V-Safe Database Confirms COVID Jab Hazards

  • V-Safe, a database managed and monitored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is a voluntary “after vaccination health checker” deployed to collect data on those who got the COVID jab. For the past 15 months, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) have fought a legal battle to get the CDC to release the V-Safe data

  • The V-Safe data confirms suspicions that the COVID jabs are dangerous in the extreme

  • Of the 10 million people enrolled in V-Safe, 7.7% (770,000 people) required medical care after getting the shot and 25% (2.5 million people) missed work or school or suffered a serious side effect that affected their day-to-day life

  • The V-Safe data also shows a massive immune reaction signal. Four million people — 40% — reported joint pain. Two million, or 20%, reported “moderate” joint pain and 400,000, 4%, classified the pain as “severe”

  • The formula the CDC uses to trigger a safety signal is seriously flawed, as the more dangerous a vaccine is, the less likely it is that a safety signal will be triggered. Still, even using that flawed formula, “death” meets all three safety signal criteria and should have been flagged, yet the CDC has taken no action. Congress has a duty to investigate the CDC’s failure to monitor safety

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

In an October 4, 2022, Fox News interview, civil rights attorney Aaron Siri, legal counsel for the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), shared shocking V-Safe data obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention after multiple legal demands.

For more than 15 months, the CDC fought to not release any of these data. ICAN had to file two lawsuits and multiple appeals to get the CDC to hand it over, and when you see the data, you understand why.

By now, many know about the existence of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), a publicly available database for vaccine adverse event reports, jointly managed by the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

V-Safe1 is another database managed and monitored by the CDC. It’s a voluntary “after vaccination health checker” deployed to collect data on those who got the COVID jab.

Anyone in the United States can enroll in V-Safe, using their smartphone, after receiving any dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Parents can also enroll their underage children to keep tabs on health effects. During the first week after each dose, V-Safe will send you a daily text message asking for details on your health and well-being. After that, check-ins are sent out on an intermittent basis.

So, what does the V-Safe data, which the CDC was so reluctant to release, actually show? Are the COVID jabs as harmless as they’re claimed to be? Far from it.

As detailed by Siri, out of the 10 million people enrolled in V-Safe, 7.7% (770,000 people) required medical care after getting the shot and 25% (2.5 million people) missed work or school or suffered a serious side effect that affected their day-to-day life.

As noted by Siri, these numbers are extraordinary. One of the key messages we were given was that while COVID was not a significant threat to all people, getting the shot would limit the number of hospitalizations, deaths and days missed from work due to infection.

Well, we now see that 25% of those who got the shot ended up missing work or school because of the side effects, and 7.7% needed medical care. That’s staggering, and completely nullifies the CDC’s argument that everyone should get the shot, whether they’re in a high-risk category or not, and whether they’ve already had COVID-19 or not.

The V-Safe data also show a massive signal with regard to the jab causing an adverse immune reaction. Four million people, out of the 10 million — 40% — reported joint pain. Two million, or 20%, reported “moderate” joint pain and 400,000, or 4%, classified the pain as “severe.”

As noted by Siri, joint pain is often a sign of an immune reaction and could be cause for concern when it occurs after vaccination, especially when you consider that the shots were supposed to protect the elderly, who already tend to have joint problems.

The V-Safe database also reveals that even though fewer doses of Moderna were registered, it’s mRNA shot accounts for a larger portion of negative effects, compared to Pfizer’s jab.

ICAN has now built a searchable dashboard of this V-Safe data.2 In the video below, Albert Benavides (who goes by the name Welcome the Eagle 88), an RCM expert, data analyst and auditor, provides a tour and overview of how to use the dashboard, including some of its strengths and weaknesses.

In an October 5, 2022, Substack article, Steve Kirsch commented on the V-Safe data dump:3

“V-Safe is a voluntary safety monitoring program put in place by the CDC to monitor adverse reactions after people take a vaccine. The V-Safe data shows that 33.1% of the people who got the vaccine suffered from a significant adverse event and 7.7% had to seek professional medical care.

These are extraordinary numbers. They clearly show the vaccines are unsafe, that the CDC deliberately hid this information from the American public, and that the drug companies falsified the data in the trials … the CDC is not protecting the American people. They are protecting the manufacturers of the vaccines.”

As noted by Kirsch, side effects could be either under- or overestimated in V-Safe, or both, as some might ignore V-Safe requests to answer questions, and others may only sign up or be incentivized to fill out the questionnaire if they suffer a problem.

Additionally, the options for reporting a side effect are predefined and very generic, so people might be experiencing effects that didn’t fit any of the predefined categories of injury. Importantly, death is not reportable to V-Safe, as dead people cannot use their phones. So, we have no way of knowing how many of these 10 million registered V-Safe users have died.

However, “Whether the rates in V-Safe is over-reported or under-reported is a red herring,” Kirsch says. “The issue that should concern everyone is the CDC concealed all the V-Safe data from everyone the entire time.”

In addition to spending taxpayer dollars to prevent the release of this information — which we have every right to — the CDC also stopped promoting use of V-Safe around May 2021, mere months into the COVID jab rollout. As noted by Kirsch, this was probably because “it became crystal clear that it was accumulating data that showed the vaccines were unsafe.”

In an October 3, 2022, article,4 Kirsch also points out that the formula the CDC uses to trigger safety signals — described in its VAERS standard operating procedures manual5 — is “seriously flawed.” Could that be intentional as well?

In July 2021, Matthew Crawford published a three-part series6 7 8 on how the CDC was hiding safety signals. In August 2021, Kirsch also informed the agency of these problems, but was, of course, ignored. Still, “even using their own flawed formula, ‘death’ should have triggered a signal,” he writes. Yet the CDC did not notify the public of what they’d found. Here’s an excerpt from Kirsch article:9

“If you want objective proof of total ineptitude by the CDC and the medical community in monitoring the safety of the COVID vaccines, this is the article you’ve been waiting for. We use their numbers and their own algorithm and show that it should have triggered a safety signal for ‘death.’

There is no way they can argue their way out of this one … We need look no further than the vaccine safety signal monitoring formula10 used by the CDC to prove our point …

The formula the CDC uses for generating safety signals is fundamentally flawed; a ‘bad’ vaccine with lots of adverse events will ‘mask’ large numbers of important safety signals … Let me summarize the key points for you in a nutshell:

PRR [proportional reporting ratio] is defined on page 16 in the CDC document11 as follows …

A ‘safety signal’ is defined on page 16 in the CDC document as a PRR of at least 2, chi-squared statistic of at least 4, and 3 or more cases of the AE [adverse event] following receipt of the specific vaccine of interest. This is the famous ‘and clause.’ Here it is from the document:

Only someone who is incompetent or is deliberately trying to make the vaccines look safe would use the word ‘and‘ in the definition of a safety signal. Using ‘and’ means that if any one of the conditions isn’t satisfied, no safety signal will be generated. As noted below, the PRR will rarely trigger which virtually guarantees that most events generated by an unsafe vaccine will never get flagged.

The PRR value for the COVID vaccines will rarely exceed 1 because there are so many adverse events from the COVID vaccine because it is so dangerous (i.e., B in the formula is a huge number) so the numerator is always near zero. Hence, the ‘safety signal’ is rarely triggered because the vaccine is so dangerous.”

Using a fictitious vaccine as the example, Kirsch goes on to explain how an exceptionally dangerous vaccine will fly under the radar and not get flagged, thanks to the CDC’s flawed formula:12

“Suppose we have the world’s most dangerous vaccine that causes adverse events in everyone who gets it and generates 25,000 different adverse events, and each adverse event has 1,000 instances.

That means that the numerator is 1,000/25,000,000 which is just 40 events per million reported events. Now let’s look at actuals for something like deaths. For all other vaccines, there are 6,200 deaths and 1 million adverse events total.

Since 40 per million is less than 6,200 deaths per million, we are not even close to generating a safety signal for deaths from our hypothetical vaccine which killed 1,000 people in a year … The point is that a dangerous vaccine can look very ‘safe’ using the PRR formula.”

Next, Kirsch calculates the PRR (proportional reporting ratio) for death for the COVID jab, using VAERS data and the CDC’s definitions and formula.

“Even using the CDC’s flawed formula, ‘death’ meets all three safety signal criteria and should have been flagged, yet the CDC has taken no action. Congress has a duty to investigate the CDC’s failure to monitor safety.”

As of December 31, 2019, there were 6,157 deaths and 918,717 adverse events total for all vaccines other than the COVID shot. As of September 23, 2022, there were 31,214 deaths and 1.4 million adverse events total for the COVID jabs. Here’s the formula as explained by Kirsch:13

“PRR = (31,214/1.4e6) / (6,157/918,717) = 3.32, which exceeds the required threshold of 2. In other words, the COVID vaccine is so deadly that even with all the adverse events generated by the vaccine, the death signal did not get drowned out!

But there is still the chi-square test. Chi-square test results were 18,549 for ‘death,’ which greatly exceeds the required threshold of 4. The CDC chi-square test is clearly satisfied for the COVID vaccine. Because the death signal is so huge, it even survived the PRR test.

This means that even using the CDCs own erroneous … formula, all three criteria were satisfied:

  1. PRR>2 [PRR greater than 2]: It was 3.32

  2. Chi-square>2 [Chi-square greater than 2]: It was 18,549

  3. 3 or more reports: There were over 31,214 death reports received by VAERS … which is more than 3

A safety signal should have been generated but wasn’t. Why not? … Does anyone care? Hundreds of thousands of American lives have been lost due to the inability of the CDC to deploy their own flawed safety signal analysis …

It’s been known since at least 2004 that using reporting odds ratio (ROR) is a better estimate of relative risk than PRR.14 I don’t know why the CDC doesn’t use it.”

The CDC is responsible for monitoring both VAERS and V-Safe, and between these two databases, there’s no possible way they could ever say they didn’t know the shots were harming and killing millions of Americans.

The CDC also has access to other databases, including the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), which (before it was intentionally altered15) showed massive increases in debilitating and lethal conditions, including a tripling of cancer cases.16

The findings in these databases have never been brought forward during any of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meetings or the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meetings, at which members have repeatedly voted to authorize the jabs to people of all ages, including infants and pregnant women.

If the CDC was in fact monitoring these databases, as required, there’s simply no way they could have continued to authorize these shots based on the data. Is that why these data were never reviewed? Probably. ACIP and VRBPAC members, for whatever reason, simply didn’t want to know the truth. But the CDC has known all along, and there’s no excuse for not sharing and acting on that data.

The media are ignoring all of this — the V-Safe data and the CDC’s failure to act on a clear safety signal (and the signal being death, of all things!), even when using a formula that was flawed from the start. So, spread the word. Everyone needs to know these facts. It’s not speculation, it’s the CDC’s own data.

The CDC needs to explain why they spent our tax dollars to fight the release of the V-Safe data for 15 months, and why they didn’t halt the shots when a “death” signal was evident. The mainstream press, members of Congress, the medical community and Universities also need to explain why they refuse to investigate these CDC data. To that end, here are a few suggestions for how you can help:

  • Support Sen. Ron Johnson, currently the only senator willing to investigate the truth of the COVID jabs.

  • Write or call your members of Congress and ask them to investigate the CDC’s safety monitoring. As noted by Kirsch, “You simply cannot have a safety agency not be able to monitor safety.”

  • Contact your local newspaper and urge them to investigate and report on the V-Safe data, the VAERS data and the CDC’s failure to act when a safety signal was detected.

  • Share the data on social media and ask why no one in the media, Congress, academia or medical community is investigating these matters.

  • Share this information with your doctor and members of the medical community.

  • Also share it with university administrators, and ask them to explain how and why, in light of these facts, they are still mandating COVID shots for their students.

>”,”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.

Aluminum in Vaccines Linked to Persistent Asthma

  • Children who received all or most of the recommended childhood vaccines that contain aluminum had, at least, a 36% higher risk of developing persistent asthma than children who received fewer vaccines

  • There was a 1.26- and 1.19-times higher risk of persistent asthma for each additional milligram of vaccine-related aluminum exposure, respectively, for children with and without eczema

  • The featured study was funded by the CDC and conducted by current and former CDC staff members

  • A 2005 study found parents who refuse vaccinations reported less asthma and allergies in their unvaccinated children

  • Aluminum, a demonstrated neurotoxin, is added to certain vaccines to increase the immune response

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

Aluminum, the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant,1 may be increasing the risk of asthma in children when injected as part of the standard childhood vaccine schedule. The finding comes from a study funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), raising concerns about the cumulative aluminum exposure children receive when they get their recommended shots.

Aluminum, a demonstrated neurotoxin, is added to certain vaccines to increase the immune response and, with that, theoretically generate a higher response of protective antibodies. An increasing number of parents have expressed concern, however, that repeated exposure to vaccine components such as aluminum could be harming children.

In response to public concern about the childhood vaccine schedule, the Institute of Medicine endorsed the study to look into the risks of chronic conditions such as asthma following vaccination. The featured study, which involved a cohort of 326,991 children, set out to assess “the association between cumulative aluminum exposure from vaccines before age 24 months and persistent asthma at age 24 to 59 months.”2

Animal studies previously found aluminum adjuvants may increase allergy risk due to their influence on T helper 2 cell (Th2)-biased immune response.3 Th2 lymphocytes are known to affect airway inflammation and the hyper-responsiveness that occurs in children with allergic asthma.

The featured study, which was conducted by current and former CDC staff members,4 found that about 6% of children with eczema and 2.1% of children without eczema developed persistent asthma.

Among children with and without eczema, exposure to vaccine-associated aluminum was positively associated with persistent asthma. There was a 1.26- and 1.19-times higher risk of persistent asthma for each additional milligram of vaccine-related aluminum exposure, respectively, for children with and without eczema.5

Children who received all or most of the recommended childhood vaccines that contain aluminum received a cumulative aluminum exposure dose of more than 3 milligrams (mg). This group had, at least, a 36% higher risk of developing persistent asthma than children who received fewer vaccines, and therefore had a less than 3-mg exposure to aluminum.6

The study was observational in nature and stopped short of saying that it proves a link between aluminum-containing vaccines and asthma. The CDC also stated that it has no intention of altering its vaccine recommendations based on this study alone.7 However, the researchers pointed out that rates of asthma in U.S. children steadily increased in the 1980s and 1990s, then remained steady since 2001.

The 2001 date is significant, as most aluminum-containing vaccines were added to the childhood vaccine schedule before 2001. This includes, for example, diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DtaP), hepatitis B, some formulations of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. According to the study:8

“There are many environmental and genetic risk factors for asthma, and any contribution from vaccine-associated aluminum has not been proven or supported through replication. However, because most aluminum-containing vaccines were added to the routine schedule prior to 2001 … observed national trends in asthma prevalence during childhood are not incongruous with the effect estimates observed here.”

The researchers also delved into the mechanisms behind aluminum’s potential to trigger asthma. “Aluminum adjuvants are used in vaccines precisely because they can generate an acute immunologic response with long-lasting effect,” they explained, pointing out that aluminum adjuvants can, in fact, produce asthma in experimental animal models.9

Mice, for instance, develop asthma-like airway inflammation when injected with a chicken protein and an aluminum adjuvant. “Based on what I consider limited animal data, there is a theoretical risk that the aluminum in vaccines could influence allergy risk,” the featured study’s lead author, Dr. Matthew Daley, told AP News.10

Even considering the differences between the development of asthma in children and the induction of asthma in experimental animal models, the researchers stated:11

“[I]t appears biologically plausible that the intended effect of aluminum adjuvants (ie, enhanced immunogenicity against vaccine-preventable diseases) is not the only biologic effect of parenteral administration of aluminum adjuvants in early childhood.”

A past study involving 167,240 children similarly found an association between Hib and hepatitis B vaccines and the risk of asthma.12 Separate research has also found that environmental exposure to heavy metals may induce epigenetic changes, including DNA methylation in receptors involved in the development of asthma.

Specifically, a study published in Human & Experimental Toxicology found an association between increased blood aluminum concentration and the risk of uncontrolled asthma in children.13 Aluminum works are also known to be at increased risk of developing asthma.14 The fact is, experts have been raising concerns about the safety of aluminum vaccine adjuvants for some time.

In 2011, a paper by scientists with the Neural Dynamics Research Group at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, expressed that the scientific community’s understanding of aluminum adjuvants was “remarkably poor” and questioned their use in vaccines:15

“There is … a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans.

In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community.”

While the CDC is just now getting around to studying the potential link between vaccination and asthma, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) worked with asthma researchers at the University of Chicago to explore the issue in 2005.16

The study involved surveys sent to 2,964 U.S. households, which collected data on vaccination status and atopic disease. There were significant and dose-dependent negative associations between vaccination refusal and asthma or hay fever in children with no family history of the conditions.

Vaccination refusal was also negatively associated with eczema and wheezing. In other words, “Parents who refuse vaccinations reported less asthma and allergies in their unvaccinated children.” The CDC study now appears to support this early data.

Speaking with AP News, Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, stated, “This is public health at its best. They are making every effort to find any possible signal that may be a concern. It’s our job to exhaustively examine that to see if that’s true.”17 Indeed, lead author Daley even acknowledged that, if the results are confirmed, “it could prompt new work to redesign vaccines.”18

A math error in a key study used to evaluate the amount of aluminum that can “safely” be injected into infants via vaccination has also previously been found. The error — revealed by scientists at Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) — is in a key U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) study.19

When the aluminum adjuvant was first approved for use in vaccines, more than 90 years ago, it was approved because of efficacy — safety studies weren’t performed. A 2002 document from the FDA even states:20

“Historically, the non-clinical safety assessment for preventive vaccines has often not included toxicity studies in animal models. This is because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic, and vaccines are generally administered in limited dosages over months or even years.”

Still, in 2002, researchers with the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) released a study on medical aluminum exposure on public health in order to estimate the infant body burden of aluminum to infants following a standard vaccination schedule during the first year of life.21

They found that while the body burden of aluminum from vaccinations exceeded that from dietary sources, it was still below the minimal risk level established by ATSDR. In 2011, FDA scientists updated the 2002 study with a current pediatric vaccination schedule and other updated parameters,22 and it’s there that what PIC described as a “crucial math error” occurred.

According to PIC, the study based its calculations on 0.78% of oral aluminum being absorbed into the bloodstream instead of the value of 0.1% used by the ATSDR. “As a result,” PIC noted, “the FDA paper assumed that nearly 8 (0.78%/0.1%) times more aluminum can safely enter the bloodstream, and this led the authors to incorrectly conclude that aluminum exposure from vaccines was well below the safety limit.”23

Christopher Shaw, a professor at the University of British Columbia who has studied the effects of injected aluminum, explained in a news release:24

“We knew that the [2011] Mitkus et al. paper modeling aluminum clearance had to be inaccurate since it was assuming that injected aluminum kinetics were the same as the kinetics of aluminum acquired through diet.

Now, in addition, we see that they did their modeling based on using the incorrect level of aluminum absorption. What is particularly striking is that despite all these errors, since 2011, Mitkus et al. is used by CDC and other entities as the basis for claiming that aluminum adjuvants are safe.”

While researchers continue to raise red flags over the safety of injecting children with aluminum-containing vaccines, millions of children are being exposed to this toxin in the first years of their life. Aluminum adjuvants can persist in the body long-term and penetrate the blood-brain barrier.

They’re also known to trigger adverse neurobehavioral outcomes in mice at vaccine-relevant exposures, leading researchers to conclude in 2013, “Efforts should be made to reduce Al [aluminum] exposure from vaccines.”25

Research published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology in 2020 also found the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule — when adjusted for bodyweight — exposes children to a level of aluminum that is 15.9 times higher than the recommended “safe” level.26 27

The study involved three models to estimate the expected acute and long-term whole-body accumulation of aluminum in children from vaccines, and the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule led to the greatest aluminum burden. The CDC’s vaccine schedule modified to use low dose aluminum DTaP and aluminum-free Hib vaccines led to a lower burden.

However, the lowest expected aluminum burden came from a “vaccine-friendly plan” from Dr. Paul Thomas,28 which recommends giving only one aluminum-containing vaccine per visit (max two) and delaying certain vaccinations.

Considering the serious questions about the safety of aluminum in vaccines, aluminum-free vaccines or at least limiting the number of aluminum-containing vaccines received at one time seems logical. What’s more, further research into these options should be made a priority.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

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.

Canada to become ASSISTED SUICIDE capital of the world

Image: Canada to become ASSISTED SUICIDE capital of the world

(Natural News) It is constitutional to perform medically assisted suicide in Canada, thanks to Bill C-14, also known as the Medical Assistance in Dying Act (MAiD). Any Canadian who could show that their death is “reasonably foreseeable” would be deemed eligible.

In 2017, the first full year following MAiD’s passing, a government study reported that 2,838 people opted for assisted suicide. The numbers skyrocketed to 10,064 by 2021, accounting for more than three percent of all deaths in Canada that year.

A total of 31,664 MAiD deaths had been recorded and the large majority were in the 65 to 80 age bracket when they died.

In 2017, only 34 MAiD deaths were in the 18- to 45-year-old group. It increased to 49 in 2018; 103 in 2019; 118 in 2022; and 139 in 2021. Today, thousands of people who could live for many years are applying to kill themselves. Doctors taking an increasingly liberal view when it comes to defining “reasonably foreseeable” death may have contributed to the increase in applications.

According to Rupa Subramanya, a freelance columnist for National Post and Nikkei Asia, the government amended the original legislation in 2021, stating that one could apply for MAiD even if one’s death were not reasonably foreseeable. “This second track of applicants simply had to show that they had a condition that was “intolerable to them” and could not “be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable.”

In March 2023, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is scheduled to expand the pool of eligible suicide-seekers to include the mentally ill and “mature minors.” This move solicited various negative reactions. Palliative care physician Dr. Dawn Davies, a MAiD supporter when it was first conceived, said she is worried about where this might lead. She could imagine kids with personality disorders or other mental health issues saying they wanted to die.

Brighteon.TV

“Some of them will mean it, some of them won’t,” she said. “And we won’t necessarily be able to discern who is who.”

Attorney Hugh Scher, the founder of Scher Law Professional Corporation, told Subramanya that while other countries have explored extending assisted suicide to minors, those governments have insisted on substantial safeguards, including parental notification and consent.

“Canada is poised to become the most permissive euthanasia regime in the world, including for minors and people with only psychiatric illness, having already removed the foreseeability of death or terminal illness as an essential condition to accessing euthanasia or assisted suicide,” Scher said. (Related: Canadian hospice group pushes to normalize euthanasia of children who are “suffering” – many due to vaccine injuries.)

Mother saves son from assisted suicide

Scher is a consultant to Margaret Marsilla, a mother who found out that his son had an appointment with a doctor who would facilitate his death. Marsilla is doing everything she can just to save him.

According to LifeSiteNews, her son Kiano Vafaeian confirmed that Dr. Joshua Tepper withdrew his support from the young man’s attempt to end his life through MAiD – thanks to his mother Margaret’s social media campaign, which included a petition posted on both Change.org and CitizenGo.

Marsilla said: “We managed to put a little bit of fear in [the doctor], but another doctor might pick up the situation.”

Kiano, 23, was depressed, diabetic and had lost his vision in one eye. He didn’t have a job or a girlfriend. Marsilla was able to access her son’s email on September 7, and learned that he had his death scheduled on September 22.

“I am confirming the following timing: Please arrive at 8:30 am. I will ask for the nurse at 8:45 am and I will start the procedure at around 9:00 am. Procedure will be completed a few minutes after it starts,” the doctor said in the email. The procedure entailed administering two drugs: first, a coma-inducing agent; then, a neuromuscular blocker would stop Kiano’s breathing. He would be dead in five to 10 minutes.

On September 16, Tepper texted Marsilla to say that he’d postponed her son’s death until September 28. After five days, the doctor texted her again to say that he wasn’t going through with it. He apparently wanted nothing more to do with Kiano.

Euthanasia.news has more stories about assisted suicide.

Watch the below video that talks about how the Trudeau administration offers assisted suicide to a veteran struggling with PTSD.

This video is from the Prisoner channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

New Zealand now paying euthanasia doctors $1,000 a pop to murder covid patients.

Saving lives? New Zealand green-lights euthanasia of covid patients.

Euthanasia- and infanticide-promoting philosopher wins $1 Million dollar Berggruen prize.

Sources include:

CommonSense.news

LifeSiteNews.com

Brighteon.com

Military officers speak out about being forced to take “the vaccine” (Bret Weinstein interview)

In an interview in 1992, 100 millionaire globalist Maurice Strong said, “What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

El Paso launches online migrant dashboard to track influx of illegals

Image: El Paso launches online migrant dashboard to track influx of illegals

(Natural News) A new online migrant dashboard was launched in El Paso, Texas as over 60,000 illegal immigrants passed through the overwhelmed city in the last six months.

The “Migrant Situational Awareness Dashboard” provides weekly statistics on the number of migrant encounters that federal agencies report, with data on those released into the community and the number of migrants who were provided services at El Paso’s Migrant Welcome Center.

This new data center was introduced as El Paso extended an emergency declaration in its struggle to handle the ongoing migrant crisis.

Deputy City Manager Mario D’Agostino said the tool “provides transparency to the community regarding the current humanitarian crisis and how it is being handled daily.

He also noted that from day one, they have been open about how “we are respectfully serving the migrants passing through our community and our substantial emergency efforts to deal with the ongoing humanitarian crisis.”

More than 62,000 people passed through El Paso beginning April to mid-September. In September alone, over 13,000 have passed through El Paso – the highest number the city has experienced.

Data showed that agents from Customs and Border Protection are now encountering a weekly average of 2,100 migrants per day, with approximately 70 percent of the individuals and family units coming from Venezuela. Other countries with high numbers are Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua and Cuba.

Illegals pose a major economic burden for El Paso and sanctuary cities

The city is said to have served over 16,600 illegal immigrants at its welcome center, where they are given food, water and assistance before they move forward to their next destination.

Brighteon.TV

The influx has become a major economic burden for El Paso, as it now costs the city as much as $10 million per month. This led to officials sending migrants to sanctuary cities.

Last month, the city was said to have spent $300,000 a day to shelter, feed and send asylum-seeking immigrants to New York City, with the blessing of Mayor Eric Adams. Others were sent to Chicago.

To send them to these cities, officials said El Paso has been chartering nine to 14 buses a day. The city expects $2 million in federal assistance money to help with the situation.

So far, the city has charged travel for over 12,000 migrants – 9,350 of whom were sent to New York City, while another 2,664 to Chicago.

Incidentally, Adams has declared a state of emergency to respond to the city’s migrant crisis, which Adams said will cost New York $1 billion this fiscal year.

“We now have a situation where more people are arriving in New York City than we can immediately accommodate, including families with babies and young children.”

New York City now has over 61,000 people in its shelter system, including thousands who are experiencing homelessness and thousands of asylum-seekers who have been sent over in recent months, from other parts of the country.

D’Agostino previously said the unprecedented surge in migration was testing their infrastructure as borders encounter an average of 1,500 migrants in the El Paso area, creating a shelter issue, and leading to some migrants being sent to hotels.

El Paso opened its migrant respite center after shelters reached maximum capacity and people started pitching tents off the streets. At the Border Patrol Sector, authorities also erected an open-air triage-style processing center to process migrants faster. This includes sections for intake, medical care and a waiting area, as well as buses already equipped with processing technology parked on-site.

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Chris Magnus said the latest wave of migration was driven by people fleeing the “failing communist regimes” of Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba who are not subject to Title 42, or the pandemic public health order that allowed authorities to expel some migrants to Mexico or their home countries. (Related: Mexican drug cartels using illegal immigration flood as cover to smuggle operatives and hard drugs into the US.)

Visit BorderPatrol.news for more information about the ongoing migrant crisis.

Watch the video below to learn more about the illegal immigrants crossing the border in El Paso, Texas.

This video is from the NewsClips channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Venezuela emptying prisons, CRIMINALS blending in with migrants trying to cross US border.

Ex-DHS head warns of immigration and border security crisis following Biden’s executive orders.

Study: U.S. is ALREADY home to one-fifth of the world’s migrant population, but that’s not enough for open borders advocates.

Sources include:

NYPost.com

KFoxTV.com

ElPasoTexas.gov

Edition.CNN.com

Brighteon.com

Consuming too much fast food can cause irreversible brain damage, warn health experts

Image: Consuming too much fast food can cause irreversible brain damage, warn health experts

(Natural News) Fast food consumption is often linked to weight gain and elevated glucose levels, which can increase your risk of getting Type 2 diabetes. According to a study, consuming too much junk food can also cause irreversible brain damage.

Researchers from the Australian National University (ANU) said brain damage may occur by the time you reach middle age, especially if you have a sedentary lifestyle and eat a lot of fast food.

Fortunately, it’s not too late to improve your eating habits and boost your overall well-being.

Fast food consumption linked to greater risk of Type 2 diabetes

According to a review by scientists, people today are consuming about 650 kilocalories more daily than they were in the 1970s. This is equivalent to a fast-food meal that includes a burger, fries and soda.

A kilocalorie (kcal) is equal to one Calorie, with a capital “C,” while 1,000 calories with a lowercase “c” is equal to one kilocalorie. This amount is about one-quarter of the recommended daily food energy needs for men and less than one-third for women.

Nicolas Cherbuin, the lead author of the study and a professor at ANU, said that the extra amount of energy that people consume daily compared to 50 years ago suggests that many people follow an unhealthy diet. Now, people consume too much of the wrong kind of food, such as fast food.

Cherbuin warned that not making changes to your eating habits can increase overweight and obesity risk, along with more cases of serious diseases.

The review was conducted to find out “how normal, but elevated blood glucose levels in individuals without Type 2 diabetes contribute to neurodegenerative processes, and how the main risk factors for Type 2 diabetes, including obesity, lack of physical activity and poor diet, modulate these effects.”

Brighteon.TV

In most cases, “high normal” blood sugar levels progress to impaired fasting glucose. In time, this progresses into Type 2 diabetes. Impaired glucose metabolism is linked to neurodegeneration, which impairs cognitive function.

Additionally, these factors don’t begin at old age but much earlier, so following a healthy lifestyle in young adulthood may offer protective benefits against cognitive decline as you age.

Study findings suggest that the idea that Type 2 diabetes is linked to neurodegeneration, cognitive impairment, dementia and mortality is not new. But these associations are often considered to be most relevant in old age, even though data suggests “that the pathological processes at play are initiated in mid-adulthood or before.”

The researchers advised that the pathological cascade leading to higher FBG (fasting blood glucose) and ultimately Type 2 diabetes often begins “decades before and starts impacting cerebral health and cognition from its onset.” (Related: High-sugar diet increases pregnant women’s diabetes and liver disease risk.)

Having poor eating habits may shrink your brain

Data shows that over 39 percent of the world population is overweight and 13 percent is obese. These shocking figures are triple what it was in 1975, but this percentage is even higher in developed areas like Europe and America, where prevalence is 50 to 60 percent.

According to the study, both diet and physical activity are the main determinants of adiposity or being overweight or obese. In turn, obesity was linked to negative changes in the brain.

The researchers noted that persistently elevated FBG is linked to “brain shrinkage, progressive loss of function across several cognitive domains, the development of dementia and ultimately, premature death.”

Type 2 diabetes main risk factors contribute in a major way to these effects and the condition represents the greatest risk to brain health.

Both diabetes and higher fasting glucose levels are also linked to lower total brain volume. According to a study published in the journal Radiology, obesity may lead to alterations in brain structure and can shrink certain regions.

In men, a higher total body fat percentage was linked to lower brain gray matter volume. Particularly, a 5.5 percent greater total body fat percentage was linked to 3,162 mm3 lower gray matter volume.

Gray matter is the outer layer of your brain linked to high-level brain functions like language, memory, problem-solving, personality, planning and judgment.

Obesity has also been linked to changes in white matter microstructure, which may be related to cognitive function.

Researchers at Loughborough University in England explained that carrying excess weight around your midsection may affect brain health. It can also cause a decline in brain volume. For this study, researchers worked with 9,652 participants with an average age of 55.4, plus or minus 7.5 years

The participants received scores for both body mass index (BMI), a flawed formula that divides your weight by the square of your height and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR).

Those with a BMI and WHR in a healthy range had an average gray matter brain volume of 798 cubic centimeters. However, this decreased to 786 cubic centimeters in people with a high BMI and high WHR.

It’s never too late to improve your eating habits

If you eat too much junk food, but want to boost your brain health and overall well-being, you can start improving your eating habits now. Start by eating more whole, unprocessed foods.

The study authors warned that you may begin to lose neurons and neuron function early in life if you eat poorly. Unfortunately, these changes may be difficult or even impossible to counteract once the damage is done.

Cherbuin warned that it may be too late for you once you reach your 60s. Those who have dementia and other signs of cognitive dysfunction, like brain shrinkage, have increased their risk by consuming too much bad food and not exercising enough.

Cherbuin advised people to follow a balanced diet and exercise regularly as early as possible, preferably in childhood, but even doing so by early adulthood will offer health benefits.

Tips for eating well and improving your brain health

The study shows that eating a lot of processed fast foods can damage your brain, but you can boost your brain health by eating nutrient-dense whole foods. A balanced diet is also key to your mental health and the increased consumption of processed food increases the risk of anxiety and depression.

Follow the tips below to reduce your intake of bad foods and improve your eating habits:

Don’t go cold turkey

If you eat a lot of junk food, take things slow. Instead of eating fast food every day, treat yourself to a burger only two days a week.

The rest of the week, eat meals cooked at home and made with whole foods. Once you get used to cooking balanced meals, stop eating fast food.

Focus on saving money

Eating less junk food and fast food can also help you save money. After all, buying lunch at work every day adds up, while you can save money if you prepare lunch at home and bring it to work instead.

Not sure how much you’ve spent on fast food? Track your expenses with an app. You can also save more money by taking advantage of store sales and using coupons when buying groceries.

Make lower-calorie versions of your favorite dishes

If you’re eating out, choose a healthier version of your favorite dish. You can also try making a vegan version at home or make low-calorie ingredient swaps.

Order the smallest serving on the menu

While dining out, stick to smaller servings. If you’re worried about a small meal not being enough, get a large size of a healthy main dish like a salad, with only a small size of the fattening order, such as French fries.

Drink water instead of soda

If you skip sugary beverages like soda, you can enjoy your cheat day treat. When you’re eating, drink water instead.

Plan ahead

If you eat a lot of fast food because you don’t have enough time to cook at home, make time by planning ahead.

Making meals at home ahead of time will ensure you’re not tempted to eat fast food and waste money. During weekends, double or triple a recipe you’re making and freeze the food in single-serve containers.

This ensures that when you’re craving something, you can reheat the food and enjoy a healthy meal.

Boost your brain health and overall well-being by following a balanced diet and avoiding junk food.

Watch the video below for a healthy vegan pumpkin pancake recipe.

This video is from the CookingIna channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

“Ultra-processed” foods and beverages increase risk of disease and early death; eating more whole foods is key to improving overall health.

Cut the junk: Eating junk food can give you food allergies.

Follow a balanced diet to boost overall health: Over 80,000 cancer cases a year are linked to poor diets, warn researchers.

Sources include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

NAL.USDA.gov

WomensHealthMag.com

Brighteon.com