This Type of Cooking Is Linked to Childhood Asthma

gas stove childhood asthma

  • Evidence shows that cooking on a gas stove contributes to childhood asthma, likely from known respiratory irritants, including nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter

  • President Biden briefly said he would like to eliminate gas stoves by the end of 2023, but quickly backpedaled on it in the face of massive backlash

  • Gas stoves have been in homes since the 1800s, yet asthma rates only began climbing within the last couple of decades. Other factors that may influence the rising rate are more airtight, energy-efficient homes and less time spent outdoors

  • Dietary strategies that help mitigate some of the effects of air pollution include a balanced omega-6 to omega-3 ratio, drinking raw milk and optimizing vitamins B, C, D and E

Visit Mercola Market


A 2023 study

of 27 peer-reviewed manuscripts from previous studies links 1 in every 8 cases of asthma in children in the U.S. to air pollution given off by cooking on gas stoves.

Study authors admit childhood asthma is relatively rare: According to the CDC,

the national prevalence of asthma is just 5.8% in children under 18 years old.

According to the featured study, 42.7% of children under 18 had at least one asthma attack in 2020, 8.8% of which required an inpatient hospital stay. In 2020, 204 children under 18 died following an asthma attack. For comparison, the CDC

recorded 199 deaths in the same age range in 2020 from COVID-19.

It is important to note that asthma is a chronic health condition.

Once the condition develops, asthma symptoms will appear or worsen when an individual is exposed to environmental or systemic factors, such as pollen, viral infections, cold air or exercise.

Symptoms include chest tightness, coughing, shortness of breath and wheezing. The symptoms are a product of swelling in the airways that make it more difficult to breathe. A lack of oxygen can make you feel light-headed.

In addition to knowing and avoiding their triggers, people with asthma can make lifestyle changes that reduce their potential risk for an attack, such as maintaining a healthy weight, managing stress, not smoking or avoiding secondhand smoke and developing healthy sleep habits. I discuss additional dietary strategies you can use to reduce your risk of asthma and allergies below.

The featured study was led by researchers from Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), and the lead author, Talor Gruenwald, is a data scientist at electrification advocacy group Rewiring America, which bills itself

as “focused on electrifying everything in our communities.”

Although the study notes that no “reported new associations between gas stove use and childhood asthma specifically in North America or Europe” were found, in an interview with France 24, Gruenwald said the study still suggests that roughly 650,000 children in the U.S. developed asthma after being exposed to gas stoves.

Based on a 2013 study that found that “living in a home with a gas stove corresponds to a 42% higher chance of current childhood asthma,” Gruenwald and colleagues estimated how many more childhood cases might exist today due to gas stoves, and came up with the 650,000.

Overall, 12.7% of childhood asthma was estimated to be triggered by exposure to gas stoves.

The researchers suggested that asthma in these children could theoretically be prevented since gas stoves are in 35% of homes in the U.S. One researcher in the study, Brady Seals, carbon-free buildings manager at RMI, spoke to a reporter from Yahoo! News, explaining:

“When the gas stove is turned on, and when it’s burning at that hot temperature, it releases a number of air pollutants. So, these are things like particulate matter, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, along with others. So, for example, nitrogen dioxide is a known respiratory irritant. And the EPA, in 2016, said that short-term exposure to NO2 causes respiratory effects like asthma attacks.”

A 2022 study

published by Stanford University found gas stoves pose an annual climate impact equal to 500,000 cars. The data supported a movement that began in California in 2019 to ban gas appliances in new construction.

However, a 2021 New York Times

article notes that “gas cooking doesn’t deserve as much climate-related ire as it has been getting lately, because it represents a tiny part of household energy use and carbon emissions.” In fact, “as of 2015, the most recent year with detailed data

from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, gas stoves accounted for less than 3% of household natural gas use in the U.S.”

The authors of the featured study admitted their data was limited by the number of states that had available data (only nine) and their interpretation may have been skewed by children who were also exposed to other indoor air pollutants, such as tobacco smoke.

And, although the risk could be reduced by better ventilation — only 21.1% of households reported always using a stove vent — they suggest removing gas stoves and replacing them would be a cleaner alternative. “The fact that we have good, and now affordable, alternatives to gas stoves — we’re really showing that we could potentially prevent 12.7% of childhood asthma in the U.S., and I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t want to do that,” Seals said.

Yahoo! News

describes a 2020 RMI study

in which they found homes with gas stoves had 50% to over 400% increased nitrogen dioxide concentrations over homes running electric stoves.

According to RMI, the health effects of nitrogen dioxide in children are not limited to an increased susceptibility to asthma and lung infections. They also include learning deficits, cardiovascular effects and an increased susceptibility to allergies. These increased risks are related to immature development in the lungs and brains, which places children at greater risk of inflammation and other damage from pollutants.

Children also have a longer life expectancy, which gives the pollutants more time to do damage and for diseases to emerge. A 2018 report from the WHO

analyzed studies published within the last 10 years and used input from dozens of experts. The report revealed some of the top health risks of air pollution to children, among them:

  • Adverse birth outcomes

  • Infant mortality

  • Neurodevelopment including lower cognitive test outcomes, children’s mental and motor development and may contribute to autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

  • Childhood obesity

  • Impaired lung development and lung function in childhood

  • Acute lower respiratory infection, including pneumonia

  • Asthma

  • Ear infections

  • Childhood cancers, including retinoblastomas and leukemia

  • Increased risk of chronic lung disease and cardiovascular disease as an adult

Many people who spend a significant amount of time cooking prefer gas cooktops. The heat response time is faster than electric, and it’s easier to control. However, before he called a halt to it in the face of a massive backlash,

the Biden administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission were focusing on climate change and eliminating greenhouse gases to ban gas stoves by the end of 2023, rather than deferring to preferences or convenience.

In response to the featured study, a gas lobby group was quick to criticize that, too, saying it’s an “advocacy-based mathematical exercise that doesn’t add any new science” that has “no measurements or tests based on real-life appliance usage, emissions rates, or exposures.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis lashed out, too, saying that during hurricanes when the power is out across the state, people rely on their gas stoves to boil water and cook food. Matt Dean of the Heartland Institute also blasted Biden’s plan, quoting industry estimates that show it would cost the average American family $1,000 per year, in addition to the initial replacement costs.

In 2021 California company Energy in Depth

called the results of studies that show the dangers of gas cooktops misleading. They quoted one report from Catalyst Environmental Solutions that supports the continued use of gas, and said the studies used to demonstrate health risks and a policy change “mischaracterize emissions from gas stoves while advocating for an expensive and burdensome transition to all-electric.”

So, while we wait to see if a ban is enacted, whether you choose to switch to an electric stove or not is your decision. If you have a gas cooktop, seek to increase the ventilation in your house by always using the stove vent and even opening windows at least once a day, no matter the outdoor weather. Also consider using fans to draw in fresh air from one window and push out stale air through another.

Gas stoves have been part of American households since the 1800s,

yet it is only within the last decades that the incidence of asthma has risen dramatically. Several factors may influence this, not the least of which is that new homes are now more airtight to help lower energy bills.

A lack of airflow and ventilation throughout the home increases exposure to all indoor air pollutants. Additionally, 20 or 30 years ago, children spent more time outdoors and less time indoors in front of digital devices.

But, like most things that have occurred in the last three years, you must ask what is the underlying goal for banning gas stoves?

At the same time they’re talking about banning gas stoves in the U.S., one computer model

shows that if wood and charcoal stoves in sub-Saharan Africa were replaced with both gas and electric stoves, roughly 463,000 deaths each year could be prevented and save approximately $66 billion in health care costs. The move is proposed to prevent indoor air pollution.

So why are gas stoves good for pollution solutions in Africa, but not in America? Tyler Durden from ZeroHedge

sees the push to ban gas stoves in the U.S. as an overreach that hides something far more nefarious.

Since at least 35% of homes in the U.S. use gas stoves, it would be nearly impossible to remove them all and unenforceable to criminalize their use. However, while watching the global news, Durden notes a concerted effort to draw your attention to indoor air pollution and the need to do something about it:

  • Singapore is considering new regulations on indoor air quality, but because of formaldehyde

  • The Conversation

    ran an article titled “indoor air pollution kills”

  • In December 2022,

    Sir Chris Whitty, the U.K.’s chief medical officer, “demands action on indoor air pollution”

  • A January 8, 2023, Guardian lifestyle piece

    about “smelly candles,” called indoor air quality a “going concern” and recommended “frequently ventilating spaces, using vacuum cleaners with Hepa filters, using air purifiers, surrounding yourself with greenery and cleaning regularly”

  • And,

    The Tyee, a Canadian magazine that receives some funding from the Canadian government, ran an opinion piece January 11, 2023, “We Need a Revolution in Clean Indoor Air.” In it they attempted to link indoor air quality to “ending COVID”

  • The Irish Times

    ran a piece January 12, 2023, calling for a health check on indoor air pollution at home and at work

  • Jill Notini, a vice president at the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers argues “ventilation is really where this discussion should be, rather than banning one particular type of technology”

These news stories coincide with the release of a new “smart air monitor” from IKEA,

and a “smart air purifier” from Samsung.

And the coincidences don’t stop there. One report

expects the market share for air monitoring technology will grow to $5.9 billion by 2026.

Durden theorizes that the gas stove ban is a bait and switch. The ban will be set aside, and a compromise reached in which smart air monitors are mandatory in new-build houses, rentals and hotels. Like their smart electricity meter counterparts, they may be used to harvest data and give others the ability to control your home. He expects more news stories in the coming months about poor air quality and how it makes COVID worse.

One of the best options you have to reduce your risk of asthma and allergies is to eat well and fortify your diet with nutrients that can have a protective effect against pollutants as well as boost your immune system. These include:

  • Omega-3 fats — It is essential you have a balance of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids in your diet. One study

    evaluated the results of 695 pregnant women after using either a fish oil or olive oil supplement in the last trimester of their pregnancy. The researchers followed these babies for the first five years of their life.

    They found the children whose mothers took the fish oil supplement had a 30.7% lower risk of asthma when compared to the children whose mothers took the olive oil.

    The researchers theorized that low levels of EPA and DHA increased the children’s vulnerability to inflammation and a sensitized immune system reaction.

  • Vitamins B, C and E — A 2015 review of the literature found studies indicating vitamins B, C and E could modulate the effect of air pollution by reducing oxidative stress and inflammation.

    A human trial found high doses of the combination of vitamins B6, B9 and B12 offset the damage by very fine particulate matter air pollution.

  • Raw milk — Interstate sales or distribution of raw milk is illegal in the U.S. following passage of the U.S. Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, which requires milk crossing state lines to be pasteurized. However, as more about the health benefits of raw milk are learned, demand for the product has grown.

    One study

    followed 983 infants from rural areas in Austria, Finland, France, Germany and Switzerland for their first year of life, looking at their consumption of different types of cow’s milk and comparing that data to rates of common respiratory infections. The data showed that children who drank raw milk had a 30% lower risk of respiratory infections and fever as compared to those who did not.

    If milk was boiled on the farm, it had a diminished protective effect and ultra-pasteurized milk had no protective effect. The researchers concluded the public health impact of minimally processed raw milk may be “enormous, given the high prevalence of respiratory infections in the first year of life and the associated direct and indirect costs.”

    A 2007 study

    involving data from 15,000 children also found raw milk was inversely associated with asthma and may offer protection against asthma and allergy. A 2011 study of 8,334 school-age children found those who drank raw milk were less likely to develop asthma and hay fever than children who drank pasteurized milk.

  • Vitamin D — Evidence supports an association between vitamin D levels and asthma. Daily doses of sunshine in safe amounts without burning is the ideal way to obtain a healthy level of vitamin D. A higher intake of vitamin D-rich foods during pregnancy may lead to a lower risk of asthma

    and rhinitis in children.

    Vitamin D can be found in mushrooms, fish, eggs and dairy products. The only way to know if you have adequate levels of vitamin D is to be tested and monitored during pregnancy.

>”,”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.

Vaccine Debate — Kennedy Jr. vs Dershowitz

  • According to Alan Dershowitz’s interpretation of Constitutional law, you only have the right to refuse to be vaccinated against a disease that would affect only you. You do not have the right to refuse a contagious disease that might spread to others

  • As the basis and justification for his legal orientation on this issue, Dershowitz relies on a 1905 Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Jacobson v. Massachusetts

  • According to Robert F. Kennedy, there is a “big Constitutional chasm” between this 1905 case and today’s vaccine mandates. Jacobson sued to avoid the vaccine and the fine for refusing the vaccine, which was $5. When he lost, he paid the fine. There’s a big difference between paying a small fine, and being forcibly injected with a potentially hazardous vaccine, against your will

  • According to a recent poll, about half of Americans say they want to get the COVID-19 vaccine; 27% say they will “definitely” refuse and another 12% say they will “probably” refuse it

  • 1 in 40 people — not 1 in 1 million — are injured by vaccines, and a clinician who administers vaccines will have an average of 1.3 adverse vaccine events per month

Visit Mercola Market

ℹ️ From Dr. Joseph Mercola

Since COVID-19 first entered the scene, exchange of ideas has basically been outlawed. By sharing my views and those from various experts throughout the pandemic on COVID treatments and the experimental COVID jabs, I became a main target of the White House, the political establishment and the global cabal.

Propaganda and pervasive censorship have been deployed to seize control over every part of your life, including your health, finances and food supply. The major media are key players and have been instrumental in creating and fueling fear.

I am republishing this article in its original form so that you can see how the progression unfolded.

Originally published: August 22, 2020

The video above features a recent vaccine debate between Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of the World Mercury Project and founder/chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense, and Alan Dershowitz, a lawyer and legal scholar. Patrick Bet-David, founder of Valuetainment, moderated the event.

Dershowitz may seem like an odd choice for this discussion, but according to Kennedy, no health official has ever agreed to debate him on the issue of vaccine safety.

Bet-David also notes that every doctor invited to discuss the COVID-19 vaccine on his show declined the invitation. So, here, we get the perspectives of two prominent attorneys instead. The discussion initially grew out of a comment made by Dershowitz in another interview, where he said:

“You have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease. Even if you disagree, you have no right not to be vaccinated. You have no right not to wear a mask. You have no right to open up your business. And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to, literally, take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”

According to Dershowitz’s interpretation of Constitutional law, you only have the right to refuse to be vaccinated against a disease that would affect only you. You do not have the right to refuse a contagious disease that might spread to others.

As far as COVID-19 vaccines are concerned, he does not foresee mandatory vaccinations being an immediate concern, for the simple reason that there won’t be enough vaccines to vaccinate everyone.

Listening to the likes of Bill Gates and others, however, this probably would not be a problem for long, as vaccine manufacturers are fully prepared to go into large-scale manufacturing once a vaccine gets green-lighted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

As the basis and justification for his legal orientation on this issue, Dershowitz relies on a 1905 Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In “Don’t Relinquish Civil Liberties for False Sense of Security,” Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, explained:

“Dershowitz … was quite reckless in the language he used. He basically said that the Supreme Court in 1905 (Jacobson v. Massachusetts), [gives] the right of state governments to come in and forcibly inject you with a vaccine. That’s not really what Jacobson v. Massachusetts said …

In that case, it was smallpox, because that was the only vaccine they had in 1905, but you have to read the Supreme Court decision very carefully to understand everything that the justices said.

They basically concluded — and I think wrongly so, because utilitarianism … is based on a mathematical equation that some can be inconvenienced or sacrificed for the greater good of a majority of people — that people [who] opposed smallpox vaccination could be required to be vaccinated during epidemics.

Even religious objections could be overridden. But there’s also language in that decision that says that the court is not to be interpreted as meaning that if an individual was at risk for being harmed by the vaccination, they were not meant to [have concluded] that ‘cruel and inhuman to the last degree’ would be the standard that would be used.

I think Dershowitz overstated the opinion, although it is a utilitarian opinion. It gives authority to the states to mandate vaccines because anything that is not defined in the Constitution as a federal activity is reserved for the states.

Public health laws, by and large in this country, are written by the states, and the federal authority is requiring vaccination for people crossing territorial borders of the United States [and the federal government] could mandate vaccines for interstate travel, crossing state borders.

But most public health laws that legislatures make are for the residents of the states, which is why we have a patchwork of [vaccine] laws in this country …

I’m very worried that some attorney is going to try to challenge the Jacobson [ruling] in the 21st century. I think that, probably, in any court right now, you’re going to get that ruling upheld and you’re going to get it strengthened. I would advise against [challenging] that one in the Supreme Court.”

Kennedy, in turn, points out there is a “big Constitutional chasm” between this 1905 case and today’s vaccine mandates. The difference is indeed rather significant. Jacobson, who had been injured by a previous vaccine, took the case to the Supreme Court in an effort to avoid the vaccine — and the fine for refusing the vaccine, which at the time was $5.

When he lost, he paid the $5 fine, which Kennedy equates to a traffic ticket by today’s standards. There’s a big difference between paying a small fine, and being forcibly injected with a potentially hazardous vaccine, against your will. As noted by Fisher above, the judge in that 1905 case did not claim government had the right to go into someone’s home and forcibly vaccinate them, Kennedy says.

“About half of Americans say they want the COVID-19 vaccine; 27% say they will ‘definitely’ refuse and another 12% say they will ‘probably’ refuse it.”

Dershowitz, in turn, agrees that the 1905 ruling “is not binding on the issue of whether or not you can compel someone to get the vaccine,” but that “the logic of the opinion … strongly suggests that the courts today would allow some form of compulsion if the conditions that we talked about were met: [the vaccines are] safe, effective, [and] exemptions [given] in appropriate cases.”

Kennedy and Dershowitz were able to agree that the COVID-19 vaccine should remain voluntary, and only be mandated if the public health threat is truly extreme. One of the problems the vaccine industry has nowadays is that the trust in them has significantly eroded.

According to a recent poll

cited by Kennedy, about half of Americans say they want the COVID-19 vaccine; 27% say they will “definitely” refuse and another 12% say they will “probably” refuse it.

“Why do so many Americans no longer trust our regulatory officials and [distrust] this process?” Kennedy asks. “One of the reasons is … vaccines are a very different kind of medical prerogative.

It is a medical intervention that is being given to perfectly healthy people, to prevent somebody else from getting sick. And it’s the only medicine given to healthy people.

So, you would expect that we would want that particular intervention to have particularly great guarantees that it’s safe. Because we’re saying to an individual, we are going to make you make this sacrifice for the greater good … Our side of the bargain should be, we want this to be completely safe. But, in fact, what we know about vaccines … is that they’re unavoidably unsafe.”

We often hear that vaccine injuries occur at a rate of 1 in 1 million. This, however, is a gross underestimation. Kennedy discusses an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Healthcare Research Quality (AHRQ).

They conducted a machine cluster analysis of health data collected from 376,452 individuals who received a total of 1.4 million doses of 45 vaccines. Of these doses, 35,570 vaccine reactions were identified, which means a more accurate estimate of vaccine damage would be 2.6% of all vaccinations.

This means 1 in 40 people — not 1 in 1 million — are injured by vaccines, and a clinician who administers vaccines will have an average of 1.3 adverse vaccine events per month. In other words, we are asking 1 in 40 people to sacrifice their health in order to protect “hypothetical people from catching that particular disease,” Kennedy says.

Importantly, “it’s not hypothetical that vaccines cause injuries,” Kennedy says. The U.S. Vaccine Court has paid out $4 billion to patients permanently damaged or killed by vaccines, and that’s just a small portion of all the cases filed. According to Kennedy, less than 1% of people who are injured ever get to court, due to the high bar set for proving causation.

Vaccine makers also have no liability for injuries. This worsens risks, as they have no real incentive to make sure their products are safe, not only in the short run, but also long-term.

And, as noted by Kennedy, the reason vaccine manufacturers were given immunity in the first place was because they admitted vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and there’s no way to make them 100% safe.

They were getting sued for injuries to the point they said they could not continue to manufacture vaccines, which is why the U.S. government in 1986 agreed to indemnify them against lawsuits under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, and set up a government-run Vaccine Court instead.

So, when you sue for a vaccine injury, you’re actually suing the U.S. government, and payouts are paid for by the U.S. public via a small fee tacked on to each vaccine sold.

Kennedy goes on to discuss some of the disturbing preliminary results emerging from current COVID-19 trials. In the case of Moderna, its mRNA vaccine (mRNA-1273) was found to cause systemic side effects in 80% of Phase 1 participants receiving the 100 microgram (mcg) dose.

Side effects ranged from fatigue (80%), chills (80%), headache (60%) and myalgia or muscle pain (53%). After the second dose, 100% of participants in the 100-mcg group experienced side effects. This is important to note as, unlike the flu vaccine, the coronavirus vaccine will be a two-dose regimen and most likely recommended to be repeated annually, just like the flu vaccine.

The 45 volunteers were divided into three dosage groups — 25 mcg, 100 mcg and 250 mcg — with 15 participants in each. Even in the low-dose group, one participant got so sick he required emergency medical care. “That’s 6%,” Kennedy says.

In the high-dose (250 mcg) group, 100% of participants suffered side effects after both the first and second doses, and three of the participants suffered “one or more severe events.”

Keep in mind, the participants in Moderna’s Phase 1 trial were healthy individuals between the ages of 18 and 55.

Kennedy recites some of the exclusionary criteria of these trials, such as you cannot be overweight, you must be a lifelong nonsmoker, you cannot have a family history of respiratory problems or seizures, you cannot have asthma, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis or other autoimmune disease.

“These are the people they’re testing the vaccine on, but that’s not who they’re going to give the vaccine to,” Kennedy says. Indeed, over 90% of Americans are metabolically unhealthy and struggle with chronic health conditions that can make them more prone to vaccine complications, yet these, and frail elderly, are most vulnerable to COVID-19 and would theoretically stand to benefit from the vaccine most.

If the vaccine causes severe side effects in young, healthy individuals, what will the results be in those who are old, frail and/or have underlying conditions or compromised immune systems?

“You’re going to see a lot of people dropping dead,” Kennedy predicts. “The problem is, Anthony Fauci put $500 million of our [tax] dollars into that vaccine. He owns half the patents. He has five guys working for him [who are] entitled to collect royalties.

So, you have a corrupt system, and now they’ve got a vaccine that is too big to fail. They’re not saying this was a terrible, terrible mistake. They’re saying, ‘We’re going to order 2 million doses of this [vaccine]’ … And, they have no liability … No medical product in the world would be able to go forward with a [safety] profile like Moderna has.”

Admittedly, the interview is a rather long one — an hour and 20 minutes — but if you have the time, I encourage you to listen to it in its entirety, as Kennedy and Dershowitz cover far more than some of the key highlights I’ve summarized here. You could speed it up to 1.5 to 2 times, which is my approach for most videos now as there is so much video content to consume.

I would not be surprised if Kennedy’s prediction that the COVID-19 vaccine or vaccines will cause severe harm to a great number of people. I also disagree with Dershowitz’s position that anyone involved in medical manufacturing “obviously” has a keen interest in not hurting people.

Kennedy correctly points out that’s clearly not the case, seeing how drug companies have repeatedly been found to knowingly commit fraud in the name of profit. The opioid epidemic is but one glaring example where company executives knew they were causing harm and chose to do it anyway. Trust is earned, and the drug industry has, as Kennedy points out, eroded the public’s trust by their own malfeasance.

The drug industry and government health officials expect us to simply trust that a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine will be produced in record time. From my perspective, such trust would be misplaced. Their history simply doesn’t warrant it.

I’ve reviewed the historical failures of coronavirus vaccines in previous articles, as well as the potential hazards associated with mRNA vaccines. Importantly, we do not yet know what injecting mRNA to reprogram our DNA might actually do in the long run, since no mRNA vaccine has ever been licensed, but there’s reason to suspect it won’t be entirely beneficial.

The good news is that we probably will not even need a vaccine against COVID-19. As I have previously reviewed, there are loads of strategies to improve your immune system.

Other treatments like nebulized peroxide are really effective if you are already sick. And, as a foundational prophylactic, remember to optimize your vitamin D level, as vitamin D appears to significantly lower your risk, both of contracting the infection and developing severe symptoms, as reviewed in “Vitamin D in the Prevention of COVID-19.”

I’ve put together a comprehensive report on the topic of vitamin D for COVID-19 prevention, which you can download here.

dr. mercola's report

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.

Defense Department to boost production of artillery ammunition by 500% for Ukraine… but will take two years just to build the new factories

Image: Defense Department to boost production of artillery ammunition by 500% for Ukraine… but will take two years just to build the new factories

(Natural News) The Department of Defense is planning to boost production of artillery ammunition by 500 percent over the next two years – not for the nation’s benefit, but for Ukraine.

Such a move would push conventional ammunition production to levels not seen since the Korean War, as the Pentagon hopes to invest billions of dollars more to make up for supply shortfalls caused by America’s massive military aid shipments to Kyiv.

Under the Defense Department’s proposal, the United States would raise production levels for 155mm artillery shells to 90,000 rounds every month.

This is a massive departure from last month’s announcement by Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth, who said that the goal was to manufacture “20,000 rounds a month” by the end of spring of 2023 and 40,000 rounds a month by 2025.

The Defense Department will spend roughly $1 billion a year over the next 15 years to fund new facilities to make artillery ammunition and to modernize current government-owned ordnance production facilities to increase automation, improve worker safety and make munitions much quicker. This is on top of the $1.9 billion Congress allocated to the Army for its current defense production efforts.

“We are really working closely with industry to both increase their capacity and also the speed at which they’re able to produce,” said Wormuth. She added that this effort includes identifying “particular components that are sort of choke points” and “sourcing those to try to be able to move things more quickly.”


US arms commitments to Ukraine to continue despite supply shortfalls

Before the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, the Army was producing 14,400 unguided artillery shells a month. This amount was regarded as sufficient for the military’s way of war, which has for the past few decades been focused almost exclusively on dealing with low-tech enemy combatants in militias or insurgencies.

The desire to massively increase artillery ammunition production comes after U.S. officials expressed concerns regarding how America’s military aid shipments to Ukraine may have depleted the country’s stockpile of artillery ammunition. Some defense officials pointed out how the country’s supply of 155-millimeter rounds was “uncomfortably low” and “not at the level we would like to go into combat.”

Despite the massive shortfalls in crucial military stockpiles, the U.S. is still committing more and more resources to Ukraine. As of Jan. 18, America had already sent or committed at least 160 M777 Howitzer artillery pieces and just under 1.1 million 155mm artillery rounds. Despite this already massive deployment, it still may not be enough – and Kyiv is burning through the 155mm rounds fast.

The 155mm unguided artillery shells for howitzers have become the cornerstone of the nearly year-long conflict, with both Ukrainian and Russian troops firing thousands of rounds at each other every day along a front that stretches over 700 miles long. U.S. officials estimate that these weapons are likely responsible for the greatest percentage of war casualties, which are now thought to be more than 200,000 total.

Last month, Ukraine used 14,000 rounds of 155mm ammunition every 48 hours on average – roughly the same number produced by the U.S. per month before the conflict.

The Army’s recent decision to expand its artillery ammunition product is, according to New York Times writers John Ismay and Eric Lipton, “the clearest sign yet that the United States plans to back Ukraine no matter how long the war continues.”

Learn more about other threats to America’s national security at

Watch this episode of “The New Atlas” as host Brian Berletic discusses how the U.S. has pledged to send over M1 Abrams main battle tanks to Ukraine, further depleting American military stockpiles.

This video is from the channel The Prisoner on

More related stories:

Think tank: America’s defense industry is not prepared for a war with China over Taiwan.

Former top adviser to Ukrainian president says country will lose its war against Russia.

German intelligence agency: Ukraine losing HUNDREDS of soldiers daily… the situation is not sustainable.

NATO members are running out of weapons that they can send to Ukraine.

Biden regime now tapping secret ammo supply depot in Israel to continue supplying Ukraine.

Sources include:

Gas and diesel prices expected to increase as crack spread soars

Image: Gas and diesel prices expected to increase as crack spread soars

(Natural News) The crack spread, which refers to the overall pricing difference between a barrel of crude oil and the petroleum products refined from it, soared to a three-month high $42.41 Tuesday, January 24. An analysis of Refinitiv Eikon data showed that the five-year January average was only $15.56.

This indicates that the country is facing a shortage of already-tight fuel supplies, which could lead to more expensive gasoline and diesel in the market.

The industry measures refining margins using a rough calculation called the “3-2-1 crack spread.” For every three barrels of crude oil the refinery processes, it makes two barrels of gasoline and one barrel of distillates like diesel and jet fuel.

“High spreads indicate gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products are in short supply, while low spreads mean an abundance of supply. Spread direction is also important – if rising, it would mean fuel inventories are declining,” Tyler Durden of ZeroHedge wrote.

Reuters article emphasized how this could further impact fuel supply scarcity.

“A diesel-producing unit at PBF Energy’s Chalmette, Louisiana refinery was shut following a fire on Saturday. It could be out for at least a month. Exxon Mobil said Monday it will perform planned maintenance on several units at its Baytown, Texas, petrochemical complex,” Reuters reported.

The maintenance season could be much lengthier than usual, with many U.S. Gulf Coast refineries still running below capacity after winter storm Elliott damaged about 1.5 million barrels per day of refining capacity in December. A Suncor refinery in Commerce City, Colorado, has also remained offline since the storm.


Moreover, in spring, refinery overhauls doubled in number and many of these maintenance activities were postponed due to the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Some are due to record-high margins driving increased profitability for oil companies. All outages and planned overhauls are going to make it difficult for refiners to catch up with demand as inventories are relative to historical levels.

“If we aren’t hearing the alarm bells, it’s because we’re deaf after refining margins reached eye-watering levels in 2022 when the 3-2-1 crack spread briefly surged above $60. But from a historical perspective, current margins are sky-high, as well,” Bloomberg Opinion‘s Javier Blas said.

Government allocates $118m to accelerate biofuel production

Amid the tightening fossil fuel supply, President Joe Biden and his administration are “seamlessly” and quietly promoting the acceleration of domestic biofuel production.

According to the Department of Energy (DOE) website, the government is allocating $118 million in funding for 17 projects that would accelerate the production of sustainable biofuels needed for transportation and manufacturing purposes.

The selected projects, which are located at universities and private companies, will drive the domestic production of biofuels and bioproducts by catalyzing biorefinery development to create sustainable fuels that reduce fossil fuels emissions. (Related: Biden’s chaotic, anti-fossil fuel policies are threatening global energy security.)

The statement further indicated that the move supports Biden’s goals to deliver an equitable, clean energy future that would put the U.S. on a path to achieve net-zero emissions by no later than 2050. Also, projects selected as part of this funding opportunity will contribute to meeting DOE’s goal to achieve cost-competitive biofuels and at least a 70 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

“Biofuels are a versatile tool because they have the immediate potential to power our ships, trains, airlines, and heavy-duty vehicles – a huge contributor to total carbon emissions – with a significantly reduced carbon footprint,” Energy Secretary Jennifer M. Granholm said. She added that the DOE investments are helping to build out a domestic bioenergy supply chain that increases America’s energy independence, creates jobs and accelerates the adoption of cleaner fuels for transportation needs.

Follow for updates on the already tight fuel supply in the United States.

Watch the video below that talks about the fed emergency declared in eight states due to major gas and diesel shortages.

This video is from the Ezekiel34 channel on

More related stories:

Warning: Nearly 25% of Americans are facing risk of power blackouts this winter, thanks to Biden admin’s anti-fossil fuel policies.

Americans should expect higher diesel prices, lower supply as winter nears.

America’s diesel fuel shortage could CRIPPLE the supply chain by Thanksgiving.

Nebraska and South Dakota both declare fuel supply emergencies amid escalating energy crisis.

Sources include:

US officials to talk with Dutch counterparts about restricting exports of chip-making gear to China

Image: US officials to talk with Dutch counterparts about restricting exports of chip-making gear to China

(Natural News) Officials from the United States are meeting with counterparts from the Netherlands in Washington, D.C. on Friday, Jan. 27, to talk about putting up new restrictions on exporting semiconductor manufacturing equipment to China.

The two nations could reach an agreement on mutual export bans on the same day if they can agree on the details, said one source who spoke with Reuters on condition of anonymity. The source added that it is also possible that even if the two nations immediately reach an agreement, no public announcement may be made just yet. (Related: Experts: Semiconductor ban accelerates severing of US-China ties.)

Back in October, the administration of President Joe Biden published wide-ranging export controls, including measures to tightly restrict Chinese access to American semiconductor manufacturing technology, as part of a new trade war to slow down the communist nation’s technological and military advances.

But since publishing those export control, the White House has not been able to convince key allies, most notably the Netherlands and Japan, to implement similar controls on exports. Their participation is seen as essential to making the restrictions effective.

Fortunately for the White House, Japanese officials are also expected to discuss terms with their U.S. and Dutch counterparts regarding setting new limits on what technology in the semiconductor manufacturing industry can be supplied to Chinese companies.

Dutch, Japanese companies crucial producers of equipment for making semiconductors

The Netherlands’ cooperation is necessary due to the country being home to ASML Holding NV, the world’s leading maker of deep ultraviolet lithography equipment, which is critical for making semiconductors.


Other key companies that work with the necessary technologies for manufacturing semiconductors include America’s Applied Materials and Japan’s Nikon Corporation and Tokyo Electron.

If the three companies are able to come to an agreement, their nations’ governments would set strict limits on the export of certain goods manufactured by the above-mentioned companies to China, without which attempts to set up similar production lines may be impossible.

Another person that spoke with Reuters said a central concern for Japanese and Dutch negotiators is that even small changes to the supply chain could reignite the global chip shortage that created havoc for the past two years and has only started easing these last few months.

Dutch officials are also standing by their stance that any export controls must be tailored to the national security concerns of the three nations and not give the appearance that the U.S. is simply trying to manipulate the global semiconductor market to favor its own chipmaking industry.

Export controls could push China to develop its own semiconductor tech

Following reports that negotiations between the Dutch and U.S. may conclude soon, China’s chipmakers declined in the stock markets, including Shanghai’s Semiconductor Manufacturing International Hua Hong Semiconductor. The offshore Chinese yuan also dropped in value against the dollar, reversing gains made in recent weeks.

“This sets the next escalating move in the U.S.-China tech war a bit more meaningful and could weaken yuan sentiment a tad in the near-term,” noted Fiona Lim, a foreign exchange strategist at Malayan Banking Berhad in Singapore.

China has been trying to fight back against U.S. efforts to prevent it from accessing crucial technologies. In December, Beijing filed a dispute with the World Trade Organization in an attempt to overturn U.S.-imposed export controls to no avail.

“If they cannot get those machines, they will develop them themselves,” said ASML CEO Peter Wennink, who warned that the export controls could push China to put more resources into developing its own semiconductor industry. “That will take time, but ultimately they will get there.”

Watch this clip from G News suggesting that it will take China at least 20 more years to catch up with the U.S. on semiconductor development.

This video is from the Chinese Taking Down Evil CCP channel on

More related stories:

Michael Pento: China’s 3% economic growth in 2022 is QUESTIONABLE.

Samsung Q4 2022 profits DROP 69% due to slowing global economy and plummeting demand for semiconductors.

Taipei to comply with US chip export rules directed at Beijing.

Taiwan chip giant warns against global supply devastation if China attacks.

US, Japan to develop next-generation 2-nm microchips to create redundant global supply.

Sources include:

Amazon warehouse workers in Britain walk out of their jobs over paltry pay increase, terrible working conditions

Image: Amazon warehouse workers in Britain walk out of their jobs over paltry pay increase, terrible working conditions

(Natural News) Hundreds of Amazon workers in the United Kingdom walked out of their jobs on Wednesday, Jan. 25, in the first-ever formal industrial action in the country against the tech giant.

The workers, affiliated with the GMB trade union, walked out of an Amazon warehouse in the city of Coventry in central England, known as BHX4 near the major Birmingham Airport. Workers said they walked off over a “derisory” offer from Amazon executives of a 50 pence ($0.62) an hour pay raise offer. (Related: Amazon becomes first company ever to lose $1 trillion in market value.)

The workers began their 24-hour strike just after midnight by walking out of the warehouse, leaving work unfinished. A CNBC reporter who visited the strike noted that workers were in high spirits, gathering around bonfires established near the warehouse, waving GMB union flags and posters reading “Fight for £15” and calling for Amazon workers not affiliated with the union to sign up. Another sign near the gathering read, “The wrong Amazon is burning.”

GMB believes around 300 of the warehouse’s 1,000 employees joined the walkout, and the union is organizing larger-scale demonstrations in the coming days unless the workers’ demands are met.

Workers want higher wage and better working conditions

Darren Westwood, one of the workers taking part in the Coventry strike, noted that the walkout was “historic,” and said it “has been a long road” of organizing workers to get to that point.

“We all saw the profits they’re making during the pandemic – that’s what angered people more,” said Westwood. “We were expecting a better increase than what they were imposing.”


Inflation in the U.K. has soared due to increased energy costs and supply chain disruptions. Consumer prices rose by nearly 11 percent year-over-year in December, worsening the nation’s cost of living crisis.

Westwood pointed out how many Amazon employees work 60 hours a week just to pay the bills.

“Someone the other day said we’re treated like robots – no, robots are treated better,” he said.

The offer to raise pay by 50 pence an hour is equivalent to a five percent raise and is well below inflation. Amazon introduced the pay increase during the summer of 2022, but warehouse workers said this raise fails to match the rising cost of living.

Workers are demanding a minimum pay of 15 pounds ($18.55) an hour. This would put British Amazon workers in line with their American counterparts, who make $18 an hour. They also want better working conditions. Workers have been raising concerns non-stop over the past year about long working hours and high rates of injury.

Workers have also pointed out how unrelenting their workload is, as well as how aggressive the tech-enhanced monitoring of employees has become.

A spokesperson for the tech giant said in a statement that the Amazon workers involved in the walkout represent “only a fraction of one percent of our U.K. employees.” The spokesperson claimed that pay for Amazon’s U.K. warehouse workers has increased by 29 percent since 2018, and that all workers, including the one who are on strike, received a one-time payment of 500 pounds ($618) to help with the cost-of-living crisis.

Westwood has called Amazon a “bully” and has claimed that the company is trying to intimidate workers into giving up their collective action efforts.

“During the pandemic, people were thanking us and we appreciated that, but Amazon were still making money, while we feel like we’ve been left behind,” he said. “The money is there. I know people say that it’s the politics of envy, but we’re not asking for [Jeff Bezos’s] yacht or his rocket. We just won’t be able to pay our way – and that’s all we’re asking.”

More news about Amazon can be found at

Watch this episode of “Rudyk Report” discussing how Amazon is doubling its employee terminations.

This video is from the Rudyk Report channel on

More related stories:

Collapse of woke tech companies continues as Amazon announces huge layoffs.

Amazon’s iRobot Roomba vacuums caught spying on users, taking photos of them on the toilet and posting to social media.

Amazon to fire 20,000 employees – the largest staff reduction in company’s history.

Fewer Amazon shoppers are satisfied with the company’s services.

Jeff Bezos to dump most of his $124 billion net worth into fighting “climate change” (which means left-wing causes).

Sources include: