animals raised for food in the U.S. were fed antibiotics on a daily basis — not because they were sick, but rather because small doses of antibiotics (too small to actually cure an infection) caused the animal to put on weight faster.

Now, McKenna says this practice has been banned since January 2017 for the purpose of weight gain, but the use of antibiotics as a "preventive" measure (for potential illness) is still legal — and therefore still largely unregulated.

Since more meat per animal means more profit, the practice is driven primarily by economics. Subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics were also shown to protect animals from diseases frequently spread in crowded barns and feedlots. The first antibiotic, penicillin, was successfully used in the battlefields of World War II in 1943.

In 1944, the drug became available for the general public, and became an instant success. But another interesting thing also happened at the end of World War II. The food system grew fragile, partly because of destruction caused during the war. There was also a strong push to save money. One way producers did that was by giving their animals cheaper feed. Alas, cheaper feed meant less nutrition and more disease, so farmers began to search for ways to compensate.

"A specialist in the dietary needs of chicken — who happens to be working for one of those companies that's making one of the first antibiotics — goes in a search for supplements. One of the supplements he tries uses the dried manufacturing leftovers from his company's drug, Aureomycin. It's the first of the tetracycline class of drugs.

To his amazement, the baby chicks that get the dried Aureomycin leftovers grow more than twice as fast and put on twice as much weight as any of the other chicks in his experiment. From that, the worldwide industry of giving antibiotics to animals is born. Within five years, American farmers are giving their livestock 500,000 pounds of antibiotics a year. Now, it's over 30 million pounds [per year]."

How Chicken Became a Primary Meat Source

Breeding also played a crucial role. In a nationwide contest called "The Chicken of Tomorrow Contest," which took place in the 1940s into the early ‘50s, breeders reshaped the scrawny barnyard chicken into the breast-heavy bird we’re familiar with today.

"So, there’s a series of both historical accidents and technological innovations that get us to the point where, right now, compared to the chickens that were around in the 1950s, they [grow] to twice the slaughter weight in half the time," McKenna says.

A Republican campaign ad with the slogan "A Chicken for Every Pot," eventually turned chicken meat into a true household staple. "At the time, chicken was rare and special. Chicken was a thing you ate mostly on Sunday. It was by no means the meat that we eat every day as it is today," McKenna says. The slogan was essentially a political campaign promise of prosperity made on the behalf of Herbert Hoover.

Then, in 1977, the U.S. government issued its first ever dietary guidelines for Americans, which included the recommendation to avoid saturated fat. While it didn’t specify that you should avoid red meat, it was interpreted that way by most people, and chicken — white meat — grew exponentially in popularity as a result. One other thing occurred at this time that made the transition from beef to chicken easier.

"A very clever idiosyncratic scientist working up in upstate New York figured out how to do with chicken what farmers and householders have been doing with beef and pork for generations, and that was to make chicken into different things.

You didn't have to just roast, fry, bake or broil the chicken. You could eat chicken bologna, chicken hotdogs and the most important thing — the thing that really changes the history of the chicken — chicken nuggets.

We think of them as being a creation of McDonald's, but before McDonald's in 1980, there was Robert Baker of Cornell University who, in 1963, published the first recipe for what he called a chicken stick, which was bits of chicken glued together with excess protein; breaded, frozen and then deep-fried …

Processed chicken — chicken that's not just chicken on the bone — completely changed our relationship to chicken … That's how it got to where it is in our diet."

The Evolution of Chicken Farming

Sadly, chicken production in the U.S. has become an industry that places profits over just about everything else, including animal welfare and farmer’s rights. Precision breeding turned the boisterous barnyard chicken into an exceptionally docile animal that didn’t (indeed couldn’t) move much. These new traits allowed farmers to cram the animals together in tight spaces.

Today, commercial chickens are raised in giant warehouses the length of a football field, which can house 25,000 to 35,000 chickens at a time. There, they live in artificial daylight, with an artificially shortened night. Lack of space prevents them from moving about much and, on average, they only live 42 days.

"The thing that is so extraordinary … is the business structure that grew up to enable these giant farms to happen. The farmers who raise chickens don't actually own the chickens. They own their land, usually, although they're probably paying a mortgage on it. They pay to build those houses. They own their debt. They own the manure that comes out of those houses.

The company they grow for, the company to which they're contracted (they're called contract farmers), buys parent birds from a genetics company, hatches the chicks, takes the chicks to the farmers, brings the feed to the farmers, picks the birds up six weeks later, takes them to a company-owned slaughtering plant, slaughters them, packages them, distributes them and negotiates the whole sale contract.

Almost everything that's profit-making in the process of raising chicken belongs to the corporation. Almost everything that is difficult or economically perilous about it remains with the farmer," McKenna says.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Politics Prevented FDA From Addressing Antibiotic Harms

If a bird has received antibiotics to the point that it’s still present in the meat, this antibiotic residue is regulated by law in the U.S. The real peril when animals are given antibiotics is that it causes unnatural growth by altering their gut microbiome.

In the process, some of those gut bacteria become antibiotic-resistant. One of two things can then happen. Either the bacteria are passed into the environment via the animal’s manure, or the gut contents may contaminate the meat during slaughter or processing.

This contaminated meat can then spread the bacteria onto utensils, cutting boards and countertops, contaminating other foods as well. "So, the peril here is the creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. That's the larger backdrop to the problem of the way that antibiotics created an artificial system of raising animals," McKenna says.

As mentioned, an estimated 23,000 Americans die each year from antibiotic-resistant infections. Another 48 million people contract foodborne illness. Contaminated chicken meat has also been linked to a drug-resistant UTI epidemic.

"Antibiotic-resistant foodborne illness is an enormous problem," she says. "It's actually how the issue of giving antibiotics to meat animals first was exposed as a danger — first in England and then in the United States. It was noticed in the 1960s and '70s, when there were suddenly very large outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant, foodborne illness, which had never existed in the world before.

England successfully controlled this practice first. A government commission told the English government in 1969, ‘We really should ban the use of growth promoters.’ In 1971, they did. They were the first government anywhere to do that. That directed attention to the United States because we were the historic home of growth promoters.

In 1977 … FDA commissioner … Donald Kennedy … came into office swearing he was going to take away the licenses for growth promoters that the FDA had approved in the 1950s …

He never got [the chance]. A powerful congressman who had oversight over the FDA's budget communicated via a back channel to the White House saying, ‘If this hearing goes forward, I will hold hostage the entire FDA budget.’ The Carter Administration were reformers, but they weren't dumb about politics. They knew they had a lot of other battles they wanted to fight … They … told [Kennedy] his hearing could not go ahead.

That congressman, Congressman Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, actually put a rider on the Appropriations Bills that said that — until he said otherwise — the FDA could not invest in research [to investigate] whether antibiotics used in animals were a risk. That went on until the 1990s when Congressman Whitten retired …

The government's hands were tied, even though from that point, decade after decade, every major scientific body — the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, the AMA, even academic researchers funded by the NIH — all said [that] antibiotics used freely in meat animals are a grave risk to human health."

Steps in the Right Direction

It took more than 30 years before any significant changes took place. It wasn’t until last year, just as the Obama administration was exiting office, that a set of rules were created by the White House that changed how we use antibiotics in animals raised for food. A number of large chicken producers are also taking proactive steps to phase out antibiotics.

Sanderson Farms is an exception to this trend. Refusing to acknowledge the impact antibiotics are having, Sanderson Farms has gone on record stating that antibiotic-free chicken is nothing but a gimmick designed to sell chicken for higher prices. The reason they call it a gimmick is because antibiotic-treated chicken will not have antibiotic residue in its meat. Hence there’s no difference between treated and untreated animals.

However, this rationale completely misses the point, because the issue is not the elimination of antibiotics in the meat, it’s the elimination of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the meat. It’s the bacteria that pose a threat to human health.

Others have done a far greater job. Perdue Farms announced its plan to go antibiotic-free in 2014, and by then the company had already made significant strides. At present, Perdue Farms claims to be more than 99% antibiotic-free, and have forced competitors to follow suit.

"After Perdue came Tyson, Cargill, McDonald’s, Subway, Taco Bell and many others," McKenna says. "The reason, I think, Perdue felt they could [go antibiotic-free] is [because] they were being pressured by consumers. They told me they would get more than 3,000 comments a month from consumers through phone, email, Facebook and so forth, asking them about antibiotic use in their chickens …

The Obama administration also felt it was possible to create [new] rules … because a consumer movement was rising. They said to food companies, ‘We no longer want to spend our dollars for meat raised with routine use of antibiotics. We don't feel this is safe.’ This was also stated by large catering departments at hospitals who said, ‘This puts our vulnerable patients at risk.’ It was also said by very large food systems in school districts."

Consumer Demand Drives Creation of a Safer Food System

In other words, consumer demand demonstrated there was a real market for antibiotic-free chicken. Interestingly, once Perdue began investigating the use of antibiotics, they discovered that the drugs no longer work the way they used to.

Everyone was basically just following a formula they knew had worked in the past, and no one had bothered to assess whether anything had changed. As it turns out, things had changed, and removing antibiotics actually didn’t result in any significant losses at all.

Another question that arose was whether antibiotics could prevent disease in animals living in crowded conditions. Perdue realized they could stimulate the birds’ immune systems in other ways, using herbs and probiotics, for example.

The last step they took was to improve the animal’s living conditions, installing windows in the barns. The natural sunlight in turn provides natural vitamin D protection. They also changed the interior around to allow the birds to get more exercise and opportunity to flap their wings.

"[Perdue] is still raising a lot of chickens, but not in quite as close quarters as they used to," McKenna says. "The thing that's especially magic about that to me is that all of the stuff I just described — giving them a different diet, letting them exercise, letting them to have sunlight — those are not only things that stimulate the immune system, they're also things that create flavor."

Be Part of the Change

McKenna’s book, "Big Chicken," does an excellent job of detailing how consumer pressure can create enormously beneficial changes in our food system. There are still other changes that need to be made.

For starters, chickens are still fed a diet consisting primarily of genetically engineered (GE) grains sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate, which in addition to being a toxin also has antibiotic activity. Ideally, chicken producers would at the very least revert back to using all non-GE grains for their feed.

Considering the fact that most CAFOs in other nations are able to profitably raise chickens on non-GE grains (where GMOs are not permitted), there’s no doubt it can be done in the U.S. as well. The key is to keep asking for it. We also need to continue pushing for change in other areas. As noted by McKenna:

"We can't rest on what we've gotten so far. We have to go forward to pig producers, to cattle producers, to fish producers. Fish farming — and especially in the developing world, shrimp farming — are huge consumers of antibiotics, which is even more influential for the ecosystem of the ocean than it is for the ecosystem of the land.

As pointless as it seems to send a message through a company's Facebook page or to talk to the customer service desk at a supermarket, all of those messages add up. People can create more change if they just persist …

I hope people will take this to heart, and look for antibiotic-free meat when they do their grocery shopping … Look for a label that says, 'Raised without antibiotics' and/or 'no antibiotics ever' … Don't rely on organic, because the U.S. organic standard for chicken starts on Day Two of the chicken's life.

A chicken raised by an organic producer that thinks they're doing everything right could have been given antibiotics, either injected into the shell or in the first day of life to protect them in transit to the organic producer.

For me, it's as important to see 'no antibiotics ever' (NAE) or 'raised without antibiotics' [on the label] as it is to see 'organic,' though that covers so many other benefits for the animal. I really think if people just keep pressing, we're going to see more change."

 Comments (16)

I would like to start with a stunning example of the World Economic Forum telling the truth. Here is factual quote by them from 2018:

“There is now a compelling body of evidence to support the idea that, with the right research and theoretical grounding, story-based media can shift social norms, values and beliefs more effectively than traditional, fact-based messaging [emphasis mine]. What is even more exciting is how digital technology is bringing compelling stories to millions of people at increasingly lower costs.”

Are they telling the truth? Yes, they are — and the past three years offer immediate proof. The story-based media, sponsored by their masters from BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, has shifted the social norms alright! Here is a scary SNL skit that — I think — was supposed to make somebody laugh. I don’t usually watch the SNL, and I didn’t laugh:

“Social Norms”

Why do the social norms exist? We are social creatures, and our communities have customs. We are wired from birth to look at what others are doing and compare notes. We are also wired to “adjust” our behavior depending on the reactions we get. In the traditional wilderness, most adults can’t survive without being mature and living by natural and spiritual laws. And even here and how, in the urban jungle, our basic survival may depend on how well and how quickly we “read the room.”

As it goes with most things in life though, human qualities that exist in us with the purpose of helping us survive and thrive, can be turned on their heads and abused. It is kind of like what the parasites in nature do when they take advantage of the instincts and various natural biological functions in their target host — and make those features work for themselves, to the detriment of the host.

Our love of being in harmony with our community can be abused, too — and it has been abused throughout centuries and in the past three years — by committing acts of mob-like terror to create the initial shock and lasting collective fear, and thus corrupting the “base line” — and then by enforcing “arrested development” and preventing children from emotionally growing up until they are ready to be consumed by the Machine.

Here is a fine bit of inverted storytelling for the child-like adults that is intended to make them feel “smart.”

See, a mature and soul-oriented adult can “read the room” and then intelligently choose what to, based on what’s spiritually sound to do under a circumstance. On the other hand, an individual who is not particularly mature or soul-oriented tends to react in a mechanical way. Such a person is usually easy to consume by the not-so-benevolent masters at the top.

Thus, the “mechanically reactive” mode of living is typical for those who are yet to find themselves: children and child-like adults. And the effort to induce the condition of “arrested development” on as many “worker ants” as possible is the ambition of the human parasites.

What Is “Normal,” Anyway?

Enter the notion of “normal.” Before we proceed, let us look at the history of the term.

"The word normal entered the English language in the mid-1840s, followed by normality in 1849, and normalcy in 1857 … When normal was first used it had nothing to do with people, or society, or human behavior. Norm and normal were Latin words used by mathematicians. Normal comes from the Latin word norma which refers to a carpenter’s square, or T-square. Building off the Latin, normal first meant “perpendicular” or “at right angles.”

Normal was first used outside a mathematical context in the mid-1800s by a group of men … in the academic disciplines of comparative anatomy and physiology. These two fields, by the 19th century, had professional dominion over the human body … They used the term “normal state” to describe functioning organs and other systems inside the body.

The anatomists and physiologists, however, never did find or define the normal state. Instead they studied and defined its opposite — the pathological state. They defined normal as what is not abnormal ...

The idea of the average as normal goes way back to 1713 to a Swiss mathematician named Jakob Bernoulli, who many consider to be the founder of modern day calculus and statistics …

Bernoulli created an equation known as the calculus of probabilities, which became the foundation of all statistics ... The calculus of probabilities specifically, and statistics generally, made many seemly random events more predictable ..."

Then Adolphe Quetelet took the calculus of probabilities and “applied not to gambling but to human beings ... Quetelet was a true believer that statistics should be applied to all aspects of society ... In 1835, he put forth the concept of the ‘average man.’

His plan was to gather massive amounts of statistical data about any given population and calculate the mean, or most commonly occurring, of various sets of features — height, weight, eye color — and later, qualities such as intelligence and morality, and use this “average man” as a model for society …”

Anyone can smell eugenics in the air at this point? Quetelet “used regular, average, and normal interchangeably. In 1870, in a series of essays on ‘deformities’ in children, he juxtaposed children with disabilities to the normal proportions of other human bodies, which he calculated using averages. The normal and the average had merged.”

The formal “father” of normality (and eugenics), however, was Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin. Galton was an anthropologist and the founder of eugenics known for his “pioneering” (per Encyclopedia Britannica) studies of human intelligence. He started out as a doctor and then left medicine for the budding field of statistics. He was knighted in 1909.

Pet LitHub, “as Lennard Davis described in his book Enforcing Normalcy, Galton made significant changes in statistical theory that created the concept of the norm, as we know it. Galton was into the idea of improving the human race and believed that statistics could help. He loved Quetelet’s whole ‘average man’ thing but had one minor problem.

In the center of Quetelet’s bell curve were the most commonly occurring traits, not the ideal bodies and minds Galton believed everyone should have.”

"To solve this problem, Galton, through a complicated ... mathematical process ... took the bell curve idea, where the most common traits clustered in the middle and the extremes, and created what he called an ‘ogive’ ... which, as Davis explains ‘is arranged in quartiles with an ascending curve that features the desired trait as “higher” than the undesirable “deviation.”

According to Peter Cryle and Elizabeth Stephens, authors of Normality: a Critical Genealogy, “Galton was not only the first person to develop a properly statistical theory of the normal ... but also the first to suggest that it be applied as a practice of social and biological normalization.”

By the early twentieth century, the concept of a normal man took hold. The emerging field of public health loved it. Schools, with rows of desks and a one-size-fits-all approach to learning, were designed for the mythical middle.

The industrial economy needed standardization, which was brought about by the application of averages, standards, and norms to industrial production. Eugenics, an offshoot of genetics created by Galton, was committed to ridding the world of “defectives” ... and was founded on the concept of the normal distribution curve."

Is “Gene Editing” the New Spelling of “Eugenics”?

Speaking of eugenics — I mean, gene editing — here is a TED talk by Paul Knoepfler, a mainstream researcher at UC Davis School of Medicine, from a few years ago. It is fascinating to watch. I say “fascinating” because I like to observe other people’s train of thought. And in some cases, people’s thinking is a wild mix of possible good intention, actual science, fantasy, and hubris (remember DDT?).

In his case, in 2018, he called for a temporary moratorium on “designer babies,” and then in 2020, at a time when nearly every mainstream scientist was compliant or trusty or both, he published a piece supporting mRNA vaccines. What is his opinion on the mRNA vaccines today? I don’t know. But since he still seemingly has a job, whatever his opinion is, he is probably keeping it to himself.

Even more fascinating is this bit of storytelling. In real life, the scientists — even the well-intended ones — who hope to “improve humanity” by genetic modification are more like a very ambitious elephant in the china shop than anything else. Perhaps they are an elephant who identifies as a very graceful ballerina — but they are an elephant, and no amount of fantasizing about genetic modification can change that.

But it is fascinating to watch propaganda videos. Words are cheap, anything can be said with great conviction, including blatant lies. There is even a flying car briefly making an appearance in this propaganda video! Perhaps, a hint?

When something is based on a lie, it takes a significant effort to maintain that lie. Because of that, for centuries, there have been very powerful lie-maintaining institutions in place. The people employed at the lie-maintaining institutions have been very skilled at the art of deceit, at the art of confusion, at the art of seduction, and at the art of fear.

The middle managers could be just foot soldiers, the apprentices of the Machine. They often have no idea what they are really doing, and they typically prefer not even think about ways to find an accurate mirror because they are not looking to shatter their own worldview.

The ones at the top though know exactly what they are doing, and they put a lot of work in maintaining their lies. They are in perpetual search of new victims and new ways to sell their lies. They are in perpetual search of new abuse markets, so to speak. And so they swap stories and marketing brochures without even blinking, as often as they need, to replenish their victim supply.

Cycle of Abuse and the Story of Superiority

It dawned on me: the way institutional abusers play “divide and conquer” and treat different groups of people differently is as if they were delivering the experiences of different phases of abuse to those groups at the same time.

The “temporarily elevated,” i.e. the demographic targeted to be temporary supporters and loyal soldiers of the dark ones, are shown the “honey moon” phase — while the ones who are targeted for immediate destruction, receive the unmasked boot, the phase of abuse when the gloves of the abuser are off.

Of course, both groups are targeted to be eaten, just at different times — and during Phase One, Group One is supposed to not know that they are enthusiastically digging not just the graves for Group Two, but also their own graves.

That makes perfect sense as far as the art of warfare goes. Seduction, including sugar-covered storytelling and some practical perks, is required to pull the victim in. It’s very important for the abuser to first pull some wool over the victim’s eyes and ears and some cotton candy over the victim’s mouth.

The ones who are targeted to be supporters, are told that they better, smarter, more handsome, and more spiritually righteous than the ones targeted to be food. What’s hidden from the “next phase” victims though is the fact that the abuse is on its way. Inevitably, on its way.

The Not-so-Great Reset

What’s really happening in regards to the not-so-great reset role swapping, a reshuffling in the game of the musical chairs. We in the West have gotten used to the role of “honey moon” people, the ones who are shown the “honey moon” phase. And who could blame us? It is easy to get used to good things. Hey, this Soviet expat is very grateful for those good things and got used to them right away!

And it is also true that for all practical purposes, while Phase One lasts, it is much better to belong to our “western” group. Big houses, big TVs, material abundance, freedom of expression — or at least relative freedom of expression — all those things have been sweet, and having them makes a dramatic difference in our quality of life. As someone who grew up at the tail end of the USSR, I passionately attest to that.

However, it is important to be honest. And for the sake of being honest, it is better to separate the underlying reality from “storytelling.” For example, we decry — rightfully so — the forced closure of places of worship during the COVID lockdowns. But how many people know that, for example, the original people of this land could not legally practice the spiritual traditions of their ancestors until 1978, when American Indian Religious Freedom Act was passed?

This reminds of a Soviet-era joke. A Russian and an American are having a conversation, and the American says: “We in America have freedom. For example, I can go up to the White House and say loudly, ‘Reagan sucks!” The Russian laughs and says, “Big deal. I, too, can go to Red Square and say loudly, ‘Reagan sucks!’”

Modus Propagandi

When the poorer and less socially elevated people are used as pawn in a coup, they are propagandized in a particular way — which is something that I observed in the Soviet Union, and something that I am observing, to my chagrin, in America today.

The dejected ones are handed a fake new “respect” and the satisfaction of “righteously” humiliating the ones who annoy them, in this case, the “privileged” folks. It is that game of musical chairs, the redistribution of the crumbles of respect, again.

From the standpoint of the dark individuals on top, it’s just another reiteration of "divide and conquer," reshuffling of Phase One and Phase Two people and values, a matter of different groups of ants swapping roles. But it feels very serious to the dignified people on the ground for good reasons as we can feel our dignity just slipping away, the sound of propaganda of the day.

They Do It Again and Again

This topic is close to my heart. When the generation of my grandparents in the USSR found themselves on the receiving end of the not-so-great reset of the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, the “foot soldiers of the Machine” were the poor ones, the compliant ones, and the village drunks.

They were told story of new respect, and they were recruited to bring down (with seemingly some help form the colony-seeking Western bankers) the dignified.

This is not how I learned history at school, however. When I was a kid, I was told a story of horrible pre-1917 life and the Bolsheviks riding in on a white horse (like a Robin Hood, although I am not sure if Robin Hood had a white horse). It was later, gradually, that I figured out that it was just a story, and that it was a vicious lie.

Then when the Soviet Union fell apart, I was still a kid, and I remember how exciting and prestigious it was for anyone to be in any way involved with anything “from the West.” Glamorous things were: joint enterprises, foreigners, Western music, Western values, and this song.

What a sweet fairy tale it was. And despite the sweetness of that story, and the tremendously fond memories I have of those times, that, too, was just “storytelling.” In reality, it was a loveless market grab by the key investors in multinational companies. It was a social restructuring that for us, at that time, felt awesome because we, the people of the Soviet Union, were temporarily made to believe that were the benefiting group.

The “Russian Doll” of Lies: Letting Go

I have spent many years pondering this dynamic, and came to the conclusion that until we reject all fake stories — even the ones we imbibed with mother’s milk, even the ones that allow people like us to continue our comfortable slumber — we are not “safe” from being on the receiving end of the not-so-great reset.

That is a very tall order and a very tough spiritual and intellectual challenge even for the best of us, and it’s hard work. But our sweet freedom is worth all the hard work in the world, isn’t it? I think so.

About the Author

To find more of Tessa Lena's work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.

 Comments (29)

In the U.S., an estimated 30% of adults have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), the most common chronic liver disease.1 Globally, about 25% of adults are affected.2 These numbers only account for the buildup of excess fat in your liver that is not related to heavy alcohol use. If alcoholic liver disease were also factored in, the prevalence would be even higher.

Further, in people with obesity, up to 90% have NAFLD, as do up to 75% of those who are overweight3 and 50% of people with diabetes.4 Even 10% of U.S. children are suffering from NAFLD.5

Lifestyle factors such as diet, exercise, weight and smoking all play important roles in exacerbating (as well as reducing) your chances of developing some form of liver disease. Obesity and other signs of metabolic dysfunction, including high blood pressure, insulin resistance and elevated triglycerides, are also linked to NAFLD.6

Left unchecked, it’s estimated that 100 million people in the U.S. alone will develop NAFLD by 2030.7 There are many steps you can take to reduce your risk, however, so you don’t end up as one of them.

What Is NAFLD?

NAFLD describes excess fat buildup in your liver. Without proper treatment, NAFLD can lead to serious liver problems including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), which causes inflammation and fibrosis, or scarring of the liver. NASH may lead to cirrhosis, which increases the risk of liver cancer, and end-stage liver disease.8

However, NAFLD also increases the risk of other health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, which is the No. 1 cause of death in people with NAFLD.9 NAFLD often has no symptoms, although it may cause fatigue, jaundice, swelling in the legs and abdomen, mental confusion and more.

Your liver, as the largest solid organ in your body, carries out more than 500 essential functions to your health.10 This includes the production of bile, which breaks down fats and carries away waste, converting excess glucose into glycogen, and regulating amino acids in the blood. It’s also important for detoxification, helping to clear your blood of toxins, and regulates blood clotting, among other functions.11

Fortunately, your liver, more than almost any other tissue in your body, has phenomenal regeneration capabilities. Even if 90% of it has been removed, it can regrow to its normal size.12 Along these lines, NAFLD can often be reversed in its early stages via lifestyle changes, like healthy eating and exercising.

NAFLD’s Dietary Connections

The high rates of NAFLD are most likely related to the increased intake of toxic industrially processed seed oils, often referred to as “vegetable oils.” Examples of seed oils high in omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) include soybean, cottonseed, sunflower, rapeseed (canola), corn and safflower.13

Eating seed oils high in the omega-6 PUFA linoleic acid (LA) contributes to low-grade inflammation, oxidative stress, endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis.14 As researchers noted in the journal Nutrients, “In addition, a few studies suggested that omega-6 PUFA is related to chronic inflammatory diseases such as obesity, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.”15

In order to avoid LA, you’ll need to avoid eating processed foods, fast foods and most restaurant foods and focus on real food instead. Fatty liver can also be driven by excess sugar when, in addition to seed oils, you are consuming more than 35% of your calories as fat. This is likely why this condition is now found even in young children.

Choline’s Role in NAFLD

Choline, an essential nutrient, is also important for normal liver function and liver health. Choline plays a role in maintaining membrane integrity and managing cholesterol metabolism, including low density lipoproteins (LDL) and very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL), helping to move fat out of your liver.16,17

By enhancing secretion of VLDL in your liver, required to safely transport fat out, choline may protect your liver health.18 Further, choline deficiency may lead to abnormal fat deposits in your liver, causing NAFLD.19

An estimated 90% of the U.S. population is deficient in choline.20 You can increase your intake by consuming more choline-rich foods, such as organic pastured egg yolks, grass fed beef liver, wild-caught Alaskan salmon and krill oil. Arugula is also an excellent source.

In fact, some experts believe NAFLD is largely the result of shunning choline-rich foods like liver and egg yolks, which is then worsened by consuming too much linoleic acid. As noted by Chris Masterjohn, who has a Ph.D. in nutritional science:21

“After studying the relevant literature and tracing it much further back in time than anyone else ever bothers to, I've come to the conclusion that neither fat nor sugar nor booze are the master criminals here. Rather, these mischievous dudes are just the lackeys of the head honcho, choline deficiency. That's right, folks, it's the disappearance of liver and egg yolks from the American diet that takes most of the blame.

More specifically, I currently believe that dietary fat, whether saturated or unsaturated, and anything that the liver likes to turn into fat, like fructose and ethanol, will promote the accumulation of fat as long as we don't get enough choline. Once that fat accumulates, the critical factor igniting an inflammatory fire to this fat is the consumption of too much PUFA (polyunsaturated fat from vegetable and perhaps fish oils).”

Environmental Pollution Plays a Role

Exposure to pollutants that act as endocrine and metabolic disruptors is another contributing factor in rising rates of NAFLD. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), heavy metals, and micro- and nanoplastics have all been implicated in both the development and progression of NAFLD.22

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, is one particularly pernicious toxin to your liver. As more and more glyphosate has been sprayed on agricultural lands, parks and backyards, entering our food and water supplies, NAFLD rates have trended upward.23

Further, when researchers from the University of California (UC) San Diego School of Medicine analyzed urine samples from 93 patients who had been diagnosed with NAFLD, those with the more severe form, NASH, had significantly higher residues of glyphosate in their urine.24 This association held true regardless of other factors in liver health, such as body mass index, diabetes status, age or race.

In a UC San Diego news release, lead study author Paul J. Mills, Ph.D., explained “There have been a handful of studies, all of which we cited in our paper, where animals either were or weren’t fed Roundup or glyphosate directly, and they all point to the same thing: the development of liver pathology … The increasing levels [of glyphosate] in people’s urine very much correlates to the consumption of Roundup-treated crops into our diet.”25

Researchers from King’s College London also showed an “ultra-low dose” of glyphosate-based herbicides was damaging.26 After a two-year period, female rats showed signs of liver damage, specifically NAFLD and progression to NASH. The authors noted that glyphosate may bring about toxic effects via different mechanisms, depending on the level of exposure, including possibly mimicking estrogen and interfering with mitochondrial and enzyme function.

PFAS Linked to Fatty Liver

PFAS are endocrine-disrupting chemicals that accumulate in body tissues, such as the liver, and are also known to accelerate metabolic changes that lead to fatty liver. “This bioaccumulation,” researchers wrote in Environmental Health Perspectives, “coupled with the long half-lives of many PFAS, leads to concern about the potential for PFAS to disrupt liver homeostasis should they continue to accumulate in human tissue even if industrial use is abated.”27

The researchers, from the Keck School of Medicine of USC, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, yielding 85 rodent studies and 24 epidemiological studies. Four types of PFAS — PFOS, PFOA, perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) — accounted for most known human exposure.

The study compared PFAS exposure to indicators of liver injury including serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), NAFLD, NASH or steatosis, a buildup of fat in the liver. Meta-analysis from the human studies showed that higher ALT levels were associated with exposure to PFOA, PFOS and PFNA.

In addition to promoting liver inflammation and the accumulation of triglycerides, exposure to PFAS may also lead to reduced bioavailability of choline, triggering steatosis due to choline deficiency.28 Grease-resistant to-go containers, papers and wrappers often contain PFAS; this includes fast food containers and wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes and candy wrappers.

You can also be exposed to PFAS via contaminated drinking water and soil, as well as via exposure to consumer products that contain PFAS, including nonstick cookware, stain resistant clothing and upholstery, cleaning products and personal care products.

Tips for Liver Health

The single most important step to protecting your liver health is lowering your seed oil content as much as possible. Please review the comprehensive article and video on LA I posted earlier this year. Limiting alcohol and environmental pollutants like glyphosate and PFAS are also important, but be sure to add in choline-rich foods like pastured egg yolks, which are known to support liver health.

Vitamin B12 and folic acid may also be protective and have been found to decrease the progression of NASH.29 Niacinamide, also known as nicotinamide (NAM), is another option. It’s a precursor to nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+), a vital signaling molecule that’s believed to play an important role in longevity. However, supplementation with NAM has also been found to decrease oxidative stress and prevent fatty liver.30

N-acetylcysteine (NAC), a precursor needed for glutathione biosynthesis, is another liver-supportive agent to be aware of. NAC is used as an antidote for acetaminophen toxicity,31 which causes liver damage by depleting glutathione. Research published in Hepatitis Monthly has shown NAC supplementation helps improve liver function in patients with NAFLD.32 Adding 5 to 15 grams per day of the amino acid glycine would also be useful.

Another option is milk thistle, which contains silymarin and silybin, antioxidants that are known to help protect your liver from toxins and even help regenerate liver cells.33 Supplements should always be used in combination with living a healthy lifestyle, including eating right and exercising. If you’re overweight, losing 7% to 10% of your body weight can improve NAFLD, including lowering liver fat content, liver inflammation and fibrosis.34

 Comments (80)

Editor's Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published May 3, 2018.

According to some estimates, as many as 90% of the population have experienced some form of traumatic brain injury (TBI), be it from a car accident, slip and fall incident or simply hitting your head on a cabinet. Unfortunately, most go undiagnosed and untreated, and the accumulation of low-grade concussions over time has been shown to raise your risk for neurological dysfunction later in life. This includes not only Alzheimer's but also Parkinson's disease.1,2

Parkinson's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder in which neurons in dopamine-producing cells within a region of your brain known as the substantia nigra, which is required for normal movement, begin to weaken and die.

Symptoms, which typically progress over time, include tremors, slow movement, rigid limbs, stooped posture, an inability to move, reduced facial expressions and a shuffling gait. The condition can also cause depression, dementia, speech impairments, personality changes and sexual difficulties.

Concussion Linked to Increased Risk of Parkinson's Disease

According to research published in the journal Neurology,3 even a single concussion could increase your risk for this degenerative brain disease. Here, "concussion" was defined as loss of consciousness for up to 30 minutes or alteration of consciousness and/or amnesia for up to 24 hours.

Medical records of nearly 326,000 U.S. military veterans ranging in age from 31 to 65 were evaluated in this retrospective cohort study, showing that a TBI resulting in loss of consciousness raised the risk of Parkinson's by 56%.

Veterans who experienced more serious TBIs (classified as moderate-to-severe) were 83% more likely to develop Parkinson's. Overall, all-severity TBI (i.e., TBIs of any severity classification) was associated with a 71% increased risk. Those with one or more TBIs in their past also received a diagnosis of Parkinson's on average two years earlier compared to those who had never had a TBI.

Lead author Dr. Raquel Gardner,4 staff neurologist at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center and assistant professor in the department of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) told Reuters:5

"This is not the first study to show that even mild traumatic brain injury increases the risk for Parkinson's disease.6 But we were able to study every single veteran across the U.S. who had been diagnosed at a Veterans Affairs hospital, so this is the highest level of evidence we have so far that this association is real …

While on an individual level the actual amount of risk is pretty low, on a population level this could translate into a lot of people being affected [with Parkinson's]."

Implications for General Population

Coauthor Dr. Kristine Yaffe, professor of psychiatry, neurology and epidemiology at UCSF and the VA, added that these findings have "important implications for the general population" as most of the TBIs veterans suffered actually occurred during their civilian life, not during active service. As of yet, the exact mechanism behind the TBI-Parkinson's link is unknown. According to Gardner:7,8

"We don't have brain autopsies, so we don't know what the underlying biology is. But in Parkinson's you see abnormal protein accumulation, and there's some evidence that TBI is linked to deposits of these abnormal proteins … The TBI might directly trigger changes in the brain that weren't there before.

The other possibility is that maybe there was a process already happening in the brain and the person might have gotten Parkinson's disease [anyway] many years later. But the brain injury made the symptoms come on sooner and the diagnosis come sooner. We need more studies to unravel the biology behind what's going on here."

That said, the authors stressed that TBI in no way assured the development of Parkinson's. Ninety-nine percent of veterans with TBIs did not develop Parkinson's, so individual risk is still very low, even with a TBI. The disease is also strongly dependent on lifestyle factors such as diet and exercise. As noted by Gardner, "If anyone is worried, do a little bit better to live more healthily."9

Telltale Signs of TBI

Oftentimes the head injury doesn't seem severe enough to have caused TBI, which is why symptoms are often overlooked. Common telltale signs of head trauma — which need to be addressed — include:

• Poor concentration and foggy thinking
• Impaired word recall
• Mood changes, irritability and emotional dysregulation
• Lowered ability to focus and follow through on mental tasks
• Sleep problems or hypersomnolence

Whenever you experience an injury to your head, regardless of how severe it appears to be, it's important to pay careful attention to any psychological changes that might occur over the coming week or two. Signs such as those mentioned above are indications that your nervous system is on high alert due to an inflammatory cascade, which presents itself as psychological and cognitive downstream effects.

Adults injured at home will be able to self-reflect and notice psychological and neurological changes. Children on the other hand may not be able to do this, and need to be carefully monitored by their parents for changes in behavior and function. If you notice a change in your child within the days or weeks following a head injury, a more comprehensive medical evaluation and workup is strongly recommended to avoid long-term repercussions.

How to Prevent TBIs

There are a number of commonsense strategies that will help prevent the occurrence of a TBI in the first place. This includes the following:10

• Always wear your seat belt when driving or riding in a car, and never drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This includes many prescription drugs that may alter your ability to drive safely, such as opioid pain killers, which are now responsible for more fatal car crashes than drunken driving.

Also make sure your child is properly buckled into a child safety seat while driving. Infants should be kept in a rear-facing seat that has been properly secured in the back seat, not the front passenger seat. Children aged 2 to 5 should be in a forward-facing seat in the back seat until they exceed the height or weight limit for the seat.

Ages 5 to 9 should ride in a front-facing booster seat in the back seat. Never drive with a child aged 12 or under in the front passenger seat, as deployment of the air bag may cause severe injury or death to undersized passengers.

• Wear a helmet when:

◦ Riding a bicycle, motorcycle or any other motorized vehicle, including off-roading with an all-terrain vehicle

◦ Playing contact sports

◦ Skating or skateboarding

◦ Playing baseball or softball

◦ Horseback riding

◦ Skiing or snowboarding

• Safeguard the elderly in your home by:

◦ Removing tripping hazards such as throw rugs and clutter

◦ Using nonslip mats in bathtub and shower

◦ Installing grab bars next to your toilet, tub and shower, and handrails along both sides of stairways

◦ Improving lighting

◦ Maintaining a regular physical activity program to maintain or improve strength and balance

• Safeguard children in your home by:

◦ Installing window guards

◦ Using safety gates at top and bottom of stairs

◦ Using nonskid bathmats and nonslip mats in tub and shower

◦ Never leave your child unattended in a highchair

• Make sure your child's playground has shock-absorbing material such as hardwood mulch or sand in key areas where falls are likely to occur

Long-Term Effects of Accumulative TBIs Download Interview Transcript | Video Link

Long-term, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, i.e., the accumulation of low-grade concussions over time, accelerates the process of dementia. If you are genetically predisposed to Alzheimer's by having one or two ApoE4 alleles and suffer a TBI, your risk of Alzheimer's increases at least tenfold.

Stacked with an inflammatory diet and other lifestyle factors such as lack of exercise and not fasting (which promotes neuroregeneration), the process of neurological degeneration is further exacerbated and accelerated.

In his book, "The Concussion Repair Manual," Dr. Dan Engle, provides comprehensive guidance on how to recover from TBIs. I recently interviewed him about this, and if you missed it, you may want to review it now. Engle discusses a variety of healing strategies in his book, including nutritional components that optimize brain function and help repair neurological function in case of injury. I'll review some of these at the end of this article.

The Importance of Omega-3 Fats

Among the most important nutrients for brain health are the animal-based omega-3 fats docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). The department of surgery at Oregon Health & Science University now advocates use of omega-3 supplements presurgery, because outcomes are so much better. Animal-based omega-3 has also been shown to protect your brain against damage associated with dementia.

Omega 3 fats affect cellular health and DNA chiefly by how they influence your cell membranes. It is these cell membranes that are critical in switching your genes on and off, because cell membranes contain receptors that respond to hormones and other agents, and these are affected by the fatty acids on their surface.

Your cell membranes contain EPA, DHA and phospholipids, and all help to shuttle molecules into and out of your cells. So, having adequate fatty acids in your system is crucial to keeping your cell membranes working properly.

DHA is especially important, as it is a structural component of every cell in your body that helps regulate communication within the cell and between cells, and has a profound influence on mitochondrial health. It's particularly crucial for your brain, as more than 90% of the omega-3 fat found in brain tissue is DHA.

There are actually specific transporters for DHA in your blood-brain barrier that shuttle these molecules in a very precise way into the cell membranes where they belong.

The Omega-3 Index Test Is an Important Health Screen

I believe the omega-3 index test can be an enormously important health screen — regardless of whether you've already had a TBI or not, as optimizing your omega-3 level can help cushion the effects of a future head injury. As with vitamin D, getting your level tested is really the best way to customize your dosage to ensure sufficiency, because requirements for omega-3 will vary depending on your lifestyle.

Your intake of fatty fish, for example, and your level of physical activity will play a role. Athletes tend to burn off their omega-3 quite rapidly, as the DHA gets burned as fuel rather than being used as a structural component of their cell membranes. Hence they will need higher dosages.

Seafood is your best source of DHA and EPA. However, it's important to realize that not all fish contain these fats. Tilapia, for example, contains neither. The fish needs to be harvested from cold water, as this is where the fish richest in omega-3 fats are found. Some of your best options for clean fats are wild-caught Alaskan salmon, sardines and anchovies.

An excellent alternative, if you do not want to eat fatty fish, is to take a krill oil supplement. I firmly believe krill oil is superior to fish oil. Although both contain EPA and DHA, krill oil is bound to phospholipids that allow these omega-3 fats to travel more efficiently through your bloodstream. Hence, it's more bioavailable.

TBI Treatment Aids

Other helpful interventions for TBIs, which are discussed at depth in Engle's book, include the following:

Curcumin — Curcumin, one of the most well studied bioactive ingredients in turmeric, has been shown to have over 160 potentially therapeutic activities. Many of curcumin's benefits are attributed to its ability to quench inflammation, which is a hallmark of most chronic diseases. Importantly, it has the ability to cross your blood-brain barrier and exhibits potent neuroprotective properties, suggesting it may be useful for neurodegenerative disorders.

Researchers at the University of California recently demonstrated it may have long-term effects on your cognitive function by protecting against brain inflammation.11 Curcumin has also been shown to enhance neurogenesis and improve cognition by increasing levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF).12 Reduced levels of BDNF have in fact been linked to Alzheimer's disease, and correlate with the level of motor impairment in patients with Parkinson's.13

Hyperbaric oxygen — By saturating your tissues with oxygen, the oxygen is able to get into all of the neuroreparative mechanisms in your entire neurologic system. It accelerates all wound repair processes, be it in peripheral vasculature or in central vasculature, around the nervous system, brain and spinal cord.

An alternative for home use would be Exercising with Oxygen Therapy (EWOT). It's not as effective as hyperbaric oxygen treatment for neurological recovery because you're not saturating the tissues with oxygen, just your blood, but you can still benefit if you have a low partial pressure of oxygen (low oxygen in your blood).

Low-light laser therapy (LLLT), also known as photobiomodulation, which can be done using either lasers or light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

"There are a lot of different studies that show light is beneficial," Engle says. "When we're talking about neurologic recovery or building adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production, driving mitochondrial function, there are certain wavelengths that seem to be optimal for that.

Most of the wavelengths for neurologic recovery are going to be in the near-infrared (810 to 830 nanometers) and far-infrared spectrum. There are some handheld devices that can be used." Red light in the 660-nanometer frequency is also beneficial, and many technologies will combine red with near- and far-infrared.

Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) — Engle explains, "If we're optimizing voltage and frequency into the cell, then there are going to be energy thresholds below which disease happens, and above which optimized function happens. PEMF tends to raise the voltage and the energy in the cell, in the system globally, to improve physiologic function.

I use a combination of both low-voltage systems and high-voltage systems. There's a low-voltage system called a Bio Electromagnetic Energy Regulation (BEMER). There's a high-voltage system called the Pulse. I found benefits in both … There's also a subset of pulsed frequencies called transcranial magnetic stimulation, which is more based in magnetic impulse to the brain."

Transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) — TDCS provides a more global stimulation, so while some patients experience good results, others do not, due to lack of specificity. According to Engle, if it's going to work, you'll notice results quickly. If no benefit is noticed in the first few sessions, move on to some other therapy.

Electroencephalography (EEG) and neurofeedback are similar technologies of varying complexity.

"You go into master your ability in real time to see where your brainwave patterns are firing, and then to lock into the necessary thought modalities and internal states to be able to consistently access an alpha state," Engle explains. Alpha states are indicative of calmness and centeredness.

"If I can access that and find that place within myself, then I'm starting to generate my own sense of personal empowerment." The Evoke system is an easy one to use. It involves watching a movie for 20 to 30 minutes. Your focused attention will keep the movie playing. When your attention drifts, it slows down and loses volume.

Cannabidiol (CBD) oil — "CBD is up there with fish oil for neuroreparative support," Engle says. "Cannabis has two primary therapeutic components; one is tetrahydrocannabidiol (THC) and one is CBD. THC has a psychoactive component. CBD has a neuro-reparative component.

There seems to be an upregulation effect or an enhanced effect if there's a little bit of THC with CBD. The CBD to THC ratio will be like 20-to-1. We've consistently seen benefit in the neurologic system, whether it was stroke recovery, concussion recovery or seizure and epilepsy support … There seems to be this neurologic repair effect.

The CBD receptors are globally affiliated with neurologic function throughout the entire brain. When we're engaging and stimulating those receptors, we see the neurochemical cascade toward repair, regardless of the input, but particularly with concussion. That's why during the acute phase, if somebody has an injury that is significant, I say, first and foremost, do [these] things:

1) Lifestyle management. Get quiet. Float if you can.

2) Take fish oil, take CBD, vitamin D and melatonin, particularly if there are issues with sleep. Boost the antioxidants."

CBD may actually be a really potent stimulator of nuclear factor-like 2 (Nrf2) pathway, which stimulates the hermetic production of antioxidants in your body.

 Comments (10)

In May 2023, researchers from the University of Helsinki linked a strain of Desulfovibrio bacteria as a causative agent of Parkinson's disease.1 Researchers hope this breakthrough will enable screening for and removal of the bacteria from the gut and potentially prevent the disease.2

Parkinson's disease causes unintended or uncontrollable movements that result from brain damage, the mechanism of which has not yet been confirmed. People notice that symptoms begin gradually and then worsen over time. These movements occur because the cells that make dopamine,3 a neurochemical that helps coordinate movements, stop working or die.

Although it's known as a movement disorder and the primary symptoms include slowness and stiffness with walking and balance, it also triggers other symptoms such as depression, memory problems and constipation. While the condition is not curable, some treatment options may offer relief.4

Because the symptoms can differ from person to person, the treatments must also be customized. Medications are primarily used, but a surgical brain implant delivering mild electric current has offered symptom relief for some people. This is also known as deep brain stimulation. Other experimental treatments include stem cell transplants, neuron repair treatments and gene therapies or gene-targeted treatments.5

Harmful Bacteria Are a Possible Cause of Parkinson's Disease

Evidence from the featured study suggests that with testing and removal of the harmful bacteria, doctors may be able to prevent Parkinson's disease, or halt its progression. The key feature in pathology is the aggregation of the neuronal protein alpha-synuclein.6 Past research has suggested these aggregations could be induced in the gut by pathogenic microbes, which have been associated with Parkinson's disease.

The researchers used fecal samples of 10 patients with Parkinson's and fecal samples from their healthy spouses to look for Desulfovibrio species of bacteria. Isolated strains were fed to nematodes to fuse the alpha-synuclein with a yellow fluorescent protein. These were then used in an animal model and compared against a control bacterial strain.

The goal was to determine how the different strains of bacteria contributed to the progression of Parkinson's disease. The researchers found that the strains of bacteria isolated from patients with Parkinson's disease caused aggregation of the protein associated with Parkinson's.

They also noted that different strains of the same bacteria from healthy individuals did not cause aggregation to the same degree. Commenting on the results of the study, Per Saris from the department of microbiology at the University of Helsinki said:7

"Our findings make it possible to screen for the carriers of these harmful Desulfovibrio bacteria. Consequently, they can be targeted by measures to remove these strains from the gut, potentially alleviating and slowing the symptoms of patients with Parkinson's disease.

Once the Desulfovibrio bacteria are eliminated from the gut, α-synuclein aggregates are no longer formed in intestinal cells, from which they travel towards the brain via the vagus nerve like prion proteins."

In addition to this bacteria, researchers have also found exposure to the widely used chemical trichloroethylene (TCE) is also linked to Parkinson's disease.8 One study evaluated more than 340,000 service members stationed at Camp Lejeune and Camp Pendleton. When the data were compared, it showed a 70% higher risk of developing Parkinson's for servicemen stationed at Camp Lejeune between 1975 and 1985.

The risk factor was exposure to TCE in the water supply that had reached limits 70 times higher than the EPA deemed safe. Gary Miller is a neurotoxicologist studying Parkinson's disease at Columbia University. He was not involved in the study, but commented that researchers had suspicions that TCE was linked to a higher risk of Parkinson's disease and these results were "very compelling."

TCE has been used since the 1920s in liquid or vapor form. It was an inhaled surgical anesthetic and an ingredient in several types of cleaning products. One of the researchers commented that the chemical is still used in the U.S. and worldwide and "production has been increasing over the past several years."

The chemical breaks down slowly in the environment and is found in one-third of U.S. drinking water. As Ray Dorsey, a neurologist from the University of Rochester commented, "Almost everyone reading your story likely lives near a site contaminated with TCE."

Gut Brain Link in Parkinson's Disease

According to the Parkinson's Foundation,9 there are 1 million people in the U.S. who are living with Parkinson's Disease, 90,000 are diagnosed with the disease each year and the incidence of the disease increases with age. A 2018 study10 published in the Journal of Parkinson's disease demonstrated an association between the development of Parkinson's and your gut microbiome.

This study also focused on alpha-synuclein pathology and, as other studies, found it plays a role in the development of familial and sporadic cases of Parkinson's disease. Because the symptoms are only apparent after brain cells have already been affected, it is difficult to slow the progression of the disease.

Researchers have been looking for ways to detect the condition earlier and the results of the featured study may help positively impact prevention and treatment. Alpha-synuclein is a presynaptic protein linked neural pathologically and genetically to Parkinson's disease.11

While it may contribute to symptoms, these cells are toxic to cellular homeostasis and trigger neuronal death, which affects synaptic function. Secreted alpha-synuclein may also have negative effects on neighboring cells, seeding aggregation and contributing to progression. Researchers want to identify pathways that are involved in the transfer of protein from the brain to the gut where it's found in people with Parkinson's disease.

Importance of Autophagy in Parkinson's Disease

Some of the aspects12 of the disease include suppressing the autosomal-lysomal autophagy system, which is a systematic degradation of your body's functional components due to cell destruction and is characterized by the loss of dopamine-transmitting neurons in a section of the midbrain. By activating autophagy, you can begin repairing the dysfunctional mechanism.

Researchers believe neurodegenerative diseases may be successfully addressed by activating autophagy. The term literally means "self-eating" and refers to the process of eliminating damaged cells by digesting them. In essence, it helps clean out old and damaged cells and encourages the growth of new healthy cells, which is foundational to cellular rejuvenation and longevity.

In a paper13 published in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, researchers explain the pathway is involved in a variety of human health conditions, including metabolic disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, cancer and infectious diseases. In 2012,14 researchers noted that dysregulation of autophagy has been observed in the brains of patients with Parkinson's disease as well as in animal models.

Scientists also recognize that autophagy plays a pivotal role in maintaining neurological health. Two major features15 of Parkinson's disease pathology are the impairment of autophagy that allows alpha-synuclein accumulation and subsequent degeneration of dopaminergic neurons.

Several studies have examined the potential for measuring autophagy biomarkers for early detection of the disease. A 2019 paper16 in Current Medicinal Chemistry acknowledges that defects in autophagy, microautophagy, macroautophagy and chaperone-mediated autophagy pathways result in the accumulation of protein aggregates.

These are common features in several neurodegenerative disorders, including Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's. They concluded that in the development of new interventions, researchers need a deeper understanding of the autophagy defects in Parkinson's disease and should also account for the multifactorial nature of the disease process.

Alzheimer's and the Gut Connection

Alzheimer's continues to be a leading cause of death in the U.S. According to the Alzheimer's Association,17 1 in 3 seniors dies with Alzheimer's or another type of dementia and, according to the CDC,18 it is the seventh leading cause of death in the U.S.

While a cure has remained elusive, researchers have made the connection between the gut microbiome and brain health, suggesting the bacteria in the intestines influences brain function and can even promote neurodegeneration.19

In one study20 of 89 people between 65 and 85 years of age, researchers used PET imaging to measure amyloid deposits in the brain and they also measured lipopolysaccharide and short-chain fatty acids. Lipopolysaccharide (LPSs) are dead bacteria, or more specifically, the cell walls of dead bacteria.

Since your immune system perceives LPSs as living bacteria, it mounts an immune defense and raises the inflammatory profile. LPSs have been found in amyloid plaques in the brains of Alzheimer's patients. The study revealed high levels of LPSs and the short chain fatty acids acetate and valerate were also associated with large amyloid deposits in the brain.

Butyrate, another short-chain fatty acid, appeared to have a protective effect as high levels were associated with less amyloid. As in the featured study, which demonstrated specific strains of gut bacteria are associated with the development of Parkinson's disease, this study also demonstrated bacterial products in the intestinal microbiota influence the number of amyloid plaques in the brain.

"Our results are indisputable: Certain bacterial products of the intestinal microbiota are correlated with the quantity of amyloid plaques in the brain," explains Moira Marizzoni, a study author with the Fatebenefratelli Center in Brescia, Italy.21

Another study22 published in March 2023, identified 10 bacterial types that were associated with a higher likelihood of developing Alzheimer's disease. As with the harmful bacteria identified with a higher likelihood of Parkinson's disease, researchers hope this finding will also lead to new treatments that help to lower a person's risk of developing the disease and potentially slowing the progression.

Optimize Your Gut Microbiome

In the Parkinson's study, researchers found harmful strains of Desulfovibrio were associated with the development of Parkinson's disease and in the Alzheimer's study, the team found individuals with Alzheimer's had a reduced microbial diversity and had 10 bacteria overrepresented and other microbes decreased.

As research teams continue to find stronger connections between gut microbiota and neurological health, it only makes sense to optimize your gut bacteria to protect you from these and other health conditions. By reseeding your gut with beneficial bacteria, you help keep populations of pathogenic microbes and fungi in check and keep them from taking over.

One of the easiest ways to optimize your gut is to regularly eat traditionally fermented and cultured foods. This is indisputably the most effective and least expensive way to make a significant impact on your gut microbiome. Healthy choices include cultured grass fed organic milk products such as kefir and yogurt, natto and all kinds of fermented vegetables.

I'm not a big supporter of taking many supplements since I believe the majority of your nutrition should come from food, yet probiotics are the exception if you don't eat fermented foods on a regular basis. Spore-based probiotics, or sporebiotics, can be particularly helpful when you're taking antibiotics and they're an excellent complement to regular probiotics.

Antibiotics indiscriminately kill your gut bacteria, both good and bad.23 This is why secondary infections and lowered immune function are common side effects of taking antibiotics.24 Chronic low-dose exposure through food also takes a toll on your gut microbiome, which can result in chronic ill health and increased risk of drug resistance.

In addition to seeding your gut with beneficial bacteria and supporting those bacteria with prebiotic fiber, it's also important to avoid things that disrupt or kill your microbiome. These include:

• Antibiotics, unless absolutely necessary
• Conventionally raised meats and other animal products, as these animals are routinely fed low-dose antibiotics, plus genetically engineered and/or glyphosate-treated grains
• Processed foods (as the excessive sugars feed pathogenic bacteria)
• Chlorinated and/or fluoridated water
• Antibacterial soap and products containing triclosan

 Comments (49)

At a time when organic farmers are going out of business and being gobbled up by corporate agribusinesses by the hundreds,1 draft regulation2,3,4 currently under consideration would legalize factory farm conditions for organic chickens, thereby pushing even more of the smaller organic farmers out.

While the proposed rule claims to protect and improve “animal welfare,” all it will accomplish is the further destruction of independent organic farmers who do things right and therefore cannot compete with “organic” mega-corporations that can sell their foods at far lower prices because they cheat on the organic standards.

There Are Two Kinds of Organic

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, in 2019, nine organic-certified corporate-owned confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in Texas produced 1.5 times more “organic” milk than all 530 family-owned organic dairy farms in Wisconsin combined.5

As of 2021, there are 13 corporate dairies in Texas with organic certification, and they’re producing 2.8 times more “organic” milk than the remaining 407 organic family farms in Wisconsin.6 In those two years, 123 family farms went out of business in Wisconsin, as did hundreds more in other states.

When small organic farms go out of business, it’s not just that family that loses something. Consumers also lose. They lose access to authentic organic milk that meets their environmental expectations, and they’re deceived, because they think the higher price they pay provides economic justice and reward for farmers who are doing things right.

Meanwhile, most of the organic milk available comes from CAFOs that have anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 cows, with a density of five to 10 cows per acre, that roam in desert conditions.7 The scene on these factory farms is as far from idyllic farm life as you can get.

Unlike on a family farm, these CAFO cows don’t graze on grass in pasture. Rather, pasture grass is cut and then fed to the cows, as shown below. When actual pasture size is considered, the effective stocking level can be as high as 20 cows per acre, whereas family farms typically provide 1 acre per cow.8

Industry Watchdog Issues Warning

According to the Organic Trade Association (OTA), the regulation is “the first significant movement on organic animal welfare in years.” The Humane Society Legislative Fund has also hailed the proposed rules as “a landmark federal regulation.”9

Mark Kastel, executive director of OrganicEye, an organic industry watchdog, vehemently disagrees, saying that rather than strengthening the organic label, the new regulations will undermine it further by permanently codifying practices that violate the spirit of organics, and even the current letter of the law.

Organic companies have been acquired by conventional producers that slowly but surely have eroded organic standards through willful violations and lobbying.

“Organics was supposed to be the antidote to the ‘get big or get out’ draconian agribusiness domination of our food supply,” Kastel writes.10 Instead, organic companies have been acquired by conventional producers that slowly but surely have eroded organic standards through willful violations and lobbying.

As a result, 90% of “organic” eggs now come from gigantic confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) owned by the largest suppliers of conventional eggs, and most certified organic chicken comes from companies that raise birds in near-total confinement and feed them imported grains that may or may not be truly organic, as organic grain fraud is now commonplace.

Legalizing Violations of the Organic Spirit

In a letter to members, Kastel writes:11

“For most of the last decade and a half, stakeholders in the organic industry have alleged that the largest egg companies in the United States have been operating mammoth livestock factories, with the USDA illegally granting organic certification.

In 2022, the agency released a new draft rule which they purport will bring these operations into compliance, assure a level playing field for competitors, and meet consumer expectations ...

Other than family-scale farms producing certified organic eggs, the majority of production takes place on commercial operations — commonly with 20,000-30,000 birds per building — with some of the largest conventional egg marketers in the country operating certified organic houses with as many as 200,000 chickens per building and over a million birds on individual ‘farms’ ...

The industry’s most vocal watchdog, OrganicEye, has vociferously criticized the proposed regulations as a giveaway to corporate agribusiness interests, codifying the continuing violations of the spirit and letter of the law by failing to assure that organically managed animals have legitimate access to the outdoors and are able to exhibit their natural instinctual behaviors, both requirements of the current statute and regulations.”

Proposed Standards Hardly Enshrine Animal Welfare

According to OrganicEye’s analysis, the proposed new organic rule would allow organic poultry farmers to stack birds in multitiered aviaries stretching from floor to ceiling, providing as little as 1 square foot of space per animal, and that’s including outdoor porches, which have limited access.

The following image was provided by OrganicEye as an example of what this “organic” CAFO setup looks like.

Outdoor requirements aren’t any better — just 1 to 2 square feet depending on the weight of the birds. For comparison, farmers who are part of the Organic Valley cooperative must provide at least 5 square feet per hen, and European organic regulations require 43 square feet per bird.12

The draft rule also allows egg-laying hens to be confined for the first 16 to 21 weeks of their life. After this much time spent in indoor confinement, many chickens are too frightened to ever venture outside. They’ve basically been trained not to roam. The situation is even worse for broiler chickens, which can be confined until just one or two weeks before their scheduled slaughter.

What’s more, the new rules would allow for half the outdoor area to be covered in either concrete or gravel. “How are the birds going to engage in their natural instinctual behavior — foraging, eating grass, scratching and pecking for bugs and worms — on concrete?” Kastel asks.

Proposed Rule Fulfills Corporate Lobbyists Wish-List

As noted by OrganicEye, these “anemic requirements” are “straight from the wish list of corporate lobbyists.”13 Indeed, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack himself is a former million-dollar-a-year agribusiness lobbyist who was named BIO Governor of the Year in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) “for his support of the industry's economic growth and agricultural biotechnology research.”14

So, Vilsack is hardly a champion for true organic farming, and the USDA’s failure to uphold the integrity of the organic standards under his stewardship15 highlights his corporate Big-Ag, biotech biases, as does his choice of members to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).

The NOSB is supposed to be a highly-diversified body of industry stakeholders, including organic farmers and consumer advocates, but contrary to that charter, at least 80% of current board members are now affiliated with the industry’s most powerful lobbying group, the OTA.16,17 According to Kastel:18

“The OTA has spent years, and invested untold corporate dues, in honing the persona that it is a tax-exempt nonprofit group working in the interest of the public when, in fact, it is a ruthless industry lobby group that has crossed swords with the nonprofit community on virtually every controversial issue before the NOSB.”

Several still independently-owned organic brands, such as Nature’s Path, Nutiva and Dr. Bronner’s, have resigned their memberships in the OTA in protest of its Big Ag bias.19

Under Vilsack, the NOSB was also stripped of its ability to set its own agenda. It’s supposed to work independently, but as small organic farmers have been bought up by large conventional ag conglomerates,20 the corporate dominance over the NOSB has also grown and organic standards have been watered down to benefit the largest of these corporate “organic” producers.

An Affront to Organic Consumers

OrganicEye describes the proposed rules as “an affront to consumers who are willing to pay a premium to support truly humane treatment of animals and to secure nutrient-dense and more flavorful food for their families.”21 Kastel adds:

“It’s Orwellian doublespeak, intentionally misleading the public, for the USDA to claim that these proposed rules are going to improve the status quo of factory farm production currently dominating organic livestock, or that they represent the expectations of consumers.”

OrganicEye board president Jim Gerritsen, a certified organic farmer in Maine, also stated:

“While USDA should be codifying the improved welfare of livestock, and increasing organic integrity, this misguided proposed rule sadly does neither. Rather, it enshrines the very practices which have allowed industrial factory farms to move in, take over, and push out hard-working organic family farms.”

A Call to Action

OrganicEye is now renewing its call to the USDA to enforce current organic regulations and is urging organic consumers and supporters to appeal to President Biden to intervene and stop this latest “giveaway to corporate lobbyists.”

Organic regulations already mandate outdoor access for all livestock, including pasture access for grass fed cows and other ruminants. Importantly, organically raised animals must, by law, have the opportunity to express their natural instinctual behaviors.

The problem is these rules are not being enforced, and the answer to nonenforcement is not new regulations that simply codify the violations and abuses that are already taking place on industrial-scale “organic farms.”

OrganicEye has created a proxy letter you can download here. Simply print it out, sign it, add any personal comments on the back, and mail it to OrganicEye. They will deliver the letters to Biden’s office. As noted in that letter:

“A new approach needs to be developed as an alternative to the tens of millions of dollars currently spent on annual inspections. The vast preponderance of documented fraud — what we assume is only the tip of the iceberg — is being discovered by OrganicEye and others outside of the certification/inspection process.

Resources should be focused on hiring experienced agriculturalists/forensic accountants for more comprehensive/periodic audits (punctuated with liberal unannounced inspections and testing).

The department needs to prioritize listening to the NGO community rather than corporate lobbyists who have been appointed to key leadership positions at the USDA and on the NOSB.”

 Comments (137)

Editor's Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published July 24, 2018.

What's the optimal food for your newborn baby? Common sense would tell you that a mother's breast milk is as optimal as infant nutrition could possibly get, yet that fact — indisputable as it may seem — is something that makers of infant formula have spent decades' trying to sweep under the carpet.1 Following the development of manufactured infant formula, mothers were told breastfeeding was unnecessary.

Formula offered greater freedom for busy moms, and the promotion of the obnoxious idea that breastfeeding in public is shameful fueled the transition, making more moms defer to the bottle rather than their breast. For years, women could even be fined for "public indecency" if caught breastfeeding in public. In 2018, Utah became the last state to enact laws protecting the rights of breastfeeding mothers by permitting nursing in public.2

As of April 2018, all 50 states must provide workplace protection for nursing mothers, however many suffer discrimination for needing time to express milk. In terms of nutrition, moms have, and still are, told there's "no difference" between bottle feeding and breastfeeding, yet nothing could be further from the truth.

There is very little similarity between the two, from a nutritional perspective. Unfortunately, marketing materials have a way of giving mothers the false idea that formula may actually provide better nutrition.

Now, even the pro-breastfeeding slogan "breast is best" has been usurped and turned into "fed is best"3 — meaning, as long as your baby is well-fed, it doesn't matter if it's breast milk or formula. A recent bioethical argument in the journal Pediatrics even advises pediatricians it's time to stop referring to breastfeeding as something "natural."4 How did we get so off course? You might as well argue against the naturalness of urination.

Only 4 in 10 Infants Are Exclusively Breastfed for 6 Months

According to a January 2, 2018, report5 by the World Health Organization (WHO) on infant nutrition, between 2011 and 2016, a mere 40% of infants under the age of 6 months were being exclusively breastfed, worldwide. Only 33 countries have breastfeeding rates higher than 50%, while 68 nations have rates below 50%.

Thanks to growing awareness of the science behind the "breast is best" slogan, breastfeeding rates in the U.S. have risen dramatically in recent decades, from a low of 24% in 19716 to 81.1% in 2016.7

The global goal is to get 70% of infants exclusively breastfed for the first six months by 2030, and to achieve that, the World Health Assembly, which is the decision-making body of the WHO, introduced a nonbinding resolution in early 2018 to encourage breastfeeding and stress the health benefits of breastfeeding.

The resolution stressed that decades of research show breast milk is the healthiest choice, and urged governments to rein in inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

US Government Backs Formula Makers

In a move that shocked the world, the U.S. delegates opposed the resolution, demanding that language calling on governments to "protect, promote and support breastfeeding" be deleted.8 They also wanted to erase a passage calling on policymakers to restrict promotion of foods that can have adverse effects on the health of young children.

The global delegation was even more shocked when the Americans started threatening countries with sanctions lest they reject the resolution. It was even suggested that the U.S. might cut its financial support to the WHO. As reported by The New York Times:9

"Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs. The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced …

'We were shocked because we didn't understand how such a small matter like breast-feeding could provoke such a dramatic response,' said the Ecuadorean official … [A]t least a dozen countries, most of them poor nations in Africa and Latin America, backed off, citing fears of retaliation …

'We were astonished, appalled and also saddened,' said Patti Rundall, the policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action … 'What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the U.S. holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on the best way to protect infant and young child health,' she said.

In the end, the Americans' efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them …

The final resolution10 preserved most of the original wording, though American negotiators did get language removed that called on the WHO to provide technical support to member states seeking to halt 'inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children.'

The United States also insisted that the words 'evidence-based' accompany references to long-established initiatives that promote breastfeeding, which critics described as a ploy that could be used to undermine programs that provide parents with feeding advice and support."

A Mother's Choice

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) denied the agency had anything to do with the threats leveled at Ecuador, telling The New York Times the DHHS had sought to modify the original draft resolution11 because it "placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children."

According to the DHHS, women may not be able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons and "These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so." This is an incredibly weak rebuttal, as encouraging breastfeeding and promoting its health benefits in no way diminishes a woman's right or ability to opt for formula if she finds she cannot breastfeed.

Formula makers have also tried to distance themselves from the embarrassment. Still, while witnesses at the assembly meeting claim they saw no evidence of formula makers trying to wield their influence, there's no denying they've spent a lot of money lobbying to protect their market share, which means minimizing the importance of breastfeeding.

According to a MapLight analysis,12 the three leading formula companies, Abbott Laboratories, Nestle and Reckitt Benckiser, have spent $60.7 million lobbying lawmakers in the U.S. over the past decade.

Lucy Sullivan, director of 1,000 Days, a mother and infant nutrition advocacy group, told The Atlantic,13 "What this battle in Geneva showed us is that we have a U.S. government that is strongly aligned with the interests of the infant-formula industry and dairy industry, and are willing to play hardball."

As is customary, the DHHS held stakeholder listening sessions with various industry groups prior to the World Health Assembly meeting, where the dairy, grocery and infant formula groups all had their say about the proposed resolution.

What surprised everyone was "how forcefully the U.S. delegates acted on the trade groups' opposition," The Atlantic writes.14 While it may have been more aggressive than usual, as you will see below, the U.S. has an embarrassing history of pushing the use of infant formula over breast milk.

Health Benefits of Mother's Milk

From a nutritional science point of view, there's simply no dispute that breast milk is the optimal food for newborns and young infants.15,16 Breastfeeding also has a number of health benefits for the mother, and it's the least expensive alternative. Below is a summary of some of the key health benefits for mother and child.

Infant formula, on the other hand, has been linked to an increased risk of infant death. In her paper, "Marketing Breast Milk Substitutes: Problems and Perils Throughout the World," published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood in 2012, June Brady starts out by highlighting the U.S. government's shameful lack of support of proper infant nutrition, choosing instead to cater to the formula makers' right to profit. She writes, in part:17

"21 May, 1981 the WHO International Code of Marketing Breast Milk Substitutes … was passed by 118 votes to 1, the U.S. casting the sole negative vote.

The Code arose out of concern that the dramatic increase in mortality, malnutrition and diarrhea in very young infants in the developing world was associated with aggressive marketing of formula. The Code prohibited any advertising of baby formula, bottles or teats and gifts to mothers or 'bribery' of health workers.

Despite successes, it has been weakened over the years by the seemingly inexhaustible resources of the global pharmaceutical industry … Currently, suboptimal breastfeeding is associated with over a million deaths each year and 10 percent of the global disease burden in children.

All health workers need to recognize inappropriate advertising of formula, to report violations of the Code and to support efforts to promote breastfeeding: the most effective way of preventing child mortality throughout the world."

Benefits for the baby Benefits for the mother Natural immunity — Breastfeeding initially provides passive immunity as antibodies from the mother are passed through breast milk to the infant.

Researchers have also found breast milk has a unique capacity to stimulate the infant's immune system with long-term positive effects.18 Quicker recovery from childbirth — The release of oxytocin during breastfeeding helps the uterus return to a normal size and reduces postpartum bleeding.19 Reduction of blindness in preemies — Retinopathy of prematurity causes blindness in 10% of severe cases occurring in premature infants.

More than half of children born before 30 weeks' gestation are affected and the condition blinds 50,000 children worldwide.

An analysis suggests the incidence of severe disease, and thus blindness, could be reduced by 90% if all premature infants were fed breast milk.20

The researchers theorize the effect may be from the antioxidant and immune protective properties found in breast milk. Reduced rates of breast and ovarian cancer — Breastfeeding may cut the risk of breast cancer in women who have had children21 and women were 63% less likely to develop ovarian cancer when they breastfed for 13 months or more.22

The risk of ovarian cancer appeared to decline with each passing month as women who breastfed for 31 months or more had a 91% lower risk of ovarian cancer than women who breastfed less than 10 months. Reduction in sudden infant death syndrome — In one study, breastfeeding reduced the risk of sudden infant death syndrome in children by 50% at all ages through infancy.23 Faster weight loss after childbirth — During pregnancy your body automatically stores extra fat to provide food for your baby.

Producing milk burns approximately 450 extra calories each day, which helps mobilize visceral fat stores. Improved cognitive development — Babies breastfed for nine or more months exhibit greater cognitive development than those who have not been breastfed,24 and researchers found babies exclusively breastfed exhibit enhanced brain growth through age 2.25 Reduced risk of cardiovascular disease — Women who breastfeed have a 10% lower risk of heart disease and stroke,26 and the longer a mom breastfeeds, the greater the reduction in risk.

Women who have normal blood pressure during pregnancy and breastfeed for at least 6 months are also at lower risk for heart disease years later, compared to those who never breastfeed.27 Reduced risk of allergies — In one study of over 1,200 mothers and babies, exclusive breastfeeding prevented the development of allergic diseases and asthma.28 Reduced risk of postpartum depression — The release of prolactin and oxytocin while breastfeeding produces a peaceful and nurturing sensation.

Women who breastfeed enjoy a reduced risk of developing postpartum depression in the first four months of their infant's life.29 Skin-to-skin contact — Evidence shows newborns placed in skin-to-skin contact with their mothers immediately after birth move in a physiologically stable way from being in the womb to their early newborn moments.30

Mothers also exhibit an increase in maternal bonding and behavior after experiencing skin-to-skin contact directly after birth.

These benefits only continue to grow in the weeks following delivery.

Infants are less likely to cry, more likely to maintain their body temperature, and have more stable heart rate, respiratory rate and blood pressure during skin-to-skin contact.31 Bonding — The close interaction during breastfeeding is just one way mothers experience a greater bond with their infant, which may extend years beyond infancy32 and impact parenting. Protect and nourish gut microbiome — Breast milk contains complex sugars needed to feed beneficial gut bacteria known to influence how a child's body burns and stores fat.33

In one recent study,34 infants who were exclusively breastfed had the highest levels of beneficial bacteria in their guts at the age of 3 and 12 months.

Infants who were exclusively formula-fed had the least variety of bacteria, and had nearly double the risk of becoming overweight compared to exclusively breastfed babies.

Those fed a mix of breastmilk and formula were at lower risk than those exclusively formula-fed, but they still had a 60% greater risk of becoming overweight than exclusively breastfed babies. Lower mortality rates — The Lancet series35 on breastfeeding also notes the lives of 20,000 mothers can be saved by implementing universal breastfeeding, largely due to the cancer protection breastfeeding affords. Promotes proper jaw alignment, lowering risk of speech impediments and likelihood of needing orthodontic work later in life — All of these issues are more common among bottle fed babies, as bottle feeding causes jaw misalignment and malformed palate. Reduced risk of death, higher intelligence, lower health care costs and improved economic future — According to a series of studies on breastfeeding published in The Lancet in 2016:36

"Breastmilk makes the world healthier, smarter, and more equal …

The deaths of 823,000 children … each year could be averted through universal breastfeeding, along with economic savings of US$300 billion.

The Series confirms the benefits of breastfeeding in fewer infections, increased intelligence, probable protection against overweight and diabetes, and cancer prevention for mothers.

The Series represents the most in-depth analysis done so far into the health and economic benefits that breastfeeding can produce." Most Commercial Infant Formulas Are Loaded With Sugar

According to Nemours,37 "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates formula companies to ensure they provide all the necessary nutrients (including vitamin D) in their formulas. Still, commercial formulas can't completely match breast milk's exact composition. Why? Because milk is a living substance made by each mother for her individual infant, a process that can't be duplicated in a factory."

While this may sound as though the FDA regulates, approves and assures nutritional quality and safety of baby formula, this is not the case. The truth is, FDA does not approve and regulate infant formula at all.38 It does specify the nutrients that must be present in formula, but added ingredients and overall safety are left entirely in the manufacturers' hands. The required nutrients are also not based on a comparison with actual mother's milk.

Importantly, the last thing an infant needs is sugar, yet baby formulas contain shocking amounts. I've written numerous articles about the dangers of sugar consumption, including its ability to trigger glycation, disturb your metabolism, elevate blood pressure and triglycerides, cause weight gain, heart disease and liver damage, and even deplete your body of vitamins and minerals.

Breast milk does contain sugars, but they bear absolutely no resemblance to processed corn-based sugars. For example, breast milk contains about 150 different oligosaccharides — complex chains of sugars that are completely unique to human milk. These sugars are indigestible, and their primary purpose is to nourish healthy gut microbes, thereby optimizing your child's gut health and strengthening his or her immune system.

Infant formulas have also been found to contain all sorts of hazardous contaminants. Most recently, soy-based infant formula was found to be contaminated with glyphosate.39 Soy-based formula is dangerous for a number of different reasons, and now you can add glyphosate contamination to that list.

In an article for GreenMedInfo,40 Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., discusses new evidence suggesting glyphosate not only disrupts your gut microbiome but also impairs peristalsis — a feature that is exceedingly common in children with autism. It may also inhibit bile acid release by impairing gallbladder contraction, and many autistic children have very pale stool, suggestive of low bile acid levels.

Thirdly, many autistic kids have undigested particles in their stool, which suggests a lack of digestive enzymes. And, indeed, glyphosate affects your digestive enzymes, particularly trypsin, pepsin and lipase. In all, the evidence implicating glyphosate as a significant cause or contributor to autism is mounting.

How Does Formula Compare to Breast Milk?

On Dr. Bill Sears' website,41 you can find a chart comparing the composition of breast milk and commercial infant formula, along with an article42 in which he offers more detailed specifics on differences between individual nutrients.

The Weston A. Price Foundation has also published an excellent article on this topic, which contains the following summary. For a more in-depth understanding of what makes breast milk so superior to formula, I encourage you to read the full article:43

"Infant formula is primarily composed of sugar or lactose, dried skim milk and refined vegetable oil which can include genetically modified components … Soy-based formula is made of soy protein, sugar and refined oils.

Breast milk from a well-nourished mother is composed of hundreds of substances — over one hundred fats alone. Infant formula contains double the amount of protein that breast milk does, which promotes insulin resistance and adiposity …

Additives to infant formula, such as iron, DHA, ARA and laboratory-made folic acid are all problematic. Heat damages the protein in formulas forming advanced glycation end products as well as compromising the nutritional value."

Indeed, research44 published in 2011 found that when infants were switched from breast milk to commercial formula within the first year of life, their levels of advanced glycation end products (AGES) doubled, reaching levels found in diabetics. Many also had elevated insulin levels. AGES are formed during the processing of the formula, which uses high heat. They're basically sugar molecules that attach to and damage proteins in your body.

Not only do AGES build up in your body over time, leading to oxidation and speeding up the aging process, but they also promote inflammation, which in turn is linked to a number of chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disease. According to this study, infant formulas processed with high heat may contain 100 times more AGEs than breast milk.

Do You Need Help Breastfeeding?

While not all women will make the decision to breastfeed, the majority is able to produce more than adequate supplies of milk to breastfeed successfully. Since mothers are unable to measure the amount of milk being consumed by their baby, some believe they aren't producing enough. However, when formula supplementation is used, it reduces your supply as the supply of milk is dependent upon the demand. In other words, the more your baby nurses, the more milk your body produces.

Nursing mothers need to stay well-hydrated, drink plenty of water and seek optimal nutrition to supply the energy needed to produce milk. The first weeks and months are crucial to the process of establishing a strong milk supply. Your baby's sucking instinct will be very strong directly after birth, so begin nursing as soon as possible.

Lactation consultants encourage you to place your baby to breast in the delivery room. This also helps release oxytocin to reduce postpartum bleeding and begin the process of returning the uterus to normal size.

The first milk produced is called colostrum, a thick, golden-yellow fluid that is gentle to your baby's stomach and full of beneficial antibodies. Over the coming days and weeks your milk gradually changes color and consistency. Newborns need to nurse at least once every two hours for approximately 15 minutes on each side, but they don't adhere to a strict schedule.

When you accommodate feedings to the needs of your infant, you'll find frequent feeding stimulates your breasts to produce increasing amounts of milk to keep up with the demand as your baby grows.

You may want to begin planning for successful breastfeeding before your baby is even born by taking a breastfeeding class while you're pregnant. La Leche League45 is a terrific resource to contact for help whether you want to prepare beforehand or find you're having trouble breastfeeding once your baby is born.

Also find out whether your hospital of choice offers breastfeeding classes and lactation consultants who can help you. If it doesn't, you may want to select a hospital that offers greater support.

Healthy Options for Mothers Who Cannot Breastfeed Video Link

Last but not least, if for whatever reason you cannot, or decide not to breastfeed, consider making your own baby formula using organic grass fed raw milk. In the video above, Sarah Pope — who runs The Healthy Home Economist website and is a member of the Weston A. Price Foundation's board of directors — discusses the differences between different kinds of milk, such as cow's milk and goat's milk, and why cow's milk is actually preferable.

She then demonstrates how to make two different formulas, including a meat-based formula for infants with milk allergy. For written instructions of the recipes presented in this video, as well as a list of nutrition facts that compares these homemade formulas to breast milk, see the "Homemade Baby Formula" page46 on the Weston A. Price Foundation's site. However, a couple of caveats are in order:

1. Fermented cod liver oil is a recommended ingredient in Pope's recipes, which may be dangerous for babies. Laboratory testing has revealed the product tends to be prone to rancidity, may contain added vegetable oils, and lack vitamin K2 and CoQ10.

The concentration of vitamins A and D can also vary significantly from one batch to another, as cod liver oil is not regulated or standardized.47 Unless you can verify the purity of the cod liver oil, I'd recommend using wild-caught Alaskan Salmon oil or krill oil instead.

2. The Weston A. Price Foundation's baby formula recipe suggests butter oil is optional, but Dr. Price himself recommended always pairing cod liver oil with butter oil, which contains vitamin K2 (MK-4). I recommend tweaking the recipe by making butter oil a requirement if you're using a certified pure fermented cod liver oil.

 Comments (25)

Mustard greens are a nutrient-dense source of vitamins and minerals, but their bitter flavor makes them unpalatable to many. To remedy the problem, Tom Adams, cofounder and CEO of Pairwise, told Wired, "We basically created a new category of salad."1

The agricultural biotechnology company, founded in 2017, had raised $90 million by 2021, and $115 million total,2 "to bring new varieties of fruits and vegetables to market."3 Its first product, Conscious Greens Purple Power Baby Greens Blend, is also the first CRISPR-edited food available to U.S. consumers.4

Gene-Edited Mustard Greens Coming to US Stores

Pairwise scientists used the gene-editing technology known as CRISPR, or Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat, to edit mustard greens’ DNA, removing a gene that gives them their pungent flavor.

The greens are first being rolled out in restaurants and other locations in St. Louis, Springfield, Massachusetts, and the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, before heading to U.S. grocery stores — beginning in the Pacific Northwest.5

Pairwise is careful to describe itself as a "pioneering food startup,"6 trying to distance itself from its true biotechnology roots. It describes the gene-edited greens as:

"... [A] mix of colorful Superfood leafy greens with a unique, fresh flavor and up to double the nutrition of romaine. Using CRISPR technologies to improve taste and nutrition in produce, Conscious Greens are field-grown Superfood greens that eat like lettuce, offering a versatile new option for chefs and salad lovers alike."

The company has also built a glossy PR campaign to make their motives seem altruistic and necessary to improve Americans’ diets. In a news release, Haven Baker, Pairwise co-founder and chief business officer, stated:7

"We’re proud to be bringing the first CRISPR food product to the U.S. We set out to solve an important problem — that most lettuce isn’t very nutritious, and other types of greens are too bitter or too hard to eat.

Using CRISPR, we’ve been able to improve new types of nutritious greens to make them more desirable for consumers, and we did it in a quarter of the time of traditional breeding methods. Launching Conscious Greens through this exciting partnership with PFG [Performance Food Group], is a major milestone in achieving our mission to build a healthier world through better fruits and vegetables."

But are CRISPR foods really better — or do they pose unknown, and potentially serious, risks to the environment and the people who eat them? Further, it’s not going to stop here. Pairwise is already working on using CRISPR to create blackberries with no seeds and cherries without pits.8

The idea that genetic modification is going to compel people to eat mustard greens when they otherwise wouldn’t is also highly questionable. So the company’s claims that its gene-edited products will boost American’s nutritional intake are likely to fall flat.

Is CRISPR Really an Exact Science?

CRISPR is being increasingly used to tinker with natural foods. In addition to altering taste, CRISPR is being used to extend shelf life and create foods that resist certain bacteria and viruses.9

Whereas genetic engineering involves the introduction of foreign genes, CRISPR involves manipulating or editing existing DNA. It’s said to be "exceptionally precise." In an interview with Yale Insights, Dr. Gregory Licholai, a biotech entrepreneur, explained CRISPR this way:10

"So as you probably know, our book of life is made of DNA. DNA itself is many millions of base-pairs, which is like a language. And within that language, there are certain regions which code for genes, and those genes are incredibly important because those genes go on to make up everything about us.

There’s 40,000 proteins that become outputs of those genes and they are involved in our health, our wellbeing, and any defect in those genes becomes problematic and causes disease.

What was previously attempted with gene editing was to manipulate genetic information in blocks, basically in big pieces. It’s kind of like trying to edit a book by only being able to rip out a page at a time and transfer a page at a time, without really being able to control the actual words. The power of this technology: it literally comes down to the individual letters.

So the precision is far better than anything that has happened before. The excitement in the scientific community is being able to go in and very precisely make changes in DNA of actual genes that you can actually turn off bad genes or you can potentially repair genes that have got mutations in them where the code is written incorrectly."

But CRISPR isn’t always an exact science. As is often the case when it comes to tinkering with genetics, gene editing has led to unexpected side effects, including enlarged tongues and extra vertebrae in animals.11,12

Further, when researchers at the U.K.’s Wellcome Sanger Institute systematically studied mutations from CRISPR-Cas9 in mouse and human cells, large genetic rearrangements were observed, including DNA deletions and insertions, near the target site. The DNA deletions could end up activating genes that should stay "off," such as cancer-causing genes, as well as silencing those that should be "on."13

Risks of Humans Manipulating the Genetic Code

In 2022, researchers with Boston Children’s Hospital revealed that using CRISPR in human cell lines increased the risk of large rearrangements of DNA, which could increase cancer risk. Such rearrangements occurred up to 6% of the time.14,15 In a news release Boston Children’s Hospital explained:16

"CRISPR seems to exacerbate a natural process known as retrotransposition, in which DNA sequences known as "mobile elements" or "jumping genes" replicate themselves and move from one location in the genome to another. Similar to CRISPR, these mobile elements use enzymes to create a double-stranded break in DNA where they insert themselves.

Retrotransposition is often harmless — in fact, over the course of evolution, mobile elements have come to make up approximately a third of our genome. (Some scientists believe they are actually ancient viruses.) But mobile elements have also been linked to disease, including cancer. When the breaks they create in DNA aren’t repaired, mismatched ends of DNA can join, leading to rearrangements."

In another warning, researchers attempted to use CRISPR-Cas9 to repair a mutation linked to hereditary blindness in human embryos.17 But when they did, it led to "genetic havoc" in about half of the cells, triggering them to lose entire chromosomes.18

"We’re often used to hearing about papers where CRISPR is very successful," Nicole Kaplan, a geneticist at New York University, told The New York Times. "But with the amount of power we hold ... [it is crucial] ... to understand consequences we didn’t intend."19 What’s more, Licholai said, is that genes edited with CRISPR may be transferred to other organisms and become part of the environment:

"One of the biggest risks of CRISPR is what’s called gene drive, or genetic drive. What that means is that because you’re actually manipulating genes and those genes get incorporated into the genome, into the encyclopedia, basically, that sits within cells, potentially those genes can then be transferred on to other organisms.

And once they’re transferred on to other organisms, once they become part of the cycle, then those genes are in the environment.

That’s probably the biggest fear of CRISPR. Humans manipulating the genetic code, and those manipulations get passed on generation to generation to generation. We think we know what we’re doing, we think we’re measuring exactly what changes we’re doing to the genes, but there’s always the possibility that either we miss something or our technology can’t pick up on other changes that have been made that haven’t been directed by us.

And the fear then is that those changes lead to antibiotic resistance or other mutations that go out into the population and would be very difficult to control. Basically creating incurable diseases or other potential mutations that we wouldn’t really have control over."

USDA Is Testing Gene-Edited Insects

Even though the unintended consequences of gene editing are unknown and potentially devastating, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is working with a U.S. company to test gene-edited insects in greenhouses. The insects, spotted wing drosophila, cause damage to many fruit crops. The project uses CRISPR to add genes to kill female drosophila while sterilizing males.20

Glassy winged sharpshooters, which spread bacteria that devastates vineyards, are also being targeted with CRISPR.21 A carbohydrate in the insects’ mouth allows the targeted bacteria to stick. Researchers intend to insert genes into sharpshooters’ mouths to make them a nonstick surface, causing bacteria to slide off.22

"Chemicals can only travel so far before they degrade in the environment," Jason Delborne, North Carolina State University professor of science, policy and society, told MIT Technology Review. "If you introduce a gene-edited organism that can move through the environment, you have the potential to change or transform environments across a huge spatial and temporal scale."23

And therein lies the problem. Once released into the environment, there’s no turning back — and no way of knowing what other changes could occur from this genetic manipulation, at a worldwide scale.

FDA Says Gene-Edited Beef Is ‘Low Risk’

The FDA announced in March 2022 that Recombinetics’ gene-edited cattle received a low-risk determination for marketing products, including food, made from their meat. "This is the FDA’s first low-risk determination for enforcement discretion for an IGA [intentional genomic alteration] in an animal for food use," the FDA reported.24

The animals’ genes were modified to make their coats shorter and slicker. The genetic modification to their coats is intended to help them better withstand heat stress, allowing them to gain more weight and increase the efficiency of meat production25 — but at what cost? While a lengthy approval process is typically necessary for gene-edited animals to enter the food market, the FDA streamlined the process for gene-edited cattle, allowing them to skirt the regular approval process.

The agency stated the gene-edited beef cattle do not raise any safety concerns because the gene modifications result in the same genetic makeup seen in so-called "slick coat" cattle, which are conventionally bred.26

But in 2019, Brazil stopped its plans to allow a herd of Recombinetics’ gene-edited cattle after unexpected DNA changes were uncovered. As with the FDA, Brazilian regulators had determined that Recombinetics could proceed without any special oversight, since their gene-editing involved modifying cattle with a naturally occurring trait.

In this case, instead of altering the cattle’s coats, Recombinetics was editing the cattle to be hornless — until something went wrong. A piece of bacterial DNA used to deliver the desired gene had become pasted into a cow’s genome, essentially rendering it "part bacteria."27

Regardless, in 2022, Recombinetics stated its gene-edited meat products would be available to "select customers in the global market soon" while general consumers would be able to purchase gene-edited meat in as few as two years.28

Gene-Edited Foods Aren’t Labeled

Because regulators don’t consider gene-edited foods to be genetically modified organisms (GMOs), they don’t have to be labeled. However, 75% of Americans want gene-edited foods to carry a label.29 As gene-edited foods become more common in the marketplace, if you’d like to avoid them, choose organic foods, which cannot be gene edited at this time.

You can also get to know a local farmer who has no intention of using this technology, and grow as much of your own food as possible. This way, you’ll have full control over what is, and isn’t, in your food supply.

 Comments (23)

Within weeks of the pandemic outbreak, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation was a death sentence.1

By early April 2020, many doctors were already questioning their use, as data2 showed 76.4% of COVID-19 patients (aged 18 to 65) in New York City who were placed on ventilators died. Among patients over age 65 who were vented, the mortality rate was a whopping 97.2%.

If you were older than 65, you were 26 times more likely to survive if you were NOT placed on a vent.3 A small study from Wuhan, China, put the ratio of deaths at 86%,4 and in Texas, 84.9% of patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.5

In a widely-shared YouTube video6 (above) posted March 31, 2020, Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell, a critical care specialist at the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, warned that “we must change what we are doing if we want to save as many lives as possible.” Sidell was adamant that doctors were “treating the wrong disease” and that putting COVID patients on mechanical ventilation was all wrong.

“We are operating under a medical paradigm that is untrue,” Sidell said. “I fear that this misguided treatment will lead to a tremendous amount of harm to a great number of people in a very short time … This method being widely adopted at this very moment at every hospital in the country … is actually doing more harm than good.”

Why Were COVID Patients Put on Vents?

The recommendation to place COVID patients on mechanical ventilation as a first-line response came from the World Health Organization,7 which in early March 2020 published a COVID-19 provider guidance8 document to health care workers, based on experiences and recommendations from doctors in China.

According to the WHO, treatment needed to be rapidly escalated to mechanical ventilation. Ideally, patients should be placed on it immediately.9 What escaped the public was the primary reason why. Venting COVID patients wasn’t recommended because it increased survival; rather, it was to protect health care workers by isolating the virus inside the mechanical vent machine.

Using less invasive positive air pressure machines could result in the spread of infectious aerosols, the WHO warned. In other words, they put patients to death to “save” staff and other, presumably non-COVID, patients. That ventilation and sedation were used to protect hospital staff was highlighted by The Wall Street Journal in a December 20, 2020, article,10 which noted:

“Last spring, doctors put patients on ventilators partly to limit contagion at a time when it was less clear how the virus spread, when protective masks and gowns were in short supply.

Doctors could have employed other kinds of breathing support devices that don’t require risky sedation, but early reports suggested patients using them could spray dangerous amounts of virus into the air, said Theodore Iwashyna, a critical-care physician at University of Michigan and Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals in Ann Arbor, Mich.

At the time, he said, doctors and nurses feared the virus would spread through hospitals. ‘We were intubating sick patients very early. Not for the patients’ benefit, but in order to control the epidemic and to save other patients,’ Dr. Iwashyna said. ‘That felt awful.’”

As dryly noted by James Lyons-Weiler in a January 23, 2023, Substack article,11 “euthanizing humans is illegal. Especially for the benefit of other patients. It should feel awful.”

Fauci Knew Vents Did More Harm Than Good

Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, in a mid-June 2022 lecture (above), admitted that placing patients on mechanical ventilation did more harm than good.

“We very, very readily would put people on mechanical ventilation, when we found out, through clinical experience, it might have been better just to make sure we positioned them properly in the prone or supine position, and not necessarily to intubate someone so readily, which might have actually caused more harm than good. We learned that as we got more experience.”

Yet government treatment guidelines, to this day, include invasive mechanical ventilation.12 If the White House Coronavirus Task Force knew in the summer of 2022 that venting patients caused more harm than good, why didn’t they instruct hospitals to stop using it? Or at bare minimum, strongly advise against it?

And why did the government continue to financially incentivize the use of mechanical ventilation after they’d realized how bad it was? While many hospitals did cut down on their use of mechanical ventilation toward the end of 2020 and beyond, it still hasn’t been entirely replaced with noninvasive strategies shown to be far more effective.13

Many ‘COVID Patients’ Didn’t Have COVID

The matter becomes even more perverse when you consider that many “COVID cases” were patients who merely tested positive using faulty PCR testing. They didn’t have COVID but were vented anyway, thanks to the baseless theory that you could have COVID-19 and be infectious without symptoms.

Hospitals also received massive financial incentives to diagnose patients with COVID — whether they had it or not — and to put them on a vent. They also received bonuses for using toxic remdesivir, and they were paid for each COVID death as well. The entire system was set up to reward hospitals for misdiagnosing, mistreating and ultimately killing patients.

China also benefited from the WHO’s misguided advice. While the U.S. clamored for more ventilators, Chinese hospitals started relying on them less and instead they were being exported in huge quantities.14

How Many COVID Patients Were Killed by WHO’s Bad Advice?

Just how many COVID-19 patients were killed by being placed on mechanical ventilation in the spring of 2020? That’s a question attorney and author Michael P. Senger tries to answer in his May 25, 2023, article “The Great COVID Ventilator Death Coverup.”15 He writes, in part:

“... the establishment is trying to argue that while ventilators were overused in spring 2020, doing more harm than good ... the ventilators themselves did not kill anyone.16 An astonishing argument, even by the abysmal standards of the COVID era.

But, since everyone supporting this narrative is arguing that there were no ventilator deaths in spring 2020, all we have to do is prove there were a significant number of ventilator deaths and what’s left of the establishment’s credibility on the initial months of COVID falls apart.

In addition to the anecdotal evidence ... several unsettling data points have long strongly suggested that there weren’t just some ventilator deaths in spring 2020, but rather a pretty frightening number of them ...

The CDC reports17 that 18,679 patients died with COVID in New York City hospitals throughout spring 2020. And, according to the sample in JAMA,18 just over half of those who died with COVID in NYC hospitals were put on ventilators. Accordingly, around 10,000 patients died with COVID in NYC hospitals after being put on ventilators in spring 2020 ...

Additionally, as Jessica Hockett has documented19 in meticulous detail through multiple methods, New York City experienced a sharp, breathtaking mortality event just after its lockdown and response to COVID began, which was unlike that experienced anywhere else or at any other time.

Given its singularity, this horrifying mortality event, quite simply, cannot be attributed to natural causes. Jumping off Hockett’s work, below is a chart of weekly all-cause hospital inpatient mortality from January 2018 through April 2023, split between patients ages 65+ (blue line) and patients under 65 (red line).

This spike in inpatient hospital mortality in New York City in spring 2020, especially among young people, is unparalleled in any other time period, even as COVID deaths supposedly began to climb again in 2021.”

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Inpatient Mortality Around the US, 2020 Through Present

Senger goes on to show the same all-cause mortality graphs for hospital inpatients for each of the largest cities in the U.S.: Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. All show massive spikes in hospital deaths, especially among the elderly (65 and older), around the same time periods as NYC. He also produced charts for deaths on the state level, as follow:20

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

A Strawman Argument

Senger continues:21

“A couple of points on these charts. First, while the spike in mortality in the NYC area in spring 2020, especially among young people, is without parallel, it’s not the only one we see.

These spikes in mortality among young people are conspicuous because it’s long been known that COVID’s infection fatality rate (IFR) is extremely skewed toward the elderly. This, for example, is the most widely-cited data on COVID’s IFR by age:22

Thus, these spikes in mortality among young people cannot be attributed to COVID. Most notably, a significant spike in mortality appears among all age groups in California at the end of 2020 ...

One possibility is that, while the use of ventilators was generally scaled back, hospitals in California may have still been engaging in broad intubation or other iatrogenic practices by the end of 2020 ...

Even more strangely, Texas experienced a surge in deaths among young people in summer 2021 that was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in mortality among the elderly; this, frankly, may have had nothing to do with COVID.

That said, the fact remains that the New York area experienced a uniquely sharp, awful mortality event in spring 2020 which is not adequately explained by any of these other factors.

And doctors were under significant pressure to put patients on ventilators in spring 2020, even if it was merely unconscious; politicians had purchased tens of thousands of ventilators at exorbitant prices, and hospitals did receive more funding if patients were placed on ventilators.

Coupled with the above anecdotes about patients being placed on ventilators for extended periods to protect staff — and the fact that over 10,000 patients in New York City died after being intubated — it’s clear that a horrifying number of patients were likely killed by mechanical ventilators.

Yet astonishingly, despite all these facts, the establishment is arguing that no patients were killed by ventilators in spring 2020. This, to me, is the kind of implausible, overly-defensive argument one makes when they’re panicked.

Across America, tens of thousands of patients were placed on ventilators in spring 2020; given the vast majority of those patients died, it simply begs credulity that none of them were killed by ventilators.

When a deadly procedure is applied to tens of thousands of patients, even a baseline level of human error would imply that the procedure was applied to at least some fraction of those patients by mistake.

The establishment has responded with subsequent studies23 claiming to show that ‘early intubation’ actually reduced the time patients spent on ventilators, and thus didn’t kill any of them. But this is a straw-man argument ...

[T]he issue isn’t whether patients were intubated ‘early’ or ‘late’ relative to any symptoms they might have shown — the issue is whether patients were placed on ventilators who should have never been on them to begin with, or otherwise kept on them too long.”

A Morally Indefensible Coverup

Senger points out that, in speaking with other attorneys, most agree that hospitals face virtually no risk of litigation over ventilator deaths, for the simple reason that everyone perceived COVID to be a global emergency, and during emergencies, you just do the best you can with what you have and what you know.

“Regardless of how much harm was done, it’s simply too difficult to prove that the procedure violated the emergency standard of care given the information coming from China at the time,” he writes.

Even so, “the situation is morally inexcusable,” Senger says, adding that we do need to get to the bottom of how and why these patients died. I agree. While Senger wants the truth to understand what happened and to honor the diseased, I would add that we need the truth in order to avoid making the same mistake again, because there will be a next time.

The WHO Must Be Held to Account

The WHO must be held accountable for its unethical recommendation to sacrifice suspected COVID patients by using ventilation as an infection mitigation strategy — especially considering they’re now trying to get unilateral power and authority to make pandemic decisions without local input.

Showing how the WHO’s recommendation to put patients on mechanical ventilation resulted in needless death among people who weren’t at great risk of dying from COVID is perhaps one of the most powerful talking points a country can use to argue for independence and rejection of the WHO’s pandemic treaty.

They simply cannot be trusted to make sound medical decisions for the whole world. No one is. We need to allow local medical experts to make the calls in situations like this, and to collaborate and share information between themselves. The top-down one-size-fits-all medical paradigm that the WHO wants to implement is nothing short of disastrous, and the COVID pandemic response proves it.

Also, let’s not forget that the misuse of mechanical ventilation created the appearance that COVID was exceptionally deadly, regardless of your age, which in turn helped promote acceptance of the experimental COVID shots that are now a leading cause of frequent sickness, chronic disability and excess deaths. Of course, that’s also being covered up.

In the final analysis, the WHO’s handling of the COVID pandemic will undoubtedly go down as the worst in medical history. Can we really trust them to make better decisions in the future?

I think not, which is why we must do everything in our power to prevent the U.S. from signing the pandemic treaty. Better yet, we need to exit the WHO entirely. To that end, I urge you to contact your local House representatives and Senators and urge them to:

1. Support the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act24,25,26,27,28
2. Withhold funding for the WHO
3. Support U.S. withdrawal from the WHO

 Comments (131)

Editor's Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published December 31, 2018.

Many modern drugs are derived from purified and concentrated plant compounds (although compared to 20 years ago, few drug companies expend time and money looking at medicinal plant chemistry these days). Rosy periwinkle (Catharanthus roseus), for example, a perennial plant native to Madagascar, is the basis for a number of commonly used cancer drugs that have been in use since the 1960s.1

Of the 70 different alkaloids found in periwinkle, the two primary compounds used in anticancer drugs are the powerful vinca alkaloids2 vinblastine and vincristine.3 Alkaloids are nitrogen-containing compounds shown to be very important for human health. Within the family of alkaloids, there are those with antiparasitic, antidiabetic, anticancer, antihypertensive and/or antiasthma properties, just to name a few. Others benefit your mood.

Even the humble daffodil contains a valuable alkaloid with anticancer properties called haemanthamine. This alkaloid inhibits the protein production cancer cells depend on to grow and flourish. Berberine is yet another powerful alkaloid found in plants such as goldenseal, goldthread, Oregon grape root and barberry. These plants have traditionally been used in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, gastrointestinal infections, liver problems and a number of other health conditions.

Berberine is particularly beneficial for mitochondrial function and is a powerful activator of AMPK, a metabolic master switch. Interestingly, glyphosate — the most widely used herbicide in the world — robs the plant of the ability to make these important medicinal compounds.

Vinca Alkaloids Are Powerful Cancer Fighters

Aside from vinblastine and vincristine, two others known for their cancer-fighting powers are vinorelbine and vindesine.4 All but vindesine have been approved for use in the U.S., and vincristine and vinblastine are included in the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines.5

A synthetic vinca alkaloid called vinflunine, developed in 2008, has since been approved in Europe for the treatment of certain types of bladder cancer. It's also being investigated for the use against other malignancies. Other medicinal applications include the treatment of diabetes and hypertension (high blood pressure). Their cytotoxic effects have gained the greatest attention, however. As explained in a 2013 paper in the International Journal of Preventive Medicine:6

"The main mechanisms of vinca alkaloid cytotoxicity is due to their interactions with tubulin and disruption of microtubule function … directly causing metaphase arrest … [T]he vinca alkaloids and other antimicrotubule agents also have an effect on both nonmalignant and malignant cells in the non-mitotic cell cycle, because microtubules are involved in many non-mitotic functions …

The vinca alkaloids and other microtubule disrupting agents have power to inhibit malignant angiogenesis in vitro. For example, [vinblastine] with concentrations range from 0.1 to 1.0 pmol/L blocked endothelial proliferation, chemotaxis and spreading on fibronectin, all essential steps in angiogenesis, but other normal fibroblasts and lymphoid tumors were unaffected at these minute concentrations.

In combination with antibodies against vascular endothelial growth factor, low doses of [vinblastine] increased antitumor response considerably, even in tumors resistant to direct cytotoxic effects of the drug. Vinca alkaloids inhibit cell proliferation by binding to microtubules, which can cause a mitotic block and apoptosis …

Side effects of [vinblastine] consist of toxicity to white blood cells, nausea, vomiting, constipation, dyspnea, chest or tumor pain, wheezing and fever. It is also rarely associated with antidiuretic hormone secretion."

Historical Overview

Vinca alkaloids are the second most-used class of cancer drugs today. They've also been used the longest. Vinca alkaloids were originally discovered by two Canadian scientists, Robert Noble and Charles Beer, in the 1950s.7

During that time, Gordon Svoboda, a medical researcher at Eli Lilly, also added periwinkle to his list of research subjects, having heard reports of its use for diabetes during World War II. In 1958, Gordon discovered extract from the plant also performed remarkably well in anticancer tests.

That same year, Noble and Beer presented their own anticancer findings at a research symposium at the New York Academy of Sciences. Notably, the two teams (Eli Lilly and Noble/Beer) concluded that since periwinkle extract lowered white blood cell counts, it might be useful against leukemia — a disease characterized by white blood cell proliferation.

Beer was responsible for isolating vinblastine, which he named. Eventually, Eli Lilly and Noble/Beer established a joint research collaboration, which led to the development of two chemotherapy drugs. Vincristine gained approval as a chemotherapeutic agent by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1961. Vinblastine gained FDA approval in 1963. Many other countries around the world approved the two drugs shortly thereafter.

Vinca Alkaloids in Conventional Cancer Treatment

Vinblastine is an integral part of anticancer regimens against testicular cancer, Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin lymphomas, breast cancer and germ cell tumors. Vinorelbine has been shown to have "significant antitumor activity" in those with breast cancer, and is also used in bone cancer treatments, and is approved for the initial treatment of advanced lung cancer in the U.S.

Vincristine, meanwhile, is approved for the treatment of acute leukemia, rhabdomyosarcoma, neuroblastoma, Wilm's tumor, Hodgkin's disease and other lymphomas, as well as several nonmalignant blood disorders, including refractory autoimmune thrombocytopenia, hemolytic uremic syndrome and thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura.

Common side effects for vincristine include peripheral neuropathy, suppressed activity of bone marrow, constipation, nervous system toxicity, nausea and vomiting.

As you can see, toxicity is an issue. While the toxicological profile of each alkaloid is different, all vinca alkaloids have peripheral neurotoxicity — vincristine being the most potent. As noted in the featured paper on vinca alkaloids, this neurotoxicity is "related to axonal degeneration and decreasing of axonal transport, most likely caused by a drug-induced perturbation of microtubule function."

The only ways to counteract these toxic effects are to either lower the dose, decrease the frequency of drug administration, or to discontinue use altogether. "Although a number of antidotes, including thiamine, vitamin B12, folinic acid, pyridoxine and neuroactive agents, have been applied, these treatments have not been obviously shown to be effective," the authors note.

All vinca alkaloids, but vincristine8 and vinblastine in particular, also have notable toxicity on the gastrointestinal tract, as noted in a recent study.9 All of them can also cause severe tissue damage, and are associated with acute heart problems, as well as lung and blood toxicity. The featured paper also specifies that vaccinations should not be administered while on a vinca alkaloid drug, as they weaken your immune system.

Your Lifestyle Choices Can Offer Potent Cancer Prevention

While anticancer drugs have their place, it's important to remember that the lifestyle choices you make on a daily basis will influence your overall cancer risk in the first place. The good news is there's a lot you can do to lower your risk. In fact, I believe you can virtually eliminate your risk of cancer and chronic disease, and radically improve your chances of recovering from cancer if you currently have it, by addressing foundational lifestyle factors.

The following — starting with diet-related pointers, followed by other lifestyle recommendations — is by no means an exhaustive list.

There are many other strategies that can be useful as well, and several really great books have been written just on the topic of natural cancer prevention, including "Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner's Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer" by Dr. Christine Horner, "The Cancer Revolution: A Groundbreaking Program to Reverse and Prevent Cancer" by Dr. Leigh Erin Connealy and "The Healing Platform: Build Your Own Cure!" by Annie Brandt.

Another excellent book for those who want to understand more about the role of diet and the metabolic underpinnings of cancer is "Tripping Over the Truth: The Return of the Metabolic Theory of Cancer Illuminates a New and Hopeful Path to a Cure" by Travis Christofferson.

Eat real food, ideally organic or biodynamic; avoid processed foods and sugars, especially processed fructose — All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Processed fructose, however, is one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.

Reduce nonfiber carbs but have large volumes of fresh organic veggies along with high amounts of healthy fats from avocados, raw butter, seeds, nuts and raw cacao nibs. Consider adding cancer-fighting whole foods such as broccoli and fermented foods, and drinking a pint to a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily.

Eating certified organic or biodynamic foods will help you avoid genetically engineered foods and ingredients, which are typically loaded with glyphosate, a suspected carcinogen that also has antibiotic activity and has been shown to harm health in a number of different ways.

Implement a cyclical ketogenic diet — In my book, "Fat for Fuel," I describe a metabolic mitochondrial therapy program that I believe is a core foundation for a healthy life. Most people simply eat far too many processed foods, net carbs and too few healthy fats, and too many unhealthy fats, which results in gaining and retaining extra body fat and becoming increasingly insulin resistant.

Most also eat too much protein for optimal health and, while exercise cannot compensate for the damage done by a high-carb, low-fat diet, most do not get enough physical movement either. These factors set in motion metabolic and biological cascades that deteriorate your health and "predispose" you to cancer and other chronic diseases.

Oncologists in Turkey are also using a stacked ketogenic treatment protocol that has been proven effective even in many stage 4 cancer patients.

By using metabolic support strategies such as ketogenic diet and fasting, a minimal dose of chemotherapy can be used, thereby eliminating many side effects and risks of treatment, while actually improving outcomes.

Limit protein — Newer research has emphasized the importance of the mTOR pathway. When activated, cancer growth is accelerated. To quiet this pathway, I believe it may be wise to limit your protein to 1 gram of protein per kilogram of lean body mass, or roughly one-half gram of protein per pound of lean body weight. Replace excess protein with high quality fats such as eggs from organic free-range hens, high quality meats, avocados and coconut oil.

Avoid unfermented soy products — Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.

Optimize your omega-3 level — Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer,10 so make sure you get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats. I recommend getting an omega-3 index test done annually. For optimal health and disease prevention, your index should be above 8%.

Use curcumin — This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of cancer. For example, it has demonstrated major therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.11

Avoid drinking alcohol — At minimum, limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.

Avoid charring your meats and steer clear of all processed meats — Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide — a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried — has been found to increase cancer risk as well. I recommend eating at least one-third of your food raw. Avoid frying or charbroiling; boil, poach or steam your foods instead.

Processed meats of all kinds also contain acrylamide, along with nitrites that may form harmful N-nitroso compounds in your body. The evidence against processed meat is so strong, it was, as a group, classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015.

Stop eating at least three hours before bedtime — Compelling evidence suggests that fueling the mitochondria in your cells at a time when they don't need it leads to the production of reactive oxygen species (free radicals) that damage mitochondrial and eventually nuclear DNA. There is also evidence to indicate that cancer cells uniformly have damaged mitochondria, so the last thing you want to do is eat before you go to bed.

Water fasting — Multiday water fasting, even when you do not have a weight or insulin problem, provides powerful metabolic benefits that help lower your disease risk. Importantly, fasting radically improves your body's ability to digest damaged cells (autophagy) and increases stem cells.

Optimize your gut microbiome — Optimizing your gut flora will reduce inflammation and strengthen your immune response, both of which are important for cancer prevention. Researchers have found a microbe-dependent mechanism through which some cancers mount an inflammatory response that fuels their development and growth.

So, inhibiting inflammatory cytokines may also slow cancer progression and improve the response to chemotherapy. Adding naturally fermented food to your daily diet is an easy way to prevent cancer or speed recovery. You can always add a high quality probiotic supplement as well, but naturally fermented foods are best.

Make sure you're not iodine deficient — There's compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with certain forms of cancer. Dr. David Brownstein,12 author of "Iodine: Why You Need it, Why You Can't Live Without it," is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells.

For more information, I recommend reading his book. One caveat: While I believe the bulk of what he states is spot on, I'm not convinced his dosage recommendations are ideal. I believe they may in fact be five or six times higher than optimal. So, do your homework before starting iodine loading.

Improve your insulin and leptin receptor sensitivity — The best way to do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and restricting carbs primarily to fiber-rich vegetables. Exercise will also help normalize your insulin and leptin sensitivity.

Maintain a healthy body weight — This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It's important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.

Optimize your vitamin D level — Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). For general health and disease prevention, you should ideally maintain a vitamin D level of 60 to 80 ng/ml year-round. Vitamin D also works synergistically with every cancer treatment I'm aware of, with no adverse effects.

Get plenty of restorative sleep — Make sure you are getting enough restorative sleep. Poor sleep can interfere with your melatonin production, which is associated with an increased risk of insulin resistance and weight gain, both of which contribute to cancer's virility.

The link between lack of sleep and cancer is so strong that the World Health Organization, since 2007, has tagged shift work as a "probable human carcinogen" because it causes circadian disruption.13 As a general rule, adults need between seven and nine hours of sleep each night.

Exercise regularly — Researchers and cancer organizations increasingly recommend making regular exercise a priority in order to reduce your risk of cancer, and help improve cancer outcomes. One of the primary reasons exercise works to lower your cancer risk is because it drives your insulin levels down, and controlling your insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks.

Research has also found evidence suggesting exercise can help trigger apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells. Studies have also found that the number of tumors decrease along with body fat, which may be an additional factor.

This is because exercise helps lower your estrogen levels, which explains why exercise appears to be particularly potent against breast cancer.

Finally, exercise increases mitochondrial biogenesis, which is essential to fight cancer. Ideally, your exercise program should include balance, strength, flexibility, high intensity interval training (HIIT).

Limit electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure — In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified cellphones as a Group 2B "possible carcinogen,"14 and the evidence supporting the theory that EMF radiation from wireless technologies can trigger abnormal cell growth and cancer15 just keeps growing and getting stronger.

Among the latest evidence are two government-funded animal studies16 that linked cellphone radiation to brain and heart tumors, as well as DNA and cellular damage. These findings are further supported by a lifetime exposure study17 by the highly respected Ramazzini Institute in Italy, which also found a clear link between cellphone radiation and these types of tumors.18,19,20

A core problem is the fact that EMF triggers potent oxidant stress, which is at the heart of not only cancer but most chronic diseases. To learn more, including how to lower your EMF exposure, not only from cellphones and wireless technologies but also from standard household wiring, see "Cellphones Strongly Linked to Cancer — New Study Reproduces Government Findings."

Avoid BPA, phthalates and other xenoestrogens — These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk.

Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy, especially if you have risk factors for breast cancer — Breast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study21 published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy.

Similar risks also exist for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which also comprise synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.

If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.

Implement stress-reduction strategies — Stress from all causes is a major contributor to disease. Even the CDC states that 85% of disease is driven by emotional factors. It is likely that stress and unresolved emotional issues may be more important than the physical ones, so make sure this is addressed.

My favorite tool for resolving emotional challenges is Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT). Other helpful strategies include meditation, mindfulness practice, prayer and yoga, just to name a few.

 Comments (9)

N-acetylcysteine (NAC), a precursor for glutathione biosynthesis, is a common dietary supplement that could hold a secret to treating tumors resistant to conventional cancer drugs. Researchers with the Department of Biomedicine of the University of Basel in Switzerland, found NAC restores the sensitivity of breast cancer cells to treatment.1

NAC is already valued in the medical field for helping increase glutathione in the body, which prevents liver damage in cases of acetaminophen (Tylenol) overdose. It also reduces acetaldehyde toxicity,2 which causes many hangover symptoms. But, it seems, NAC is living up to its reputation as an “old drug with new tricks,” as the featured study suggests it may significantly improve treatment of advanced breast cancer.

NAC May Help Fight Resistant Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, with more than 2.2 million cases developing annually.3 Among women with recurring disease, survival rates have barely improved in the last two decades. “Most recurring metastatic cancers are either drug resistant or will become resistant to therapy,” researchers wrote in Cell Reports Medicine. “Thus, drug resistance is a substantial hurdle in the long-lasting cure of patients.”4

About 70% of breast cancers have mutations in genes that affect the PI3K signaling pathway.5 The overactivation of PI3K promotes tumor development, which is why the drug alpelisib (brand name Piqray) — a PI3Kα-selective inhibitor — is often used to treat it. Resistance to the drug, however, is a serious problem.

“Unfortunately, it turned out that the success of the medication is severely limited by resistance,” researcher Mohamed Bentires-Alj said in a University of Basel news release. “Hence, we urgently need to find out more about how resistance arises.”6

The team found mutations that turn off production of a protein called NF1, which suppresses tumor growth, were involved in cancers resistant to alpelisib. “The absence of NF1 is the elephant in the room; it throws everything into disarray within the cell and hinders successful treatment,” Bentires-Alj said.7

With NF1 lost, the team found cells produce less energy via their mitochondria and rely more on other energy production pathways. NAC, an antioxidant, affects energy metabolism similarly, so the researchers expected it would have similar effects in cancer cells as NF1 loss. Instead, the opposite happened.

NAC unexpectedly restored — and increased — alpelisib’s effectiveness in previously resistant cancer cells. NF1 loss is also often involved in other cases of drug resistance, including in skin, ovarian, endometrial, lung and bladder cancers, so it’s possible NAC could be useful for treatment of multiple drug-resistant cancers.8

“As N-acetylcysteine is a safe and widespread additive, this result is highly relevant for clinical research,” says Bentires-Alj. The team plans to conduct further trials in breast cancer patients to see if NAC improves treatment of resistant cases.9 The study concluded:10

“NF1 loss is a resistance-enhancing event in PI3Kα inhibition. This suggests that patients with tumors lacking NF1 are likely to develop resistance to PI3Kα inhibition. Furthermore, we discovered that NAC treatment circumvents resistance to PI3Kα inhibition, likely by dampening glycolytic activity and mTOR signaling, and may be an attractive strategy to be tested in patients with NF1 loss-evoked resistance.”

NAC’s Anticancer Effects

NAC, a form of the amino acid cysteine, has long been regarded as a preventive and therapeutic tool in conditions that involve glutathione depletion. It’s been found to be safe “even at very high doses and for long-term treatments,” according to University of Genoa researchers in a Carcinogenesis review.11

The study pointed out that NAC has the potential to prevent DNA damage, cancer and other mutation-related diseases, noting its “impressive array of mechanisms and protective effects towards DNA damage and carcinogenesis.” This includes:12

Nucleophilicity

Antioxidant activity

Modulation of metabolism

Effects in mitochondria

Decrease of the biologically effective dose of carcinogens

Modulation of DNA repair

Inhibition of genotoxicity and cell transformation

Modulation of gene expression and signal transduction pathways

Regulation of cell survival and apoptosis

Anti-inflammatory activity

Anti-angiogenetic activity

Immunological effects

Inhibition of progression to malignancy

Influence on cell cycle progression

Inhibition of preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions

Inhibition of invasion and metastasis

Protection toward adverse effects of other chemopreventive agents or chemotherapeutical agents

A number of studies support NAC’s anticancer potential. In a study on mice, the combination of a ketogenic with NAC significantly reduced tumor growth in anaplastic thyroid cancer, an aggressive and often deadly form of the disease.13 Another study found NAC inhibits the growth, adhesion, migration and invasion of human bladder cancer cells.14

Similar effects have been observed in breast cancer cells, with NAC reducing proliferation and increasing apoptosis, or cell death.15 When combined with bromelain, NAC also significantly inhibited proliferation and survival of gastrointestinal cancer cells.16

Is NAC a Fountain of Youth?

Beyond its role as a cancer fighter, NAC may help ward off premature aging with its longevity-enhancing effects. Specifically, a combination of NAC and glycine, known as GlyNAC, improved “deficits associated with premature aging” in people with HIV.17 This included improvements to oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, insulin resistance, genotoxicity, strength and cognition.18

A subsequent pilot trial in older humans found similar results, with GlyNAC supplementation for 24 weeks correcting glutathione deficiency and improving multiple measures of health, including:19

Mitochondrial dysfunction

Oxidative stress

Inflammation

Endothelial dysfunction

Insulin resistance

Genomic damage

Cognition

Strength

Gait speed

Exercise capacity

Body fat levels

Waist circumference

The researchers concluded, “Supplementing GlyNAC in aging humans could be a simple and viable method to promote health and warrants additional investigation.”20 GlyNAC supplementation also improved four of nine hallmarks of aging known to contribute to age-related disorders. This includes:21

1. Mitochondrial dysfunction
2. Inflammation
3. Insulin resistance
4. Genomic damage

NAC’s Neuroprotective Effects and Stroke Benefits

People with hereditary cystatin C amyloid angiopathy (HCCAA), a rare genetic disorder,22 have an average life expectancy of just 30 years, and most die within five years of their first stroke,23 so reducing their incidence could prove to be essential to increasing survival.

NAC may help prevent strokes in the population by preventing the formation of amyloid-producing proteins, which promote amyloid deposits linked to strokes.24

Researchers from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) conducted the study, noting NAC could also have potential for Alzheimer’s disease because the process of protein deposition that occurs in HCCAA is similar to what occurs in Alzheimer’s, although at an accelerated pace in HCCAA.

NAC Shows Promise for Psychiatric and Neurological Disorders

NAC also shows particular promise in the treatment of mental health disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder,25 depression26 and substance use disorders.27

It’s known to modulate pathophysiological processes — such as oxidative stress, neuroinflammation and dysregulation of glutamate and dopamine neurotransmitter systems — that contribute to psychiatric and neurological disorders.28 According to a systematic review published in Neuroscience & Behavioral Reviews:29

“In this systematic review we find favorable evidence for the use of NAC in several psychiatric and neurological disorders, particularly autism, Alzheimer's disease, cocaine and cannabis addiction, bipolar disorder, depression, trichotillomania, nail biting, skin picking, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, drug-induced neuropathy and progressive myoclonic epilepsy.

Disorders such as anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and mild traumatic brain injury have preliminary evidence and require larger confirmatory studies … Overall, NAC treatment appears to be safe and tolerable.”

Was NAC Targeted Because It Fights COVID-19?

Among NAC’s many benefits is the ability to reduce viral replication of certain viruses, including the influenza virus.30 During the pandemic, NAC emerged as a tool for preventing and treating COVID-19, including the hypercoagulation that can result in stroke and/or blood clots31 that impair the ability to exchange oxygen in the lungs. As noted in the FASEB Journal in 2020:32

“Based on a broad range of antioxidant and anti-inflammatory mechanisms … the oral administration of NAC is likely to attenuate the risk of developing COVID-19, as it was previously demonstrated for influenza and influenza-like illnesses.

Moreover, high-dose intravenous NAC may be expected to play an adjuvant role in the treatment of severe COVID-19 cases and in the control of its lethal complications … including pulmonary and cardiovascular adverse events."

Another literature analysis33 concluded glutathione deficiency may be associated with COVID-19 severity, leading the author to conclude that NAC may be useful both for its prevention and treatment.

Not long after several scientists had called attention to NAC’s benefits against COVID, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suddenly cracked down on the supplement, claiming it was excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement because it was approved as a new drug in 196334 — before it was marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food.

Retailers, including Amazon, pulled supplements containing NAC from their shelves in response, as the FDA’s move meant NAC could no longer legally be marketed as a supplement, even though there were no fewer than 1,170 NAC-containing products in the National Institutes of Health's Dietary Supplement Label Database at the time.35

Draft guidance released by the FDA in April 2022,36 however, included verbiage suggesting the FDA would not be enforcing their policy that NAC cannot be marketed as a dietary supplement, even though it was technically still illegal to do so. In August 2022, following the FDA’s release of its final guidance, Amazon “quietly notified” supplement makers that it was resuming the sale of NAC dietary supplements.37

Fortunately, research into NAC’s potential anticancer and other disease-reducing effects is ongoing. And if you’re intrigued by NAC’s health-boosting potential and are interested in supplementing with NAC, it’s inexpensive and, for now, widely available.

 Comments (41)