Day: October 5, 2022

• As recently as late September 2022, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claimed it’s perfectly safe for pregnant and nursing women, and those planning a pregnancy, to get the COVID jab. According to Walensky, “There’s NO bad time to get a COVID vaccine”

• Meanwhile, Pfizer’s data show the risk of miscarriage could be as high as 87.5%

• Safety for nursing mothers was not evaluated in the initial clinical trials, and subsequent investigations have been scarce. In mid-July 2021, a small study found no trace of mRNA vaccine in breastmilk, but a September 2022 study did find mRNA in breastmilk for up to 48 hours post-jab

• These studies did not analyze the breastmilk for the presence of spike protein. Even if the mRNA is only transferable during the first 48 hours post-jab, that does not mean it’s safe to breastfeed thereafter. The breastmilk could potentially also transfer spike protein produced by the mother’s body, and that production, we know, can continue for at least four months, and likely longer

• Walensky also continues to claim the COVID shots have no adverse effects on fertility, even though birth rates have plummeted since the rollout of the shots, raising alarm across the world. A Pfizer-BioNTech rat study found the injection more than doubled the incidence of infertility

Despite mountains of evidence showing the COVID jabs are a lethal disaster that shouldn’t be given to anyone, let alone pregnant women, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky continues to spread the death cult gospel, boldly claiming:1 2

“There’s NO bad time to get a COVID vaccine. Whether you’re thinking about having a baby, currently pregnant, recently delivered your baby, or are breastfeeding, it is safe for you to get vaccinated. Protect yourself and your growing family.”

In that same interview, Walensky also spoke out of both sides of her mouth when she added that pregnant women who develop COVID symptoms should get monoclonal antibodies to prevent severe infection. If that’s the case, why do they need the mRNA jab, which we know doesn’t prevent infection?

The fact that Walensky keeps insisting pregnant women get this experimental injection is beyond unconscionable. In her interview,3 she insists the data supports it, but where is that data? They must be hidden somewhere, because the data that are actually available to the public tell a very different story.

Pfizer’s own data show the risk of miscarriage could be as high as 87.5% — a shocking conclusion reviewed in an August 20, 2022, Substack article4 by Dr. Pierre Kory.

Kory, after diving into one of the Pfizer data dumps, brought attention to Section 5.3.6, Page 12, of a document called “Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports,” which states there were 270 pregnancies in vaccinated women during the first 12 weeks of the vaccine campaign.

No outcome was provided for 238 of those women, which leaves 32 pregnancies for which the outcome was reported. However, even for those 32, outcomes were only specified for 29: 26 ended in some form of miscarriage, two were premature births with neonatal death (meaning the babies died shortly after being born early), and one birth was normal.

Kory points out that the report is nebulous and unclear about the other three pregnancy outcomes, but were we to count those as live births, we’re looking at 28 deaths out of 32 pregnancies, which means 87.5% of pregnant women (for whom they had data) lost their babies.

For the record, the failure to record and report the outcomes of 238 out of 274 pregnancies during a drug trial is simply unheard of. It’s shockingly unethical and criminally fraudulent. And the fact that both the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC accepted this, and claim there’s “no evidence” of harm to pregnant women and their babies is proof positive of reprehensible malfeasance.

I also sincerely doubt the FDA and CDC have corroborating data to support the COVID jab for nursing mothers, seeing how that was not part of the initial clinical trials, and follow-up has been scarce.

In mid-July 2021, Reuters reported5 that “no trace of mRNA vaccine” could be found in breastmilk, according to one small study.6 Based on analysis of 13 breastmilk samples obtained from seven breastfeeding women who had received an mRNA COVID jab, the researchers concluded that while antibodies are known to pass from mother to child via breastmilk, no mRNA is transferred through this route. As reported by Reuters at the time:7

“The World Health Organization recommends that breastfeeding mothers be vaccinated against COVID-19 and does not advise stopping breastfeeding afterward.

Many mothers have declined vaccination or discontinued breastfeeding due to concern that the vaccine may alter breast milk. Writing in JAMA Pediatrics,8 the authors of the new study said more data is needed to better estimate the vaccines’ effect on breastfeeding.

But the new results ‘strengthen current recommendations that the mRNA vaccines are safe in lactation, and that lactating individuals who receive the COVID vaccine should not stop breastfeeding,’ coauthor Dr. Stephanie Gaw of the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.”

Fast-forward to September 22, 2022, and mRNA has been — you guessed it — detected in breastmilk or 48 hours post-jab. The study, also published in JAMA Pediatrics, notes:9

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends offering the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to breastfeeding individuals, although the possible passage of vaccine mRNAs in breast milk resulting in infants’ exposure at younger than 6 months was not investigated.

This study investigated whether the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA can be detected in the expressed breast milk (EBM) of lactating individuals receiving the vaccination within 6 months after delivery.”

Here, 11 lactating mothers were enrolled. The first breastmilk samples were collected before getting the shot, to establish a baseline control. Samples were then collected after receiving either the Moderna or Pfizer shots, for up to six months post-delivery. As explained by the authors:

“A total of 131 EBM [expressed breastmilk] samples were collected 1 hour to 5 days after vaccine administration. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) were isolated in EBM using sequential centrifugation, and the EV concentrations were determined by ZetaView (Analytik).

The presence of COVID-19 vaccine mRNA in different milk fractions (whole EBM, fat, cells, and supernatant EVs) was assayed using 2-step quantitative reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction. The vaccine detection limit was 1 pg/mL of EBM.

Of 11 lactating individuals enrolled, trace amounts of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were detected in 7 samples from 5 different participants at various times up to 45 hours postvaccination.

The mean (SD) yield of EVs isolated from EBM was 9.110 (5.010) particles/mL, and the mean (SD) particle size was 110.0 (3.0) nm. The vaccine mRNA appears in higher concentrations in the EVs than in whole milk. No vaccine mRNA was detected in prevaccination or postvaccination EBM samples beyond 48 hours of collection …

The limitations of this study include the relatively small sample size and the lack of functional studies demonstrating whether detected vaccine mRNA is translationally active. Also, we did not test the possible cumulative vaccine mRNA exposure after frequent breastfeeding in infants.

We believe it is safe to breastfeed after maternal COVID-19 vaccination. However, caution is warranted about breastfeeding children younger than 6 months in the first 48 hours after maternal vaccination until more safety studies are conducted.

In addition, the potential interference of COVID-19 vaccine mRNA with the immune response to multiple routine vaccines given to infants during the first 6 months of age needs to be considered. It is critical that lactating individuals be included in future vaccination trials to better evaluate the effect of mRNA vaccines on lactation outcomes.”

Now, it’s important to keep in mind that mRNA and spike protein are two different things. The mRNA is what instructs your cells to produce the spike protein. When a mother breastfeeds in the days after her injection, she may be transferring the actual mRNA into her newborn infant, whose cells might then begin to produce spike protein.

However, this study did not analyze the breastmilk for the presence of spike protein. Even if the mRNA is only transferable during the first 48 hours post-jab, that does not mean it’s safe to breastfeed thereafter.

The breastmilk could potentially also transfer spike protein produced by the mother’s body, and that production, we know, can continue for at least four months, and likely longer.

Studies10 have shown SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, i.e., antibodies against the spike protein being produced by the COVID jab, do transfer through breastmilk, and contrary to popular belief, that may not be a good thing. Why?

Because it may trigger immune imprinting. As discussed in “Original Antigenic Sin — The Hidden Danger of COVID Shots,” immune imprinting, also known as original antigenic sin, describes a process in which the first antibodies produced against a given virus starts to predominate, making antibodies against newer strains less and less effective at neutralizing the virus.11

In short, the fear is that repetitive boosting might make you less and less able to ward off new variants, and thus more prone to symptomatic infection. If a baby is exposed to anti-spike antibodies every day for months on end, will that render them more prone to infection as the SARS-CoV-2 virus mutates? We don’t know, but it’s a concern that can’t simply be dismissed with a shoulder shrug.

Walensky also continues to cling to the claim that the COVID shots have no adverse effects on fertility, even though real-world data from around the world are screaming that something has gone terribly wrong. Birth rates have plummeted since the rollout of the shots, raising alarm across the world.

In Germany, birth rates were 10% below the annual norm during the first quarter of 2022.12 Sweden was a 14% drop that same quarter.13 14 According to Gunnar Anderson, a Swedish professor in demographics at Stockholm University, “We have never seen anything like this before, that the bottom just falls out in just one quarter.”15

Between January and April 2022, Switzerland’s birth rate was 15% lower than expected, the U.K.’s was down by 10% and Taiwan’s was down 23%.16 17 18 Hungary saw a 20% drop in birth rate during January 2022, compared to January 2021.19

In a July 5, 2022, Counter Signal article, Mike Campbell reported that in the five countries with the highest COVID jab uptake, fertility has dropped by an average of 15.2%, whereas the five countries with the lowest COVID jab uptake have seen an average reduction of just 4.66%. Below is a chart from Birth Gauge20 on Twitter comparing live birth data for 2021 and 2022 in a large number of countries.

Similar trends are seen in the U.S. as well, which Walensky ought to be well aware of. Provisional data from North Dakota show a 10% decline in February 2022, 13% reduction in March and an 11% reduction in April, compared to the corresponding months in 2021.21

In addition to real-world data showing fertility is suddenly in freefall, there’s scientific evidence suggesting the shots could affect fertility in both women and men.

“A Pfizer-BioNTech rat study found the injection more than doubled the incidence of infertility.”

For example, a Japanese biodistribution study for Pfizer’s jab showed the spike protein from the shots accumulate in female ovaries and male testes,22 23 and there’s credible concern that the COVID jabs will cross-react with syncytin (a retroviral envelope protein) and reproductive genes in sperm, ova and placenta in ways that may impair fertility and reproductive outcomes.

A Pfizer-BioNTech rat study24 found the injection more than doubled the incidence of preimplantation loss (i.e., the risk of infertility), and led to mouth/jaw malformations, gastroschisis (a birth defect of the abdominal wall) and abnormalities in the right-sided aortic arch and cervical vertebrae.25 26

We’re also seeing a sudden uptick in infant mortality. The Exposé27 recently highlighted data from Scotland, showing neonatal deaths in March 2022 were 119% higher above the annual norm.

Male fertility is also under attack by these bioweapons. Israeli research28 29 published in the journal Andrology found the Pfizer COVID jab temporarily but significantly impairs male fertility, dropping sperm concentration by 15.4% and total motile count by 22.1%, compared to baseline pre-jab.

Both eventually recovered, some three months after the last jab, but if you destroy a man’s sperm for three months every time he gets a COVID shot, you’re significantly reducing the probability of him fathering a child for a good part of any given year and the stats reviewed above support this.

Remember, the mRNA shots are recommended at three-month intervals for the original series, and boosters are now being recommended at varying intervals thereafter. In the video below, Amy Kelly, project director for the Daily Clout’s Pfizer document analysis team, reviews this study and other post-jab male fertility concerns.30

As noted by Kory in his August 20, 2022, Substack article:31

“… when a new medicine or device is introduced, you must first assume any adverse effects or deaths reported to be related to the intervention until proven otherwise …

We must assume the vaccines are impacting fertility unless some other provable or credible explanations for a sudden drop in month to month birth rates. So stop the shots until you can prove they are not …

Too many young people dying,32 too many becoming disabled, too many pregnancies resulting in fetal or neonatal death … and now we find out that if we continue with this vaccine obsession, they will not be replaced. This is a humanitarian catastrophe heaped atop the one caused by dangerous gain-of-function research.

When will the world wake up to this rapidly unfolding horror? For those of us who know what is going on, it is hard not to feel helpless as we are forced to watch increasingly apparent and widespread needless death. But we will continue to try to get these truths out despite the massive censorship and propaganda overwhelming the globe.

We have a moral and ethical obligation and take that responsibility seriously no matter what befalls us. Stop the vaccines, now. And if we can’t stop them, we must try to convince everyone we know to no longer agree to get vaccinated. Their lives and our future depend on it.”

At this point, it appears we’re looking at a certain depopulation event. The question then is, are you willing to accept the risks? Are you willing to risk your fertility, even if only temporarily? Are you willing to risk the life of your baby? Are you willing to risk your own? If not, the answer is simple. Don’t take the jab, and if you’ve already taken one or two (or three), never take another.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

• Research presented at the 2022 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference showed that people who ate 20% of their diet from breakfast cereal, frozen food and soda had a 28% faster rate of cognitive decline and a 25% faster rate of decline in executive function

• Cognitive decline may likely be related to the high level of omega-6 linoleic acid from vegetable and seed oils found in junk food; these can trigger mitochondrial dysfunction and cell apoptosis in the brain, which uses nearly 25% of the body’s energy supply

• Multiple studies show people in the U.S., Britain and Canada eat junk foods at levels ranging from 48% to 57%. Dr. Chris Van Tulleken increased his total junk food to 80% for one month and experienced multiple health effects, including gaining 15.4 pounds in four weeks

• Ultraprocessed foods are also associated with obesity, reduced gut microbiome diversity, poor immune health, stunted bone growth and an increased risk of fracture

• As you consider the looming food shortages and choices you make to stock up on shelf-stable food, also eliminate ultraprocessed foods from this list. The food choices you make have an enormous impact on your health and resilience

Research presented at the 2022 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference demonstrated that eating breakfast cereal, frozen foods and soda could lead to cognitive decline and increase your risk of Alzheimer’s disease.1 The researchers were encouraged that the data confirmed past information demonstrating nutrition has a significant impact on brain health.

NOVA (a name, not an acronym) is a food classification system that organizes foods according to the extent they are processed.2 Studies assessing the impact of ultraprocessed foods regularly use this system. Ultraprocessed foods are industrial formulations with five or more ingredients, including sugars, fats, salt, stabilizers and preservatives.

These are ingredients that are only found in ultraprocessed foods and are not commonly used in culinary preparations. The purpose of these is to “imitate sensory qualities” with ingredients that either enhance flavors or disguise undesirable taste in the final product. Many ultraprocessed foods also go through industrial processes for which there is no equivalent in the home, such as molding, extrusion and preprocessing for frying.

Multiple studies have demonstrated that the amount of ultraprocessed food consumed in the U.S. is high. One 2016 study3 found 57.9% of calories study subjects consumed were from ultraprocessed foods. Another 2018 study4 found that 58.5% of calories consumed from 2007 to 2012 came from ultraprocessed foods. An 18-year study5 published in 2021 found the average consumption of ultraprocessed foods rose from 53.5% in 2002 to 57% of the diet in 2018.

As a side note, one prospective study conducted in France6 and published in 2019 in JAMA Internal Medicine7 found something significantly different. In 44,551 participants, only 14.4% of their diet in grams was ultraprocessed food.

Yet, despite this dramatic drop, the researchers also found “a positive association between increased ultraprocessed foods consumption and all-cause mortality risk.” Researchers noted that the study’s participants were already “more health conscious than the general population,” which might lead to less consumption of ultraprocessed foods and lower mortality rates, and that this study’s results should not be generalized to other populations.

Even so, the fact that ultraprocessed foods make up 14.4% of the diets of “more health conscious” people should send a message that ultraprocessed foods are being consumed in historic amounts.

Against this backdrop of mounting scientific evidence8 that ultraprocessed foods increase your risk of disease and early death, organizations like the American Heart Association promote a plant-based diet including “convenient meatless foods you like, such as veggie burgers and vegetarian microwavable meals, on hand for a quick, meatless lunch.”9

The current meatless, plant-based burgers are the very definition of ultraprocessed foods. For example, Impossible Foods has filed 263 global patents on food10 and as Seth Itzkan, cofounder of Soil4Climate wrote:11

“Impossible Foods should really be called Impossible Patents. It’s not food; it’s software, intellectual property — 14 patents, in fact, in each bite of Impossible Burger with over 100 additional patents pending for animal proxies from chicken to fish.”

According to Impossible Foods their ingredients are derived from plants.12 In other words, they are not plants, just derived from plants, in the same way that soy protein concentrate, seed oils and corn chips are naturally derived from plants. Although the ingredient is “plant-derived,” it doesn’t account for the processing used before it reaches the final form.

The study presented at the International Conference in San Diego looked at 10,775 people living in Brazil over an eight-year period. The data showed that there was a correlation between an individual’s “high consumption” of ultraprocessed food and a decline in memory and executive function.13 14

However, instead of using 50% or 60% of the daily caloric intake of ultraprocessed food as high consumption, this study defined high consumption as “more than 20%.” This could mean a mere 400 daily calories for women or 500 calories for men. Lynetta Smith is a clinical dietitian with Citizens Memorial Healthcare in Bolivar. She commented on how meal planning and eating foods prepared and cooked at home could help prevent cognitive decline, saying:15

“There’s a beautiful synergy in our foods, and when we look at dietary patterns that have particular cognitive benefits, they’re ones that have also had a lot of research for cardiovascular benefits.

As people take time to prepare healthy meals at home, it’s a cognitive activity: You have to come up with meal plans, you have to think about your ingredients and measuring and preparing them in a way that uses them well, so you’re using your budget well. Often with meal preparation, you’re working with others so you get that social factor that goes into our brain health.”

Dr. Jean Guan, a geriatrician with CoxHealth, pointed out16 that while the study analyzed the effect of frozen food on cognitive decline, it didn’t mean that frozen foods were inherently unhealthy. She offered the advice of preparing large amounts of heart-healthy foods and freezing them in individual portions. Although it’s still a frozen meal, it’s not manufactured or ultraprocessed frozen food.

The loss of cognitive function was not insignificant. In the study,17 men and women who ate the most ultraprocessed foods had a 28% faster rate of cognitive decline and a 25% faster rate of decline in executive function as compared to those who ate the least.

One of the study’s scientists pointed out to CNN that in Brazil, up to 30% of the total calorie intake comes from ultraprocessed foods. This is nearly half the amount recorded in the U.S. Additionally, the researcher noted that ultraprocessed foods make up 56.8% of the British diet and 48% of the Canadian diet.

The study did not identify whether there was a dose-dependent effect. In other words, they only looked at whether eating greater than 20% of the daily caloric intake in ultraprocessed foods would affect cognitive decline. If a person ate nearly three times that amount, would the rate of cognitive decline be greater?

Dr. Chris Van Tulleken, BBC television presenter of “What Are We Feeding Our Kids?”18 was curious about how ultraprocessed foods affect the body. Over a one-month period the 42-year-old increased his daily intake from 30% of ultraprocessed products to 80%, which mimicked how 20% of the U.K. population eats. By the end of four weeks, Tulleken experienced a myriad of changes, including:19

• Poor sleep

• Heartburn

• Anxiety

• Sluggishness

• Low libido

• Unhappy feelings

• Hemorrhoids (from constipation)

• Weight gain of 7 kilograms (15.4 pounds)

“I felt 10 years older, but I didn’t realize it was all [because of] the food until I stopped eating the diet,” Tulleken told the BBC.20 This is significant since the physician recognized that he had purposely changed his diet, and yet he did not recognize that feeling 10 years older after only four weeks was associated with the food he was eating.

This may help explain how difficult it might be to convince others that the way they’re feeling is related to the chemicals they are consuming. These were the symptoms that Tulleken identified without any testing. During the one-month period, he also underwent several measurements that demonstrated there were significant changes from only four weeks of eating ultraprocessed foods.

Brain scans showed the diet had created new links in the brain from areas responsible for rewards to areas that drive automatic and repetitive behavior. This is a similar neurological response to individuals who consume classically addictive substances, such as alcohol, drugs and tobacco. The scans showed that the brain changes Tulleken experienced in four weeks were not permanent.21

Yet, it is not possible to make the same assumption if an individual follows a diet high in processed foods for months or years. Tulleken also pointed out “if it can do that in four weeks to my 42-year-old brain, what is it doing to the fragile developing brains of our children?”22

Tulleken found that he ate approximately 500 more calories each day during that month.23 This information was consistent with the results of a study24 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in which the researchers compared two diets that were matched for macronutrients, sugar, salt and fiber content.

The difference was that one diet was 80% ultraprocessed products and the other was an unprocessed diet. The group ate the ultraprocessed diet for two weeks and then switched to the unprocessed diet while they were admitted and monitored at the NIH Clinical Center. When participants were eating the ultraprocessed diet they ate more carbohydrates but not more protein and they gained approximately 2 pounds.

During the two weeks they ate the unprocessed diet, they lost 2 pounds. The researchers also measured hormonal biomarkers responsible for feeling hunger and satiety, finding that while participants were eating the ultraprocessed products, ghrelin, the hormone responsible for hunger, increased and leptin, the hormone responsible for feeling full, decreased.

Tulleken had the same experience as his ghrelin level increased by 30% during the month that he ate ultraprocessed foods and he found himself craving food more often and eating more quickly.25

As Tulleken experienced, and many studies have shown, eating a diet high in ultraprocessed foods increases your risk of obesity. This in turn increases your risk for many serious diseases, including:26

• Premature death

• Changes in cholesterol levels

• Type 2 diabetes

• Stroke

• Heart disease and high blood pressure

• Gallbladder disease

• Low quality of life

• Sleep apnea and breathing problems

• Mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety

• Osteoarthritis

• Many types of cancers

• Pain and difficulty functioning

Data from the featured study showed that despite eating enough calories, participants experienced a decline in cognitive function. The key factor in this study was the consumption of ultraprocessed foods, also called junk food. A major component in the production of junk food is vegetable oil27 and vegetable and seed oils are high in the omega-6 fatty acid linoleic acid (LA).28

Historically, it has been noted that as Americans consumed greater amounts of vegetable and seed oil high in LA, there was an increase in the concentration of LA in subcutaneous fat tissue, which correlates with an increase in the prevalence of asthma, obesity and diabetes.29

Additionally, the buildup of LA in fat tissue and platelets is also linked to coronary artery disease (CAD). By comparison, higher levels of omega-3 fat in platelets are inversely associated with CAD, which is compelling evidence that LA promotes heart disease.30

I believe the primary factor behind many diseases in the Western world relates to the high consumption of LA and this is the basis of a book I am currently writing. While many understand the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids is very important, it’s important to realize that LA damages your body’s ability to generate energy in the mitochondria.

Depending on the organ, your mitochondria work better with different kinds of fatty acids. Your brain prefers the omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).31 When there are higher amounts of LA than EPA and DHA, it can damage the mitochondria and trigger apoptosis.

In addition to cell damage, your brain is a high-energy consumer. While it makes up only 2% of the body’s weight, it uses up to 25% of the energy.32 This combination of high energy consumption funneled through the mitochondria and damage to the mitochondria by LA may be a key factor in the development of cognitive decline associated with the consumption of ultraprocessed foods.

Past studies have linked ultraprocessed foods with a higher risk of metabolic syndrome, obesity, high blood pressure and cardiovascular diseases. The basis for these metabolic changes may reside in the negative effect junk food has on your gut microbiome. Reasons for the change in your gut microbiome are likely related to the lack of fiber in junk foods33 and the high levels of refined sugar — something the French scientists also noted in the study I cited earlier.34 35

A diverse gut microbiome is better able to support a healthy immune system. Tim Spector, professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College in London, found this to be increasingly important during the COVID-19 pandemic. Writing in The Conversation, Spector says:36

“As well as mounting a response to infectious pathogens like coronavirus, a healthy gut microbiome also helps to prevent potentially dangerous immune over-reactions that damage the lungs and other vital organs. These excessive immune responses can cause respiratory failure and death …”

A 2021 animal study37 demonstrated that ultraprocessed foods also influence skeletal development. There were two study groups: One received a diet similar to the standard Western diet and the other a standard rat diet. The results revealed that weight gain was lower and total body and leg lengths were also significantly shorter in the experimental group when compared to the control group.

Although the experimental group was underdeveloped, the animals ate significantly more calories. This suggested that the ultraprocessed diet stunted growth, but it was not related to a caloric deficiency. The researchers also examined the vertebral and femoral bone properties and found that the animals in the experimental group had inferior bone parameters when compared to the control group.

The findings indicated there was an increased risk of fracture from poor bone development. Although this animal study demonstrated poor structural development during growth before sexual maturity, it’s important to note that bone formation continues in a human until peak mass is achieved from age 30 to 40 years.38 This raises the additional question of how ultraprocessed foods could affect the risk of osteoporosis in older adults.

Scientific evidence continues to mount demonstrating the multiple negative effects that ultraprocessed foods have on health. The link to cognitive decline is yet another nail in the coffin. It is crucial to eliminate junk foods from your diet. As you consider the looming food shortages and choices you make to stock up on shelf-stable food, also eliminate ultraprocessed foods from this list. The food choices you make have an enormous impact on your health and resilience.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.