Jump to content

Endocrine disrupting chemicals- silent weapons in a quiet war


Recommended Posts

The revolting reason cheap ice cream takes so long to melt: Just one of the alarming discoveries that's turned DR CHRIS VAN TULLEKEN off ultra-processed food for good - as he reveals in a book everyone who cares about their health should read

By Chris Van Tulleken For The Mail On Sunday

Updated: 23:28 BST, 22 April 2023

Ultra-processed foods (or UPFs) make up a shocking 60 per cent of the average diet in the UK – and increasing evidence links their high consumption with the rise in obesity, type 2 diabetes and other diseases. 

Here, in the second part of our serialisation of his new book which started in yesterday's Daily Mail, TV doctor Chris van Tulleken warns of the hidden dangers behind food which we find so tasty.

On a freakishly warm autumn day, I headed with my family to a North London park and bought our three-year-old daughter Lyra a treat. 

It was a giant scoop of pistachio ice cream – from which her one-year-old sister, Sasha, managed to scrounge a few licks. But it didn't distract Lyra for long: spotting two friends, she handed me her tub and ran off to play on the swings.

Her ice cream, I noticed, was a glistening green ball of pistachio. It took a moment to dawn on me that this was most peculiar. How was it still a ball? The sun was blazing and the outside of the tub was warm to the touch. Something had clearly stopped the ice-cream from melting.

Back home, I looked up the ingredients online. Some were what you'd expect: fresh milk and double cream, sugar, salt, a tiny dash of pistachios. 

Others, however, rang alarm bells: soy protein, soy lecithin, coconut oil, sunflower oil, chlorophyll, glucose, dextrose, stabilisers (locust bean gum, guar gum, carrageenan), emulsifier (mono and fatty acids).

These are all hallmarks of ultra-processed food (UPF). Far from buying my little daughter a proper ice cream, I'd given her what one scientist later memorably described to me as 'an industrially produced edible substance'. 

Did it matter? After all, nobody has yet dropped dead immediately after eating an ultra-processed dessert. The answer, I'm afraid, is that it matters a great deal.

There's now a huge volume of carefully collected and analysed data that exposes the inherent dangers in consuming complex mixtures of substances that humans have never encountered before.

These substances can't even really be called 'food'. Increasingly, the calories we consume come from modified starches, from invert sugars, hydrolysed protein isolates and seed oils that have been refined, bleached, deodorised and hydrogenated.

Added to these are synthetic emulsifiers, low-calorie sweeteners, stabilising gums, humectants [moisturising agents], flavour compounds, dyes, colour stabilisers, carbonating agents, firming agents and bulking – and anti-bulking – agents.

What this means is that everything from chicken nuggets to ice cream can be made from the same base liquids and powders. 

And bear in mind that UPF is not the same as junk food (though all junk food is UPF). It's far more insidious.

Ultra-processed food makes up an incredible 60 per cent of the average diet in the UK. For one in five Britons, it's 80 per cent of what they eat. 

Many children, including my own, get most of their calories from these substances. In short, UPF has become our national diet. It's now the main stuff from which we construct our bodies.

Yet, since 2010, a vast body of data has emerged which indicates that UPF increases rates of cancer, metabolic disease, dementia and mental illness. 

We also know that it damages our gut lining and the all-important microbiome – the bacteria that live in our intestines.

Our rate of consumption is causing a pandemic of malnutrition – caused by the lack of nutrients in UPF – and obesity. Studies suggest it's stunted the growth of children.

Five-year-olds in the UK don't just have some of the highest rates of obesity in Europe, they're also among the shortest by a significant amount – more than 5cm shorter than Danish and Dutch children of the same age, for instance.

Without volunteering for it, we've become participants in a vast food experiment. New substances – the cheaper, the better – are being tested on all of us all the time.

Can a synthetic emulsifier be used instead of an egg? Can an industrially altered seed oil replace a dairy fat? Can a bit of ethyl methylphenylglycidate be chucked in instead of a strawberry? By buying UPF, we're driving its evolution.

At the same time – without most of us being aware of it – we're taking huge risks with our health.

The impact on children is a particular concern. Typically, 60 per cent of the food they eat is UPF, and they're consuming the stuff while their brains are still developing.

Will their IQ be affected? We simply have no way of knowing.


  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New warning over controversial acne drug Roaccutane linked to dozens of suicides: NHS doctors are told to 'fully discuss' brutal mental health side effects with all patients

By John Ely Senior Health Reporter For Mailonline

Updated: 18:24 BST, 26 April 2023

A controversial acne drug linked to dozens of suicides will come with a host of new warnings, health chiefs announced today.

Doctors must now 'fully discuss' the risks isotretinoin could pose to patients' mental and sexual health before handing out supplies.

Two prescribers must also sign off on giving the drug, branded as Roaccutane in the UK, to under-18s under the medical watchdog's new safety measures.


  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2023 at 8:46 AM, Macnamara said:

New warning over controversial acne drug Roaccutane linked to dozens of suicides: NHS doctors are told to 'fully discuss' brutal mental health side effects with all patients

By John Ely Senior Health Reporter For Mailonline

Updated: 18:24 BST, 26 April 2023

A controversial acne drug linked to dozens of suicides will come with a host of new warnings, health chiefs announced today.

Doctors must now 'fully discuss' the risks isotretinoin could pose to patients' mental and sexual health before handing out supplies.

Two prescribers must also sign off on giving the drug, branded as Roaccutane in the UK, to under-18s under the medical watchdog's new safety measures.


Well, all the retinol based acne treatments are linked to nasty side effects over tie (like crohns) - perhaps the Zero A mob have it right. And of course, anti-depressants cause sexual disfunction, so if you are depressed about your acne, you're doubly buggered

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob Schneider;

Two Massachusetts Towns Call a Halt to 5G Towers Until FCC Complies With Court Order to Review Science • Children's Health Defense




The residents of two Massachusetts towns on Monday voted to put a hold on 5G cell tower projects until the Federal Communications Commission completes a court-ordered review of the latest science related to the effect of radiofrequency radiation emissions on human health and the environment.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parkinson’s Disease Has Become a Pandemic, Possible Causes

May 4 2023

Most of Parkinson’s disease is due to environmental factors tied to the Industrial Revolution, said Dorsey. Among these products and byproducts are air pollution, certain herbicides and pesticides, and even a chemical used in dry cleaning.

For example, Dorsey said exposure to a paraquat herbicide has been associated with a “150 percent increased risk” of Parkinson’s disease, likely due to its ability to generate reactive oxygen species and cause oxidative stress in the brain.

“Paraquat, created in the 1950s, is considered one of the most toxic weed killers ever created,” said Dorsey. “It kills the weeds that Roundup cannot, [and has] been used to commit homicide and suicide.” The EPA’s website says, “One sip can kill.”

“The pesticide’s own manufacturer has apparently known about its toxic effects related to Parkinson’s for over 50 years,” Dorsey continued, and more than 30 countries have banned it.

Yet the United States has not.

“Instead, the weed killer is sprayed almost all over the country,” said Dorsey. Its use in recent years has doubled.

The same holds for the widely used dry cleaning chemical trichloroethylene (TCE). It is associated with a 500 percent increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, reproduces features of the disease in laboratory animals, and damages the parts of cells that are impaired in Parkinson’s disease.

TCE is also used to extract oils from vegetables and remove grease from metal parts. It evaporates quickly and can contaminate the air, water, and soil in areas where it is produced or used.

In January, the EPA said TCE “poses an unreasonable risk to human health.”

“Yet it still remains on the market,” said Dorsey. “And global use is waxing, not waning. Thousands of sites around the country have been contaminated by the chemical, including the Marine base Camp Lejeune.

“Many of us live near a contaminated site and do not even know it,” he warned.

Exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of Parkinson’s by 70 percent. Pesticides such as rotenone and organophosphates can damage mitochondria, the energy-producing structures in cells, leading to oxidative stress and neuron death.

According to the NPJ Parkinson’s Disease study, these could partly explain why Parkinson’s incidence rates are higher in the Northeastern and Midwestern United States, called the “Rust Belt,” where industrial manufacturing has been common. However, this increase was also observed in Southern California, Southeastern Texas, Central Pennsylvania, and Florida.

“Understanding the source of these variations will be important for health care policy, research, and care planning,” Dr. Allison Willis, associate professor of neurology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, said in a statement.


  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

High Levels Of Toxic Metals Found In Widely Consumed Drinks: Study

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A new study has found that some commonly consumed beverages such as fruit juice and artificial soda contain levels of toxic metals including arsenic, cadmium, and lead that exceed federal drinking water standards.

Researchers from Tulane University, Louisiana, measured 25 different toxic metals and trace elements in 60 soft beverages, including single fruit juice, mixed fruit juice, plant-based milk, artificial soda, and tea.

The drinks were purchased in New Orleans and are commercially available in supermarkets across the United States.

Researchers found that five of the 60 beverages tested contained levels of a toxic metal above federal drinking water standards.

Two mixed juices had levels of arsenic above the 10 microgram/liter standard. Meanwhile, a cranberry juice, a mixed carrot and fruit juice, and an oat milk each had levels of cadmium exceeding the three parts per billion standard.

What Are Arsenic and Cadmium?

Arsenic is a naturally occurring tasteless, colorless, and odorless, chemical element that can be found in the environment, including in food and water, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The element persists in the environment and does not deteriorate.

The  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a 10 parts per billion (ppb), or 10 microgram/liter standard for arsenic in public drinking water in 2001, replacing the old standard of 50 microgram/liter.

However, long-term exposure to high levels of arsenic can result in skin disorders, an increased risk for diabetes, high blood pressure, and several types of cancer, according to the CDC.

Cadmium, meanwhile, is another naturally occurring element used in products such as batteries, pigments, metal coatings, and plastics but also found in plant and animal foods, according to the CDC.

When consumed in large amounts, cadmium can cause stomach issues and when inhaled at high levels, it can lead to lung damage or death. Cadmium is considered a cancer-causing agent.

“Exposure to low levels of cadmium in air, food, water, and particularly in tobacco smoke over time may build up cadmium in the kidneys and cause kidney disease and fragile bones,” the CDC notes.

Fruit Juices, Plant-Based Milks Contain Higher Levels

In total, 7 of the 25 elements measured by researchers in their study exceeded drinking water standards in some of the drinks, including nickel, manganese, boron, cadmium, strontium, arsenic, and selenium, while lead was detected in more than 93 percent of the 60 samples, although the majority contained levels below one part per billion.

The highest level (6.3 micrograms/kg) was found in a lime sports drink, though that is still below standards for drinking water set by the EPA and the World Health Organization.

Overall, mixed fruit juices and plant-based milks, including oat and almond milk, contained higher levels of toxic metals than other drinks analyzed in the study, researchers said.

Researchers did not identify the specific brands they studied but noted that they can be purchased at local supermarkets and retail stores.

The findings of the study, titled, “Toxic metals and essential elements contents in commercially available fruit juices and other non-alcoholic beverages from the United States,” were published in the Journal of Food Composition and Analysis.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toxic cancer-causing 'forever chemicals' found in ALL contact lenses tested by scientists — as experts fear they do not know the long term effects

By Caitlin Tilley, Health Reporter For Dailymail.Com

Updated: 19:59 BST, 12 May 2023

Toxic, cancer-causing 'forever chemicals' were found in all contact lenses tested by scientists, a study finds.

Researchers from a number of American universities including North Carolina State University tested 18 different pairs of soft contact lenses at an EPA-certified lab to see if they contained PFAS, also known as forever chemicals.

Every pair of the lenses can back with levels of organic flourine, which is a marker for PFAS.

These chemicals have been found in almost every type of consumer good, including pots and pans, makeup, menstrual products and even carpets.

Researchers are unclear on the risks of wearing them in your eyes, but PFAS is linked to a host of health issues, including fertility problems, liver damage and cancer.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

EPA approves chlormequat chloride pesticide for wheat, barley and oat crops, putting human and mammalian reproduction at risk

Friday, May 12, 2023 by: Lance D Johnson

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is facilitating a new chemical experiment across wheat, barley and oat crops in the United States. For the first time ever, the EPA approved widespread application of chlormequat chloride — a pesticide/growth retardant that has a toxic profile for birds, mammals, and human reproduction.

According to the National Institutes of Health, chlormequat chloride was listed in the EPA’s Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS) Chemical Profiles and Emergency First Aid Guides back in 1998. It is listed as an organic chloride salt and a quaternary ammonium salt that “appears as white crystals with a fishlike odor.” The chemical functions as a growth regulator, forcing plants to produce sturdier, thicker stalks. The chemical will disrupt hormones and change the growth patterns of the plants, limiting the bending and breaking of the grain stalks.

Chlormequat harms fetal and postnatal development, fertility

Since 1962, chlormequat chloride has been used in greenhouses to control the growth of ornamental flowers and boost their continuity, but it has been restricted from widespread use on food crops, due to its toxic profile. Now, it will be used across the agricultural sector to boost wheat, barley, oat, and triticale production in the US, but this will come at a cost for both ecology and human health.

Dr. Phil Landrigan, a professor of public health and epidemiologist at Boston College, called out the EPA for failing to execute their “legal duty to protect infants and children against the toxic effects of pesticides.” Landrigan said the EPA “appears not to have taken that responsibility seriously.” Chlormequat residues will now multiply in the food supply and contaminate the groundwater.


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Camp Lejeune veterans have 70% greater risk of Parkinson’s disease, VA study finds

The study compared Camp Lejeune veterans from the 1970s and 1980s with those stationed at Camp Pendleton, California.

By Max Hauptman | Published May 15, 2023 6:34 PM EDT

or almost four decades, the ground water at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina was polluted with a toxic chemical used to degrease metal parts, dry clean clothes and even decaffeinate coffee.

In the years since, Marines and others based at Lejeune during at least ten of those years have developed Parkinson’s disease — a neurological disorder associated with exposure to that chemical — at a rate 70% than service members at other installations , according to a study funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and published May 15 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. 

The government has long known that the drinking water at Camp Lejeune was contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) as well as tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and other chemicals from 1953 until 1987. 

“Wells that provided water to the base during this period were contaminated by on-base sources, including leaking underground storage tanks, industrial spills, and waste disposal sites (largely TCE) and an off-base dry cleaning businesses (largely PCE),” wrote the authors of the study.

The base’s contaminated wells were eventually shut down when testing revealed the presence of the carcinogenic chemicals. As many as a million service members, civilian staff and family members may have been exposed to contaminated water to some degree, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biowarfare Through the Food Supply

Global Research, May 18, 2023

Dr. Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), and Beth Ellikidis, vice president of agriculture and environment at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), argue for the genetic engineering of food. Both are connected to Bill Gates and other Great Resetters that are pushing to replace all natural foods with patentable, genetically modified foods

BIO, the world’s largest GMO trade organization, represents more than 1,000 pesticide, pharmaceutical and biotech companies in more than 30 countries. BIO claims genetic engineering is the solution to heal, fuel and feed the world, and to that end, it lobbies 15 different policy areas, including food, agriculture, and health care policy.

In 2004, BIO launched BIO Ventures for Global Health (BVGH), a nonprofit organization that “develops and manages programs across the for-profit and non-profit sectors to accelerate research and development for poverty-related diseases.” BVGH was launched with a $1 million start-up grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

In 2018, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spun off a nonprofit subsidiary to the foundation called the Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute (Gates MRI), which develops biotechnologies to address health problems in poor countries.

BIO is partnered with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), and the DOD specifically funds and provides technology transfers for the diseases that Gates MRI and BVGH are focused on: malaria, tuberculosis and Ebola.


In an April 17, 2023, opinion piece in STAT News,1 Dr. Peter Lurie and Beth Ellikidis argue for the genetic engineering of food, claiming “newer technologies can make highly targeted changes at the base-pair level — one specific rung on the DNA ladder — enhancing precision and reducing the likelihood of ‘off-target effects’ in which the base pairs are unintentionally added to or deleted from the genome.”

While targeted genetic engineering is indeed possible, and modern technology lowers the likelihood of unintentional additions or deletions, this precision does not guarantee there won’t be adverse effects. One of the reasons for this is because many genes are multifunctional and can have multiple downstream effects.2,3

By altering a single gene, you can inadvertently affect the expression of hundreds of others. What’s more, the multifunctionality of genes is rarely intuitive. So, while it may seem convenient to genetically engineer cows without horns to prevent injury to other cows and farmhands, as suggested by Lurie and Ellikidis, there’s no telling what that tweak might do to internal organs or biological pathways.

In turn, there’s no guarantee that cascading effects will not alter the nutrition of the meat or dairy that comes from that cow. Maybe it’ll be fine, maybe it won’t. The problem is that, oftentimes with genetically engineered foods, safety testing is minimal or absent.

Who Do Lurie and Ellikidis Answer To?

When assessing the trustworthiness of people, it can be worthwhile to look at their funding and various partnerships. In the case of Lurie and Ellikidis, both are in league with Bill Gates and other Great Resetters that are pushing to replace all natural foods with patentable, genetically modified foods. 

Lurie — a former FDA associate commissioner — is the president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). In the summer of 2020, Lurie launched a comprehensive campaign to put Mercola.com out of business by sending the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission after us based on bogus charges.

CSPI is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund, Bloomberg Philanthropies and other billionaire-owned foundations. It’s also partnered with the Cornell Alliance for Science, a “global communications initiative” whose primary funding comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Greg Jaffe, who heads up CSPI’s Biotechnology Project, is also the associate director of legal affairs at Alliance for Science.

Considering those ties, the CSPI’s long history of promoting industry science and propaganda is not surprising in the least. They supported artificial sweeteners, trans fats, GMOs, fake meat and the low-fat myth. They’ve also actively undermined transparency in labeling efforts.

Ellikidis, meanwhile, is the vice president of agriculture and environment at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO). She’s leading the “policy and market access strategies for BIO’s Agriculture and Environment section, which includes member companies developing and producing breakthrough technologies in food and agriculture.”4

BIO, the world’s largest GMO trade organization,5,6 represents more than 1,000 pesticide, pharmaceutical and biotech companies in more than 30 countries, as well as industry groups, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and other related organizations.

According to BIO, genetic engineering is the solution to heal, fuel and feed the world, and to that end, it has lobbying committees dedicated to influencing 15 different policy areas, including food, agriculture, health care policy, technology transfer and finance.

According to Open Secrets,7 BIO spent $13,250,000 on “pharmaceutical and health products” lobbying in 2022. For reference, only Pfizer and the lobbying group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America spent more.8

How Gates Sets Himself Up for Success

In 2004, BIO launched BIO Ventures for Global Health (BVGH),9 a nonprofit organization that “strategically develops and manages programs across the for-profit and non-profit sectors to accelerate research and development (R&D) for poverty-related diseases.”

BVGH was launched with a $1 million start-up grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.10 In 2005, the BVGH received another $5.4 million to expand the biotech industry’s role in the fight against neglected diseases.11 The Rockefeller Foundation is also funding the group.

Fast-forward to 2018, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spun off a nonprofit subsidiary to the foundation called the Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute (Gates MRI).12 Gates MRI, funded with a $273 million, four-year grant from the Gates Foundation, is focused on developing biotechnologies to address health problems in poor countries.13

It’s a convenient setup to say the least. On the one hand, Gates is funding the R&D of biotech products through Gates MRI, and on the other, he’s funding the acceleration, coordination and management of private-public biotech programs through BVGH.

One key area where the BVGH is being inserted to manage private-public programs is the “Cancer Moonshot” program, launched in 2016 by then-Vice President Joe Biden. Biden “reignited” and highlighted the program in 2022.14 As reported in a White House fact sheet:15

“Working with African Access Initiative (AAI) partners, BIO Ventures for Global Health (BVGH) will implement cancer research projects that are determined and led by African oncologists and conducted in collaboration with U.S. cancer experts.

Through its African Consortium for Cancer Clinical Trials (AC3T) program, BVGH will facilitate five research projects, build capacity to conduct rigorous clinical research at 50 African sites, promote African primary investigator’s research interests on the AC3T platform, and coordinate the implementation of observational clinical studies.

In addition to building AC3T sites’ research capacity, BVGH will map the regulatory pathway in five AAI countries. All clinical studies involving cancer drugs will include development of market access pathways by BVGH.”

Gates MRI, in turn, intends to “apply new understanding of the human immune system learned from cancer research to prevent infectious disease.”16 Conveniently, he’s got the inside track to all of that through the BVGH.

Biowarfare Partners

Partnering with the Department of Defense to Protect the Warfighter: Investments in National Health Security, Part 1 of 3 from BIO on Vimeo.

As it so happens, BIO is also partnered with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD),17 and the DOD specifically funds and provides technology transfers for the diseases that Gates MRI and BVGH are focused on: malaria, tuberculosis and Ebola.18,19,20,21

Not surprisingly, the DOD is also seeking to develop and adopt more mRNA-based therapeutics against other emerging biological threats22 — products that can be manufactured and deployed quickly.

One of the obvious hazards of public-private partnerships becoming more and more intertwined, as we see now, is that the government becomes less and less inclined to ensure the safety of these co-developed, co-owned products.

In a June 2022 BIO webinar, Ian Watson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for chemical and biological defense, specified that the agency will “safeguard” its industrial partners from various threats, including “foreign economic aggression and inherent marketplace vulnerability that are specific to biotechnology and biopharmaceuticals.”23

Does “market vulnerability” also include legal action by people injured by biopharmaceuticals that have been brought to market at warp speed? Judging by what we’ve seen during the COVID pandemic, it sure seems the U.S. government is doing everything it can to hide and suppress evidence of harm, so why would we expect any different in the future?

Are Foods Being Turned Into Bioweapons?

Getting back to the issue of food, just as medicine is being hijacked by the biotech industry, so is our food supply. Indeed, President Biden recently signed an executive order that makes biotechnology a key focus of every federal agency, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture.24

The transhumanist agenda is clear for everyone to see, and it’s being pushed on us from every angle, through food, medicine and national security. It recently came to light that the swine industry in the U.S. and Canada has been using customizable mRNA “vaccines” on herds since 2018,25 and to this day, there’s no research to prove the meat is safe for consumption in the long term and won’t affect the genetics of those who eat it.

Based on our experiences with the mRNA COVID shots, which more and more experts are starting to refer to as bioweapons, it’s not farfetched to wonder whether the use of mRNA in livestock might be a form of biowarfare against the public as well, this time through the food supply.

As reported by Dr. Peter McCullough,26 Chinese researchers have demonstrated that food can indeed be turned into a vaccine (or a bioweapon, depending on the antigen):27

“The nation’s food supply can be manipulated by public health agencies to influence population outcomes … Now an oral route of administration is being considered specifically for COVID-19 vaccination using mRNA in cow’s milk.

Zhang and colleagues have demonstrated that a shortened mRNA code of 675 base pairs could be loaded into phospholipid packets called exosomes derived from milk and then using that same milk, be fed to mice.

The mice gastrointestinal tract absorbed the exosomes and the mRNA must have made it into the blood stream and lymphatic tissue because antibodies were produced in fed mice against SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein (receptor binding domain) …

[G]iven the damage mRNA vaccines have generated in terms of injuries, disabilities, and deaths, these data raise considerable ethical issues. The COVID States project has shown that 25% of Americans were successful in remaining unvaccinated. This group would have strong objections to mRNA in the food supply, particularly if it was done surreptitiously or with minimal labelling/warnings …

These observations lead me to conclude that mRNA technology has just entered a whole new, much darker phase of development. Expect more research on and resistance to mRNA in our food supply. The Chinese have just taken the first of what will probably be many more dangerous steps for the world.”

Say No to mRNA in Your Food

Moving forward, it’s going to be extremely important to stay on top of what’s happening to our food supply. Many of us were surprised to realize mRNA shots have been used in swine for several years already. Soon, cattle may get these customizable mRNA shots as well, which could affect both beef and dairy products.

For now, I strongly recommend avoiding pork products. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding these untested mRNA “vaccines,” pork is also very high in linoleic acid, a harmful omega-6 fat that drives chronic disease. Hopefully, cattle ranchers will realize the danger this mRNA platform poses to their bottom-line and reject it. If they don’t, finding beef and dairy that has not been “gene therapied” could become quite the challenge.

Ultimately, if we want to be free, and if we want food safety and food security, we must focus our efforts on building a decentralized system that connects communities with farmers who grow real food in sustainable ways and distribute that food locally.

Legislative efforts are also needed. Bills that would be helpful in steering us in the right direction include the following:

  • The Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption (PRIME) Act28 This bill was introduced in 2017 and hasn’t moved since its introduction in the House. The PRIME Act would allow farmers to sell meat processed at smaller slaughtering facilities and allow states to set their own meat processing standards.

Because small slaughterhouses do not have an inspector on staff — a requirement that only large facilities can easily fulfill — they’re banned from selling their meat. The PRIME Act would lift this regulation without sacrificing safety, as random USDA inspections could still occur.

  • The Interstate Milk Freedom Act of 202129 This bill was introduced at the end of July 2021 as an amendment to the 2018 Farm bill.
  • Missouri House Bill 1169,30 which would require labeling of products, including food, that might “impact, alter or introduce genetic material or a genetic change” into the consumer.

Modern industrial farming has created a food production model that is not only unhealthy, but unsustainable as well. The reliance on GMO-derived products and the toxic chemicals used alongside them are destroying the environment and the public’s health.

To combat the encroaching influence of big GMO companies, I encourage you to support farmers and businesses that practice organic, biodynamic and regenerative farming. This food production model benefits both humans and the environment because it:


How can you play your part? The solution is actually quite simple — buy healthy, organic food. One of the best things you can do is to purchase your food from small-business farmers. To help you in your search, I recommend visiting these websites that point you to non-GMO food producers in your area:

I also urge you to support and donate to organizations like the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as they are leading the way to promoting regenerative agriculture and sustainable farming practices. By advocating the innovative campaigns of these organizations, you are contributing to the future of regenerative agriculture.


Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


1 STAT April 17, 2023

2 Globe and Mail January 15, 2005

3 Scitable, Pleiotropy

4 BIO.org November 14, 2022

5 USRTK BIO Key Facts

6 Pharma-IQ Top Pharma Industry Associations August 2, 2018

7 Open Secrets BIO 2022 Lobbying Expenditures

8 Open Secrets, Industry Profile: Pharmaceuticals/Health Products, Client Totals List

9 BVGH.org

10 Gates Foundation, BIO Launches BIO Ventures

11 Gates Foundation BIO Ventures Announces Grant to Expand Biotech Industry’s Role

12, 20 JAMA 2018;320(6):539

13 Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute

14 White House February 2, 2022

15 White House December 14, 2022

16 Nature Biotechnology July 6, 2018; 36:563

17 BIO.org Partnering with DOD to Protect the Warfighter

18 Return on Innovation Report, Registered Products Table

19 BVGH.org, BVGH FundFinder Featured Funding Announcement 2017

21 BVGH The State of Drugs, Diagnostics, and Vaccines for Neglected Diseases

22 BIO.org Partnering with DOD to Protect the Warfighter Video 1, 2:55 minutes

23 BIO.org Partnering with DOD to Protect the Warfighter Video 1, 6:35 minutes

24 White House Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology September 12, 2022

25 YouTube Global Ag Media 2018

26 Peter McCullough Substack April 7, 2023

27 bioRxiv December 20, 2022

28 HR 2657 PRIME Act

29 HR4835 Interstate Milk Freedom Act 2021

30 Missouri House bill 1169


  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prozac Is Unsafe and Ineffective for Young People, Analysis Finds

Health Viewpoints

new analysis finds that Prozac (generic name fluoxetine) is unsafe and ineffective for treating depression in children and adolescents.

Regulatory documents show that trial participants attempted suicide after taking fluoxetine, but these events were excluded from the final journal publication in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

I notified the journal of the new findings, but the editor refused to correct the record.

Prozac Approval

In 2002, Prozac (fluoxetine), manufactured by Eli Lilly, was FDA-approved for treating depression in children and adolescents based on data from two clinical trials.

The two trials were published in peer-reviewed journals in 1997 (Study 1) and 2002 (Study 2).

Both publications reported a small benefit of fluoxetine over placebo in young people with depression, and there appeared to be no significant safety concerns.

Subsequently, fluoxetine became one of the most prescribed antidepressants for children aged 8 to 19 and under in the United States and is among the top five most prescribed antidepressants in England.

Restoring Old Trials

An initiative called Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) has enabled researchers to “restore” old clinical trial publications by analyzing documents submitted to drug regulators by drug companies.

These analyses have revealed that serious drug harms are underreported or excluded entirely from medical journals.

Dr. Peter Gøtzsche and psychiatrist David Healy obtained regulatory documents (protocols and clinical study reports) from the UK’s drug regulator (MHRA) of the two fluoxetine trials that underpinned the drug’s approval in 2002.


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harvard Scientists Caught Taking Bribes To Publish False Research About Causes of Heart Attacks


Newly released documents reveal that the sugar industry bribed high-profile and influential scientists from Harvard University, paying them to publish fake news about the primary causes of heart attacks.

The Harvard scientists false claims significantly influenced public health strategies regarding nutrition for decades, and the results are still being experienced today.

The news was disclosed in a recent special report in JAMA Internal Medicine and has shocked the research community. If the experts are taking bribes and lying about the causes of heart attacks, what else might they be lying about?

In the 1960s, there was no obligation to disclose conflicts of interest, enabling sugar industry executives to collaborate extensively with the researchers in revising and refining their paper until it met their desired standards, all without the need to acknowledge their own involvement.

‘I thought I had seen everything but this one floored me,’ said Marion Nestle of New York University, who wrote an editorial on the new findings.

‘It was so blatant. And the “bribe” was so big. Funding research is ethical,’ Nestle said. Bribing researchers to produce the evidence you want is not.’

The fake research was published in a literature review in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1967.

It claimed that fat and cholesterol were the main dietary factors contributing to heart disease while disregarding evidence from the 1950s that linked sugar to heart disease as well.

According to the latest report, the review in NEJM was funded by the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), which is now known as the Sugar Association.

The SRF’s involvement in the study was not disclosed until 1984.

Dr. Mark Hegsted, a nutrition professor at Harvard, co-directed the SRF’s initial research project on heart disease from 1965 to 1966.

In the new report, Laura A. Schmidt from the University of California, San Francisco, along with her colleagues, discovered correspondence that revealed how Dr. Hegsted was commissioned by the SRF to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

Archives from the University of Illinois and the Harvard Medical Library demonstrate that the foundation established the objective for the literature review, provided funding, and reviewed drafts of the manuscript.

In 1962, an American Medical Association nutrition report indicated that low-fat, high-sugar diets might actually contribute to the development of cholesterol.

According to the new report, two years later, John Hickson, the vice president of the SRF, proposed a major program to counter negative perceptions of sugar.

Increasingly, epidemiological reports suggested that blood sugar, rather than blood cholesterol or high blood pressure, was a more accurate predictor of atherosclerosis.

Two days after The New York Herald Tribune published a full-page story linking sugar to various health issues in July 1965, the SRF approved “Project 226,” a literature review on cholesterol metabolism led by Hegsted and, among others, Fredrick Stare, another Harvard nutritionist with financial ties to the industry.

Nine months later, as Schmidt and her colleagues state, Hegsted explained that the project had been delayed due to the constant need to write counterarguments against new evidence linking sugar to heart disease published during that period.

By September 1966, according to the report, Hickson requested additional drafts of the literature review from the Harvard researchers, although there is no direct evidence of the Foundation commenting on or editing the drafts.

By November 2, Hickson had approved the latest draft as “exactly what we had in mind.”

The two-part review, concluding that the only necessary change to prevent heart disease was to reduce dietary fat intake, was published in the NEJM the following year, with no mention of the SRF’s involvement.

The journal did not require disclosure of conflicts of interest until 1984.

“The sugar association paid highly esteemed Harvard scientists to publish a review that focused on saturated fat and cholesterol as the primary causes of heart disease at a time when studies were starting to accumulate indicating that sugar is a risk factor for heart disease,” Schmidt said.

“That has had an impact on the entire research community and the direction it took.”

“For example, during this period, much of the messaging on how to prevent heart disease revolved around choosing margarine over butter, which has lower saturated fat content,” Schmidt said. “Now we know that margarine is high in trans fats, which contribute to heart disease and have been mostly eliminated from the U.S. food supply.”

“When manufacturers reduced fat, they added sugar,” she said. “We’ve lost a significant amount of time in evaluating how sugar affects coronary heart disease,” but it is impossible to measure the actual impact on public health over the last five decades.

Both large amounts of sugar and saturated fats are detrimental to health, and their effects are difficult to separate, according to Nestle. However, it seems reasonable to limit sugar intake to around 10 percent of daily calories.

Even today, industry funding continues to support a significant amount of scientific research, but journals and scientists are increasingly disclosing these funding sources, Schmidt noted.

“While we acknowledge that the Sugar Research Foundation should have been more transparent in all of its research activities, it is important to note that funding disclosures and transparency standards were not the norm at the time these studies were published,” the Sugar Association stated in a response.

“Moreover, it is challenging for us to comment on events allegedly occurring 60 years ago and on documents we have never seen.”

“The Sugar Association always seeks to further understand the role of sugar in health, but we rely on quality science and factual evidence to support our claims,” the statement concluded.


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are your body systems that are under perpetual attack by Big Food and Big Pharma

#1. Neurotoxins and carcinogens in vaccines, including Covid jabs, cause CNS disorders, immune system weakening, organ malfunctioning, cancer, and cognitive issues.

#2. Pesticides in nearly all conventional foods cause allergies, asthma, CNS disorders, cognition deficiencies, IBS, and cancer.

#3. Conventional gluten, often contaminated with chemical-based conditioners and bleach (when it’s white bread or white pasta), leads to constipation, chronic inflammation, and colon cancer.

#4. Your cognitive functions, including critical thinking, learning, and memory, are all affected by toxic food oils like canola, corn, and soy (they contain pesticides and can cause plaque to develop in the brain).

#5. Processed sugar (think soda), HFCS (high fructose corn syrup), and artificial sweeteners (aspartame and sucralose) cause mutation of cells (cancer), irritable bowels (IBS), and can damage healthy flora in the gut, affecting your immune system functions.

#6. Spike proteins from the Covid clot shots can clog the blood and cleansing organs, causing major stress on the heart, liver, kidneys, and even the brain. Spike protein prions can also cause immune system malfunction as the body is signaled to attack these virus-mimicking pathogens, wherever they end up (everywhere).

#7. Fluoride in tap water and dioxins in soil are prominent in America and can cause cancer, immune system malfunctions, and destruction of good gut bacteria.

#8. GMOs dominate over 80 percent of all conventional produce, including soy, corn, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets, and more. These genetically mutated versions of produce can affect the digestive system, the cognitive system, and cell reproduction system, leading to cancer and dementia.


  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Brian Hooker on Environmental Toxins, Causes of Autism and the Need for Vaccine Safety Studies

Global Research, May 30, 2023

Forum: Dr. Hooker, when did you first become aware of autism? How did you get involved with research?

Dr. Hooker: Growing up, I sort of knew what autism was. I remember seeing a movie in 1979, called Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love, about Raun Kaufman, a boy with autism. Through his parents’ intervention, he fully came out of autism. It was a really interesting movie. I can remember seeing that and just sort of tucking it away in my mind. But I didn’t really think about it much until my son received an autism diagnosis in August of 1999 when he was 18 months old. It was at his well-baby checkup when the pediatrician actually coded it as autism – I’ll never forget that day. And that’s really what launched my quest to understand what caused this; how can it be reversed, and what can we do about it. 

Forum: Where did you first seek out information about autism?

Dr. Hooker: I looked at research that was coming out of institutions like the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – and I was wholly dissatisfied. This bolstered my quest to find out, especially around autism causation, what indeed was the truth.

Forum: What were your initial findings about your son?

Dr. Hooker: I was astounded to find out that the vaccines that my son received contained mercury. The first vaccine he received at two weeks of age was for hepatitis B, and that contained 12.5 micrograms of mercury. Mercury is a neurotoxin, and there continues to be a contention that this amount doesn’t exceed the safe limits. But I did the calculation, and when my son was receiving these mercury-laden vaccines, he was exceeding the EPA and the FDA limits by over 80 times. I was very, very concerned about the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal that was used in many, if not most of the vaccines that my son received in the late 1990s.

I looked at what was publicly available and the prevailing thought was that mercury was responsible for neurodevelopmental disorders. And I also read the research coming out of the CDC. There was such cognitive dissonance there because mercury is neurotoxic. And looking at the dubious types of statistics on kids who received mercury, and those who didn’t receive mercury in their infant vaccines, it seemed very evident that the CDC was hiding something. 

And then a paper came out by an autism parent and an analyst, Sallie Bernard, confirming the mercury autism hypothesis. Ms. Bernard looked at all of the symptoms of mercury poisoning and she lined them up with all of the symptoms of autism. And there was such a strong overlap there that it shocked me. I was mortified because of what I had done to my son unwittingly, but it really challenged me to look further into this issue. And when I started my analysis, I was looking primarily at mercury in vaccines, and later on it expanded to the timing of the MMR – the measles, mumps rubella vaccine – and then I began looking at other vaccines as well.

Forum: When did the FDA start limiting the use of mercury in vaccines? 

Dr. Hooker: The FDA has never curbed the level of mercury in infant and childhood vaccines. The voluntary phase-out of thimerosal from infant vaccines was between 2001 and 2003 after a joint PHS statement (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) was issued asking for such a phase-down. In 2004, the flu shot — which in some cases still contains thimerosal — was added to the infant child schedule for 6 months of age and then each year thereafter. During the same year (2004) the flu shot, with or without thimerosal, was recommended for pregnant women in any trimester of pregnancy. Thimerosal has never been completely taken out of vaccines in the US.

Forum: Do we know which vaccines still contain thimerosal? 

Dr. Hooker: Some formulations of the flu shot, those in multidose vials, still contain 25 micrograms of mercury via thimerosal.  The CDC claims that 93% of all flu shots made in 2021-2022 were thimerosal-free.  However, they do not state whether that calculation is made per vaccine dose or per vaccine vial. Indeed, if this refers to individual vials, that would mean that up to 43% of all doses contain thimerosal.

Forum: What is the implication of increasing cases of autism despite the limitation of thimerosal in vaccines?

Dr. Hooker: I believe that vaccination itself is related to autism and that mercury is just one factor that can cause this multifaceted disorder. It should be noted that the vaccine schedule has expanded significantly since 2001 when the voluntary phase-out of thimerosal in some vaccines began. 

Forum: If the mercury in thimerosal is a neurotoxin, how does it cross the blood-brain barrier?

Dr. Hooker: I was astounded at the combination of detergents that are used in the manufacturing of vaccines. For example, different forms of polysorbate molecules actually poke holes in the blood-brain barrier. And that allows neurotoxins like mercury, formaldehyde, and aluminum to enter the brain of vaccinated individuals. There have been seminal studies that show when mercury gets in the brain of individuals in the form of thimerosal, its half-life is nearly infinite, so it’s really locked into brain tissues. It appeared to me that these vaccines were the perfect mechanism to inject mercury directly into the brain.

Forum: And can mercury be cleared from the brain? 

Dr. Hooker: Absolutely. We were very aggressive in finding ways to detoxify my son. But because of his genetic profile, those genes that he received from my wife and me, he had a really difficult time excreting any type of toxic heavy metals. It wasn’t limited to mercury, but mercury seemed like it was the worst offender. It’s the second most toxic naturally occurring substance on earth, bar uranium. And so we wanted to get rid of the mercury first and we were very intent on that. We did a process called chelation, and it very aggressively removed mercury from my son’s body. We also included other types of supplements that were helpful. These were over-the-counter things like glutathione and n-acetylcysteine which will actually enter into the brain and cleanse the mercury. And so we did that very aggressively probably from the time he was two years old until he was ten.

Forum: Did you see a difference in your son symptomatically? Was this helpful for him?

Dr. Hooker: Indeed, it was very good for him and I think that it really helped in terms of his challenges later on in life. Some children with autism have a horrible time with puberty and they become aggressive – they may become physically violent. My son can at times be self-injurious, but he has never really lashed out at anybody else. And during those years when you would expect this behavior because these children are in pain, some of that would ramify, but we never really struggled with that and it can be attributed to detoxifying his system. My son is very gentle and very, very kind. And we also saw that in his neurodevelopment while we were chelating him, we saw that cognitively. Even though he does not speak there was a light in his eyes. In some respects, it helped us to get cognitive. It also helped from a social-emotional perspective because we were taking him out of pain. We were removing neurological stress from his body.

Forum: What is the range of onset of autism? Some parents describe one day having a normal child, then after being vaccinated, within minutes, hours, days, or weeks, having a different child. Do you have an understanding of how often vaccination and autism are directly associated?

Dr. Hooker: There are several studies regarding how autism ramifies in young children. One type is called infantile autism where a child appears from birth to have the autistic condition. Then there’s regressive autism, where a child stops developing normally; these are children that seem fine and have eye contact, expressive and receptive language, and they have social and emotional interactions with their parents. And then suddenly there’s some type of cataclysmic event, and then rapidly after that they regress. 

There was a paper that came out of the University of California at Davis, The Mind Institute, which is a very prestigious academic-based organization that is focused on autism. The lead author was Dr. Sally Ozonoff and she found that by looking at developmental milestones in a group of children, and following them over time, that regression occurred in 80% of the cases. And that is a really strong number – showing that four out of five children have some type of event or something happens that initiates a regression. I would contend that many, if not most of those children who regress have sustained some type of vaccine or environmental injury. Although there are anecdotal reports, there’s not a lot of data, and it is a key area that needs further study.

Forum: There appears to be a growing emphasis on biomedical treatment of autism, what is the differentiation between a psychological approach and a biomedical one?

Dr. Hooker: There is the cognitive neuropsychological approach that does not consider other types of symptoms of autism except for neurodevelopmental deficits, social-emotional deficits, and things that solely focus on the neurological. The biomedical approach is different because it looks at what’s going on with the whole child. And many, if not most children with autism have other complaints, particularly gastrointestinal issues. This was actually put forward by Dr. Andrew Wakefield in the 1990s. And one of the things that he did that was very important was look at these gastrointestinal issues that were very unique in children with autism. People tend to associate Dr. Wakefield with his questioning the MMR vaccine, but perhaps one of his greatest contributions was the autism–gastrointestinal connection. And parents like myself, we were living through it. It seemed like my son’s gastrointestinal system was extremely unstable. He was going through constipation, diarrhea, distress, irritable bowel syndrome – so many different issues, including food sensitivities.

We started very early with biomedical treatment where we were looking at dietary interventions. My son responded very well when we eliminated gluten and casein from his diet by limiting his intake of wheat, dairy, and also soy. All of these interventions helped to stabilize his gastrointestinal system. On top of that, there was supplementation and chelation in order to get rid of toxic heavy metals. So this was more of a holistic approach that considered autism from a systems perspective – that we term as biomedical rather than neuropsychiatric. A lot of it is allopathic. We were fortunate to work with an integrated physician starting when my son was very young, and there are a number of effective therapies; chiropractic, naturopathic, acupuncture – there’s a real nexus. Underlying all of these approaches are nutrition and diet which are so fundamental in order to continue to heal the gastrointestinal system. It’s not a one-time thing; you just have to continue to keep the digestive system as stable as possible, and then that also helps to heal the brain.

Forum: What is the effect of mercury on digestion? Has that been studied?

Dr. Hooker: It’s actually been established that mercury toxicity will promote the overgrowth of candida yeast in the gut. It turns out that yeast is tolerant to mercury, whereas other intestinal flora are not. So when you add mercury to the microbial community, it responds by killing off those bacteria that are susceptible to mercury and allowing those organisms that are not susceptible to mercury like yeast to flourish. Also, some nasty anaerobic bacteria like Clostridia are tolerant to mercury. The gut biome is basically set out of balance when exposed to mercury.

Forum: It’s difficult enough to have digestive complaints, but intestinal disorders also diminish the ability to absorb the energy of food. Meanwhile, mercury is crossing the blood-brain barrier causing neurological symptoms, so really there are numerous fronts for the damage that is happening. Without a broad approach to understanding autism, an irrational focus dominates — on finding a single cause and a single cure.

Dr. Hooker: Absolutely. The causation of autism is so multifaceted — and there are so many different stressors. I’ve met individuals who have come up to me and said, my son or daughter never had a vaccine, yet they’re diagnosed with autism. But there are numerous toxins that pregnant mothers, infants, and our children encounter in the environment. If you’re close to coal-fired power plants, there’s mercury in the air because coal contains mercury. If you are close to manufacturing facilities or freeways, that can also be a risk factor. And then there are countless additives in our food with potential risks. We are increasingly exposed to glyphosate, which is associated with genetically modified organisms. There are so many insults to our children. And I think one of the ramifications besides just neurodevelopmental disorders in general, is this increase in autism. My son didn’t get vaccinated in a vacuum.

So there were other toxins that we had to consider. Not only were we getting rid of mercury, but he had a high load of antimony, which is in fire retardants that are applied to baby’s clothing and bedding. We had arsenic in our water, so we were looking at that. We lived in an area in the Pacific Northwest that had naturally high-occurring uranium in the soil, so we were concerned about that as well. Considering the toxic burden that these children were exposed to in the 1990s, and only increasing in this century, I think that the causes of autism are really multifaceted.

Forum: There’s some research connecting autism and acetaminophen. Have you looked at those studies?

Dr. Hooker: The connection between autism and acetaminophen has been affirmed just recently. I remember our pediatrician telling us, after a vaccine, if your child has a fever give them Tylenol. And it turns out that was the worst possible remedy that could be given. Acetaminophen also impairs sulfation, a process physiologically that actually tags and removes toxins. Sulfate groups attach to toxins directly, and that is how the body identifies them. It’s a coded tag for elimination through the renal system – or through bowels, hair, skin, and nails. If you impair sulfation, as Tylenol does, then the body doesn’t know that something is a neurotoxin and it will continue to circulate.

Forum: Are glyphosates problematic as well?

Dr. Hooker: Yes. Glyphosates are especially insidious. They become a surrogate for the amino acid glycine, they’re very similar in structure. And glyphosate gets incorporated instead of glycine. They appear especially in animal products that are rich in protein like pork products. Even in pharmaceuticals, there is sometimes a substrate of pork collagen. Because collagen is primarily glycine, it’s laden with glyphosates, which have been used so extensively. We’ve seen glyphosate in residues and foods, especially in genetically modified foods where they’re spraying massive amounts of glyphosate for weed control. We’ve seen it in vaccines and other biologics. There was a study that was initiated by Zen Honeycutt, and working with other researchers, she found extremely high levels of glyphosate in the MMR vaccine.

Forum: People continue to go to the garden store and buy Roundup and spray it around their houses, not knowing the risks.

Dr. Hooker: Absolutely. Roundup has been tied to specific types of cancers, and there was a well-publicized lawsuit regarding non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and its association with Roundup. There are now many lawsuits involving glyphosate and cancer, but yet it’s still readily available. You can go to your hardware store or your garden store, and you can pick up glyphosate. And not only is it used in genetically modified crops, but it’s also used in the drying process for grains like oats and wheat. When these crops are not quite ready for harvest, regardless of whether they’re GMO or not, they’ll spray glyphosate on them to hasten the ripening process.

Forum: When your son was diagnosed in the late 1990s, did you know about the incidence of autism? Has their been an increase since then?

Dr. Hooker: The incidence of autism has increased dramatically since the early 1980s. It was estimated as anywhere between one in 10,000 to one in 2000, at the highest level. By the time my son was diagnosed in 1999, it was one in 250. It had increased dramatically, almost tenfold in that short period of time. There’s a researcher from MIT, Stephanie Seneff, who looked at the exponential growth curve of autism. She started looking at these numbers twenty years ago, and her predictions have been verified. The latest autism numbers show that the incidence in the United States is one in 36 children, and I believe that’s one in 29 boys.

Forum: Is there an understanding of why boys are more susceptible to autism?

Dr. Hooker: Estrogen is protective against heavy metal toxicity such as mercury or aluminum poisoning, whereas testosterone is not. We’re also seeing a racial disparity. It’s actually more prevalent in African American children where the incidence now is one in 34. 

These numbers inspire many questions, but it also generates fear because if this exponential growth continues according to Dr. Seneff’s figures, in ten to fifteen years, one in every two children will be autistic – including 80% of all boys. Because the growth curve is potentially so dramatic, we’ll have a scenario in our society where you are autistic – or you taking care of somebody who is autistic. I remember thinking to myself, it’s going to taper off eventually and we’re going to hit some critical mass, but that has not happened. It does paint a very scary scenario.

Forum: There are those who say the increasing number of autistic children has to do with increased monitoring — there’s more testing and awareness. What would you say in response to that view?

Dr. Hooker: Autism is really hard to miss. When I take my son out to a restaurant, and with all due respect to him, he can’t place his own order or he’s not using utensils – it’s like missing a train wreck. Saying that it’s improved diagnosis revealing the number of cases is not only incorrect, but it also seems duplicitous. How could you really come to that conclusion? Particularly with 60% of all autistic children and adults not functioning independently without some level of lifetime care. There have also been studies, again from the UC Davis Institute, that showed over a 20-year time period that better diagnosing only accounts for under 30% of the true increase in autism. So the increase is being caused by something. There are toxic environmental factors, things that are injected, breathed, or ingested – that are driving this epidemic.

Forum: One would imagine that the CDC, aware of these increases for decades, would have some sense of where the problem lies and what the causes are. The rejection of the possibility that it’s environmental toxins including those in vaccines, suggests at a minimum, negligence. Would you agree with that?

Dr. Hooker: The CDC’S response is wholly inappropriate. I would go as far as saying that their negligence is criminal because they completely sidestep the whole issue of causation. They published a paper in March of 2023 on the autism incidence for children who were born in 2012. They look at the children until they turn eight years old, and then it takes about two or three years for them to complete their analysis, which seems excessive to me. But in that paper, there is absolutely no commentary regarding what’s driving the very stark statistically significant increase in the rates of autism.  

I worked with a whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson from the CDC. In his comment when I asked about autism causation, he said that the CDC was completely paralyzed regarding the question of autism because it always led them back to vaccinations. So because they could not ever consider that vaccines could be driving the autism epidemic, then they were simply not going to go there. And they were not even going to look at other factors. I mean, thank God that researchers outside of the CDC have actually looked at things like glyphosates and acetaminophen. At least that research is moving forward. 

Forum: Studies and reports on the MMR vaccine are extrapolated to generally confirm that childhood vaccines do not cause autism. Are these studies as conclusive as they are presented?

Dr. Hooker: There are myriad studies that attempt to indemnify the MMR vaccine, especially the CDC’s hallmark study from 2004 on the MMR vaccine and autism. The abstract concludes there’s no relationship between the timing of the MMR vaccine and autism in a cohort of children that they looked at in metropolitan Atlanta. But yet when you look at the tables, it shows something very different. Particularly for males and overall, for those children who received the MMR as infants. These children were significantly more likely to get an autism diagnosis than those where the children waited until they were at least three years of age. It’s right there in black and white and it’s statistically significant.

The authors state these higher numbers had to do with special education requirements, with those children who were already diagnosed with autism and had to get the MMR early in order to be a part of special education programs in the city of Atlanta. First of all, there’s no requirement that those children have to get the MMR. In fact, it’s illegal and goes against the  Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). And so first it was preposterous, and second of all, if that was the case, then they would see the effect in both males and females. It would be a consistent effect, but they only saw it in males. And when you look further, they saw it primarily in African American males. So it would not be a special education requirement that would drive that increase in the rates of autism. And this is one of the seminal studies that the Institute of Medicine uses to say that vaccines don’t cause autism, and it is terribly flawed. When you look under the veneer, along with what the CDC whistleblower exposed to me, it was also fraudulent. They actually hid results from the public regarding the effects of the MMR vaccine, specifically on African American children.

Forum: The New York Times reported on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential candidacy, and they used a few of these epidemiological studies to conclude that his questioning of vaccines had no basis. Yet they are all about the MMR vaccine and certainly don’t consider his other concerns about vaccine safety or environmental toxins.

Dr. Hooker: Yes. Many of these studies are designed not to find an effect. There are about 12 in total that I’ve reviewed; some of them were ecological, where you were just looking at population-based data. Some are what we would call cohort studies where you were looking at a population or a sample of children, some who received the MMR on time, and some who received it late. Others may have not received it at all, but each was designed not to find an effect. And one of the main studies was done by Dr. Christon Madson in 2002, and it appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. I went back and looked at the numbers of autistic children in that study, and the authors made simple errors – there’s an arithmetic inconsistency between the different tables that they provide.

In this often cited study from Denmark, they’ve got a variable amount of autistic children who were vaccinated versus children who are autistic and unvaccinated. And so it’s never quite clear exactly how many children in the study were already autistic who received the MMR vaccine – or how many did not receive the MMR vaccine – because none of the tables are consistent with each other. Also, there were two different types of MMR vaccines that were distributed in Denmark over the time period of the study, and there was never any type of control or allowance for that. Also, the study was funded directly by the CDC – an agency that is conflicted and appeared to be working overtime to minimize any type of relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Forum: It is unusual that safety studies aren’t presented in defense of vaccines.

Dr. Hooker: It’s very rare that you’ll find a safety study for a vaccine that used a true placebo control. When you do a study for the FDA for the approval for a drug or a biologic – and a vaccine is a biologic – then you need to make sure that you have two blinded groups in your study; one that receives the vaccine and the other group receiving a saline placebo. With vaccines, even with a double-blind study, the FDA has accepted different or flawed standards.

In the case of the Gardasil vaccine against HPV in women, approved in 2006, the control group received the same aluminum adjuvant that was in the Gardasil vaccine. So instead of having a pure saline placebo group, they had an aluminum placebo group. And this happened to be an aluminum adjuvant that had never really been tested. The results of this study showed 3% of the women in both the vaccinated and control groups responded with some type of autoimmune disorder. So they concluded there was no difference between the groups, and moved forward claiming there was no problem. But that certainly leaves a question: where did this 3% come from and what would the results be if the control group actually got a clean saline placebo?

Forum: With the growing number of recommended childhood vaccines, the possibility of side effects and damage grows. What is the number of vaccines that children are supposed to get?

Dr. Hooker: Well, right now there are 74 different individual vaccinations given to protect against 17 different diseases by the time they are 18, including COVID-19, which is on the childhood vaccination schedule for infants as young as six months of age. And I do believe that they’re approving yearly boosters now for the COVID-19 vaccine. I may be underestimating the number of vaccines, but by the time a child is one year of age, they’ve received 26, so the plurality – a very large portion of the vaccines – are given to infants.

Forum: Considering just how many vaccines are recommended, from numerous manufacturers, and how many batches there are with differentiating amounts of potentially toxic substances in them; what’s needed in order to make a better evaluation of their risks?

Dr. Hooker: First of all, I would make sure that there was always a saline placebo control. I think that that’s fundamental to any type of clinical trial or study. When you look outside of the realm of vaccines and consider the evaluation of other types of treatments, that is the norm. Yet with vaccines, there’s a willingness to skip this because there’s always an emphasis and scare that you’re delaying life-saving vaccines from children or adults. But it’s unethical to do so. Even with cancer drugs, there’s a placebo group in stage three and stage four cancer patients who don’t receive the drugs – in order to establish safety. Somehow placebos are appropriate for cancer research, but it’s not needed for vaccines. Public health officials are tolerating vaccine approval without double-blind safety studies – and are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

The other thing that I would do is make sure that these studies were long-term. We just saw how the clinical studies for the COVID-19 shots, when they were rapidly rolled out under emergency use authorization, lasted for a duration of anywhere between 10 to 14 weeks. So you do not know what’s going to happen with these patients long term if they receive a COVID-19 shot because they simply stopped following the unvaccinated individuals. In some cases, they actually got rid of their control group by offering the vaccine after 10 weeks, which appeared duplicitous to me. They essentially destroyed any type of longer comparison between individuals who received the vaccine and the control group who did not. I hesitate to ascribe motive to that, but it seemed like something was afoot there that they were possibly covering up. There were a number of questionable practices and hidden results. For example, we now know from previously unreleased clinical trial data that there were inferences from animal studies pointing to cardiac events and cardiac damage due to the COVID-19 shot.

Forum: Is there any indication that in addition to other concerns, the COVID-19 vaccination could initiate neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism?

Dr. Hooker: It’s very difficult to tell because an autism diagnosis comes later. Still today, the average age for an autism diagnosis is about 42 months or three and a half years. And so it’s difficult to know how these children will respond after getting an mRNA vaccine. I fear that it’s going to be very cataclysmic as these vaccinated children grow older. I also fear cardiac damage because repeated vaccination is associated with myocarditis and pericarditis in younger individuals. The age group that seems to be primarily affected by that is 16 to 19-year-old boys, and perhaps even slightly older males. I have not seen a robust study regarding cardiac damage in children, and that really scares me.

Forum: Is there research that confirms contaminants or metals in the COVID-19 vaccines?

Dr. Hooker: There have been studies that show particulates in the COVID-19 vaccine associated with the manufacturing process. There are also studies where they’ve looked at the vaccine microscopically, and I’ve seen some images that show particulate contamination which concerns me. Whether it’s naturally occurring or intentional, it’s just not good for you to have microscopic pieces of metal in something that is being injected into your body. 

It has also been established that the body can reverse transcribe the messenger RNA into DNA and that DNA can be incorporated into the human genome. So I’m really concerned about that. And I’m concerned for women who received the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy and for men and women who received it prior to conception. What are they passing on through their genes to an unborn child? So there are a lot of unanswered questions about mRNA, and the lipid nanoparticles accumulating selectively in women’s ovaries. It’s going to take years to be able to unravel this, not only due to possible contaminants but also the known components that are in the vaccines.

Forum: If a reporter approached you and honestly wanted to fully understand this subject before rejecting the candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., how would you recommend wrapping your head around this debate?

Dr. Hooker: I direct people to studies, of which Mr. Kennedy has a full understanding, that considers the entire vaccination schedule. There are three main studies that have been done on this and the incidence of developmental delays, neurodevelopmental disorders, autism, ADHD, sleep disorders, and speech and language disorders. 

The first study was done by Dr. Anthony Mawson. He actually did a series of two papers on the vaccination schedule and different disorders, including neurodevelopmental disorders. That paper came out in 2017 in the Journal of Translational Science. And he showed that autism rates were at least five times higher in the vaccinated group compared to the completely unvaccinated group. 

I did a follow on study with Neil Miller, who’s a medical journalist, that was published in 2020. It appeared in the journal, Sage Open Medicine, and we looked at vaccines during the first year of life. And what we found was children who received any vaccine in the first year of life compared to those that didn’t, were twice as likely to get a developmental disorder diagnosis. By the time they were eight years old, they were four and a half times as likely to get a diagnosis of asthma by the time they were eight years old. And then they were twice as likely to get recurrent ear infections. 

The third study was done by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Paul Thomas, who published their findings in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. They affirmed the results of Mawson and my results with Neil Miller using a different type of analysis where they were looking at the number of doctor’s office visits for these different disorders. Unfortunately, this last paper was retracted by the journal.

The journal said that Dr. Paul Thomas, a medical doctor, was biased toward finding an association between vaccines and conditions like autism. They retracted the paper after some months after it had been on the journal’s website. It’s completely unmerited.

These are the three studies where they look at the entire vaccination schedule, where we see definitively, statistically, and significantly – a relationship between the vaccination schedule and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism. 

If you don’t look deeper, you’ll only find the CDC website page that says, Vaccines do not Cause Autism. The only things that they present are weak arguments about thimerosal and the MMR vaccine. That’s all they’ve looked at in rejecting any other association. With a herculean leap in logic, the CDC applies this to the entire vaccination schedule. They focus on one component, they look at one vaccine, and then suddenly they take that and extrapolate it – and state that vaccines don’t cause injury. It’s just a logical fallacy. 

Forum: The vehement denial from the CDC is suspicious. How do you personally deal with the aggressive defensive approach to this topic?

Dr. Hooker: I want individuals who are genuinely questioning, who want to learn about this subject, to do a deep dive into the science on both sides. That’s a message that I want to make clear – and it counters the message repeated through the COVID-19 era. We were told to trust the experts, trust the science, and the scientists. Fundamentally, we need to question everything. That’s how things move along. If we were trusting science in the Middle Ages, then the Earth would still be considered flat. Science moves on and progresses because we question it, we test it, and we generate hypotheses. We test those hypotheses and theories and learn more.

I encourage individuals to look closely at the pronouncements that say that vaccines don’t cause autism. Consider the veracity and viability of the studies on both sides. Look at the completeness of the science saying that there is a relationship between vaccines and autism. And once you do that, the important questions and answers will begin to appear.



  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'forever chemical' cover-up exposed: Makers of toxic PFAs - found in everything from frying pans to clothes - suppressed studies showing chemicals may cause cancer and birth defects for DECADES, new report claims

By Luke Andrews Health Reporter For Dailymail.Com

Updated: 13:45 BST, 1 June 2023

Manufacturers of 'forever chemicals' tried to cover up the dangers they posed for more than 30 years, a new report claims.

Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, who reviewed dozens of company documents, found executives were first alerted to the health risks in 1961, but scientists said that they failed to raise the alarm until the 1990s.

Internal documents revealed chemical manufacturers DuPont and 3M were facing studies warning the chemicals, dubbed per- and polyFluorinated Substances (PFAS), could cause liver enlargement, poisonings and birth defects in children.


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

more big pharma shenanigans:

Baby Nicola died just days after her first birthday – one young 'victim' of a medical scandal that drug chiefs still deny happened... Will there ever be justice for the Primodos children?

By Ethan Ennals

Updated: 22:01 BST, 10 June 2023

Then, in the early 1980s, she read a newspaper report about other babies who'd been affected in similar ways. What linked the cases was an early home pregnancy test their mothers had taken called Primodos.


Britain's first at-home pregnancy test, where women could find out for themselves using a urine sample, was created 52 years ago.

It dawned on Jo that she too had been given the groundbreaking test in the form of two white pi

Today, she remains convinced that Nicola's health problems and untimely death were a result of Primodos. And she is far from alone.

Since those early reports, more than a thousand women have come forward to say they suffered miscarriages, stillbirths and that their babies were born with deformities after taking the test.

The tablets, containing high doses of female sex hormones, triggered a period if the woman was not expecting. If there was no bleeding, then she was pregnant.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

RFK Jr: Water supply is turning kids into trannies (just like Alex Jones predicted)…


Published: June 13, 2023

RFK Jr. definitely didn’t hold back when he discussed what he thinks could be the actual causes behind our country’s decline, and the first target he identified is our water supply. According to RFK Jr., he firmly believes that there’s a direct connection between our water supply and sexual dysphoria.

Remember, RFK Jr. is an environmental lawyer, and he was actually referring to a study regarding male frogs and a a common herbicide turning them into females.

Scientific American:

The bountiful fields of the U.S. are awash in atrazine. Some 36 million kilograms of the odorless, white powder are applied on farms to control grassy weeds. Some 225,000 kilograms of the herbicide fall with the rain each year, sometimes up to 1,000 kilometers from the source. All that atrazine may be having another effect: turning male frogs female.

As described in the March 1 Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, biologist Tyrone Hayes of the University of California, Berkeley, and his colleagues exposed 40 African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis) to 2.5 parts per billion (ppb) of atrazine in a water solution continuously for three years—a level below the three ppb allowed in drinking water by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a result, 30 of the frogs were chemically castrated, incapable of reproducing, among other impacts. And four of the treated frogs actually turned female, going so far as to mate with other males and produce viable eggs despite being genetically male.

Whereas another four of the treated frogs apparently resisted atrazine’s effects, the rest “lacked male reproductive behavior, had reduced male features, and severely reduced sperm and low fertility,” Hayes says. The key may be aromatase, a protein that spurs the production of the female hormone estrogen, causing originally male gonads to become ovaries and whose production is spurred by atrazine. Plus, the researchers used frogs bearing only the ZZ sex chromosomes of male African clawed frogs. In previous studies “if we got hermaphrodites, there was no way to know if they were males with ovaries or females with testes,” Hayes says. “By using all ZZ males we were assured that any hermaphrodites or females were indeed sex-reversed males.” Frogs follow the ZZ (male), ZW (female) sex determination scheme rather than the more familiar XX (female), XY (male) pattern in humans.

It’s truly amazing to hear a politician actually say those words out loud instead of bowing unconditionally to the left’s trans cult.


  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Is WEF & Bill Gates-Funded Apeel on Organic Produce?

Updated 7:17 PM EDT, Tue June 13, 2023

By Tracy Beanz & Michelle Edwards

The global elite, imperiously ecstatic about their oppressive reign over humanity during the COVID-19 pandemic, will not leave the world stage quietly. Still, there is no doubt they must be removed. With ongoing talk about the next, more devastating catastrophe, it is clear the sinister group of self-appointed saviors, self-serving NGOs, and corrupt career politicians intend to use this carefully crafted opportunity to expand their foundation of manipulation and control across as many facets of daily life as possible.

With a locked laser focus on measures deemed necessary to combat climate change, the evil-doers are ferociously targeting the overall health of humans, hoping to inject all people with contaminated and gene-damaging vaccines and toxic, synthetic foods. Thus, understanding that the United States already has corrupt systems in charge of overseeing the safety of our food and our health—the fraudulent mRNA COVID jabs endorsed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are one example—even organic food items deserve scrutiny.

With that in mind, how did Apeel, a bizarre World Economic Forum (WEF) and Bill Gates-funded food coating that makes spoiling fruits and vegetables appear fresh, become approved for use on USDA Organic produce under the name Organipeel? According to the Organic Consumers Association (OGA), the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) gave Apeel’s Organipeel the green light, “presumably based on citric acid being the active ingredient.” OGA explains that citric acid is a non-organic ingredient allowed in organic foods as long as it isn’t synthetic. Yet, OGA notes that citric acid is only 0.66 percent of the Organipeel formulation. So, what makes up the other 99.44 percent of Organipeel?

According to Apeel Sciences’ 45-page Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) submission to the FDA’s Office of Food Additive Safety on October 9, 2019, for Edipeel (the company has different names for Apeel, based on the application method), the main ingredient in the coating is monoacylglycerides extracted from grape seed. Apeel’s industrial extraction process uses several toxic solvents, leaving residues of mercury, cadmium, lead, arsenic, palladium, heptane, and ethyl acetate in the final product. Of concern, a November 8, 2021, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Review of monoacylglycerides (E 471) concluded that “the potential exposure to toxic elements resulting from the consumption of E 471 could be substantial.”

Additionally, a 2017 EFSA review warned of the potential presence of the carcinogen glycidol in monoacylglycerides. Significantly, in 2000, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recognized glycidol as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Yet at the same time, the global elites insist that an ingredient (monoacylglycerides) linked to a carcinogen (glycidol) is safe enough to eat daily after being sprayed on organic and non-organic produce. Like the draconian COVID lockdowns and mask mandates, Apeel’s shady deal makes no sense.

Besides toxic solvents being present in varying levels of Apeel that the FDA apparently generally recognizes as safe, OGA points to evidence in a 2012 issue of Diabetes Care titled “Diabetes: Have We Got It All Wrong?: Insulin hypersecretion and food additives: cause of obesity and diabetes?” Specifically, the issue states the obvious, noting in the first sentence that diabetes is “prevalent and chronic,” explaining that food preservatives such as monoacylglycerides are environmental compounds that increase insulin secretion in the absence of high blood sugar.

Meanwhile, as the sinister ones promote the use of toxic pesticides on foods cultivated from genetically altered seeds, livestock injected with mRNA vaccines, and factories growing bugs for human consumption as if it is expected to save the planet, Apeel, valued in 2021 at $2 billion, absolutely doesn’t deserve a free pass to invade our food. Indeed, there should be no looking the other way for Apeel and its current products, including its antimicrobial pesticide product, Organipeel. Often listed among the best-funded synthetic biology companies, in 2018, Apeel’s founder and CEO, James Rogers, remarked that his company would soon use synbio instead of extracting its ingredients from agricultural byproducts (grape seed leftover from juice, wine, etc.). The following year, Rogers, a WEF Young Global Leader 2020, celebrated the accomplishments of Jennifer Doudna, the inventor of CRISPR-mediated genome editing and a DARPA partner working on “unwanted genome editing.”

The ability of Apeel to quietly slip in to extend the life of foods, with no proof of preserving any nutritional value, should remind Americans of the many reasons to eat organic, local, traditional, biodynamic, and chemical-free foods. Eating local also significantly reduces food waste. After all, most produce loses at least half of its nutritional value by the time it reaches the store. Yet, a 2018 CNBC headline, “This Bill Gates-backed start-up is fighting world hunger by making your avocados last longer,” implies Apeel has embarked on a well-intentioned humanitarian mission. From all accounts, Apeel Sciences joins a long list of companies, most of which are funded by those promoting the Great Reset, who want nothing more than to make billions at the expense of the health and well-being of others.

With at least 76 patents filed and dozens granted, Apeel fails to incorporate the importance of wholesome, nutritious, organic, locally produced natural foods into its business model. Instead, the company unquestionably joins Gates, the WEF, and the other elitists determined to railroad those trying to live wholesome lives that don’t align with their bleak and dismal future while steering consumers away from the small, local business they are on a mission to destroy.

Currently sprayed on avocados, English cucumbers, limes, mandarins, oranges, organic apples, lemons, grapefruit, and mangos, those concerned about the presence of Apeel can check here to see what retailers carry food coated with the product and here to check suppliers. And for those still on the fence about the company, OGA, which is asking the OMRI to explain what’s in Organipeel and what led them to approve it—since they haven’t shared that crucial information—sums up its assessment of Apeel nicely, stating:

“Given everything else Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum expect us to swallow or inject, we can’t be too skeptical, but are the problems with Apeel on the same level as other food safety concerns?

Is it as important to avoid Apeel as it is to reject genetically engineered foods? Toxic pesticides? Factory-farmed animal products laced with livestock drugs, including mRNA vaccines? Indigestible insects? Lab-grown meat-replacements?

Our conclusion is that Apeel carries the same health problems of similar preservatives commonly used to extend the shelf-life of ultra-processed food. On that basis alone, our advice is to avoid Apeel, including the version used on Starr Ranch’s organic apples, known as Organipeel.”



  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urgent warning to parents as probe finds toys sold on high street can contain levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals 300 times over safe limit

  • Under UK legislation toys must contain no more than 0.1% of the additives 
  • Enforcement officers in Salford found toys containing up to 300 times the limit 

By Emily Stearn, Health Reporter For Mailonline

Updated: 11:21 BST, 20 June 2023

Toxic levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals are lurking in children's toys sold on Britain's high streets, a shock investigation revealed today. 

Tests on goods offered at outlets in Greater Manchester found they contained high rates of phthalates. 

Some were up to 300 times above permitted levels.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popular baby foods STILL contain toxic metals like lead, arsenic and cadmium linked to host of health issues, watchdog finds - and these products are the biggest offenders

By Emily Joshu Health Reporter For Dailymail.Com

Updated: 14:27 BST, 27 June 2023

Several baby food products contain higher levels of toxic metals now than they did five years ago, despite pressure on the industry to strip out the harmful contaminants.

An investigation by a consumer watchdog looked at 14 popular baby foods and compared levels of lead, arsenic and cadmium in seven of them to results from 2018. Products were chosen based on high levels of metals in the past.

Results showed that levels increased in three products, Gerber's Chicken Rice Dinner and Turkey Rice Dinner flavors, and Hot Kid Baby Mum-Mum Teething Wafers. 

Levels stayed the same in one product, Beech-Nut baby food sweet potato flavor.


  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What took you so long?


29 Jun, 2023 14:50

Popular sweetener to be labeled as possible carcinogen – Reuters

Aspartame has been widely used in the food industry for decades

A cancer research branch of the World Health Organization (WHO) is set to designate the popular artificial sweetener aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” next month, according to Reuters.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) will deliver its ruling on July 14, after reviewing 1,300 studies, the news agency said on Thursday. It stated the impending announcement had been leaked by two insiders.


  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2023 at 5:38 PM, Macnamara said:

What took you so long?


Quite. And panning out to look at this on a broader view, why does the science keep changing its mind so drastically? There would have been earlier studies to "prove" the safety of aspartame so it could go on the market. Yet we're supposed to keep faith in science and the food industry and believe that they have now got it right, similarly with other topics like climate science. Then anyone who questions this merry-go-round of ideas is castigated as a conspiracy theorist. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2023 at 6:09 PM, Campion said:


Quite. And panning out to look at this on a broader view, why does the science keep changing its mind so drastically? There would have been earlier studies to "prove" the safety of aspartame so it could go on the market. Yet we're supposed to keep faith in science and the food industry and believe that they have now got it right, similarly with other topics like climate science. Then anyone who questions this merry-go-round of ideas is castigated as a conspiracy theorist. 


well there's a whole conspiracy around how aspartame got past the regulators:

Donald Rumsfeld and the Strange History of Aspartame

Writer of words and music, author, educator, bodyboarder, orchardist and piano/keyboard enthusiast.
Jan 6, 2011, 07:13 PM EST
|Updated May 25, 2011


Yes, that Donald Rumsfeld, the "knowns and unknowns" guy who remarkably executed some of the worst decisions in American foreign policy and got a medal for it. I have been reading up on this strange chapter in the history of Donald Rumsfeld and have learned two things. One, the chemical additive aspartame is very potentially a cancer and brain tumor-causing substance that has no place in our food. And two, the reasons and means by which Rumsfeld helped get it approved are nefarious at best, criminal at worst. And by the way, that medal that Rumsfeld got back in 2004 was the Presidential Medal of Freedom, also awarded to Tommy Franks, George Tenet and that charming warrior L. Paul Bremer. Evidently, "Freedom" means the right to use your powerful friends in Washington to approve your company's dangerous substance for human consumption and make a fat bonus on the way out the door. So how did aspartame become legal? And more importantly, if it had been rejected multiple times over fears of brain tumors and cancer, why?

Dr. John Olney, who founded the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity, attempted to stop the approval of aspartame with Attorney James Turner back in 1996. The FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and that it violated the Delaney Amendment, which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause cancer. According to the top doctors and researchers on this issue, aspartame causes headache, memory loss, seizures, vision loss, coma and cancer. It worsens or mimics the symptoms of such diseases and conditions as fibromyalgia, MS, lupus, ADD, diabetes, Alzheimer's, chronic fatigue and depression. Further dangers highlighted is that aspartame liberates free methyl alcohol. The resulting chronic methanol poisoning affects the dopamine system of the brain causing addiction. Methanol, or wood alcohol, constitutes one third of the aspartame molecule and is classified as a severe metabolic poison and narcotic. How's that Diet Coke treating you now?


In the peer reviewed journal, Aspartame: Methanol and the Public Health, Dr. Woodrow Monte wrote: "When diet sodas and soft drinks, sweetened with aspartame, are used to replace fluid loss during exercise and physical exertion in hot climates, the intake of methanol can exceed 250 mg/day or 32 times the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended limit of consumption for this cumulative poison." The effects of aspartame are documented by the FDA's own data. In 1995 the agency was forced, under the Freedom of Information Act, to release a list of aspartame symptoms reported by thousands of victims. From 10,000 consumer complaints, the FDA compiled a list of 92 symptoms, including death. Dr. Betty Martini, the founder of Mission Possible International, works with doctors around the world in an effort to remove aspartame from food, drinks and medicine. According to Dr. Martini, aspartame has brought more complaints to the FDA than any other additive and is responsible for 75% of such complaints to that agency. More recently, the EPA found Aspartame to be a potentially dangerous chemical along with BPA, which you've no doubt heard a lot about in the news lately. Aspartame, not so much.

Martini says NutraSweet is a "deadly neurotoxic drug masquerading as an additive. It interacts with all antidepressants, L-dopa, Coumadin, hormones, insulin, all cardiac medication, and many others. It also is a chemical hyper sensitization drug so that it interacts with vaccines, other toxins, other unsafe sweeteners like Splenda which has a chlorinated base like DDT and can cause auto immune disease. It has a synergistic and additive effect with MSG. Both being excitotoxins, the aspartic acid in aspartame, and MSG, the glutamate people were found using aspartame as the placebo for MSG studies, even before it was approved. The FDA has known this for a quarter of a century and done nothing even though its against the law."


So how does Donald Rumsfeld fit in to all this? A little history:

In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors." The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved. Here's how it happened:

Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan's transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners' authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan's new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor.

One of Hayes' first official acts as FDA chief was to approve the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods on July 18, 1981. In order to accomplish this feat, Hayes had to overlook the scuttled grand jury investigation of Searle, overcome the Bressler Report, ignore the PBOI's recommendations and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals. Hayes left his post at the FDA in November, 1983, amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. Just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages. After Hayes left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position as a high-paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame. FYI, here's Rachel Maddow on Burson-Marsteller: "When Evil needs public relations, Evil has Burson-Marsteller on speed dial." Evil, thy name is chemical food additives.

Here's the kicker: When Searle was absorbed by Monsanto in 1985, Donald Rumsfeld reportedly received a $12 million bonus, pretty big money in those days. Also, while at Searle, Rumsfeld was awarded Outstanding CEO in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981)! Imagine that...

In my research for this piece, I compiled facts and quotes from some various sources in order to best elucidate this issue. I have done my best to include all of them here so you can check out all the evidence for yourself. Much thanks and respect to those trying to alert the public to this dangerous substance.

Here's the timeline of how things went down: http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm

Dr. John Olney's letter to the Senate in 1987: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6669992/Dr-John-Olney-Statement-Aspartame-l987

Dr. Joseph Mercola on America's Deadliest Sweetener: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/americas-deadliest-sweete_b_630549.html

Aspartame (Nutrasweet) Toxicity Info Center: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/

Check out the wonderful work and research of Dr. Betty Martini at www.mpwhi.com and view her latest piece on the link between Aspartame and birth defects at http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_causes_birth_defects.htm


Edited by Macnamara
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...