Day: March 11, 2023

• I spoke with “Tea Time,” a program by Children’s Health Defense, about the dangers of fake meat products to help raise awareness about this latest assault on human health

• Fake food — including lab-grown meat, animal-free dairy and plant-based meat — is the globalists’ latest attempt to control the food supply

• The globalists are trying to replace animal husbandry with lab-grown meat, which will allow private companies to effectively control the human population

• The idea that animals must be removed from agriculture to save the planet is flawed; animals are an integral, and necessary, part of the restorative process

• Fake meat is an ultraprocessed mixture of chemicals, GE ingredients, pesticides and toxic linoleic acid that will promote chronic disease

At face value, fake meat sounds like the perfect solution to end world hunger, protect animal welfare and save the planet from environmental destruction. Even a brief look below the surface reveals a much more nefarious reality, however.

To help raise awareness about this latest assault on human health, I recently spoke with host Polly Tommey on “Tea Time,” a program by Children’s Health Defense, about the dangers of fake meat products.

Fake food — including lab-grown meat, animal-free dairy and plant-based meat — is the globalists’ latest attempt to control the food supply. Former U.S. Secretary of State and national security adviser Henry Kissinger once said, “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people.”

Controlling people is their whole agenda.

The globalists have long held a monopoly on the grain industry with their patented genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the early 2010s, not many people knew about GMOs. In 2011, we started to educate the public about their dangers, as they posed a major threat to public health and the environment.

In 2012, a ballot initiative was launched in California to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods and food ingredients. The initiative was narrowly defeated due to massive donations from multinational corporations, but we won in the long term because awareness of GMOs in the food supply significantly increased. Now, most health-conscious people avoid GE/GMOs.

A similar trend is now occurring with fake food. The globalists are trying to replace animal husbandry with lab-grown meat, which will allow private companies to effectively control the entire food supply.

Many people are aware of the pitfalls of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) — unnatural diets of GMO grains, crowded conditions, inhumane treatment, excessive pollution and rampant spread of disease. CAFOs are bad — but the new fake food era is going to be even worse.

With their patented fake meat products, the globalists will have unprecedented control over people’s health.

It sounds noble to try to provide for the entire world’s population using animal-free methods, but it’s a deception.

Will Harris is a regenerative farming pioneer who runs White Oak Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia. He produces high-quality grass fed products, including beef and other animal products, in a way that’s good for consumers, the environment and the financial health of his business. While the globalists are spinning the idea that animal foods are destroying the planet, when raised regeneratively the way Harris does, this is far from the truth.

It’s the fake foods that will ultimately jeopardize the environment. “We are sequestering 3.5 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent for every pound of grass fed beef we sell. Ironically, the same environmental engineers did an analysis on Impossible Burgers,” Harris said on “The Joe Rogan Experience.” “They’re emitting 3.5 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent.”

Impossible Foods, along with Beyond Meat, is a major player in the fake meat marketplace. It claimed to have a better carbon footprint than live animal farms and hired Quantis, a group of scientists and strategists, to prove its point. According to the executive summary, its product reduced environmental impact between 87% and 96% in the categories studied, including land occupation and water consumption.

This, however, compares fake meat to meat from CAFOs, which are notoriously destructive to the environment and nothing like Harris’ farm. Harris commissioned the same analysis by Quantis for White Oaks and published a 33-page study showing comparisons of White Oaks Pastures’ emissions against conventional beef production.

While the manufactured fake meat reduced its carbon footprint up to 96% in some categories, White Oaks had a net total emission in the negative numbers as compared to CAFO-produced meat.

Further, grass fed beef from White Oak Pastures had a carbon footprint that was 111% lower than a typical U.S. CAFO, and its regenerative system effectively captured soil carbon, which offset the majority of emissions related to beef production.

“The WOP [White Oak Pastures] system effectively captures soil carbon, offsetting a majority of the emissions related to beef production,” the report stated. “In the best case, the WOP beef production may have a net positive effect on climate. The results show great potential.”

So, the idea that animals must be removed from agriculture to save the planet is entirely flawed. In fact, animals are an integral, and necessary, part of the restorative process.

Fake meat is marketed as a health food, but it’s nothing more than a highly ultraprocessed mixture of chemicals. Impossible Foods, for instance, uses genetic engineering to insert the DNA from soy plants into yeast, creating GE yeast with the gene for soy leghemoglobin.

Impossible Foods refers to this compound as “heme,” but technically plants produce non-heme iron, and this is GE yeast-derived soy leghemoglobin.

Heme iron only occurs in meat and seafood. Impossible Foods’ GE heme is used in their fake meat burgers as a color additive that makes the product appear to “bleed” like real meat.

The health effects of GE heme are unknown, but this didn’t stop the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from approving soy leghemoglobin in 2019. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a lawsuit challenging the approval, which they called “unusually rapid”

and risky for public health.

In their lawsuit, CFS points out that soy leghemoglobin is produced using synthetic biology, or “genetic engineering on steroids,” which does not shuffle DNA pieces between species but instead constructs new biological parts, devices and systems that do not exist in the natural world:

The reason why Impossible Foods turned to synthetic biology to produce GE soy leghemoglobin is because it couldn’t extract enough of the substance directly from soybean roots to produce its fake meat products on an industrial, mass-produced scale. The FDA GRAS for soy leghemoglobin is 526 pages long, if that gives you any idea of the industrialized complexity of this so-called GRAS “health” food.

Beyond Meat is similarly industrially processed. Beyond Burger patties contain 22 ingredients. Among them are expeller-pressed canola oil, pea protein isolate, cellulose from bamboo, modified food starch and methylcellulose

— hardly “health” foods. To morph these ingredients into a patty that resembles meat require further processing.

It’s revealing, too, that while truly natural foods cannot be patented, Impossible Foods holds at least 14 patents, with about 100 more pending.

Considering that many ingredients in fake meat products are made from GE soy,

it’s not surprising that they’re also contaminated with the herbicide glyphosate. Consumer advocacy group Moms Across America (MAA) commissioned Health Research Institute Labs (HRI Labs), an independent laboratory that tests both micronutrients and toxins found in food, to determine how much glyphosate is in the Impossible Burger and its competitor, the Beyond Burger.

The total result of glyphosate and AMPA, the main metabolite of glyphosate, in the burgers was 11.3 parts per billion (ppb) in the Impossible Burger and 1 ppb in the Beyond Burger.

When the concerning results were revealed, Impossible Foods engaged in a smear campaign to try and discredit MAA, labeling the group of moms “an anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, anti-science, fundamentalist group that cynically peddles a toxic brew of medical misinformation and completely unregulated, untested, potentially toxic quack ‘supplements’ …”

The glyphosate in fake meat is one issue. The excess amounts of omega-6 fat in the form of linoleic acid (LA) are another. In my opinion, this metabolic poison is the primary contributor to rising rates of chronic disease. It’s important to realize that fake meat alternatives do not contain healthy animal fats. All the fat comes from industrial seed oils like soy and canola oil, which are top sources of LA.

Eliminating ultraprocessed foods from your diet is essential to keeping your LA intake low, and this includes fake meat.

Fake food companies want you to believe their products are natural because they’re made with components of plants, even though nothing like them exists in nature. Precision fermentation is another term used by the biotech industry to piggyback off the popularity of truly health-promoting natural fermentation.

Precision fermentation, however, is nothing like its natural counterpart. What is perhaps most disturbing about the use of precision fermentation is that companies are allowed to claim that it’s natural.

Metabolic engineering is a major subset of precision fermentation, which involves methods such as next-generation sequencing, high-throughput library screening, molecular cloning and multiomics “to optimize microbial strains, metabolic pathways, product yields, and bioprocess scale-up.”

It sounds just like something down on the farm, doesn’t it?

Whether it’s called precision fermentation, gene editing, GMO or something else, don’t fall for the hype that it’s good for you or the planet.

If fake meat isn’t healthy, and CAFO meat isn’t a good choice either, a reasonable question is where can you find meat that’s beneficial for your health and the planet? The answer is to get to know a farmer in your area. Visit the farm and view how the animals are being raised.

Get to know the resources available to you within your local community. The community will naturally validate the vendors who are raising food the right way. If you can’t find a local farm for ruminant animals like cows, buffalo or lamb, look for certified organic options at your local grocery store. However, it’s best to stay local and find a source of real, whole food near you.

As much as you can, plant a garden for vegetables, grow fruit trees and even raise chickens if it’s allowed in your area. For the food you can’t source on your own, lean on your community to fill in the gaps.

Just as was the case with GMOs, raising awareness about the dangers of fake meat is also important, especially in this early and aggressively expanding phase. Tell your social circle that to save the planet and support your health, it’s necessary to skip all the fake meat alternatives and opt for real food instead.

When you shop for food, know your farmer and look for regenerative, biodynamic and/or grass fed farming methods, which are what we need to support a healthy, autonomous population.

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.

• There are three types of COVID-19 tests: molecular, antigen and antibody. Molecular and antigen tests detect active infections, whereas the antibody test will tell you if you’ve developed antibodies in response to a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection

• There are seven different coronaviruses known to cause respiratory illness in humans. The antibodies created by these different coronaviruses appear very similar, and recovering from the common cold may trigger a positive antibody test for COVID-19, even if you were never infected with SARS-CoV-2 specifically

• While experts at the Mayo Clinic claim cross-reactive antibody tests were an early problem that has been corrected and eliminated, the CDC has not confirmed this

• A Singaporean study found common colds caused by the betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 appear to make you more resistant to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that the resulting immunity might last as long as 17 years

• Other studies suggest immunity after COVID-19 infection may only last between two and 12 months

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: July 30, 2020

Right now, there are three types of COVID-19 tests:

• Molecular — Also known as a PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, this test detects whether genetic material of the virus is present in the sample collected from your throat or sputum (the back of your sinuses)

• Antigen — This test, sometimes referred to as “rapid test,” detects viral proteins

• Antibody — Also known as a serology test, it detects the presence of antibodies in your blood

The first two, molecular and antigen, are so-called “viral tests” that detect active infections, whereas the antibody test will tell you if you’ve developed antibodies in response to a previous coronavirus infection. It typically takes your body one to three weeks after an infection clears to start making antibodies against the virus in question.

Each of these COVID-19 tests have their issues and controversies. The problem with antibody testing is that there are seven different coronaviruses known to cause respiratory illness in humans.

Four of them cause symptoms associated with the common cold:

• 229E

• NL63

• OC43

• HKU1

In addition to the common cold, OC43 and HKU1 — two of the most commonly encountered betacoronaviruses

— are also known to cause bronchitis, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pneumonia in all age groups.

The other three human coronaviruses — which are capable of causing more serious respiratory illness — are:

• SARS-CoV

• MERS-CoV

• SARS-CoV-2

The tricky part is that the antibodies created by these different coronaviruses appear very similar, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admits recovering from the common cold can trigger a positive antibody test for COVID-19, even if you were never infected with SARS-CoV-2 specifically. As explained on the CDC’s “Test for Past Infection” web page:

“Antibody tests check your blood by looking for antibodies, which may tell you if you had a past infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. Antibodies are proteins that help fight off infections and can provide protection against getting that disease again (immunity). Antibodies are disease specific …

A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold.”

In a July 10, 2020, interview with KTTC news, Mayo Clinic chair of clinical microbiology, Dr. Bobbi Pritt, said:

“Early on we had labs using tests that have not received that [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] review and some of those tests … may have given you a false positive and detected the normal coronavirus that circulates and causes the common cold. I would say the vast majority have been extensively tested to show that they do not cross react and give you false positives due to the common cold [anymore].”

While experts at the Mayo Clinic claim these cross-reactive antibody tests were an early problem that has since been corrected and eliminated, the CDC does not confirm or deny the accuracy of this statement on its “Test for Past Infection” web page.

So, it’s unclear whether the antibody tests manufactured and used today are still capable of delivering a positive result if you were recently exposed and recovered from the common cold virus.

Back on April 29, 2020, infectious disease specialist and CNN medical analyst Dr. Kent Sepkowitz noted that “deciphering between the common cold antibody and the COVID-19 antibody is a real challenge scientifically,”

but that doesn’t mean it cannot or hasn’t been done.

On a side note, labs are now reporting a shortage of chemicals and disposable pipette tips required to perform COVID-19 tests, which means longer wait times — again. As Scott Shone, director of the North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health, told The New York Times,

July 23, 2020, “It’s like Groundhog Day. I feel like I lived this day four or five months ago,” referring back to the early days of the pandemic when test supplies were in short supply.

While the CDC warns it’s still uncertain whether COVID-19 antibodies prevents reinfection, or if it does, for how long, researchers in Singapore have presented evidence

suggesting the immunity is likely to be long-lasting.

They discovered common colds caused by the betacoronaviruses OC43 and HKU1 appear to make you more resistant to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that the resulting immunity might last as long as 17 years.

The authors suggest that if you’ve beat a common cold caused by a OC43 or HKU1 betacoronavirus in the past, you may have a 50/50 chance of having defensive T-cells that can recognize and help defend against SARS-CoV-2. As reported by the Daily Mail:

“Scientists have found evidence that some immunity may be present for many years due to the body’s ‘memory’ T-cells from attacks by previous viruses with a similar genetic make-up — even among people who have had no known exposure to Covid-19 or SARS …

Blood was taken from 24 patients who had recovered from COVID-19, 23 who had become ill from SARS and 18 who had never been exposed to either SARS or COVID-19 …

Half of patients in the group with no exposure to either Covid-19 or SARS possessed T-cells which showed immune response to the animal betacoronaviruses, COVID-19 and SARS. This suggested patients’ immunity developed after exposure to common colds caused by betacoronavirus or possibly from other as yet unknown pathogens.”

According to the researchers, their findings demonstrate that:

“Virus-specific memory T-cells induced by betacoronavirus infection are long-lasting, which supports the notion that COVID-19 patients would develop long-term T-cell immunity. Our findings also raise the intriguing possibility that infection with related viruses can also protect from or modify the pathology caused by SARS-Cov-2.”

Added support for these conclusions were published May 14, 2020, in the journal Cell. This study

found that not only did 70% of samples obtained from recovered COVID-19 patients have resistance to SARS-CoV-2 on the T-cell level but so did 40% to 60% of people who had not been exposed to the virus. According to the authors, this suggests there’s “cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.”

The immunity issue isn’t entirely cut and dry, though. Other research, which looked at antibody levels in recovered COVID-19 patients in Germany, found they lost their antibodies after two to three months.

“Clemens Wendtner, a chief physician at the hospital, tested COVID-19 patients for immunity after they had been treated for the disease at the end of January 2020. The tests showed a significant decrease in the number of antibodies,” DW reported in a July 14, 2020, article.

“Wendtner says ‘neutralizing’ antibodies, which stop a viral attack, fell in four out of nine of the patients who were tested, within two to three months. Those findings coincide with a similar investigation done in China.

That study also found that antibodies in COVID-19 patients do not persist in the blood. Further research is still required. But these initial findings suggest that a second infection is possible …”

However, it is important to realize that loss of the ability to determine antibody levels may not necessarily reflect lack of immune protection, as there may be innate cell mediated immunity that provides protection that is not being measured by the humoral antibody production.

If reinfection is possible, then COVID-19 would behave much like the common cold and seasonal influenza, which can strike more than once — if not in a single season, then certainly in any given year. If that’s the case, then “immunity passports” and most other COVID-19 interventions, such as school closings and business shutdowns, become even more questionable than they already are.

“If the novel coronavirus behaves like common cold viruses, then talk of ‘immunity passports’ and herd immunization is pointless.”

If SARS-CoV-2 ends up behaving like other human coronaviruses that cause the common cold, immunity may only last six to 12 months, a European study

says. Here, they did not look at SARS-CoV-2 antibodies but, rather, antibodies against the other four coronaviruses that cause the common cold, none of which were long-lasting. According to BGR, which reported the findings:

“‘Frequent reinfections at 12 months post-infection and substantial reduction in antibody levels as soon as 6 months post-infection’ were observed for those viruses.

If the novel coronavirus behaves the same way, then talk of ‘immunity passports’ and herd immunization is pointless. A person who recovered from COVID-19 could get it again in six to 12 months without another vaccine shot …

The researchers note that the human coronaviruses are ‘biologically dissimilar’ and ‘have little in common, apart from causing the common cold.’ But SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t have to be similar to any of them to follow the same immunity pattern.”

The issue of reinfection also raises questions about whether herd immunity is ever going to be possible. Studies cited by The Daily Mail

claim herd immunity against COVID-19 could be achieved if just 10% to 43% of people develop lasting immunity.

This is a far cry from the percentages typically required for vaccine-induced “herd immunity” (which is really a misnomer, as vaccine-induced immunity doesn’t work like natural immunity, and herd immunity is really only achieved when enough people recover from the illness in question). According to The Daily Mail:

“The concept of herd immunity hinges on people only being affected once, so that when a certain number of people have been infected with the virus already it can’t spread any more.

It remains a mystery as to whether this is the case for COVID-19 but, if it is, then herd immunity could offer some protection during a second wave of the disease …

Researchers now say it could work to some extent if only one or two out of 10 people have been infected naturally and become immune to the disease … Another study has taken a similar line and suggested herd immunity could develop at around 43 percent of the population getting infected … Immunity among the most socially active people, scientists say, could protect those who come into contact with fewer others.”

Considering the many questions surrounding the possibility of reinfection and herd immunity, I believe one of your best bets is to address an underlying weakness that can have a significant impact on your COVID-19 risk, namely vitamin D insufficiency.

Rather than waiting for a likely harmful vaccine, get proactive and start optimizing your vitamin D level. You can learn more about this in “The Most Important Paper Dr. Mercola Has Ever Written” and “How to Fix the COVID-19 Crisis in 30 Days.” Also start working on reversing any underlying comorbidities such as insulin resistance and obesity.

As for testing, I do not recommend getting a viral test (which checks for active infection) unless you have COVID-19 symptoms and need it to guide your treatment. Swabbing the back of your nasal cavity has its risks, and can actually introduce an infection or, some speculate, even some more nefarious agents.

Getting tested just for the heck of it doesn’t really make sense. Even if you test negative, you can get infected at any point after leaving the test site. If you have to get tested in order to travel or return to work, an antibody test may be more appropriate. Even if your antibodies wane with time, you’re still going to be immune for a while.

The best test are your clinical symptoms. If you have symptoms suggestive of coronavirus infection, then my best recommendation is to start nebulizing food grade hydrogen peroxide at 0.1% as suggested in the video below and discussed in my article on the topic.

I would also make sure that your vitamin D levels are adequate, as discussed in my paper on the topic. If you don’t know your vitamin D level and have not been in the sun or taken over 5,000 units of vitamin D a day, it would likely help to take one bolus dose of 100,000 units, and make sure you are taking plenty of magnesium, which helps convert the vitamin D to its active immune modulating form.

Another great option that is less expensive, easier to get and likely more effective than hydroxychloroquine, would be quercetin with zinc as discussed in my recent article on the subject.

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.