Day: January 27, 2023

• 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

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.

• 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

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.

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.