Search Results

Sleep is so important to the body in many ways. If you've found yourself feeling sleep deprived, it's important to remedy this issue for your immune system's sake! By Carolyn Hendler via TVR.org: "New research published in the Journal of Experimental Medicine shows that lack of sleep has a negative effect on the immune system and can cause long standing inflammation and contribute to inflammatory disease. The structure of DNA residing in immune stem cells, which produce white blood cells, is altered with insufficient sleep. When these immune cells increase in number instead of fighting infection as they are supposed to do, they can overreact and cause inflammation. While the connection between sleep and the immune system has been known a long time, this study was the first to show that hematopoiesis, a process where certain white blood cells called monocytes form, develop, and are primed to support immune function, is influenced by lack of sleep. This study begins to identify the biological mechanisms that link sleep and immunological health over the long-term. It shows that in humans and mice, disrupted sleep has a profound influence on the programming of immune cells and rate of their production, causing them to lose their protective effects and actually make infections worse—and these changes are long-lasting. Sleep Deprivation Genetically Alters Stem Cells, Causes Inflammation The study looked at blood samples, paying particular attention to immune cells, from 14 healthy volunteers who enjoyed eight hours of sleep a night for six weeks and compared it to blood samples taken from the same volunteers after being limited to only six and a half hours sleep for six weeks. Researchers looked at morning and afternoon blood samples during the fifth and sixth week of the study. The afternoon blood samples of the sleep deprived group showed an increase in circulating monocytes in the afternoon and evidence of immune activation with a higher number of immune stem cells in the blood. The changes that took place in the blood when the volunteers had a less sleep showed significant long-term changes in the activity of stem cells causing increased white blood cells and inflammation. Senior study author Filip Swirski, PhD said: The stem cells have been imprinted, or genetically altered, under the influence of sleep restriction. The change isn’t permanent, but they continue to self-replicate at a higher rate for weeks.7 Sleep deprivation caused a change in the stem cells whereby the process in which genetic material is turned on and off, otherwise known as epigenetics, appeared to be permanently altered. If the lack of sleep continues, the marks on the stem cells could continue to proliferate and lead to less diversity among immune cells, which may result in a poorer functioning immune system. Study on Sleep Deprived Mice Found Permanent Damage to Immune System A similar experiment was also conducted on mice. The mice were divided into two groups One group had uninterrupted sleep while the other only had fragmented sleep for 16 weeks. The mice who only had fragmented sleep were then given 10 weeks of uninterrupted sleep to recover. Immune stem cells and immune cells were studied from all of the mice in the different groups, uninterrupted sleep, fragmented sleep and recovery, with the results being consistent with the human studies. The sleep deprived mice not only had an increase number of immune cells, there was evidence of rewiring and reprogramming of the immune system that did not return to normal after the mice were allowed to regain uninterrupted sleep, which left the mice more susceptible to disease and increased inflammation. Our findings suggest that sleep recovery is not able to fully reverse the effects of poor-quality sleep. We can detect a molecular imprint of insufficient sleep in immune stem cells, even after weeks of recovery sleep. Quality Sleep Protective Against Heart Disease, Cancer and Dementia Cameron McAlpine, PhD, co-lead investigator of the study, pointed out that lack of sleep causes an increase in inflammation which, in turn, can cause a host of health-related issues including cardiovascular disease. Dr. McAlpine warned: It was surprising to find that not all clusters of stem cells responded to insufficient sleep in the same way. There were some stem cell clusters that proliferated and grew in number, while other clusters became smaller. This reduction in overall diversity and aging of the immune stem cell population is an important contributor to inflammatory diseases and cardiovascular disease. Marishka Brown, PhD, director of the National Center on Sleep Disorders Research, summarized: Sleep impacts optimal functioning of nearly every cell and organ in the body. The mechanistic insight from this study supports findings from larger population studies, which have shown that sleep can have a protective effect against a variety of conditions, including heart disease, cancer, and dementia." https://thevaccinereaction.org/2022/09/chronic-sleep-deprivation-causes-inflammation-affects-immune-function/

@livevitae states: "CALLING ALL TEA DRINKERS If you care for your health & want to be informed of your choices, read more & swipe through. Many of us health optimizers avoid drinking from plastic bottles (as much as possible), use BPA free products & avoid eating predator + farmed fish in the hope that we avoid eating problematic environmental toxins, xenobiotics & Microplastics, but unfortunately, it’s tough to avoid these days completely But knowledge is power, so you can make informed decisions and be aware of what you don’t know, and optimize your mind and body. Aka bio-hack One thing science is sure of is that plastic IN ANY FORM has no place in the body While the health effects of microplastics are still largely unknown, plastics are known to have hormone-disrupting effects, causing behavior, sexual, fertility, and energy production issues There is also evidence that potentially-toxic plastic nanoparticles may be able to migrate through the gut wall during digestion Whether they then enter the bloodstream is not clear yet, however (but it seems likely) especially considering that they’ve now been able to find it in the human placenta Another study demonstrated that nano plastic particles lodged in the brains of fish affected their behavior While we’re not fish, it’s indicative of future issues and logical to avoid WHERE POSSIBLE Silky tea bags are often made out of synthetics (nylon and plastic) Even though these may be “food grade” materials, they are not meant to be placed in boiling hot water Alternative options: 🫖Ditch single tea bags altogether 🫖Drink loose leaf tea 🫖Stick fresh mint and a squeeze of a lemon into hot water Be aware of what you put in your body and the PRODUCTS you use. They all have an impact - so get as close to natural as possible. 🙏🏼 @futureearth for the images Ryan ✌🏽🌞 PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

DID YOU KNOW that killing 99.9% of germs isn't necessarily a good thing? Oral Bacteria converts nitrates into nitric oxide - mouthwash can destroy this bacteria, which can raise blood pressure and cause a slew of other issues. Our guts contain bacteria, and keeping our guts balanced determines overall health outcomes. ✨️ A study published in 'Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology' supported the mouthwash oral Bacteria connection: Good bacteria in the mouth allows for the conversion of dietary nitrate—commonly found in vegetables—into nitric oxide (NO). That molecule, in turn, helps maintain healthy blood pressure levels. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324621.php What's the issue with mouthwash? These primary ingredients: ⚠️alcohol (dries the mouth and kills bacteria), ⚠️chlorine dioxide (bleaching agent), ⚠️chlorhexidine (antiseptic/allergen) ⚠️and formaldehyde (carcinogenic) 🚩These chemicals can destroy oral bacteria responsible for producing nitric oxide Another study: "Conclusion: In this study, frequent regular use of over-the-counter mouthwash was associated with increased risk of hypertension, independent of major risk factors for hypertension and several other potential confounders." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31709856/ Video from @thegreenhealthproject

A study, from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, found that Botox injections became the most popular non-invasive cosmetic procedure in 2020, with 4.4 million procedures performed. A simple Google search pulls up tons of articles insinuating that the procedure is generally safe (of course), but such a frequent procedure beckons the question: how safe is it, truly? Many people are unaware that Botox can, and does, affect the entire body. Which makes sense when you're injecting a neurotoxin. I personally have several issues with Botox, starting with the ingredients. Botox, quite literally, is an injectable drug made from a neurotoxin, botulinum toxin type A. This toxin is produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum. (You know, the bacterium that causes life threatening Botulism 😬) Botox ingredients include: 🚩Botulinum Type A 🚩Human Albumin 🚩Sodium Chloride Human albumin is a common protein in blood plasma which is produced by the liver. Sodium chloride is known to be poisonous itself, too, and is used in the dilution process. "Botox is supplied in a solid form. They come in capsules which have the botulinum toxin type A in them, so they obviously need to be diluted so it can be injected into the body. A saline solution (a sterile solution of salt and water) is used in the dilution process which is how salt (sodium chloride) ends up in Botox." https://cosmetbeauty.com/botox-ingredients/ When injected, Botox blocks signals from your nerves to your muscles. This prevents the targeted muscles from contracting, which can ease certain muscular conditions and "improve" the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles. 🚩Many studies have proven that botox can affect the entire body, including the brain. Repeat botox sessions, especially. ⚠️"For instance, some research shows Botox manages to make its way into the central nervous system ➡️ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150416094051.htm ⚠️Additionally, studies on rat found that when the active ingredient in Botox was injected into one side of the brain it could be found on the opposite side of the brain. Even Botox injected into the rats’ whiskers showed up in the brain. ⚠️A Swiss study on humans also found Botox affects the areas of the brain associated with the hands. This is because the face and the hands occupy areas of the brain that neighbor one another. The researchers found that the paralyzing effect of Botox on the face inhibited sensory input to the brain in this area, thus altering brain mapping of the hands. ➡️ http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/multimedia/how-botox-affects-the-brain/37415610 ⚠️A study in 2011 found subjects with Botox injections were less able to read the emotions of others compared to those who had received different types of fillers for wrinkle reduction. Additional research suggests Botox also makes it more difficult for a person to feel their own emotions. In other words, Botox injections can hinder the ability to empathize, read emotions in other people, and even feel your own emotions. 🚩The consumer watchdog group Public Citizen found Botox was linked to 180 life-threatening conditions, 87 hospitalizations, and 16 deaths during a 10-year period. Because Botox doesn’t have much regulation, it is believed harmful side effects go largely under reported. 🚩Other adverse side effects from Botox that have been reported include difficulty swallowing, respiratory compromise, generalized muscle weakness, a drooping eyelid, pseudoaneurysm of the frontal branch of the temporal artery, flesh-eating disease, sarcoidal granuloma, Fournier gangrene, and abnormal curvature of the spine in the neck, and death from anaphylactic shock." https://www.neurolifecenter.com/2019/04/26/studies-show-botox-injections-impact-the-brain/

By Lauren Kirckoff What is gadolinium? Gadolinium is a rare metal element that is highly malleable and has a silvery-white appearance. It contains a high number of neutrons, which makes it an effective choice for MRIs, x-rays, angiography, computed tomography, and ultrasounds. When it is used as a contrast agent, technicians and doctors are able to see the internal structures of the body more easily so that issues can be identified. However, gadolinium can cause serious diseases if the body retains it. Since 2006, patients and physicians have been raising concerns about the safety of gadolinium, and it has now been linked to diseases, including gadolinium deposition disease, that can cause lasting harm to patients. Patients who have been injured by gadolinium have filed thousands of lawsuits across the U.S. There are currently eight gadolinium-based contrast agents that have been approved by the FDA, including the following: Prohance – generic name gadoteridol Optimark – generic name gadoversetamide Omniscan – generic name gadodiamide MultiHance – generic name gadobenate dimeglumine Magnevist – generic name gadopentetate dimeglumine Gadavist – generic name gadobutrol Eovist – generic name gadoxetate disodium Dotarem- gadoterate meglumine The symptoms of GDD may include the following: Persistent headache/ head pain Brain fog Bone pain Burning of skin Joint pain Skin discoloration Tendons and ligaments that are thickened Sponge-like appearance of the skin caused by a thickening of subcutaneous tissues People may experience the symptoms for a short period of time, or they may continue to experience them for months. In people who have GDD, the headache that they get is described as a severe head pain that is different than other types of headaches. Brain fog refers to a mental confusion that may arise in the early stages of the disease. Sufferers of GDD also report a sensation of burning of skin that arises early in the disease’s progression. This may be experienced all over or be localized to the distal extremities or the trunk area. The bone pain and joint pain that is common with GDD is described as an intense boring-type pain. In the later stages of GDD, people may experience skin thickening and skin discoloration that are progressive PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

Hey there, I hope you're doing well! I wanted to make sure you were aware of an exciting announcement that I have not publicly broadcasted here on my website... MY NEW SHOP! (Currently shipping within the United States only) I have been creating herbal supplements for myself and family for over a decade, and have decided to share these gifts with the world. Many of these recipes are used by my family on a regular basis - their healing benefits are profound! I have several medicinal oils and oxymels for sale, as well as many more healing tinctures to come! Here's a brief overview of current products in stock: Liquid Garlic Gold. This soothing garlic oil is fabulous for multiple purposes. Garlic is well-known for its antibacterial, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. 'Allicin', a sulphur containing compound found in garlic, is also known to help with heavy metal detoxing. Immunomullein. This powerfully medicinal oxymel syrup is a combination of organic mullein leaves, raw honey, and raw apple cider vinegar. It was specifically designed to soothe, support, and strengthen the respiratory system. It's also fabulous for gut health and overall immune support via its antiparasitic and anti-inflammatory properties. Oregano Recue. This powerfully medicinal oxymel syrup is a combination of oregano leaves, raw honey, and raw apple cider vinegar. It was specifically designed to strengthen the immune system and fight free radical damage. It's also a fabulous antibacterial, antimicrobial, antifungal, anticandidal and antioxidant syrup. Serumly Obsessed. This organic brightening face serum was specifically designed for all skin types. Chamomile and calendula flowers aide in skin repair, while therapeutic grade rosehip seed oil and organic jojoba oil assist in skin regeneration. Organic carrot seed oil helps cultivate an earthy aroma, while simultaneously offering the skin a natural form of protection against the sun. Enjoy 8 - 14% off, as well as FREE shipping on purchases of $80+! Have a fabulous night and talk soon, Gracie

By Sylvia Britton via christianhomekeeper Disclaimer: The instructions I offer here in this post (and in all my posts about herbs and home remedies) are what I use personally at home. Of course the standard disclaimer goes: I am not a doctor and don’t prescribe medicines or herbs, this is just what we have done here for generations with great results. Here in the southern US there is a tree called the Sweet Gum Tree. Liquidambar styraciflua is a large tree that is valued for its pretty leaves and hard spiky fruits. Its the fruits that I am interested in because they are a source of shikimic acid which is the active ingredient in medicines like Tamiflu®. That’s right, green sweet gum balls can be made into a tincture that can help kill viruses in your body. Its right up there with Elderberry Tincture and Oregano Tincture. Be sure you pick the green balls, the brown ones are finished for the year and won’t make a tincture. They’re cute for using in crafts though. Here’s how its done: Pick enough green sweet gum balls to fill at least a clean, sterilized glass jar that has a tight fitting lid. Bust open each green gum ball either using a hammer or a hatchet. But be careful, they’re harder than you think! Once you get them busted up, put all the pieces in the clean glass jar and cover the pieces with any clear, at least 100% proof alcohol. I buy the cheapest vodka I can find and use that. Let this sit in a cool, dark place for about 6 weeks. It seems to take longer for sweet gum to give up its properties than other plants. After 6 weeks you can strain it and put it in dark amber bottles. It will keep forever. To use it, I take 1 teaspoon every 3-4 hours when I know I have a virus. I combine it with elderberry syrup sometimes. If the taste is objectionable to you, you could put the teaspoon of tincture in a cup of water or even tea and drink it. For keeping viruses at bay, I take 1 teaspoon in a cup of hot water each day during flu season. I have not made sweet gum tincture using glycerin, I have doubts as to whether the glycerin would be able to pull out the medicinal properties of the fruits. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Claude Nelson via AskAPrepper Some nuclear events are survivable. Much depends on the type of event and your proximity to ground zero. Event possibilities range from dirty bombs that may distribute radiation over a small area, to nuclear accidents and nuclear weapon detonation that create large amounts of destruction and contamination. Your first goal is to avoid nuclear fallout, so you should take shelter immediately following a nuclear event. Then, you must mitigate the exposure that you do receive. Stay informed of local recommendations for your area, but be aware that your local news reporting may be designed to prevent mass panic, rather than give the best advice. Harmful Effects of Radiation Exposure The harmful effects of radiation exposure are many and varied. Some effects go unnoticed, only to cause cancers months or years later. Before exposure and immediately after exposure, you should act quickly to prevent absorption and remove radioactive substances from the body. There are a number of supplements and compounds that can help you detoxify and prevent damage. Each acts differently and some, like Iodine, are specific to only one radioisotope, so plan to use all of these methods, or as many as possible, for best results. The Law of Selective Uptake One important principle in protecting the body from the absorption of nuclear isotopes is the law of selective uptake. Reduced to bare bones, it means that radioactive isotopes look like nutrients to the body, so if the body is deficient, it will grab hold of the isotope and use it in the body. You can prevent this absorption by taking extra doses of the nutrients. Iodine supplements protect against iodine-131, cesium-137 mimics potassium in the body, strontium-90 mimics calcium, Plutonium-239 mimics iron, and cobalt-60 mimics vitamin B-12. Your first line of defense it to be nutritionally sound and take supplements for these minerals or vitamin when exposure is imminent or immediately following exposure. We’ll talk about these supplements in more detail below: #1. Iodine A nuclear or radiological event can release large amounts of Iodine-131 into the atmosphere. This radioactive iodine is quickly absorbed by the thyroid creating problems for the body immediately or even years later. Researchers investigating the Chernobyl nuclear accident found that potassium Iodide reduced thyroid exposure to radiation with minimal side effects. Taking a dose of potassium Iodide or nascent iodine before the event or immediately after can fill the iodine receptors on the thyroid and prevent absorption of radioactive Iodine-131. Nascent iodine is the most bioavailable form of iodine for this purpose, but potassium iodide (KI) is often recommended as well. One dose protects the body for 24 hours. If exposure is ongoing, daily doses will be needed, follow the recommendations of local authorities. #2. Potassium Potassium supplements protect the body from exposure to Cesium-137, another radioactive isotope that is commonly found in the environment following a nuclear event. Since cesium-137 mimics potassium in the body, immediate doses saturate the body with potassium and prevent absorption of cesium-137. Rich potassium sources in the diet is a good first line of defense, but it may not be enough. Potassium Orotate is the best form of potassium supplements to use for radiation exposure. Follow dosing guidelines on the product you choose, since too much potassium can have ill effects. #3. Calcium and Magnesium Calcium and magnesium protect the body from absorbing Strontium-90. Supplementing with these nutrients has been proven to reduce strontium-90 absorption by up to 90 percent. As mentioned earlier strontium-90 mimics calcium, but these two minerals work together and need to be balanced, so for best results take daily supplements of both of these minerals. #4. Iron Some women take iron on a regular basis, but most men do not need regular supplementation. However, in a nuclear event, iron supplements can prevent the uptake of Plutonium-239. Take a daily iron supplement during exposure, but consult a physician about long term use. #5. Vitamin B-12 A fast absorbing vitamin B-12 supplement, such as Methylcobalamin can protect the body from exposure to cobalt-60. Cobalt-60​ is a product of nuclear reactors, so exposure could come from an accident at a nuclear reactor. It is also used in radiation therapy and could come from a spill or a dirty bomb. Take vitamin B-12 daily, following the label recommendations. #6. Dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) Dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) is a controversial sulfur compound that has been shown to actively detoxify the body and protect against the harmful effects of radiation. Animal studies show that DMSO protects DNA from breakage due to radiation exposure and guards against cell destruction. A Japanese study showed that even low doses of DMSO provide protection against radiation damage at a cellular level and can facilitate DNA repair. More research into DMSO is needed, but so far the results are promising. The FDA has not approved it’s use except for preservation of transplant organs and for cases of interstitial cystitis. If you choose to use DMSO, look for pure sources containing no other solvents, except possibly a small amount of water. #7. Zeolite Clay Zeolites clean the body of toxins and radioactive particles in the same way they clean the environment. Their porous structure and affinity for positive ions allow them to bind toxins and nuclear waste to them and remove them as they pass through the body. Zeolite Clay can be safely taken internally and was widely used for detoxification at Chernobyl. In addition to detoxifying the body, it is useful in removing nuclear contamination from the environment and can be used to mop floors and clean walls in contaminated areas. #8. Other Clays Bentonite, Fuller’s Earth, Kaolin, red clay, French Green Clay, and other clays are also effective at binding nuclear waste and removing it from the body. Clay particles are negatively charged, so positively charged radioactive ions are attracted to them. They can be taken internally or used to scrub down the body to remove external contamination. Clay’s are considered safe to consume, but be sure to purchase a pure, food grade clay. #9. Activated Charcoal Activated charcoal is useful for absorbing and neutralizing a number of poisons and toxins, including radiation. Studies show that activated charcoal is able to neutralize up to 70 percent of its weight in radioactive toxins. Other uses for activated charcoal include: natural remedy for dental infections, kidneys infections, ear infections, lowers blood pressures, water purifier and many more. #10. Papain Papain is a natural enzyme found in papaya fruit and known for its ability to reduce toxins. Studies in mice show that it helps exposed mice survive lethal radiation doses. Early research suggests that papain reduces skin reactions and other side effects following radiation therapy. #11. Bee Pollen Recent studies suggest that bee pollen is effective in preventing and relieving the negative effects of radiation therapies by boosting the body’s defenses and supporting natural functions and it could provide these same benefits after a nuclear event. #12. Beets Beets are excellent sources of antioxidants, which can help protect the body from the stresses of radiation exposure. They also help the body rebuild hemoglobin broken down as a result of exposure. Animal studies show that rats eating a diet heavy in beets had less effects after exposure to cesium-137. They were able to absorb and detoxify up to twice the radiation dose of the control group. #13. Cold-pressed Organic Vegetable Oils Olive oil, coconut oil, sesame oil and other healthy oils offer some protection during and after radiation exposure. Lipids in the oils offer protection to individual cells, lining the cell membrane and binding toxins before they can cause cell damage. Animal studies show that mice fed oil are protected from doses of x-rays ranging from 300 to 2,400 roentgens and can survive lethal doses. The recommendation is to drink ½ cup of oil as soon as possible after exposure. #14. Organic Germanium-132 Organic Germanium-132 is an ultra-modern mineral that increases oxygenation of the cells, supports the immune system and helps the body get rid of toxins, including radiation. Recent studies in the US and Japan have been experimenting with doses of 500 to 1000 mg per day for various medical conditions, but current recommendations in Japan are that exposed individuals take 100 mg daily of Organic Germanium-132. It is important to note that only organic germanium is recommended here. Inorganic germanium is highly toxic. In minerals, the term organic has a different meaning than in food and inorganic germanium is a completely different compound. #15. Prussian Blue Prussian Blue, also known as ferric ferrocyanide, is useful as an antidote for Cesium-137 when the radioactive isotope has been ingested. In the Brazilian Goiânia incident, researchers found that treatment with up to 10 grams of Prussian Blue daily removed up to 70 percent of the Cesium-137 from the body and reduced it’s effects accordingly. This is an experimental antidote for use only in cases of known exposure to cesium-137. #16. Organic Brewers Yeast Some sources recommend organic Brewers yeast for preventing the effects of radiation and helping the body repair after exposure. Give 5 to 15 mg to children and 25 to 50 mg to adults. For cases of known exposure, this dose can be safely doubled or even tripled. Other Recommendations During and following a nuclear event, nutrition and general health are vitally important. Eating fruits and vegetables containing high amounts of antioxidants will help protect the body from the harmful effects of radiation. Obviously, do not consume plants that have been exposed to fallout or grown in contaminated soil, but frozen, dried, freeze-dried and safe fresh produce are healthy and give the body systems a boost. For best results, each of these remedies should be begun immediately upon a nuclear event or exposure. Preparation is key. You should have these ingredients on hand before an event along with instructions on how to use them. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Brownstone Institute From the beginning of the March 2020 lockdowns for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the subject of natural immunity (also called post-infection immunity) has been neglected. Once the vaccination became widely available, what began with near silence at the beginning turned nearly into a complete blackout of the topic. [Editorial note: This article has since been upgraded to another piece chronicling 81 studies.] Even now, there is an absence of open discussion, presumably in the interests of promoting universal vaccination and required documentation of such vaccination as a condition of participating in public life and even the jobs marketplace. Still, the science exists. Many studies exist. Their authors deserve credit, recognition, and to have their voices heard. These studies demonstrate what was and is already known: natural immunity for a SARS-type virus is robust, long-lasting, and broadly effective even in the case of mutations, generally more so than vaccines. In fact, a major contribution of 20th-century science has been to expand upon and further elucidate this principle that has been known since the ancient world. Every expert presumably knew this long before the current debates. The effort to pretend otherwise is a scientific scandal of the highest order, especially because the continued neglect of the topic is affecting the rights and freedoms of billions of people. People who have contracted the virus and recovered deserve recognition. The realization that natural immunity – which pertains now to perhaps half of the US population and billions around the world – is effective in providing protection should have a dramatic effect on vaccine mandates. Individuals whose livelihoods and liberties are being deprecated and deleted need access to the scientific literature as it pertains to this virus. They should send a link to this page far and wide. The scientists have not been silent; they just haven’t received the public attention they deserve. The preparation of this list was assisted by links provided by Paul Elias Alexander and Rational Ground’s own cheat sheet on natural immunity, which also includes links to popular articles on the topic. 1. One-year sustained cellular and humoral immunities of COVID-19 convalescents, by Jie Zhang, Hao Lin, Beiwei Ye, Min Zhao, Jianbo Zhan, et al. Clinical Infectious Diseases, October 5, 2021. “SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies, and also NAb can persist among over 95% COVID-19 convalescents from 6 months to 12 months after disease onset. At least 19/71 (26%) of COVID-19 convalescents (double positive in ELISA and MCLIA) had detectable circulating IgM antibody against SARS-CoV-2 at 12m post-disease onset. Notably, the percentages of convalescents with positive SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses (at least one of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen S1, S2, M and N protein) were 71/76 (93%) and 67/73 (92%) at 6m and 12m, respectively. Furthermore, both antibody and T-cell memory levels of the convalescents were positively associated with their disease severity.” 2. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections, by Sivan Gazit, Roei Shlezinger, Galit Perez, Roni Lotan, Asaf Peretz, Amir Ben-Tov, Dani Cohen, Khitam Muhsen, Gabriel Chodick, Tal Patalon. MedRxiv, August 25, 2021. “Our analysis demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant for a symptomatic disease as well…. This analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.” 3. Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2 Despite Vaccination, by Kasen K. Riemersma, Brittany E. Grogan, Amanda Kita-Yarbro, Gunnar E. Jeppson, David H. O’Connor, Thomas C. Friedrich, Katarina M. Grande, MedRxiv, August 24, 2021. “The SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant might cause high viral loads, is highly transmissible, and contains mutations that confer partial immune escape. Outbreak investigations suggest that vaccinated persons can spread Delta. We compared RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) data from 699 swab specimens collected in Wisconsin 29 June through 31 July 2021 and tested with a qualitative assay by a single contract laboratory. Specimens came from residents of 36 counties, most in southern and southeastern Wisconsin, and 81% of cases were not associated with an outbreak. During this time, estimated prevalence of Delta variants in Wisconsin increased from 69% to over 95%. Vaccination status was determined via self-reporting and state immunization records.” 4. Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals, by Nabin K. Shrestha, Patrick C. Burke, Amy S. Nowacki, Paul Terpeluk, Steven M. Gordon, MedRxiv, June 5, 2021. “Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.” 5. Large-scale study of antibody titer decay following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection, by Ariel Israel, Yotam Shenhar, Ilan Green, Eugene Merzon, Avivit Golan-Cohen, Alejandro A Schäffer, Eytan Ruppin, Shlomo Vinker, Eli Magen. MedRxiv, August 22, 2021. “This study demonstrates individuals who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine have different kinetics of antibody levels compared to patients who had been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with higher initial levels but a much faster exponential decrease in the first group.” 6. Discrete Immune Response Signature to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination Versus Infection, by Ellie Ivanova, Joseph Devlin, et al. Cell, May 2021. “While both infection and vaccination induced robust innate and adaptive immune responses, our analysis revealed significant qualitative differences between the two types of immune challenges. In COVID-19 patients, immune responses were characterized by a highly augmented interferon response which was largely absent in vaccine recipients.” 7. SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans, by Jackson S. Turner, Wooseob Kim, Elizaveta Kalaidina, Charles W. Goss, Adriana M. Rauseo, Aaron J. Schmitz, Lena Hansen, Alem Haile, Michael K. Klebert, Iskra Pusic, Jane A. O’Halloran, Rachel M. Presti, Ali H. Ellebedy. Nature, May 24, 2021. “This study sought to determine whether infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces antigen-specific long-lived BMPCs in humans. We detected SARS-CoV-2 S-specific BMPCs in bone marrow aspirates from 15 out of 19 convalescent individuals, and in none from the 11 control participants…. Overall, our results are consistent with SARS-CoV-2 infection eliciting a canonical T-cell-dependent B cell response, in which an early transient burst of extrafollicular plasmablasts generates a wave of serum antibodies that decline relatively quickly. This is followed by more stably maintained levels of serum antibodies that are supported by long-lived BMPCs.” 8. Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells, by Kristen W. Cohen, Susanne L. Linderman, Zoe Moodie, Julie Czartoski, Lilin Lai, Grace Mantus, Carson Norwood, Lindsay E. Nyhoff, Venkata Viswanadh Edara, et al. MedRxiv, April 27, 2021. “Ending the COVID-19 pandemic will require long-lived immunity to SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated 254 COVID-19 patients longitudinally from early infection and for eight months thereafter and found a predominant broad-based immune memory response. SARS-CoV-2 spike binding and neutralizing antibodies exhibited a bi-phasic decay with an extended half-life of >200 days suggesting the generation of longer-lived plasma cells. In addition, there was a sustained IgG+ memory B cell response, which bodes well for a rapid antibody response upon virus re-exposure.” 9. Incidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection among previously infected or vaccinated employees, by N Kojima, A Roshani, M Brobeck, A Baca, JD Klausner. MedRxiv, July 8, 2021. “Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 were associated with decreased risk for infection or re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a routinely screened workforce. The was no difference in the infection incidence between vaccinated individuals and individuals with previous infection. Further research is needed to determine whether our results are consistent with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants.” 10. Single cell profiling of T and B cell repertoires following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, by Suhas Sureshchandra, Sloan A. Lewis, Brianna Doratt, Allen Jankeel, Izabela Ibraim, Ilhem Messaoudi. BioRxiv, July 15, 2021. “Interestingly, clonally expanded CD8 T cells were observed in every vaccinee, as observed following natural infection. TCR gene usage, however, was variable, reflecting the diversity of repertoires and MHC polymorphism in the human population. Natural infection induced expansion of larger CD8 T cell clones occupied distinct clusters, likely due to the recognition of a broader set of viral epitopes presented by the virus not seen in the mRNA vaccine. Our study highlights a coordinated adaptive immune response where early CD4 T cell responses facilitate the development of the B cell response and substantial expansion of effector CD8 T cells, together capable of contributing to future recall responses.” 11. mRNA vaccine-induced T cells respond identically to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern but differ in longevity and homing properties depending on prior infection status, Jason Neidleman, Xiaoyu Luo, Matthew McGregor, Guorui Xie, Victoria Murray, Warner C. Greene, Sulggi A. Lee, Nadia R. Roan. BioRxiv, July 29, 2021. “In infection-naïve individuals, the second dose boosted the quantity and altered the phenotypic properties of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells, while in convalescents the second dose changed neither. Spike-specific T cells from convalescent vaccinees differed strikingly from those of infection-naïve vaccinees, with phenotypic features suggesting superior long-term persistence and ability to home to the respiratory tract including the nasopharynx. These results provide reassurance that vaccine-elicited T cells respond robustly to emerging viral variants, confirm that convalescents may not need a second vaccine dose, and suggest that vaccinated convalescents may have more persistent nasopharynx-homing SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells compared to their infection-naïve counterparts.” 12. Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection, Jennifer M. Dan, Jose Mateus, Yu Kato, Kathryn M. Hastie, et al., Science, January 6, 2021. “Understanding immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 is critical for improving diagnostics and vaccines, and for assessing the likely future course of the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed multiple compartments of circulating immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 in 254 samples from 188 COVID-19 cases, including 43 samples at ≥ 6 months post-infection. IgG to the Spike protein was relatively stable over 6+ months. Spike-specific memory B cells were more abundant at 6 months than at 1 month post symptom onset. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells and CD8+ T cells declined with a half-life of 3-5 months. By studying antibody, memory B cell, CD4+ T cell, and CD8+ T cell memory to SARS-CoV-2 in an integrated manner, we observed that each component of SARS-CoV-2 immune memory exhibited distinct kinetics.” 13. Persistence of neutralizing antibodies a year after SARS-CoV-2 infection, by Anu Haveri, Nina Ekström, Anna Solastie, Camilla Virta, Pamela Österlund, Elina Isosaari, Hanna Nohynek, Arto A. Palmu, Merit Melin. MedRxiv, July 16, 2021. “We assessed the persistence of serum antibodies following wild-type SARS-CoV-2 infection six and twelve months after diagnosis in 367 individuals of whom 13% had severe disease requiring hospitalization. We determined the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S-IgG) and nucleoprotein IgG concentrations and the proportion of subjects with neutralizing antibodies (NAb).” 14. Quantifying the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 reinfection over time, by Eamon O Murchu, Paula Byrne, Paul G. Carty, et al. Rev Med Virol. 2021. “Reinfection was an uncommon event (absolute rate 0%–1.1%), with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time. Only one study esti- mated the population‐level risk of reinfection based on whole genome sequencing in a subset of patients; the estimated risk was low (0.1% [95% CI: 0.08–0.11%]) with no evidence of waning immunity for up to 7 months following primary infection. These data suggest that naturally acquired SARS‐CoV‐2 immunity does not wane for at least 10 months post‐infection. However, the applicability of these studies to new variants or to vaccine‐induced immunity remains uncertain.” 15. SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy, by Laith J. Abu-Raddad, Hiam Chemaitelly, Peter Coyle, Joel A. Malek. The Lancet, July 27, 2021. “Reinfection is rare in the young and international population of Qatar. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months.” 16. Natural immunity against COVID-19 significantly reduces the risk of reinfection: findings from a cohort of sero-survey participants, by Bijaya Kumar Mishra, Debdutta Bhattacharya, Jaya Singh Kshatri, Sanghamitra Pati. MedRxiv, July 19, 2021. “These findings reinforce the strong plausibility that development of antibody following natural infection not only protects against re-infection by the virus to a great extent, but also safeguards against progression to severe COVID-19 disease.” 17. Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine protection: A three-month nationwide experience from Israel, by Yair Goldberg, Micha Mandel, Yonatan Woodbridge, Ronen Fluss, Ilya Novikov, Rami Yaari, Arnona Ziv, Laurence Freedman, Amit Huppert, et al.. MedRxiv, April 24, 2021. “Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94·8% (CI:[94·4, 95·1]); hospitalization 94·1% (CI:[91·9, 95·7]); and severe illness 96·4% (CI:[92·5, 98·3]). Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.” 18. Immune Memory in Mild COVID-19 Patients and Unexposed Donors Reveals Persistent T Cell Responses After SARS-CoV-2 Infection, by Asgar Ansari, Rakesh Arya, Shilpa Sachan, Someshwar Nath Jha, Anurag Kalia, Anupam Lall, Alessandro Sette, et al. Front Immunol. March 11, 2021. “Using HLA class II predicted peptide megapools, we identified SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive CD4+ T cells in around 66% of the unexposed individuals. Moreover, we found detectable immune memory in mild COVID-19 patients several months after recovery in the crucial arms of protective adaptive immunity; CD4+ T cells and B cells, with a minimal contribution from CD8+ T cells. Interestingly, the persistent immune memory in COVID-19 patients is predominantly targeted towards the Spike glycoprotein of the SARS-CoV-2. This study provides the evidence of both high magnitude pre-existing and persistent immune memory in Indian population.” 19. Live virus neutralisation testing in convalescent patients and subjects vaccinated against 19A, 20B, 20I/501Y.V1 and 20H/501Y.V2 isolates of SARS-CoV-2, by Claudia Gonzalez, Carla Saade, Antonin Bal, Martine Valette, et al, MedRxiv, May 11, 2021. “ No significant difference was observed between the 20B and 19A isolates for HCWs with mild COVID-19 and critical patients. However, a significant decrease in neutralisation ability was found for 20I/501Y.V1 in comparison with 19A isolate for critical patients and HCWs 6-months post infection. Concerning 20H/501Y.V2, all populations had a significant reduction in neutralising antibody titres in comparison with the 19A isolate. Interestingly, a significant difference in neutralisation capacity was observed for vaccinated HCWs between the two variants whereas it was not significant for the convalescent groups.” 20. Highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, by Nina Le Bert, Hannah E. Clapham, Anthony T. Tan, Wan Ni Chia, et al, Journal of Experimental Medicine, March 1, 2021. “Thus, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals are not characterized by weak antiviral immunity; on the contrary, they mount a highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response.” 21. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell memory is sustained in COVID-19 convalescent patients for 10 months with successful development of stem cell-like memory T cells, Jae Hyung Jung, Min-Seok Rha, Moa Sa, Hee Kyoung Choi, Ji Hoon Jeon, et al, Nature Communications, June 30, 2021. “In particular, we observe sustained polyfunctionality and proliferation capacity of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells. Among SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells detected by activation-induced markers, the proportion of stem cell-like memory T (TSCM) cells is increased, peaking at approximately 120 DPSO. Development of TSCM cells is confirmed by SARS-CoV-2-specific MHC-I multimer staining. Considering the self-renewal capacity and multipotency of TSCM cells, our data suggest that SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells are long-lasting after recovery from COVID-19, thus support the feasibility of effective vaccination programs as a measure for COVID-19 control.” 22. Antibody Evolution after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination, by Alice Cho, Frauke Muecksch, Dennis Schaefer-Babajew, Zijun Wang, et al, BioRxiv, et al, BioRxiv, July 29, 2021. “We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination. These results suggest that boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.” Newer version reads: “These results suggest that boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines will increase plasma neutralizing activity but may not produce antibodies with breadth equivalent to those obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.” 23. Differential effects of the second SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose on T cell immunity in naïve and COVID-19 recovered individuals, by Carmen Camara, Daniel Lozano-Ojalvo, Eduardo Lopez-Granados. Et al., BioRxiv, March 27, 2021. “While a two-dose immunization regimen with the BNT162b2 vaccine has been demonstrated to provide a 95% efficacy in naïve individuals, the effects of the second vaccine dose in individuals who have previously recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection has been questioned. Here we characterized SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific humoral and cellular immunity in naïve and previously infected individuals during full BNT162b2 vaccination. Our results demonstrate that the second dose increases both the humoral and cellular immunity in naïve individuals. On the contrary, the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose results in a reduction of cellular immunity in COVID-19 recovered individuals, which suggests that a second dose, according to the current standard regimen of vaccination, may be not necessary in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.” 24. COVID-19 natural immunity: Scientific Brief. World Health Organization. May 10, 2021. “Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months). Some variant SARS-CoV-2 viruses with key changes in the spike protein have a reduced susceptibility to neutralization by antibodies in the blood. While neutralizing antibodies mainly target the spike protein, cellular immunity elicited by natural infection also target other viral proteins, which tend to be more conserved across variants than the spike protein.” 25. SARS-CoV-2 re-infection risk in Austria, by Stefan Pilz, Ali Chakeri, John Pa Ioannidis, et al. Eur J Clin Invest. April 2021. “We recorded 40 tentative re-infections in 14 840 COVID-19 survivors of the first wave (0.27%) and 253 581 infections in 8 885 640 individuals of the remaining general population (2.85%) translating into an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.09 (0.07 to 0.13). We observed a relatively low re-infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria. Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies. Further well-designed research on this issue is urgently needed for improving evidence-based decisions on public health measures and vaccination strategies.” 26. Anti-spike antibody response to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population, by ​​Jia Wei, Philippa C. Matthews, Nicole Stoesser, et al, MedRxiv, July 5, 2021. “We estimated antibody levels associated with protection against reinfection likely last 1.5-2 years on average, with levels associated with protection from severe infection present for several years. These estimates could inform planning for vaccination booster strategies.” 27. SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN), by Victoria Jane Hall, FFPH, Sarah Foulkes, MSc, Andre Charlett, PhD, Ana Atti, MSc, et al. The Lancet, April 29, 2021. “A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals.” 28. SARS-CoV-2 Natural Antibody Response Persists for at Least 12 Months in a Nationwide Study From the Faroe Islands, by Maria Skaalum Petersen, Cecilie Bo Hansen, Marnar Fríheim Kristiansen, et al, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Volume 8, Issue 8, August 2021. “Although the protective role of antibodies is currently unknown, our results show that SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persisted at least 12 months after symptom onset and maybe even longer, indicating that COVID-19-convalescent individuals may be protected from reinfection. Our results represent SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunity in nationwide cohorts in a setting with few undetected cases, and we believe that our results add to the understanding of natural immunity and the expected durability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immune responses. Moreover, they can help with public health policy and ongoing strategies for vaccine delivery. 29. Associations of Vaccination and of Prior Infection With Positive PCR Test Results for SARS-CoV-2 in Airline Passengers Arriving in Qatar, by Roberto Bertollini, MD, MPH1; Hiam Chemaitelly, MSc2; Hadi M. Yassine. JAMA Research Letter, June 9, 2021. “Of 9180 individuals with no record of vaccination but with a record of prior infection at least 90 days before the PCR test (group 3), 7694 could be matched to individuals with no record of vaccination or prior infection (group 2), among whom PCR positivity was 1.01% (95% CI, 0.80%-1.26%) and 3.81% (95% CI, 3.39%-4.26%), respectively. The relative risk for PCR positivity was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.28) for vaccinated individuals and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.21-0.34) for individuals with prior infection compared with no record of vaccination or prior infection.” 30. Longitudinal observation of antibody responses for 14 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, by Puya Dehgani-Mobaraki, Asiya Kamber Zaidi, Nidhi Yadav, Alessandro Floridi, Emanuela Floridi. Clinical Immunology, September 2021. “In Conclusion, our study findings are consistent with recent studies reporting antibody persistency suggesting that induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity through natural infection, might be very efficacious against re-infection (>90%) and could persist for more than six months. Our study followed up patients up to 14 months demonstrating the presence of anti-S-RBD IgG in 96.8% of recovered COVID-19 subjects.” PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By HealthFreedomIdaho What do peanuts and vaccines have in common? Well, you’re probably thinking that some people have allergic reactions to both, and you are correct. Peanuts cause the most common severe food allergy reactions. 1.5 million children in our country are allergic to peanuts. New York Times reports “PEANUT OIL USED IN A NEW VACCINE; Product Patented for Merck Said to Extend Immunity.” For those with identified peanut allergies, this is a heart-stopping headline. However, that was 1964, and the vaccine additive was called Adjuvant 65. That excipient, though not approved in the US, became the model for subsequent vaccines. Oil in water vaccine adjuvants have always been controversial because they stimulate an abnormally strong immune response that may lead to immune disorders and yet, they are used increasingly in our vaccines. The CDC schedule has increased exponentially, the sheer number of vaccines with adjuvants that injected into the immature immune system of our children has quadrupled. Now decades later, it’s not hard to imagine where the food/peanut allergy epidemic came from. Due to the popular assumption that “vaccines are good” very little research has been conducted to see if there is a connection between the increased adjuvant laden vaccine schedule and the exponential increase in food allergens. However, a 2011 IOM report does affirm that vaccine ingredients do indeed lead to the development of allergies.15 This study was largely ignored yet the escalating increase of children with food allergens cannot be ignored. The overall economic cost of childhood food allergies was estimated to be $24.8 billion per year (remember our cost is their profit). Is the rise of allergens ONLY linked to vaccinations? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Many un-vaccinated children suffer allergies. It is just one facet of the exponential increase in toxins our children’s systems that are becoming bombarded and overwhelmed. ( Two major laboratories found an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants in umbilical cord blood) Introduction to Peanut Oil Adjuvant 65 & Highly reactive immune response adjuvants On January 12, 1967, The New England Journal of Medicine published another report evaluating Adjuvant 65 for “human use.”3 The authors of the report, led by Robert E. Weibel, MD and Allen F. Woodhour, PhD, described Adjuvant 65 as follows: The adjuvant preparation consisted of a water-in-peanut-oil emulsion of aqueous vaccine employing mannide mano-oleate (Arlacel A) as emulsifier and aluminum monostearate as stabilizer.3 The desirability for maximal purity of antigens included in adjuvant formulations led to the development of a highly purified aqueous influenza-virus vaccine that has been tested both as aqueous material and incorporated into adjuvant 65 with excellent results.3 The authors wrote that their report aimed to describe… the antibody responses in children and in older persons to a highly purified bivalent influenza-virus vaccine in adjuvant 65 compared with those obtained with the purified and ordinary Sharples-concentrated aqueous vaccines. The vaccines were bivalent and contained only contemporary influenza A2 and B strains.3 According to the report, the clinical trials with Adjuvant 65-containing vaccines were performed at the Pennhurst State School and St. Joseph’s Children’s and Maternity Home in Pennsylvania. Both of those institutions cared for “mentally retarded” individuals. The “investigations” were undertaken with the “concurrence of the medical and supervisory staffs of the institutions and with the approval of the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children.” The participants in “Study 55” at Pennhurst were mostly adults, while those in “Study 63” were children.3 In her book The Peanut Allergy Epidemic: What’s Causing It and How to Stop It, Heather Fraser notes that Merck ultimately decided not to “pursue” Adjuvant 65 for use in vaccines licensed for use in the United States. She cites concerns about the emulsifier Arlacel A—that it “appeared to induce tumors in mice.”4 That new excipient, though not approved in the US, became the model for subsequent vaccines. ([1] p 103) It was considered an adjuvant – a substance able to increase reactivity to the vaccine. This reinforced the Adjuvant Myth: the illusion that immune response is the same as immunity [2]. The pretense here is that the stronger the allergic response to the vaccine, the greater will be the immunity that is conferred. This fundamental error is consistent throughout vaccine literature of the past century. According to a report by published in Clinical Microbiology Reviews by Sook-San Wong and Richard J. Webby of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, TN: Currently licensed adjuvants for vaccine usage include aluminum salt (alum) and the squalene oil-in-water emulsion systems MF59 (Novartis) and AS03 (GlaxoSmithKline). MF59 has been licensed for use with seasonal vaccines in the elderly in some countries, while ASO3 has been used in conjunction with monovalent preparations of inactivated 2009 pandemic H1N1 and prepandemic H5N1 virus vaccines.5 Oil in water vaccine adjuvants have always been controversial because they stimulate an abnormally strong immune response that may lead to immune disorders.6 Reports of squalene adjuvanted experimental anthrax vaccines were linked to autoimmune disorders in Gulf War veterans,7 although the U.S. Department of Defense continues to deny that squalene adjuvants were used in anthrax vaccines given to military personnel. GlaxoSmithKline’s ASO3 adjuvanted H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccine used in Europe and other parts of the world in 2009-2010 have been associated with narcolepsy, an autoimmune disorder.89In 2013, the FDA licensed the first squalene (AS03) adjuvanted H5N1 influenza A “bird flu” vaccine for national emergency stockpiles.10 In September 2015, the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to approve fast track licensure of a squalene (MF59) adjuvanted influenza vaccine for use in the elderly, but vaccine safety advocates voiced concern about lack of adequate scientific evidence the oily adjuvant has been proven safe for use in U.S. seniors.1112 The most commonly used adjuvant in vaccines in the United States is aluminum its neurotoxicity is has been researched and the impact is alarming. Childhood Food Allergies on the Rise A survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics highlights that prevalence of food allergies among children aged 0-17 years old increased from 3.4 percent in 1997-2011 to 5.1 percent in 2009-2011.2 Food allergies result in more than 300,000 ambulatory care visits a year among children under the age of 18.1 4 In fact, food allergies are the leading cause of anaphylaxis outside the hospital setting.1 Today almost a 1.5 million children in this country are allergic to peanuts. Findings from a 2013 survey published in JAMA Pediatrics found that childhood food allergies result in significant direct medical costs for the U.S health care system and even larger costs for families with a child that suffers from it.3 The overall economic cost of childhood food allergies was estimated to be $24.8 billion per year. Direct medical costs amounted to $4.3 billion, costs incurred by the family totaled $20.5 billion and lost labor productivity costs totaled $0.77 billion annually.3 Our Cost is Their Profit. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, eight foods account for 90 percent of food allergic reactions: peanuts, tree nuts, eggs, wheat, soy, fish, crustacean shellfish and milk.1 4 5Research has also shown that children with food allergies are two to four times more likely to have other related conditions such as asthma than their counterparts.2 The Perfect Storm Brings A Wave of Peanut-Allergic Kinders in 1995 According to The Peanut Allergy Epidemic: What’s Causing It and How to Stop It. There were four events happened all at once leading up to 1990 so that in 1995 a wave of peanut-allergic kindergartners was sent to school for the first time. The events of that perfect storm are: 1. Vitamin K Shot The vitamin K1 shot became part of the general consent for treatment in hospital births in the mid-1980s. The injection was linked to leukemia in 1998, and the formula was changed in 2006. In both the new and the old versions, the popular brands of vitamin K1 contained a hefty dose of aluminum adjuvant to make a “depot” under the skin to slowly release the K1 over at least the next 2 months. The original formula contained castor oil, which is known to cross-sensitize immune systems to peanut oil. The 2006 reformulation of K1 replaced the castor oil with lecithin derived from soybean and egg. Due to the cross-reactivity molecular weights of soybean and peanut, soybean is sensitizing some babies to peanut and tree nut. That depot of aluminum is still in the infant body, churning out an IgE antibody response, at the time the baby receives the two-month vaccines. It is estimated that 4% of injected aluminum remains in the body for an indefinite period of years. 2. Bacterial Hib Vaccine The invention of the bacterial Hib vaccine and its subsequent licensing for use in two-month old babies arrived in 1990. Children under the age of two years were not responding to the Hib vaccine’s carbohydrate antigen, which led manufacturers to create the CDC schedule’s first “conjugate vaccine” which covalently bonded the bacterium to a toxic carrier protein that the infants’ bodies would recognize: either tetanus or diphtheria toxin. This new carrier toxin acted as an adjuvant, stimulating an immune response. Two vaccines hit the market in 1988-89 for 15 – 18-month-old babies. By 1990 the age of use had been dropped to two-month-old babies, and an additional two more vaccines were on the market, being administered at the same time as the DTP and polio vaccines. It is now known that the structure and weight of the Hib bacteria proteins are very similar to the structure and weight of the peanut protein, which leads to cross reactivity to peanuts and tree nuts. We are, essentially, creating anaphylactic babies in the same manner researchers create anaphylactic mice: administering a peanut-like protein fused to adjuvant bacterial toxin. 3. Combination Vaccines 5 in 1 By 1995 the countries of the western world were giving five vaccines in one needle for the first time. In the next three years there were 5,000 adverse reports filed in Canada, which is assumed to be only 10% of the actual adverse reactions. The effects of combining five viruses with multiple adjuvants and preservatives in one needle are essentially unstudied, though the Canadian Department of Pediatrics’ sheet on a five-in-one vaccine listed brain inflammation, convulsion, anorexia, infections, anaphylaxis, inconsolable screaming, and death as side effects. 4. Increased Vaccine Schedule Gov’t Demanded Compliance via statutes and marketing In 1992 the already-crowded CDC vaccination schedule added additional doses of combination vaccines, resulting in load upon load of aluminum and antigens being delivered to the bodies of two-month old babies. Prior to this time the vaccination rates for children four years old and under in the western world were between 55% and 65%. The 1994 National Vaccine Plan aimed for 90% compliance for all infants and spent $500M to achieve it. Vaccinations became a requirement for preschools and daycares for the first time. Canada, Australia, and the U.K. made the same changes at the same time as the United States. Vaccination rates were suddenly at a record high — all well over 90% — on a jam-packed schedule of aluminum-loaded combination vaccines. In the United States, emergency room records showed that from 1992-1994, 467 people per 100,000 were discharged from the ER after having experienced anaphylaxis. By 1995 that number had almost doubled to 876 per 100,000. By 2008 there were 1,000,000 peanut allergic children under 18 in the US and 2,000,000 adults. We are overwhelming the immature newborn immune system with this toxic soup. It is not difficult to take Ms. Fraser’s collection of data and extrapolate the effect those reckless changes had on the similar epidemics of autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, asthma, epilepsy, childhood diabetes, and more. This country needs to take a step back and learn from the gigantic elephant in the room, even at the expense of loosening the reins of public health policy and admitting the cost that the vaccination schedule has had in collateral damage. The most infuriating part of Ms. Fraser’s book is the light she shines into the dark corners of the “search for the cause” of the peanut allergy epidemic. She exposes the game of The Emperor Has No Clothes that has been played between pharmaceutical companies and the governments of the western world for at least the last 85 years. It is only acceptable — and, in fact, of utmost importance — to research a source of any epidemic as long as it is not vaccines, because the fact that vaccines are proven to be safe is unquestionable. Throughout her book she presents a painstakingly researched timeline and builds a convincing case of circumstantial evidence — the kind of facts that juries use to convict criminals every day of the week. ~ Robyn Charron Research Finds Vaccinations Linked to Development of Allergens In 2009, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services appointed the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to provide a review of medical and scientific evidence on the adverse effects of vaccines. The 2011 IOM report does affirm that vaccine ingredients do indeed lead to the development of allergies.15 The report states: Adverse events on our list thought to be due to IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions Antigens in the vaccines that the committee is charged with reviewing do not typically elicit an immediate hypersensitivity reaction (e.g., hepatitis B surface antigen, toxoids, gelatin, ovalbumin, casamino acids). However, as will be discussed in subsequent chapters, the above-mentioned antigens do occasionally induce IgE-mediated sensitization in some individuals and subsequent hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis.15 The effect of vaccine adjuvants and multiple simultaneous vaccinations also contributes to the development of food allergies. A report published in the Journal of Developing Drugs explains: Pertussis toxin and aluminum compounds act as adjuvants. These adjuvants are known to bias for IgE synthesis. Injecting food proteins along with these adjuvants increases the immunogenicity of the food proteins that are present in the vaccines. With up to five shots administered simultaneously, numerous food proteins and adjuvants get injected at one time. This increases the probability of sensitization.12 The 2011 IOM report does affirm that vaccine ingredients do indeed lead to the development of allergies.15 The report states: Adverse events on our list thought to be due to IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions Antigens in the vaccines that the committee is charged with reviewing do not typically elicit an immediate hypersensitivity reaction (e.g., hepatitis B surface antigen, toxoids, gelatin, ovalbumin, casamino acids). However, as will be discussed in subsequent chapters, the above-mentioned antigens do occasionally induce IgE-mediated sensitization in some individuals and subsequent hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis.15 These findings are now almost a decade old. Current research and discussion on the cause of food allergies has not addressed the effects of vaccines. This is an important area of research to pursue, given that the number of vaccines recommended in the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule has doubled since 1983. The popular assumption that “vaccines are good” is more than likely the reason why vaccination is not considered to be a factor when examining in the cause of food allergies. It is crucial for public health agencies and officials to explore this angle and focus efforts on understanding the impact of vaccination on the development of childhood food allergies among other health conditions before it’s too late. RESOURCES: https://vactruth.com/2010/07/15/non-disclosed-hyper-allergenic-vaccine-adjuvant/ Are Peanut Adjuvants in Vaccines Responsible for the Peanut Allergy Epidemic? http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/whats-really-behind-peanut-allergy-epidemic/ NEW YORK TIME ARTICLE INFORMATION: The vaccine was developed by Allen F. Woodhour, PhD and Dr. Thomas B. Stim over the course of six years as part of a partnership between the Merck Institute for Therapeutic Research and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, PA.1 According to the Times article, the vaccine was still under study at the time and had not been licensed for “general use,” although clinical trials had been conducted on 880 individuals, who had been given the killed influenza virus containing Adjuvant 65.1 A report published in The New England Journal of Medicine on September 3, 1964 described the “clinical and immunologic findings” of the trials on the participants, which resulted in the “development of a new and highly effective adjuvant, called adjuvant 65.”2 ([1] p 103) 1. Fraser, H, The Peanut allergy epidemic, Skyhorse 2011 2. O’Shea, T, Vaccination is not immunization, thedoctorwithin 2013 9. Technical Report # 595, Immunological Adjuvants, World Health Org. 1976. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Marco Caceres via TheVaccineReaction A new study conducted by researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and several universities and hospitals in the United States shows that the risk of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) after receiving a messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 biologic is 133 times greater than the normal risk for the condition in the general population. The researchers, who used data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), noted that, given the passive reporting nature of VAERS, the risk of myocarditis is likely to be even higher.1 2 3 According to the study: [A]s a passive system, VAERS data are subject to reporting biases in that both underreporting and overreporting are possible. Given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, underreporting is more likely. Therefore, the actual rates of myocarditis per million doses of vaccine are likely higher than estimated.2 The study, which was published on the JAMA Network on Jan. 25, 2022, evaluated the effects of Pfizer/BioNTech’s experimental BNT162b2 (“Comirnaty”) product and Moderna/NIAID’s experimental mRNA-1273 (“Spikevax”) using VAERS data collected from December 2020 through August 2021. A total of 1,626 cases of myocarditis were reviewed. Eighty-two percent of these cases were among males and the median age was 21 years old.1 2 3 The median time for the onset of myocarditis symptoms after vaccination was two days and 90 percent of the symptoms occurred within seven days after the second dose of the shot. The rates of myocarditis cases were highest (one in 9,500) after the second dose in adolescent males 16-17 years old and second highest (one in 14,000) in adolescent males 12-15 years old.1 2 3 4 The typical symptoms of myocarditis include: Chest pain Rapid or irregular heartbeat (arrhythmias) Shortness of breath, at rest or during activity Fluid buildup with swelling of the legs, ankles and feet Fatigue Other signs and symptoms of a viral infection such as a headache, body aches, joint pain, fever, a sore throat or diarrhea4 “Sometimes, myocarditis symptoms may be similar to a heart attack,” states the Mayo Clinic.5 Long-Term Prognosis of Patients Suffering Myocarditis Following COVID Shots Unknown The study found that about 96 percent of those who came down with myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination were hospitalized. Most of the patients developing myocarditis were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and approximately 87 percent them reportedly experienced resolution of their symptoms by the time they were discharged from the hospital.3 However, it is unclear whether these individuals, who appear to have recovered, will suffer any long-term health effects. The study noted: The CDC has started an active follow-up surveillance in adolescents and young adults to assess the health and functional status and cardiac outcomes at 3 to 6 months in probable and confirmed cases of myocarditis reported to VAERS after COVID-19 vaccination.2 As a precautionary measure, the study researchers cited guidelines from the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) advising that myocarditis patients should “refrain from competitive sports” for three to six months and that “documentation of a normal electrocardiogram result, ambulatory rhythm monitoring, and an exercise test should be obtained prior to resumption of sports.” Both the AHA and ACC recommend that those who have developed myocarditis after getting an mRNA COVID biologic should “defer” further doses of the product. They add that further doses “may be considered in select circumstances.”2 3 6 CDC Study Findings of COVID Shot-Related Myocarditis Risk Consistent With Other Studies Cardiologist Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, who has extensively researched the association between the mRNA COVID biologics and myocarditis, believes the latest CDC myocarditis study confirms previous similar studies by the federal health agency and others regarding the higher risk of the heart condition in adolescent males boys and young men after the second dose of the shots.1 7 8 9 10 11 The CDC study also reinforces data from an Israeli study reported on Jan. 26, 2022 regarding the increased rate of myocarditis in adolescent males 12-15 years old after receiving Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 biologic. The Israeli study, based on data from Israel’s Health Ministry, found that myocarditis occurred in one out of 12,361 boys within a week after getting the second dose of the shot.12 13 If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here. Click here to view References: ACC, AHA, American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, BioNTech, Biykem Bozkurt, BNT162b2, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Comirnaty, COVID-19, heart muscle inflammation, Israel, Israeli Health Ministry, JAMA Network, Marco Cáceres, messenger RNA, Moderna, mRNA, mRNA-1273, myocarditis, National Vaccine Information Center, NIAID, NVIC, Pfizer, Spikevax, The Vaccine Reaction, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Marco Caceres via TheVaccineReaction Since the 1960s, a number of vaccines have been manufactured using “human-diploid fibroblast cell cultures”—cells from tissue of aborted human fetuses.1 2 3 4 5 They include the following 11 vaccines listed on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary table: Adenovirus DTaP-IPV/Hib (Pentacel) DTaP-IPV (Quadracel) Hep A (Havrix) Hep A (Vaqta) Hep A/Hep B (Twinrix) MMR (MMR-II) MMRV (ProQuad) Rabies (Imovax) Varicella (Varivax) Zoster (Shingles – Zostavax).6 The aborted human fetal cell cultures are used for growing viruses, which are then used in the preparation of inactivated and live virus vaccines. Viruses for vaccines are also grown on other kinds cultures such as chicken embryos or from cells from different animals and bugs, such as army worms, but, according to the National Network for Immunization Information (NNii), “human cells are preferred because cells derived from animal organs sometimes may carry animal viruses that could harm people.”1 5 7 8 9 10 There are two specific human cell lines that are used in vaccine production. The first one is known as the Wistar Institute-38 or “WI-38”. The second is the Medical Research Council -5 or “MRC-5”. The WI-38 cell line was developed in July 1962 from “lung tissue taken from a therapeutically aborted [female] fetus of about 3 months gestational age.” The MRC-5 cell line was developed September 1966 from “lung tissue taken from a 14 week [male] fetus aborted for psychiatric reason from a 27 year old physically healthy woman.”3 4 According to Joseph Mercola, DO, WI-38 and MRC-5 are the two “primary cell cultures” that have been used to make hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines for more than half a century.10 However, there is now a third aborted human fetal cell culture that may be used. It is called Walvax-2, and it has been assessed as a culture for growing rabies, hepatitis, and Varicella viruses.11 A study published in the journal Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics in 2015 confirmed the development of Walvax-2 by China’s pharmaceutical industry. The source tissue for the cell line was obtained from nine fetuses through “rigorous screening based on carefully specified inclusion criteria.”11 The study’s authors noted, “The tissues from the freshly aborted fetuses were immediately sent to the laboratory for the preparation of the cells.” The Walvax-2 strain of cells met all of these criteria and proved to be the best cell line following careful evaluation. Therefore it was used for establishing a human diploid cell strain. Walvax-2 was derived from a fetal lung tissue, similar to WI-38 and MRC-5, and was obtained from a 3-month old female fetus aborted because of the presence of a uterine scar from a previous caesarean birth by a 27-year old healthy woman.11 The source tissue was provided by Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Yunnan Hospital in China.11 Relatively little additional information about Walvax-2 is available from public sources. It is not clear, for example, how the name was derived or what government agency or company is leading the research and the possible application of the cell line to vaccine production. It is worth noting, though, that there is a major vaccine manufacturer called Walvax Biotechnology Co., Ltd. in the city of Kunming in the Chinese province of Yunnan. It is a private firm whose products include haemophilus influenza type b conjugate vaccines, meningococcal polysaccharide conjugate vaccines, and blood products.12 13 PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Health Freedom Idaho There is clear evidence that vaccines are produced using the bodies of aborted human beings and experimentation of the product was performed on severely disabled humans. Some “prolifers” have agreed that since the aborted fetal cell lines were already in existence (and not created for the purpose of making a vaccine), at least some good came from the babies who died. However, they would never condone the abortion itself. 20 Facts about Abortion-Tainted Vaccines 1. Vaccines were cultured exclusively on animal tissue prior to the 1960’s (animals such as the rhesus monkey). 2. Culturing vaccines on animal cells was useful but had unintended consequences. A well-documented example is the discovery of vaccines contaminated with the SV40 virus from rhesus monkey cells used in its production. 3. In the early 1960’s, Dr. Leonard Hayflick was the first researcher who set out to create a “fetal cell line” for use in culturing vaccines instead of using animal tissue. 4. A fetal cell line is derived from live cells taken from an aborted baby. The live cells are modified so they can replicate indefinitely. 5. In 1962, Dr. Hayflick developed the first fetal cell line called WI-38 (Wistar Institute, 38th fetal sample) from the lung tissue of an aborted 31 week gestation baby girl. 6. The data in his 1961 and 1965 papers show at least 23 aborted babies used in the research around the creation of WI-38. The number is likely higher, given that some of the cell strains he researched were not documented in his published papers. 7. Fetal cell line WI-38 is currently being used in the MMRII (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) ProQuad (Measles, Mumps, Rubella + Chicken Pox) Varivax (Chicken Pox) Adenovirus vaccines (Adenovirus is used for the military). 8. Next, in 1964 Dr. Stanley Plotkin isolated a rubella virus strain, RA 27/3 (Rubella Abortus, 27th fetus, 3rd tissue culture explant), that was later used in Merck’s rubella vaccine. 9. RA 27/3 was combined with WI-38 to create the rubella vaccine we use today. 10. It is well established that almost 80 aborted babies were used in the research leading to the development of RA 27/3. Dr. Plotkin’s 1969 article cites 76 of those abortions. 11. Dr. Plotkin’s value of life is revealed through his actions. He tested his rubella vaccine on orphans as young as 14 months old and “seronegative mentally retarded children”. In a letter to the editor, he defended his colleagues’ unethical experimental research on those with disabilities at Willowbrook Hospital. He stated that “performing initial studies on children and adults who are human in form but not in social potential… nonfunctioning persons” is acceptable, even preferred. He went on to state, “Morality must be defined by circumstances and facts.” 12. In 1966, researchers at the Medical Research Council in the UK developed the fetal cell line MRC-5, from a 3 1/2 month gestation baby boy who was aborted for psychiatric reasons from a physically healthy 27 year old mother. 13. MRC-5 is used in numerous vaccines today, including: ProQuad (Measles, Mumps, Rubella + Chicken Pox) Quadracel (DTaP-IPV) Pentacel (DTaP-IPV/Hib) Twinrix (Hep A/Hep B) Vaqta (Hep A) Havrix (Hep A) Imovax (Rabies) Varivax (Chicken Pox) Zostavax (Shingles) CDC Vaccine Excipient Guide information is now being censored. The CDC has ‘updated’ their list without any changes to the vaccines themselves. 14. After their initial creation, each fetal cell line is reproduced many times over. Though they theoretically reproduce indefinitely, they have a finite lifespan of use, as they become more oncogenic (tumor-causing/cancerous) with each reproduction. 15. Due to the finite nature of the use of the current fetal cell lines, researchers have (since the 1960’s) continued to this day using aborted babies in their work toward creating new fetal cell lines. 16. Here’s a list of just a few fetal cell lines created in the years since WI-38, RA 27/3, and MRC-5 (with links to where some of these aborted fetal cells can actually be purchased): WI-44, MRC-7, MRC-9, HEK 293, PER.C6, IMR-90, IMR-91, TIG-1, Walvax-2. 17. The most recent fetal cell line, Walvax-2, was developed by Chinese researchers in 2015 using a 3-month gestation baby girl. 18. Walvax-2 researchers matter-of-factly describe intentionally aborting 9 babies using the “water bag method” of abortion. It’s illegal in the United States. As little value as our country places on life, this practice is so inhumane it is still banned in America. In layman’s terms, the mother’s uterus is filled with saline water so the baby can essentially be floated out of her uterus alive and in-tact. The baby is then given straight to researchers who quickly dissect them alive because a viable fetal cell line requires live cells. In the researcher’s own words, the “tissues from the freshly aborted fetuses were immediately sent to the laboratory for the preparation of the cells.” 19. These aborted babies were used for research in 2015, not 60 years ago. It is a current and ongoing practice. 20. Walvax-2 was specifically developed as a replacement for the aging MRC-5 cell line. It was tested with rabies, hepatitis, and Varicella viruses, and was found to be “equal or superior to MRC-5 cells for cultivating these viruses”. Dissecting aborted babies (many presumed to be alive at the time) for vaccine research has been a consistent and ongoing practice for the past 60 years. Researchers and scientists worked with local doctors to identify the preborn children whose sacrificed bodies would be used to “improve the health” others. The very definition of ‘child sacrifice’. I had allowed minimal information to inform a most delicate decision for my children. I submitted without thinking critically to headlines and news articles. In the end, I allowed the thoughts of an atheist researcher with different moral, ethical and spiritual views than me to determine what I thought about such an important subject. How does this impact the heart of our living God? As the creator and sustainer of life, I think His heart is deeply grieved over this practice. https://avoicefortruth.com/abortion-whatyoumaynotknow/ PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Dr. Paul Saladino via heartandsoil.co Picture this, you’re 36 years old and have been married to the love of your life for a few years. You have a stable career, a house, a dog, and a car. Everything just feels right in your life, and for the first time, you truly feel ready to have kids. In agreement with your spouse, you start trying. The birth control is tossed. All contraception devices are off the table. You think of all the times you worried about a pregnancy before now, and feel excited to finally have it happen. You want to have kids. It’s finally the right time. A month of trying goes by. Then two. The excitement wanes. Tension ensues. Still, you aren’t 19 anymore, so you just keep going. When months become years, however, a new word creeps into your brain. A scary word. An insecure word. You can’t help but wonder. Are you infertile? One of the biggest problems for modern humans is infertility. Infertility is increasing in prevalence for both men and women, and nutrition is a huge factor. As we’ll discuss, animal-based diets are incredible for fertility; the nutrients in meat are absolutely paramount for reproductive health, not to mention supporting a healthy pregnancy. Whether it’s for easing the symptoms of endometriosis in women, or supporting healthy sperm in men, animal based fertility is the best fertility. I think one of the reasons an animal-based diet works so well for restoring fertility is because they actually provide us with the nutrients we need. Just recently we had an amazing story shared with the Heart & Soil Instagram. A woman named Italia had been struggling with fertility for 5 years before conceiving her first child. She and her husband went on trying to have a second child for 3 years after, with no success from the treatments used to conceive the first time around. She stopped all fertility treatments and started taking our supplements to support fertility. She is 12 weeks pregnant at the time of this writing, and credits animal-based nutrition with this success! Way to go Italia! The Fertility Problem Infertility is increasing in both men and women. Generally speaking, it is not actually that easy for humans to get pregnant. According to my friend and Ob/Gyn Dr. Jaime Seeman, most people have a 20% chance per month of getting pregnant if they are actively trying to do so. Jaime’s clinic diagnoses infertility when couples have been trying to conceive for a full year without success. Most of the time, the burden is placed on women, but in reality, 40 to 50% of cases where couples can’t conceive are because of male factor infertility. Check out my podcast with Jamie on fertility here. According to the CDC, based on the Key Statistics from the National Survey of Family Growth, 8.8% of women between the age of 15 and 49 are infertile. Working with Jaime’s observations, this would mean just under that number of men are infertile. Female Factor Infertility When it comes to infertility in women, I’m not referring to infertility that results from menopause. Menopause is a phase of women’s lives where their body no longer prepares an egg for fertilization, and their cycle stops. This phase typically occurs in a woman’s late 40s or 50s, and she will no longer be able to have children beyond this point. This is an unavoidable and natural biological process. During the years of fertility, before menopause but after puberty, women’s bodies are very attuned to their environment. Pregnancy is a biologically expensive process, and if the environment does not suit a pregnancy well, fertility drops. Too few calories in the diet, a drop in thyroid function, poor sleep, or chronically elevated cortisol can all lower one’s fertility. Your body can react to any of these factors by not releasing an egg during ovulation, or not producing the progesterone necessary to support fertilizing that egg. A number of factors play into fertility in women. The first are structural disorders. These are factors such as polyps and other structural abnormalities that can be discovered using an ultrasound. Then there’s endometriosis, a condition that causes scarring and physical abnormalities in the uterus. This can cause symptoms of physical pain as well as significantly impaired fertility. Though this condition may be genetic in origin, I believe there is an immune factor at play. Clients of mine have found relief for endometriosis via animal-based diets. Removing seed oils and plant toxins from one’s diet is powerful for turning off immune conditions like psoriasis or eczema, and I think an autoimmune link may be why animal-based nutrition helps my endometriosis clients. In most cases though, infertility is not the result of rare conditions like endometriosis. Instead, environmental factors are at play. For example Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, or PCOS, is one of the most common conditions that leads to female infertility. In most cases, PCOS seems to be closely connected to insulin resistance, and Dr. Jaime has had almost total success treating PCOS with dietary changes. Male Factor Infertility Again, 40 to 50% of the time, not being able to get pregnant is because of male factor infertility. In men, the two biggest factors that cause infertility are sperm count and sperm function. If men have too low of a sperm count, the odds of a successful conception plummet. Then we have issues with sperm quality. Impaired or poor motility in sperm can cause infertility. This refers to the ability for sperm to move in a straight line or at all. If sperm can’t move well or don’t move in a forward progression, this limits their likelihood of fertilizing an egg. Next, sperm morphology can come into play. Defects in the sperm itself result in sperm that cannot fertilize an egg, even if they reach it. According to Dr. Jaime, sperm morphology has been worsening in men. More and more men have higher amounts of defective sperm, and all of this can be linked to nutrition. Nutrition And Fertility Imagine the body is a garden. The nutrient status of the body is sort of like the soil in a garden. If the soil is depleted, dry, and low in resources, it is a bad environment for growing new life. If the soil is rich in resources, life flourishes. Like so, nutrition is essential for making our own bodies fertile. In women, PCOS is one of the most common causes of infertility. Again, PCOS often coincides with insulin resistance. We can link this condition directly to one’s metabolic status as a result of diet in most cases. Next, micronutrients affect fertility in both men and women. Men without enough zinc are less likely to make healthy sperm, and in women, poor nutrition creates a bad environment for growing a baby. Women’s reproductive health is highly attuned to the environment, and ovulation is likely to shut down if the adequate nutrients for a pregnancy are not present. It should surprise no one that animal-based diets are a phenomenal source of nutrition for supporting a pregnancy. Liver is the most nutrient dense food on earth, and provides great amounts of Vitamin A, Zinc, and growth factors that support reproductive health. This is nothing to mention Omega 3 fatty acids such as DHA and EPA, magnesium, iron, Vitamin D, the brain building nutrient choline, and a host of other nutrients that are supportive in fertility, and ample in an animal based diet. Plant-Based Diets Hurt Fertility Before we get into the weeds of animal-based nutrition, let’s talk about plants. Plant-based diets continue to gain popularity despite the lack of intervention studies to support their efficacy. On the other hand, we have decent evidence these diets are actually harmful in the long run, for general health as well as fertility. To showcase this, let’s take a look at the men of Loma Linda, a Blue Zone and Seventh Day Adventist community that is primarily vegan and vegetarian. Correlation doesn’t equal causation, but in a study on fertility, men in this community who ate meat had much better sperm counts and much better sperm motility than their vegan counterparts. This is no surprise. Zinc is a huge component of male health. Male ejaculate contains 2 to 3mg of zinc. If you aren’t eating meat, it is much harder to get enough zinc to support healthy sperm production. In women, there are studies on vegans and vegetarians implying that fiber lowers fertility. Vegans who eat more fiber can lower their estrogen so much that they trigger anovulation (releasing premature eggs or not releasing an egg during ovulation.) As I’ve discussed in many articles and podcasts, you do not need fiber. Research does not support the need for fiber for gut health, and I have yet to see problems from a lack of fiber in myself and the thousands of people using animal based and carnivore diets around the world. Then there’s the issue of bioavailability. The versions of vitamins and minerals in plants are less bioavailable than those in meat. Vitamin A is critical during pregnancy and breastfeeding, but plant-based Vitamin A is not easily absorbed at all. You’d need to eat a pound of sweet potato (the highest plant source of Beta-Carotene) for the RDA of vitamin-A from plants, as opposed to a few ounces of liver or egg yolks. That’s not even to mention that the more Beta Carotene you eat from plants, the less it converts to Vitamin A for your body. Vegan diets are low in micronutrients, vitamin-A, DHA and EPA omega-3 fatty acids, contain no cholesterol whatsoever, and are low in B-vitamins. Metabolic Health & Fertility (PCOS, Diabetes, & Insulin Resistance) Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) is an endocrine disorder where women do not release an egg every month during their cycle. It is the most common hormone disorder among women of reproductive age, and it increases your risk of infertility. PCOS seems connected with insulin resistance, as 40% of women with PCOS will be type 2 diabetic by the time they are 40. Dr. Jaime and I talked about this problem extensively, and she has been successful treating her patients with PCOS with diet except in rare cases. I believe that addressing metabolic health is a huge factor in treating PCOS. Animal based diets remove the inflammatory dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) that I believe are the primary driver of insulin resistance. A few months of low-carb animal-based dieting is one of the best interventions for metabolic dysfunction. There are women who have good insulin sensitivity, are not obese, yet still have PCOS. Personally, I wonder if there is a role of dietary linoleic acid at play leading to insulin resistance at the level of the Ovarian cells. For patients with “skinny” PCOS, Dr. Jaime still finds that ketogenic and carnivore diets are helpful. If you have “skinny” PCOS, pay extra attention to the quality and sources of the fats you consume. Favor saturated fat from grass finished ruminant animals, such as our suet based fire starter supplement. Avoid polyunsaturated fats from seed and vegetable oils. By favoring stearic acid from quality animal fats and avoiding seed oils, perhaps this is how diet could improve even “skinny” PCOS. I don’t know for certain, but there are certainly other ways animal-based nutrition can improve fertility regardless of insulin status. Male Infertility & Obesity Then we have male infertility and metabolic function. Increasing data is connecting metabolic dysfunction and obesity with infertility in men. In this study, overweight men were observed to have a 1.20 times higher likelihood of infertility, and obese men 1.36 times higher likelihood of infertility compared to men with a normal BMI. In part, this appears to be due to impaired development of the sperm as well as problems binding to the egg of the female. This finding has been observed in obese rats as well. Although current research is limited, a number of studies suggest male obesity decreases the chances of pregnancy and increases the chances of pregnancy loss. It is well known that obesity in men typically occurs alongside lower levels of testosterone, higher levels of estrogen. What’s more, obesity in men may raise the risk of infertility in their offspring. Paternal obesity in rodents has been shown to negatively impact the metabolic and reproductive health of offspring. Micronutrient Status Alongside metabolic function, I think micronutrient status is a huge factor in fertility problems. Animal based foods are rich in bioavailable nutrients necessary for hormone production, preparing for and successfully completing a pregnancy, and male fertility. Zinc is absolutely essential for male health and male sperm health, and red meat is one of the best sources of zinc you can access. Organs have always been a keystone of a healthy human diet. Especially for something like fertility, organ meats are essential for providing your body with the exact, bioavailable nutrients it needs to support a pregnancy or for quality sperm. For a complete nutrient profile, especially for fertility, organs are essential. For example, Vitamin A is crucial for supporting a healthy pregnancy, and Liver is one of the best sources of bioavailable Vitamin A, as well as b vitamins, phosphorus, copper and choline. At Heart & Soil, our mission is to provide access to the incredible nutrient profiles available through eating organ meats, without having to source them yourself or learn to cook these uncommon foods. Like Supports Like (Beef Testicle Supplement for Him, Beef Ovaries, Uterus & Fallopian Tubes Supplement for Her) Like supports like. Radioisotope research implies that when you eat an organ from an animal, the nutrients from that food preferentially support those organs in your own body. This is in addition to the fact these organs contain almost exactly the nutrient profiles your organs need and use. Basically, if you eat liver, the nutrients will support your own liver more than other areas of the body. With this in mind, wisdom both ancient and modern supports the idea of eating the organs you are trying to support. For fertility specifically, we recently released two of my favorite organ blends: Whole Package, and Her Package. Whole Package is a phenomenal organ blend for supporting male and female health alike. It contains a high amount of beef testicle, which is prized throughout human history for its ability to support virility. Beef testicle is an amazing food for supporting male fertility with its high amounts of zinc and other essential nutrients. I think beef testicle is one of the best foods for supporting healthy hormone function. As excited as I am for Whole Package, I’m truly stoked about our new supplement: Her Package. Her Package contains grass-fed & finished ovary, uterus, fallopian tubes, liver, and kidney. These foods have been used historically to ease and prevent cramping, support nutrition, and support female fertility. This product represents targeted support for female hormonal health. Nutrition is inseparable from the topic of fertility. In the modern world of processed seed oils and a rapidly increasing number of vegans and vegetarians, fertility is at risk. I’m not saying there aren’t other factors involved. Fertility certainly isn’t helped by exposure to xenoestrogens in our plastics and household cleaners, nor is the stressful lifestyle of modern humans good for hormonal health, but nutrition is one of the biggest if not the biggest factor in our health. Nose-to-tail, animal based nutrition is one of the greatest things you can do to support your health overall, male or female, especially when it comes to fertility. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Sandee LaMotte, CNN (CNN)Synthetic chemicals called phthalates, found in hundreds of consumer products such as food storage containers, shampoo, makeup, perfume and children's toys, may contribute to some 91,000 to 107,000 premature deaths a year among people ages 55 to 64 in the United States, a new study found. People with the highest levels of phthalates had a greater risk of death from any cause, especially cardiovascular mortality, according to the study published Tuesday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution. The study estimated those deaths could cost the US about $40 to $47 billion each year in lost economic productivity. "This study adds to the growing data base on the impact of plastics on the human body and bolsters public health and business cases for reducing or eliminating the use of plastics," said lead author Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a professor of pediatrics, environmental medicine and population health at NYU Langone Health in New York City. Phthalates are known to interfere with the body's mechanism for hormone production, known as the endocrine system, and they are "linked with developmental, reproductive, brain, immune, and other problems," according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Even small hormonal disruptions can cause "significant developmental and biological effects," the NIEHS states. Prior research has connected phthalates with reproductive problems, such as genital malformations and undescended testes in baby boys and lower sperm counts and testosterone levels in adult males. Previous studies have also linked phthalates to childhood obesity, asthma, cardiovascular issues and cancer. "These chemicals have a rap sheet," said Trasande, who also directs NYU Langone's Center for the Investigation of Environmental Hazards. "And the fact of the matter is that when you look at the entire body of evidence, it provides a haunting pattern of concern." The American Chemistry Council, which represents the US chemical, plastics and chlorine industries, shared this statement with CNN via email: "Much of the content within Trasande et al's latest study is demonstrably inaccurate," wrote Eileen Conneely, ACC's senior director of chemical products and technology. She added the study lumped all phthalates into one group and failed to mention that the industry says high-molecular-weight phthalates like DINP and DIDP have lower toxicity than other phthalates. "Studies such as these fail to consider all phthalates individually and consistently ignore or downplay the existence of science-based, authoritative conclusions regarding the safety of high molecular weight phthalates," Conneely wrote. 'Everywhere chemicals' Often called "everywhere chemicals" because they are so common, phthalates are added to consumer products such as PVC plumbing, vinyl flooring, rain- and stain-resistant products, medical tubing, garden hoses, and some children's toys to make the plastic more flexible and harder to break. Other common exposures come from the use of phthalates in food packaging, detergents, clothing, furniture and automotive plastics. Phthalates are also added to personal care items such as shampoo, soap, hair spray and cosmetics to make fragrances last longer. People are exposed when they breathe contaminated air or eat or drink foods that came into contact with the plastic, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Children crawl around and touch many things, then put their hands in their mouths. Because of that hand-to-mouth behavior, phthalate particles in dust might be a greater risk for children than for adults," the CDC states. 'A snapshot in time' The new study measured the urine concentration of phthalates in more than 5,000 adults between the ages of 55 and 64 and compared those levels to the risk of early death over an average of 10 years, Trasande said. Researchers controlled for preexisting heart disease, diabetes, cancer and other common conditions, poor eating habits, physical activity and body mass, and levels of other known hormone disruptors such as bisphenol A or BPA, he said. "However, I'm never going to tell you this is a definitive study," Trasande told CNN. "It is a snapshot in time and can only show an association." Learning exactly how phthalates may affect the body requires a gold-standard double-blinded randomized clinical trial, he said. Yet such a study will never be done, he added, "because we cannot ethically randomize people to be exposed to potentially toxic chemicals." "But we already know phthalates mess with the male sex hormone, testosterone, which is a predictor of adult cardiovascular disease. And we already know that these exposures can contribute to multiple conditions associated with mortality, such as obesity and diabetes," Trasande said. The chemical BPA has also been linked to abnormalities in male babies' reproductive systems and later infertility issues in adult men, as well as obesity, heart disease, cancer and premature death from any cause. The synthetic compound was formerly found in most baby bottles, sippy cups and infant formula containers until parents boycotted those products over a decade ago. The FDA banned the chemical's use in bottles and sippy cups in 2012. It is possible to minimize your exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disruptors like BPA, which can still be found in the linings of canned goods and paper receipts, Trasande said. "First, avoid plastics as much as you can. Never put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher, where the heat can break down the linings so they might be absorbed more readily," he suggested. "In addition, cooking at home and reducing your use of processed foods can reduce the levels of the chemical exposures you come in contact with." Here are other tips to reduce you and your family's exposure: Use unscented lotions and laundry detergents. Use cleaning supplies without scents. Use glass, stainless steel, ceramic or wood to hold and store foods. Buy fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables instead of canned and processed versions. Encourage frequent hand washing to remove chemicals from hands. Avoid air fresheners and all plastics labeled as No. 3, No. 6 and No. 7 PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By nvic.org In fall 1997, two influential professional magazines featured articles asking the question: Has the decrease of infectious diseases in childhood through the mass use of vaccines been replaced with an increase in chronic diseases such as diabetes and asthma? The Economist, a prestigious international magazine read by world leaders in government, business and public policy, and Science News, a magazine read by both health care professionals and the general public, explored the reported links between vaccines and chronic diseases in their November 22, 1997 issues. Infections in Childhood Protect Against Chronic Disease - In an article entitled "Plaqued by Cures," The Economist acknowledged that trying to prevent or treat an infectious disease can have profound effects on the pathogenic organism that causes it, pointing to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria and the appearance of mutant viruses able to evade vaccines. The article went on to explain the "hygiene hypothesis," which holds that exposure to infections in childhood may prevent chronic disease later in life and that "intervening in infections may have undesireable effects on the hosts - that is, on people - as well as on the pathogens themselves." The article in The Economist reviewed a number of new medical studies around the world which back up the hygiene hypothesis. In a study in Guinea-Bissau, researchers found that children who had not had measles disease were significantly more likely to suffer from allergies including asthma, eczema and hay-fever. In Italy, researchers found that children who were exposed to hepatitis A disease were less likely to suffer from allergies. And a study published in a November 1997 Archives of Disease in Childhood showed that children in England who had suffered a severe respiratory infection in childhood were less likely to acquire Type 1 diabetes. One theory being forwarded to explain why recovery from naturally occurring childhood diseases is important is that the human immune system has evolved over tens of thousands of years to respond to and be strengthened by attacks from viruses and bacteria. Depriving the developing immune system of naturally occurring infections in childhood may cause the immune system to eventually attack itself, which is what happens in autoimmune diseases like asthma and diabetes. Unvaccinated Children Have Less Asthma - In an article entitled "The Dark Side of Immunizations?," Science News reviews new reports by researchers that show that vaccinated children have a higher incidence of asthma and diabetes than do unvaccinated children. Science News reports that a study by researchers at the Wellington School of Medicine in New Zealand found that unvaccinated New Zealand children report fewer cases of asthma than vaccinated children. Another study by New Zealand researchers published in the November 1997 Epidemiology analyzed the health of 1,265 people born in 1977. Of these, 23 didn't get any childhood vaccinations and none of them suffered childhood asthma. Among the 1,242 who got polio and DPT shots, more than 23 percent later had episodes of asthma. Science News adds that a 1994 survey of 446 British children, most of them eight years old, showed that 91 received no vaccinations in early childhood. Only one child out of 91 got asthma. About 11 percent of the other 355 children who had been vaccinated with pertussis and other vaccines had asthma. The article goes on to note that animal studies indicate that an absence of contact with naturally occurring viruses increases the risk of diabetes and that research in humans suggest that some childhood infections may prime a person's immune system to fight off asthma. Howard L. Weiner, an immunologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, is quoted in the article as saying that immunization skews the activity of the immune system and "If a person has a tendency toward a disease at a certain age, a vaccine might ... make [him or her] more susceptible later, when other challenges come along." He added, "It's logical that there might be some immune manipulation that happens in childhood that might have a positive or negative effect on these diseases." PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Marco Caceres via thevaccinereaction.org History is a powerful thing. If you accurately tell the story of an event that occurred, you get one picture, one understanding of it. Leave one tiny little detail out, however, and the whole picture changes. You can get thousands of details right, but get one wrong, or simply omit telling it, and an historical event can become so distorted that it becomes a lie. Take the story of the Salk inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). During the first half of the 1950s, Jonas Salk, MD developed the first injectable vaccine against polio containing inactivated, or “killed”, strains of the poliovirus. As a dead, rather than live, virus vaccine, Dr. Salk’s IPV supposedly carried no risk of giving recipients “vaccine-associated polio paralysis.”1 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “IPV is produced from wild-type poliovirus strains of each serotype that have been inactivated (killed) with formalin.”2 Here’s that little detail, though. The poliovirus that Dr. Salk killed with formalin, or formaldehyde, were not always killed; they sometimes only appeared to be killed. Live poliovirus, which was put in an injectable vaccine, would appear to be inactivated right after it was made, but sometimes it would ‘resurrect’ in the vial… In essence, the formaldehyde did not kill off all the polioviruses in these vaccines, which led to live polio viruses being injected. As a result, more people developed paralysis from the vaccine in 1955 than would have developed it from a wild, normal natural poliovirus.3 Oops. Field trials for the Salk vaccine were conducted on more than 1,800,000 children in the United States in 1954.4 Sponsored by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP), now known as the March of Dimes, “623,972 schoolchildren were injected with vaccine or placebo, and more than a million others participated as ‘observed’ controls.’5 On April 12, 1955, Thomas Francis Jr., MD, director of the Poliomyelitis Vaccine Evaluation Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, announced to the world that the Salk vaccine was “safe, effective, and potent,”—that it was “up to 90%” effective in preventing paralytic polio. Dr. Francis had been one of Dr. Salk’s professors at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health Department of Epidemiology where Salk did his postgraduate training.4 During mid-April of 1955, about 400,000 people—mostly schoolchildren—in the U.S. were vaccinated with the Salk vaccine manufactured by Cutter Laboratories.6 It turns out that more than 200,000 of these children, living in five western and midwestern states (Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada and New Mexico7), were injected with vaccines “in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective.” The Cutter-produced vaccines ended up causing 40,000 cases of polio. It severely paralyzed 200 children and killed 10.8 The first of these cases to be reported was that of a young girl named Susan Pierce, who had received the vaccine on April 18, 1955.7 Five days later, she developed fever and neck stiffness. Six days later, her left arm was paralyzed. Seven days later, she was placed in an iron lung, and nine days later, she was dead.7 In his book The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis, Paul Offit, MD writes, “Seventy-five percent of Cutter’s victims were paralyzed for the rest of their lives.” A team led by epidemiologisit Alexander Langmuir of the Communicable Diseases Center (now the CDC) in Atlanta, GA determined that “the disease caused by Cutter’s vaccine was worse than the disease caused by natural polio virus,” adds Dr. Offit.7 Children given Cutter’s vaccine were more likely to be paralyzed in their arms, more likely to suffer severe and permanent paralysis, more likely to require breathing assistance in iron lungs, and more likely to die than children naturally infected with polio.7 The so-called “Cutter Incident” led to the recall of the Cutter vaccine and the eventual replacement of the Salk IPV with the attenuated (weakened) live oral polio vaccine (OPV) developed by Albert Sabin, MD and introduced in 1963. (A modified inactivated Salk vaccine was re-introduced in the 1990s after the only cases of polio occurring in the U.S. were vaccine strain polio cases because live OPV can cause vaccine strain polio in the recipient or a close contact of a recently vaccinated person shedding live vaccine strain polio virus in body fluids.)8 But the fact that some improperly inactivated lots of the original polio vaccine paralyzed and killed American children was concealed from the public for a long time. In their book Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History, Suzanne Humphries, MD and Roman Bystrianyk write, “You may be wondering how this information was concealed from the public for nearly fifty years. Congressman Percy Priest ordered and chaired a full investigation of the vaccine controversy.”)9 According to them, Congressman Priest, who represented the 6th District of Tennessee, admitted in 1956 that, … in the previous year (1955) many responsible persons had felt that the public should be spared the ordeal of ‘knowledge about controversy.’ If word ever got out that the Public Health Service had actually done something damaging to the health of the American people, the consequences would b terrible… We felt that no lasting good could come to science or the public if the Public Health Services were discredited.”9 Two key points to note here. First, the problem with the Cutter-produced vaccine should have come as a surprise to the scientists and public health officials who were familiar with the development of the Salk IPV. According to Dr. Humphries and Bystrianyk: The Salk invention was an injectable, supposedly formaldehyde-inactivated version of poliovirus vaccine. There were serious problems with the viral inactivation process that were known by insiders from the outset of the vaccine’s development.9 Unfortunately, whenever scientists involved in the vaccine’s development raised concerns that poliovirus had not been fully killed, they were “rapidly subdued.”9 As a result of ignoring the warnings by highly qualified scientists who repeatedly and publicly explained why and how the inactivation process was flawed from the beginning, the vaccine virus needlessly infected, paralyzed, and killed children and their household contacts.9 Secondly, Cutter Laboratories was not the only manufacturer of the the Salk IPV. Wyeth Laboratories also produced a defective Salk vaccine that caused paralysis. Other pharmaceutical companies are believed to have done so, as well. But only Cutter’s vaccine was recalled. This means that, potentially, tens of millions of doses of improperly inactivated “live” Salk vaccine were sold and injected into children in the U.S. and around the world until the “inactivated” Salk vaccine was replaced by the live oral Sabin vaccine in the early-1960s. This may help explain, at least partially, why the cases of polio in the U.S. increased by 50% from 1957 to 1958, and by 80% between 1958 and 1959.10 According to Bernard Greenberg, PhD, head of the Department of Biostatistics at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health: In five New England states cases of polio roughly doubled after polio vaccine was introduced. Nevertheless in the midst of the polio panic of the 1950s, with pressure to find a magic bullet, statistics were manipulated by health authorities to give the quite the opposite impression.10 Keep in mind that these dramatic increases in polio following the introduction of the Salk IPV occurred shortly after the U.S. government had already significantly relaxed its guidelines for diagnosing polio. In 1954, the government redefined polio. I wrote about this other little detail of history that has been widely overlooked in my article “Polio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was Redefined.”11 Dr. Greenberg explained this classic example of government sleight of hand… In order to qualify for classification as paralytic poliomyelitis, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after the onset of the disease. Prior to 1954, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for only 24 hours. Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. After 1954, residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days and again 50 to 70 days after the onset of the disease. This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer lasting paralysis.12 We can only imagine how much worse the official number of polio cases would have been during the second half of the 1950s had the same diagnosis standard continued to be followed, rather than arbitrarily changed in midstream. By any measure, the early Salk polio vaccine campaigns cannot be termed an unqualified “success.” Yet, since the story has been so repeatedly, utterly inaccurately told, our understanding of the history of the polio vaccine “miracle” is that it is one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. And, as we have seen with the Sabin live oral polio vaccine that continues to cause vaccine strain polio cases around the world, there are big questions about how high the price has been—and will continue to be—for using that polio vaccine as well. History is indeed a powerful thing. If you teach it wrong for more than half a century, it is hard to unteach, because a particular version of a story can become so ingrained in the public’s collective memory that few can accept that what we’ve come to believe to be an unquestioned scientific truth is, in fact, a myth. And if that sacred cow is an illusion, then what else may we have gotten wrong along the way? Suddenly, mainstream vaccine science doesn’t feel so certain, so… scientific. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

This is a very long post - I have included many links, however, many others social media will not allow me to post. Search key words in your browser. Some links in this post may have already been removed via censorship. Numerous articles are circulating about fines or imprisonment for dodging covid tracers - here's one link that breaks down the plausibility: https://newstalk870.am/can-refusal-of-covid-policies-land-you-in-jail-heres-what-we-know/ Diseases that are subject to federal isolation and quarantine law: By Executive Order of the President, federal isolation and quarantine are authorized for these communicable diseases: -Cholera -Diphtheria -Infectious tuberculosis -Plague -Smallpox -Yellow fever -Viral hemorrhagic fevers (like Ebola) -Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS, MERS, COVID-19) -Flu that can cause a pandemic https://www.hhs.gov/answers/public-health-and-safety/what-diseases-are-subject-to-federal-isolation-and-quarantine-law/index.html Isolation and quarantine per https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html -Isolation separates sick people with a quarantinable communicable disease from people who are not sick. -Quarantine separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick. Federal Law "The federal government derives its authority for isolation and quarantine from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states. The authority for carrying out these functions on a daily basis has been delegated to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)." "Enforcement If a quarantinable disease is suspected or identified, CDC may issue a federal isolation or quarantine order. Public health authorities at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels may sometimes seek help from police or other law enforcement officers to enforce a public health order. U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Coast Guard officers are authorized to help enforce federal quarantine orders. Breaking a federal quarantine order is punishable by fines and imprisonment. Federal law allows the conditional release of persons from quarantine if they comply with medical monitoring and surveillance. In the rare event that a federal order is issued by CDC, those individuals will be provided with an order for quarantine or isolation. An example of a Quarantine Order for Novel Coronavirus (print-only) pdf icon[PDF – 5 pages] is provided. This document outlines the rationale of the federal order as well as information on where the individual will be located, quarantine requirements including the length of the order, CDC’s legal authority, and information outlining what the individual can expect while under federal order. Link to the example of quarantine order for novel coronavirus above: https://s.amsu.ng/TZzLtZBvZiqN IF you are federally quarantined, it is expected that you "comply" with all measures of medical "direction", INCLUDING vaccines. Federal Register of quarantinable communicative diseases: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/08/06/2014-18682/revised-list-of-quarantinable-communicable-diseases NOW -- why do "isolation camps" matter? 👉"When retired FBI agent, the now deceased Ted Gunderson, reportedly told a gathering of militia members that the federal government had set up 1,000 internment camps across the country, I had no trouble believing his statement because there is ample documentation to support his statement (e.g. REX 84, Operation Garden Plot and now the NDAA). However, when Gunderson reported that the federal government was storing over 500,000 caskets outside of Atlanta, I also knew he was accurate on this point because Sherrie Wilcox found the evidence in the adjacent photo. However, when I heard that Gunderson was accusing the government of storing 30,000 guillotines, I thought he had lost his mind. Gunderson told various patriot groups that the guillotines were being stored for the day that the government declares martial law and moves in to round up and execute American dissenters (PROJECT ZYPHR). Gunderson prophetically told patriot groups that the federal government was going to keep track of all of us (PROJECT POGO). The last statement has indeed proven accurate given the recent Snowden/NSA scandal. Why did Representative Doug Teper, of the Georgia Legislative Assembly (Democrat) introduced a bill which will supplant the method of execution, the electric chair, with the guillotine? FEDERAL EXECUTUIONS NOW REINSTATED: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nwitimes.com/news/justice-department-plows-ahead-with-execution-plan-next-week/article_ad0730c3-c7cb-5f87-8e0b-1430a946ca3e.amp.html The late Bill Pawelec, ex-CIA, was a close friend of mine and eventually became the significant other of the News Director for The Common Sense Show, Annie DeRiso. Pawelec told both Annie and I on several occasions that guillotines were being stored on several military bases. The late A.C. Griffith, ex-NSA, said the same on more than one occasion on my talk show. In light of these confirmations from known and from public sources, as well as the proposed legislation of Rep. Teper to introduce the use of guillotines on American soil, I believe that there is no question that the story is true. 👉Research "Operation Garden Plot" 👉Fema link: https://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2009/08/my-adventure-in-georgia-to-see-what-is.html?m=1) 👉Link to company that makes the coffins: http://www.vantageproducts.com/funeral_products.html "Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees. According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists." Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people? Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order." The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike. Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51. U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it. According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it. A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month. What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens? The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law. Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgif=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL#ixzz0OMVCQVRj A series of Executive Orders (EO) was used to create FEMA. It does not matter whether an EO is Constitutional or not, it becomes a law simply by being published in the Federal Registry. These orders go around Congress. There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached. Ask yourself if you really want to be on Ashcroft’s list. The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA. Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into prisons. Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government. FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation. The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold approximately 2 million people. Now let’s review the justification for any actions taken… Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:… EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports. EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media. EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals. EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways. EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA’s Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA’s role as a “new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis.” FEMA’s powers were consolidated by President Carter to incorporate the… National Security Act of 1947 allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities. 1950 Defense Production Act gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy. Act of August 29, 1916 authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency. International Emergency Economic Powers Act enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979. President Regan signed Presidential Director Number 54 in April of 1984 that allowed FEMA to activate a secret national readiness exercise. This exercise was given the code name REX 84. The purpose of the exercise was to test FEMA’s ability to assume military authority. REX 84 was so highly guarded that special metal doors were installed on the fifth floor of the FEMA building in Washington, D.C. The only people that were allowed to enter the premises were ones who had a red Christian cross on their shirt. The exercise required the following. -Suspension of the Constitution of the United States -Turning control of the government over to FEMA -Appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments -Declaration of Martial Law To SUMMARIZE - IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH PRESIDENT IS IN POWER AS ALL PRESIDENTS ARE SELECTED, NOT ELECTED. Therefore, it does not matter who is in power as the NWO, Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, Agenda 2050 WILL be ushered in. This battle has literally been planned for centuries, and will ultimately come down to good versus evil. Video games depicting what's coming: The Division 2 (Tom Clancy) - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AkOhn0rQZrU Homefront (Kaos Studios) - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_tdAnpKVWmw

By Shannon Brownlee and Judith Garber via statnews.com The pharmaceutical industry has followed a brilliant two-pronged strategy to maximize its profits: raise prices and increase consumption of medications. Most of the attention has focused on just one side of the equation — prices. With politicians and advocates on both sides of the aisle vowing to lower drug prices, few people are talking about Americans being overprescribed medications, which not only adds to the cost of drugs but also harms millions of Americans each year. The number of Americans taking multiple medications has grown rapidly over the last two decades. Between 2000 and 2012, the proportion of adults in the U.S. who were taking five or more medications nearly doubled, from 8.2 percent to 15 percent. There’s no question that some people need several medications. But too often more prescriptions simply mean more serious harm from side effects, a phenomenon we expose in “Medication Overload: America’s Other Drug Problem,” a report we co-authored for the Lown Institute. Older Americans are particularly vulnerable to medication overload. Today, 42 percent of adults over the age of 65 take five or more medications — a red flag for harm. The rapid increase in the number of medications older people are taking has led to a sharp rise in serious side effects, known clinically as adverse drug events. We estimate that 1 in 5 older Americans — that’s 10 million people — experienced an adverse drug event in 2018. More than one-quarter of a million were hospitalized because of a reaction to medication. If nothing is done, adverse drug events over the next decade can be expected to cause 4.6 million hospitalizations of older Americans, 74 million outpatient visits, and nearly 150,000 premature deaths. Why are so many older adults taking so many medications? There is no easy answer to that question. Numerous aspects of our health care system encourage clinicians to prescribe, or even overprescribe, medications and make it difficult for them to “deprescribe,” or take patients off medications. There is the desire for quick fixes to medical problems, among both patients and prescribers. Poor coordination across care sites and poorly designed electronic medical records make it difficult for clinicians to know all the medications their patients are taking. Disease-specific clinical guidelines that encourage more and more prescriptions and fail to identify medication risks for older patients also contribute to the overprescription problem. Another theme we heard again and again during our research and interviews with patients, clinicians, and other health professionals was the role of the pharmaceutical industry in driving unnecessary and harmful medication use. The most obvious influence of pharmaceutical companies is through advertising. Drug companies spent $6 billion in 2016 on direct-to-consumer drug advertisements, which heavily promoted the benefits of medication but only offered fast-spoken (or small-print) descriptions of harms. Though Americans often joke about drug advertisements, the truth is they work. When patients “ask their doctor” about a medication, doctors are likely to prescribe it — sometimes even when the medication is not indicated and could be harmful. Direct-to-consumer advertising is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry’s impact on medication use. Pharmaceutical marketing to doctors, including visits from sales reps, free samples and meals, “informational” conferences, and sponsorship of continuing medical education courses, emphasizes the benefits of medications and hides the risks. One particularly clever move by drug companies is to fund studies after a drug is on the market, to show that the drug works for other unapproved conditions (known as “off-label” uses). Abstracts and papers published about those trials act as a marketing blitz, telling prescribers that the medication is appropriate for a larger population than it may actually help. Even doctors who avoid pharmaceutical sales reps and sponsored lunches have trouble dodging industry influence. Clinical practice guidelines, which doctors and other prescribers turn to for guidance in treatment decisions, are often written by experts with financial ties to industry. In addition, the majority of trials on which the guidelines are based are paid for by drug companies, which often design the trials themselves and hire medical writers to spin the results. To make matters worse, these trials rarely include older people, leaving an information gap about their susceptibility to side effects. All of this leads to recommendations for prescribing medications as the first line of treatment and stepping up drug regimens when the first effort does not succeed. Take blood pressure guidelines: as the definition of “high” blood pressure has been lowered, older individuals are prescribed more medications, potentially increasing dizziness, lethargy, and falls, and diminishing their quality of life. To solve the problem of medication overload, we need a comprehensive set of solutions, including interventions in medical education and training, care coordination, research, and health care technology. In our report, we point to several strategies. For example, the Food and Drug Administration could require drug ads to quantify both potential benefits and harms of their products, which are, respectively, often smaller and larger than implied in current ads. The FDA can also better regulate and even restrict the promotion of off-label studies funded by industry. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Andie Liu via dailycal Cellphone use of 17 minutes per day over the course of 10 years is associated with a 60% increase in brain tumor risk, Joel Moskowitz, director of the UC Berkeley Center for Family and Community Health, found through his research. Published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Moskowitz’s study shows that cellphone radiation can increase the risk of cancer and nonmalignant tumors, neurological disorders and diseases and reproductive harm. These risks are also increased by Wi-Fi radiation. Cell tower radiation can also cause neurological disorders including headaches, fatigue, memory and sleep problems and electromagnetic hypersensitivity, Moskowitz noted. “First, minimize your use of cellphones or cordless phones — use a landline whenever possible,” Moskowitz said in an email. “If you do use a cellphone, turn off the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth if you’re not using them.” In order to limit risk, Moskowitz said in the email that users should keep devices at least 10 inches away from the body and head to reduce exposure to radiation. He noted that when not in use, devices should be stored in a bag. If it is necessary for the phone to be stored in the back pocket, it should be kept on airplane mode. Moskowitz added that a cellphone’s radiation increases when the signal is weak; he recommended only using the phone when the signal is strong. “Cellphones are programmed to increase radiation when the signal is poor, that is when one or two bars are displayed on your phone,” Moskowitz said in the email. “For example, don’t use your phone in an elevator or in a car, as metal structures interfere with the signal.” According to Moskowitz, there is a lack of funding for research on wireless radiation effects in the United States. He said in the email it is essential that the government and private sector protect the public and the environment by promoting wired technology. Moskowitz noted that wildlife, including pollinators, can be negatively impacted by “wireless radiation.” He added that wired technology also consumes less energy, is more secure and is safer than wireless technology. In both 2009 and 2020, Moskowitz worked with Seung-Kwon Myung’s team of scientists from the National Cancer Center in South Korea to conduct meta-analytic reviews of mobile phone use and tumor risk. Moskowitz stated that in a study on cell towers in 2018, he worked with his colleagues at UCLA, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and an international team of scientists from Australia, Ethiopia, Nepal, South Africa and Switzerland. Moskowitz indicated that he plans to publish a paper on electromagnetic hypersensitivity soon. In order to complete the research, he collaborated with 30 scientists and physicians from 11 countries. According to Moskowitz, he intends to continue his 12th year of research on the health effects of wireless radiation, collaborating with scientists to push for biologically-based radio frequency exposure limits to protect all species of life. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

Some studies. Per multiple studies, antidepressants are severely over-prescribed, and many people who use them do not even qualify for an official depression diagnosis per the DSM. "It is currently estimated that 1 in 10 people in the United States rely on antidepressants. Additionally, 1 in 4 women in their 40s and 50s are reported to take the drugs." - https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319462#Disrupting-serotonin-may-have-side-effects "In 1998, 11.2 million Americans used these drugs. By 2010, it was 23.3 million." https://www.theguardian.com/news/2013/nov/20/mental-health-antidepressants-global-trends YIKES - 70% of DSM Psychiatrists Financially Tied to Drug Companies - https://naturalsociety.com/70-of-dsm-psychiatrists-financially-tied-to-drug-companies/ "The use of antidepressants increased nearly 400% between 1988 and 2008, mostly among women between the ages of 40 and 59. Today about 10.4 percent of Americans take antidepressants, compared to 6.5 percent in 1999. And the number of people taking antidepressants long-term—more than 24 months—has doubled, from 3 percent to more than 6 percent." https://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-mind/mood/article/are-antidepressants-overprescribed As of 2013, "Nearly 70 percent of Americans are on at least one prescription drug, and more than half take two, Mayo Clinic and Olmsted Medical Center researchers say. Antibiotics, antidepressants and painkilling opioids are most commonly prescribed, their study found. Twenty percent of patients are on five or more prescription medications, according to the findings, published online in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings." https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/nearly-7-in-10-americans-take-prescription-drugs-mayo-clinic-olmsted-medical-center-find/ "Conclusion: It has been suggested that overprescription of antidepressants is fueled by the increase in the incidence of depression, stress and anxiety, or due to the way psychotropic medications are marketed. However, regardless of the validity of the said reasons, another explanation could be suggested: psychiatric disorders, namely depression, are being overdiagnosed on a considerable scale, probably leading to a list of significant adverse consequences that mostly affect the most vulnerable groups of patients. At the end, further rigorous research should certainly be undertaken to examine the extent and cost of overprescription of psychotropic drugs in society." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30156645/ "Objective: Past studies have shown that many individuals who use antidepressants have no current or lifetime history of mental disorders. However, recent studies suggest that the one-time retrospective evaluation of mental disorders commonly used in such studies may substantially underestimate the true lifetime prevalence of mental disorders. We examined the prevalence of mental disorders, assessed prospectively over multiple interviews, among individuals currently using antidepressants in a community sample. Conclusions: Many individuals who are prescribed and use antidepressant medications may not have met criteria for mental disorders. Our data indicate that antidepressants are commonly used in the absence of clear evidence-based indications." http://www.psychiatrist.com/jcp/article/Pages/2015/v76n01/v76n0106.aspx "Results: Only 38.4% of participants with 12-month clinician-identified depression met the 12-month MDE criteria. Older adults were less likely than younger adults to meet the criteria - only 14.3% of those 65 years old or older met the criteria, whereas participants with more education and those with poorer overall health were more likely to meet the criteria. Participants who did not meet the 12-month MDE criteria reported less distress and impairment in role functioning and used fewer services. A majority of both groups, however, were prescribed and used psychiatric medications. Conclusions: Depression overdiagnosis and overtreatment is common in community settings in the USA. There is a need for improved targeting of diagnosis and treatments of depression and other mental disorders in these settings." - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23548817/ "The analysis found that in the general population, those taking antidepressants had a 33 percent higher risk of dying prematurely than people who were not taking the drugs. Additionally, antidepressant users were 14 percent more likely to have an adverse cardiovascular event, such as a stroke or a heart attack." - https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/477940 "According to the US Department of Veteran’s Affairs, 23 Soldiers and Vets commit suicide every day despite taking antidepressant drugs" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22544011/ Read common side effects here: https://www.medicinenet.com/antidepressants/article.htm

By Eleanor McBean, Ph.D, N.D. via mnwelldir.org Go to Original: The entire book, Swine Flu Expose is at this link. THE SPANISH INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC OF 1918 WAS CAUSED BY VACCINATIONS As has been stated before, all medical and non-medical authorities on vaccination agree that vaccines are designed to cause a mild case of the diseases they are supposed to prevent. But they also know and admit that there is no way whatsoever to predict whether the case will be mild or severe - even deadly. With this much uncertainty in dealing with the very lives of people, it is very unscientific and extremely dangerous to use such a questionable procedure as vaccination. Many vaccines also cause other diseases besides the one for which they are given. For instance, smallpox vaccine often causes syphilis, paralysis, leprosy, and cancer. (See the chapters on smallpox and plagues.) Polio shots, diphtheria toxin-antitoxin, typhoid vaccine, as well as measles, tetanus and all other shots often cause various other stages of disease such as post-vaccinal encephalitis (inflammation of the brain,) paralysis, spinal meningitis, blindness, cancer (sometimes within two years,) tuberculosis, (two to twenty years after the shot,) arthritis, kidney disease, heart disease (heart failure sometimes within minutes after the shot and sometimes several hours later.) Nerve damage and many other serious conditions also follow the injections. When several shots are given (different vaccines) within a few days or a few weeks apart, they often trigger intensified cases of all the diseases at once, because the body cannot handle such a large amount of deadly poison being injected directly into the bloodstream. The doctors call it a new disease and proceed to suppress the symptoms. When poison is taken by the mouth, the internal defense system has a chance to quickly eject some of it by vomiting, but when the poisons are shot directly into the body, bypassing all the natural safeguards, these dangerous poisons circulate immediately throughout the entire body in a matter of seconds and keep on circulating until all the cells are poisoned. I heard that seven men dropped dead in a doctor’s office after being vaccinated. This was in an army camp, so I wrote to the Government for verification. They sent me the report of U.S. Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson. The report not only verified the report of the seven who dropped dead from the vaccines, but it stated that there had been 63 deaths and 28,585 cases of hepatitis as a direct result of the yellow fever vaccine during only 6 months of the war. That was only one of the 14 to 25 shots given the soldiers. We can imagine the damage that all these shots did to the men. (See the chapter on What Vaccinations Did to Our Soldiers.) The first World War was of a short duration, so the vaccine makers were unable to use up all their vaccines. As they were (and still are) in business for profit, they decided to sell it to the rest of the population. So they drummed up the largest vaccination campaign in U.S. history. There were no epidemics to justify it so they used other tricks. Their propaganda claimed the soldiers were coming home from foreign countries with all kinds of diseases and that everyone must have all the shots on the market. The people believed them because, first of all, they wanted to believe their doctors, and second, the returning soldiers certainly had been sick. They didn’t know it was from doctor-made vaccine diseases, as the army doctors don’t tell them things like that. Many of the returned soldiers were disabled for life by these drug-induced diseases. Many were insane from postvaccinal encephalitis, but the doctors called it shell shock, even though many had never left American soil. The conglomerate disease brought on by the many poison vaccines baffled the doctors, as they never had a vaccination spree before which used so many different vaccines. The new disease they had created had symptoms of all the diseases they had injected into the man. There was the high fever, extreme weakness, abdominal rash and intestinal disturbance characteristic of typhoid. The diphtheria vaccine caused lung congestion, chills and fever, swollen, sore throat clogged with the false membrane, and the choking suffocation because of difficulty in breathing followed by gasping and death, after which the body turned black from stagnant blood that had been deprived of oxygen in the suffocation stages. In early days they called it Black Death. The other vaccines cause their own reactions — paralysis, brain damage, lockjaw, etc. When doctors had tried to suppress the symptoms of the typhoid with a stronger vaccine, it caused a worse form of typhoid which they named paratyphoid. But when they concocted a stronger and more dangerous vaccine to suppress that one, they created an even worse disease which they didn’t have a name for. What should they call it? They didn’t want to tell the people what it really was — their own Frankenstein monster which they had created with their vaccines and suppressive medicines. They wanted to direct the blame away from themselves, so they called it Spanish Influenza. It was certainly not of Spanish origin, and the Spanish people resented the implication that the world-wide scourge of that day should be blamed on them. But the name stuck and American medical doctors and vaccine makers were not suspected of the crime of this widespread devastation — the 1918 Flu Epidemic. It is only in recent years that researchers have been digging up the facts and laying the blame where it belongs. Some of the soldiers may have been in Spain before coming home, but their diseases originated in their own home-based U.S. Army Camps. Our medical men still use that same dodge. When their own vaccines (required for travel) cause vaccine diseases abroad they use this as grounds for a scare campaign to stampede people into the vaccination centers. Do you remember the Hong Kong Flu and the Asian Flu and the London Flu scares? These were all medically-made epidemics mixed with the usual common colds which people have every year. Now (1976) we are being worked on again by the vaccine -epidemic makers in their effort to force another multi million dollar vaccine sale caper. Their con men have already talked President Ford into handing over $135 million dollars to start their vaccine racket. Even the insurance companies refused to become involved with such an obviously dangerous and crooked scheme. So, again the medical and drug con men induced the appropriate government officials to guarantee insurance against the, possible billions of dollars in law suits which could be brought against the vaccine promoters if the vaccine campaign is carried out as planned. It’s a good thing Ford was voted out of office. It’s too bad he wasn’t "dumped" before he paid the poison squad the MONEY’ to poison the whole population. However, we don’t yet know if President Carter will be any better. Will he be held in the grip of the medical and drug dictatorship? Or will he investigate — learn the truth — reverse the decisions and make the vaccine makers return the money taken from the taxpayers under false pretenses? The statement of the swine flu vaccine promoters to the effect that the vaccine is harmless, is false, and the statement that it will protect against flu is false. Fifty-six people died after the shots, some within 48 hours. There is confusion and disagreement among the doctors about all aspects of the vaccine, from the safety and effectiveness to the necessity for it, who should have it and who should be warned against it. Their scare-head campaign cry is that the swine flu is like the 1918 flu which killed 20,000,000 people. They don’t have any usable and provable blood samples from the 1918 flu epidemic to prove it. That was 58 years ago, and the doctors were just as confused and inefficient then as now. However, one thing is certain — the 1918 Spanish Influenza was a vaccine-induced disease caused by extreme body poisoning from the conglomeration of many different vaccines. The soldiers at Fort Dix who were said to have had Swine Flu had been injected with a large variety of vaccines like the vaccines which caused the 1918 flu epidemic. The flu epidemic at Fort Dix was in no way related to swine. There were no swine at camp (unless we want to sarcastically call the vaccine promoters who caused the diseases -"swine.") To add to the confusion, the doctors tell the people that there are a lot of various kinds of flu; the one which the soldiers at Fort Dix had was A Victoria flu, there are other strains of flu virus, and also, that the swine flu vaccine which so many people have taken already will not protect them against the many other types of flu. This will be used as an "out" in case of law suits later on when more casualties begin to show up. The doctors will say that the vaccine failed because it was the wrong kind of flu for the vaccine. Of course, no one can prove it one way or the other because viruses are illusive, invisible organisms which are unstable and unpredictable. One dictionary definition of virus is "a morbid poison." The vaccines injected into the body are poison and cause the typical poison reactions. Virus (poison) does not fly around and attack people. Therefore, there will be no swine flu epidemic unless the vaccine promoters make one like they did in the 1918 flu epidemic. It will not kill 20,000,000 people unless the people submit to the disease-producing shots. There are also, other causes of disease besides vaccines, such as bad food, which has been devitalized and contaminated with poison preservatives and artificial drug concoctions. There are many more causes of disease but no diseases are contagious(See the chapter on the germ theory). Vaccine drives come and go as often as the vaccine promoters can cook up the slightest pretense of a reason. Back in1957 they were trying to stir up a vaccination campaign for what they decided to call Asiatic flu. An editorial in the Herald and Express for August 29, 1957 was captioned, "Fear of Flu Propaganda." Part of the piece is as follows: "What a tempest in a teapot has been blown up over the probability that this country will experience an epidemic of the Asiatic flu in the fall and winter months ahead. "Even the United States Department of Health is stooge for the panic — and has issued statements which are frightening the public, rather than reassuring them by pointing out that this epidemic, while widespread, gives no indication of being any more dangerous than our usual flood of influenza-like colds when winter comes on. "Those who read between the lines even wonder whether the whole thing might not be a bit of super salesmanship on the part of those who are making and selling the vaccines which are being prepared..." I WAS AN ON-THE-SPOT OBSERVER OF THE 1918 INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC All the doctors and people who were living at the time of the 1918 Spanish Influenza epidemic say it was the most terrible disease the world has ever had. Strong men, hale and hearty, one day would be dead the next. The disease had the characteristics of the black death added to typhoid, diphtheria, pneumonia, smallpox, paralysis and all the diseases the people had been vaccinated with immediately following World War 1. Practically the entire population had been injected "seeded" with a dozen or more diseases — or toxic serums. When all those doctor-made diseases started breaking out all at once it was tragic. That pandemic dragged on for two years, kept alive with the addition of more poison drugs administered by the doctors who tried to suppress the symptoms. As far as I could find out, the flu hit only the vaccinated. Those who had refused the shots escaped the flu. My family had refused all the vaccinations so we remained well all the time. We knew from the health teachings of Graham, Trail, Tilden and others, that people cannot contaminate the body with poisons without causing disease. When the flu was at its peak, all the stores were closed as well as the schools, businesses — even the hospital, as the doctors and nurses had been vaccinated too and were down with the flu. No one was on the streets. It was like a ghost town. We [who didn’t taken any vaccines] seemed to be the only family which didn’t get the flu; so my parents went from house to house doing what they could to look after the sick, as it was impossible to get a doctor then. If it were possible for germs, bacteria, virus, or bacilli to cause disease, they had plenty of opportunity to attack my parents when they were spending many hours a day in the sick rooms. But they didn’t get the flu and they didn’t bring any germs home to attack us children and cause anything. None of our family had the flu — not even a sniffle— and it was in the winter with deep snow on the ground. It has been said that the 1918 flu epidemic killed 20,000,000 people throughout the world. But, actually, the doctors killed them with their crude and deadly treatments and drugs. This is a harsh accusation but it is nevertheless true, judging by the success of the drugless doctors in comparison with that of the medical doctors. While the medical men and medical hospitals were losing 33% of their flu cases, the non-medical hospitals such as BATTLE CREEK, KELLOGG and MACFADDEN’S HEALTH-RESTORIUM were getting almost 100% healings with their water cure, baths, enemas, etc., fasting and certain other simple healing methods, followed by carefully worked out diets of natural foods. One health doctor didn’t lose a patient in eight years. The very successful health treatment of one of those drugless doctors who didn’t lose any patients will be given in the other part of this book, titled VACCINATION CONDEMNED, to be published a little later. If the medical doctors had been as advanced as the drugless doctors, there would not have been those 20 million deaths from the medical flu treatment. There was seven times more disease among the vaccinated soldiers than among the unvaccinated civilians, and the diseases were those they had been vaccinated against. One soldier who had returned from overseas in 1912 told me that the army hospitals were filled with cases of infantile paralysis and he wondered why grown men should have an infant disease. Now, we know that paralysis is a common after-effect of vaccine poisoning. Those at home didn’t get the paralysis until after the world-wide vaccination campaign in 1918. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

by Kevin Barry, President, First Freedoms, Inc. via vaccineimpact Did a Vaccine Experiment on U.S. Soldiers Cause the “Spanish Flu”? The “Spanish Flu” killed an estimated 50-100 million people during a pandemic 1918-19. What if the story we have been told about this pandemic isn’t true? What if, instead, the killer infection was neither the flu nor Spanish in origin? Newly analyzed documents reveal that the “Spanish Flu” may have been a military vaccine experiment gone awry. In looking back on the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, we need to delve deeper to solve this mystery. Summary The reason modern technology has not been able to pinpoint the killer influenza strain from this pandemic is because influenza was not the killer. More soldiers died during WWI from disease than from bullets. The pandemic was not flu. An estimated 95% (or higher) of the deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia, not influenza/a virus. The pandemic was not Spanish. The first cases of bacterial pneumonia in 1918 trace back to a military base in Fort Riley, Kansas. From January 21 – June 4, 1918, an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine cultured in horses by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York was injected into soldiers at Fort Riley. During the remainder of 1918 as those soldiers – often living and traveling under poor sanitary conditions – were sent to Europe to fight, they spread bacteria at every stop between Kansas and the frontline trenches in France. One study describes soldiers “with active infections (who) were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others—often, in the same “breathing spaces”—were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria.” (1) The “Spanish Flu” attacked healthy people in their prime. Bacterial pneumonia attacks people in their prime. Flu attacks the young, old and immunocompromised. When WW1 ended on November 11, 1918, soldiers returned to their home countries and colonial outposts, spreading the killer bacterial pneumonia worldwide. During WW1, the Rockefeller Institute also sent the antimeningococcic serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries, helping spread the epidemic worldwide. During the pandemic of 1918-19, the so-called “Spanish Flu” killed 50-100 million people, including many soldiers. Many people do not realize that disease killed far more soldiers on all sides than machine guns or mustard gas or anything else typically associated with WWI. I have a personal connection to the Spanish Flu. Among those killed by disease in 1918-19 are members of both of my parents’ families. On my father’s side, his grandmother Sadie Hoyt died from pneumonia in 1918. Sadie was a Chief Yeoman in the Navy. Her death left my grandmother Rosemary and her sister Anita to be raised by their aunt. Sadie’s sister Marian also joined the Navy. She died from “the influenza” in 1919. On my mother’s side, two of her father’s sisters died in childhood. All of the family members who died lived in New York City. I suspect many American families, and many families worldwide, were impacted in similar ways by the mysterious Spanish Flu. In 1918, “influenza” or flu was a catchall term for disease of unknown origin. It didn’t carry the specific meaning it does today. It meant some mystery disease which dropped out of the sky. In fact, influenza is from the Medieval Latin “influential” in an astrological sense, meaning a visitation under the influence of the stars. WHY IS WHAT HAPPENED 100 YEARS AGO IMPORTANT NOW? Between 1900-1920, there were enormous efforts underway in the industrialized world to build a better society. I will use New York as an example to discuss three major changes to society which occurred in NY during that time and their impact on mortality from infectious diseases. 1. Clean Water and Sanitation In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York built an extraordinary system to bring clean water to the city from the Catskills, a system still in use today. New York City also built over 6000 miles of sewer to take away and treat waste, which protects the drinking water. The World Health Organization acknowledges the importance of clean water and sanitation in combating infectious diseases. (2) 2. Electricity In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York built a power grid and wired the city so power was available in every home. Electricity allows for refrigeration. Refrigeration is an unsung hero as a public health benefit. When food is refrigerated from farm to table, the public is protected from potential infectious diseases. Cheap renewable energy is important for many reasons, including combating infectious diseases. 3. Pharmaceutical In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York became the home of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University). The Institute is where the modern pharmaceutical industry was born. The Institute pioneered many of the approaches the pharmaceutical industry uses today, including the preparation of vaccine serums, for better or worse. The vaccine used in the Fort Riley experiment on soldiers was made in horses. US Mortality Rates data from the turn of the 20th century to 1965 clearly indicates that clean water, flushing toilets, effective sewer systems and refrigerated foods all combined to effectively reduce mortality from infectious diseases BEFORE vaccines for those diseases became available. Have doctors and the pharmaceutical manufacturers taken credit for reducing mortality from infectious disease which rightfully belongs to sandhogs, plumbers, electricians and engineers? If hubris at the Rockefeller Institute in 1918 led to a pandemic disease which killed millions of people, what lessons can we learn and apply to 2018? THE DISEASE WAS NOT SPANISH While watching an episode of American Experience on PBS a few months ago, I was surprised to hear that the first cases of “Spanish Flu” occurred at Fort Riley, Kansas in 1918. I thought, how is it possible this historically important event could be so badly misnamed 100 years ago and never corrected? Why “Spanish”? Spain was one of a few countries not involved in World War I. Most of the countries involved in the war censored their press. Free from censorship concerns, the earliest press reports of people dying from disease in large numbers came from Spain. The warring countries did not want to additionally frighten the troops, so they were content to scapegoat Spain. Soldiers on all sides would be asked to cross no man’s land into machine gun fire, which was frightening enough without knowing that the trenches were a disease breeding ground. One hundred years later, it’s long past time to drop “Spanish” from all discussion of this pandemic. If the flu started at a United States military base in Kansas, then the disease could and should be more aptly named. In order to prevent future disasters, the US (and the rest of the world) must take a hard look at what really caused the pandemic. It is possible that one of the reasons the Spanish Flu has never been corrected is that it helps disguise the origin of the pandemic. If the origin of the pandemic involved a vaccine experiment on US soldiers, then the US may prefer calling it Spanish Flu instead of The Fort Riley Bacteria of 1918, or something similar. The Spanish Flu started at the location this experimental bacterial vaccine was given making it the prime suspect as the source of the bacterial infections which killed so many. It would be much more difficult to maintain the marketing mantra of “vaccines save lives” if a vaccine experiment originating in the United States during the years of primitive manufacturing caused the deaths of 50-100 million people. “Vaccines save lives … except we may have killed 50-100 million people in 1918-19” is a far less effective sales slogan than the overly simplistic “vaccines save lives.” THE DISEASE WHICH KILLED SO MANY WAS NOT FLU OR A VIRUS. IT WAS BACTERIAL. During the mid-2000’s there was much talk about “pandemic preparedness.” Influenza vaccine manufacturers in the United States received billions of taxpayer dollars to develop vaccines to make sure that we don’t have another lethal pandemic “flu,” like the one in 1918-19. Capitalizing on the “flu” part of Spanish flu helped vaccine manufacturers procure billion dollar checks from governments, even though scientists knew at the time that bacterial pneumonia was the real killer. It is not my opinion that bacterial pneumonia was the real killer – thousands of autopsies confirm this fact. According to a 2008 National Institute of Health paper, bacterial pneumonia was the killer in a minimum of 92.7% of the 1918-19 autopsies reviewed. It is likely higher than 92.7%. The researchers looked at more than 9000 autopsies, and “there were no negative (bacterial) lung culture results.” “… In the 68 higher-quality autopsy series, in which the possibility of unreported negative cultures could be excluded, 92.7% of autopsy lung cultures were positive for ≥1 bacterium. … in one study of approximately 9000 subjects who were followed from clinical presentation with influenza to resolution or autopsy, researchers obtained, with sterile technique, cultures of either pneumococci or streptococci from 164 of 167 lung tissue samples. There were 89 pure cultures of pneumococci; 19 cultures from which only streptococci were recovered; 34 that yielded mixtures of pneumococci and/or streptococci; 22 that yielded a mixture of pneumococci, streptococci, and other organisms (prominently pneumococci and nonhemolytic streptococci); and 3 that yielded nonhemolytic streptococci alone. There were no negative lung culture results.” (3) Pneumococci or streptococci were found in “164 of (the) 167 lung tissue samples” autopsied. That is 98.2%. Bacteria was the killer. WHERE DID THE SPANISH FLU BACTERIAL PNEUMONIA OF 1918-19 ORIGINATE? When the United States declared war in April 1917, the fledgling Pharmaceutical industry had something they had never had before – a large supply of human test subjects in the form of the US military’s first draft. Pre-war in 1917, the US Army was 286,000 men. Post-war in 1920, the US army disbanded, and had 296,000 men. During the war years 1918-19, the US Army ballooned to 6,000,000 men, with 2,000,000 men being sent overseas. The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research took advantage of this new pool of human guinea pigs to conduct vaccine experiments. A REPORT ON ANTIMENINGITIS VACCINATION AND OBSERVATIONS ON AGGLUTININS IN THE BLOOD OF CHRONIC MENINGOCOCCUS CARRIERS by Frederick L. Gates From the Base Hospital, Fort Riley, Kansas, and The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York. Received 1918 Jul 20 (Author note: Please read the Fort Riley paper in its entirety so you can appreciate the carelessness of the experiments conducted on these troops.) Between January 21st and June 4th of 1918, Dr. Gates reports on an experiment where soldiers were given 3 doses of a bacterial meningitis vaccine. Those conducting the experiment on the soldiers were just spitballing dosages of a vaccine serum made in horses. The vaccination regime was designed to be 3 doses. 4,792 men received the first dose, but only 4,257 got the 2nd dose (down 11%), and only 3702 received all three doses (down 22.7%). A total of 1,090 men were not there for the 3rd dose. What happened to these soldiers? Were they shipped East by train from Kansas to board a ship to Europe? Were they in the Fort Riley hospital? Dr. Gates’ report doesn’t tell us. An article accompanying the American Experience broadcast I watched sheds some light on where these 1,090 men might be. Gates began his experiments in January 1918. By March of that year, “100 men a day” were entering the infirmary at Fort Riley. Are some of these the men missing from Dr. Gates’ report – the ones who did not get the 2nd or 3rd dose? “… Shortly before breakfast on Monday, March 11, the first domino would fall signaling the commencement of the first wave of the 1918 influenza. Company cook Albert Gitchell reported to the camp infirmary with complaints of a “bad cold.” Right behind him came Corporal Lee W. Drake voicing similar complaints. By noon, camp surgeon Edward R. Schreiner had over 100 sick men on his hands, all apparently suffering from the same malady…” (5) Gates does report that several of the men in the experiment had flu-like symptoms: coughs, vomiting and diarrhea after receiving the vaccine. These symptoms are a disaster for men living in barracks, travelling on trains to the Atlantic coast, sailing to Europe, and living and fighting in trenches. The unsanitary conditions at each step of the journey are an ideal environment for a contagious disease like bacterial pneumonia to spread. From Dr. Gates’ report: “Reactions.– … Several cases of looseness of the bowels or transient diarrhea were noted. This symptom had not been encountered before. Careful inquiry in individual cases often elicited the information that men who complained of the effects of vaccination were suffering from mild coryza, bronchitis, etc., at the time of injection.” “Sometimes the reaction was initiated by a chill or chilly sensation, and a number of men complained of fever or feverish sensations during the following night. Next in frequency came nausea (occasionally vomiting), dizziness, and general “aches and pains” in the joints and muscles, which in a few instances were especially localized in the neck or lumbar region, causing stiff neck or stiff back. A few injections were followed by diarrhea. The reactions, therefore, occasionally simulated the onset of epidemic meningitis and several vaccinated men were sent as suspects to the Base Hospital for diagnosis.”(4) According to Gates, they injected random dosages of an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine into soldiers. Afterwards, some of the soldiers had symptoms which “simulated” meningitis, but Dr. Gates advances the fantastical claim that it wasn’t actual meningitis. The soldiers developed flu-like symptoms. Bacterial meningitis, then and now, is known to mimic flu-like symptoms. (6) Perhaps the similarity of early symptoms of bacterial meningitis and bacterial pneumonia to symptoms of flu is why the vaccine experiments at Fort Riley have been able to escape scrutiny as a potential cause of the Spanish Flu for 100 years and counting. HOW DID THE “SPANISH FLU” SPREAD SO WIDELY SO QUICKLY? There is an element of a perfect storm in how the Gates bacteria spread. WWI ended only 10 months after the first injections. Unfortunately for the 50-100 million who died, those soldiers injected with horse-infused bacteria moved quickly during those 10 months. An article from 2008 on the CDC’s website describes how sick WWI soldiers could pass along the bacteria to others by becoming “cloud adults.” “Finally, for brief periods and to varying degrees, affected hosts became “cloud adults” who increased the aerosolization of colonizing strains of bacteria, particularly pneumococci, hemolytic streptococci, H. influenzae, and S. aureus. For several days during local epidemics—particularly in crowded settings such as hospital wards, military camps, troop ships, and mines (and trenches)—some persons were immunologically susceptible to, infected with, or recovering from infections with influenza virus. Persons with active infections were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others—often, in the same “breathing spaces”—were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria.” (1) Three times in his report on the Fort Riley vaccine experiment, Dr. Gates states that some soldiers had a “severe reaction” indicating “an unusual individual susceptibility to the vaccine”. While the vaccine made many sick, it only killed those who were susceptible to it. Those who became sick and survived became “cloud adults” who spread the bacteria to others, which created more cloud adults, spreading to others where it killed the susceptible, repeating the cycle until there were no longer wartime unsanitary conditions, and there were no longer millions of soldiers to experiment on. The toll on US troops was enormous and it is well documented. Dr. Carol Byerly describes how the “influenza” traveled like wildfire through the US military. (substitute “bacteria” for Dr. Byerly’s “influenza” or “virus”): “… Fourteen of the largest training camps had reported influenza outbreaks in March, April, or May, and some of the infected troops carried the virus with them aboard ships to France … As soldiers in the trenches became sick, the military evacuated them from the front lines and replaced them with healthy men. This process continuously brought the virus into contact with new hosts—young, healthy soldiers in which it could adapt, reproduce, and become extremely virulent without danger of burning out. … Before any travel ban could be imposed, a contingent of replacement troops departed Camp Devens (outside of Boston) for Camp Upton, Long Island, the Army’s debarkation point for France, and took influenza with them. Medical officers at Upton said it arrived “abruptly” on September 13, 1918, with 38 hospital admissions, followed by 86 the next day, and 193 the next. Hospital admissions peaked on October 4 with 483, and within 40 days, Camp Upton sent 6,131 men to the hospital for influenza. Some developed pneumonia so quickly that physicians diagnosed it simply by observing the patient rather than listening to the lungs…” (7) The United States was not the only country in possession of the Rockefeller Institute’s experimental bacterial vaccine. A 1919 report from the Institute states: “Reference should be made that before the United States entered the war (in April 1917) the Institute had resumed the preparation of antimeningococcic serum, in order to meet the requests of England, France, Belgium Italy and other countries.” The same report states: “In order to meet the suddenly increased demand for the curative serums worked out at the Institute, a special stable for horses was quickly erected …” (8) An experimental antimeningoccic serum made in horses and injected into soldiers who would be entering the cramped and unsanitary living conditions of war … what could possibly go wrong? Is the bacterial serum made in horses at the Rockefeller Institute which was injected into US soldiers and distributed to numerous other countries responsible for the 50-100 million people killed by bacterial lung infections in 1918-19? The Institute says it distributed the bacterial serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries during WWI. Not enough is known about how these countries experimented on their soldiers. I hope independent researchers will take an honest look at these questions. THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS I do not believe that anyone involved in these vaccine experiments was trying to harm anyone. Some will see the name Rockefeller and yell. “Illuminati!” or “culling the herd!” I do not believe that’s what happened. I believe standard medical hubris is responsible – doctors “playing God”, thinking they can tame nature without creating unanticipated problems. With medical hubris, I do not think the situation has changed materially over the past 100 years. WHAT NOW? The vaccine industry is always looking for human test subjects. They have the most success when they are able to find populations who not in a position to refuse. Soldiers (9), infants, the disabled, prisoners, those in developing nations – anyone not in a position to refuse. Vaccine experimentation on vulnerable populations is not an issue of the past. Watch this video clip of Dr. Stanley Plotkin where he describes using experimental vaccines on orphans, the mentally retarded, prisoners, and those under colonial rule. The deposition was in January 2018. The hubris of the medical community is the same or worse now than it was 100 years ago. Watch as Dr. Plotkin admits to writing: “The question is whether we are to have experiments performed on fully functioning adults and on children who are potentially contributors to society or to perform initial studies in children and adults who are human in form but not in social potential.” Please watch the horrifying video clip. (10) In part because the global community is well aware of medical hubris and well aware of the poor record of medical ethics, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights developed international standards regarding the right to informed consent to preventative medical procedures like vaccination. The international community is well aware that the pharmaceutical industry makes mistakes and is always on the lookout for human test subjects. The Declaration states that individuals have the human right to consent to any preventative medical intervention like vaccination. Article 3 – Human dignity and human rights 1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected. 2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society. Article 6 – Consent 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. T he consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. (11) Clean water, sanitation, flushing toilets, refrigerated foods and healthy diets have done and still do far more to protect humanity from infectious diseases than any vaccine program. Doctor and the vaccine industry have usurped credit which rightfully belongs to plumbers, electricians, sandhogs, engineers and city planners. For these reasons, policy makers at all levels of government should protect the human rights and individual liberties of individuals to opt out of vaccine programs via exemptions. The hubris of the medical community will never go away. Policy makers need to know that vaccines like all medical interventions are not infallible. Vaccines are not magic. We all have different susceptibility to disease. Human beings are not one size fits all. In 1918-19, the vaccine industry experimented on soldiers, likely with disastrous results. In 2018, the vaccine industry experiments on infants every day. The vaccine schedule has never been tested as it is given. The results of the experiment are in: 1 in 7 American children is in some form of special education and over 50% have some form of chronic illness. (12) In 1918-19, there was no safety follow up after vaccines were delivered. In 2018, there is virtually no safety follow up after a vaccine is delivered. Who exactly gave you that flu shot at Rite Aid? Do you have their cell number of the store employee if something goes wrong? In 1918-19, there was no liability to the manufacturer for injuries or death caused by vaccines. In 2018, there is no liability for vaccine manufacturers for injuries or death caused by vaccines, which was formalized in 1986. (13) In 1918-19, there was no independent investigative follow up challenging the official story that “Spanish Flu” was some mystery illness which dropped from the sky. I suspect that many of those at the Rockefeller Institute knew what happened, and that many of the doctors who administered the vaccines to the troops knew what happened, but those people are long dead. In 2018, the Pharmaceutical industry is the largest campaign donor to politicians and the largest advertiser in all forms of media, so not much has changed over 100 years. This story will likely be ignored by mainstream media because their salaries are paid by pharmaceutical advertising. The next time you hear someone say “vaccines save lives” please remember that the true story of the cost/benefit of vaccines is much more complicated than their three word slogan. Also remember that vaccines may have killed 50-100 million people in 1918-19. If true, those costs greatly outweighed any benefit, especially considering that plumbers, electricians, sandhogs and engineers did, and continue to do, the real work which reduces mortality from disease. Vaccines are not magic. Human rights and bioethics are critically important. Policy makers should understand the history of medical hubris and protect individual and parental human rights as described in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. —— Kevin Barry is the President of First Freedoms, Inc. a 501.c.3. He is a former federal attorney, a rep at the UN HQ in New York and the author of Vaccine Whistleblower: Exposing Autism Research Fraud at the CDC. Please support our work at www.firstfreedoms.org Did a Military Experimental Vaccine in 1918 Kill 50-100 Million People Blamed as “Spanish Flu”? Part 2 References 1. Deaths from Bacterial Pneumonia during 1918–19 Influenza Pandemic John F. Brundage* and G. Dennis Shanks† Author affiliations: *Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA; †Australian Army Malaria Institute, Enoggera, Queensland, Australia https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/14/8/07-1313_article 2. World Health Organization: Unsafe drinking water, sanitation and waste management http://www.who.int/sustainable-development/cities/health-risks/water-sanitation/en/ 3. J Infect Dis. 2008 Oct 1; 198(7): 962–970. Predominant Role of Bacterial Pneumonia as a Cause of Death in Pandemic Influenza: Implications for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness David M. Morens, Jeffery K. Taubenberger, and Anthony S. Fauci https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599911/ 4. PDF of Fort Riley Study (1918) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2126288/pdf/449.pdf 5. American Experience, “The First Wave”, PBS https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/influenza-first-wave/ 6. Mayo Clinic: Meningitis www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/meningitis/symptoms-causes/syc-20350508 7. Public Health Rep. 2010; 125(Suppl 3): 82–91. The U.S. Military and the Influenza Pandemic of 1918–1919 Carol R. Byerly, PhD https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862337/ 8. Rockefeller Institute pamphlet PDF (1919) https://digitalcommons.rockefeller.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=rockefeller-institute-descriptive-pamphlet 9. Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century, A Staff Report Prepared for the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, United States Senate, December 1994 https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=438835 10. Dr. Stanley Plotkin: vaccine experiments on orphans, the mentally retarded, and others (January 2018) https://youtu.be/yevV_slu7Dw 11. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (19 October 2005) http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html 12. CDC Offers New Stats On Disability Prevalence https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2016/03/14/cdc-disability-prevalence/22034/ 13. 1986 Vaccine Injury Compensation Act https://worldmercuryproject.org/news/childhood-vaccine-injury-act-protect/ PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By vaccinepapers.org “All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis.” —Dr Peter Aaby et al., of the Statens Serum Institute, Denmark. Quote is from study reviewed in this article. Healthy user bias (HUB) is a serious problem in studies of vaccine safety. HUB is created when people with health problems avoid vaccination. When this occurs the unhealthy, unvaccinated subjects are used as controls. Consequently, the vaccinated group has better health at the outset. The better health of the vaccinated is erroneously attributed to the vaccine. The vaccine gets credit for improving health, when in fact it is causing harm. Vaccine safety studies typically use administrative data (data collected by government agencies, HMOs and insurance companies), and HUB is present in this type of data. HUB occurs because, with administrative data, researchers can not control who receives the vaccine and who does not. HUB creates the appearance that vaccines have dramatic, diverse and implausible beneficial effects. For example, HUB is almost certainly responsible for the dramatic and implausibly amazing mortality reductions (about 50%) associated with the influenza vaccine. The HUB phenomena instead suggests that subjects getting the influenza vaccine pursue more “health seeking” behavior in general. Fortunately, there is growing interest in performing studies that are not affected by HUB. The study described below (Mogensen et al 2017) is specifically designed to avoid HUB. It reports a 5-fold higher mortality associated with the DTP vaccine in infants. This result indicates a serious safety problem with the DTP vaccine, and serious problems with prior studies that do not account for HUB. Paper (Mogensen et al): The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment DTP, Death, and HUB For decades there has been controversy and concern that the DTP vaccine may cause death, for example sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). There are many reports of infants dying shortly after the DTP vaccine. However, studies using administrative data consistently find that DTP vaccine is inversely associated with SIDS. That is, children receiving a DTP vaccine were less likely to die (in a short period after vaccination) than unvaccinated controls. CDC researchers Dr Paul Fine and Dr Robert Chen (of the CDC) wrote an excellent paper on SIDS and healthy user bias in 1992. It is described here: http://vaccinepapers.org/healthy-user-bias-why-most-vaccine-safety-studies-are-wrong/ The Fine and Chen paper provides this table summarizing DTP-SIDS studies. Above: List of studies of DTP vaccine and SIDS deaths from Fine et al, 1992. Notice that most of the odds ratios (ORs) are less than 1. An OR less than 1.0 indicates that the vaccinated subjects have a lower risk of death than the controls. Is this a real effect of the vaccine, or healthy user bias? Most studies reported odds ratios (ORs) less than 1.0, which means that infants receiving the vaccine had lower risk of SIDs compared to unvaccinated controls. The low odds ratios (ORs) obtained in studies of DTP and SIDS should not be reassuring. This is because the low ORs suggest the presence of healthy user bias. It is not plausible that the DTP vaccine reduces risk of death in the days following vaccination. Of course, its impossible to know how strongly HUB is affecting the results. But HUB may be concealing a risk of death from the DTP vaccine. The Fine and Chen paper states: “Review of the literature on SIDS, encephalopathies, and DPT suggests that a large number of factors are associated with both a tendency to avoid or delay vaccination and an increased risk of SIDS and other serious neurologic events. That failure to control for such factors may lead to spurious negative associations between vaccination and adverse events is evident in several published investigations. Examination of the logic underlying this relation reveals that failure to control for such factors in analyses may mask true associations between vaccinations and certain adverse outcomes under certain conditions…” (Emphasis added) The Mogensen et al. study was specifically designed to avoid HUB. It says the following about healthy user bias in prior studies of DTP and mortality: “…the “unvaccinated” children in these studies have usually been frail children too sick or malnourished to get vaccinated, and the studies may therefore have underestimated the negative effect of DTP.” NOTE: “these studies” = prior studies of DTP and mortality (or SIDS) Until now, I have not been able to find studies of the DTP vaccine and mortality specifically designed to avoid healthy user bias. The Mogensen et al. study appears to be the first. A Clever Study Design The Mogensen study uses data collected during the “Bandim Health Project” (during 1980-1983) in the west african nation of Guinea-Bissau. In the Bandim Health project, the community of Bandim was followed for several years and health services were provided. New babies were identified and tracked for health outcomes. On a quarterly basis (once every 3 months), new babies received DTP vaccine. The quarterly vaccination schedule is critical to the study design. Normally, in developed countries, babies are vaccinated according to a schedule based on a baby’s age. DTP vaccine is given at ages 2, 4, and 6 months according to the US CDC schedule for example. But this was not possible in the Bandim project because vaccination could only be done quarterly, when workers visited villages. All children (of appropriate age range of 3-6 months) in a visited village received vaccine on the same calendar day, but not at the same age. Consequently, babies were vaccinated at varying ages, depending only on their date of birth. This creates an excellent opportunity for research, because it means there is no HUB. The age at vaccination is determined only by birth date, and not health status, decision to vaccinate or delay, or any other confounder. Babies that did not receive DTP vaccine were not included in the study. So the Mogensen study avoids HUB, even though it was not prospectively randomized. Very clever. Mogensen states: “…the children were allocated by birthday to receive vaccines early or late and the “unvaccinated” were therefore not frail children.” AND “The present analysis assessed DTP and child survival in a “natural experiment” in which the children were allocated by the timing of their birth and community weighing sessions and the group allocation was therefore not influenced by the usual selection biases to the same extent as most other studies of DTP.” NOTE: “selection biases” = healthy user bias Mogensen continues: “Though not individually randomized, the present study is a natural experiment with limited bias in group allocation: With 3-month intervals between weighing sessions, children were allocated by their birthday to receive their first vaccinations early or late between 3 and 5 months of age. We therefore compared 3–5-month-old children who had received DTP vaccinations early with children who had not yet received these vaccinations.” AND “Sick children were not vaccinated, in the main analysis we therefore censored ‘unvaccinated’ children who attended a weighing session but did not receive a vaccination. Since the censoring of sick children could have introduced a bias, we also conducted an intention-to-treat analysis in which the censored children were transferred to the DTP group. Hence, in this analysis we compared the mortality of the intended-DTP-vaccinated group and the not yet DTP-vaccinated group.” NOTE: Censor= Eliminate from the study. So, Mogensen compared health outcomes for 1) subjects receiving the vaccine early, and 2) not-yet-vaccinated subjects receiving the vaccine late. The groups were well-matched because only the date of birth (not health conditions or decision to vaccinate) determined age at vaccination. The Mogensen study design definitely avoids HUB, as the researchers intended. Results The primary result was that the DTP vaccine was associated with a 5-fold or 10-fold higher mortality rate. Detailed results are shown below. Receipt of the oral polio vaccine (OPV) seemed to reduce the mortality associated with DTP. DTP without OPV was associated with a 10-fold increase in mortality. However, the association with OPV is not statistically significant, so we cannot be confident that OPV truly affects mortality. Above: Receipt of DTP vaccine in infants (at ages 3-6 months) is associated with 5-fold higher mortality. This study was designed to avoid healthy user bias (HUB). From Mogensen et al. 2017. Mogensen et al. make strong statements about the inadequacies of prior studies and apparent dangers of the DTP vaccine: “The negative effect of DTP was much worse in this natural experiment than has been reported in previous studies of DTP. This is presumably due to the “unvaccinated” control children in previous studies having been a frail subgroup too frail to get vaccinated. Previous studies have not been able to compare DTP-vaccinated children with “normal” controls. Hence, most previous studies have probably underestimated the negative effect of DTP.” AND “DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP…It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials. All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis.” (Emphasis added) Implications for Other Vaccine Safety Studies These results have profound implications for other vaccine safety studies. Many vaccine safety studies may have dramatically underestimated the risks of vaccination because of HUB. A review paper (Shrank 2010) on HUB and related biases states: “Clinicians should be skeptical when interpreting results of observational studies of preventive services that have not accounted for healthy user and related biases.“ Paper (Shrank 2010): Healthy User and Related Biases in Observational Studies of Preventive Interventions: A Primer for Physicians DTP, OPV, and Th1-Th2 Balance It is biologically plausible for the OPV to reduce mortality caused by the DTP vaccine. Specifically, the DTP and OPV vaccines induce opposite types of immune activation: DTP vaccine induces Th2 polarization (since it contains Al adjuvant), and OPV induces Th1 polarization (citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1906307/pdf/cei0127-0495.pdf). By inducing Th1, the OPV reduces the Th2 polarization created by the DTP vaccine. In infants, Th2 polarization is harmful and Th1 polarization is beneficial. Research in animals show that Th2 polarization from the Hep B vaccine is harmful, and Th1 polarization from the BCG vaccine is beneficial for brain development: http://vaccinepapers.org/two-vaccines-opposite-effects-brain/ PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By forbiddenknowledgetv This video was produced by Robert F Kennedy Jr’s Children’s Health Defense coalition to allow top US research scientist, Dr. Judy Mikovits to briefly tell her story. Mikovits worked extensively under Anthony Fauci for decades, who she says stole her proprietary research not once, but twice. She joined NIH in 1980 as a Postdoctoral Scholar in Molecular Virology at the National Cancer Institute, where she collaborated with Dr Frank Ruscetti and helped him isolate the HIV virus and its link to AIDS. Her boss at NIH, Fauci delayed publication of their paper for 6 months to let his protégé Robert Gallo replicate, publish and take credit for their discovery. The delay allowed AIDS to spread around the globe, which in turn helped Fauci get promoted in 1984 to Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, where he remains to this day. In 2006, Dr Mikovits became director of Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease, collaborating again with Dr Ruscetti to search for the cause of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). She discovered that 67% of women with CFS carried a virus—called Xenotropic Murine Leukemia-Related Virus (XMRV), which only appeared in 4% of healthy women. XMRV is associated with prostate, breast, ovarian cancers, leukemia, and multiple myeloma. Many women with XMRV have given birth to children with autism. Mikovits and Ruscetti published their findings in 2009. Other researchers had previously linked the first CFS outbreak to an experimental polio vaccine given to doctors and nurses that resulted in a 1934 outbreak among Los Angeles County hospital staff. That polio vaccine was cultivated on pulverized mouse brains. Dr Mikovits’ studies suggested that the highly-infectious XMRV virus was present in the MMR and Polio vaccines given to American children and the Japanese Encephalitis vaccines given to US military personnel. In 2011, their research strongly indicated that XMRV had entered the human virome through a contaminated blood supply and vaccines. Mikovits says, “We recognized that this mouse retrovirus was causing an alarming national health crisis. That is, if the blood supply and the vaccines were heavily-contaminated with mouse viruses of many strains.” Before she could warn the public, Fauci used his power to silence her. She says, “What Tony Fauci, Ian Lipkin, Harold Varmus did was pressure me to be silent and to withdraw our manuscript.” When she refused,”Dr Fauci stepped in and ordered that my computers and notebooks be confiscated. And he orchestrated the retraction of our science paper. He then removed all my funding and prevented me from getting a job in government research from 2012 forward.” Hundreds of millions of Americans may have received vaccines contaminated with XMRV. Judy’s latest book, Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science was released on April 14, 2020. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By physiciansforinformedconsent 1. WHAT IS ALUMINUM? Aluminum is a silvery-white, moldable, and durable light metal. These qualities make it useful in numerous industries and products, including machinery, construction, storage, cookware, eating utensils, textiles, dyes, and cosmetics. Aluminum is also the most abundant metal in the Earth’s crust, and virtually all aluminum in the environment is in soil. However, aluminum is not naturally found in significant amounts in living organisms (such as plants and animals), and aluminum has no known biological function. During the past century, aluminum usage in certain products has led to higher human exposure. The greatest sources of such exposure are aluminum-containing foods (e.g., baking powder, processed foods, infant formulas, etc.), medical products (e.g., antiperspirants, antacids, etc.), allergy shots, and vaccines.1-3 2. WHY IS ALUMINUM IN VACCINES? Certain vaccines use aluminum compounds (i.e., aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate) as adjuvants, ingredients that enhance the immune response to an antigen (foreign substance).4,5 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that if some vaccines did not include aluminum, the immune response they trigger may be diminished.6 3. WHICH VACCINES CONTAIN ALUMINUM? The following vaccines contain aluminum and are administered to infants, children and adolescents (Fig. 1): Hepatitis B (HepB) Diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough) (DTaP and Tdap) Haemophilus influenzae type b (PedvaxHIB) Pneumococcal (PCV) Hepatitis A (HepA) Human papillomavirus (HPV) Meningococcal B (MenB) 4. IS EXPOSURE TO ALUMINUM SAFE? The FDA has considered aluminum to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) since 1975.9 However, before 1990, the technology did not exist to accurately detect small quantities of aluminum administered to subjects in scientific studies.10 Consequently, the amount of aluminum that could be absorbed before the onset of negative effects was not known. Since 1990, due to advancements in technology, small amounts of aluminum that remain in the human body have been observed to interfere with a variety of cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system and in tissues of other parts of the body.1,10,11 The greatest negative effects of aluminum have been observed in the nervous system and range from motor skill impairment to encephalopathy (altered mental state, personality changes, difficulty thinking, loss of memory, seizures, coma, and more).2,12 The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recognizes aluminum as a known neurotoxin.2 In addition, the FDA has warned about the risks of aluminum toxicity in infants and children.13 5. HOW MUCH ORAL ALUMINUM IS UNSAFE? In 2008, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a division of HHS, used studies of the neurotoxic effects of aluminum to determine that no more than 1 milligram (1,000 micrograms) of aluminum per kilogram of body weight should be taken orally per day to avoid aluminum’s negative effects.2 6. HOW MUCH INJECTED ALUMINUM IS UNSAFE? To determine the amount of aluminum that can be safely injected requires a conversion of the ATSDR oral aluminum limit. The ATSDR oral aluminum limit (1,000 micrograms of aluminum per kilogram of body weight per day) is based on 0.1% of oral aluminum being absorbed into the bloodstream, as the digestive tract blocks nearly all oral aluminum (Fig. 2a).2 In contrast, aluminum injected intramuscularly bypasses the digestive tract, and 100% of aluminum may be absorbed into the bloodstream over time (i.e., the proportion of absorbed aluminum is 1,000 times greater). To account for these different absorption amounts, the ATSDR oral aluminum limit must be divided by 1,000. This conversion results in an ATSDR-derived bloodstream aluminum limit of 1 microgram of aluminum (0.1% of 1,000 micrograms) per kilogram of body weight per day (Fig. 2b). Consequently, to avoid the neurotoxic effects of aluminum, no more than 1 microgram of aluminum per kilogram of body weight should enter the bloodstream on a daily basis. Figure 3 shows the ATSDR-derived bloodstream aluminum limit for infants of various ages based on their weight. 7. HOW MUCH ALUMINUM IS IN VACCINES? The amount of aluminum in vaccines varies.16 In 1968, the federal government set the limit for the amount of aluminum in vaccines to 850 micrograms per dose based on the amount of aluminum needed to make certain vaccines effective.6,17 Consequently, the amount of aluminum in aluminum-containing childhood vaccines ranges from 125 to 850 micrograms per dose. Figure 4 shows the aluminum content of one dose of various vaccines administered to children. 8. HAVE ANY STUDIES COMPARED THE AMOUNT OF ALUMINUM IN VACCINES TO THE ATSDR-DERIVED LIMIT? A recent study that intended to compare the amount of aluminum in vaccines to the ATSDR-derived bloodstream limit was published in 2011.18 However, this study incorrectly based its calculations on 0.78% of oral aluminum being absorbed into the bloodstream rather than the value of 0.1% used by the ATSDR in its computations.19,20 As a result, the 2011 study assumed that nearly 8 (0.78%/0.1%) times more aluminum can safely enter the bloodstream, and this led to an incorrect conclusion. 9. IS EXPOSURE TO ALUMINUM FROM VACCINES SAFE? Vaccines are injected intramuscularly, and the rate at which aluminum from vaccines migrates from human muscle to the bloodstream is not known. Studies in animals suggest that it can take from a couple of months to more than a year for aluminum from vaccines to enter into the bloodstream, due to multiple variables.21-23 Because the cumulative aluminum exposure from vaccines in children less than 1 year old exceeds the ATSDR-derived daily limit by several hundreds (Figs. 3 and 4), the limit would still be exceeded if aluminum from vaccines entered the bloodstream over the course of about a year. Moreover, studies have shown that aluminum from vaccines is absorbed by immune cells that travel to distant parts of the body, including the brain.24 The extent of the negative effects of aluminum in vaccines is not known, as safety studies comparing a population vaccinated with aluminum-containing vaccines to a population not vaccinated with such vaccines have not been conducted. DOWNLOAD/PRINT PDF References American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Nutrition. Aluminum toxicity in infants and children. Pediatrics. 1996 Mar;97(3):413. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological profile for aluminum. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2008.3, 13-24, 145, 171-7, 208. Yokel RA. Aluminum in food—the nature and contribution of food additives. In: El-Samragy Y, editor. Food additive. Rijeka (Croatia): InTech; 2012. 203-28. Marrack P, McKee AS, Munks MW. Towards an understanding of the adjuvant action of aluminium. Nat Rev Immunol. 2009 Apr;9(4):287. Volk VK, Bunney WE. Diphtheria immunization with fluid toxoid and alum-precipitated toxoid. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1942 Jul;32(7):690-9. Baylor NW, Egan W, Richman P. Aluminum salts in vaccines—U.S. perspective. Vaccine. 2002 May 31;20 Suppl 3:S18-22. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Silver Spring (MD): U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Vaccines licensed for use in the United States; [updated 2018 Feb 14; cited 2018 Feb 27]. https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/Ucm093833.htm. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Recommended immunization schedule for children and adolescents aged 18 years or younger, United States, 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Silver Spring (MD): U.S. Food and Drug Administration. SCOGS (Select Committee on GRAS Substances); [cited 2018 Aug 16]. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=SCOGS. Priest ND. The biological behaviour and bioavailability of aluminium in man, with special reference to studies employing aluminium-26 as a tracer: review and study update. J Environ Monit. 2004;6:376,392. Poole RL, Pieroni KP, Gaskari S, Dixon TK, Park KT, Kerner JA. Aluminum in pediatric parenteral nutrition products: measured versus labeled content. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2011;16(2):92-7. Sedman A. Aluminum toxicity in childhood. Pediatr Nephrol. 1992 Jul;6(4):383-93. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. Rules and regulations. Fed Regist. 2003 Jun;68(100):34286. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics: Data table for boys length-for-age and weight-for-age charts; [cited 2019 April 2]. https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/who/boys_length_weight.htm. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics: Data table for girls length-for-age and weight-for-age charts; [cited 2019 April 2]. https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/who/girls_length_weight.htm. U.S Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. Revision of the requirements for constituent materials. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2011 Apr 13;76(71):20513-8. Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration. Rules and regulations. Fed Regist. 1968 Jan; 33(6):369. Mitkus RJ, King DB, Hess MA, Forshee RA, Walderhaug MO. Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination. Vaccine. 2011 Nov 28;29(51):9538-43. Miller S, Physicians for Informed Consent. Erratum in ‘Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination.’ In: ResearchGate. Berlin (Germany): ResearchGate GmbH; 2020 Mar 6 [cited 2020 Mar 6]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51718934_Updated_Aluminum_pharmacokinetics_following_infant_exposures_through_diet_and_vaccines/comments. Physicians for Informed Consent. Newport Beach (CA): Physicians for Informed Consent. Erratum in ‘Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination’; [cited 2020 Mar 6]. https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/mitkus-2011-erratum/. Flarend RE, Hem SL, White JL, Elmore D, Suckow MA, Rudy AC, Dandashli EA. In vivo absorption of aluminium-containing vaccine adjuvants using 26Al. Vaccine 1997 Aug-Sept;15(12-13):1314-8. Verdier F, Burnett R, Michelet-Habchi C, Moretto P, Fievet-Groyne F, Sauzeat E. Aluminium assay and evaluation of the local reaction at several time points after intramuscular administration of aluminium containing vaccines in the Cynomolgus monkey. Vaccine. 2005 Feb 3;23(11):1359-67. Weisser K, Göen T, Oduro JD, Wangorsch G, Hanschmann KO, Keller-Stanislawski B. Aluminium in plasma and tissues after intramuscular injection of adjuvanted human vaccines in rats. Arch Toxicol. 2019 Oct;93(10):2787-96. Masson JD, Crépeaux G, Authier FJ, Exley C, Gherardi RK. Critical analysis of reference studies on the toxicokinetics of aluminum-based adjuvants. J Inorg Biochem. 2018 Apr;181:87-95. DOWNLOAD/PRINT PDF PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Kate Raines via thevaccinereaction.org Bioinorganic chemist Christopher Exley, PhD, who has spent decades researching, writing and speaking about the neurological adverse effects of accumulation of aluminum in the brain, co-authored an article published this year that discussed aluminum content in vaccines routinely administered to infants.1 Long recognized as an authority on the neurotoxicity of aluminum, during his distinguished career he has published hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in respected medical and scientific journals, including Frontiers in Neurology,2 the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease,3 the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,4 among many other publications archived by the U.S. National Library of Medicine on Pub Med. As a recognized expert on aluminum, he was asked to examine the brain of Carole Cross, a woman who had been exposed to excessive aluminum in drinking water following an industrial accident and, ultimately, died from a rare form of dementia.5 At the inquest after her death, Exley described the levels of aluminum found in her brain as “beyond belief.”6 Professor Exley’s reputation for possessing a thorough knowledge of, expertise in and ability to clearly communicate reasons for why aluminum is toxic if it accumulates in the human body has earned him the moniker “Mr. Aluminum,” and it has been said that, “Sooner or later, anyone who is interested in aluminum—and especially its effects on human health and biological systems—is bound to come across the work and writings of Christopher Exley, PhD, FRSB, professor of bioinorganic chemistry at Keele University in the United Kingdom.7 His latest book is entitled “Imagine You Are An Aluminum Atom: Discussions With Mr. Aluminum.”8 Unpopular Vaccine Research Leads to Retaliation As Dr Exley has become more vocal about the potential for neurologic damage caused by aluminum and has re-examined the scientific evidence that aluminum vaccine adjuvants may play a role in the development of Alzheimer’s and autism,9 he has been attacked professionally and personally by those attempting to stop his research. A group of 100 scientists wrote a letter of support for his pioneering research into the link between aluminum and brain dysfunction “to express our concern over the possible interruption of research on aluminum and disease conducted by Christopher Exley and his group in your (Keele) University. They said: We feel that Christopher Exley’s work conducted for so many years in line with the previous research of late Pr Birchall at Keele University has been an important service to the scientific community, patients and society in Europe and globally. We firmly declare that Pr Exley has always defended rigorous research independent of commercial conflicts of interest, and has freely carried out his research without any control by any of his sponsors.10 Nevertheless, even a quick online search finds a number of attacks on his reputation, alleging that he is “clueless,” “a pseudoscientist” and “the latest darling of the anti-vaccine movement.” The most often cited arguments challenging Professor Exley’s well documented evidence that accumulation of aluminum in the brain is toxic is that aluminum is a metal found in the earth and in the air, food and water, and that the exposure through vaccines is so low and poorly absorbed it can be assumed to be safe.11 The FDA reported that their study on the safety of aluminum in childhood vaccines calculated an “insignificant” risk by totaling the amounts of aluminum for each vaccine included on a baby’s first-year vaccine schedule. Based on the exposure as it was calculated by federal health officials, that study concluded the “maximum amount of aluminum an infant could be exposed to over the first year of life would be 4.225 milligrams (mg), based on the recommended schedule of vaccines.”12 New Evidence Shakes the Foundation of Safety Argument In the recently published study evaluating aluminum content in childhood vaccines, Dr. Exley and his colleagues provided evidence that the FDA’s method of determining total aluminum exposure from first-year vaccines may be based on a false set of data.13 They concluded that the amount of aluminum used in 13 childhood vaccines, as reported by the vaccine manufacturers, is not accurate for the majority of vaccine products. Further, they pointed out that there is no oversight to verify the accuracy of the amounts reported in product information inserts for vaccine administrators and users. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the FDA are responsible for validating the content of vaccines,14 including amounts of vaccine ingredients, but tend to rely on information provided by the manufacturers themselves. Aluminum Salts Common in Inactivated Vaccines Aluminum salts are the most commonly used vaccine adjuvants added to inactivated vaccines to provoke a strong immune system reaction and have been in diphtheria and tetanus vaccines since the 1930s and in pertussis containing vaccines since the late 1940s.15 16 Although it is recognized that aluminum adjuvants trigger a humoral immune system reaction, activating an antigen-specific response, the biological mechanism for immune activation is still not fully understood.17 18 19 In the study, Dr. Exley and his colleagues explain that there are three different types of aluminum salts currently in use in vaccine manufacturing. Two—aluminum oxyhydroxide and aluminum hydroxyphosphate—are available for independent study but the third—aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulphate—is exclusive to Merck and is not available for impartial study. The way the aluminum content of vaccines is reported is, to quote Exley’s study, “vague, often inaccurate and confusing.” For example, vaccine product information inserts list total aluminum content but some also break out the amount used as aluminum salts. The type of aluminum may be listed as one type (oxyhydroxide for example) but the vaccine may actually contain a different form (like hydroxyphosphate). There also is no explanation for vaccine administrators, parents and recipients as to why the amount of aluminum in vaccines ranges from 0.125 mg per 0.5 mL dose of vaccine (Prevnar 13) to 0.85 per dose (Pediarix). Inaccurate Reporting of Aluminum Content in Vaccines Exley and his team used “microwave-assisted acid and peroxide digestion followed by transversely heated graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry” to accurately measure the true levels of aluminum in 13 infant vaccines, then compared their findings to the numbers reported by the manufacturers, using “full statistical analyses including Bayesian methods.” Even allowing for a 10 percent manufacturing margin of error in either direction and a statistical significance level of P = 0.05, only three of the studied vaccines (Boostrix, Engerix Bin and Infanrix Hexa) actually contained the same amount of aluminum claimed by the manufacturers. Six vaccines (Pentacel, Havrix, Adacel, Pedvax, Prevnar 13 and Vaqta) contained significantly more aluminum than was cited by manufacturers. Four vaccines (Infanrix, Pediarix, Kinrix and Synflorix) contained significantly less aluminum than was cited. The researchers noted that the precise amount of aluminum in any given vaccine is presumably important or specific measurements would not need to be given in the vaccine product information inserts accompanying vials of vaccine administered by doctors and other medical personnel. They pointed out that too much aluminum may increase risks, too little may impact efficacy of the vaccines. The report reads: The data are not reassuring. They suggest that vaccine manufacturers have limited control over the aluminium content of their vaccines. The aluminium content of individual vaccines within vaccine lots vary appear, akin to a lottery.20 While noting that exposure to aluminum in the environment is unavoidable, the authors urge acknowledgement of aluminum’s known toxicity and potential for neurotoxicity. They voice the need for vaccine manufacturers and regulators to address the lack of good information pertaining to the content, biological activity and safety of vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvants. A petition here that was filed with and accepted by the FDA reads, in part: The FDA must ensure that vaccines in current use and those that will be on the market in the future are accurately labeled. Vaccine recipients and their caregivers must be able to rely on the FDA-approved labeling for these products, especially considering that they are given to babies and children. Given that aluminum is a recognized neurotoxin, the authors concluded that, “its content in vaccines should be accurate and independently monitored to ensure both efficacy and safety… We cannot afford to be complacent about its injection into infants.” PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By @michellepalasia via IG Syntocinon is not Oxytocin Oxytocin is a natural hormone made by the body. It cannot be bottled. It cannot be bagged. It cannot be replicated. Care providers that tell you otherwise are consciously deceiving, manipulating and coercing you...because they KNOW this. Pharmaceutical companies print the word “Oxytocin” on to bags of Syntocinon. Syntocinon is not Oxytocin. Syntocinon does not replicate natural labour. Syntocinon disrupts the natural flow of hormones that work in perfect unison during labour. Oxytocin (body’s love hormone which also stimulates the uterus creating natural surges during labour and also gives us a euphoric natural high) 👉 Endorphins (body’s natural pain relieving hormone) 👉🏻 Cortisol (body’s natural stress reliever) 👉🏻 Melatonin (released in natural, dark settings boosts Oxytocin even more)...this is the body working in unison during labour. Introduce Syntocinon and all of this ☝🏻 is interrupted. One thing Syntocinon DOES do is increase Adrenalin...this hormone slows labour and will appear when we’re in a stressful situation or inundated with fear. Syntocinon is not Oxytocin and care providers need to quit trying to coerce us into believing otherwise. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Kathleen McCoy via draxe.com The quest for perfection has never been higher. Reality TV, advertisements and the media constantly promote a “perfect” body. The result is more and more women (and men) are turning to plastic surgery. In fact, in 2015 over 1.7 million cosmetic surgical procedures were performed in the United States. (1) Breast Augmentation: 279,143 Liposuction 222,051 Nose Reshaping 217,979 Eyelid Surgery 203,934 Tummy Tucks 127,967 When considering any type of elective surgery, it is imperative that you understand the risks during surgery, potential surgical complications, and any potential for ongoing adverse effects caused by cosmetic procedures. For individuals considering breast augmentation surgery, take note of the following statement from the FDA: “Breast implants are not lifetime devices; the longer you have your implants, the more likely it will be for you to have them removed.” (2) In breast augmentation surgery, implants are inserted under the skin to provide added fullness and to enhance the shape of the breast. While typically considered a safe procedure with minimal risk, millions of women worldwide have developed symptoms after implantation in the 50 years they have been on the market. These symptoms have been coined “breast implant illness.” From minor irritations to greater health challenges, research supports that in some individuals, both saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants can cause significant adverse health effects, leading us to question if breast implants are safe. In addition, implants have been found to increase the risk of certain types of cancer. (3) As of May 2019, the FDA clearly states that there is a risk of women with textured breast implants developing a type of cancer known as anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. Even though the risk of cancer and illness exists, the FDA is allowing continued availability of these implants in the United States, but will take steps for “more transparent medical device reports” to increase public awareness of the possible adverse effects of breast implants. Meanwhile, these implants have been taking off the market in 38 other countries including France and Canada. Types of Breast Implants Saline-Filled Breast Implants: Silicone pockets filled with sterile salt water approved for augmentation in women 18 years or older. Structured saline breast implants have an additional inner structure that lends a more natural feel than the standard saline-filled implants. Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implants: Silicone shells filled with silicone typically feel more like real breasts. However, they pose more of a risk if they leak. (4) Silicone breast implants are FDA-approved for breast augmentation procedures in women 22 or older. Textured Breast Implants: Textured breast implants have a rough/bumpy surface and research has shown that the “texturing process may lead to residual surface debris that may be shed from the implant to the patient.” NOTE: With silicone gel-filled implants, it is highly recommended that an MRI scan is conducted 3 years after implant, and every 2 years after that to check for a silent rupture. If the implants rupture, they will need to be removed. Be advised that insurance may or may not cover the costs of the MRIs, nor the removal in the event of a rupture. Manufacturers continue to innovate breast implant design. Now gummy bear breast implants, round breast implants, smooth and textured breast implants are available on the market. (5) A Brief History of Breast Augmentation The fascination with the female breast has existed since the beginning of time. And, for the last 120 years, physicians across the globe have been testing ways to enhance the female form. The first record of breast augmentation surgery dates to 1895 when Dr. Vincenz Czerny tested injecting paraffin into the breast that sadly resulted in fistulas, tissue necrosis and granulomas. Over the next several decades more physicians experimented, often with disastrous results. They implanted glass balls, rubber, wool, foam sponges, ox cartilage and even ivory to create the ideal breast. During the mid-20th century, physicians tested animal fatty acids, olive oil, putty, silicone oil and even snake venom. But nothing provided the look, feel or safety desired. (6) Then, in the early 1960s, Dow Corning Corporation, along with Thomas Cronin and Frank Gerow, developed the first silicone breast prosthesis. This resulted in the first augmentation surgery in 1962. For the next 30 years, the FDA did not require companies to prove implants were safe. Hundreds of thousands of women in the United States were implanted with silicone breast implants. The reporting of complications, including capsule contractures, necrosis, seromas, ruptures and autoimmune-related symptoms, escalated through the 1980s. Finally, in 1992 the FDA requested a “voluntary moratorium on the implantation of silicone-filled implants because of the lack of scientific and clinical data supporting their safety.” Many of the symptoms and adverse effects reported to the FDA and other governing bodies around the globe included scleroderma, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. (7) After the FDA’s request, saline-filled implants took over the market. As women continued to experience adverse effects of silicone-filled breast implants in the mid-1990s, well-known attorney Ed Blizzard, known for taking on pharmaceutical companies, served as counsel for nearly 200,000 women worldwide who were injured or made ill by silicone breast implants produced by Dow Corning. As one of the chief negotiators, he got $3.2 billion for his clients. (8). After this victory, more and more women across the country stepped forward and began legal proceedings against the makers of breast implants. Dow Corning was not the only manufacturer of breast implants sued during this time; 3M paid $325 million to compensate women who received their silicone breast implants and Union Carbide Corporation agreed to pay $138 million. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Baxter International, and Inamed Inc. also contributed to a settlement agreement. This settlement granted women payments of $200,000 to $2 million for the diagnosis, treatment and removal of leaking silicone breast implants due to the silicone migrating, which causes life-threatening autoimmune disorders like lupus. (9) After being off-market for a little more than a decade, the FDA approved silicone gel-filled breast implants for augmentation in November 2006, with directives that manufacturers are required to conduct post-operative studies to “further characterize the safety and effectiveness of their silicone gel-filled breast implants and to answer scientific questions that the premarket clinical trials were not designed to answer.” (10) Early in 2011, the FDA issued a Safety Communication on anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) in women with breast implants because research indicated that there is an increased risk of developing this rare disease in the scar capsule adjacent to the implant. Anaplastic large-cell lymphoma is a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that is linked to exposure to certain chemicals, immune system deficiency, certain infections and several autoimmune diseases. According to the American Cancer Society, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjogren disease, celiac sprue and other diseases have been linked with an increased rate of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. (11) What Is Breast Implant Illness? Breast implant illness is the name given to the variety of symptoms and illnesses reported by women after implantation. Often, allergy-like symptoms including fatigue, muscle weakness, aches and pains, and brain fog begin shortly after breast augmentation surgery. While silicone is used for a variety of medical devices, including pacemakers and cochlear implants, research is now pointing to symptoms appearing after exposure to silicone. (12) In fact, the 2008 study “The Association Between Silicone Implants and Both Antibodies and Autoimmune Diseases” stated that women with silicone breast implants had a higher IgE serum level than women without silicone breast implants. (13) IgE levels are high when the body’s immune system responds to a perceived threat, releasing additional immunoglobulin E. Elevated concentrations are found in various diseases including: primary immunodeficiencies, infections, inflammatory diseases, and malignancies. (14) Since 2008, women with breast implants diagnosed with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma in the breast (otherwise known as breast-ALCL) has increased, according to a 2018 study. The study utilized a Dutch pathology registry that held clinical data between 1990 and 2016 to identify all patients diagnosed with primary non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the breast and whether or not they had breast implants. Among 43 identified patients with breast-ALCL, 32 of the women had ipsilateral breast implants, compared with one among 146 women with alternate primary breast lymphomas. Prevalence of breast implants in women aged 20 to 70 years old was 3.3 percent; cumulative risks of breast-ALCL in women with implants were 29 per million at 50 years old and 82 million at 70 years old. The study concludes there is an associated risk of breast-ALCL with breast implants, however the risk still remains minute. (15) Other symptoms of breast implant illness include depression, panic attacks, short-term memory loss, hair loss and changes in skin. Breast Implant Illness: 6 Dangers of Breast Implants Chronic Chest Pain. A small study conducted at Baylor College of Medicine found silicone breast implants may cause an atypical chest pain syndrome, similar to heart attacks. Chest pain was considered severe and at the end of the study, all 11 patients had implants removed, with 5 ruptures noted and an additional 5 patients with free silicone in surrounding tissue, whether the implant was ruptured or not (16), signaling silicone leakage or weeping. Capsular Contracture. After implantation of either saline-filled or silicone gel-filled implants, scar tissue known as the “capsule” forms around the implant. In some cases, this scar tissue may tighten and squeeze the implant causing breasts to become uncomfortably firm, visibly distorted, or even painful and hard. Additional surgery may be required to correct this condition and may include the removal of the capsule tissue and removal of the implant. The FDA warns this may happen again after surgical correction. (17) Rupture rates, as high as 40% for some models of breast implants (that have now been recalled) are reported with researchers finding that a minimum of 15% of “modern implants” can be expected to rupture between the third and 10th year after implantation. (18) When a saline-filled breast implant ruptures, the salt water leaks out and the body absorbs it. There have been circumstances in the last few years where mold and bacteria have grown inside saline implants causing adverse side effects. (19) When a silicone breast implant ruptures, the first signs are breast pain and a change in the shape of the breast. If you suspect your implant has ruptured, speak with your doctor immediately about an MRI scan, especially if you are experiencing any signs or symptoms related to silicone poisoning or toxicity. Also, when a silicone breast implant ruptures, the immune system attempts to separate the silicone from the body, creating a “siliconoma.” Researchers have recently found that siliconomas can travel throughout the body to reach the extremities. (20) In the study “Pathology of Silicone Leakage from Breast Implants” conducted by the Department of Pathology at Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, researchers outlined that silicone leakage and “gel bleed” is associated with histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis and autoimmune and connective tissue diseases. The conclusion drawn was that side effects may be significant enough to lead to further discussion about removing the implants from the market. (21) Researchers have found that breast augmentation surgery can stimulate a systematic stress response and increase a pre-existing risk of suicide in women. Researchers found that there is a two- to threefold increased suicide risk among individuals who have had breast augmentation surgery and that further examination and research is necessary. (22) And, the National Cancer Institute seems to agree stating, “The excess risk of suicide among the implant patients remains of concern.” (23) Connective Tissue Disease. In 2001, the Journal of Rheumatology published research conducted by the Office of Surveillance and Biometrics, Center for Devices and Radiological Health of the FDA. Researchers found that women with silicone gel-filled breast implants that had ruptured were significantly more likely to have fibromyalgia, polymyositis, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, pulmonary fibrosis, eosinophilic fasciitis, and polymyalgia than others in the study.(24) The study itself stated “If this association persists in other studies, women with silicone gel breast implants should be informed of the potential risk of developing fibromyalgia if their breast implants rupture and the silicone gel escapes the fibrous scar capsule.” However, this significant finding is not included in the FDA’s “Risks of Breast Implants” highlighted below. The article, “Autoimmune/Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvant (ASIA) Evolution After Silicone Implants. Who is at risk?,” published in Clinical Rheumatology, recommends that individuals who have previously diagnosed autoimmune diseases or a genetic preponderance for hyperactive immune system should not be considered candidates for silicone gel-filled breast implants. (25) Increased Cancer Risk. In 2001 the National Cancer Institute found that women with breast implants have significantly elevated instances of cancers of the stomach, vulva, brain and leukemia. (26) In addition, the FDA, like many health organizations, has stated that women with silicone breast implants do have a higher risk for developing the rare anaplastic large cell lymphoma. (27) This type of cancer can be particularly insidious because as of 2015 only about 30 percent of plastic surgeons were discussing risks of this cancer with patients. For some reason that doctors and researchers don’t yet understand, the risk of this rare lymphoma is higher with textured implants rather than smooth implants. If it’s diagnosed early enough, it’s usually treatable and not often fatal. However, as of March 2017 the FDA had received reports of nine deaths as a result of breast implant-induced anaplastic large cell lymphoma. (28) Researchers at the Zabludowicz Center for Autoimmune Diseases in Israel found that breast implants actually cause a chronic stimulation of the immune system against the prosthetic material. The study recommends that patients who experience an inflammatory response to silicone should be monitored carefully as “serious health effects can follow.”(29) In addition to the 6 breast implants dangers outlined above, the FDA publishes “The Risks of Breast Implants,” which are: (30) Additional Surgeries. Breast implants are not considered lifetime devices. Patients should expect to have surgeries for replacement every 10-15 years. Asymmetry. Breasts may not be symmetrical after implantation. Breastfeeding. Breastfeeding may or may not be affected by implants. Another consideration is that it is possible that a small amount of silicone may pass through breast implants’ silicone shell into breast milk during breastfeeding. The FDA states that there are no established methods for accurately detecting silicone levels in breast milk. (31) Breast Pain. Ongoing pain in the nipple or breast. Breast Tissue Atrophy. Thinning and shrinking of the breast tissue and skin. Calcification/Calcium Deposits. Hard lumps around the implant that can be mistaken for cancer during a mammography. Chest Wall Deformity. Rib cage and chest wall can appear deformed. Deflation in Saline Implants. Leakage of saline caused by valve leak, tear or rupture of the silicone shell. Delayed Wound Healing. Incision site fails to heal normally. Extrusion. The skin breaks down, and the implant appears through the skin. Hematomas. Blood collects near the surgical site resulting in swelling, bruising and pain. Large hematomas may require surgical draining. Iatrogenic Injury/Damage. Damage to breast tissue or implant as a result of the implant surgery. Infection, including Toxic Shock Syndrome. Caused by wounds contaminated with bacteria or fungi. If antibiotics fail, the implant may need to be removed. Inflammation/Irritation. Redness, swelling, pain and irritation caused by the body as a result of injury or infection. Lymphedema or Lymphadenopathy. Swollen or enlarged lymph nodes. Malposition/Displacement. The implant may not be in the correct position after surgery. Shifting can occur due to gravity, trauma or capsular contracture. Necrosis. Dead skin or tissue around the breast caused by infection, steroids, smoking, chemotherapy/radiation and excessive heat or cold therapy. Nipple/Breast Changes. Increase or decrease in the feeling and sensitivity of the nipple and breast. May affect sexual response or breastfeeding. Palpability. The implant is felt through the skin. Ptosis. Breast sagging due to aging, pregnancy, or weight loss. Redness/Bruising. Bleeding during surgery can cause the skin to change color; it is likely temporary. Seroma. Fluid may collect around the implant causing swelling, pain and bruising. The body may absorb small seromas; however, larger ones will require surgical draining. Skin Rash. Rash on or around the breast. Unsatisfactory Style/Size. The patient is unsatisfied with the overall look. Visibility. The implant can be seen through the skin. Wrinkling/Rippling. Wrinkling of the implant that can be seen or felt through the skin. Breast Implant Illness: Consider “Explant” Surgery Dr. Edward Melmed, a leader in plastic surgery, implanted thousands of women over the years. In 1992 he started taking breast implants out instead of putting them in. (32) “Like most plastic surgeons, I didn’t think there was anything wrong with implants. We were always told that implants would last forever. We know that is not true anymore.” Now, women from around the globe suffering from breast implant illness and other symptoms seek out Dr. Melmed, and other plastic surgeons that are willing to remove breast implants and not replace them. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 28,467 implant removals were completed in 2016. (33) Research supports explantation for individuals experiencing adverse effects and symptoms. Recently, researchers from the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam, stated that explantation of the implants may reduce the symptoms, including fatigue, joint and muscle pain, morning stiffness, night sweats, cognitive and dermatological complaints. (34) If you are experiencing any of the symptoms mentioned above, or have been diagnosed with an autoimmune-related disease, having your implants removed may provide the relief you’ve been seeking. Breast Implant Illness: A Special Note for Women with Breast Cancer Considering Breast Implants After a Mastectomy While implants are the typical choice for breast reconstruction after a mastectomy, I encourage women facing this decision to evaluate all options fully. My concern is that introducing a foreign body to your body while you are still in the process of healing from breast cancer may cause additional side effects and delay healing. In addition to silicone or saline breast implants, there are procedures that use your own tissue for the reconstruction; they are commonly called “tissue flaps.” The TRAM flaps and DIEP flaps both use tissue from the tummy. The GAP flaps use tissue from the glutes and TUG flaps use tissue from the inner thighs. (35) While these surgeries do require multiple surgical sites and a longer recovery, it is important to note that you aren’t introducing a foreign body into your system that has caused an autoimmune response in some women. Although not for everyone, some women who have had mastectomies are opting for tattoos instead of reconstruction to cover the scars left behind. P-INK, a nonprofit organization, brings together breast cancer survivors and tattoo artists who create true works of art across scar tissue canvas. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Sydney Swanson via EWG Babies and young children typically spend the majority of their first years in diapers. But many disposable diapers contain hazardous chemicals that can harm their health. Scientific assessments of disposable diapers have detected pesticides and chemicals linked to cancer, impaired reproductive development and dermatitis, among other harms.1 Babies are particularly susceptible to the risks associated with exposure to harmful chemicals. But the Consumer Product Safety Commission – the agency that regulates the diaper industry – does not require diaper manufacturers to test their products or materials for a variety of chemicals to ensure safety. It also does not require manufacturers to disclose their products’ ingredients, making it increasingly difficult for consumers to find safer options. The agency requires that baby diapers be tested for lead. EWG developed our comprehensive Guide to Safer Diapers to help parents and caregivers sort through the vast array of product options – and related advertising claims – available on the market. Our guide details the health and environmental hazards associated with the ingredients and materials used in the manufacturing of diapers, makes recommendations for safer options, and provides the information all caregivers need to know before buying another diaper. Interested in the digested version of this guide? EWG has also developed a list of quick tips for choosing safer diapers. The specific ingredients or materials used in diapers can vary by brand. Below are the ones most commonly used across the diaper industry. Plastic components Disposable diapers have five main components – the topsheet, backsheet, core, leg cuffs and closing system. The topsheet (the inside layer of the diaper that is flush with the baby’s skin) and the backsheet (the layer facing the baby’s clothes or surrounding environment) are made primarily of plastic polymers like polypropylene and polyethylene. Plastic polymers are also used in the leg cuffs and closing system. Phthalates, a class of plasticizer chemicals, are commonly added to plastic polymers to increase the flexibility of the plastic. Several studies have detected phthalates in diapers.2 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, phthalates are commonly detected in the bodies of Americans, including in children.3 Since they are weakly bound to the materials to which they are added, they are easily released. According to the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, phthalates are known endocrine disruptors, potentially affecting the normal functioning of the hormone system.4 Scientific studies have linked certain phthalates to reproductive abnormalities, such as hypospadias (a male birth defect) and low sperm count. An article in the journal Environmental Science and Technology assessed the toxicity of a range of products made from eight plastic chemicals commonly found in consumer goods, including disposable diapers. The researchers found that roughly two-thirds of the plastic products assessed triggered a negative endpoint, such as induced estrogenicity, anti-androgenicity and oxidative stress responses in the in vitro assays.5 Plastic components may also emit, or off-gas, volatile organic chemicals, known as VOCs. These are organic compounds that easily become vapors or gases, many of which are hazardous air pollutants. Many components used in the manufacturing of disposable diapers, including plastics and adhesives, can emit VOCs, posing a risk for inhalation and absorption through the skin. A study in the journal Reproductive Toxicology tested four different brands of diapers and detected the VOCs toluene and xylene in all of them. Both chemicals may be inhaled or absorbed through the skin and are known reproductive toxicants. The study authors note that “the physical location of the exposure site, the high absorption rate of the genitalia for chemicals, and the long-term exposure period” are all cause for concern.6 Short-term exposure to moderate to high levels of VOCs can lead to eye, nose and throat irritation, headaches, nausea and loss of coordination.7 Long-term exposure to some of these chemicals have been linked to kidney, liver and nervous system damage. Some VOCs, like formaldehyde, are known carcinogens.8 Despite advancements in the manufacturing of disposable diapers, plastic components remain an important element for optimal performance. Until the market is able to transition away from plastic fully, EWG recommends choosing products from companies that minimize the total amount of plastic materials used and ensure that their products do not contain phthalates or emit harmful levels of VOCs. Super-absorbent polymers or gelling agents Disposable diapers typically include a super-absorbent polymer, or SAP, in their core. SAPs are drying agents that can absorb 30 times their own weight in liquid.9 Sodium polyacrylate is one of the most common SAPs used in diapers. Depending on how this polymer is manufactured, it may be contaminated with residual amounts of acrylamide and acrylic acid.10 The National Toxicology Program has classified acrylamide as reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans, based on studies assessing oral ingestion.11 Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency has found that acrylic acid is a strong skin and eye irritant.12 Some manufacturers include other additives in their SAP, but with the lack of disclosure in the diaper industry, those chemicals are often unknown. EWG recommends consumers choose products from companies that have adequately tested their products for contaminants like acrylic acid and acrylamide to ensure the levels are below applicable safety thresholds. It is also important to look for brands that completely disclose the ingredients and materials used in their products. Bleaching agents Along with super-absorbent polymers, manufacturers often include pulp in the core of disposable diapers to increase absorbency. Prior to the 1990s, this pulp was purified through a bleaching process using elemental chlorine to make the fibers absorbent, soft and white. That process produced potent carcinogenic impurities known as dioxins and has since been largely phased out. Today, the more common whitening processes use elemental chlorine-free, or ECF, and total chlorine-free, or TCF, techniques. According to a report on trends in chemical pulp production, of the pulp bleached in 2006, 88 percent was ECF-bleached, 5 percent was TCF-bleached, and 6 percent was bleached with elemental chlorine.13 ECF uses a chlorine derivative as the bleaching agent, whereas TCF bleaching uses no chlorine-derived chemicals, instead relying on hydrogen peroxide, oxygen or ozone. Both ECF and TCF bleaching techniques are safer alternatives to chlorine bleaching. However, the ECF process relies on the use of chlorine derivatives, such as chlorine dioxide, which can cause skin, nose and throat irritation and is toxic to aquatic systems. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, exposure to chlorine dioxide in children may reduce the capacity of blood to carry oxygen, making it difficult to breathe.14 Additionally, according to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, TCF is better for the environment than ECF. The chlorine derivatives used in ECF can produce toxic chlorinated organic compounds, such as chloroform, which are then released into the waterways, where they cause environmental and aquatic damage.15 Although bleaching is used to get the desired whiteness most consumers are used to, it is not completely necessary. Some brands now use pulp that is completely unbleached instead of bleached. EWG recommends that consumers choose disposable diapers with unbleached pulp or those that use TCF bleaching agents only. For reusable diapers, we recommend a product that uses unbleached, organic cotton. Adhesives Most disposable diapers are assembled using adhesives. The backsheet, absorbent core and topsheet components are made by gluing several layers together. Depending on the specific glues used, they may be one of the main sources of VOCs in diapers. Many adhesives include alkylphenol ethoxylates, or APEOs, and alkylphenol derivatives. These antioxidant chemicals are added to glues to prevent oxidation, which degrades the glue’s adhesive properties. According to the EPA, some APEOs are highly toxic to aquatic life and have been associated with reproductive and developmental problems in rodents.16 Some alkylphenols are known endocrine disruptors, which can interfere with the endocrine and reproductive systems. A study in the journal Science of the Total Environment shows that APEO metabolites can mimic the hormone estrogen.17 A recent study in the journal Environmental Pollution found that higher exposure to these endocrine-disrupting alkylphenols is associated with endometrial cancer.18 Colophony, a sticky resin from pine trees, and formaldehyde-resin glues are used in some disposable diapers. According to a study in the journal Minnesota Medicine, colophony can cause contact dermatitis, an allergy that can causes skin redness, swelling and itching.19 Formaldehyde-resin glues emit formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen, into the air. Although glues are still heavily used in the disposable diaper industry, new technologies are being developed to assemble products without them. For example, heat and ultrasonic techniques are being used and would minimize, if not all together eliminate, the use of glues.20 Wetness indicators Some diaper companies include wetness indicators in the product to help alert parents and caregivers that a baby needs a diaper change. Although convenient, this extra feature may not be worth the added risk. Most wetness indicators include dye or a pH indicator within a carrier matrix. When urine contacts the dye or pH strip, the color is either intensified or altered, indicating that it is time for a diaper change. Although the exact composition may vary, many of the carrier matrixes used in wetness indicators are composed of harmful chemicals, including quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats, and halogenated organic compounds. Quats have been associated with several health concerns, including reproductive and developmental problems, dermal irritation and respiratory effects, including asthma. Halogenated organic compounds are persistent and pose a risk to environmental health. Carrier matrixes can also include petroleum-derived and ethoxylated compounds, both of which are often contaminated with harmful impurities. The potentially carcinogenic chemical 1,4-dioxane is formed during the process of ethoxylation and can contaminate ethoxylated ingredients. And petroleum-derived components are often contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which have been linked to reproductive issues, birth defects and lower body weights in mice. Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services indicates that some PAHs may reasonably be carcinogens.21 Diapers without wetness indicators may be the best bet. However, for parents who rely on the convenience of these indicators, EWG recommends choosing products from manufacturers that do not use indicators made with quats, halogenated organic compounds or other hazardous chemicals. Fragrance and perfume According to a study in the Journal of Environmental Health, more than 30 percent of the U.S. population reported experiencing irritation from fragrance added to an array of consumer products.22 Contact dermatitis, which can be triggered by fragrances, affects about one in five children.23 Additionally, the National Eczema Association says 1 to 4 percent of the general population has a fragrance sensitivity.24 Fragrance chemicals can trigger allergic reactions such as asthma attacks, headaches, contact dermatitis and respiratory difficulties. Many companies claim their fragrance mixture is proprietary and use the umbrella term “fragrance” rather than disclose the specific ingredients. This term can hide any number of up to 4,000 different chemicals. According to an article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, “a single fragrance in a product can contain a mixture of hundreds of chemicals, some of which (e.g., limonene, a citrus scent) react with ozone in ambient air to form dangerous secondary pollutants, including formaldehyde.”25 Fragrances can also contain phthalates and synthetic musks, which are classes of endocrine-disrupting chemicals; essential oils, some of which are potent sensitizing chemicals; and a number of other ingredients that haven’t been adequately assessed for safety. Since children are more sensitive to chemical exposure than adults, it is best to reduce their exposure to fragrance ingredients by choosing fragrance-free diapers. Be wary of products marketed “unscented” and always check the ingredients, since the manufacturer may have added fragrances to mask the smell. If you prefer diapers with fragrance, choose products that disclose the exact ingredients that are used. Cotton and other natural fibers Cotton and other natural fibers are commonly used in disposable and reusable diapers. According to the Organic Trade Association, cotton is the third-most-pesticide-treated crop in the U.S.26 Many of the pesticides used on cotton have been linked to cancer and endocrine disruption. A 2019 study by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety detected three pesticides, including glyphosate, and two corresponding metabolites in the diapers it tested.27 The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” and California’s Proposition 65 registry lists it as a known carcinogen.28,29 Most manufacturers of disposable diapers do not use organic cotton. However, some make sure to use natural fibers that do not contain detectable levels of harmful pesticides. If you are concerned about pesticides in your baby’s diapers, check with the manufacturer to see whether it has tested the products or has a sourcing policy that addresses pesticide residues. Reusable organic cotton diapers may also be an option. Colorants Colors and patterns on diapers may be aesthetically pleasing, but they are not always without concern. Many dyes and inks can cause allergic reactions and can be contaminated with heavy metals, like lead. The authors of a study in Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, suggests that dyes in baby diapers were responsible for cases of allergic contact dermatitis recorded in their study.30 If possible, choose plain products with minimal or no colorants. If they are used, make sure the manufacturer has chosen the safest ones available. Other Factors To Consider Environmental impacts Disposable diapers are made largely of plastic materials that do not readily degrade in the environment. According to the EPA, an estimated 4.2 million tons of disposable diaper waste were generated in 2017. Disposable diapers accounted for over 12 percent of all nondurable goods in landfills, amounting to more than 3.3 million tons of diapers landfilled in 2017.31 The production of plastic requires a significant amount of energy and releases harmful chemicals, like benzene and dioxins, that contribute to air pollution and greenhouse gas emission. According to the EPA, in 2018 plastic manufacturing plants reported releases of 128 million pounds of pollutants into U.S. waterways.32 Some environmentally conscious diaper brands use plant-based plastics, known as bioplastics, which are made from sugarcane or cornstarch, instead of petrochemicals. However, it is unclear whether they are significantly better for the health of people or the environment. A study in Environmental Science and Technology found baseline toxicity – a measure for luminescence inhibition in the bacterium Aliivibrio fischeri – in all products made of polylactic acid, or PLA, a common bioplastic. Additionally, compared to the other polymers, PLA contained some of the most estrogenic and anti-androgenic compounds and chemicals inducing oxidative stress or cytotoxicity.33 Although bioplastics may not be significantly more biodegradable than conventional plastics, they are carbon neutral. They are made of natural and renewable sources, and the carbon used to manufacture the plastic is offset by the carbon absorbed by the plants or other natural materials when they are growing. Cloth diapers are not completely without concerns for environmental pollution, but they are the more environmentally friendly option. According to a 1991 report by the National Association of Diaper Services, reusable diapers use significantly less raw material, energy and gross water – the total water used, including recycled water – than disposables. The report concludes that, per diaper change, a disposable product uses 70 percent more energy than a reusable diaper. The net water use – the amount of water used, not including recycled water – of reusable diapers is higher than for disposable products, but the wastewater generated at home from cleaning reusable diapers is less harmful than the paper and plastic industry’s wastewater.34 References 1 French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, Safety of Baby Diapers ANSES Revised Opinion Collective Expert Appraisal Report. French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, Jan. 17, 2019. Available at anses.fr/en/system/files/CONSO2017SA0019EN.pdf 2 Chan Jin Park et al., Sanitary Pads and Diapers Contain Higher Phthalate Contents Than Those in Common Commercial Plastic Products. Reproductive Toxicology, 2019, 84: 114-121. Available at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6504186/ 3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, Updated Tables. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019, 1. Available at cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport_UpdatedTables_Volume1_Jan2019-508.pdf 4 National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, Endocrine Disruptors. National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, Endocrine Disruptors, Sept. 2, 2020. Available at niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/ 5 Lisa Zimmermann et al., Benchmarking the In Vitro Toxicity and Chemical Composition of Plastic Consumer Products. Environmental Science & Technology, Aug. 5, 2019. Available at pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.9b02293 6 Chan Jin Park et al., Sanitary Pads and Diapers Contain Higher Phthalate Contents Than Those in Common Commercial Plastic Products. Reproductive Toxicology, 2019, 84: 114-121. Available at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6504186/ 7 Environmental Protection Agency, Volatile Organic Compounds' Impact on Indoor Air Quality. Environmental Protection Agency, Nov. 6, 2017. Available at epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/volatile-organic-compounds-impact-indoor-air-quality 8 International Agency for Research on Cancer, Chemical Agents and Related Occupations. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, 2010, 100(F): 401-435. Available at monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono100F-29.pdf 9 Carnegie Mellon University. Super-Absorbing Polymer Powder, Carnegie Mellon University. Available at cmu.edu/gelfand/lgc-educational-media/index.html 10 Rahma Ahmed and Khaleelullah Syed, Synthesis of Superabsorbent Polymer (SAP) via Industrially Preferred Route. Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 2016, 12: 383-387. Available at researchgate.net/publication/308703543_Synthesis_of_Superabsorbent_Polymer_SAP_via_Industrially_Preferred 11 National Cancer Institute, Acrylamide and Cancer Risk. National Institutes of Health. Available at cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/acrylamide-fact-sheet#:~:text=Acrylamide%20is%20a%20chemical%20used,water%20and%20wastewater%2C%20including%20sewage 12 Environmental Protection Agency, Acrylic Acid. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/acrylic-acid.pdf 13 Peter Axegard, The Effect of the Transition From Elemental Chlorine Bleaching to Chlorine Dioxide Bleaching in the Pulp Industry on the Formation of PCDD/Fs. Chemosphere, 2019, 236: 124386. Available at sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653519316078?via%3Dihub 14 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Public Health Statement for Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorite. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Sept. 2004. Available atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=580&tid=108 15 Michelle Slocombe, Chlorine-Free Paper. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Oct. 23, 2018. Available at calrecycle.ca.gov/paper/chlorinefree 16 Fact Sheet: Nonylphenols and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nov. 2, 2016. Available at epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-nonylphenols-and-nonylphenol-ethoxylates 17 Ismail-H .Acir and Klaus Guenther, Endocrine-Disrupting Metabolites of Alkylphenol Ethoxylates – A Critical Review of Analytical Methods, Environmental Occurrences, Toxicity, and Regulation. Science of the Total Environment, Sept. 1, 2018, 635: 1530-1546. Available at sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718312439 18 Hui-Ju Wen et al., Exposure to Endocrine Disruptor Alkylphenols and the Occurrence of Endometrial Cancer. Environmental Pollution, Dec. 2020, 267: 115475. Available at sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749120361637 19 Lindsey M. Voller et al., Colophony (Rosin) Allergy: More Than Just Christmas Trees. Minnesota Medicine, 2019, 102(6). Available at mnmed.org/getattachment/news-and-publications/mn-medicine-magazine/Past-Issues/Past-Issues-2019/Nov-Dec-2019/Clinical_VOLLER.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US 20 Replacing Heat or Glue-Based Processes With Rotary Ultrasonic Technology in an Industrial Application. Aurizon Ultrasonics. Available at aurizonultrasonics.com/replacing-heat-or-glue-based-processes-with-rotary-ultrasonic-technology-in-an-industrial-application/ 21 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) – ToxFAQs. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Sept. 1996. Available at atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts69.pdf 22 Stanley M. Caress and Anne C Steinemann, Prevalence of Fragrance Sensitivity in the American Population. Journal of Environmental Health, 2009, 71(7): 46–50. Available at pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19326669/ 23 Nanette B. Silverberg, Pediatric Contact Dermatitis. Medscape, Jan. 8, 2019. Available at emedicine.medscape.com/article/911711-overview#a5 24 Scott, Fragrance and Perfume Allergy and Eczema FAQ. National Eczema Association, May 29, 2013. Available at nationaleczema.org/fragrances-perfumes-eczema-allergy/ 25 Carol Potera, Scented Products Emit a Bouquet of VOCs. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2011, 119(1): A16. Available at doi.org/10.1289/ehp.119-a16 26 Cotton and the Environment. Organic Trade Association, April 2017. Available at ota.com/sites/default/files/indexed_files/CottonandtheEnvironment.pdf 27 French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, Safety of Baby Diapers ANSES Revised Opinion Collective Expert Appraisal Report. French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, Jan. 17, 2019. Available at anses.fr/en/system/files/CONSO2017SA0019EN.pdf 28 International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Monographs Vol. 112: Evaluation of Five Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides. World Health Organization, March 20, 2015. Available at iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolume112-1.pdf 29 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment – Glyphosate. California Environmental Protection Agency. Available at oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals/glyphosate 30 Lauren Alberta et al., Diaper Dye Dermatitis. Pediatrics, Sept. 2005, 116(3): e450-e452. Available at pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/116/3/e450 31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2016 and 2017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nov. 2019. Available at epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/advancing-sustainable-materials-management 32 Legal Petition Seeks Ban on Plastic Pollution from Petrochemical Plants. The Natural Resources Defense Council, July 23, 2019. Available at nrdc.org/media/2019/190723 33 Lisa Zimmermann et al., Benchmarking the in Vitro Toxicity and Chemical Composition of Plastic Consumer Products. Environmental Science & Technology, 2019, 53(19): 11467-11477. Available at pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b02293 34 Carl Lehrburger et al., Diapers: Environmental Impacts and Lifecycle Analysis. The National Association of Diaper Services, Jan. 1991. Available at p2infohouse.org/ref/30/29640.pdf PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

Did you know: Cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children in the United States? Guess what other cause of death is at the top of that list? Congenital malformations, deformations, and chromosomal abnormalities. Did you also know: In the current National Vaccine Schedule, in the first 6 years of life your child receives the following Vaccine Ingredients: • 17,500 mcg 2-phenoxyethanol (Insecticide) • 5,700 mcg aluminum (a known neurotoxin) • Unknown amounts of fetal bovine serum (aborted calf's blood) • 801.6 mcg formaldehyde (carcinogen, embalming agent) • 23,250 mcg gelatin (ground up animal carcasses) • 500 mcg human albumin (human blood) • 760 mcg of monosodium L-glutamate (causes obesity & diabetes) • Unknown amounts of MRC-5 cells (aborted human babies) • Over 10 mcg neomycin (antibiotic) • Over 0.075 mcg polymyxin B (antibiotic) • Over 560 mcg polysorbate 80 (carcinogen) • 116 mcg potassium chloride (used in lethal injection to shut down the heart and stop breathing) • 188 mcg potassium phosphate (liquid fertilizer agent) • 260 mcg sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) • 70 mcg sodium borate (Borax, used for cockroach control-infertility in male primates) • 54,100 mcg of sodium chloride (table salt) • Unknown amounts of sodium citrate (food additive) • Unknown amounts of sodium hydroxide (Danger! Corrosive) • 2,800 mcg sodium phosphate (toxic to any organism) • Unknown amounts of sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate (toxic to any organism) • 32,000 mcg sorbitol (Not to be injected) • 0.6 mcg streptomycin (antibiotic) • Over 40,000 mcg sucrose (cane sugar) • 35,000 mcg yeast protein (fungus) • 5,000 mcg urea (metabolic waste from human urine) • Other chemical residuals And we wonder why our children are so sick.

A lot of people have these hazardous fillings in their mouths. So what's the skinny and what does one do about removal? (If you're interested in learning more about heavy metal detoxing, or want to start your journey, please contact us or go here) But First.. The Chronological Timeline: 1819: A mercury-based dental amalgam filling was invented by the English chemist, Bell. 1826: The dental amalgam mercury filling was first used in England and France. 1830: Amalgam fillings were first used in the United States. Numerous harmful effects were soon widely reported. 1840: The American Society of Dental Surgeons denounced the use of amalgams due to concerns about mercury poisoning. Member of the society were required to pledge to avoid mercury amalgam fillings. But many dentists continued using amalgams since they were cheaper, faster and easier to place than gold materials. 1859: Determined to continue, the pro-mercury amalgam factions in America formed its own dental society, first called the National Dental Association; it later became the American Dental Association (ADA). 1926: Prominent German chemist Alfred Stock discovered that mercury was the source of his own health problems, after having his own amalgams removed, Stock then studied the health problems of many of his friends and advised them to have their amalgams removed. He studied the release of mercury vapor from amalgams and published his findings in over thirty scientific papers. Stock led an international movement to halt the use of mercury amalgam filling. 1930’s: Stock laboratory and most of his records were destroyed in a World War II bombing raid, derailing the anti-amalgam mercury movement that he had led. 1957: Dr. Karl O. Frykholm of Sweden published a study wrongly claiming that when saliva covers an amalgam filling, the mercury is no longer released. Ever since then, The ADA has cited Frykholm’s paper as a proof that amalgam fillings are stable and safe. 1973: An American dentist suffering from MS, Hal Huggins, DDS, met a Brazilian dentist, Olympia Pinto, at a conference in Mexico City. Dr. Pinto shocked Huggins by telling him that amalgam fillings are unstable and mercury from amalgams can trigger illnesses like Hodgkin’s disease and sickle cell anemia. Eventually Dr. Pinto sent Dr. Huggins many studies on amalgam research. After learning about the amalgam health issue, Huggins researched and wrote his first major book on the hazards of amalgams. 1979: Measurable Mercury coming from Amalgam. Gay and others at the University of Iowa reported a measurable release of mercury vapor from amalgam fillings; when the amalgams were stimulated by chewing, brushing or hot beverages the release was far greater. In 1981 Svare, at Ohio State, confirmed Gay’s findings. 1983: University of Calgary research dentist Murray Vimy, joined with Michael Ziff, an American dentist and author, to found the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) to educate dentist and other professionals about evidence-based dentistry. With his father, Sam Ziff, Michael Ziff went on to author books on such topics as mercury free dentist and dental mercury detox. 1987: Nylander of Sweden and Eggleston of California, did a similar autopsy study on victims of sudden unexpected death. They confirmed a strong correlation between brain levels of mercury and the number of amalgam filling surfaces in the teeth. 1988: DAMS groups formed in Albuquerque, Denver, Chicago and elsewhere, begin to educate the public. 1989: Dentists Poisoned. Nylander and Friberg published an autopsy study showing that mercury levels were much higher in the pituitary glands and the thyroid glands of dental staff as compared to a non- dentist control group. The mercury level in the pituitary glands of the dental group was about forty times higher than that of the controls. Other studies found dentists to have a higher rate of irritability, depression and mood disorders. Dentist have a much higher suicide rate than other white collar professionals. 1990: Lordscheider and Vimy at the University of Calgary School of Medicine placed amalgam fillings with radioactive mercury into pregnant sheep and monkeys. After just 29 days after the placement of the mercury amalgams, the mercury was traced and found in the kidneys, the liver, the gastrointestinal tract, the brain and many other parts of the body including the unborn fetus. For both the mother and the fetus, the highest mercury level was in the pituitary gland, explaining the clinical association between amalgams and depression and mood disorder. 1990 (December 16): The CBS television show Sixty Minutes, hosted by Morley Safer, and viewed by 30 million Americans, exposed the hazards of mercury amalgams; the host interviewed scientists Lars Friberg, Fritz Lordscheider, Murray Vimy and Boyd Haley. The program also exposed the biased attacks by state dental licensing boards on mercury free, holistic dentists. The ADA spokesman squirmed under cross-examination by the host. This sort of dental amalgam expose was never repeated again on any TV network. 1993 (December): The largest German manufacturer of amalgam, Degussa AG, stopped making amalgam. 1994: Sweden announced phase-out of amalgam fillings, starting with pregnant women and children. 1994: Lorscheiderr, Vimy Penergrass and Haley reported that elemental mercury vapor from amalgams fillings is toxic to brain neurons. Low dose mercury causes the neurofibrillary tangles in the brain regarded as a key marker of Alzheimer’s disease. 1994: A human autopsy study on babies who had died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) was published by G. Drasch and others at the University of Munich in Germany. They found a strong correlation between the mercury levels in the brains and kidneys of the babies and the number of amalgam fillings in the mother’s teeth. These findings were confirmed by another autopsy study conducted In 1996 by Lutz. These studies showed that mercury from a mother’s amalgam fillings is typically the major source of mercury for the unborn child. The German government then acted to curb the use of amalgams in children and women of childbearing age. 1995: G. Mark Richardson, Ph.D., released a report for Health Canada, Canada’s chief health regulatory body, on mercury exposure from dental amalgam fillings. He found that amalgams contribute about 50% or more of adult’s mercury exposure and present an unacceptable hazard. Dr. Richardson advised Health Canada to ban dental amalgams; although it was unwilling to go that far, in 1996 Health Canada established guidelines for dentist cautioning against the use of amalgams in children, pregnant women, people with kidney disorders and other vulnerable people. Dr. Axe continues, All amalgam fillings contain approximately 50 percent mercury, and research consistently shows that these fillings expose dental professionals, dental staff, dental patients and unborn fetuses to mercury vapor, mercury-containing particulate and additional forms of mercury contamination. (1) Mercury is a highly toxic element, and there’s no known safe level of exposure. Dentists have been using these mercury-laden dental amalgams for over a 100 years as filling material for tooth decay. But does a century-plus history of use make this filling choice safe when it comes to your health? The simple answer is NO! The American Dental Association states that dental amalgam is considered a safe, affordable and durable material that’s been used to restore the teeth of more than 100 million Americans. (2) However, it’s a known fact that every time a person with an amalgam filling chews, the mercury within that filling is released into that person’s body. Mercury poisoning is a serious health concern around the world, and amalgam fillings are one of the top contributing causes. If the Food and Drug Administration admitted the true risk of amalgam fillings, then literally millions of people would have to figure out whether or not they want to remove the fillings and, if yes, how to pay for the removal. The FDA’s ruling in 2009 reclassifying mercury and amalgam as both having greater risk (class II), but not outlawing them all together, is not that surprising because it would pose a major inconvenience for so many. But let me know tell you why removable just might be very much worth it and why you should opt for alternative fillings for the sake of your overall health. Recent History In 2009, the FDA reviewed scientific evidence presented in regard to the serious health hazards caused by having mercury-based fillings sitting in the mouths of millions of Americans. What the FDA learned then made it make a serious change. On July 28, 2009, the FDA issued a final rule that reclassified mercury from a class I (least risk) device to class II (more risk) device and also classified dental amalgam as a class II device. Additionally, it designated a special controls guidance document for dental amalgam. (3) In this guidance document, it even admit that “dental amalgam also releases low levels of mercury vapor, a chemical that at high exposure levels is well-documented to cause neurological and renal adverse health effects. Mercury vapor concentrations are highest immediately after placement and removal of dental amalgam but decline thereafter.” So the FDA admits that the negative health side effects are specific and also well-documented, but it still wants to continue to use mercury in fillings even though there are better alternatives? It’s hard to believe, but that’s exactly what’s going on. Clearly the FDA is admitting amalgam fillings are more dangerous than originally believed, but this is still not enough protection for the American public. Amalgam 101 Do you have amalgam fillings? Chances are if you’ve ever had a cavity filled, it’s been filled with amalgam, which is the No. 1 filling choice for dentists across the country. Amalgam is composed of liquid mercury (about 50 percent by weight) and powdered alloy metals silver, tin and copper. This filling material appears silver in color, giving it the nickname “silver fillings.” One FDA report states: “The average filling has 1 gram of mercury and leaks mercury vapor continuously due to mercury’s low vapor pressure along with loss due to galvanic action of mercury with dissimilar metals in the mouth, resulting in significant exposure for most [people] with amalgam fillings.” It continues and gets better (by better, I mean a lot worse): (4) “Mercury vapor is transmitted rapidly throughout the body, easily crosses cell membranes, and like organic methyl mercury has significant toxic effects at much lower levels of exposure than other inorganic mercury forms.” Amalgam fillings have been used for over a century. So what’s the problem? According to a plethora of scientific data, these amalgam fillings leach dangerous, toxic mercury into the bodies of everyone who has them. According to scientific research, both acute and chronic mercury exposure can cause adverse health effects during any period of development. In an ideal world, children as well as adults would never have any mercury in their bodies because this heavy metal provides absolutely zero physiological benefit. (5) The effects of mercury-laden fillings are also very cumulative. So the longer you have amalgam fillings, the more mercury you likely have in your system. Dangers of Amalgam Fillings The Mayo Clinic states that a small amount of mercury (two to 20 micrograms a day) is released from an amalgam filling whenever it’s mechanically manipulated, such as by chewing. Chewing gum is one of the worst things you can do if you have amalgam fillings because it releases an amount of mercury “greatly above normal.” It also says that the normal flora present in our mouths changes some of the mercury into other forms, like methylmercury, which have been shown to be incorporated into the body’s tissues. (6) So mercury vapors released from amalgam fillings increase with any type of of mechanical manipulation or stimulation. What does stimulation mean exactly? Think chewing, as in chewing your food, chewing on some gum or grinding your teeth. But stimulation can also come in the form of heat or dental procedures, such as a tooth cleaning. With simple stimulation that occurs every day in a person’s mouth, the dangerous, toxic mercury vapors released increases. Do you ever drink hot tea or coffee? This simple, enjoyable indulgence raises the temperatures in your mouth, which is yet another cause of increased mercury vapor release. Ever get a piece of meat that’s a bit tough or pop a stick of gum in your mouth? This agitation again increases the mercury vapors released into your mouth, which then travels through the rest of your body. Mercury exposure, both in one large dose and through low-level exposure over time, is linked through scientific data to kidney, brain, urological, fertility, neurological and renal problems. These problems are even more severe in children and developing fetuses. One 2013 article written by Dr. Jonathan B. Levine talks about the conflicting research that has taken place in Sweden and the United States. In Sweden, several studies demonstrated that when people with pre-existing neurological and health issues (like chronic fatigue-type symptoms) had amalgams removed, 78 percent of the subjects reported improvement in their health status. Meanwhile in the U.S., FDA and National Institutes of Health sponsored studies said, “The current data is insufficient to support an association between mercury release from amalgams and the various complaints that have been attributed to this restorative material.” (7) It’s vital to note here that the impact of amalgam on children and pregnant and nursing women is of even greater concern. Even the FDA has warned dentists and the public about the potential impact on developing fetuses and small children with amalgam fillings. (8) The health hazards increase for both of these groups, and they should avoid amalgam fillings at all costs. Signs and Symptoms of Mercury Exposure At least 100 mercury poisoning symptoms directly or indirectly result from chronic mercury poisoning. The number and severity of mercury poisoning symptoms depend on several factors, like: (9) how many fillings you have how long you’ve had them how they’re stimulated how often they’re stimulated Some of the many possible symptoms of mercury poisoning from amalgam fillings include: (10) Emotional instability Loss of appetite General weakness Fatigue Skin changes Cardiovascular problems Endocrine disruptions Headaches Insomnia Immune system impairment Hearing loss Psychological issues and mood changes like depression and nervousness Respiratory problems Tremors Weight loss As you can see, the list of symptoms from amalgam filling poisoning is long and varied. As with all types of symptoms and signs of health issues, they can vary from person to person as each person’s body chemistry is different, resulting in a variety of symptoms. If you have a mouth full of (or even just a few) amalgam fillings, I urge you to look into having them safely removed. Steps to Take If You Have Amalgam Fillings If you do have amalgam fillings, you’ll need to contact a holistic health care practitioner for advice on safe removal, nutritional support and detoxification from mercury exposure. Visit the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM) to find a holistic physician to help you with safely dealing with amalgam fillings you may already have. During the days immediately following amalgam removal, your body mercury levels will likely increase before they decrease. If you take proper protective measures with the help of a professional, your mercury levels should fall significantly within a couple of weeks after removal. Chronic conditions you’ve experience while having the fillings might get worse temporarily, but as long as adequate precautions are taken to reduce exposure during removal, you should see improvement very soon in your overall health. It’s vital to arm yourself with information and take action to protect yourself and your family from the dangers of mercury exposure in your own mouth. According to the World Health Organization, dental amalgam for dental fillings makes the list of non-essential mercury-containing products that should be phased out. (11) I wish dentists would stop the use of them immediately, but at least they’re somewhat recognizing the danger with the “phase out.” I highly encourage you to take your own health more seriously and act now. The removal of amalgam fillings has been shown to improve many serious and chronic health concerns, including: (12) Periodontal (gum) disease Immune system and autoimmune problems Allergies Asthma Chronic headaches/migraines ADD/ADHD Tachycardia and heart problems Blood conditions Crohn’s disease Gastrointestinal problems Dizziness/vertigo Arthritis Lou Gehrig’s disease/ALS Alzheimer’s disease Parkinson’s disease Chronic fatigue syndrome Memory disorders Fibromyalgia Infertility Depression Insomnia Anxiety Susceptibility to infections Antibiotic-resistant infection Sinus problems Hearing loss Chronic eye/vision conditions Eczema and other skin conditions Thyroid problems Candida PMS Diabetes Alternatives There are definitely much better and healthier options than amalgam fillings. These options include composite fillings, glass and plastic ionomers, and gold foil. In the near future, stem cell fillings might even be an option. If you’re concerned (as you should be) about the toxicity of amalgam fillings, contact a consumer advocacy group where you’ll find needed information about amalgam fillings, what to do, and what dentists in your area can help you safely remove your own amalgam fillings and replace them with materials proven to be safe. The proper methods of removal must be used, or you can end up causing even more damage to your body. The following list provides some links that will help guide you in the right direction based on your individual circumstances: Dental Amalgam Mercury Solutions Consumers for Dental Choice Mercury-Safe Dentist Directory Final Thoughts Ideally, we should all do our best to avoid the need for any type of dental fillings from the get-go. If you do find that you have a cavity, you should check out my previous article: How to Reverse Cavities Naturally & Heal Tooth Decay. Most conventional dentists will never tell you that cavities are reversible. They also most likely won’t warn you that your current or future amalgam fillings can really negatively affect your health. The good news it that there are dentists out there these days who are more holistically minded. They’re not only aware of the mercury poisoning issues swarming around the use of amalgam fillings, but they also have dental practices that do not use any mercury fillings and even specialize in the proper removal of these terrible silver fillings. If you can take the time to do a little homework and you can afford the removal costs, I highly recommend that you say goodbye to any amalgam fillings taking up prime real estate in your mouth as soon as possible. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

Did you know that chronic fatigue can be a symptom of heavy metal toxicity? One of the biggest changes my husband and I have noticed since detoxing from heavy metals is that our energy levels have skyrocketed. Bye bye after caffeine crash! (If you're interested in learning more about heavy metal detoxing, or want to start your journey, please contact us or go here) CFS Here is some great information from Dr. Axe: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a chronic illness characterized by extreme fatigue that lasts for more than six months. This fatigue cannot be explained away by an underlying medical condition. In fact, one of the disease’s principle challenges is that it’s impossible to diagnose with laboratory tests. However, some professionals believe it is closely related to adrenal fatigue or system wide inflammation of the body. The process for diagnosis usually begins with ruling out possible underlying diseases and chronic conditions … until the only choice left is chronic fatigue syndrome. Left untreated, it decreases stamina, memory and concentration. Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) can result in strained relationships with friends and family, especially when it remain undiagnosed and/or untreated. Guilt, anxiety and anger are all common emotional responses for those fighting chronic fatigue. (1) Currently, over 1 million Americans are suffering from this debilitating illness that manifests with a lack of energy and motivation, and women are 2–4 times more likely than men to be diagnosed. (2) In addition to the profound fatigue experienced, other serious symptoms often accompany CFS, such as: • joint pain that moves from one spot to another • muscle pain • poor concentration • loss of memory • enlarged lymph nodes • headaches • chills • night sweats • digestive disorders like irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Sufferers of chronic fatigue syndrome also experience significant alterations in levels of irritability, mood swings, panic attacks, anxiety and depression. According to a study published in Family Practice, 36 percent of individuals with CFS were clinically depressed and 22 percent had “seriously considered suicide in the past year.” (3) Simply, the emotional and mental side effects of CFS cannot be overlooked, and treatment must include the mind, body and spirit. Some of the most common warning signs that you might be struggling with heavy metal toxicity include: Chronic fatigue Autoimmune diseases, including Lyme’s disease Poor recovery from exercise and weakness Skin irritation Neurological disorders Brain-fog, trouble concentrating, difficulty learning and poor memory Depression, manic depression and/or anxiety Dementia Insomnia Digestive issues, such as IBS (irritable bowel syndrome) Chronic aches and pains, such as those associated with fibromyalgia Tremors Impaired motor control, hearing, speech, vision and gait Anemia Higher risk for heart attacks The @safeheavymetaldetox page on IG adds: How and which heavy metals affect your energy Your mitochondria must be functioning properly in order to help your body recover from fatigue, as well as any kind of illness. Aluminum poisons enzymes that transport nutrients into the mitochondria. Arsenic actually poisons enzymes, fattens you up and affects metabolic function Tin dispels the charge on the outside of the mitochondria's membrane disrupting it's ability to function properly. Tin is known as a potential cause for chronic fatigue Thallium, like these other heavy metals, also poisons enzymes that transport nutrients into mitochondria. It interferes in our digestion and absorption of nutrients. It interferes in your brain functioning, even causes brain fog. It also interferes in potassium metabolism. It’s another big culprit in Chronic Fatigue as well. Cesium also does the same thing as thallium: it interferes in potassium channels and metabolism in the body. It's also a major factor in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, as well as low-grade fatigue. Mercury gets bound up in the mitochondria of cells, hindering mitochondria function. It also gets bound up in the brain cells as well, causing brain fog and greatly affects neural tissue. Mercury toxicity inhibits nerve cell formation and even blocks the melatonin receptors needed to have a good sleep! Lead will actually surround the mitochondria, completely choking it off. When that happens, the mitochondria cannot function whatsoever. Lead is a huge factor in fatigue. Make sure to check out our new Heavy Metals & Detox PDF found here! PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Dr. Mercola The more we learn about the COVID-19 vaccines, the worse they look. In a recent interview1 with Alex Pierson (above), Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Byram Bridle, Ph.D., dropped a shocking truth bomb that immediately went viral, despite being censored by Google. It also was featured in a “fact” check by The Poynter Institute’s Politifact,2 which pronounced Bridle’s findings as “false” after interviewing Dr. Drew Weissman,3 a UPenn scientist who is credited with helping to create the technology that enables the COVID mRNA vaccines to work. But, as you can see below, unlike Bridle, Politifact neglected to go beyond interviewing someone with such a huge stake in the vaccine’s success. In 2020, Bridle was awarded a $230,000 government grant for research on COVID vaccine development. As part of that research, he and a team of international scientists requested a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) access to Pfizer’s biodistribution study from the Japanese regulatory agency. The research,4,5 previously unseen, demonstrates a huge problem with all COVID-19 vaccines. “We made a big mistake,” Bridle says. “We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen; we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So, by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.” This toxin, Bridle notes, can cause cardiovascular damage and infertility — a claim echoed by researchers such as Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., whom I’ve interviewed about these issues. Pfizer Omitted Industry-Standard Safety Studies What’s more, TrialSite News reports6 that Pfizer documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency [EMA] reveal the company “did not follow industry-standard quality management practices during preclinical toxicology studies … as key studies did not meet good laboratory practice (GLP).” Neither reproductive toxicity nor genotoxicity (DNA mutation) studies were performed, both of which are considered critical when developing a new drug or vaccine for human use. The problems now surfacing matter greatly, as they significantly alter the risk-benefit analysis underlying the vaccines’ emergency use authorization. As reported by TrialSite News:7 “Recently, there has been speculation regarding potential safety signals associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Many different unusual, prolonged, or delayed reactions have been reported, and often these are more pronounced after the second shot. Women have reported changes in menstruation after taking mRNA vaccines. Problems with blood clotting (coagulation) — which are also common during COVID-19 disease — are also reported. In the case of the Pfizer COVID mRNA vaccine, these newly revealed documents raise additional questions about both the genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity risks of this product. Standard studies designed to assess these risks were not performed in compliance with accepted empirical research standards. Furthermore, in key studies designed to test whether the vaccine remains near the injection site or travels throughout the body, Pfizer did not even use the commercial vaccine (BNT162b2) but instead relied on a ‘surrogate’ mRNA producing the luciferase protein. These new disclosures seem to indicate that the U.S. and other governments are conducting a massive vaccination program with an incompletely characterized experimental vaccine. It is certainly understandable why the vaccine was rushed into use as an experimental product under emergency use authority, but these new findings suggest that routine quality testing issues were overlooked in the rush to authorize use. People are now receiving injections with an mRNA gene therapy-based vaccine, which produces the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in their cells, and the vaccine may be also delivering the mRNA and producing spike protein in unintended organs and tissues (which may include ovaries).” Toxic Spike Protein Enters Blood Circulation The assumption that vaccine developers have been working with is that the mRNA in the vaccines (or DNA in the case of Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca’s vaccines) would primarily remain in and around the vaccination site, i.e., your deltoid muscle, with a small amount draining into local lymph nodes.8 Pfizer’s data, however, show this isn’t the case at all. Using mRNA programmed to produce luciferase protein, as well as mRNA tagged with a radioactive label, Pfizer showed that the majority of the mRNA initially remain near the injection site, but within hours become widely distributed within the body.9 We have known for a long time that the spike protein is a pathogenic protein. It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it gets into circulation. ~ Dr. Byram Bridle The mRNA enters your bloodstream and accumulates in a variety of organs, primarily your spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands and, in women, the ovaries. The spike protein also travel to your heart, brain and lungs, where bleeding and or blood clots can occur as a result, and is expelled in breast milk. This is a problem, because rather than instructing your muscle cells to produce the spike protein (the antigen that triggers antibody production), spike protein is actually being produced inside your blood vessel walls and various organs, where it can do a great deal of damage. “It’s the first time ever scientists have been privy to seeing where these messenger RNA [mRNA] vaccines go after vaccination,” Bridle told Pierson.10 “Is it a safe assumption that it stays in the shoulder muscle? The short answer is: absolutely not. It’s very disconcerting … We have known for a long time that the spike protein is a pathogenic protein. It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it gets into circulation … The spike protein on its own is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation.” The Spike Protein Is the Problem Indeed, for many months, we’ve known that the worst symptoms of severe COVID-19, blood clotting problems in particular, are caused by the spike protein of the virus. As such, it seemed really risky to instruct the body’s cells to produce the very thing that causes severe problems. Bridle cites research showing that laboratory animals injected with purified spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 straight into their bloodstream developed cardiovascular problems and brain damage. Assuming that the spike protein would not enter into the circulatory system was a “grave mistake,” according to Bridle, who calls the Japanese data “clear-cut evidence” that the vaccine, and the spike protein produced by it, enters your bloodstream and accumulates in vital organs. Bridle also cites recent research showing the spike protein remained in the bloodstream of humans for 29 days. Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. As explained by Bridle, when that happens, one of several things can occur: It can cause platelets to clump together — Platelets, aka thrombocytes, are specialized cells in your blood that stop bleeding. When there’s blood vessel damage, they clump together to form a blood clot. This is why we’ve been seeing clotting disorders associated with both COVID-19 and the vaccines It can cause abnormal bleeding In your heart, it can cause heart problems In your brain, it can cause neurological damage Importantly, people who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 absolutely should not donate blood, seeing how the vaccine and the spike protein are both transferred. In fragile patients receiving the blood, the damage could be lethal. Breastfeeding women also need to know that both the vaccine and the spike protein are being expelled in breast milk, and this could be lethal for their babies. You are not transferring antibodies. You are transferring the vaccine itself, as well as the spike protein, which could result in bleeding and/or blood clots in your child. All of this also suggests that for individuals who are at low risk for COVID-19, children and teens in particular, the risks of these vaccines far outweigh the benefits. The Spike Protein and Blood Clotting In related news, Dr. Malcolm Kendrick posted an article11 on his website June 3, 2021, in which he discusses the links between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and vasculitis, a medical term referring to inflammation (“itis”) in your vascular system, which is made up of your heart and blood vessels. There are many different types of vasculitis, including Kawasaki’s disease, antiphospholipid syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma and Sjogren’s disease. According to Kendrick, all of them have two things in common:12 1.Your body for some reason starts to attack the lining of your blood vessels, thereby causing damage and inflammation — The “why” can differ from one case to another, but in all cases, your immune system identifies something foreign in the lining of the blood vessel, causing it to attack. The attack causes damage to the lining, which results in inflammation. Blood clots are a common result, and can occur either because the platelets clump together in response to the vessel wall damage, or because your anticlotting mechanism has been compromised. Your most powerful anticlotting system is your glycocalyx, the protective layer of glycoproteins that lines your blood vessels. Among many other things, the glycocalyx contains a wide variety of anticoagulant factors, including tissue factor inhibitor, protein C, nitric oxide and antithrombin. It also modulates the adhesion of platelets to the endothelium. When blood clots completely block a blood vessel, you end up with a stroke or a heart attack. A reduction in platelet count, known as thrombocytopenia, is a reliable sign that blood clots are forming in your system, as the platelets are being used up in the process. Thrombocytopenia is a commonly-reported side effect of COVID-19 vaccines, as are blood clots, strokes and lethal heart attacks — all of which are pointing toward spike proteins causing vascular damage. 2.They significantly increase your risk of death, in some cases raising mortality by 50 times compared to people who do not have these conditions. The take-home message Kendrick delivers is that “If you damage the lining of blood vessel walls, blood clots are far more likely to form. Very often, the damage is caused by the immune system going on the attack, damaging blood vessel walls, and removing several of the anti-clotting mechanisms.” The end result can be lethal, and this chain of events is exactly what these COVID-19 vaccines are setting into motion. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein May Damage Mitochondrial Function Other research suggests the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein can have a serious impact on your mitochondrial function, which is imperative for good health, innate immunity and disease prevention of all kinds. When the spike protein interacts with the ACE2 receptor, it can disrupt mitochondrial signaling, thereby inducing the production of reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress. If the damage is serious enough, uncontrolled cell death can occur, which in turn leaks mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) into your bloodstream.13 Aside from being detected in cases involving acute tissue injury, heart attack and sepsis, freely circulating mtDNA has also been shown to contribute to a number of chronic diseases, including systemic inflammatory response syndrome or SIRS, heart disease, liver failure, HIV infection, rheumatoid arthritis and certain cancers.14 As explained in “COVID-19: A Mitochondrial Perspective”:15 “Apart from its role in energy production, mitochondria are crucial for … innate immunity, reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, and apoptosis; all of these are important in COVID-19 pathogenesis. Dysfunctional mitochondria predispose to oxidative stress and loss of cellular function and vitality. In addition, mitochondrial damage leads to … inappropriate and persistent inflammation. SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) … enters cell by attaching to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors on cell surface … Following infection, there is internalization and downregulation of ACE2 receptors. At vascular endothelium, ACE2 performs conversion of angiotensin II to angiotensin (1–7). Thus, a low ACE2 activity subsequent to SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to imbalance in renin-angiotensin system with relative excess of angiotensin II. Angiotensin II through binding to its type 1 receptors exerts pro-inflammatory, vasoconstrictive, and prothrombotic effects, while angiotensin (1–7) has opposing effects … In addition, angiotensin II increases cytoplasmic and mitochondrial ROS generation leading to oxidative stress. Increased oxidative stress may lead to endothelial dysfunction and aggravate systemic and local inflammation, thus contributing to acute lung injury, cytokine storm, and thrombosis seen in severe COVID-19 illness … A recent algorithm showed that majority of SARS-CoV-2 genomic and structural RNAs are targeted for mitochondrial matrix. Thus it appears that SARS-CoV-2 hijacks mitochondrial machinery for its own benefit, including DMV biogenesis. Manipulation of mitochondria by virus may lead to mitochondrial dysfunction and increased oxidative stress ultimately leading to loss of mitochondrial integrity and cell death … Mitochondrial fission enables removal of the damaged portion of a mitochondrion to be cleared by mitophagy (a special form of autophagy). Metabolomic studies suggest that SARS-CoV-2 inhibits mitophagy. Thus, there is accumulation of damaged and dysfunctional mitochondria. This not only leads to impaired MAVS [mitochondrial antiviral signaling] response but also aggravates inflammation and cell death.” The author, Pankaj Prasun, points out that the virus’ impact on mitochondria helps explain why COVID-19 is so much deadlier for older people, the obese, and those with diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. All of these risk factors have something in common: They’re all associated with mitochondrial dysfunction. If your mitochondria are already dysfunctional, the SARS-CoV-2 virus can more easily knock out more mitochondria, resulting in severe illness and death. The Spike Protein Is a Bioweapon In my interview with Seneff and Mikovits (see earlier hyperlink), they both stressed that the key danger — both in COVID-19 and with the vaccines — is the spike protein itself. However, while the spike protein found in the virus is bad, the spike protein your body produces in response to the vaccine is far worse. Why? Because the synthetic mRNA in the vaccine has been programmed to instruct your cells to produce an unnatural, genetically engineered spike protein. Specific alterations make it far more toxic than that found on the virus itself. Mikovits goes so far as to call the spike protein a bioweapon, as it is a disease-causing agent that demolishes innate immunity and exhausts your natural killer (NK) cells’ ability to determine which cells are infected and which aren’t. In short, when you get the COVID-19 vaccine, you are being injected with an agent that instructs your body to produce the bioweapon in its own cells. This is about as diabolical as it gets. In her paper, “Worse Than The Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research in collaboration with Dr. Greg Nigh,16 Seneff explains why the unnatural spike protein is so problematic. In summary, normally, the spike protein on a virus will collapse on itself and fall into the cell once it attaches to the ACE2 receptor. The vaccine-induced spike protein does not do this. Instead it stays open and remains attached to the ACE2 receptor, thereby disabling it and causing a host of problems that lead to heart, lung and immune impairment. What’s more, because the RNA code has been enriched with extra guanines (Gs) and cytosines (Cs), and configured as if it’s a human messenger RNA molecule ready to make protein by adding a polyA tail, the spike protein’s RNA sequence in the vaccine looks as if it is part bacteria,17 part human18 and part viral at the same time. There’s also evidence suggesting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein may be a prion, which is yet another piece of really bad news, particularly as it pertains to vaccine-induced spike protein. Prions are membrane proteins and when they misfold, they form crystals in the cytoplasm resulting in prion disease. Since the mRNA in the vaccines has been modified to spew out very high amounts of spike protein (far greater than that of the actual virus), the risk of excessive buildup in the cytoplasm is high. And, since the spike protein doesn’t enter into the membrane of the cell, there’s a high risk that it can become problematic if indeed it works like a prion. Remember, the research cited by Bridle at the beginning of this article found the spike protein accumulates in the spleen, among other places. Parkinson’s disease is a prion disease that has been traced back to prions originating in the spleen, that then travel up to the brain via the vagus nerve. In the same way, it’s quite possible COVID-19 vaccines may promote Parkinson’s and other human prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Continue reading here PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Kate Raines via thevaccinereaction Warnings about a global population explosion and what that will mean to the future of the planet have been in the public consciousness for the past century, so it may be a bit confusing that recent reports show fertility rates are actually falling dramatically worldwide. Declining birth rates have been documented in developed countries since 1969 have often been attributed to better access to higher education for women,1 as well as increased access to modern methods of contraception.2 It has been predicted that populations will decline in almost every country by the end of the 21st century. It is further estimated that in 23 countries including Spain, Japan, Portugal, Thailand and South Korea, populations will fall by as much as half by 2100.3 Another 34 countries are expected to see declines of between 25 and 50 percent, including China, which is projected to see a decline of approximately 48 per cent.4 Only North Africa and the Middle East are expected to increase their populations by 2100 compared with 2017, with the population of sub-Saharan Africa expected to triple from approximately 1.03 billion in 2017 to close to 3.07 billion by 2100.5 U.S. Birth Rates Falling Since 2007 In the U.S., birth rates have been falling continually since 2007. The birth rate is currently lower in this country than it has ever been. Between 2019 and 2020, the rate declined by four percent, compared with a one to two percent drop between 2015 and 2019.6 According to Pamela Stamp of the University of Michigan, several factors are at play. Less stigma surrounding a choice not to have children is one factor. Another factor is changing gender roles, as more women seek higher education and careers. An unpredictable economy and climbing personal debt, including student debt, are other factors that may cause some women to delay childbearing or have fewer children than they might otherwise have had. Stamp adds that uncertainty about jobs and the future during the COVID-19 pandemic also had an impact on decisions to have children, with birth rates in December of 2020—when babies conceived at the beginning of the pandemic would have been born—dropping by eight per cent compared to birth rates from December of 2019.7 Prediction: One Billion Person Drop in Global Population Between 2064 and 2100 A forecasting analysis published in The Lancet predicts that, “global population will peak in 2064 at 9.73 billion (95 percent UI 8·84–10·9) and then decline to 8.79 billion (6·83–11·8) in 2100.”8 While decreases in global population might provide significant planetary benefits, they are also expected to have profound “economic and fiscal consequences that will be extremely challenging.” Changes in social structure, gender roles and increased access to education and life choices undoubtedly have affected birth rates, but these factors do not explain all of the changes being reported in reproduction and fertility worldwide. According to Shanna Swan, environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and author of a new book on the subject (Count Down), “The current state of reproductive affairs can’t continue much longer without threatening human survival.” She warns that declining sperm counts and changes in sexual development are causing a fertility crisis that is “threatening human survival.” Although Swan acknowledges that contraception, cultural shifts and economic considerations may contribute to falling fertility rates, she also points to biological indicators of a deeper problem. These include rising rates of miscarriage, increasing numbers of genital abnormalities among boys, and earlier puberty among girls. Smoking Gun Chemicals in Toxic Environment Primarily blaming falling fertility rates on chemicals, such as those found in plastics, cosmetics and pesticides that impact endocrine levels, Swan says, “Chemicals in our environment and unhealthy lifestyle practices in our modern world are disrupting our hormonal balance, causing various degrees of reproductive havoc.”9 Swan has been studying the environmental impact on fertility since the 1980s, when she was able to link a spike in miscarriages in Santa Clara, California, to drinking water contaminated by toxic waste from a local semiconductor plant. She has been studying sperm rates since 1997 and considers those numbers to represent the “canary in a coal mine.” In 2017, Swan’s meta-analysis of 40,000 men showed that sperm counts fell by 59 percent between 1973 and 2011.10 Swan’s emphasis on disruption of fertility by environmental chemicals is in keeping with findings of the World Health Organization (WHO), whose fact sheet on infertility reads, in part: Environmental and lifestyle factors such as smoking, excessive alcohol intake and obesity can affect fertility. In addition, exposure to environmental pollutants and toxins can be directly toxic to gametes (eggs and sperm), resulting in their decreased numbers and poor quality, leading to infertility.11 The impact of environmental toxins on fertility has been recognized since at least 1860, when French scientists observed that women married to lead workers not only had a harder time conceiving but also a higher risk of miscarriage.12 Invisible Threat of Low Level Environmental Toxins It has previously been established that people who work directly with pesticides have a higher risk of infertility,13 but several more recent studies indicate that even low, everyday levels of exposure to toxic chemicals found in water, soil, air and food has been reported to have a negative impact on the reproductive system.14 15 It is not only human fertility that is being affected. Mirroring humans’ increased prevalence of genital abnormalities, such as an increased incidence of males born with undescended testicles or atypically small penises, reproductive issues are also being reported in animal species. Examples include reduced fertility among Baltic gray seals, increasing numbers of polar bears with small genitals and low testosterone levels, and genital abnormalities reported in alligators, panthers and minks.16 Pesticide Residue on Fruits and Vegetables Compromises Fertility One of the most common culprits identified is pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables, which has been linked to both lowered sperm counts and a decreased success rate of in vitro fertilization procedures.17 18 In a study of 325 women undergoing fertility treatments, researchers primarily from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts reported that “intake of high–pesticide residue fruits and vegetables was associated with a lower probability of live birth, while low–pesticide residue fruit and vegetable intake was not associated with this outcome.”19 In another study, Jorge Chavarro, MD and his associates at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston similarly observed that men who ate the most high-pesticide fruits and vegetables had both reduced sperm counts (49 per cent lower) and a higher number of misshapen sperm (32 per cent fewer healthy sperm) compared to men with the lowest dietary pesticide exposure.20 The researchers did not point to one pesticide in particular but suggested that a mixture of pesticides is responsible. Following is their list of fruits and vegetables, ranked from highest (6) to lowest (4) risk, scored on the basis of level of detectable pesticide contamination, level in excess of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines and presence of three or more types of pesticides: Green, yellow and red peppers (6) Spinach (6) Strawberries (6) Celery (6) Blueberries (5) Potatoes (5) Peaches and plums (5) Apples or pears (5) Winter squash (4) Kale, mustard greens and chard greens (4) Grapes and raisins (4) Other factors that may influence fertility for men and women include21: Age (> 35 in women and > 40 in men) Diabetes Eating disorders Excessive alcohol use Exposure to environmental toxins Excessive exercise Cancer treatment, including radiology Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) Smoking (both tobacco and marijuana have been implicated22 Stress Substance abuse Weight issues, whether under- or overweight Most measurable scientific studies have concentrated on male fertility because male reproductive issues are simpler to evaluate. However, since other environmental toxins such as radiation, lead ethylene glycol ethers and cigarette smoke have been found to be as harmful for women as for men, it has been proposed that environmental factors damaging to the reproductive system would be expected to equally affect both men and women.23 PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Jillian Levy via draxe Because fulvic acid is able to improve how our cells use things like antioxidants and electrolytes, it’s become popular for slowing down aging, improving digestive health and protecting brain function. In fact studies, now show that fulvic acid has antioxidant, neuro-protective, antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties What does fulvic acid do for your body exactly? As an active chemical compound, it works in a way that helps us absorb and use other nutrients better — such as microbiota/probiotics, phytonutrients, fatty acids and minerals. Many consider it to be the ultimate “nutrient booster,” and it helps counteract free radical damage. Below we’ll look at how we can benefit from fulvic acid when we take it as a supplement or acquire it naturally from coming into contact with more dirt/soil/organic foods. What Is Fulvic Acid? Fulvic acid is one component of humus. Humus is made of many organic compounds found in the Earth’s soils, rock sediments and bodies of water. Fulvic acid is created by gradual decomposition of certain plants and animals by the action of microorganisms. Over the past several decades, we’ve learned a lot more about how fulvic acids found in dirt can actually improve human gut health and therefore immune functions. Today people supplement with fulvic acid, as well as soil-based probiotics, to replenish what is being lost in their diets and lifestyles due to modern farming techniques. While people used to obtain higher amounts of humic acids naturally from the soil, today they often turn to food-grade supplements to boost their nutrient intake and improve gut health. Color, Structure and Properties: Fulvic acid and other humic acids are yellow-brown substances found in natural materials. They contain a plethora of nutrients and active compounds that can help improve health. These include: trace minerals electrolytes fatty acids silica (which boosts collagen synthesis) prebiotics probiotics Fulvic minerals have been shown to contain multiple active functional groups, including phenolic hydroxyl, ketone carbonyl, quinone carbonyl, carboxyl and alkoxyl groups. Its structure is made up of aromatic, organic polymers with many carboxyl groups that release hydrogen ions, resulting in an electric charge that helps attract free radicals, heavy metals and other toxins within the body. This allows it to act like a detoxification agent. Once it becomes reactive with metals, fulvic acid helps them become more soluble in water, which means they’re carried out of the body more easily. Fulvic acid is a yellow color and doesn’t have a very appealing taste on its own. That’s why many people choose to mix powdered fulvic acid into juice, smoothie, etc., to mask its unpleasant taste. You can add fulvic acid to liquid or take it with supplements to help supercharge their abilities and improve bioavailability. What is the pH of fulvic acid? It has a very high, alkaline pH and is also super small/fine. This helps make it more bioavailable in the body. As a soluble, strong acid, it has a pH equal to about 1. Where It Comes From: How is fulvic acid produced? It’s found in nature as a product of microbial metabolism processes. That means it’s produced when organic plant matter decomposes. This processes releases millions of beneficial bacteria. Within the environment, fulvic acid is found in not only soil and rock, but also streams, lakes and ocean water. Humic acids form complexes with ions that are commonly found in the environment, creating tight humic colloids binds that help with water filtering, agriculture processes and detoxification. The presence of carboxylate and phenolates within humic acids gives them the ability to act like natural chelators, which means they form chemical complexes that are important for regulating bioavailability of metal ions like iron, calcium, magnesium and copper within the human body and environment. Most humic acid also contains some fulvic acid, but the two are somewhat different because they have different molecular weights (sizes). Fulvic acid is much smaller that humic acid and is sometimes referred to as low molecular weight humic substances. Because they are smaller, fulvic acids can easily be absorbed by plant roots, stems and leaves. History: For hundreds of years, an ancient remedy known as shilajit, which contains roughly 50 percent to 60 percent fulvic acid, has been used in traditional Ayurvedic medicine to treat a wide scope of health conditions, most of which can be traced back to poor digestive/immune health. While fulvic acid is yellow, shilajit is a blackish-brown powder or fluid. It is commonly sourced from the Himalayas and taken in supplement form with water. Historically, fulvic acid/shilajit has been used as a rash remedy to help treat poison ivy, poison oak, viral infections, spider bites and athlete’s foot. While this benefit is based more on anecdotal evidence than clinical studies, it makes sense considering fulvic acid improves circulation and immunity while lowering pain and susceptibility to infections. Benefits and Uses 1. Improves Gut Health and Immune Function The compounds found in fulvic acid help nourish the digestive tract and also boost the ability of “good bacteria” to repopulate and form a healthy “microbiome” environment. We need a strong digestive system to build immunity, help control hormone production, regulate appetite, reduce stress response and much more. As a result of gut permeability (when particles are able to escape through the gut lining and enter the bloodstream, where they shouldn’t normally be), inflammation is triggered and autoimmune reactions can occur. There is some evidence that consuming fulvic acid can help decrease digestive disorders and other issues, including: SIBO symptoms (small intestine bacterial overgrowth) inflammatory bowel disorders bacterial infections (respiratory, urinary tract, etc.) the flu and common colds 2. Helps Boost Digestion and Nutrient Absorption Acquiring enough electrolytes and other trace minerals is important for proper metabolic functions, digestive health and nutrient assimilation. Organisms we obtain from fulvic acid can be taken in small doses and still cause fast, significant improvements in the ratio of bacteria living in the gut. This helps lower many unwanted digestive symptoms, like constipation, bloating, diarrhea and food sensitivities. Besides providing raw nutrients, studies show that fulvic acid transports minerals and other nutrients to cells more effectively, boosts absorption rate of nutrients by making cells more permeable and fights inflammation within the digestive tract. 3. Protects Cognitive Health A 2011 study published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease found that fulvic acid has several antioxidant, nutraceutical properties with potential activity to protect against cognitive impairments, including Alzheimer’s disease. A contributing factor to the development of cognitive disorders is free radical damage and also a type of protein called tau, but studies show that fulvic acid helps lower the length of tau fibrils and their morphology, disassembling their performance and stopping disease progression. Researchers have recently concluded that fulvic acid seems to have neuroprotective effects and is likely to provide new insights in the development of potential natural treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. 4. Improves Detoxification Humic acids are beneficial for digestion and improving energy because of their detoxifying abilities. As a form of natural chelation therapy, humic acids are capable of binding to and breaking down toxins and metals that enter the body through the food supply, water, prescription medications, household products and air pollution. Studies have found that humic acids have ion-selective electrodes that can be used for attracting heavy metals — even for filtering soils and water. That’s because they help bind to things like copper and iron. Research shows they’re even effective at geochemical processing of soils and aquatic environments at much lower concentrations than other types of chemicals. 5. Lowers Free Radical Damage and Inflammation Fulvic acid contains antioxidants that counter the effects of free radicals and also help detoxify the body of many toxins that contribute to the problem: chemicals used in agriculture, radioactive waste and heavy metals, for example. It also helps extend the permeability and life of cells by providing electrolytes that have numerous functions within the heart, muscles, brain and digestive tract. Is there a connection between fulvic acid and cancer? Recent studies suggest that humic substances posses pharmacological properties that can help to defend against some types of cancer, including colorectal cancer. 6. Improves Energy Levels and Lowers Pain Many people taking fulvic acid supplements have reported improvements in energy levels, probably due to increased detoxification, lower levels of inflammation and free radical damage, and higher intakes of electrolytes and other key nutrients. According to research done by Doctors Across Borders, studies have found that as natural and organic electrolytes, humic acids activate and energize nearly every biological process in the body. An electrolyte is soluble in water and works by conducting electrical currents, helping cells survive in the face of damage caused by things like emotional stress, uncontrolled infections, unbalanced diet, prolonged loss of sleep and surgical shocks. This also makes fulvic acid useful for lowering chronic nerve pain, headaches, joint pain caused by arthritis, or bone and muscle pains associated with aging. There’s some evidence that fulvic acid’s electrolytes can help reduce swelling, decrease inflammation, soothe and relax muscles, and improve circulation. Conversely, an electrolyte imbalance can cause these symptoms to worsen. Can fulvic acid aid in weight loss? It’s possible that it may by supporting general health, but it’s not intended for this purpose. 7. Repairs and Protects the Skin Some evidence suggests that humic acids have antimicrobial properties that fight harmful bacteria. They can help protect the skin and treat wounds or irritations caused by things like eczema, bug bites, scrapes and rashes associated with fungus/microbes. A study published in the Journal of Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigative Dermatology found that fulvic acid supplementation significantly improved symptoms associated with eczema, even compared to other other eczema treatments. How It Works Fulvic acid is full of many types of minerals and nutrients that people today are missing. Research suggests that something unique about fulvic acid compared to other organisms found within soil is that it’s able to easily pass through cellular membranes. This allows it to be properly absorbed and also boosts assimilation of other nutrients or supplements. In fact, there are benefits of fulvic acid for plants, soil fertilization and water/agriculture supplementation for the same reason it benefits humans — because it improves plants’ ability to grow, due to how it increases permeability of plant membranes that absorb nutrients from the ground. Here are some of the reasons that fulvic acid works to improve health: As a major source of key electrolytes and antioxidants, fulvic acid helps slow down aging and controls processes that lead to inflammation. It’s been shown to improve various cellular processes, muscle functions, digestive abilities, and heart and brain health. It works in part by helping cells absorb the amount of minerals they need and discard of waste by acting as an ion transporter. It can interrupt processes that contribute to brain disorders, such as dementia. It has been shown to have immune-stimulating and antioxidant effects that may help slow down progression of cancer. It also stimulates the immune system to helps defend the body from things like viruses and infections. It seems to help block reactions in the body that cause allergy symptoms. Fulvic Acid vs. Folic Acid: Are They Similar? Folic acid and fulvic acid might sound similar, but they’re actually two different substances. Folate and folic acid are forms of a water-soluble B vitamin, which is why they are sometimes called vitamin B9. Fulvic acid, on the other hand, is not a vitamin but rather the term for organic acids derived from humus. Fulvic acid is not a mineral itself. It’s a compound that has the ability to attract and bind with many molecules, transporting nutrients into plants. Folate occurs naturally in folate foods (especially vegetables, whole grains and beans), while folic acid is the synthetic form of this vitamin that’s added to some foods and supplements. It’s estimated that about 35 percent of adults and 28 percent of all children in the U.S. use supplements containing folic acid, yet it’s been shown to act differently in certain ways compared to natural folate. Why We Need Exposure to Soil-Based Organisms Most adults and children today come into contact with less dirt, soil, organic crops or plants, and ocean water than past generations did. Thus, our immune systems don’t have the chance to become familiar with many different organisms and therefore don’t learn to protect us as well as they could. In the past, our food supply was higher in naturally occurring fulvic acid and other nutrients because soils were less depleted, pesticide/herbicide chemicals were sprayed far less often, and people were less concerned about sanitizing their bodies and produce until they are squeaky clean. Modern farming techniques leave little time for fulvic acid to accumulate to soil, which can lead to an overgrowth of pathogens and a reduction in beneficial microbes in our food supply. Unfortunately, many people today don’t have access to many organic foods and are deficient in at least several key nutrients, due to eating a highly processed diet and oversanitizing. Because our immune system is largely made of healthy bacteria that live within the gut and thrive off of various nutrients, our overly clean, highly processed lifestyle raises the risk for many health problems associated with poor gut health. Research has shown that exposure to more natural organisms found in soil, such as fulvic acid, has benefits for: digestion boosting nutrient absorption gut health immunity cognitive functioning improving energy levels protecting us from infections, viruses, yeasts and fungus boosting skin health slowing down aging and more Foods Although this is an indirect way to get fulvic acid, you can consume some by eating organic fruits and vegetables, since it’s used to naturally replenish minerals and other nutrients within soil and commonly present in natural fertilizers for growing organic crops. Buying organic foods increases the amount of fulvic acid from foods that you’ll ingest because oftentimes modern farming methods don’t allow for the enrichment of soil to occur. Instead, overcrowding fields and using pesticides, herbicides and fungicides inhibits natural microbial strains we need and reduces fulvic acid content. Dosage and Supplement Facts Fulvic acid supplements that are made for human consumption can be found in several forms, including liquid form and also as a solid, mineral substance. There are various brands available today, but shilajit is one ancient supplement used in Ayurvedic medicine that has a lot of research supporting its benefits. It contains 85 minerals in ionic form, as well as triterpenes, humic acid and high amounts of absorbable fulvic acid. Some experts believe that the highest-quality fulvic acid supplements come from New Mexico, as well as parts of Russia, Canada and China. Ideally purchase a product that is GMO-free, has no added chemicals or artificial ingredients, is free of pesticides, and is certified organic. Liquid (or “water fulvic acid) vs. solid fulvic acid supplements: There’s some evince that fulvic acid is more bioavailable when taken in liquid form as opposed to solid or chunk form. Solid fulvic acid must be broken down by the digestive system before the nutrients can be utilized by the cells. When taken as a liquid, it seems to enter cells more easily. What is the difference between fulvic acid and fulvic minerals? For the most part people use these terms interchangeably. Supplements marketed as “fulvic minerals” usually provide fulvic acid. How to take fulvic acid supplements: Read dosage directions carefully since using too much can alter mineral levels in a potentially dangerous way. Most liquid products come in extract form and require using about 12 drops at a time with 16–20 ounces of filtered water. In solid form, one or two tablespoons is combined with one to two cups of water. It’s recommended that you use fulvic acid with filtered water (not tap water). Liquid products might be sterilized to a lesser degree, which preserves beneficial heat and chemical-sensitive nutritional components, so avoid supplements that say “sterile humic acids.” When should you take fulvic acid? This depends on if you take medications and when you eat. It’s a good idea to take fulvic acid around the time of eating since it counteracts and detoxifies contaminants — such as pesticides, chemicals, etc., found in foods that are not organic. You can take it a half hour before eating or two hours after eating to improve detox abilities. If using medications, take fulvic two hours after or before. Chlorine interacts with humic acids in a negative way, so always use filtered water if possible. Risks and Side Effects Is fulvic acid safe? Research suggests that fulvic acid is safe for most people to take, although there hasn’t been much research done in special populations, such as those with impaired immune systems or pregnant women. It seems to be mostly safe and pose few side effects because an overdose isn’t possible, considering it’s completely natural, found in all soil and easily flushed from the system once consumed. That said, fulvic acid side effects can still occur, but they seem to mostly affect people who take high amounts of fulvic acid in pure form. It’s best to start slowly and increase your dosage in increments to make sure you experience no side effects. Diluting fulvic acid is also safer than taking it alone in high amounts. If you have a disorder that results in abnormal immune functions, such as an autoimmune disease like multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis, you shouldn’t take fulvic acid without being monitored since it can activate the immune system and complicate your condition. Because not enough is known about how it affects hormones in pregnant women, it’s also best to stay away from using fulvic acid supplements if you’re pregnant or breastfeeding (although consuming it in small amounts from dirt and produce is perfectly fine). Some people claim that they experience fulvic acid detox symptoms when beginning supplementation, due to the detoxification effects. While this may not apply to everyone, it’s possible to experience temporary diarrhea, cramps, fatigue, headaches or nausea. Final Thoughts What is fulvic acid? It’s a group of substances found in natural materials, such as soil, coal, sediments and bodies of water. It’s formed when plants and animals decompose. Shilajit is an ancient remedy used in Ayurvedic medicine that is made of mostly fulvic trace minerals. Why is fulvic acid good for you? Fulvic acid benefits include improving gut health and immune function, boosting digestion and nutrient absorption, protecting cognitive health, supporting detoxification, lowering free radical damage and inflammation, and helping to decrease pain and skin conditions. You can supplement with fulvic acid in different forms: liquid or water fulvic acid, solid fulvic acid supplements, and by eating organic crops. Fulvic acid foods are an indirect way to obtain some from the soil. Consuming organic foods is the best way to ensure you get some in your diet. The side effects that are known seem to come about when people take high amounts of fulvic acid in pure form. It’s best to start slowly and increase your dosage in increments to make sure you experience no side effects. Diluting fulvic acid is safer than taking it alone in high amounts. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Dr. Mercola via articles.mercola In the 20th century, scientists developed a group of complex, manmade chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). In the past decade, researchers have found the chemicals contaminate drinking water and the environment.1 Current data measure these chemicals at alarming rates in breast milk.2 The properties of these substances include oil and water repellency, temperature resistance and friction reduction. Experts estimate there may be up to 10,000 of these forever chemicals,3 the full effects of which are not yet known. The most widely recognized PFASs are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), both associated with kidney and testicular cancers.4 The family of chemicals are also linked to endocrine disruption and a host of other problems in people who live in communities that have heavily contaminated drinking water. Out of the 10,000 forever chemicals, 3M agreed to stop making PFOS in 2002 and DuPont began phasing out PFOA in 2005.5 Yet, with just a chemical tweak, companies began marketing a new generation of PFASs with similar chemical structures. The properties of PFAS made them useful in aerospace technology, photography, construction and everyday items like paper products and nonstick cookware. Ubiquitous use, delays in reducing use and the known bioaccumulative and persistent effects of the chemicals have generated an environmental problem, largely since some of these forever chemicals can take up to 1,000 years to degrade.6 Frightening Levels of Forever Chemicals Found in Breast Milk The featured study was published in Environmental Science and Technology, which researchers say is the first study in 15 years to analyze PFAS in a group of breastfeeding women in the U.S.7 Data were gathered from a cross-section of socioeconomically and geographically diverse groups of women and showed PFAS contamination in all 50 samples tested. In some samples, the levels were nearly 2,000 times higher than what is recommended safe for drinking water. There are no set standards for PFAS found in breast milk. However, as a comparison, the Environmental Working Group (EWG)8 advises a target for drinking water at 1 part per trillion (ppt) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry9 recommends 14 ppt in children's drinking water. The researchers found levels ranging from 50 ppt to more than 1,850 ppt in woman's breast milk. Evaluating the effects of high amounts of PFAS in infants is difficult. Dr. Sheela Sathyanarayana, a co-author of the study and pediatrician with the University of Washington, spoke with a reporter from The Guardian.10 She told the reporter studies in older children and adults have shown the presence of these chemicals damage the immune system and create hormonal disruptions. This is particularly problematic for infants as their immune system is not yet mature. Another co-author of the study and science director with Toxic Free Future in Seattle, Erika Schreder, added her saying,11 “The study shows that PFAS contamination of breast milk is likely universal in the US, and that these harmful chemicals are contaminating what should be nature’s perfect food.” The results of the study counter the industry claim that the new generation of PFAS do not bioaccumulate in humans.12 The researchers also evaluated international breast milk data, finding in comparison to the current data that older chemical concentration is declining, while newer chemical concentration has doubled every 4.1 years.13 Evidence from this study also has suggested the challenge with PFAS bioaccumulating in people is getting worse. When data from the current study were compared to a study spearheaded by the EWG in 2005,14 the researchers found there was an increase in the amount of new-generation PFAS found in breast milk. Additionally, while manufacturers have phased out some older compounds, they were still present in breast milk, and some were found at high levels. Schreder believes the best solution is banning the entire class of chemicals and went on to say:15 “The study provides more evidence that the PFAS that companies are currently using and putting into products are behaving like the ones they phased out, and they’re also getting into breast milk and exposing children at a very vulnerable phase of development.” Polluting Infants Likely Has Lifelong Consequences More than 15 years ago, the EWG found16 287 chemicals in umbilical cord blood that passes between mother and baby. Of these, 180 are known to cause cancer in humans and animals, 217 are known toxins to the brain and nervous system, and 208 are known to cause abnormal development or birth defects in animal models. There is substantial scientific evidence that demonstrates exposure in the womb may be dramatically more harmful as a baby is developing. Exposure during childhood also increases vulnerability related to the rapid development and incomplete defense systems of a child. Many of these PFAS chemicals can potentially leach from food packaging, causing one group of 33 scientists to write a consensus statement17 pleading with lawmakers “to take swift action to reduce exposure”18 to plastics in food packaging. Pete Myers, founder of Environmental Health Services and publisher of Environmental Health News, was also a contributor to the statement. In an editorial on the consensus statement, he wrote:19 "… hazardous chemicals can transfer from food contact materials into food, and some are known endocrine disrupting chemicals, or ‘EDCs.’ EDCs are associated with chronic diseases such as diabetes, obesity, cancer and neurological disorders like ADHD." And concluded: "The authors say while there is a great amount of information for some of the most well-studied food contact chemicals, such as bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, many of the 12,000 reported food contact chemicals lack data on their hazardous properties or level of human exposure. This suggests that the human population is exposed to unknown and untested chemicals migrating from food wrappings, with unknown health implications." Increasing amounts of data have demonstrated PFAS chemicals have a lethal effect on human health and the environment. After years of mounting evidence, the EPA revealed their PFAS Action Plan in February 2020,20 in which they state the "agency has multiple criminal investigations underway concerning PFAS-related pollution.” They wrote, "Since 2002, the agency has initiated 12 enforcement actions, including four since 2017." Better Living Through Chemistry The definition of natural is "existing in or formed by nature."21 There is no value-added implication in the definition that natural is healthier. Yet, in a commentary published in the journal Pediatrics, authors Jessica Martucci, Ph.D., and Anne Barnhill, Ph.D., addressed the potential that the word “natural” adds value.22 In it, they discussed how using the word “natural” may have unintended consequences of equating “natural” to “healthier and better.” The authors used statements from the 109-page Nuffield Council report23 as a basis for their argument and recommended the term not be used when pediatricians encourage new mothers to breastfeed. The authors expressed the concern that praising breastfeeding as a natural way to feed infants may bolster the belief that any natural approach is “presumptively healthier.” In the article, Martucci said the original commentary arose from what they believe to be a:24 “… pretty straightforward and interesting observation: the “nature” arguments used by vaccine skeptics to critique public health efforts seemed highly reminiscent of the “nature” arguments used by public health authorities to promote breastfeeding.” In other words, the premise was that breastfeeding promotion programs used a language that is similar to the kinds of arguments they believe are used by people who oppose vaccines. Months later, Martucci described the backlash that arose from the commentary:25 “However, I also think that “nature” arguments have become increasingly entangled with very conservative political ideologies that are often laced with racist, classist, and misogynistic undertones (and sometimes overtones).” Juxtaposing breastfeeding, which has no associated risk, with vaccinations that have a long history of drug-related side effects was likely not an accident and may have been meant to draw a parallel, insinuating both are equally safe. The underlying issue may have been that using the word “natural” could negatively influence the decision to vaccinate. Taken on the surface, it appears the authors were making an argument that breastfeeding and bottle-feeding are equally healthy for infants. If women choose not to breastfeed, the only other option is bottle feeding with lab-produced formulas mixed with drinking water that has tested positive for toxic chemicals across the U.S. In 2015, 200 scientists from 38 countries signed the Madrid Statement on PFASs,26,27 warning about the dangers of old and new PFAS chemicals. The scientists recommended avoiding all products using PFASs. Helpful tips can also be found in the EWG’s “Guide to Avoiding PFCS.”28 More suggestions are found in “Warning: Biodegradable bowls contain toxic chemicals.” Breastfeeding Supports Brain and Gut Development Just as the food you eat impacts your gut microbiome and consequently your immune system, so does the food that infants and children eat. In one study published in the Journal of Pediatrics,29 researchers looked at how bacteria in an infant's digestive system affect burning and storage of fat, and how the infant body uses energy. Information was gathered from 1,087 infants. Mothers reported how long infants were breastfed, when formula was introduced and when solid food was introduced. Stool samples were collected at 3 to 4 months of age and again at 12 months and tested for gut bacteria.30 Data revealed the highest level of beneficial bacteria at three months and one year was in infants who were exclusively breastfed. Infants who were exclusively formula-fed had the least variety of bacteria and nearly double the risk of becoming overweight. Several studies have also demonstrated that breastfeeding benefits a baby's brain. Data from Brown University31 used magnetic resonance imaging to watch brain growth in children under age 4. They discovered that babies who were exclusively breastfed for the first three months had “enhanced development in key parts” of the brain as compared to those who were fed formula or a combination of formula and breast milk. One review of the literature32 concluded there was compelling evidence in both full term and preterm infants that breastfeeding benefited a child's neurodevelopment. They went on to recommend:33 “Overall, available evidence regarding neurodevelopmental benefits supports existing recommendations that infants should be breastfed exclusively for 6 months and that hospitalized preterm infants should receive fortified maternal milk.” A third study34 released from Children's National Hospital in Washington, D.C., demonstrated how breast milk can increase biochemicals important for brain growth and development. The researchers studied extremely premature babies in the neonatal intensive care unit. They discovered:35 “… significantly higher levels of some key biochemicals in breast-fed babies, compared to those who had been fed formula milk. Namely, there were increased amounts of inositol (a molecule similar to glucose) and creatine (a molecule which helps to recycle energy inside cells). The percentage of days that babies were fed breast milk was also linked to higher levels of a vitamin-like nutrient called choline.” More Amazing Benefits of Breastfeeding If you're making a decision about breastfeeding, it's helpful to know the benefits to both baby and mom. Breastfeeding may confer the following benefits to you and your baby: Babies Natural immunity — Breastfeeding initially provides passive immunity as antibodies from the mother are passed through breast milk to the infant. Researchers have also found breast milk has a unique capacity to stimulate the infant's immune system with long-term positive effects.36 Bonding — The close interaction during breastfeeding is just one way mothers develop a greater bond with their infant, which may extend years beyond infancy37 and impact parenting. Reduction of blindness in preemies — Retinopathy of prematurity causes blindness in 10% of severe cases occurring in premature infants. Breastfeeding reduces this risk.38 Reduction in sudden infant death syndrome — In one study, breastfeeding reduced the risk of sudden infant death syndrome in children by 50% at all ages through infancy.39 Reduced allergies — In one study40 of 1,278 mothers and babies, exclusive breastfeeding prevented the development of allergic diseases and asthma. Mothers Quicker recovery from childbirth — The release of oxytocin during breastfeeding helps the uterus return to a normal size and reduces postpartum bleeding.41 Faster weight loss after childbirth — During pregnancy your body automatically stores extra fat to provide food for your baby. Producing milk burns 480 extra calories each day, which helps mobilize visceral fat stores.42 Reduced rates of breast cancer — Breastfeeding may cut the risk of breast cancer in women who have had children.43 Reduced rates of cardiovascular disease — Women who breastfeed have a 10% lower risk of heart disease and stroke.44 Reduced risk of postpartum depression — The release of prolactin and oxytocin while breastfeeding produces a peaceful and nurturing sensation. Women who breastfeed enjoy a reduced risk of developing postpartum depression in the first four months of their infant's life.45 Sources and References 1 Vermont, Health and the Environment, Drinking water 2 Environmental Science and Technology, 2021; doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c06978 3 Interstate Technology Regulatory Council, History and Use of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) 4 EarthJustice, February 20, 2020 5 Environmental Working Groups, August 20, 2015 6 PFAS Free, What Are PFAS? 7, 10 The Guardian, May 13, 2021 8 EWG, May 6, 2019 9 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, November 2018 11 The Guardian, May 13, 2021, para 3 12 EWG, August 22, 2019 13 EcoWatch, May 13, 2021 14 Environmental Working Group, July 14, 2005, [The Guardian, May 13, 2021] 15 The Guardian, May 13, 2021, bottom of the page 16 Environmental Working Group, July 14, 2005 17 Environmental Health, 2020;19(25) 18, 19 Environmental Health News, March 3, 2020 20 EPA PFAS Action Plan: Program Update 21 Dictionary.com, Natural 22 Pediatrics, 2016;137(4) 23 Nuffield Council on Bioethics, November 2015 24 Nursing Clio, September 14, 2016 para 3 25 Nursing Clio, September 14, 2016 26 Environmental Health Perspectives 123:A107–A111, Madrid Statement 27 Newser, May 1, 2015 28 EWG’s Guide to Avoiding PFCS (PDF) 29 JAMA Pediatrics, June 4, 2018 doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.1161 30 ABC News, June 6, 2018 31 Brown University, June 6, 2013 32, 33 Breastfeeding Medicine, 2017;12(8) 34, 35 Science Focus, May 4, 2019 36 Annals of Asthma, Allergy and Immunology, 1998;81(6):523 37 American Psychological Association, October 30, 2017 38 Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 2018;34(6) 39 American Academy of Pediatrics, 2009;123(3) 40 European Annals of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2007;39(10):337 41 Nursing Primary Care, 2019;3(3) 42 Scientific American, April 30, 2010 43 MDAnderson Cancer Center, October 2014 44 Journal of the American Heart Association 2017; doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.006081 45 International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 2012;43(3):243 PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By therefreshedhealth Getting too much knowledge about breastfeeding sometimes can be confusing and distressing for new moms. Discussions about foremilk and hindmilk make it sound like your breast tissues produce two distinct kinds of milk. Certainly, there is a definite answer to this. You only make one kind of breastmilk. How Is Milk Made? During pregnancy, your breasts start getting ready to make milk. As milk-making tissues rapidly grow, you may notice your breasts become fuller and more tender. After you have your baby, pregnancy hormones lower which then helps the lactation hormone, prolactin, to be released. Prolactin sends a message that tells your breasts to make milk. Both your hormones and your baby’s suckling cause your breasts to make milk. The more your baby nurses, the more milk you make. When your baby suckles, another hormone, oxytocin, sends a message that tells the small muscles in your breast to contract. As a result, this muscle contraction moves the milk through the milk ducts. Therefore, this is called the let-down reflex. It releases the milk into your milk ducts so you can breastfeed your baby. Colostrum vs Transition Milk vs Mature Milk First of all, you produce colostrum towards the end of pregnancy until the first few days after delivery. During the next 10-14 days, when mature breast milk starts to replace colostrum, it is called transitional milk. Then, mature milk being produced in the second week after delivery. What Is Preterm Milk? Milk produced by a woman who has delivered prematurely. It contains more protein, minerals, immunoglobulins, and lactoferrin than mature milk, making it more suited for the needs of the preterm baby. During the mature milk production, the composition of your mature milk changes even during the length of a single feed. Hence comes the confusion of foremilk and hindmilk. Mature Milk: Foremilk As your breast milk passes through fine ducts in your breast to reach the nipple, some of the fats attached to the walls of the ducts. This causes the watery part of your milk which is high in lactose flow through the ducts and reaches the nipple first. This is known as ‘foremilk’. It is watery Contain low fat High in lactose Also, contain protein, vitamin, and mineral Foremilk serves the purpose to quench the thirst of your baby. Mature Milk: Hindmilk As the feeding continues, more of these fat globules that cling to the wall of the ducts get dislodged and make its way to nipple opening later. Milk that is secreted at later part of the feeding which is richer, thicker and creamier known as hindmilk. Much thick in consistency Richer in fat Hindmilk satisfies the hunger of your baby as well as supplies more energy required for the healthy growth of your baby. Foremilk vs Hindmilk Therefore, it is recommended to allow your baby to finish the first breast before offering the second so that your baby gets both watery part of foremilk as well as energy-rich hindmilk. It is difficult to tell how much foremilk and hindmilk your baby has received from the single length of a feed. The better your baby drains your breast per feeding, the more hindmilk she/he has access to. Some babies can take just five minutes while others take 30-40 minutes to get the same amount. There’s no magic number of minutes to tell when foremilk “switch” to hindmilk. The fat content increases gradually and naturally throughout the feeding. For tips to increase breast milk supply: How to increase your breast milk supply? What is foremilk-hindmilk imbalance (Lactose overload) Some women produce an oversupply of breast milk. More milk means a higher chance that your baby can satisfy even before draining the breast down to the creamy hindmilk. It is important to note that you are producing both foremilk and hindmilk during the oversupply. Just that your baby fill up his/her stomach with a large amount of foremilk. As we learned earlier, foremilk contains a high amount of lactulose and hindmilk has a high amount of fat. Lactulose is large molecules that are digested slowly in the baby’s stomach, while fat in hindmilk slows down the movement of the milk through the digestive system. When a baby drinks more foremilk (high lactulose) and low amount of hindmilk (low fat), the milk will pass through the baby’s digestive system quickly and lactulose not digested properly. This is known as foremilk/hindmilk imbalance or lactose overload. Problems with foremilk/hindmilk imbalance Babies with lactose overload can appear like they’re suffering from a digestive disorder: They may have a lot of flatulence/gassiness (wind) Green, foamy or frothy, explosive stools Pain which will usually be noticeable with lots of screaming due to abdominal cramp Increased fussiness Tips to overcome foremilk/hindmilk imbalance Try different positions: lying on your side or a laid back position might help your baby to manage faster-flowing milk much easily. Better deep latching can help babies manage milk flow better. Breastfeed from one breast as long as possible. As long as your baby is breastfeeding effectively, you can let your baby decide how much milk she/he wants. So, just follow your baby’s cue. How do you know if your baby is getting enough milk? Type of stool – As your milk changes, your baby’s poops will too. First few days, poops will be black and tarry. Then they’ll be greenish to yellowish (3-5days). Then they will become bright yellow, soft, and has a peculiar aromatic odor. The baby passes urine 6-8 times a day. Your baby seems happy after feedings, with relaxed hands and feet. Your baby is growing and gaining weight. Sleeps comfortably between feeds and at night. Conclusion In conclusion, foremilk and hindmilk are not different types of milk. They are produced in a different composition during the single length of a feed. As long as your baby satisfied with his/her feed and showing good sign of growth and development, you no need to worry much about these breastfeeding terminologies. Happy motherhood!!! References: https://www.llli.org/breastfeeding-info/foremilk-and-hindmilk/ https://www.sdbfc.com/blog/2012/2/6/foremilk-vs-hindmilk-the-unnecessary-controversy https://www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/ https://wicbreastfeeding.fns.usda.gov/ PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By draxe Hormones — such as estrogen, testosterone, adrenaline and insulin — are extremely important chemical messengers that affect many aspects of your overall health. Conventional treatments for hormonal imbalances typically include synthetic hormone replacement therapies, birth control pills, insulin injections, thyroid medications and more. Unfortunately, for the majority of people suffering from hormonal disorders, relying on these types of synthetic treatments often does three things: It makes people dependent on taking prescription drugs for the rest of their lives in order to keep symptoms under control. It simply masks the patient’s symptoms, but doesn’t solve them, which means that the patient can continue to develop abnormalities in other areas of the body while the disorder progresses. It potentially causes a higher risk for serious side effects, such as stroke, osteoporosis, anxiety, reproductive problems, cancer and more. Is it possible to balance hormones naturally? The good news is: yes, in many cases it is. Below you’ll learn about some root causes of hormonal problems, as well as about treatment options to help you balance your hormones naturally. What Is the Endocrine System? The endocrine system is in charge of coordinating the relationship between different organs and hormones, which are chemicals that are released into your bloodstream from cells within your endocrine glands. Hormones are secreted by various glands and organs, including your thyroid, adrenals, pituitary, ovaries, testicles and pancreas. The entire endocrine system works together to control the level of hormones circulating throughout your body, and if one or more is even slightly imbalanced, it can cause widespread health problems affecting growth, sexual development and function, sleep, metabolism and hunger. Once your hormones are in circulation, they target specific tissues or cells by binding to receptors that are located inside the cell or on its surface. These hormones work as chemical messengers and play a key role in your body’s daily functions. The endocrine system is made up of many glands, including the pituitary gland or “master gland” that’s responsible for sending information from your brain to other glands in your body. The pituitary gland also produces many hormones that travel throughout the body and have different important functions. The pituitary gland is made up of two different tissue types: the anterior pituitary that synthesizes and releases classic hormones, and the posterior pituitary gland that secretes neurohormones that are made in the hypothalamus. Two hormones that are secreted by the anterior pituitary gland are growth hormone, which is responsible for your proper growth and development, and prolactin, which is the hormone that stimulates milk production after childbirth. Tropic hormones are also produced and secreted by the anterior pituitary gland, which is an endocrine gland, and they also target other endocrine glands. These hormones include: thyroid-stimulating hormone (also called thyrotropin) follicle-stimulating hormone luteinizing hormone adrenocorticotropic hormone The posterior pituitary gland doesn’t produce hormones on its own, but stores and secretes two hormones made in the hypothalamic region, vasopressin and oxytocin, and then releases them into the bloodstream. Other important glands of the endocrine system include the pineal gland, thyroid gland, parathyroid glands, thymus gland and adrenal glands. There are two major groups of hormones that circulate the human body — those that derive from amino acids (protein hormones, peptides and amines) and those that derive from lipids (steroids). Here’s a quick breakdown of these hormone subgroups: Amine hormones: Hormones that are synthesized from the amino acids tryptophan (such as melatonin) and tyrosine (such as thyroid hormones and dopamine). Peptide hormones: Hormones that consist of short chain amino acids and include antidiuretic hormone (called vasopressin) and oxytocin. Protein hormones: Hormones that consist of longer polypeptides and include growth hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone. Steroid hormones: Hormones that are derived from cholesterol and include testosterone, estrogens and cortisol. When these hormones send messages, they are received by hormone receptors that process the message and signal specific event or cellular mechanisms that initiate the target cell’s response. Signs and Symptoms Before we talk about how to balance hormones naturally, it helps to know which signs and symptoms of hormone imbalances to look out for. These include: Infertility and irregular periods Weight gain or weight loss (that’s unexplained and not due to intentional changes in your diet) Depression and anxiety Fatigue Insomnia Low libido Changes in appetite Digestive issues Hair loss and hair thinning Symptoms of hormonal imbalances can range dramatically depending on what type of disorder or illness they are caused by. For example, high estrogen can contribute to problems that include endometriosis and reproductive issues, while symptoms of diabetes often include weight gain, changes in appetite, nerve damage and problems with eyesight. Some specific problems associated with some of the most common hormonal imbalances include: Estrogen dominance: changes in sleep patterns, changes in weight and appetite, higher perceived stress, slowed metabolism Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS): infertility, weight gain, higher risk for diabetes, acne, abnormal hair growth Low estrogen: low sex drive, reproductive problems, menstrual irregularity, changes in mood Hypothyroidism: slowed metabolism, weight gain, fatigue, anxiety, irritability, digestive issues, irregular periods Low testosterone: erectile dysfunction, muscle loss, weight gain, fatigue, mood-related problems Hyperthyroidism & Grave’s disease: anxiety, thinning hair, weight loss, IBS, trouble sleeping, irregular heartbeats Diabetes: weight gain, nerve damage (neuropathy), higher risk for vision loss, fatigue, trouble breathing, dry mouth, skin problems Adrenal fatigue: fatigue, muscle aches and pains, anxiety and depression, trouble sleeping, brain fog, reproductive problems Risk Factors and Causes Hormonal imbalances are multi-factorial disorders, meaning they are caused by a combination of factors — such as your diet, medical history, genetics, stress levels and exposure to toxins from your environment. Some of the major contributors to hormonal imbalances include: Food allergies and gut issues: An expanding field of new research shows that your gut health plays a significant role in hormone regulation. If you have leaky gut syndrome or a lack of beneficial probiotic bacteria lining your intestinal wall, you’re more susceptible to hormonal problems, including diabetes and obesity. That’s because inflammation usually stems from your gut and then impacts nearly every aspect of your health. Being overweight or obese High levels of inflammation caused by a poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle Genetic susceptibility Toxicity (which is related to exposure to chemicals like pesticides, or viruses, cigarettes, excessive alcohol and some medications) High amounts of stress, and a lack of enough sleep and rest Adrenal dysfunction is the largest cause of the hormonal imbalance with the sex hormones — especially because of something called the “cortisol steal.” This occurs when cholesterol, which usually helps to make the sex hormones, combines with too much stress and the enzyme 17/20 lyase blocks the conversion; the production of cortisol ensues. Cortisol then causes the imbalance of progesterone, estrogen and testosterone, which then decreases the sex drive. How to Balance Hormones Naturally 1. Swap Carbs for Healthy Fats Foods that balance hormones include a variety of fat-containing foods that provide short, medium and long-chain fatty acids. Your body needs various types of fats to create hormones, including saturated fat and cholesterol. Not only are these essential fats fundamental building blocks for hormone production, but they keep inflammation levels low, boost your metabolism and promote weight loss. Healthy fats have the opposite effect of refined carbohydrates, which lead to inflammation and can mess with the balance of your hormones. My four favorite sources of anti-inflammatory, healthy fats include: coconut oil, avocados, grass-fed butter and wild-caught salmon. Coconut oil uses are plentiful — for example, coconut oil (or cream/milk) has natural anti-bacterial and fat-burning effects. Avocado benefits include improving heart health, lowering inflammation, controlling your appetite and contributing to your daily intake of fiber and nutrients such as potassium. Salmon nutrition is also impressive: it’s one of the best sources of omega-3 fatty acids, which are known to lower inflammation and help with cognitive functions. Omega-3 fatty acids are a large component of brain-cell membranes and are important for cell-to-cell communication in the brain. Research shows that omega-3 fatty acids help protect against hippocampal neuronal loss and reduce pro-inflammatory responses. What food causes hormonal imbalance? It’s best to limit or avoid added sugar, processed carbs and refined vegetable/seed oils. Here’s a rule of thumb: Steer clear from oils high in omega-6 fats (safflower oil, sunflower, corn, cottonseed, canola, soybean and peanut), and load up on rich sources of natural omega-3s instead (wild fish, flaxseed, chia seeds, walnuts and grass-fed animal products). There is a type of omega-6 fat that you want to get in your diet called GLA. GLA (gamma-linoleic acid) can be taken in supplement form by using evening primrose oil or borage oil, and it’s also found in hemp seeds. Studies show supplementing with GLA can support healthy progesterone levels. 2. Supplement to Fill Nutritional Voids While a healthy diet is key for all aspects of health, it’s sometimes necessary to supplement in order to fill nutritional voids that can be leading to a hormone imbalance. Here are the top supplements to focus on in order to balance hormones: Evening primrose oil: Evening primrose oil contains omega-6 fatty acids, such as LA and GLA, that support overall hormonal function. Supplementing with evening primrose oil can help to relieve premenstrual and PCOS symptoms. It also helps to create a healthy environment for conception. Vitamin D: What is the best vitamins to take for hormonal imbalance? Vitamin D is definitely one of them, since it almost acts like a hormone inside the body and has important implications for keeping inflammation levels low. This is why people who live in dark areas often suffer from seasonal depression and other health problems unless they supplement with vitamin D. Sunshine is really the best way to optimize vitamin D levels because your bare skin actually makes vitamin D on its own when exposed to even small amounts of direct sunlight. Most people should supplement with around 2,000–5,000 IU daily of vitamin D3 if they live in dark areas, during the winter, and on days when they’re not in the sun. Bone broth: Bone broth soothes the digestive system and supplies the body with nutrients that can be easily absorbed. Consuming bone broth or protein powder made from bone broth is especially beneficial to your health because it contains healing compounds like collagen, proline, glycine and glutamine, which have the powder to boost your overall health. Probiotics: Probiotics are healthy bacteria that can actually improve your production and regulation of key hormones like insulin, ghrelin and leptin. They can also aid in repairing your gut lining, which in turn can balance your hormones. When undigested food particles, like gluten for example, leak through your gut into your bloodstream, it causes disease-causing inflammation that impacts the entire body — especially glands like the thyroid that is very susceptible to heightened inflammation. Most people with leaky gut have an a deficiency of probiotics in their guts. To consume more probiotics, you can both add fermented foods to your diet (such as yogurt, kefir, sauerkraut, etc.) and take probiotic capsule supplements. Adaptogen Herbs: Adaptogen herbs are a unique class of healing plants that promote hormone balance and protect the body from a wide variety of diseases, including those caused by excess stress. In addition to boosting immune function and combating stress, research shows that various adapotogens — such as ashwagandha, medicinal mushrooms, rhodiola and holy basil — can: Improve thyroid function Lower cholesterol naturally Reduce anxiety and depression Fight brain cell degeneration Stabilize blood sugar and insulin levels Support adrenal functions Ashwagandha, in particular, can be extremely effective at balancing hormones. It benefits thyroid function because it promotes the scavenging of free radicals that cause cellular damage. Ashwagandha can be used to support a sluggish or overactive thyroid, and it can also help to overcome adrenal fatigue. Your adrenals can become overtaxed when you experience too much emotional, physical or mental stress, leading to the disruption of hormones like adrenaline, cortisol and progesterone. Holy basil, which is also known as tulsi, helps to regulate cortisol levels, thereby working as a natural remedy for anxiety and emotional stress. Studies show that holy basil can also protect your organs and tissues against chemical stress from pollutants and heavy metals, which are other factors that can lead to hormone imbalance. Mushrooms: Functional mushrooms (including the species Turkey Tail, Reishi, Maitake, Shiitake, Lion’s Mane, Chaga, White Jelly and Cordyceps) supports the body’s ability to adapt to stress and promote immune system modulation. These mushrooms have been used for over 2,000 years in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and are chock full of beneficial compounds, including polysaccharides and polysaccharide peptides, beta glucans, glycoproteins and triterpenes that also support gut health, metabolic health and more. Herbal hormone supplement: Certain supplements intended to support women’s hormones combine functional mushrooms with adaptogens and other botanicals to help support overall hormone balance. Within these supplements you’ll typically find reishi mushroom, chaste tree berry, ashwagandha, black cohosh root, and schizandra berry, together which support female reproductive health, healthy energy levels, a positive mindset, mental clarity, restful sleep and the body’s ability to handle stress. 3. Address Emotional Imbalances According to TCM, internal emotions have a direct impact on a person’s health and addressing emotional imbalances, external factors and lifestyle choices can help to prevent health conditions associated with hormonal imbalances. TCM practitioners believe that the emotions of fear cause disease in your reproductive organs, kidneys and adrenals, affecting cortisol levels. This can lead to serious conditions like PCOS and infertility. The emotions of frustration, impatience and un-forgiveness cause disease in your liver, which can lead to an estrogen imbalance. And emotions of worry and anxiety can cause issues with your insulin levels, which can then affect several hormones. A major component of balancing your hormones naturally is addressing any emotional imbalances that you are dealing with. You can do this by reducing stress levels, engaging in personal reflection and taking time for yourself. Practicing meditation or healing prayer can be extremely beneficial, and so can deep breathing exercises, spending time outdoors and exercising every day. Traditional Chinese Medicine therapies like acupuncture and massage can also help to improve hormonal balance, combat stress and improve blood flow. 4. Use Certain Essential Oils To balance your hormones naturally, it’s important that you eliminate toxins in your body by avoiding conventional body care products that are made with potentially-harmful chemicals including DEA, parabens, propylene glycol and sodium lauryl sulfate. A better alternative is to use natural products made with ingredients like essential oils, coconut oil, shea butter and castor oil. The Environmental Working Group evaluated over 72,000 products and ranked them in an easy-to-understand guide to make sure you have a resource to keep your family safe. Check out EWG’s “Skin Deep Cosmetic Database” today for recommendations for which products to use and avoid. To replace toxic body care and cleaning products, use these hormone balancing essential oils: Clary sage: Clary sage helps to balance estrogen levels because it contains natural phytoestrogens. It can be used to regulate your menstrual cycle, relieve PMS symptoms, treat infertility and PCOS, and even reduce the chances of uterine and ovarian cancer. It also serves as a natural remedy for emotional imbalances, like depression and anxiety. Diffuse 3-5 drops of clary sage to help balance hormone levels and relieve stress. To ease cramps and pain, massage 5 drops of clary sage with 5 drops of coconut oil into your stomach and any other area of concern. Fennel: Problems with your gut health have been found to cause autoimmune reactions, including thyroid disorders. Use fennel essential oil to relax your body, improve your digestion and gut health, boost your metabolism and reduce inflammation. You can rub 2 drops of fennel into your stomach or add 1-2 drops to a class of warm water or tea to take it internally. Lavender: Lavender oil promotes emotional balance, as it can help to treat anxiety, depression, moodiness and stress. It can also be used to promote restful sleep, which will help to balance your hormone levels as well. Diffuse 5 drops of lavender oil at home, add 5 drops to a warm water bath or apply 3 drops topically to your temples, back or neck or wrists. Sandalwood: Sandalwood essential oil can be used to increase your libido, reduce stress, promote relaxation, boost mental clarity and even help you to relax. The powerful fragrance triggers peaceful feelings and results in the overall reduction of stress that can lead to hormone imbalances. Inhale sandalwood directly from the bottle, diffuse it at home or apply 2-3 drops to your wrists and bottoms of the feet. Thyme: Thyme oil improves progesterone production, which helps to treat or relieve health issues like infertility, PCOS, menopause, depression, fibroids, hair loss and insomnia. To help balance your hormones naturally, add 2 drops of thyme oil to a warm water bath or rub 2-3 drops with equal parts coconut oil into your abdomen. 5. Beware of Medications and Birth Control Are you aware of your medication’s side effects? Some can disrupt your hormone balance, leading to side effects like fatigue, appetite changes, altered sleeping patterns, low libido, sadness and even depression. Some medications that can mess with your hormone balance include corticosteroids, stimulants, statins, dopamine agonists, rexinoids and glucocorticoids. Beware of your medications, talk to your doctor about the side effects and research natural alternatives whenever possible. Birth control is another dangerous medications that alters hormone levels. “The pill” is a type of hormone therapy that raises estrogen levels to such dangerous levels that it can cause many complications. I cannot urge you strongly enough to stop using the pill, especially considering that there are many other (safer) ways to prevent pregnancy. Studies show that the health risks of taking them, especially long-term, may include issues like: Breakthrough bleeding between cycles Increased risk of uterine bleeding, blood clotting, heart attack and stroke Migraines Increased blood pressure Weight gain Back pains Mood changes Nausea Benign liver tumors Breast tenderness 6. Get More Sleep Unless you get 7–8 hours of sleep every night, you’re doing your body no favors. A lack of sleep or disturbing your natural circadian rhythm can be one of the worst habits contributing to a hormone imbalance. How so? Because your hormones work on a schedule! Case in point: Cortisol, the primary “stress hormone,” is regulated at midnight. Therefore, people who go to bed late never truly get a break from their sympathetic flight/fight stress response. A lack of sleep, long-term use of corticosteroids and chronic stress are three of the biggest contributors to high cortisol levels. A report published in the Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism stated that “Stress can lead to changes in the serum level of many hormones including glucocorticoids, catecholamines, growth hormone and prolactin.” Sleep helps keep stress hormones balanced, builds energy and allows the body to recover properly. Excessive stress and poor sleep are linked with higher levels of morning cortisol, decreased immunity, trouble with work performance, and a higher susceptibility to anxiety, weight gain and depression. To maximize hormone function, ideally try to get to bed by 10 p.m. and stick with a regular sleep-wake-cycle as much as possible. How to Test Your Hormone Health If you are concerned about your hormone health, you can have your hormone levels tested in the following ways: Saliva testing: Saliva testing measures your body’s hormones levels at the cellular level. A saliva test can measure your estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, cortisol and DHEA levels. When you provide and test multiple samples over time, your healthcare provider can formulate charting changes in hormones with saliva testing. Blood testing: This type of hormone test requires that your blood is collected at a lab and then measured for hormone levels. A blood test can measure free (or active) and total hormone levels, which saliva and urine testing cannot do. Urine testing: A urine hormone test requires that you collect every drop of urine for a 24-hour period. Then your urine is tested to identify each hormone that is present and at what levels on that particular day. This is the most extensive hormone health test because it measures your hormone levels throughout the entire day, instead of the levels for a moment in time, which is the case for blood and saliva tests. Follicle-stimulating hormone testing: This type of test is commonly used to measure the hormonal status of premenopausal women who are beginning to experience symptoms of menopause. Precautions In some cases, synthetic hormonal treatments (such as insulin or thyroid medication) will be necessary to treat a hormonal imbalance. For example, many young women rely on birth control to avoid pregnancy and using progesterone cream during days 7 to 21 of the pill can decrease hormonal problems. Meanwhile, some women need thyroid support as not all the natural options correct the imbalance. However, the majority of people can feel a lot better by making the lifestyle changes described above. For people with diagnosed hormonal disorders — including type 1 or type 2 diabetes, adrenal insufficiency, Addison’s disease, Graves’s disease and Cushing’s syndrome, for example — it’s always important to speak with your doctor before discontinuing medication use. The natural treatments above can still help you overcome your illness and greatly reduce symptoms, but these recommendations shouldn’t take the place of medical supervision. Because hormone imbalances vary so widely in terms of severity of symptoms, always keep track of how you’re feeling, do your research and evaluate how you respond to different treatments. Final Thoughts Hormonal imbalances affect many millions of people worldwide, in the forms of common disorders like diabetes, thyroid disorders, menstrual irregularities, infertility, low testosterone and estrogen dominance Symptoms include feeling anxious, tired, irritable, gaining or losing weight, not sleeping well and noticing changes in your sex drive, focus and appetite Causes for hormonal imbalances include poor gut health, inflammation, high amounts of stress, genetic susceptibility and toxicity Here’s how to balance hormones naturally: eat an anti-inflammatory diet; consume omega-3s, adaptogen herbal supplements, mushrooms, probiotics and other supplements like vitamin D; get good sleep; exercise and control stress. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

Via firstfreedoms.org Alvin Moss, M.D., FACP, FAAHPM, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the Director of the West Virginia University Center (WVU) for Health Ethics and Law at the West Virginia University Health Sciences Center in Morgantown, West Virginia. I hold an appointment as a Professor of Internal Medicine in the Sections of Nephrology and Geriatrics & Palliative Medicine in the School of Medicine at WVU. I earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a Doctorate of Medicine (M.D.) degree from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a certification in medical ethics from the University of Chicago MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics. I trained in Internal Medicine at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine/North Carolina Memorial Hospital in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and completed a fellowship in Nephrology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver, Colorado. I am board-certified in Internal Medicine, Nephrology, and Hospice and Palliative Medicine by the American Board of Internal Medicine. I have published over 150 articles and 20 book chapters in the peer-reviewed literature. My opinions are my own and are based on 44 years’ experience of practicing medicine and studying the medical literature. They are not those of my employer. In 1962, Dr. Alexander Langmuir, the chief of epidemiology for the forerunner to the CDC, said measles is “a self-limiting infection of short duration, moderate severity, and low fatality.” (1) The 1959 edition of the standard pediatrics text said, “Case fatality rates in the US [from measles] have decreased in recent years to low levels for all age groups, in part perhaps because of improved living conditions but also because of antibacterial therapy for the treatment of secondary infections.” (2) Some media reports state that 1 of every 1,000 people with measles die. Considering that the CDC stated that in 1960 only 10% of measles cases were reported, a more accurate statistic is that 1 in 10,000 cases are fatal (3), and that number is likely over stated because there is better treatment for measles now than in 1960. The CDC, WHO, and the AAP all recommend vitamin A treatment for children with measles. This treatment has been found to reduce measles mortality by as much as 60%. There are also better antibiotics available in 2019 than existed in 1960 for common measles complications such as bacterial pneumonia. (4) Primary measles vaccine failure is reported in up to 40% of those vaccinated, which in 1989 prompted the CDC to recommend a second MMR vaccine dose prior to school entry. As Greg Poland, M.D., editor of Vaccine, summarized in 2012, secondary measles vaccine failure has also been recognized as a problem: “Thus, measles outbreaks also occur even among highly vaccinated populations because of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which results in gradually larger pools of susceptible persons and outbreaks once measles is introduced.” (5) There are estimates from the CDC of secondary measles vaccine failure occurring in as many as 33% of those with two MMR vaccinations within 20 years after the second vaccination. (6) In other words, 33% of adults over the age of 25 may be susceptible to measles infection due to the failure rate of the MMR vaccine. For example, according to the New York City Department of Mental Hygiene, a 2011 measles outbreak was reported when an adult who had received 2 doses of measles-containing vaccine infected four other adults who also had received 2 doses of measles-containing vaccine (or had documented measles IgG protective antibody levels). All patients had laboratory confirmation of measles infection, clinical symptoms consistent with measles, and high-avidity IgG antibody characteristic of a secondary immune response. (7) The 2011 measles outbreak was due solely to “vaccine failure.” MMR vaccine is not as effective as public health officials claim. Further, a March 2019 study raises significant concerns about the safety of the MMR vaccine. In a study in the Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, 5,003 children were given either Merck’s MMR II vaccine or GlaxoSmithKline’s MMR-RIT. Of these children, 509 (10.1%) had an adverse reaction prompting an Emergency Department visit; 310 (6.1%) had a grade 3 reaction defined as temperature higher than 39.5 ̊ C (103 ̊ F) degrees (fever), not eating at all, inconsolable crying, redness and/or swelling at the injection site > 20 mm, and limb spontaneously painful or child cried when limb moved; and 176 (3.4%) had new onset chronic disorders including autoimmune disorders, asthma, type 1 diabetes, vasculitis, celiac disease, thrombocytopenia, and allergies. (8). MMR vaccine is not as safe as public health officials claim. Historically, herd immunity has been potentially considered to be achieved if 95% of the population in a community is vaccinated. However, there is a major fallacy in the belief that herd immunity is possible with regard to measles due to primary and secondary MMR vaccine failure. According to a 2007 CDC study, at any one time, less than 70% of the US population, including twice vaccinated adults and children, may have immunity from measles. (9) According to a 2003 mathematical model published in the journal Vaccine, more and more of the population will have lost the protection from measles infection induced by vaccination as time goes by. (10) According to a 2016 CDC study, a third MMR vaccination will not result in sustained immunity from measles infection, concluding that they “did not find compelling data to support a routine third dose of MMR vaccine.” (11) Herd immunity, again, is the reassuring theory that high vaccination rates within a population as a whole will protect the small number of individuals who are vulnerable to contracting an infection due to a variety of factors such as those who are unvaccinated, immunocompromised, or overall vaccine failure. This theory was first developed by observing natural disease outbreaks prior to the existence of vaccines. When these diseases are contracted naturally, lifetime immunity typically results and plays a critical part in the concept of herd immunity. In order for herd immunity theory to hold true outside of a “natural disease” and lifetime immunity population, there must be a homogenous population, well-mixing of the population must occur, unvaccinated status must be random, vaccines must have perfect efficacy, and the age distribution of the population must be uniform. None of those criteria are currently in place. Vaccinated populations do not share the same characteristics as naturally immune populations, which renders the theory of herd immunity to be quite erroneous. The first flawed assumption is that perfect vaccine efficacy occurs. In actuality, primary vaccine failure can occur in up to 2-10% of vaccinated individuals. These individuals do not respond with sufficient antibody production to provide protection and some will fail to do so even with additional boosters. This means the vaccines do not work on these individuals and exposure to measles would result in infection. In addition, secondary vaccine failure can occur. This is when vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time and render an individual unknowingly unprotected later in life, despite having been vaccinated. For example, during the 1989–1991 U.S. measles outbreaks, 20-40% of the individuals affected had been previously immunized with one to two doses of vaccine. (12) A serious consequence of this vaccine failure is that the disease burden has been shifted to more vulnerable populations; as a result, illnesses that were typically benign and self-limiting in children are now occurring in adults where the risk of serious complications are much greater. One study suggests that lapsed vaccine immunity has led to negative outcomes that are 4.5 times worse for measles, 2.2 times worse for chickenpox and 5.8 times worse for rubella, compared to the pre-vaccine era. The waning immunity that occurs with secondary vaccine failure will never result in a population with a true herd immunity articulated goal of 90-95% being “protected.” “Herd immunity” cannot be narrowed to a subset of the larger community, such as school-aged children. Therefore, even in the event that 100% of school-aged children were vaccinated, this does not necessarily mean that “herd immunity” is achieved, especially if a large percent of adults have lost their vaccine-induced antibodies. Both primary and secondary vaccine failure account for the occurrence of vaccine preventable illnesses in highly and even fully vaccinated populations. This has been described extensively in published literature. One example cited by NYU School of Law Professor Mary Holland, Esq. and Chase Zachary, J.D., Ph.D Chemistry, was a 1985 measles outbreak in a Texas high school where 99% of the students had been vaccinated and 96% had detectable measles antibodies. The authors of the outbreak report acknowledged that, under herd immunity theory, “such an outbreak should have been virtually impossible.” (13) In an October 2011 outbreak in Canada, over 50% of the 98 infected individuals had received two doses of measles vaccine. Thus, measles outbreaks also occur even among highly vaccinated populations because of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which results in gradually larger pools of susceptible persons and outbreaks once measles is introduced. This leads to a paradoxical situation whereby measles in highly immunized societies occurs primarily among those previously immunized. More recent studies around the world describe mumps and pertussis outbreaks in highly or fully vaccinated middle and high school populations, including in Belgium (2004), Korea (2006), the U.S. (2007) and Ontario (2015). The Ontario researchers perplexedly stated, “In light of the high efficacy of the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine against mumps, the reason for these outbreaks is unclear.” (14) The failure of the current MMR vaccine and its inability to prevent measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations is specifically addressed by Gregory Poland, MD, MACP, and Robert Jacobson, MD, FAAP, in the January 2012 issue of Vaccine. Despite these caveats, most public health officials continue to push even higher rates of compulsory vaccination and continued boosters throughout the lifespan without any convincing evidence of efficacy. As Holland and Zachary painstakingly show, illogical mandates and “imperfect vaccine technology” mean that “herd immunity… is not attainable.” (15) Even a one hundred percent vaccination rate “cannot reliably induce herd immunity.” Thus, herd immunity is a “weak rationale” to compel all vaccines for all children. (16) The theory of herd immunity is flawed and will never be achievable due to primary and secondary vaccine failure, unvaccinated adults, and importation of disease from travelers. In medicine, prodrome means an early sign or symptom (or set of signs and symptoms), which often indicate the onset of a disease before more diagnostically specific signs and symptoms develop. It is derived from the Greek word prodromos, meaning “running before.” Vaccinated children pose more of a risk to other vaccinated children than the unvaccinated. Typically, the measles prodrome with fever and unwell feeling develops four days before the child develops a rash. These children will be sick for days before a rash develops. Vaccinated children with secondary vaccine failure may contract subclinical measles infection without rash and spread measles unknowingly to classmates. Unvaccinated children will develop the measles disease with a rash, fever, cough, runny nose, and an unwell feeling; consequently, they will know they are sick, not go to school, and not expose vaccinated children. Thus, children with the measles prodrome will not be in school to infect others. Furthermore, a child who is not vaccinated with the live measles virus vaccine IS NOT A CARRIER of measles and is LESS of a threat to other children than recently vaccinated children, who may be shedding live virus from the MMR vaccine. Despite higher than average cases of measles in 2019, New York does not have a public health emergency warranting the repeal of the religious exemption and blocking students’ constitutionally-protected access to school and their religious liberty. _________________________ Alvin Moss, M.D. REFERENCES 1. Langmuir AD. Medical importance of measles. Am J Dis Child. 1962 Mar;103:224-226. 2. Nelson WE, ed. Textbook of Pediatrics, 7th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1959, p. 486. 3. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Measles. Week of October 25, 1969. 18 (43):10. 4. Measles Prevention: Recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00041753.htm, last viewed September 4, 2019. 5. The Re-Emergence of Measles in Developed Countries: Time to Develop the Next-Generation Measles Vaccines? (2012) Gregory A. Poland, MD, MACP, Editor-in-Chief, VACCINE and Robert M. Jacobson, MD, FAAP, Professor of Pediatrics, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905323/, last viewed September 4, 2019. 6.Persistence of measles antibodies after 2 doses of measles vaccine in a postelimination environment. (2007) LeBaron CW1, Beeler J, Sullivan BJ, Forghani B, Bi D, Beck C, Audet S, Gargiullo P., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17339511, last viewed September 4, 2019. 7. Outbreak of measles among persons with prior evidence of immunity, New York City, 2011. (2014) Rosen JB1, Rota JS, Hickman CJ, Sowers SB, Mercader S, Rota PA, Bellini WJ, Huang AJ, Doll MK, Zucker JR, Zimmerman CM.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24585562, last viewed September 4, 2019. 8. Immunogenicity and Safety of a Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine Administered as a First Dose to Children Aged 12 to 15 Months: A Phase III, Randomized, Noninferiority, Lot-to-Lot Consistency Study (2019) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30849175, last viewed September 4, 2019. 9. Persistence of measles antibodies after 2 doses of measles vaccine in a postelimination environment. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17339511, last viewed September 4, 2019. 10. Modelling measles re-emergence as a result of waning of immunity in vaccinated populations. (2003) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14575773, last viewed September 4, 2019. 11. Measles Virus Neutralizing Antibody Response, Cell-Mediated Immunity, and Immunoglobulin G Antibody Avidity Before and After Receipt of a Third Dose of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine in Young Adults. (2016) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26597262, last visited September 4, 2019. 12. The Re-Emergence of Measles in Developed Countries: Time to Develop the Next-Generation Measles Vaccines? (2012) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905323/, last visited September 4, 2019. 13, 15, 16. Herd Immunity and Compulsory Childhood Vaccination: Does the Theory Justify the Law? (2014) Holland, Mary; Zachary, Chase E., https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/18592, last visited September 4, 2019. 14. Challenges in Interpretation of Diagnostic Test Results in a Mumps Outbreak in a Highly Vaccination Population (2016) https://cvi.asm.org/content/24/2/e00542-16, last visited September 4, 2019. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

April 26, 2021 By Dain Pascocello via americasfrontlinedoctors.org An AFLDS Issue Brief for Citizens, Policymakers and Physicians STATEMENT OF POSITION After several months dealing with capacity-related issues in COVID-19 vaccine administration, US states are set to find themselves with a supply of Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson immunizations outstripping demand for the experimental shots. According to a recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation, by about mid-May states will reach a “tipping point where demand for rather than supply of vaccines is our primary challenge.” One official with the American Public Health Association put it this way: “Anybody who’s ever done a public health program knows that the last 20-30% of your target is the hardest.” Perhaps anticipating the challenge, the Biden administration dedicated $48 billion in its stimulus legislation to “implement a national, evidence-based strategy for testing, contact tracing, surveillance, and mitigation with respect to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.” By means of comparison, the National Intelligence Program budget, which includes the CIA and parts of the FBI, will spend about $62 billion in the current year – just 29% more than a single COVID-related line item in the president’s “American Rescue Plan.” On April 24, state health authorities in Indiana, New York, Virginia, Missouri, and Michigan resumed administering Johnson & Johnson’s COVID vaccine following an 11-day federal “pause” on the single-shot inoculation. According to published reports, a review by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) advisory committee, known as ACIP, uncovered 15 cases of vaccine side effects involving potentially fatal blood clots. All were women, most under 50 years old. Three died and seven remain hospitalized. ACIP ultimately decided to lift the pause and recommended attaching a warning label to the experimental injection, to which J&J’s chief medical officer agreed to add at a later date. The CDC’s early warning system for vaccine side effects, its 30-year-old Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, has captured thousands of other “adverse events” since the COVID-19 vaccination effort began in late 2020. Yet these complications have received a fraction of the attention paid to J&J’s blood-clotting controversy. Why? America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) opposes attempts by state and federal jurisdictions to mandate vaccination for COVID-19 and supports further study by independent health officials before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) replaces its conditional “emergency use authorization” (EUA) for the immunizations with full approval, known as a biologics license, a decision which could come as early as April or May 2021. This AFLDS Issue Brief is intended to provide additional information for concerned citizens, health experts, and policymakers about adverse events and other post-vaccination issues resulting from the three experimental COVID-19 vaccines currently administered under EUA. As always, potential vaccine recipients should weigh the available evidence on medical side effects against their particular needs free of third-party coercion, intimidation, and threats. TAKING PATIENT EXPERIENCES SERIOUSLY Drugmaker Pfizer expects to collect $15 billion in 2021 from sales of its mRNA experimental COVID vaccine. There is an irrepressible economic incentive among pharmaceutical companies for childhood COVID vaccines, boosters, and the like. Public health experts should stop and assess data on possible vaccine side effects and related post-vaccination questions before it is too late. Here are some major categories of concern as-yet publicly unaddressed by either the FDA or CDC. AFLDS believes these patient concerns ought to be taken more seriously by health regulators in the United States and abroad. Failing to consider these and other “known unknowns” is a dereliction of basic medical research. 1. Why is there concern surrounding this particular vaccine? The COVID-19 vaccines are still experimental. They are currently being used on an “emergency” basis and are not FDA approved. It takes years to be sure something new is safe. The vaccines are new as is the technology they employ. This new biotechnology introduces something called a “spike protein” instead of the traditional attenuated antigen response in a conventional vaccine. No one knows definitively the long-term health implications for the body and brain, especially among the young, related to this spike protein. In addition, if documented problems with the protein do arise, there will never be any way to reverse the adverse effects in those already vaccinated. 2. What about the reported neurological issues? There are two major neurological concerns related to the COVID vaccines. These are the spike proteins and the lipid nanoparticles which carry the mRNA into the cell. They are both capable of passing through the “blood-brain barrier” which typically keeps the brain and spinal cord completely insulated from entrants into the body. There simply has not been enough time to know what brain problems and how often a brain problem will develop from that. There is concern amongst many scientists for prion disease (neurodegenerative brain disease). Traditional vaccines do not pass through the blood-brain barrier. Crossing the blood-brain barrier places patients at risk of chronic inflammation and thrombosis (clotting) in the neurological system, contributing to tremors, chronic lethargy, stroke, Bell’s Palsy and ALS-type symptoms. The lipid nanoparticles can potentially fuse with brain cells, resulting in delayed neuro-degenerative disease. And the mRNA-induced spike protein can bind to brain tissue 10 to 20 times stronger than the spike proteins that are (naturally) part of the original virus. 3. Can the unvaccinated get sick from contact with the vaccinated?‍ The vaccine produces many trillions of particles of spike proteins in the recipient. Patients who are vaccinated can shed some of these (spike protein) particles to close contacts. The particles have the ability to create inflammation and disease in these contacts. In other words, the spike proteins are pathogenic (“disease causing”) just like the full virus. What is most worrisome is that a person’s body is being suddenly flooded with 13 trillion of these particles and the spike proteins bind more tightly than the fully intact virus. Because of the biomimicry (similarity) on the spike, shedding appears to be causing wide variety of autoimmune disease (where the body attacks its own tissue) in some persons. Worldwide cases of pericarditis, shingles, pneumonia, blood clots in the extremities and brain, Bell’s Palsy, vaginal bleeding and miscarriages have been reported in persons who are near persons who have been vaccinated. In addition, we know the spike proteins can cross the blood brain barrier, unlike traditional vaccines. 4. What about interaction between unvaccinated children and vaccinated adults? AFLDS is concerned that some children will become COVID symptomatic after their parents and teachers get vaccinated. This concern does not relate to risk from infection. Indeed, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association, approximately “1.6% of children with a known case of COVID-19 have been hospitalized and 0.01% have died.” Rather, public health bureaucrats might use these cases of breakthrough transmission or symptoms to speculate that a child's illness is related to a SARS-CoV-2 “variant,” when in reality it is a reaction to the vaccine. Our other concern is that children could develop long-term chronic autoimmune disease including neurological problems due to the fact that children have decades ahead of them and trillions of the spike proteins mentioned above. 5. Is there a post-vaccination menstrual bleeding risk? AFLDS is aware of thousands of reports involving vaginal bleeding, post-menopausal vaginal bleeding, and miscarriages following COVID-19 vaccination as well as anecdotal reports of similar adverse events among those in close contact with the vaccinated. We cannot comment definitively on the close contacts yet, other than to say we have heard reports of this worldwide. But there is so much reporting of vaginal bleeding post-vaccination that it is clear a connection between the vaccine and irregular bleeding exists. Despite this clear-cut evidence, menstrual-cycle changes were not listed among the FDA’s common side effects in its phase-three clinical participants. Women’s reproductive health needs to be taken seriously rather than waved away by agenda-driven public health officials. CONCLUSION The continued rollout of COVID-19 vaccines moves along without due consideration of patient side effects and post-inoculation complications. AFLDS calls on state and federal health regulators to release more adverse-event-related data and conduct additional follow-up studies before the FDA fully licenses any of the vaccines currently administered under emergency use authorization. The growing body of evidence is too compelling to ignore. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

Three groundbreaking studies examined what federal health officials admit they’ve never investigated — whether vaccines improve overall health. The results were “jaw-dropping.” By Children's Health Defense Team The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It's free. Do vaccines make us healthier? Everyone, no matter where they stand on the vaccine debate, should want to know the answer to that question. Yet our national health agencies have never tried to find out. In the video below, you’ll learn about three groundbreaking studies that set out to answer this most basic question. The studies (here, here and here) were conducted independently, using different methods — but all three compared the overall health of vaccinated people versus the overall health of the tiny fraction of people in the U.S. who have never been vaccinated. The results, revealed in the video below, are “striking.” Watch here: “© [4/27/21] Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts. (Read the original article here) PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Sciencedirect Abstract Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making. Introduction Facemasks are part of non-pharmaceutical interventions providing some breathing barrier to the mouth and nose that have been utilized for reducing the transmission of respiratory pathogens [1]. Facemasks can be medical and non-medical, where two types of the medical masks primarily used by healthcare workers [1], [2]. The first type is National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified N95 mask, a filtering face-piece respirator, and the second type is a surgical mask [1]. The designed and intended uses of N95 and surgical masks are different in the type of protection they potentially provide. The N95s are typically composed of electret filter media and seal tightly to the face of the wearer, whereas surgical masks are generally loose fitting and may or may not contain electret-filtering media. The N95s are designed to reduce the wearer’s inhalation exposure to infectious and harmful particles from the environment such as during extermination of insects. In contrast, surgical masks are designed to provide a barrier protection against splash, spittle and other body fluids to spray from the wearer (such as surgeon) to the sterile environment (patient during operation) for reducing the risk of contamination [1]. The third type of facemasks are the non-medical cloth or fabric masks. The non-medical facemasks are made from a variety of woven and non-woven materials such as Polypropylene, Cotton, Polyester, Cellulose, Gauze and Silk. Although non-medical cloth or fabric facemasks are neither a medical device nor personal protective equipment, some standards have been developed by the French Standardization Association (AFNOR Group) to define a minimum performance for filtration and breathability capacity [2]. The current article reviews the scientific evidences with respect to safety and efficacy of wearing facemasks, describing the physiological and psychological effects and the potential long-term consequences on health. Hypothesis On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a global public health emergency of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing illness of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) [3]. As of October 1, 2020, worldwide 34,166,633 cases were reported and 1,018,876 have died with virus diagnosis. Interestingly, 99% of the detected cases with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic or have mild condition, which contradicts with the virus name (severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2) [4]. Although infection fatality rate (number of death cases divided by number of reported cases) initially seems quite high 0.029 (2.9%) [4], this overestimation related to limited number of COVID-19 tests performed which biases towards higher rates. Given the fact that asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times higher than the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate is considerably less than 1% [5]. This was confirmed by the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from US stating, “the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 are similar to those of severe seasonal influenza” [5], having a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1% [5], [6], [7], [8]. In addition, data from hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and general public indicate that the majority of deaths were among older and chronically ill individuals, supporting the possibility that the virus may exacerbates existing conditions but rarely causes death by itself [9], [10]. SARS-CoV-2 primarily affects respiratory system and can cause complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), respiratory failure and death [3], [9]. It is not clear however, what the scientific and clinical basis for wearing facemasks as protective strategy, given the fact that facemasks restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia and increase the risk for respiratory complications, self-contamination and exacerbation of existing chronic conditions [2], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Of note, hyperoxia or oxygen supplementation (breathing air with high partial O2 pressures that above the sea levels) has been well established as therapeutic and curative practice for variety acute and chronic conditions including respiratory complications [11], [15]. It fact, the current standard of care practice for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is breathing 100% oxygen [16], [17], [18]. Although several countries mandated wearing facemask in health care settings and public areas, scientific evidences are lacking supporting their efficacy for reducing morbidity or mortality associated with infectious or viral diseases [2], [14], [19]. Therefore, it has been hypothesized: 1) the practice of wearing facemasks has compromised safety and efficacy profile, 2) Both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to reduce human-to-human transmission and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, 3) Wearing facemasks has adverse physiological and psychological effects, 4) Long-term consequences of wearing facemasks on health are detrimental. Evolution of hypothesis Breathing Physiology Breathing is one of the most important physiological functions to sustain life and health. Human body requires a continuous and adequate oxygen (O2) supply to all organs and cells for normal function and survival. Breathing is also an essential process for removing metabolic byproducts [carbon dioxide (CO2)] occurring during cell respiration [12], [13]. It is well established that acute significant deficit in O2 (hypoxemia) and increased levels of CO2 (hypercapnia) even for few minutes can be severely harmful and lethal, while chronic hypoxemia and hypercapnia cause health deterioration, exacerbation of existing conditions, morbidity and ultimately mortality [11], [20], [21], [22]. Emergency medicine demonstrates that 5–6 min of severe hypoxemia during cardiac arrest will cause brain death with extremely poor survival rates [20], [21], [22], [23]. On the other hand, chronic mild or moderate hypoxemia and hypercapnia such as from wearing facemasks resulting in shifting to higher contribution of anaerobic energy metabolism, decrease in pH levels and increase in cells and blood acidity, toxicity, oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, immunosuppression and health deterioration [24], [11], [12], [13]. Efficacy of facemasks The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material [2]. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists [25]. Clinical scientific evidence challenges further the efficacy of facemasks to block human-to-human transmission or infectivity. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus [26]. The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose ect…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people [26]. This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days. The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase [27]. A meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28]. Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28]. A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings [29]. Another meta-analysis of 44 non-RCT studies (n = 25,697 participants) examining the potential risk reduction of facemasks against SARS, middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) and COVID-19 transmissions [30]. The meta-analysis included four specific studies on COVID-19 transmission (5,929 participants, primarily health-care workers used N95 masks). Although the overall findings showed reduced risk of virus transmission with facemasks, the analysis had severe limitations to draw conclusions. One of the four COVID-19 studies had zero infected cases in both arms, and was excluded from meta-analytic calculation. Other two COVID-19 studies had unadjusted models, and were also excluded from the overall analysis. The meta-analytic results were based on only one COVID-19, one MERS and 8 SARS studies, resulting in high selection bias of the studies and contamination of the results between different viruses. Based on four COVID-19 studies, the meta-analysis failed to demonstrate risk reduction of facemasks for COVID-19 transmission, where the authors reported that the results of meta-analysis have low certainty and are inconclusive [30]. In early publication the WHO stated that “facemasks are not required, as no evidence is available on its usefulness to protect non-sick persons” [14]. In the same publication, the WHO declared that “cloth (e.g. cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstance” [14]. Conversely, in later publication the WHO stated that the usage of fabric-made facemasks (Polypropylene, Cotton, Polyester, Cellulose, Gauze and Silk) is a general community practice for “preventing the infected wearer transmitting the virus to others and/or to offer protection to the healthy wearer against infection (prevention)” [2]. The same publication further conflicted itself by stating that due to the lower filtration, breathability and overall performance of fabric facemasks, the usage of woven fabric mask such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for infected persons and not for prevention practice in asymptomatic individuals [2]. The Central for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made similar recommendation, stating that only symptomatic persons should consider wearing facemask, while for asymptomatic individuals this practice is not recommended [31]. Consistent with the CDC, clinical scientists from Departments of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology in Australia counsel against facemasks usage for health-care workers, arguing that there is no justification for such practice while normal caring relationship between patients and medical staff could be compromised [32]. Moreover, the WHO repeatedly announced that “at present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19) on the effectiveness face masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection of respiratory viruses, including COVID-19”[2]. Despite these controversies, the potential harms and risks of wearing facemasks were clearly acknowledged. These including self-contamination due to hand practice or non-replaced when the mask is wet, soiled or damaged, development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne and psychological discomfort. Vulnerable populations such as people with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, hearing problems, those living in hot and humid environments, children and patients with respiratory conditions are at significant health risk for complications and harm [2]. Physiological effects of wearing facemasks Wearing facemask mechanically restricts breathing by increasing the resistance of air movement during both inhalation and exhalation process [12], [13]. Although, intermittent (several times a week) and repetitive (10–15 breaths for 2–4 sets) increase in respiration resistance may be adaptive for strengthening respiratory muscles [33], [34], prolonged and continues effect of wearing facemask is maladaptive and could be detrimental for health [11], [12], [13]. In normal conditions at the sea level, air contains 20.93% O2 and 0.03% CO2, providing partial pressures of 100 mmHg and 40 mmHg for these gases in the arterial blood, respectively. These gas concentrations significantly altered when breathing occurs through facemask. A trapped air remaining between the mouth, nose and the facemask is rebreathed repeatedly in and out of the body, containing low O2 and high CO2 concentrations, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia [35], [36], [11], [12], [13]. Severe hypoxemia may also provoke cardiopulmonary and neurological complications and is considered an important clinical sign in cardiopulmonary medicine [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Low oxygen content in the arterial blood can cause myocardial ischemia, serious arrhythmias, right or left ventricular dysfunction, dizziness, hypotension, syncope and pulmonary hypertension [43]. Chronic low-grade hypoxemia and hypercapnia as result of using facemask can cause exacerbation of existing cardiopulmonary, metabolic, vascular and neurological conditions [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Table 1 summarizes the physiological, psychological effects of wearing facemask and their potential long-term consequences for health. Table 1. Physiological and Psychological Effects of Wearing Facemask and Their Potential Health In addition to hypoxia and hypercapnia, breathing through facemask residues bacterial and germs components on the inner and outside layer of the facemask. These toxic components are repeatedly rebreathed back into the body, causing self-contamination. Breathing through facemasks also increases temperature and humidity in the space between the mouth and the mask, resulting a release of toxic particles from the mask’s materials [1], [2], [19], [26], [35], [36]. A systematic literature review estimated that aerosol contamination levels of facemasks including 13 to 202,549 different viruses [1]. Rebreathing contaminated air with high bacterial and toxic particle concentrations along with low O2 and high CO2 levels continuously challenge the body homeostasis, causing self-toxicity and immunosuppression [1], [2], [19], [26], [35], [36]. A study on 39 patients with renal disease found that wearing N95 facemask during hemodialysis significantly reduced arterial partial oxygen pressure (from PaO2 101.7 to 92.7 mm Hg), increased respiratory rate (from 16.8 to 18.8 breaths/min), and increased the occurrence of chest discomfort and respiratory distress [35]. Respiratory Protection Standards from Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Department of Labor states that breathing air with O2 concentration below 19.5% is considered oxygen-deficiency, causing physiological and health adverse effects. These include increased breathing frequency, accelerated heartrate and cognitive impairments related to thinking and coordination [36]. A chronic state of mild hypoxia and hypercapnia has been shown as primarily mechanism for developing cognitive dysfunction based on animal studies and studies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [44]. The adverse physiological effects were confirmed in a study of 53 surgeons where surgical facemask were used during a major operation. After 60 min of facemask wearing the oxygen saturation dropped by more than 1% and heart rate increased by approximately five beats/min [45]. Another study among 158 health-care workers using protective personal equipment primarily N95 facemasks reported that 81% (128 workers) developed new headaches during their work shifts as these become mandatory due to COVID-19 outbreak. For those who used the N95 facemask greater than 4 h per day, the likelihood for developing a headache during the work shift was approximately four times higher [Odds ratio = 3.91, 95% CI (1.35–11.31) p = 0.012], while 82.2% of the N95 wearers developed the headache already within ≤10 to 50 min [46]. With respect to cloth facemask, a RCT using four weeks follow up compared the effect of cloth facemask to medical masks and to no masks on the incidence of clinical respiratory illness, influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections among 1607 participants from 14 hospitals [19]. The results showed that there were no difference between wearing cloth masks, medical masks and no masks for incidence of clinical respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections. However, a large harmful effect with more than 13 times higher risk [Relative Risk = 13.25 95% CI (1.74 to 100.97) was observed for influenza-like illness among those who were wearing cloth masks [19]. The study concluded that cloth masks have significant health and safety issues including moisture retention, reuse, poor filtration and increased risk for infection, providing recommendation against the use of cloth masks [19]. Psychological effects of wearing facemasks Psychologically, wearing facemask fundamentally has negative effects on the wearer and the nearby person. Basic human-to-human connectivity through face expression is compromised and self-identity is somewhat eliminated [47], [48], [49]. These dehumanizing movements partially delete the uniqueness and individuality of person who wearing the facemask as well as the connected person [49]. Social connections and relationships are basic human needs, which innately inherited in all people, whereas reduced human-to-human connections are associated with poor mental and physical health [50], [51]. Despite escalation in technology and globalization that would presumably foster social connections, scientific findings show that people are becoming increasingly more socially isolated, and the prevalence of loneliness is increasing in last few decades [50], [52]. Poor social connections are closely related to isolation and loneliness, considered significant health related risk factors [50], [51], [52], [53]. A meta-analysis of 91 studies of about 400,000 people showed a 13% increased morality risk among people with low compare to high contact frequency [53]. Another meta-analysis of 148 prospective studies (308,849 participants) found that poor social relationships was associated with 50% increased mortality risk. People who were socially isolated or fell lonely had 45% and 40% increased mortality risk, respectively. These findings were consistent across ages, sex, initial health status, cause of death and follow-up periods [52]. Importantly, the increased risk for mortality was found comparable to smoking and exceeding well-established risk factors such as obesity and physical inactivity [52]. An umbrella review of 40 systematic reviews including 10 meta-analyses demonstrated that compromised social relationships were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, depression, anxiety suicide, cancer and overall physical illness [51]. As described earlier, wearing facemasks causing hypoxic and hypercapnic state that constantly challenges the normal homeostasis, and activates “fight or flight” stress response, an important survival mechanism in the human body [11], [12], [13]. The acute stress response includes activation of nervous, endocrine, cardiovascular, and the immune systems [47], [54], [55], [56]. These include activation of the limbic part of the brain, release stress hormones (adrenalin, neuro-adrenalin and cortisol), changes in blood flow distribution (vasodilation of peripheral blood vessels and vasoconstriction of visceral blood vessels) and activation of the immune system response (secretion of macrophages and natural killer cells) [47], [48]. Encountering people who wearing facemasks activates innate stress-fear emotion, which is fundamental to all humans in danger or life threating situations, such as death or unknown, unpredictable outcome. While acute stress response (seconds to minutes) is adaptive reaction to challenges and part of the survival mechanism, chronic and prolonged state of stress-fear is maladaptive and has detrimental effects on physical and mental health. The repeatedly or continuously activated stress-fear response causes the body to operate on survival mode, having sustain increase in blood pressure, pro-inflammatory state and immunosuppression [47], [48]. Long-Term health consequences of wearing facemasks Long-term practice of wearing facemasks has strong potential for devastating health consequences. Prolonged hypoxic-hypercapnic state compromises normal physiological and psychological balance, deteriorating health and promotes the developing and progression of existing chronic diseases [23], [38], [39], [43], [47], [48], [57], [11], [12], [13]. For instance, ischemic heart disease caused by hypoxic damage to the myocardium is the most common form of cardiovascular disease and is a number one cause of death worldwide (44% of all non-communicable diseases) with 17.9 million deaths occurred in 2016 [57]. Hypoxia also playing an important role in cancer burden [58]. Cellular hypoxia has strong mechanistic feature in promoting cancer initiation, progression, metastasis, predicting clinical outcomes and usually presents a poorer survival in patients with cancer. Most solid tumors present some degree of hypoxia, which is independent predictor of more aggressive disease, resistance to cancer therapies and poorer clinical outcomes [59], [60]. Worth note, cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with an estimate of more than 18 million new diagnosed cases and 9.6 million cancer-related deaths occurred in 2018 [61]. With respect to mental health, global estimates showing that COVID-19 will cause a catastrophe due to collateral psychological damage such as quarantine, lockdowns, unemployment, economic collapse, social isolation, violence and suicides [62], [63], [64]. Chronic stress along with hypoxic and hypercapnic conditions knocks the body out of balance, and can cause headaches, fatigue, stomach issues, muscle tension, mood disturbances, insomnia and accelerated aging [47], [48], [65], [66], [67]. This state suppressing the immune system to protect the body from viruses and bacteria, decreasing cognitive function, promoting the developing and exacerbating the major health issues including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer disease, rising anxiety and depression states, causes social isolation and loneliness and increasing the risk for prematurely mortality [47], [48], [51], [56], [66]. Conclusion The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health. CRediT authorship contribution statement Baruch Vainshelboim: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing - original draft. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. References [1] E.M. Fisher, J.D. Noti, W.G. Lindsley, F.M. Blachere, R.E. ShafferValidation and application of models to predict facemask influenza contamination in healthcare settings Risk Anal, 34 (2014), pp. 1423-1434 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [2]World Health Organization. Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19. Geneva, Switzerland; 2020. Google Scholar [3] C. Sohrabi, Z. Alsafi, N. O'Neill, M. Khan, A. Kerwan, A. Al-Jabir, et al.World Health Organization declares global emergency: A review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) Int J Surg, 76 (2020), pp. 71-76 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [4]Worldometer. COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC. 2020. Google Scholar [5] A.S. Fauci, H.C. Lane, R.R. RedfieldCovid-19 - Navigating the Uncharted N Engl J Med, 382 (2020), pp. 1268-1269 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [6] S.S. Shrestha, D.L. Swerdlow, R.H. Borse, V.S. Prabhu, L. Finelli, C.Y. Atkins, et al.Estimating the burden of 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in the United States (April 2009-April 2010) Clin Infect Dis, 52 (Suppl 1) (2011), pp. S75-S82 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [7] W.W. Thompson, E. Weintraub, P. Dhankhar, P.Y. Cheng, L. Brammer, M.I. Meltzer, et al.Estimates of US influenza-associated deaths made using four different methods Influenza Other Respir Viruses, 3 (2009), pp. 37-49 View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [8]Centers for Disease, C., Prevention. Estimates of deaths associated with seasonal influenza --- United States, 1976-2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010,59:1057-62. Google Scholar [9] S. Richardson, J.S. Hirsch, M. Narasimhan, J.M. Crawford, T. McGinn, K.W. Davidson, et al.Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area JAMA (2020) Google Scholar [10] J.P.A. Ioannidis, C. Axfors, D.G. Contopoulos-IoannidisPopulation-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters Environ Res, 188 (2020) Google Scholar [11] American College of Sports MedicineACSM's Resource Manual for Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Priscription (Sixth ed.), Lippincott Wiliams & Wilkins, Baltimore (2010) Google Scholar [12] P.A. Farrell, M.J. Joyner, V.J. CaiozzoACSM's Advanced Exercise Physiology (second edition), Lippncott Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore (2012) Google Scholar [13] W.L. Kenney, J.H. Wilmore, D.L. CostillPhysiology of sport and exercise (5th ed.), Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL (2012) Google Scholar [14]World Health Organization. Advice on the use of masks in the community, during home care and in health care settings in the context of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. Geneva, Switzerland; 2020. Google Scholar [15] B. Sperlich, C. Zinner, A. Hauser, H.C. Holmberg, J. WegrzykThe Impact of Hyperoxia on Human Performance and Recovery Sports Med, 47 (2017), pp. 429-438 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [16] W.J. Wiersinga, A. Rhodes, A.C. Cheng, S.J. Peacock, H.C. PrescottPathophysiology, Transmission, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review JAMA (2020) Google Scholar [17] N. Zhu, D. Zhang, W. Wang, X. Li, B. Yang, J. Song, et al.A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019 N Engl J Med, 382 (2020), pp. 727-733 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [18] J.T. Poston, B.K. Patel, A.M. DavisManagement of Critically Ill Adults With COVID-19 JAMA (2020) Google Scholar [19] C.R. MacIntyre, H. Seale, T.C. Dung, N.T. Hien, P.T. Nga, A.A. Chughtai, et al.A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers BMJ open, 5 (2015) Google Scholar [20] K.D. Patil, H.R. Halperin, L.B. BeckerCardiac arrest: resuscitation and reperfusion Circ Res, 116 (2015), pp. 2041-2049 View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [21] M.F. Hazinski, J.P. Nolan, J.E. Billi, B.W. Bottiger, L. Bossaert, A.R. de Caen, et al.Part 1: Executive summary: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations Circulation, 122 (2010), pp. S250-S275 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [22] M.E. Kleinman, Z.D. Goldberger, T. Rea, R.A. Swor, B.J. Bobrow, E.E. Brennan, et al.American Heart Association Focused Update on Adult Basic Life Support and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality: An Update to the American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Circulation, 137 (2018), pp. e7-e13 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [23] K.G. Lurie, E.C. Nemergut, D. Yannopoulos, M. SweeneyThe Physiology of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Anesth Analg, 122 (2016), pp. 767-783 View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [24] B. Chandrasekaran, S. Fernandes“Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil's sword?” - A physiological hypothesis Med Hypotheses, 144 (2020) Google Scholar [25] A. Konda, A. Prakash, G.A. Moss, M. Schmoldt, G.D. Grant, S. GuhaAerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks ACS Nano, 14 (2020), pp. 6339-6347 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [26] N.H.L. Leung, D.K.W. Chu, E.Y.C. Shiu, K.H. Chan, J.J. McDevitt, B.J.P. Hau, et al.Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks Nat Med, 26 (2020), pp. 676-680 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [27] M. Gao, L. Yang, X. Chen, Y. Deng, S. Yang, H. Xu, et al.A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers Respir Med, 169 (2020) Google Scholar [28] J.D. Smith, C.C. MacDougall, J. Johnstone, R.A. Copes, B. Schwartz, G.E. GarberEffectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis CMAJ, 188 (2016), pp. 567-574 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [29] R. Chou, T. Dana, R. Jungbauer, C. Weeks, M.S. McDonaghMasks for Prevention of Respiratory Virus Infections, Including SARS-CoV-2, in Health Care and Community Settings: A Living Rapid Review Ann Intern Med (2020) Google Scholar [30] D.K. Chu, E.A. Akl, S. Duda, K. Solo, S. Yaacoub, H.J. Schunemann, et al.Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Lancet, 395 (2020), pp. 1973-1987 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [31]Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Implementation of Mitigation Strategies for Communities with Local COVID-19 Transmission. Atlanta, Georgia; 2020. Google Scholar [32] D. Isaacs, P. Britton, A. Howard-Jones, A. Kesson, A. Khatami, B. Marais, et al.Do facemasks protect against COVID-19? J Paediatr Child Health, 56 (2020), pp. 976-977 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [33] P. Laveneziana, A. Albuquerque, A. Aliverti, T. Babb, E. Barreiro, M. Dres, et al.ERS statement on respiratory muscle testing at rest and during exercise Eur Respir J, 53 (2019) Google Scholar [34] American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory, SATS/ERS Statement on respiratory muscle testing Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 166 (2002), pp. 518-624 Google Scholar [35] T.W. Kao, K.C. Huang, Y.L. Huang, T.J. Tsai, B.S. Hsieh, M.S. WuThe physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease J Formos Med Assoc, 103 (2004), pp. 624-628 View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [36]United States Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Respiratory Protection Standard, 29 CFR 1910.134; 2007. Google Scholar [37] ATS/ACCP Statement on cardiopulmonary exercise testing Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 167 (2003), pp. 211-277 [38] American College of Sports MedicineACSM's guidelines for exercise testing and prescription (9th ed.), Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Health, Philadelphia (2014) Google Scholar [39] G.J. Balady, R. Arena, K. Sietsema, J. Myers, L. Coke, G.F. Fletcher, et al.Clinician's Guide to cardiopulmonary exercise testing in adults: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Circulation, 122 (2010), pp. 191-225 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [40] A.M. Ferrazza, D. Martolini, G. Valli, P. PalangeCardiopulmonary exercise testing in the functional and prognostic evaluation of patients with pulmonary diseases Respiration, 77 (2009), pp. 3-17 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [41] G.F. Fletcher, P.A. Ades, P. Kligfield, R. Arena, G.J. Balady, V.A. Bittner, et al.Exercise standards for testing and training: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Circulation, 128 (2013), pp. 873-934 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [42] M. Guazzi, V. Adams, V. Conraads, M. Halle, A. Mezzani, L. Vanhees, et al.EACPR/AHA Scientific Statement. Clinical recommendations for cardiopulmonary exercise testing data assessment in specific patient populations Circulation, 126 (2012), pp. 2261-2274 View Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [43] R. Naeije, C. DedobbeleerPulmonary hypertension and the right ventricle in hypoxia Exp Physiol, 98 (2013), pp. 1247-1256 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [44] G.Q. Zheng, Y. Wang, X.T. WangChronic hypoxia-hypercapnia influences cognitive function: a possible new model of cognitive dysfunction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Med Hypotheses, 71 (2008), pp. 111-113 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [45] A. Beder, U. Buyukkocak, H. Sabuncuoglu, Z.A. Keskil, S. KeskilPreliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery Neurocirugia (Astur), 19 (2008), pp. 121-126 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [46] J.J.Y. Ong, C. Bharatendu, Y. Goh, J.Z.Y. Tang, K.W.X. Sooi, Y.L. Tan, et al.Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment - A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID-19 Headache, 60 (2020), pp. 864-877 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [47] N. Schneiderman, G. Ironson, S.D. SiegelStress and health: psychological, behavioral, and biological determinants Annu Rev Clin Psychol, 1 (2005), pp. 607-628 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [48] P.A. ThoitsStress and health: major findings and policy implications J Health Soc Behav, 51 (Suppl) (2010), pp. S41-S53 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [49] N. HaslamDehumanization: an integrative review Pers Soc Psychol Rev, 10 (2006), pp. 252-264 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [50] S. CohenSocial relationships and health Am Psychol, 59 (2004), pp. 676-684 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [51] N. Leigh-Hunt, D. Bagguley, K. Bash, V. Turner, S. Turnbull, N. Valtorta, et al.An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness Public Health, 152 (2017), pp. 157-171 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [52] J. Holt-Lunstad, T.B. Smith, J.B. LaytonSocial relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review PLoS Med, 7 (2010) Google Scholar [53] E. Shor, D.J. RoelfsSocial contact frequency and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis and meta-regression Soc Sci Med, 128 (2015), pp. 76-86 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [54] B.S. McEwenProtective and damaging effects of stress mediators N Engl J Med, 338 (1998), pp. 171-179 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [55] B.S. McEwenPhysiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation: central role of the brain Physiol Rev, 87 (2007), pp. 873-904 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [56] G.S. Everly, J.M. LatingA Clinical Guide to the Treatment of the Human Stress Response (4th ed.), NY Springer Nature, New York (2019) Google Scholar [57]World Health Organization. World health statistics 2018: monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals Geneva, Switzerland; 2018. Google Scholar [58]World Health Organization. World Cancer Report 2014. Lyon; 2014. Google Scholar [59] J.M. Wiggins, A.B. Opoku-Acheampong, D.R. Baumfalk, D.W. Siemann, B.J. BehnkeExercise and the Tumor Microenvironment: Potential Therapeutic Implications Exerc Sport Sci Rev, 46 (2018), pp. 56-64 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [60] K.A. Ashcraft, A.B. Warner, L.W. Jones, M.W. DewhirstExercise as Adjunct Therapy in Cancer Semin Radiat Oncol, 29 (2019), pp. 16-24 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [61] F. Bray, J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R.L. Siegel, L.A. Torre, A. JemalGlobal Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries CA Cancer J Clin (2018) Google Scholar [62] S.K. Brooks, R.K. Webster, L.E. Smith, L. Woodland, S. Wessely, N. Greenberg, et al.The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence Lancet, 395 (2020), pp. 912-920 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [63] S. Galea, R.M. Merchant, N. LurieThe Mental Health Consequences of COVID-19 and Physical Distancing: The Need for Prevention and Early Intervention JAMA Intern Med, 180 (2020), pp. 817-818 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [64] D. Izaguirre-Torres, R. SicheCovid-19 disease will cause a global catastrophe in terms of mental health: A hypothesis Med Hypotheses, 143 (2020) Google Scholar [65] B.M. Kudielka, S. WustHuman models in acute and chronic stress: assessing determinants of individual hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis activity and reactivity Stress, 13 (2010), pp. 1-14 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [66] J.N. Morey, I.A. Boggero, A.B. Scott, S.C. SegerstromCurrent Directions in Stress and Human Immune Function Curr Opin Psychol, 5 (2015), pp. 13-17 ArticleDownload PDFView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar [67] R.M. Sapolsky, L.M. Romero, A.U. MunckHow do glucocorticoids influence stress responses? Integrating permissive, suppressive, stimulatory, and preparative actions Endocr Rev, 21 (2000), pp. 55-89 CrossRefView Record in ScopusGoogle Scholar PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Dr. Jockers Special Nutrients that Turn off Cancer Cells Cancer cells are altered cells that have stopped following the rules of normal cell biology. Once a normal cell becomes cancerous it takes on a set of characteristic behaviors such as uncontrolled growth and division, an inability to communicate with nearby tissues, and an inability to develop into mature cells with a defined purpose. This abnormal behavior can wreak havoc in the body, disrupting several necessary biological processes. Several mechanisms (abnormally performing) have been identified to be associated with cancer development and traditional medicine attempts to target these mechanisms through pharmaceuticals and other methods such as radiation. These Mechanisms Include: Intercellular dialogue interference, altered DNA structure, unchecked replication of cancer cells, disrupted apoptosis scheduling, enzyme-induced inflammation, abnormally high estrogen production, excess levels of iron, and suboptimal (naturally occurring) detoxification. Nutritional Compounds And Cancer Cells Although traditional medicine has made some progress in targeting specific cancer mechanisms, therapeutic benefits are often limited and can sometimes lead to secondary complications when used alone. A vast amount of research has been performed on natural compounds that may act on these same mechanisms with greater selectivity, potentially improving the effectiveness of traditional methods by creating a more targeted therapy with which to destroy cancer cells. An added benefit to using these nutrients is that they do not harm normal cells. Targeting cancer cells while protecting healthy cells is an important measure to minimize side effects of cancer treatment and prevent the development of secondary cancers which may have radiation or chemotherapy as contributing, originating factors. Cell Communication Specialized cells located in different tissues are continually communicating with each other through chemical messengers. The body relies heavily on this inter-cellular dialogue in order to keep cells growing and dividing only when and where needed. One of the first mutations to occur in the development of cancer is thought to involve an interference with this mechanism, lowering inter-cellular chemical messenger concentration and disrupting the normal cell growth cycle. Evidence suggests that there are many nutrients that are able to restore normal levels of the chemical messengers necessary for intercellular communication. Of particular significance are the flavonoids apigenin and tangeretin as well as the carotenoids beta-carotene, lycopene, and canthaxanthin. In addition, green tea compounds, vitamin D, and several flavonoids have demonstrated the ability to up-regulate gap junction communication (1). Apoptosis, or programmed cell death, relies on cellular communication and by introducing nutrients which improve this process it may be possible to better control the development of cancers before they become dangerous. This approach is especially important for preventing tumor progression and strengthening apoptosis. Turning Off Cancer Genes Cell DNA is continually under threat of being damaged. DNA contains instructions that regulate cell behavior and accumulated damage can eventually lead to altered DNA and resultant irregular cell behavior. The characteristic uncontrolled cellular division seen in cancer is likely to occur as a result of oxidative stress. Because of this understanding, supporting the body’s natural antioxidant powers has become an important cancer prevention and treatment strategy. Although a few specific antioxidant compounds have been studied for this purpose, it would appear near crucial to consume a variety of foods in order to obtain a complete measurable range of antioxidant vitamins, minerals, carotenoids, and flavonoids. Several of these compounds have demonstrated the ability to protect the cells from cancer even in the presence of cancer-causing chemicals, viruses, and radiation. Specific examples of compounds that have this effect are apigenin, kaempferol, EGCG (green tea extract), Quercetin, and luteolin. DNA Protection Several fruits and vegetables have also demonstrated the ability to protect the DNA, likely due to the natural abundance of vitamins, minerals, flavonoids, and other therapeutic phytonutrients. Some of the nutrients mentioned may be purchased in supplement form. It is also important, however, to consume a wide range of phytonutrients from plant sources as research suggests they have a synergistic effect in protecting the cells that is more powerful than any single nutrient alone (2). Another helpful strategy in limiting DNA damage is consuming foods with high ORAC values. A food’s ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) value refers to a its ability to scavenge free radicals through antioxidant activity and therefore lower the damage caused by oxidative stress significantly. Some foods with high ORAC values are astaxanthin (found in microalgae and salmon), green tea, turmeric, cloves, and chaga mushroom. Consumption of foods with high antioxidant capacities have demonstrated therapeutic value in several diseases including cancer (3). Disrupting Cancer Cell Reproduction Cancer cells divide rapidly. Over a long period of time, if left unattended, this rapid cell division can lead to the development of tumors and eventually metastasis (cancer cells spreading throughout the body). Traditional methods of cancer treatment are able to kill many of these cells but those left behind tend to become more aggressive which can lead to a more rapid progression of cancer. In hopes of preventing this relapse, treatments can be given over several months. Although this may help produce marginally better results in killing as many cancer cells as possible, it also kills healthy cells which leads to a severe inhibition of the immune system. Inhibiting the immune system during a time when maximizing healing capacity is critical can lead to a slower recovery and open the doors to opportunistic infections such as pneumonia. While traditional treatments tend to damage healthy cells, natural compounds may be able to provide a more targeted effect. Compounds such as apigenin, curcumin, EGCG, indole-3-carbinol, and vitamin E Succinate have demonstrated the ability to inhibit cancer cell reproduction while having a protective effect on healthy cells. This is significant because these nutrients could be combined with traditional treatment methods to improve the effectiveness and prevent secondary complications by protecting normal cells. Promoting Apoptosis Although damage occurs in cells every day, there are built-in protective mechanisms to prevent these minor damages from becoming major problems. When the DNA in a cell becomes damaged enough to alter normal processes, a gene is activated that instructs the cell to be destroyed; a process referred to as apoptosis. If damage progresses too far before being recognized, however, the gene for apoptosis can become mutated; deactivating this important protective mechanism. Many chemotherapy and radiation treatments attempt to “jumpstart” (absent normal, natural regulations) apoptosis through systemic poisoning but tend to negatively impact healthy cells as well. Several natural compounds are able to restore apoptotic activity in a manor that only targets cancer cells, leaving healthy cells unharmed. Some specific examples of these effects are: Catechin and EGCG in lymphoid leukemia (4) Curcumin in breast cancer cells (5) Vitamin E succinate and retinoic acid in B lymphoma cells (6) Several other nutrients have demonstrated similar properties including: apigenin, luteolin, quercetin, panax ginseng, and resveratrol. In addition to having apoptotic inducing effects in isolation, many of these nutrients have demonstrated the ability to enhance the effects of chemotherapeutic drugs, especially in instances of chemo resistance. Such nutrients include ginseng, quercetin, and fish oil (7,8,9). Inhibiting Cancer-Dependent Enzymes When a cell becomes cancerous it gains the ability to self-induce growth through the production of certain (cellular growth-related) enzymes. Concentration of these enzymes have been measured in cancerous conditions and positively correlated to the aggressiveness of cancer development. This means that high concentrations of these enzymes will accelerate cancer growth if not targeted through treatment. In an attempt to stop cancer development, it is important to shut down the cell’s ability to produce growth-related enzymes. Many of the same nutrients that have shown to slow cell division and promote apoptosis have also shown to inhibit the production of growth-related enzymes. These nutrients include green tea extract (catechin & EGCG), curcumin, apigenin, quercetin, and Vitamin E Succinate. This list is not exhaustive and only names a few of the compounds to demonstrate the ability to lower growth-related enzymes. Several phytonutrients in fruits and vegetables also provide therapeutic benefit in this regard and consuming a variety of plant foods may further inhibit the secretion of growth-related enzymes. Minimizing Systemic Inflammation High levels of systemic inflammation are commonly found in affected (cancerous) subjects. This has been demonstrated scientifically through measurement of cyclooxygenase (COX) and lipoxygenase (LOX), two significant biological markers of inflammation. The inflammation induced by these enzymes can lower immunity, speed cancer cell growth, and increase the probability of metastasis. Studies have also shown that lowering the levels of COX and LOX enzymes through anti-inflammatory protocols can have a significant positive impact in cancer conditions (10). Some drugs have been developed to act on these enzymes but usually only one and not the other. Although they do show some positive effects in slowing cancer growth, several nutrients have demonstrated the ability to inhibit both enzymes which may be more beneficial. The flavonoids apigenin and kaempferol each have the ability to inhibit both enzymes. Additionally, curcumin, berberine and garcinol have all demonstrated the ability to inhibit several inflammatory pathways including the production of COX and LOX enzymes (11). While consuming anti-inflammatory flavonoids is important, it is also important to increase consumption of omega-3 fatty acids in relation to omega-6. Limiting omega-6 intake may be helpful in decreasing levels of the COX and LOX enzymes as they are synthesized by the byproducts of omega-6 metabolism. Inhibiting Tumor Invasion As cancer cells develop and lose ability to communicate with normal cells, they can form tumors and invade nearby tissues. In research it has been shown that two key enzymes, MMP-2 and MMP-9, potentiate this invasive behavior by degrading cell membranes that are responsible for structural support of tissue (12). Suppressing these enzymes is important for the prevention of metastasis and dietary modifications are able to provide such an effect. One primary strategy to lower these enzymes is to decrease omega-6 intake and increase omega-3 intake. High intake of omega-6 has been correlated with increases in MMP concentrations while omega-3 intake has shown the opposite effect. Other dietary compounds to demonstrate MMP inhibition include curcumin, luteolin, and quercetin (13). Intake of these nutrients in combination with a high omega-3 diet may lead to a significant reduction in tumor invasiveness. Blocking Angiogenesis Angiogenesis is the process by which tumors grow new blood vessels. Once a tumor undergoes angiogenesis it is able to enrich itself with blood and nutrients in order to grow. These new blood vessels also provide a pathway for cancer cells to leave the tumor and spread throughout the body because they contain large holes in their basement membrane. By blocking the process of angiogenesis it is possible to essentially starve the tumor and dramatically interfere with its growth. The mechanism behind angiogenesis has been observed to be related to the same pathways as inflammation with the COX and LOX enzymes being significant factors. With this in mind, some of the nutrients important for inhibiting inflammation also help prevent angiogenesis. Two primary nutrients to focus on for this purpose are the flavonoids apigenin and luteolin. Again, similar with inflammation, it is also important to lower omega-6 intake while increasing omega-3. The omega-3 fatty acid DHA specifically has demonstrated potent anti-angiogenic activity (14). Anti-Estrogen Effects of Phytonutrients Excessive estrogen has been correlated with the development of certain cancers. High levels of estrogen may directly stimulate the development of breast, prostate, colon, and possibly other forms of cancer. In light of this, the enzyme aromatase has been extensively studied for its estrogen promoting effects. Aromatase is responsible for converting free testosterone into estrogen and evidence suggests that high aromatase activity is related to increased tumor growth and metastasis. Several flavonoids have demonstrated the ability to inhibit aromatase and even block the binding of estrogen to its receptor site. Apigenin, kaempferol, and quercetin all demonstrate the ability to inhibit aromatase activity. This may explain in part their therapeutic role in cancer treatment and prevention. Chelating Iron from Tissues High iron concentrations in the body can support cancer development. Rapidly dividing cancer cells require iron as it is involved in the process of DNA synthesis, a critical step in cell division. Additionally, excess iron can lead to production of highly reactive free radicals that contribute to oxidative stress (15). One effective method to remove excess iron from the body is through the consumption of phytates, specifically inositol phosphate-6 (IP-6) has been investigated for this purpose. Not only is IP-6 able to bind and remove excess iron from the tissues, but it has also demonstrated the ability to strengthen the immune reactions that target and kill cancer cells (16). Additional sources of phytates are legumes, nuts, and seeds. Several flavonoids have also demonstrated iron-chelating activity including curcumin, catechins (ECGC – green tea extract) and quercetin. Maximizing Detoxification Processes In the prevention of cancer, it is important to maximize the detoxification systems of the body. Many toxins can cause inflammation, DNA damage, and lowered immunity if allowed to accumulate in the tissues. Detoxification is especially important for those under chemotherapeutic treatment or radiation therapy because the toxic load on the body is drastically increased. The liver is primarily responsible for removal of toxic byproducts so it is important to focus on the liver when maximizing detoxification ability. When the liver is functioning properly, even large amounts of toxins can be neutralized effectively and safely removed from the body. Nutrients important for liver function include carotenoids, indole-3-carbinol, curcumin, and isothiocyanates. Although the liver plays a crucial role in the detoxification process, toxins that accumulate in tissues must be removed and mobilized to the liver to effectively complete the detoxification process. Conclusion Although it is commonly believed that cancer is a purely genetic disease that occurs randomly in some people but not in others, a vast amount of evidence supports the idea that cancer genes are heavily influenced epigenetically. Another way of saying this is that the biological environment created inside our body through our diet and lifestyle can alter genes in a way that promotes cancer. In the same way, these genes can be altered in a way that fights and prevents cancer. Several nutraceutical compounds have been studied for this effect with promising results. A vast array of research on different cancerous conditions has highlighted specific therapeutic compounds that have tremendous anti-cancer potential. While some nutrients seem to act on single mechanisms, several dietary compounds have shown up several times demonstrating anti-cancerous effects through several mechanisms. Such compounds include apigenin, curcumin, EGCG (in tea), and Quercetin. In general, groups of nutrients such as flavonoids and carotenoids seem to play a major role in cancer treatment and prevention. These nutrients show promising evidence to be used as a stand-alone treatment for cancer as well as in conjunction with traditional cancer treatment methods. Sources For This Article: 1. Trosko, J. E., & Chang, C. C. (2001). Mechanism of up-regulated gap junctional intercellular communication during chemoprevention and chemotherapy of cancer. Mutation Research, 480–481, 219–29. PMID: 11506816 2. Liu, R. H. (2004). Potential synergy of phytochemicals in cancer prevention: mechanism of action. The Journal of Nutrition, 134(12 Suppl), 3479S–3485S. PMID: 15570057 3. Harasym, J., & Oledzki, R. (2014). Effect of fruit and vegetable antioxidants on total antioxidant capacity of blood plasma. Nutrition, 30(5), 511–517. PMID: 24698344 4. Hibasami, H., Achiwa, Y., Fujikawa, T., & Komiya, T. (1996). Induction of programmed cell death (apoptosis) in human lymphoid leukemia cells by catechin compounds. Anticancer Research, 16(4A), 1943–1946. PMID: 8712725 5. Choudhuri, T., Pal, S., Agwarwal, M. L., Das, T., & Sa, G. (2002). Curcumin induces apoptosis in human breast cancer cells through p53-dependent Bax induction. FEBS Letters, 512(1–3), 334–340. PMID: 11852106 6. Turley, J. M., Funakoshi, S., Ruscetti, F. W., Kasper, L., Murphy, W. J., Longo, D. L., & Birchenallroberts, M. C. (1995). Growth inhibition and apoptosis of RL human B lymphoma cells by vitamin E succinate and retinoic acid: Role for transforming growth factor beta. Cell Growth & Differentiation, 6(6), 655–663. PMID: 7669719 7. Chen, X.-J., Zhang, X.-J., Shui, Y.-M., Wan, J.-B., & Gao, J.-L. (2016). Anticancer Activities of Protopanaxadiol- and Protopanaxatriol-Type Ginsenosides and Their Metabolites. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2016, 1–19. PMID: 27446225 8. Brito, A. F., Ribeiro, M., Abrantes, A. M., Pires, A. S., Teixo, R. J., Tralhão, J. G., & Botelho, M. F. (2015). Quercetin in Cancer Treatment, Alone or in Combination with Conventional Therapeutics? Current Medicinal Chemistry, 22(26), 3025–39. PMID: 26264923 9. de Aguiar Pastore Silva, J., Emilia de Souza Fabre, M., & Waitzberg, D. L. (2015). Omega-3 supplements for patients in chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy: A systematic review. Clinical Nutrition, 34(3), 359–366. PMID: 25907586 10. Greene, E. R., Huang, S., Serhan, C. N., & Panigrahy, D. (2011). Regulation of inflammation in cancer by eicosanoids. Prostaglandins and Other Lipid Mediators, 96(1–4), 27–36. PMID: 21864702 11. Yarla, N. S., Bishayee, A., Sethi, G., Reddanna, P., Kalle, A. M., Dhananjaya, B. L., … Duddukuri, G. R. (2016). Targeting arachidonic acid pathway by natural products for cancer prevention and therapy. Seminars in Cancer Biology, 1–34. PMID: 26853158 12. Kessenbrock, K., Plaks, V., & Werb, Z. (2010). Matrix Metalloproteinases: Regulators of the Tumor Microenvironment. Cell, 141(1), 52–67. PMID: 20371345 13. Bachmeier, B. E., Iancu, C. M., Jochum, M., & Nerlich, A. G. (2005). Matrix metalloproteinases in cancer: comparison of known and novel aspects of their inhibition as a therapeutic approach. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther, 5(1), 149–163. PMID: 15757447 14. Jing, K., Wu, T., & Lim, K. (2013). Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and cancer. Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry, 13(8), 1162–77. PMID: 23919748 15. Lui, G. Y. L., Kovacevic, Z., Richardson, V., Merlot, A. M., Kalinowski, D. S., & Richardson, D. R. (2015). Targeting cancer by binding iron: Dissecting cellular signaling pathways. Oncotarget, 6(22), 18748–79. PMID: 26125440 16. Vucenik, I., & Shamsuddin, A. M. (2006). Protection against cancer by dietary IP6 and inositol. Nutrition and Cancer, 55(2), 109–125. PMID: 17044765 PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Genevieve Howland via mamanatural You’ve just given birth to your beautiful little baby and you’re all ready for cuddles. You’ve been waiting for 9 months for this moment! But wait… What’s that white, waxy, cheesy substance coating baby’s skin? Yeesh, that’s kinda gross. That waxy stuff is called vernix And yes, the sticky, white, cheese-like coating covering your precious little one may not look that appealing. Which is why birth center or hospital staff may want to wash baby off right away. Don’t let them! Vernix offers a number of benefits for baby when you leave it on or rub it in. What is vernix? Vernix begins to form on the unborn baby at about 20 weeks gestation, partially to prevent baby’s skin from getting too waterlogged after marinating in amniotic fluid month after month. Unlike skin cells, vernix is more mobile and fluid. It is also more permeable to the transport of water and other small molecules to the baby. (source) Even though it helps protect baby’s skin from amniotic fluid, the creamy vernix itself contains about 80% water. There are plenty of beneficial components to the vernix. Scientists have identified lipids, amino acids, proteins, antibacterial, and antimicrobial compounds including: wax and sterol esters ceramides squalene cholesterol triglycerides phospholipids and amino acids, asparagine and glutamine About 61% of the proteins found in this white substance, can only be found in vernix. And humans are the only ones that produce it, making it truly unique. (source) Vernix begins to form on the unborn baby at about 27 weeks gestation, in the third trimester. Vernix benefits Germ fighting superhero One of the primary purposes of vernix is to protect the infant from unwanted pathogens, both in the womb, and out of it. The mucus plug, and amniotic sac both help protect baby from harmful bacteria, but the vernix is truly the last line of defense. It’s a skin cleanser and antioxidant. It also offers a protective covering while going through the birth canal. This allows baby to pick up good bacteria as well as potentially avoid overgrowths of bad bacteria, viruses and fungi in the mother’s vagina including: E. coli Group B Strep Staph aureus Pseudomonas aeruginosa Candida albicans Listeria monocytogenes Serratia marcescens Klebsiella pneumonia These pathogens can cause things like diarrhea, meningitis and pneumonia in newborn infants. Protects from meconium exposure When baby has his first poop, it’s not your traditional brown color, but a green, tar-like substance. This first poo, also called meconium, consists of “amniotic fluid, secretions of the intestinal glands, bile pigments, fatty acids, and intrauterine debris.” While it’s a pain to clean out of a cloth diaper, it can become dangerous if it’s passed before birth in some instances. The vernix plays a key role in helping to protect the baby from early exposure. Controls temperature Most hospitals will put infants under special lights if their body temperature is too low, or baby is having a hard time maintaining warmth. (Only recently have hospitals rediscovered the power of mama’s chest to regulate baby’s body temperate, even better than fancy equipment!) But, vernix, with its thick, waxy coating, helps to insulate the baby. Infants who have it immediately washed off have a significantly higher rate of heat loss. Although there is some disagreement as to how much of a role the vernix plays in keeping newborns warm, it is a factor. (source) Minimizes birth trauma Birth can be a traumatic or stressful time for a baby. The vernix acts as a lubricant in the vaginal canal. This helps baby make his transition into the outside world, and decreases friction during birth. (source) Vernix also smells of mama, which may provide comfort and ease of bonding post birth. Who has it, who doesn’t? When your baby is born, the vernix may be thick and very noticeable, or it could be so thin that it’s only in the creases of the skin. Why the differences? Babies born via C-section have more as the vernix hasn’t been rubbed off during delivery through the vaginal canal Babies born after 27 weeks, but earlier than full gestation also retain more Early preemies (pre-27 wks), full-term babies, and those born after 40 weeks will have less The breastmilk connection The immune proteins found in the vernix and amniotic fluid are very similar to the ones found in breastmilk. During the end of pregnancy, vernix thins and some of it sheds into the amniotic fluid that baby is now breathing. This antimicrobial, peptide-rich mixture enters the baby’s lungs and digestive tract, and helps prepare the digestive tract for the similar peptides found in breastmilk. This helps prepare the baby’s body for the transition to the outside world by prepping, and nourishing their digestive systems. (source) Amazing! What purpose does vernix serve? In the womb Prevents loss of electrolytes and fluids Seals the skin to prevent the amniotic fluid from permeating it Acts as a microbial barrier from unwanted pathogens Provides a protective layer to facilitate skin growth underneath Out of the womb Decreases skin pH and helps form the protective acid mantle Protects from pathogens Moisturizes and keeps skin soft, and supple Contains that new baby smell to help mom and baby bond during breastfeeding Why do nurses rub vernix off right away? The vast majority of nurses either immediately scrub the vernix from the baby, or do so after some brief, skin-to-skin bonding time with mom (like in my second birth). These hospital policies developed out of our germaphobic culture. (And, it does look pretty gross, so wiping it off looks better for newborn pictures.) Old school nurses were even taught that vernix was a biohazard and needed to be rubbed off to avoid germ exposure. That’s ironic since it’s both antibacterial and antimicrobial in nature. If necessary, blood, amniotic fluid, and other vaginal secretions can be gently wiped off of the baby, without disturbing the vernix very much. Lastly, briskly washing and drying the newborn was thought to stimulate proper breathing in the baby. Even though American hospitals especially have held onto many outdated practices, removing the vernix isn’t necessary. Professional groups like the World Health Organization, and the National Association of Neonatal Nursing actually recommend leaving it on. (source) Skin pH Humans have what is called an acid mantle on our skin. This protective barrier develops on a newborn shortly after birth, and helps prevent infections from bad bacteria. The vernix is thought to facilitate proper development of the acid mantle, and baby’s skin pH regulates more quickly when it isn’t removed. World’s best moisturizer Quiz time. What locks moisture into skin better than coconut oil, shea butter, and everything else? Vernix, of course. Not only does it provide a waterproofing barrier in the womb, but it helps baby’s skin retain moisture better than any lotion or cream. In fact, it does such a good job, that scientists are trying to create a synthetic version for preemie infants, burn victims, and those with dry skin. (source) Vernix benefits for mom Not only is this magical substance awesome for baby, but it’s good for mom too. Because it’s antibacterial and antimicrobial in nature, it can help prevent infection of the vaginal canal as the baby passes through. It also has superior wound healing properties, and has even been shown to help perineal tears heal better (perineal massage helps too). (source) Does a water birth wash vernix off? Even though the vernix is 80% water, this water is trapped in a matrix. The vernix is actually a very hydrophobic barrier, so it doesn’t wash off easily. It takes a lot of scrubbing to remove it from the skin, so a water birth alone won’t wash it off. Your baby has been floating in amniotic fluid for 9 months, so a little water won’t do much to the vernix! How to rub vernix in As soon as baby is born, it’s natural (and good!) for both mom and baby to have skin-on-skin bonding time right on mom’s chest. This is the perfect time to gently massage the vernix into baby’s skin. It’s easy to do, and rubs in just like body butter. Okay, so when should I give my baby his or her first bath? The majority of the vernix is absorbed within the first day, so anytime after the first 24 hours would be okay to give baby his first bath. Vernix doesn’t fully absorb until day 5 or 6, so it would be best to wait until then. In the meantime, gently wipe off any spit up, baby poo, and other messes with warm water and maybe a mild soap. (source) PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Kate Raines via thevaccinereaction Women are reportedly at greater risk of experiencing side effects from the experimental COVID-19 vaccines compared with men.1 2 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) looked at the breakdown of adverse reactions reported in the first month following the granting of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for distribution of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The CDC evaluation used reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and V-safe, the CDC’s new monitoring system that was created exclusively for the COVID-19 vaccination program. CDC officials forwarded COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions reported via the V-safe system to VAERS if officials considered the events to be “clinically indicated.” During the study period (Dec. 14, 2020 – Jan. 13, 2021) 13,794,904 COVID-19 vaccines were given. A total of 6,994 adverse reactions were reported to VAERS (6,354 classified as non-serious and 640 as serious events). Though 8,436,863 (61.2 percent) doses were given to women, 5,505 (78.7 percent) of the reported reactions occurred in women, compared with 1,408 (20.1 percent) in men.3 The incidence of reactions was higher after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine compared to the first dose. For symptoms such as fever and chills, the rate of reported incidents was more than four times higher after the second dose compared to the first dose. Timing of the study precluded inclusion of side effects following the second dose of Moderna’s vaccine. As data are updated to include those numbers, rates of reported COVID-19 vaccine adverse events would be expected to change. This same trend is echoed in the number of potentially life-threatening anaphylactic reactions reported to VAERS for the two vaccines. Between Dec. 14 and Jan. 18, 2021, 47 anaphylactic reactions were reported in the Pfizer/BioNTech group, and 44 (94 percent) of COVID-19 vaccine reactions were in women. In the Moderna group, all 19 reported vaccine reactions were in women (100 percent).4 Men and Women Are Known to Respond Differently to Vaccination Sabra Klein, a microbiologist and immunologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health was not surprised by the gender variance, noting that the differences have been seen with other vaccines as well. Julianne Gee, a medical officer in the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and corresponding author of the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccine response study, pointed out that females are known to express increased reactivity to a number of vaccines, including adult influenza vaccines, as well as some childhood vaccines, such as the hepatitis B and measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccines.5 In 2009, a study of the H1N1 vaccine reported a hypersensitivity rate of 10.8 per million persons. Results showed that, “Females of childbearing age had higher rates of allergic reactions than males,” while rates in other age groups were similar.6 Their results were based on VAERS reports, and the researchers speculated both that under-reporting of milder symptoms could have resulted in an underestimation of the total number of reactions and, further, that the results might have reflected a selectively greater incidence of reporting among women. That potential for behavioral differences leading to greater reporting of vaccine adverse reactions by women compared with men was also raised by researchers in the CDC’s study.7 However, it is stressed that biological differences between women and men y also plays a role. According to Eleanor Fish, an immunologist at the University of Toronto, “The female immune response is distinct, in many ways, from the male immune response.” Gender Dictates Both Response to Infection and Vaccination Several sex-linked attributes are involved in the different immune responses of males and females, whether to vaccination or to natural infection. Females, for example, may produce as many as double the number of antibodies following vaccination for influenza, MMR, yellow fever, rabies and hepatitis A and B, as well as greater numbers of T cells, the white blood cells that recognize and eliminate invading pathogens.8 In general, the reproductive hormones estrogen, progesterone and testosterone are also known to bind to immune cells and influence their behavior. Estrogen (female hormone) can increase the production of antibodies, while testosterone (a male hormone) is more immunosuppressive. The differences in immune response between males and females are most pronounced in young adulthood, lending credibility to the role of reproductive hormones.9 Males Have Higher Chance of Developing Severe Illness, Dying from COVID-19 A Yale study looked at the considerable sex-linked differences in immune system responses to viral or other pathogenic challenges and offered some possible biological reasons why men have a higher chance of developing severe illness and dying from infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, compared with women.10 This “male bias” in COVID-19 mortality has been observed in most countries where data are broken down by sex, with the risk of death in males approximated at 1.7 times higher than in females.11 Animal studies have commonly observed that male sex is more often associated with lower immune responses and higher susceptibility to infections compared to females. The same patterns are also seen in human patients: Males tend to exhibit higher viral loads for infections including hepatitis B and HIV. On the other hand, the immune response to vaccines, such as influenza vaccines, is often stronger in females.12 Such heightened immune responses may explain why autoimmune diseases occur so much more commonly among women (80 percent) compared with men.13 Male and Female Immune Responses Differ While several sex-linked immune system factors are at play, (the differences in immune and cytokine responses for example), the roles of sex chromosomes themselves, as well as sex hormones are important contributors. A number of immune-related genes are encoded on the X chromosome,14 and sex hormones have been shown to modulate several immune system responses. Animal models have demonstrated that estrogen (female hormone) modulates the expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2), the entry receptor cell for SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19. Estradiol, a form of estrogen, also has been shown to reduce the production of inflammatory cytokines. At the same time, androgen-deprivation (as used in treatment of prostate cancer) appears to reduce the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Like estrogen, androgen (male hormone) has been shown to be generally immunosuppressive.15 Researchers Identify Female Susceptibility to COVID-19 Vaccine Reactions In agreement with these findings, the Yale researchers identified several specific sex-linked immune system differences that can impact on male susceptibility to severe COVID-19, as well as to female heightened reactivity to COVID-19 vaccination. One of their findings was that women tended to mount a stronger T-cell response to infection in general. In contrast, men in the early stages of COVID-19 infection showed higher levels of cytokines, inflammatory proteins involved in the “first response” to invading pathogens. Cytokines work by creating inflammation in infected tissue, which serves as a physical barrier to an infecting organism. In COVID-19, the so-called “cytokine storm” associated with severe disease is representative of an overactive cytokine reaction that causes fluid to build up in the lungs, and its associated symptoms include shock, tissue damage and multiple organ failure. Finally, size of the vaccine dose was not considered in evaluating the greater hypersensitivity among women, despite evidence that women absorb and metabolize drugs differently from men and may need lower doses. Although drug and vaccine trials now include women, clinical trials of the COVID-19 vaccines did not test whether lower doses might be effective in women with fewer side effects.16 Many questions remain about how gender impacts immune system reactions, both to vaccination and to infection in general. Little is known, for example, about the immune response differences of those who do not fall neatly into male or female gender designations.17 As voiced by the Yale researchers, there seems to be some agreement that, “researchers racing to develop treatments and vaccines should consider separate strategies for women and men so that everyone can benefit.”18 References: 1 Moyer M. Women Report Worse Side Effects After a Covid Vaccine. The New York Times Mar. 8, 2021. 2 Gee J, Marquez P, Su J, et al. First Month of COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Monitoring — United States, December 14, 2020–January 13, 2021. MMWR Feb. 26, 2021. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Halsey NA, Griffioen M et al. Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions Following Monovalent 2009 Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) Vaccines: Reports To VAERS. Vaccine Dec. 9, 2013. 7 Wenner Moyer M. Women Report Worse Side Effects After a Covid Vaccine. The New York Times Mar. 8, 2021. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Harrison R. Sex Differences In COVID-19 Immune Responses Affect Patient Outcomes. Yale News Aug. 26, 2020. 11 Takahashi T, Iwasaki A. Sex Differences In Immune Responses. Science Jan. 22, 2021. 12 Ibid. 13 Angum F, Khan T, et al. The Prevalence of Autoimmune Disorders in Women: A Narrative Review. Curus May, 2020. 14 Takahashi T, Iwasaki A. Sex Differences In Immune Responses. Science Jan. 22, 2021. 15 Ibid. 16 Wenner Moyer M. Women Report Worse Side Effects After a Covid Vaccine. The New York Times Mar. 8, 2021. 17 Takahashi T, Iwasaki A. Sex Differences In Immune Responses. Science Jan. 22, 2021. 18 Harrison R. Sex Differences In COVID-19 Immune Responses Affect Patient Outcomes. Yale News Aug. 26, 2020. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By ecotextile Top German scientists have found that wearing certain types of face masks for long periods of time could result in potentially hazardous chemicals and harmful microplastics being inhaled deep into human lungs. Professor Michael Braungart, director at the Hamburg Environmental Institute and co-founder of the world-renowned Cradle to Cradle environmental standard has told Ecotextile News that mask wearers unwittingly run the risk of breathing in carcinogens, allergens and tiny synthetic microfibres by wearing both textile and nonwoven surgical masks for long periods of time. His recent findings have been backed up by another leading industry textile chemist Dr. Dieter Sedlak, managing director and co-founder of Modern Testing Services Augsburg, Germany in partnership with Modern Testing Services Global, Hong Kong who found elevated concentrations of hazardous fluorocarbons, formaldehyde and other potentially carcinogenic substances on surgical face masks: “I can only say 100 per cent that I have similar concerns to Prof. Braungart.” With over 40 years in the business, Dr. Sedlak, who was also the former Global Product Safety Director at a major global Specialty Chemicals supplier is one of the most respected figures in the textile chemicals sector and helped to develop various leading EHS chemical management systems and RSL concepts used today by major global apparel and footwear brands. Initial analytical tests by both of these experts have now thrown into doubt the wisdom of whether people should be wearing certain types of masks for hours on end. Particularly schoolchildren, factory workers and long-haul flyers who may be at a greater risk from the long-term damage to lungs through exposure to both restricted chemistry and microplastics – perhaps outweighing the short-term risk of any exposure to the coronavirus? “What we are breathing through our mouth and nose is actually hazardous waste,” said Professor Braungart, who ran preliminary tests on used surgical masks that found traces of chemicals such as the known carcinogen aniline as well as formaldehyde and optical brighteners – both heavily restricted on consumer goods by European and US authorities to minute parts per million concentrations. Separate studies by Dr. Sedlak have also shown the presence of compounds such as 2-butanone oxime (carcinogenic) blocked diisocyanates used as crosslinkers for perfluorocarbons (PFCs) on face masks. Used in the textile sector as oil and water repellents on fabrics, by-products of PFCs are known to be bio-persistent and their use is heavily restricted by authorities in Europe and the USA. Last year, a group of US scientists called for all per- and poly-fluorinated substances (PFAS) to be treated as one single class of chemistry and said they should be avoided for non-essential uses due to their hazardous toxicological and eco-toxicological profile. “Honestly, I had not expected PFC’s would be found in a surgical mask, but we have special routine methods in our labs to detect these chemicals easily and can immediately identify them. This is a big issue,” explained Dr. Sedlak. “It seems this had been deliberately applied as a fluid repellent – it would work to repel the virus in an aerosol droplet format – but PFC on your face, on your nose, on the mucus membranes, or on the eyes is not good.” Along with PFCs, he also detected – besides the PFC crosslinkers – compounds such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde whereas a GCMS chromatogram showed “100s of peaks from other contaminants.” Microfibre concern Like Sedlak, Braungart noted that surgical masks have been designed to be worn for very specific purposes such as by clinicians or for a short period of time before being discarded. They are not designed to be crumpled up in people’s pockets where the “friction and damp environment promotes both fibre abrasion and encourages bacterial colonisation over time,” he said. This abrasion can, he says, cause the release of tiny microplastics as the polypropylene fibres break down from mechanical wear and tear, finding in tests that some masks shed microfibres classed as hazardous ‘dust’ by the German Social Accident Insurance (DGUV). Fibres of this type of geometry that meet this dust standard are also referred to as ‘WHO fibres’ after earlier work by the World Health Organisation on asbestos. Textiles preferable to nonwovens? During the on-going pandemic most people are now also wearing masks and face coverings made from traditional textile materials that would normally be used to make our clothing. Thankfully, the risks associated with harmful chemicals on clothing are lower than ever, but the risks aren’t zero. “The risks associated with clothing tend to be due to skin contact, apart from babies that tend to suck anything they can get near their mouth – and therefore it is normal to have tougher, more stringent chemical standards for babywear textiles,” according to textile chemical expert, Phil Patterson of Colour Connections, who also works with the highly respected ZDHC Foundation on chemical management. “In my opinion, textile masks do not begin to pass this most basic hazard test for kids, for whom the risks of COVID have been categorically demonstrated to be miniscule,” he said. Potential litigation risks? One unforeseen problem for those mandating the continued and long-term wearing of face masks, such as governments and businesses, is the potential for future litigation if they are proven to have any long-term adverse impacts on human health – especially since long-term studies have yet to be undertaken. Patterson, who has advised some of the world’s biggest clothing retailers and brands on chemical management agrees this could be an issue. “I’d be very wary of mandating masks, as some chemicals and fibres may have long-term effects – and that possibly opens the floodgates of personal injury claims at some stage in the future.” Big brands Nate Sponsler, director at the AFIRM Group that represents over 30 well-known consumer brands, such as Amazon, Nike and Levi Strauss, in a bid to reduce the use of harmful substances in textiles says it’s early days when looking at face masks. “We have not yet done any formal data aggregation or studies specific to face masks, so I’m glad this issue is being highlighted,” he said. He says textile face masks are a different issue to surgical face masks where he says he’s “not surprised” to see potential hazardous substances based on fluorine applied to these masks, given that they’re designed for use in the medical sector, “where all kinds of exemptions for chemistry on PPE exist,” he said. He also noted that for kids face masks “the AFIRM best practice would be to use organic cotton, and for adults where more materials and chemistry are being used (such as prints for example), this does require more due diligence.” Masks have been an integral part of the global response to the coronavirus and a necessary intervention – especially at the height of the pandemic. But as we start to emerge from this global health crisis, leading scientists are now questioning whether the real risk of exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals from long-term mask wearing is actually much higher than the risk of coming into contact with the Sars-CoV-2 virus – especially for children and young adults who are in the low-risk category when it comes to developing severe COVID-19. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Marco Caceres via thevaccinereaction On Nov. 9, 2020, Pfizer, Inc. announced that the experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 vaccine for COVID-19 it developed in partnership with Germany’s BioNTech SE had an efficacy rate of 90 percent, based on the results of human clinical trials on the vaccine.1 2 3 This news was followed up a week later with an announcement by Moderna, Inc. on Nov. 16 that its experimental mRNA mRNA-1273 for COVID-19 showed an efficacy of 94.5 percent.4 5 6 Seemingly not to be outdone by Moderna and perhaps in anticipation of an impending emergency use authorization (EUA)—not “approval”—by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the first COVID-19 vaccine to be distributed to the U.S. public and used, Pfizer revised upward the efficacy of its BNT162b2 vaccine to 95 percent on Nov. 18.7 8 9 The FDA granted an EUA for the BNT162b2 vaccine on Dec. 11. It followed with an EUA for the mRNA-1273 vaccine on Dec. 18.10 11 During the past two months, other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have revealed efficacy rates for COVID-19 vaccines they have developed. On Nov. 23, the United Kingdom’s AstraZeneca plc announced that its experimental AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine, developed in partnership with Oxford University, had attained an efficacy of 70 percent during clinical trials. On Dec. 14, Russia’s Gamaleya National Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology announced its Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine was 91.4 percent efficacious. On Dec. 30, China’s Sinopharm Group Co. Ltd. announced its COVID-19 was 79.34 percent efficacious.12 13 14 Many other pharmaceutical companies, universities and government agencies are continuing to work on their own COVID-19 vaccines that they hope to submit for governmental approval or at least EUAs over the next year. They are proceeding with clinical trials to determine the safety and efficacy of their products. The market for COVID-19 vaccines has begun to take shape and some of the early leading manufacturers have become apparent. Additionally, a bar has been set for the range of effectiveness expected of a COVID-19 vaccine. An efficacy rate of 95 percent is currently considered to be the gold standard for COVID-19 vaccines. What is Meant by “Efficacy” of COVID-19 Vaccines? But what exactly does “efficacy” mean when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines? Does it mean that the vaccines will prevent people from becoming infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus? Does it mean that they will prevent people who have the virus from spreading it to others? Based on clinical trials, there is no evidence the vaccines will prevent either. In an interview last month with NBC’s Lester Holt, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla acknowledged he didn’t know if the BNT162b2 vaccine would prevent the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. “I think this is something that needs to be examined. We are not certain about that right now with what we know,” Bourla said.15 Bourla’s comments were echoed by Moderna’s chief medical officer, Tal Zaks, MD. In an interview with Axios on Nov. 23, Dr. Zaks noted, “When we start the deployment of [the mRNA-1273] vaccine, we will not have sufficient concrete data to prove that this vaccine reduces transmission.”16 17 “These COVID vaccines are preventing clinical disease, we don’t know if they prevent transmission [of the SARS-CoV-2 virus],” says infectious disease expert Chris Beyrer, MD of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health. According to vaccines expert David Diemert, MD of George Washington University, it is not known if the COVID-19 vaccines will prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus from entering the body or leaving a vaccinated body.18 19 20 Preventing Infection is Not “Primary Endpoint” of COVID-19 Vaccines Similar views were expressed last year by Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) which partnered with Moderna on the development of the mRNA-1273 vaccine. At Yahoo Finance’s All Markets Summit on Oct. 26, Dr. Fauci was asked the following question by reporter Anjalee Khemlani: I wonder about the effectiveness. That’s something that has been a topic of conversation, and I’ve heard a broad range of commentary, from… it will block the virus entirely to it will simply diminish the most severe cases. And if anyone experiences the virus, it will actually be a milder version. So based on what you know right now and what you’re seeing, do you anticipate that the first sets of vaccines out the door will be more of a less effective blocker of the virus?19 22 Dr. Fauci responded: That’s the primary endpoint of most of the [vaccines] is to prevent clinical disease, to prevent symptomatic disease. Not necessarily to prevent infection… that’s a secondary endpoint. But the primary thing you want to do is that if people get infected—prevent them from getting sick. And if you prevent them from getting sick, you will ultimately prevent them from getting seriously ill. So that’s what we want to do. The first, which we call the primary endpoint, is that.21 22 He added: If the vaccine also allows you to prevent initial infection, that would be great. But what I would settle for, and all of my colleagues would settle for, is the primary endpoint—to prevent clinically recognizable disease. And that’s what we hope happens.19 22 More recently, Dr. Fauci was asked specifically by Newsweek if people who get a COVID-19 vaccines could still pass on the SARS-CoV-2 to others. He answered: “That’s a good question. We don’t know that yet. We do not know if the vaccines that prevent clinical disease also prevent infection.”23 24 Finally, the World Health Organization (WHO) is also not particularly bullish on the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to control the SARS-CoV-2 contagion. “I don’t believe we have the evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on,” said the WHO’s chief scientist, Soumya Swaminathan, MD.23 25 In short then, what has been measured in the trials on the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, as well as other experimental COVID-19 vaccines, is not whether they prevent infection with and transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus but how well they can prevent or minimize symptoms of COVID-19 disease that can be caused by the virus. There is no evidence to suggest the vaccines will have any effect in terms of protecting people from getting the virus and spreading it. It doesn’t look like these COVID-19 vaccines are going to come anywhere close to being the proverbial ‘silver bullet.’ Click here to view References: Albert Bourla, All Markets Summit, Anjalee Khemlani, Anthony Fauci, AstraZeneca, Axios, AZD1222, BioNTech, BNT162b2, Chris Beyrer, COVID-19, David Diemert, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, Gamaleya National Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology, George Washington University, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Lester Holt, Marco Cáceres, Moderna, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Vaccine Information Center, NBC, Newsweek, NIAID, NVIC, Oxford University, Pfizer, SARS-CoV-2, Sinopharm, Soumya Swaminathan, Sputnik V, Tal Zaks, The Vaccine Reaction, WHO, World Health Organization, Yahoo Finance PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By truthunmuted As can be expected when new experimental “vaccines” that are not approved by the FDA are given emergency use authorization to fight a “pandemic” that is now over a year old, reported deaths following the injections of these shots have now skyrocketed in the U.S. population by over 6000% here at the end of the first quarter of 2021, as compared to recorded deaths following FDA-approved vaccines at the end of the first quarter of 2020. These new products, which many doctors and scientists claim do not even meet the legal definition of a “vaccine,” are described by the manufacturers themselves as “operating systems” called the “software of life,” and prior to COVID they have never been approved to be used on human populations. There are literally thousands of doctors and scientists around the world who have spoken out against these experimental injections, some even calling them “biological weapons of mass destruction.” Their voices are censored in the pharma-controlled corporate media and by Big Tech, so the people dying and becoming injured by these injections are the pro-vaccine people who primarily only get their information from these censored sources that are funded by Wall Street corporate billionaires, such as Bill Gates. The CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a U.S. Government funded database that tracks injuries and deaths reported to be caused by vaccines, reported only 36 deaths during the first quarter of 2020 through March 31st, and almost 50% of those deaths were infants below the age of 3. Source Since today, the day this report is being written and published, is the last day of March, 2021, we do not have complete stats from VAERS on injuries and deaths following vaccination yet. But here’s what we know based on what the CDC has published through yesterday, March 30, 2021. The last data dump into VAERS was published last week on March 26, 2021, and it listed 2050 deaths following the experimental COVID injections. See the report here. However, some of those deaths following the COVID injections occurred in December, 2020, when the Pfizer and Moderna shots were issued EUA’s by the FDA. So we ran the report for this year, 2021, from which we know the data is only current through March 19, 2021, and it showed 1,754 deaths following ALL vaccines, not just the COVID injections. Source Notice that 80% of these recorded deaths are among seniors over the age of 65! How is this NOT a national tragedy that should be headline news everywhere?? As noted above, there are 2050 deaths recorded following COVID injections as of March 19th, but those include some deaths in December, 2020. Yesterday, the CDC reported that deaths following COVID injections are now 2,509. (Source.) That is an increase of 459 deaths from what the CDC reported through VAERS through March 19th. So 1754 plus these 459 deaths gives us the total deaths so far through March 2021, which is 2,213, although after the next data dump in to VAERS this coming Friday, this number will increase even more when we add the non-COVID vaccine deaths also. That is an increase of over 6000% from last year during the same time period. The increase in deaths reported is most certainly related to the new experimental COVID injections, and yet the CDC and FDA’s position is that NOT ONE of these deaths are related to the COVID injections. A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths. (Emphasis theirs – Source.) As we have reported numerous times now, the CDC and FDA are criminal organizations run by Big Pharma insiders controlled by the Wall Street Billionaires and bankers. Their main interest is in protecting Big Pharma and their products, and not the health of the public. Those in the public who continue to trust them for accurate medical advice will suffer dearly, many with their own lives, as seen happening right now in the first quarter of 2021 with a 6000% + increase in deaths by injection. So far, these tragic deaths are among the foolish who drank the COVID Kool Aid and did not bother to research these new medical products themselves first, blindly trusting in “health authorities” like Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates who are MASS MURDERERS. But once all of these pro-vaccine people eager to get the COVID “software of life” have been injected with this new human operating system which will need constant updates (booster shots), the eugencists will turn their attention to the “vaccine hesitant,” and they have all their ducks lined up in a row now. They control the corporate mass media, including Big Tech, and they also control the American judicial system. At the very top we are dealing with psychopaths, most of them pedophiles involved in the Occult, and their goals are to control the world’s financial system, reduce the world’s population, and destroy the family and take over control of raising children for their own evil purposes. The time is short now, where not a single person on this planet will be exempt from making very difficult choices that will no longer be optional. This was written to a different group of people in a different day and age, but its principles are eternal, and as true today as any other point in history, if not more so today: See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. (Deuteronomy 30:15-18) Source: Global Research PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.

By Dean Albane via reset.me Anxiety has reached epidemic proportions in the United States with over 40 million people affected. Anxiety disorders cost the U.S. more than $42 billion a year, almost one-third of the country’s total mental health bill. Every year, millions of prescriptions are written for anti-anxiety medications like Xanax and Ativan making them some of the most commonly prescribed drugs. They belong to a group of drugs known as the benzodiazepines. The exact mechanism by which benzodiazepines work is not fully understood, but it’s believed they raise levels of the calming neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) or increase GABA receptor sensitivity. Other medications that belong in this group, commonly referred to as “benzos,” include brand names such as Centrax, Dalmane, Klonopin, Librium, Paxipam, Restoril, Serax, Tranxene, and Valium. These drugs can stop anxiety or a panic attack in its tracks. Relief is experienced quickly — often within 30 to 60 minutes — and generally lasts 11 to 20 hours. While these drugs may at first seem like a miracle if you struggle with anxiety, there are many reasons to avoid taking them if at all possible. As the Chinese saying goes, “The bigger the front, the bigger the back.” And these drugs have a very big back. The Downside Of Anti-Anxiety Drugs Benzodiazepines like Xanax and Ativan come with a very long list of side effects. According to RXList.com, they commonly make people feel drowsy, dizzy, weak, confused, or unsteady. Other reported side effects include depression, disorientation, headache, mental confusion, irritability, aggressiveness, memory loss, and sleep issues. Long-term use can increase your risk of dementia. One study found that the more benzodiazepines you take cumulatively, the greater your risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Anti-anxiety medications are designed for short-term use — a few weeks or months at best — since they are highly addictive. After four to six months they generally stop working which is typical of any addictive substance. Users develop a tolerance needing more and more to get the same effect. While it often takes months for people to develop an addiction, for some it can occur much faster — in as little as a few weeks. Once you are hooked, quitting these medications is really tough. In fact, they are right up there in the “top 10” hardest addictive substances to kick along with heroin and cocaine. If you do decide to quit taking Xanax, you can expect to experience some pretty severe withdrawal side effects, including anxiety, insomnia, restlessness, muscle tension, and irritability. You are right if you noticed that these sound a lot like all the reasons you decided to take it in the first place. But it can be much worse. Some users experience depression, nausea, blurred vision, sweating, hallucinations, delusions, and seizures. There are certain groups of people who should never take these drugs. You should not take benzodiazepines if you are pregnant, over 65, or prone to addictions. You should never take them if you drink alcohol or take other drugs, either prescription or recreational. Benzodiazepines send over 100,000 people to the emergency room every year. Over 80 percent of these visits are due to interactions with other drugs or alcohol. In rare cases, these interactions can be fatal. And lastly, these drugs don’t work for everyone. A minority of those who take them experience paradoxical reactions and feel more anxious, impulsive, and aggressive. Natural Alternatives To Anti-Anxiety Medications If you are thinking that these drugs, sometimes referred to as “mother’s little helper,” don’t sound all that helpful, you are absolutely right. Fortunately, there are many natural alternatives to anti-anxiety drugs. Here are some of my favorite natural alternatives to Xanax, Ativan, and other prescription anti-anxiety medications. Most of these have been shown to be effective without side effects in scientific studies, while all have a substantial and often long history of use in traditional and alternative medicine. Kava (Piper methysticum) Kava should definitely be on the top of any natural anxiety relief list. This traditional tea has been safely consumed as an integral part of the South Pacific culture for over 3,000 years. When tested against the antidepressants Buspirone and Opipramol, kava was found to be equally effective for anxiety and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) as the prescription drugs. Kava works, in part, by increasing GABA. You may come across warnings that kava can cause liver damage, but this is a bogus scare. Decades ago, kava was implicated in a handful of liver-related deaths, yet 85 studies failed to definitively link them to kava. The NIH concluded that the risk of liver damage from taking a kava supplement is less than one in one million, making it several order of magnitudes safer than Xanax. If you are still concerned, you can learn more about the liver toxicity scare here. Inositol Inositol, formerly known as vitamin B8, is found in high concentrations in the brain. All major neurotransmitters rely on inositol for relaying messages between brain cells. Inositol makes an effective natural anti-anxiety remedy. One study found it worked as well fluvoxamine, a popular selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) medication, for treating panic disorder. Fluvoxamine is used to treat a variety of other mental disorders, including obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), social anxiety disorder, eating disorders, schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and major depressive disorder (MDD). Study participants who took fluvoxamine experienced nausea and fatigue while those who took inositol reported no side effects. Inositol is also an excellent choice for women experiencing the mood swings, depression, and anxiety associated with premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and the more severe premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). Women who take inositol often experience significant improvement in PMS and PMDD symptoms. Inositol is found in most foods but in very small amounts. The average diet contains 1 gram of inositol. If you are taking inositol for therapeutic purposes, you’ll need to take up to 18 grams daily. Since most inositol pills and capsules contain 500 mg, this would require taking a lot of pills. Instead, consider taking inositol powder which can be mixed with water. Gotu Kola (Centella asiatica) Unfortunately, the name gotu kola brings up thoughts of caffeinated cola drinks or kola nuts, but nothing could be further from the truth. Gotu kola is, in fact, a relaxing herb that’s an important part of some Asian cuisines. Yogis use it as a meditation aid since it’s thought to restore balance to the left and right hemispheres of the brain. Studies show gotu kola can increase calmness, contentedness, and alertness by 100 percent and reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression by 50 percent. Arctic Root (Rhodiola rosea) As the name suggests, Arctic root (also know as Rhodiola rosea) is found mainly in cold regions of the world. It was used traditionally in Chinese medicine to increase physical stamina and reduce fatigue due to stress. One way Arctic root works is by increasing the activity of the feel-good brain chemicals serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. Arctic root alleviates symptoms of anxiety and seasonal affective disorder. It can also help fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome patients overcome the stress and anxiety that frequently accompany these disorders. Holy Basil (Ocimum sanctum) Holy basil is an Indian Ayurvedic herb also known as tulsi, which means “the incomparable one.” Holy basil is thought to bestow its users with a long and healthy life. Holy basil alleviates anxiety by decreasing levels of stress hormones, especially cortisol. It provides significant relief to those with generalized anxiety disorder and related stress and depression. Research supports the traditional belief that this revered herb offers a wide array of healing properties. It is antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory. It protects the liver, the heart, and the nervous system. It has anti-diabetic and anti-cancer properties. It can also help with other brain-related disorders, including depression, memory loss, insomnia, and migraine headaches. With all of these benefits, holy basil is considered one of Ayurvedic medicine’s most important healing herbs. Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) Ashwagandha is another important herb in the Ayurvedic healing tradition. Its name literally means “smell of horse,” which is appropriate since it smells like a horse and is said to give the strength and stamina of one to those who take it. Ashwagandha reduces anxiety and depression without causing drowsiness. It works, in part, by increasing levels of the mood-boosting neurotransmitter serotonin while decreasing levels of the stress hormone cortisol. One study found that taking ashwagandha decreases cortisol by an impressive 27 percent. It is very helpful for those with the anxiety disorder agoraphobia. The efficacy of ashwagandha for anxiety is based more on the reported success of traditional use than scientific evidence. According to naturopathic doctor Dr. Peter Bongiorno, author of How Come They’re Happy and I’m Not, “Most of the understanding we have about ashwagandha is based on its substantial anecdotal history and animal studies. But more clinical studies are being done.” Taurine Anti-anxiety drugs are thought to work by increasing the neurotransmitter GABA and you can buy GABA supplements. But they generally don’t work since GABA is too large a molecule to enter the brain. A convenient way to bypass this problem is by taking GABA’s precursor taurine. Taurine is an amino acid found in high concentrations in the brain, where it acts very much like GABA. It has a calming effect if you suffer from anxiety, stress, insomnia, or an overstimulated mind. Picamilon By combining GABA with niacin, picamilon provides a workaround to get GABA into your brain. This “new and improved” form of GABA provides prescription-strength benefits for anxiety, depression, high blood pressure, and migraine headaches. It has nootropic qualities and is popular among college students who use it to increase focus and memory. It’s thought to specifically help with social anxiety. Magnesium Magnesium is an essential mineral that’s often missing from the modern diet due to magnesium-depleted soil and water. According to Dr. Carolyn Dean, author of The Magnesium Miracle, magnesium deficiency can be a major contributor to anxiety and panic attacks. She explains that when you are under stress, your body creates adrenaline, which causes a cascade of physical effects, all of which consume magnesium. After decades of studying magnesium, she has found the link between anxiety and magnesium to be so strong that she flatly states, “To put an end to anxiety, magnesium must be replaced.” Note that there are many forms of magnesium and some are more bioavailable than others. Magnesium oxide, for example, is a popular, inexpensive form, but studies show that its fractional absorption (bioavailability) is only 4 percent. Dr. Dean recommends magnesium citrate as a good all-purpose magnesium supplement. You also might want to look into magnesium oil which is applied topically, especially if you are susceptible to oral magnesium’s laxative effect. Switch To Green Tea People around the world have a love affair with caffeine. Over 80 percent of Americans drink coffee every day and millions more get their caffeine from energy drinks, soda, and tea. But one of the best tips to reduce anxiety is to go caffeine-free. The latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the American Psychiatric Association’s compendium of mental health conditions, recognizes four caffeine-induced disorders. The link between caffeine and anxiety is so strong that one study concluded that, “Assessment of caffeine intake should form part of routine psychiatric assessment and should be carried out before prescribing hypnotics” and that, “Decaffeinated beverages should be provided on psychiatric wards.” If you aren’t ready to go totally caffeine-free, consider switching to green tea. Its modest amount of caffeine is offset by the compounds l-theanine and EGCG (epigallocatechin-3-gallate). These relaxing compounds have the unique ability to alter your brainwave patterns to induce a mental state similar to that achieved during meditation. Even More Alternatives Just as no one prescription medication works for everyone all the time, no one natural remedy is effective for everyone either. These aren’t the only natural alternatives to prescription anti-anxiety drugs by a long shot. If you try these and they don’t help, don’t get discouraged. There are many other alternatives to try. Other supplements to consider include B complex vitamins, chamomile, valerian, bacopa, ginkgo, ginseng, and oregano oil. The appropriate use of calming essential oils, especially lavender oil, can soothe away stress and anxiety. And lastly, not all natural alternatives to Xanax, Ativan, and anti-anxiety drugs are physical substances that you ingest or apply — some are things you do. Physical exercise, breathing exercises, meditation, and mind-body healing techniques like biofeedback, hypnosis, or Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) should be considered as well. These techniques can help you address the root cause of your anxiety, ultimately freeing you from the need to take anti-anxiety pills of any kind. PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s). FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.