top of page

Search Results

2744 items found for ""

  • Mammography False-Positives Result in 84% Higher Rate of Breast Cancer Death, JAMA Oncology Reveals A new study published in JAMA Oncology reveals that mammograms -- a common cause of false-positive breast cancer diagnoses -- result in a much higher rate of breast cancer deaths (84% higher over a 20-year surveillance period) than those who are not diagnosed with cancer mistakenly. False positive diagnoses have long been known to have deleterious effects to both the physical and psychospiritual health and well-being of those who undergo them, especially in the case of highly touted mammograms which form the basis of breast cancer awareness marketing campaigns like Breast Cancer Awareness Month ("Pinktober") that drive hundreds of millions around the world to undergo them annually or biannually, yet few of which are being properly informed about their rather concerning unintended adverse effects. After all, when you are told by a trusted medical authority that you have a deadly disease that may require harsh, or even life-threatneing treatment with chemotherapy, radiation, or invasive surgery, including possibly the removal of tissue (lumpectomy) or an entire organ (mastectomy), this profound shock alone is itself a form of trauma that has physiological consequences that produce new disease in those who were actually healthy before the incorrect diagnosis occurred. Learn more about this underreported problem here: 'Hidden Dangers' of Mammograms Every Woman Should Know About. Breast cancer is, after all, one of the most feared and commonly diagnosed diseases, with about 240,000 cases being diagnosed each year in the United States alone, and with 42,000 deaths attributed to breast cancer, annually, according to CDC statistics.1 It also constitutes a massive global industry, expected to grow to about 74 billion dollars in revenue by 2032. The primary preventive strategy used today is x-ray mammography, which has a wide range of unintended, adverse effects, the most significant of which are its associated radiological risks and harms related to the gamma rays used, which are a known breast carcinogen.  This is especially a concern for those with the so-called BRCA1 and BRCA2 'mutations' which actually increase the risk of developoing radiation-induced breast cancer. The latest guidelines put forward by the US Preventive Services Guidelines, which are highly controversial and which we have I have critiqued recently here, are now now recommending that all women get screened every other year starting at age 40. These guidelines put millions more healthy women at risk of radiation-induced adverse breast changes, as well as the psychobiological harms addressed in this article. The conventional medical establishment is notorious for overlooking these risks, which include X-ray radiation exposure, false positive diagnoses, and overdiagnosis and its corrollary overtreatment. In fact, over a decade ago, it was estimated that over 1.3 million women have had their breasts removedwrong due to a diagnosis known as ductal carcinoma in situe (DCIS), which is no longer considered equivalent to cancer by many health professionals due to its intrinsically benign nature; an archetypal example of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Overdiagnosis can be distinguished from false positives in that in overdiagnosis screen-detected abnormalities are observed in asymptomatic and ostensibly healthy women which would not cause harm if left undetected, or would cause more net harm to be diagnosed and treated than if left undiscovered or left to progress untreated (so-called "watchful waiting.") False positives, on the other hand, occur when there is a positive screening mammography assessment that leads to more diagnostic work-up but no diagnosis of breast cancer. While false positives are ultimately discovered as such, the damage may already be done, given the power of the subconscious mind and the so-called nocebo effect, which is the opposite of the placebo effect, to do profound emotional and bodily harm to those who think they have a life-threatening diagnosis of cancer but are not actually sick. (Learn more here: The Nocebo Effect and Cancer) Also, in the US, false positives are disturbingly common, with about 11% of women receiving a false-positive result from a single screening,2 In Europe, cases are far lower at 2.5%, but this still corresponds to a large cumulative risk because after 10 screenings approximately 1 in 5 women in Europe will experience at least 1 false-positive mammography result.3, 4 The latest population-based study published in JAMA Oncology looked at the data from 45, 213 Swedish women who received a first false-positive mammography result between 1991 and 2017 in comparison to 452,130 controls matched on age, calendar year of mammography, and screening history (no previous false-positive result). The major finding was that, after being tracked for 20 years, 11% of women in the false-positive group later developed breast cancer, versus only 7% of women without a false-positive. This amounts to an 84% higher rate of breast cancer death in the false-positive group versus the control group. The reason why false-positives may result in a higher death rate are likely multifactorial, and may include the following reasons: The psychospiritual/nocebo effects of being told one has or may have cancer (even if shortly corrected once identifed), can cause high stress/immune dysfunction, and as a result, contributing to poorer health/higher breast cancer risk, over time. In other words, once the seed is planted that one may have cancer, or is at greater risk, the shock of this medical trauma may continue forward for years, or even decades, undermining that individual's health. The patient may believe that having received a false positive, they are at greater risk/higher vulnerability and will seek more preventive services than those who are not as concerned, resulting in more x-ray exposure, additional false positives and the increased likelihood of unnecessary treatment (not all false positives will be caught, leading to higher risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment), which ultimately increases their risk of iatrogenic (doctor- and medicine-caused morbidity/mortality) harm, including the culmintative burden of increased radiotoxicity/carcinogenicity of the mammograms themselves which can result in the formation of new cancers. According to the JAMA researchers, they believe that these findings indicate that more intensive screening and individualized programs are needed, and not less. (I am skeptical of this approach, as it ignores the reasons I just brought up). Ultimately these results bring into question, once more, the net benefit of mammography. Mammography, as a “prevention” tool is no longer so clearly effective in preventing either breast cancer diagnoses or breast cancer associated deaths, given an accumulating body of research the contrary. "Effectiveness" should be evaluated by looking at the balance of potential harms and benefits, which is not often done by the conventional medical system which aggressively promotes mammograms to healthy women without highlighting their real risks, nor providing sufficient information on alternative approaches. There are time-tested, and increasingly reearch-backed food-based, nutraceutical, and lifestyle-based ways to prevent and even treat breast cancer. There is also the diagnosis alternative of thermography, which has no radiation risk, and can detect metabolic abnormalities and pathologies many years before an imbalance will present as a screen-detected abnormality. This can give someone a multi-year advantage versus waiting until a problem associated with toxicity, inactivity, and a disease-promoting diet presents itself as an “organic lesion” in the body. For more information on either breast cancer prevention strategies, and the inherent down sides of mammography, you can visit the following resources on * Research on natural substances and approaches researched for breast cancer. * X-Ray Mammography Harms. * 30 Years of Breast Screening: 1.3 Million Wrongly Treated * Covering Up The Causes of Breast Cancer Since 1985: AstraZeneca's BCAM * Ladies, Ditch the Bra References 1 Basic Information About Breast Cancer, Centers for Diease Control and Prevention 2Brewer  NT, Salz  T, Lillie  SE.  Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms.   Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(7):502-510. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-7-200704030-00006 3Nelson  HD, O’Meara  ES, Kerlikowske  K, Balch  S, Miglioretti  D.  Factors associated with rates of false-positive and false-negative results from digital mammography screening: an analysis of registry data.   Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):226-235. doi:10.7326/M15-0971 4 Tsuruda  KM, Larsen  M, Román  M, Hofvind  S.  Cumulative risk of a false-positive screening result: a retrospective cohort study using empirical data from 10 biennial screening rounds in BreastScreen Norway.   Cancer. 2022;128(7):1373-1380. doi:10.1002/cncr.34078

  • Bittersweet: Study Exposes Hidden Dangers of Heavy Metals in Chocolate Consumer Reports testing found that 1 in 3 chocolate products contain heavy metals like lead and cadmium that may harm kids' neurological development and cause other health issues. Story at a glance: Testing by Consumer Reports found one-third of chocolate products tested were high in heavy metals, and the percentage of contaminated products rose when it was dark chocolate. Of the 28 dark chocolate bars tested in 2022, only five had levels below 100% of the maximum allowable dose and only two had levels below 50%. In the 46 products tested in 2023, they found detectable levels in every product and 539% of the maximum allowed dose of lead in Perugina 85% premium dark chocolate. Chocolate is not the only source of heavy metal and it bioaccumulates, so it’s important to be aware of your overall intake. Cadmium can be absorbed from the soil and is found in the highest levels in grains and vegetables. Exposure to lead and cadmium poses the highest risk to the brains and neurological systems of infants and children. Since cadmium crosses the placental barrier, exposure during pregnancy can have serious health consequences, including increased mortality from heart and kidney disease and cancer. Dark chocolate has many health benefits, but your source should be chosen wisely to avoid exposure to heavy metals. Consider incorporating strategies for heavy metal detox to protect your mitochondrial function. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Testing in 2023 by Consumer Reports found one-third of the chocolate products they tested were high in heavy metals. These are naturally occurring elements in the environment that are five times denser than water and have multiple applications in industry, agriculture, medicine and technology. However, wide usage has raised concerns over the health effects heavy metals have on humans and the environment. Lead, chromium, cadmium, arsenic and mercury are among the metals identified as having public health significance since they are known to trigger organ damage even at low levels of exposure. These same heavy metals are also “known” or “probable” human carcinogens. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, heavy metals are toxic metals that are known to negatively affect human health. They can bioaccumulate to become a significant health hazard. Cadmium is an extremely toxic metal used in industrial workplaces. Several deaths have been attributed to acute exposure in welders who unsuspectingly used cadmium-containing alloys. However, lead is one of the most prevalent overexposures in occupational health as it’s found in construction work, radiator repair shops, firing ranges and most smelter operations to name a few. Other heavy metals identified as toxic include arsenic, beryllium, hexavalent chromium and mercury. Several types of chocolate high in lead and cadmium Consumer Reports tested a variety of chocolate candies and powders, including dark chocolate, milk chocolate, chocolate chips, cocoa powder and brownie, cake and hot chocolate mixes. This was a follow-up from testing in 2022 on dark chocolate, in which they tested 28 bars from different companies for lead and cadmium. In the 2022 and 2023 tests, researchers used California’s maximum allowable dose level for heavy metal tested since as Consumer Reports noted there are no federal limits for lead or cadmium in food and the researchers believed that California’s standards are currently the most protective available. The California standards limit consumption to 0.5 micrograms per day of lead and 4.1 micrograms per day of cadmium. Consumer Reports notes that the tests were not an assessment of whether a particular chocolate exceeded California’s legal standards, but the California standards were used to indicate products that had a comparatively higher level of heavy metals. Of the 28 dark chocolate bars tested in 2022 for lead and cadmium, only five had levels that were below 100% of the maximum allowable dose level for lead and cadmium assuming a 1-ounce serving size. There were eight that were high in cadmium, 10 that were high in lead and five that were high and lead and cadmium. There are two main components in chocolate from the cacao bean. These are cocoa solids and cocoa butter, which together are called cacao or cocoa. Dark chocolate tends to be higher in heavy metal contamination than milk chocolate because it has a higher cacao content, which is more likely to be contaminated with cadmium and lead. In 2023, Consumer Reports sought to determine whether other cacao-containing foods had the same risk. They tested 48 different chocolate products across seven categories and added several dark chocolate bars to confirm their previous results. They used products from name brands like Nestle, Ghirardelli and Hershey’s and bought them from national retailers like Whole Foods, Target, Costco and Trader Joe’s. As in the previous tests, the dark chocolate had higher levels of heavy metal than the milk chocolate. However, James E. Rogers, Ph.D., director and acting head of product safety testing also noted that every product had detectable amounts of lead and cadmium and 16 had concerning levels of at least one metal, and in some cases, more than twice the limit. The results of the testing revealed high levels of lead and cadmium in several of the dark chocolate bars, including 539% of the maximum allowed dose of lead in Perugina Extra Dark Chocolate Premium 85%. None of the milk chocolate bars were over 100% of the levels for lead or cadmium and only two of the dark chocolate chips were over 100% of the allowed levels for lead. Heavy metal can accumulate from several sources As Consumer Reports noted, high levels of cadmium get into the chocolate as the plant absorbs it from the soil. Lead also may be deposited on the beans after harvest as they dry outdoors. However, chocolate is not the only food or beverage that contains heavy metals and since the metals can bioaccumulate, it’s important to be aware of your overall intake. A 2021 study published in Scientific Reports also evaluated the presence of cadmium and lead in a selected number of fruits and vegetables. The foods evaluated were fresh, frozen, dried or processed. The study evaluated 370 samples of a variety including apples, pears, grapes, strawberries, carrots and tomatoes. The tests show that the concentration of cadmium and lead was present in all types of fruits and vegetables, but the amount varied substantially. The highest concentrations were found in dried products, and several samples exceeded the maximum permissible concentrations. Another 2022 analysis looked at major food groups for the presence of cadmium, lead, mercury and nickel. The data showed that cereals and vegetables were the major contributors of cadmium, nickel and mercury while water and other beverages were a major source of lead. By contrast, eggs, milk and dairy products, fats and oils had the lowest number of heavy metals tested. Despite the common association between mercury and fish, this analysis showed fish was not an important source of mercury. This was not the case in a 2016 evaluation by the Environmental Working Group (EWG). The EWG reported the results of testing from 254 women who reportedly ate at least two meals of some type of fish every week. They measured mercury in the women’s hair to establish how much was absorbed from the fish and found that 30% of the participants had too much exposure according to Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for pregnant women. However, these are not the only foods that increase your exposure to heavy metals. Eat This, Not That! reported that a 2021 study revealed that popular baby food brands had well above the recommended limits for arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury. Fruit juice can also exceed levels of lead, and rice is a well-known source of inorganic arsenic. Just as the cocoa bean can absorb cadmium from the soil, so can green leafy vegetables and root vegetables like carrots and potatoes. Exposure in childhood can damage the nervous system Exposure to cadmium and lead in infants and children pose a higher risk to their brains and neurological system than in adults. Unfortunately, these heavy metals can make their way into the food supply as contaminants. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned parents on Oct. 30, that after testing food pouches by Wanabana, “extremely high” concentrations of lead were found that could lead to “acute toxicity.” Testing was done after four children in North Carolina tested for high lead levels that were linked to the puree. A 2019 study evaluated children’s dietary exposure to lead and cadmium using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study. The estimated mean lead exposure range was far higher than the California standard, ranging from 1 to 3.4 micrograms per day. Most of the exposure came from grains, fruit, dairy and mixtures, such as lasagna, soups, hamburgers and pizza. The estimated mean cadmium exposure was estimated at 0.38 to 0.44 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day. Lead exposure is known to slow a child’s growth and development and impair learning, hearing and speech. Damage to the brain and nervous system can also trigger behavior problems and cause lower IQ with a decreased ability to pay attention and poor performance in school. Exposure at younger ages is more harmful because children’s bodies and brains are still developing and growing. Data show that exposure to cadmium can have an adverse effect on the kidneys, heart, liver and nervous system. Exposure in utero and early life can result in serious health issues related to developmental disabilities since cadmium crosses the placental barrier. Exposure during pregnancy can have serious health consequences, including an increased risk of mortality related to cancer, heart disease, kidney disease and neurological problems. In a 2012 study by Harvard researchers, they found children who had the highest levels of cadmium were 3.21 times more likely to have learning disabilities and three times more likely to participate in special education than those with the lowest levels. “One of the important points of the study is that we didn’t study a population of kids who had very high exposures. We studied a population representative of the U.S. That we found any [effect] suggests this is occurring at relatively low levels,” said Dr. Robert Wright, an associate professor of pediatrics and environmental health at Harvard. Use dark chocolate judiciously The health benefits of eating dark chocolate are well-established. It is the cacao content that makes a difference in terms of benefit as it contains large amounts of polyphenols, including epicatechin, resveratrol, phenylethylamine and theobromine. However, as the Consumer Reports studies demonstrated, chocolate with higher levels of cacao also has higher levels of cadmium and lead. Human data from Loma Linda University, presented at the Experimental Biology 2018 annual meeting in San Diego, revealed chocolate with high levels of cacao helps improve stress levels, inflammation, mood, memory and immune function. The caveat? It must contain at least 70% cacao and be sweetened with organic cane sugar. According to Loma Linda University: “While it is well known that cacao is a major source of flavonoids, this is the first time the effect has been studied in human subjects to determine how it can support cognitive, endocrine and cardiovascular health. … “‘These studies show us that the higher the concentration of cacao, the more positive the impact on cognition, memory, mood, immunity and other beneficial effects.’” Several studies have also confirmed cacao can benefit your heart, blood vessels, brain and nervous system, and help combat diabetes and other conditions rooted in inflammation. As noted in a paper published in the journal Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity: “Cocoa contains about 380 known chemicals, 10 of which are psychoactive compounds. … “Cocoa has more phenolics and higher antioxidant capacity than green tea, black tea, or red wine. … “The phenolics from cocoa may thus protect against diseases in which oxidative stress is implicated as a causal or contributing factor, such as cancer. They also have antiproliferative, antimutagenic, and chemoprotective effects, in addition to their anticariogenic effects.” There is significant evidence that dark chocolate has health benefits, but it’s important to realize that these benefits are not transferred to milk chocolate and it’s important to judiciously choose your source of dark chocolate. According to the 2022 Consumer Reports study, the safer choices for dark chocolate include Ghirardelli’s Intense Dark Chocolate 86% cacao and Mast Organic Dark Chocolate 80% cacao. These two bars were the only ones where the levels of lead and cadmium were less than 50% of the California maximum allowable dose level. Heavy metal detoxification As Dr. Frank Shallenberger, author of “Bursting With Energy: The Breakthrough Method to Renew Youthful Energy and Restore Health,” and a natural medicine physician for nearly five decades, discussed in our 2022 interview, a decrease in mitochondrial function is a hallmark of the aging process and many chronic diseases. Even asymptomatic people in their 30s can have a significant decline in mitochondrial function, which is indicative of premature aging and future health problems. Heavy metal toxicity can take a toll on your mitochondrial function, and to address this, Shallenberger typically combines chelation therapy with colonics and sauna use. While many people use far-infrared saunas, I prefer near-infrared saunas for several reasons. For starters, near-infrared penetrates much deeper into your tissues, releasing toxins. Importantly, 95% of melatonin is also produced in your mitochondria in response to near-infrared light. Melatonin is a very powerful antioxidant that helps mop up the reactive oxygen species in the mitochondria. Melatonin also helps increase glutathione, which is a major detoxification agent. For tips on how to create an electromagnetic field-free sauna, listen to our interview, as we go into more detail than what I’ve summarized here. Originally published by Mercola.

  • ‘Chair Care’: New Mexico Hairstylists Being Trained Under CDC-Funded Program to Push COVID, Flu Shot Under “Chair Care,” a program funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New Mexico hairstylists are paid and trained as “trusted messengers” to promote COVID-19 and flu vaccines, especially to minority and conservative clients with low vaccination rates. Public health agencies are funding a New Mexico program to train and pay local hairstylists working in privately owned salons to promote COVID-19 and flu vaccines to their clients. The “Chair Care” program trains these “trusted messengers” to target New Mexico’s Hispanic, Black, Native American and conservative populations who have been shown to have the lowest vaccine uptake and highest “vaccine hesitancy.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the New Mexico Department of Public Health (NMDOH) are funding the program, which is run by Presbyterian Community Health and Better Together New Mexico, an NMDOH initiative that connects local organizations to do vaccine outreach throughout the state. Other partners in the grant program include an unnamed doctor, a salon, a hairstylist and an Albuquerque company, Serna Solutions, which provides behavioral health training. The program is training hair stylists to spread the agencies’ vetted messaging on vaccines to the public. The “trusted messenger” strategy is based on the assumption that people tend to trust such figures more than they trust public health authorities, according to the project website, which states: “Research tells us that who a message comes from is just as important — if not more — than what the content of the message is … Chair Care TMs [trusted messengers] play a critical role in sharing the facts about vaccination with their clients because their clients trust them. “TMs can talk with their clients about vaccinations in a more relaxed, conversational way than traditional authority figures or healthcare providers sometimes can.” By training the “trusted messengers” to promote their messages, the public health authorities can get their message across to the public, without the public being aware the message is designed and paid for by those health authorities. Hairstylists who sign up for a six-month commitment participate in two day-long trainings where they receive tools so they can “feel more confident” talking to their clients about taking vaccines. They will be trained in motivational interviewing, COVID-19 basics, flu basics and long COVID basics. After the initial training, the hairstylists are required to participate in twice-monthly virtual meetings to receive updated content and program support. At the end of the six-month program, they participate in a half-day debrief. They also spend 30-45 minutes per week submitting data on their client interactions. The program website doesn’t indicate what types of data they are collecting. Participants receive a one-time participant stipend, but the amount is also not specified on the website. Better Together offers grants of up to $300,000 for proposals like Chair Care designed to circulate “vetted vaccine information” or increase access to vaccines for New Mexicans. All projects must include a focus on COVID-19 vaccination. Better Together did not respond to The Defender’s request for more information about the program at the time of publication. ‘Trusted messengers,’ brought to you by corporate elite and the CDC Chair Care cites an Ad Council Research Institute report, “The 2022 Trusted Messenger Study,” a follow-up on a similar report published in 2021, as the justification for the program. The Ad Council is a nonprofit research organization whose directorship is comprised of over 100 representatives from almost every major legacy and social media corporation, Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Tech, professional sports, banking and consulting. Its mission is to “convene the best storytellers to educate, unite and uplift — by opening hearts, inspiring action and accelerating change.” The Trusted Messenger Study concluded that Americans don’t trust political leaders and institutions. To “market” messages that will “shift perceptions” and “ignite new behaviors,” leaders have to find the messengers that people trust and get them to deliver the desired message. A key finding in the study was that local leaders — teachers, community leaders, nonprofits — are important references for people when they are gathering information to make decisions. Based on these and similar ideas, the CDC since 2021 has doled out hundreds of millions of dollars in grants for the creation of “culturally tailored” pro-vaccine materials and for training “trusted messengers” to promote COVID-19 and flu vaccines to communities of color in every state across the country. In March 2021, the Biden administration also earmarked $3 billion for the CDC to support local initiatives to “strengthen vaccine confidence.” The method: motivational interviewing The Chair Care stylists will be trained to use motivational interviewing to influence their clients. Better Together defines the method, from the CDC’s website, as “an evidence-based and culturally sensitive approach to helping people manage mixed feelings and move toward healthy behavior change that is consistent with their values and needs.” According to Psychology Today, it is a counseling method used to help people decide to change their behavior, and it is particularly effective with people who are ambivalent, or even hostile. It can be effective in one or two sessions. Originally developed for people with substance abuse disorders, the method is now applied broadly in healthcare, psychotherapy, correctional and counseling settings, according to the American Psychological Association. The clinician — or in this case, the hairstylist — is meant to listen, show empathy and support for the idea that someone can change, and help people think about how they can do so. The goal is to guide the communication in order to direct people in a way that is “respectful and curious.” The CDC provides a script for healthcare professionals to implement the methodology to promote COVID-19 vaccine uptake on its website. It also provides training in this method for clinicians working with HIV patients, opioid users and the elderly.

  • Top FDA Officials Accepted Jobs with Moderna After Playing Key Roles in the Licensure of COVID Jabs A new BMJ investigation reveals a “revolving door” between FDA officials tasked with regulating COVID-19 vaccines and the companies who manufacture them. Two high-level regulatory officials with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) involved in vaccine oversight accepted jobs at Moderna just months after signing off on the licensure of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine, according to a British Medical Journal (BMJ) investigation. Top FDA Officials Accepted Jobs with Moderna After Playing Key Roles in the Licensure of COVID-19 Vaccines Written by Megan Redshaw and originally published on Epoch Health The report by Peter Doshi, associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and senior editor at The BMJ, reveals a long-standing revolving door between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies whose products it regulates and raises questions about the impartiality and independence of top FDA regulators. Dr. Doran Fink is a “physician/scientist experienced in regulation and clinical development/licensure of vaccines and related biological products” and was deeply involved with vaccine regulation at the FDA for more than 12 years, according to his LinkedIn profile. According to the BMJ report, Dr. Fink started his FDA career as a clinical reviewer in 2010 and “worked his way up” to Deputy Director of the Division of Vaccines and Related Product Applications within the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, where he led a team of medical officers focused on infectious diseases and related biological projects. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fink was a prominent voice on COVID-19 vaccines and which population groups should receive them. He spoke on behalf of the FDA at numerous meetings held by the agency’s vaccine advisors who met to discuss whether to approve COVID-19 vaccines, change their composition, or authorize boosters. Dr. Fink also presented at meetings held by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices—a group of health experts that develop recommendations on how to use vaccines—as the FDA’s “principal FDA ex officio representative.” According to the BMJ report and Dr. Fink’s LinkedIn profile, Fink also served on the senior leadership team for COVID-19 vaccine review and policy activities in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency. As part of his role, he advised vaccine manufacturers on vaccine development throughout the pandemic and coordinated “expedited review of regulatory submissions,” advised U.S. government stakeholders outside the FDA on COVID-19 vaccine science and development, and contributed to FDA guidance on the development, licensure, and emergency use authorization of COVID-19 vaccines. Most notably, Dr. Fink engaged in a “senior level review” of the FDA’s decision memoranda for emergency use authorization and licensure of COVID-19 vaccines, including Moderna’s. According to Fink’s LinkedIn profile, he left the FDA in December 2022 and started a job at Moderna as the head of “Translational Medicine and Early Clinical Development, Infectious Diseases” in February 2023. Dr. Jaya Goswami has a similar history. Dr. Goswami began working as a medical officer at the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in March 2020 and had “broad oversight over vaccines and biologics clinical development,” according to the BMJ report. Goswami was responsible for determining whether Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine clinical data met regulatory standards for approval. Moderna’s SPIKEVAX received FDA approval in January 2022. Goswami’s LinkedIn profile said she left the FDA in June 2022 and began working for Moderna that same month as their director of clinical development in infectious diseases. At Moderna, Goswami has been involved with the company’s investigational mRNA vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (mRNA-1345). The company announced in a press release on July 5 that it had submitted marketing authorization applications with the European Union, Switzerland, and Australia, as well as a “rolling submission of a Biologics License Application” to the FDA—which will be reviewed by the department within the FDA that employed Drs. Fink and Goswami. According to Moderna, the company made $18.5 billion in 2021 from sales of its COVID-19 vaccine, more than $19 billion in 2022, and projects sales of its COVID-19 vaccine will reach at least $6 billion in 2023. Dr. Doshi, writing for The BMJ, warns that this is another sign of the “revolving door” between pharmaceutical companies and the regulators entrusted with regulating their products. Both FDA employees worked in vaccine regulation during the COVID-19 pandemic and joined Moderna—whose only product was its COVID-19 vaccine. “The revolving door is particularly abusive in agencies that have a huge flood of money going in. That’s a big problem with the FDA,” Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, told The BMJ. Holman was referring to the federal funding Moderna received as part of Operation Warp Speed that helped expedite the authorization of COVID-19 vaccines. Holman suggests a “cooling-off period” of at least two years to break down close relationships and networks that could present an ethical problem for employees who leave regulatory agencies for the companies whose products they regulate. No Evidence FDA Enforces Ethical Requirements for Employees “The recurring issue of the revolving door culture between industry and regulators has long been a concern and raises questions about regulatory impartiality,” Kim Witczak, a global pharmaceutical drug safety advocate and member of the FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee told The Epoch Times in an email. “A troubling trend is the intentional career move of making a stop at a regulatory agency, with the real payoff occurring when they transition to drug company roles. While this might benefit the pharmaceutical industry, it poses risks to public health. The worry arises about potential bias in regulating practices, including being lenient in criticism or overlooking safety concerns,” she said. Ms. Witczak said the absence of strong measures leaves the FDA vulnerable to corruption, and implementing safeguards, such as a mandatory “cooling off period,” is important for maintaining regulatory integrity. FDA press office Jeremy Kahn told the BMJ the agency has “more enhanced ethics restrictions than most other federal agencies” and “takes seriously its obligation to help ensure that decisions made and actions taken, by the agency and its employees, are not, nor appear to be, tainted by any question of conflict of interest.” Kahn also said the FDA provides “robust information and resources to employees regarding the steps that must be taken to fulfill these ethics obligations,” however, the BMJ found the FDA doesn’t keep records of where employees go when they leave the agency and doesn’t require employees obtain approval or clearance before taking an industry job. When the BMJ asked the FDA whether the health regulators sought direction from the FDA’s Office of Ethics and Integrity before accepting positions with Moderna and whether they recused themselves from any FDA matters related to their employment search, the FDA told the BMJ to file a Freedom of Information Act Request. Moderna’s vice president of communications and media, Chris Ridley, said the company had “no comment” when asked the same by Mr. Doshi. The FDA’s Long History of ‘Revolving Door’ Culture This is not the first time issues have been raised with the FDA’s “revolving door”—a concept defined in an October 2005 paper by the Revolving Door Working Group (RDWG) as the “movement of individuals back and forth between the private sector and the public sector.” According to RDWG, the government-to-industry revolving door is where “public officials move to lucrative private-sector positions in which they may use their government experience to unfairly benefit their new employer in matters of federal procurement and regulatory policy.” This may allow public servants to use their office for personal or private gain at the expense of taxpayers, cast doubts on the integrity of official actions, could influence a government employee’s official actions through promises of a future high-paying job with the company benefits from the official’s actions, could provide an unfair advantage or give the appearance of undue influence and impropriety. In a 2016 study published in The BMJ, researchers followed 55 medical reviewers involved in drug approvals in the FDA’s hematology-oncology division over several years. Of 26 medical reviewers who left the agency, 15 went to work for the biopharmaceutical industry, were consultants to it, or did both. A search conducted in 2018 by the journal Science found that 11 of 16 FDA medical examiners involved with 28 drug approvals left the agency for new jobs or became consultants with companies whose products they recently regulated. Another prominent example of a top regulatory official who left the FDA to work for the drug industry is former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who unexpectedly resigned in March 2019 after less than two years of serving in the position. In June 2019, Pfizer announced that Dr. Gottlieb had been appointed to its board of directors “effective immediately” and joined the company’s Regulatory and Compliance Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. Dr. Gottlieb, who is also a CNBC contributor, was frequently consulted by news media outlets on COVID-19 vaccines, helped the company rake in more than $100 billion in sales of its vaccine and anti-viral, and flagged tweets that questioned COVID-19 vaccines for “X,” formerly known as “Twitter,” as revealed by the Twitter files. According to the BMJ investigation, Moncef Slaoui, a prominent member of Moderna’s board of directors, was appointed by President Trump to co-lead Operation Warp Speed. Although he resigned from Moderna’s board and sold his stake in the company, Moderna, which had never brought a product to market, received $4.94 billion in federal funding for 300 million doses of its COVID-19 vaccine. The FDA Commissioner at the time, Stephen Hahn, authorized Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine on Dec. 18, 2020, and stepped down six months later when he accepted a job with Flagship Pioneering—“the venture fund that birthed Moderna.” Source – Megan Redshaw for Epoch Health

  • John Moore: Escalation of Gaza conflict could lead to the ELIMINATION OF ISRAEL The continuation and possible escalation of the war between Israel and Hamas and other Palestinian militants in Gaza could lead to the eventual destruction of the State of Israel. This is according to United States Armed Forces veteran, former homicide detective and political commentator John Moore, who warned about the fate that could befall Israel during an interview with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, on the latter's show the "Health Ranger Report." (Related: If its war on Hamas doesn't end, Israel will cease to exist by 2030, warns former U.N. consultant.) "The Arab World is ready to sacrifice all the people in Gaza to achieve their goal of eliminating Israel. That's very clear," said Moore, who pointed out how, despite their open support for the Palestinian cause, none of the countries neighboring Israel are willing to take in refugees from Gaza. On the other side of the issue is the fact that Israel does not want to stop fighting in Gaza, with Adams pointing out that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to Palestinians as "Amalek," a nation in the Hebrew Bible that ambushed the Ancient Israelites under Moses who were making their way to the Promised Land. Following this initial attack, God instructed the Israelites to never forget this atrocity and ordered them to wage an eternal war against the Alamek until no trace of its existence remains. This is essentially Netanyahu calling for genocide against Palestinians in Gaza until, like the Amalek, no trace of them remains. "Most of these Palestinians and other people in the Middle East … their hatreds go back centuries," warned Moore. Turkey could use Palestinian genocide as justification for attacking Israel Moore warned that one of the nations that could pose a significant threat to the future of Israel is Turkey which, under long-serving President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, wants "to reestablish the Ottoman Empire, with once again Constantinople [Istanbul] becoming the capital of the Ottoman Empire, as it was for many, many centuries up until 1917." The ongoing conflict has already pushed relations between Turkey and Israel, which were previously very friendly, into a "deep freezer." In one of his latest comments on the conflict amid the mounting death toll on Gaza, Erdogan announced that he had severed all ties with Netanyahu and his government over the onslaught, although he did not lower the level of communications between the two nations. "Netanyahu is no longer someone we can talk to," said Erdogan, who is trying to position himself as a great humanitarian who cares about the lives of Palestinians. "We erased [Netanyahu] and threw him away." According to Wolfango Piccoli, co-president of the political risk advisory arm of the public relations firm Teneo, Erdogan's comments suggest he has thrown friendly relations with Israel "into the deep freezer, if not ditched altogether," dashing hopes of a full rapprochement that Ankara and Tel Aviv had been pursuing for years before the conflict. Before this, Erdogan was one of the first to refer to Israeli operations in Gaza as a "genocide," and also called Israel a "war criminal" state over its indiscriminate bombardment of Gazans. Diplomats from both nations have already been recalled, and the volume of trade between the two nations has plummeted in just one month. Watch this episode of the "Health Ranger Report" as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, interviews John Moore, the Liberty Man, about the global consequences of the escalation of the war between Israel and Hamas.

  • Netherlands’ Land Grab: A new documentary records the Dutch farmers’ struggle against a regime that Netherlands’ Land Grab: A new documentary records the Dutch farmers’ struggle against a regime that is attempting to seize their land A couple of weeks ago,  Big Picture released the documentary ‘NITROGEN 2000: The Dutch Farmers’ Struggle’ to watch for free. NITROGEN 2000 is a 45-minute documentary on the Dutch Farmer struggle of 2019-23. 70% of Holland is owned by small cattle farmers and since 2019, the Dutch government has been advocating a 50% forced buyout of their land. This amounts to a nationalisation of a third of the territory of Holland. Is this really about lowering nitrogen levels to help orchids over nettles? What other darker designs lie behind the nitrogen policy of Holland? Surely if it were truly about nitrogen other solutions could be found than disenfranchising the most efficient farmers on the planet. In NITROGEN 2000 Big Picture gets to the bottom of the story. Big Picture’s James Patrick initially went to the Netherlands to shoot two interviews for another film which was under production. While he was there, he got in touch with some leaders of the Dutch farmers’ groups fighting the government’s policy to forcibly buy out their farms. When he arrived in the Netherlands, Patrick realised that a third of the farms had signs displaying “HELP!.” Upside-down flags were hanging everywhere. It quickly became evident to him that this was a much bigger event than most understood. “I jumped onto the story and aggressively shot an entire film in 6 days,” he said. What is happening in Holland is a warning to the world of what is to come if we don’t put a stop to this expropriation of the Dutch farmer’s land. This is a big story. The government of Holland – with European Union blessings – is seeking to forcefully purchase one-third of their territory, disenfranchising half of their cattle farmers. As everyone knows, corporate media constantly demonises cows: they make methane; their burps are evil; they cause nitrogen to run off into waterways.  But the insane argument the Dutch government is using is that the nitrogen in cow dung is settling on protected areas, called Natura 2000 and causing plants less than 1 ft tall to suffer because other plants that grow higher block the sun for the smaller ones. That the government would declare war on half of their farmers in the name of short plants. “It’s a joke, and they have no credibility,” Patrick said. This appears to be a story of seizing land under questionable “environmental” pretences and removing the bulk of the Dutch farmers from the market, effectively taking them offline. In terms of production per hectare, Dutch farmers are the most efficient farmers in the world. If a large restructuring of the food system is being engineered, sandbagging Dutch farmers is a crucial step towards achieving that goal. The documentary ‘NITROGEN 2000’ gets to the bottom of the story. Partick interviewed the top players in the story to help people understand this complex phenomenon in a world in transition. To fight for our rights and well-being, we must understand what is happening to us “This is the mission of my work: to help people see the Big Picture,” he said. The documentary is free to view, in several languages, but if you would like to make a donation to support the Big Picture’s work, you can do so HERE. Big Picture: NITROGEN 2000 The Dutch Farmers’ Struggle, 5 November 2023 (46 mins) If the video above is removed from YouTube, you can watch it on Rumble HERE or Bitchute HERE.

  • Scientists under the guise of caring for the environment, request that women stop having children.

    "Having children is the most destructive thing a person can do for the environment" - according to the results of the latest study.

  • Wolf In Sheep's Clothing: Jordan Peterson & ARC

    Journalist and Broadcaster Sonia Poulton looks at psychologist and commentator Jordan Peterson and his new project, ARC

  • Sometimes I think wouldn't it be great to....

    👉The ones that get it, GET IT. 👉The ones that still don't get it, will NEVER get it. 👉keep on believing in the tooth fairy, & your uneducated version of history & religion.

  • 🚩 Raytheon Whistleblower Says 'Directed Energy Weapons' Capable of Starting Earthquakes Are Running

    "Directed energy weapons platforms operating under the false pretenses of science. That's what's actually going on at the South Pole Station. There are technologies and weapons grade technologies on this planet that the average citizen cannot even begin to wrap their brains around. And that's why I'm speaking out. The Ice Cube Neutrino Detector... The season that I was there, it went from construction to operations and maintenance. And when they first operated it, they caused two accidental earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand. So this is weapons grade stuff."

  • Unelected globalists at the WEF are touting 'carbon removal plants'...

    Unelected globalists at the WEF are touting 'carbon removal plants'—each of which removes five million tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere each year—as "crucial to meeting global climate goals", despite the fact that CO2 currently makes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere, and if it drops to half of that, all plant life—and thus all animal and human life—will perish.

bottom of page