Vaccine Makers Destroy COVID Vaccine Safety Studies

While reports of side effects from COVID-19 gene therapies, including life-threatening effects and deaths, continue to climb at breakneck speed,1 a one-sided narrative of safety and effectiveness permeates mainstream media and medical news.

These “vaccines” are so safe and so effective, according to this narrative, that keeping control groups intact for long-term study and comparison of outcomes is now being derided as “unethical,” despite the fact that there is absolutely no non-fraudulent data to support their perverse assertions. Truly, what we’re watching is the active destruction of basic medical science in a surreal dystopian nightmare. 

Vaccine Makers to Ditch Control Groups

Consider this report in JAMA by Rita Rubin, senior writer for JAMA medical news and perspectives, for example.2 According to Rubin, the launch of “two highly efficacious” COVID-19 vaccines has “spurred debate about the ethics, let alone the feasibility, of continuing or launching blinded, placebo-controlled trials …”

Rubin recounts how Moderna representatives told a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel that rather than letting thousands of vaccine doses to go to waste, they planned to offer them to trial participants who had received placebo.

Pfizer representatives made a similar announcement to the advisory panel. According to a news analysis published in The BMJ,3 the FDA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are both onboard with this plan, as is the World Health Organization.4

In the JAMA report by Rubin, Moncref Slaoui, Ph.D., chief scientific adviser for Operation Warp Speed, is quoted saying he thinks “it’s very important that we unblind the trial at once and offer the placebo group vaccines” because trial participants “should be rewarded” for their participation.

All of these statements violate the very basics of what a safety trial needs, which is a control group against which you can compare the effects of the drug or vaccine in question over the long term. I find it inconceivable that unblinding is even a consideration at this point, seeing how the core studies have not even concluded yet. The only purpose of this unblinding is to conceal the fraud that these vaccines are safe.

None of the COVID-19 vaccines currently on the market are actually licensed. They only have emergency use authorization — which, incidentally, also forbids them from being mandated, although this is being widely and conveniently ignored — as trials are still ongoing.

At the earliest, they may be licensed two years from now, at the completion of the follow-up studies.5 This is why those in the military are allowed to refuse it, and refuse they have. Among Marines, the refusal rate is nearly 40%.6

So, before the initial studies are even completed, vaccine makers and regulatory agencies are now deciding to forgo long-term safety evaluations altogether by giving placebo recipients the real McCoy, and so-called bioethicists are actually supporting this madness. As reported in The BMJ:7

“Although the FDA has granted the vaccines emergency use authorization, to get full license approval two years of follow-up data are needed. The data are now likely to be scanty and less reliable given that the trials are effectively being unblinded.”

Hypocrisy Abounds

It’s ironic in the extreme, because vaccine mandates are being justified on the premise that the benefit to the community supersedes the risk of individual harm. In other words, it’s OK if some people are harmed by the vaccine because the overall benefit to society is more important.

Yet here they’re saying that participants in the control groups are being harmed by not getting the vaccine, so therefore vaccine makers have an obligation to give it to them before the long-term studies are completed. This is the complete opposite argument used for mandatory vaccination.

If we are to accept the “greater good” justification for vaccination, then people who agree to participate in a study, and end up getting a placebo, need to roll the dice and potentially sacrifice their health “for the greater good.” Here, the greater good is the study itself, the results of which are of crucial importance for public health decisions.

Without this data, we will never know whether the vaccines work in the long term and/or what their side effects are. If an individual in the control group gets COVID-19, then that’s the price of scientific participation for the greater good of society, just as when a vaccinated person gets harmed, that’s considered an acceptable price for creating vaccine-induced herd immunity.

Put another way, when it comes to mandating vaccines, harm to the individual is acceptable, but when it comes to doing proper safety studies, all of a sudden, harm to the individual is not acceptable, and protecting the controls is more important than protecting the integrity of the research. The fact that they’re this inconsistent in their “ethics” could be viewed as proof positive that public health isn’t even a remote concern.

Scientific Ethics Are Eroding

Apparently, concern about risk to the individual only matters when vaccine makers have everything to gain. By eliminating control groups, we’ll have no way of really proving the harm that these “vaccines” might impart over time, as all participants will be in the same proverbial boat.

I remain confident that we’ll continue to see many more health problems and deaths develop in time, but without control groups, these trends can more easily be written off as “normal” and/or blamed on something else. As noted by Dr. Steven Goodman, associate dean of clinical and translational research at Stanford University, who is quoted in Rubin’s JAMA article:8

“By unblinding trial participants, ‘you lose a valid comparison group,’ Goodman said. ‘There will be this sense, and it will be sort of true, that the study is over.’ Unlike, say, a highly effective cancer drug, ‘the vaccine is not literally a life-and-death issue today and tomorrow’ for most trial participants, Goodman said.

So, he noted, those running COVID-19 vaccine trials shouldn’t feel obligated to unblind participants and vaccinate placebo recipients right away. Doing so implies ‘you can just blow up the trial’ on the basis of promising preliminary results, establishing ‘an ethical model for future trials that we maybe don’t want to set,’ Goodman said.”

Indeed, this strategy will set a dangerous precedent that will probably lead to vaccine and drug studies being conducted without control groups in the future, which could spell the end of medical science as we know it. At bare minimum, future variations of the current COVID-19 vaccine trials are likely to be conducted without control groups.

Trial Participants Told Not to Unblind Themselves

Goodman is also quoted in another article,9 this one in MedPage Today, discussing the problems with trial participants unblinding themselves by taking an antibody test:

“‘There is no good scientific reason for someone to do this,’ he told MedPage Today. ‘I can understand why they want that information, but it can only serve to diminish the value of the trial. Getting tested is not right unless there is a pressing need for unblinding for health reasons.'”

Here, yet another hypocritical irony arises, as the reason they don’t want trial participants to unblind themselves is because if they know they got the vaccine, they’re statistically more likely to take more risks that might expose them to the virus.

This, then, will skew the results and “could make the vaccine look less effective than it is,” Dr. Elizabeth McNally of Northwestern University explained to MedPage Today.10 So, whether vaccine scientists agree with unblinding or not, unblinding really only has to do with whether it will skew results in their favor.

Trial participants unblinding themselves might make the vaccine appear less effective if they alter their behavior as a consequence, whereas vaccine makers unblinding the entire control group will allow them to hide side effects, even if participants alter their behavior.

Justification for Elimination of Controls Is Flimsy at Best

While pro-vaccine advocates insist the elimination of control groups is justified on the “moral grounds” that it’s unethical to not provide volunteers with something of value, this argument completely ignores the undeniable fact that no vaccine is 100% safe.

Getting the active vaccine comes with risk, not merely benefit. This is particularly true for the novel mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines. Historical data are troubling to say the least, and the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is rapidly filling up with COVID-19 vaccine-related injury reports and deaths.

Reports of Side Effects and Deaths Are Piling Up

As reported by The Defender,11 as of April 1, 2021, VAERS had received 56,869 adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including 7,971 serious injuries and 2,342 deaths. Of those deaths, 28% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination! The youngest person to die was 18 years old. There were also 110 reports of miscarriage or premature birth among pregnant women.

As reported in “COVID-19 Vaccine To Be Tested on 6-Year-Olds,” between January 2020 and January 2021, COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of the annual vaccine deaths, even though these vaccines had only been available for less than two months!

In my view, it’s unconscionable and morally reprehensible to not take these data into account. Clearly, these “vaccines” have risks. Pretending like they don’t, and that all placebo recipients in vaccine trials are at a distinct disadvantage simply isn’t true.

Keep in mind that we still do not know the percentage of adverse effects being reported. Is it between 1%12 and 10%13 as past inquiries into VAERS reporting have shown, or is it higher?

If only 10% are reported, we may be looking at 23,420 deaths, but if it is as low as 1%, it jumps to more than 230,000 deaths. We will never know because there are major attempts to suppress this information, as we have already witnessed with the deaths of sport celebrities Hank Aaron and Marvin Hagler, both of whom died shortly after COVID vaccinations.

Regardless, it’s hard to justify even a single death of an otherwise healthy individual, seeing how the survival rate for COVID-19 across all age groups is 99.74%. If you’re younger than 40, your survival rate is 99.09%.14

There’s every reason to suspect that these reports account for just a small percentage of actual side effects. Just think of all those who get the vaccine at grocery stores or temporary vaccination sites, for example. First of all, are all Americans even aware that VAERS exists and that they need to file a report if they suffer an adverse reaction post-COVID vaccination?

Who is going to file the adverse report if you get vaccinated in a grocery or convenience store? Will they return to the pharmacist and report their side effects? Will the pharmacist file the report? Who’s responsible for filing the report if you go to a temporary vaccination site?

CDC Stays Mum on How It’s Ensuring Reporting Compliance

According to the CDC, deaths from COVID-19 vaccines are required to be reported to VAERS.15 It’s not supposed to be voluntary, as with other vaccines. However, it is not being transparent about how it is ensuring this “requirement” is being followed, so it’s impossible to confirm that all related deaths are in fact being reported. As reported by The Defender:16

“We … inquired about whether healthcare providers are reporting all injuries and deaths that might be connected to the COVID vaccine, and what education initiatives are in place to encourage and facilitate proper and accurate reporting.

Twenty-two days later a representative from the CDC’s Vaccine Task Force responded by saying the agency had never received our questions — even though the employees we talked to several times said their press officers were working through the questions we sent. We provided the questions again and requested a response by April 7. To date, the CDC has not responded despite our repeated follow-up attempts.”

Absolute Versus Relative Risk Reduction

Vaccine makers are also very careful about only referencing relative risk, not absolute risk. By doing so, the vaccines appear far more protective than they actually are. It’s a commonly used statistical trick that I encourage you to familiarize yourself with.

For example, in his November 26, 2020, BMJ article,17 Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, pointed out that while Pfizer claims its vaccine is 95% effective, this is the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction — which is far more relevant for public health measures — is actually less than 1%!

I recommend listening to the interview with Dr. Ron Brown above, in which he explains the ins and outs of relative and absolute risks, and the differences between them. He’s also written two papers detailing the problems with this kind of reporting bias: “Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials”18 and “Public Health Lessons Learned From Biases in Coronavirus Mortality Overestimation.”19

You Likely Don’t Need a Vaccine

If you’re concerned about vaccine side effects, please understand there are several prevention strategies and treatments readily available that have been shown to be highly effective, which means the need for a vaccine in the first place is nearly moot.

For example, nebulized hydrogen peroxide with iodine, which I’ve written about in previous articles, works very well. For a refresher, see “How Nebulized Peroxide Helps Against Respiratory Infections.” Other treatments include hydroxychloroquine with zinc, ivermectin and the iMASK and MATH+ protocols, which you can learn more about in the linked articles.

What to Do if You Got the Vaccine and Are Having Problems

In closing, if you got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection.

I’ve written many articles over the past year detailing simple strategies to improve your immune system, and with a healthy immune system, you’ll get through COVID-19 without incident. Below, I’ll summarize some of the strategies you can use both to prevent COVID-19 and address any side effects you may encounter from the vaccine.

Eat a “clean,” ideally organic diet. Avoid processed foods of all kinds, especially vegetable oils, as they are loaded with damaging omega-6 linoleic acid that wrecks your mitochondrial function. Linoleic acid has been shown to increase mortality from COVID-19.

Consider nutritional ketosis and a time-restricted eating window of six to eight hours with no food at least three hours before bed. These strategies will help you optimize your metabolic machinery and mitochondrial function.

Implement a detoxification program to get rid of heavy metals and glyphosate. This is important as these toxins contribute to inflammation. To improve detoxification, I recommend activating your natural glutathione production with molecular hydrogen tablets.

A simple way to block glyphosate uptake is to take glycine. Approximately 3 grams, about half a teaspoon, a few times a day should be sufficient, along with an organic diet, so that you’re not adding more glyphosate with each meal.

Maintain a neutral pH to improve the resiliency of your immune system. You want your pH to be right around 7, which you can measure with an inexpensive urine strip. The lower your pH, the more acidic you are. A simple way to raise your pH if it’s too acidic (and most people are) is to take one-fourth teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) or potassium bicarbonate in water a few times a day.

Nutritional supplementation can also be helpful. Among the most important are:

Vitamin D — Vitamin D supplements are readily available and one of the least expensive supplements on the market. All things considered, vitamin D optimization is likely the easiest and most beneficial strategy that anyone can do to minimize their risk of COVID-19 and other infections, and can strengthen your immune system in a matter of a few weeks.

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) — NAC is a precursor to reduced glutathione, which appears to play a crucial role in COVID-19. According to one literature analysis,20 glutathione deficiency may actually be associated with COVID-19 severity, leading the author to conclude that NAC may be useful both for its prevention and treatment.

Zinc — Zinc plays a very important role in your immune system’s ability to ward off viral infections. Like vitamin D, zinc helps regulate your immune function21 — and a combination of zinc with a zinc ionophore, like hydroxychloroquine or quercetin, was in 2010 shown to inhibit SARS coronavirus in vitro. In cell culture, it also blocked viral replication within minutes.22 Importantly, zinc deficiency has been shown to impair immune function.23

Melatonin — This boosts immune function in a variety of ways and helps quell inflammation. Melatonin may also prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection by recharging glutathione24 and enhancing vitamin D synthesis, among other things.

Vitamin C — A number of studies have shown vitamin C can be very helpful in the treatment of viral illnesses, sepsis and ARDS,25 all of which are applicable to COVID-19. Its basic properties include anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, antioxidant, antithrombotic and antiviral activities. At high doses, it actually acts as an antiviral drug, actively inactivating viruses. Vitamin C also works synergistically with quercetin.26

Quercetin — A powerful immune booster and broad-spectrum antiviral, quercetin was initially found to provide broad-spectrum protection against SARS coronavirus in the aftermath of the 2003 SARS epidemic,27,28,29 and evidence suggests it may be useful for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 as well.

B vitamins — B vitamins can also influence several COVID-19-specific disease processes, including30 viral replication and invasion, cytokine storm induction, adaptive immunity and hypercoagulability.

Type 1 interferon — Type 1 interferon prevents viral replication and helps degrade the RNA. It’s available in spray form that you can spray directly into your throat or nose. You can try taking a couple of sprays per day prophylactically, and more if you have a cough, fever or headache.

Report All COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

Last but not least, if you or someone you love have received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, report it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do three things:31

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the CHD website

Is Your Blood Type More Prone to COVID-19 Infection?

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s been clear that not everyone is equally susceptible to the virus that causes it — SARS-CoV-2. Many factors influence your likelihood of getting sick if you’re exposed to a virus, including underlying health conditions and your overall lifestyle.

Blood type, however, is another factor that may be involved, as some research suggests your blood type may make you more prone to certain diseases, including COVID-19.1

Since blood type isn’t something you can change, it’s wise to focus primarily on those strategies you can influence to lower your risk, such as optimizing your vitamin D levels, eating right and optimizing your weight. That said, a study published in Blood Advances found a protein on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 — called the receptor binding domain (RBD) — had a strong preference for binding to blood group A found on respiratory cells.2

Blood Type Basics

Blood is categorized based on the type of antigen it contains. Antigens are proteins on red blood cells, and all humans have one of four blood types — A, B, AB or O. A third antigen, called Rh factor, will either be present or absent. If your blood has it, then you’re Rh positive. If it doesn’t, you’re Rh negative.3

“When antigens come into contact with substances that are unfamiliar to your body, such as certain bacteria, they trigger a response from your immune system. The same type of response can occur during a blood transfusion if your donor’s blood type doesn’t match with yours. In that case, your blood cells could clump and cause potentially fatal complications,” Dr. Douglas Guggenheim explained to Penn Medicine.4

This is why, prior to 1901, without knowledge of these different antigens, blood transfusions were very dangerous. When different blood types were mixed during transfusion, it resulted in clumping of the blood and toxic reactions. On the surface of the red blood cell are one, two or no antigens. The four blood types are broken down as follows:5

  • Group A — only antigen A on the red cells (and B antibody in the plasma)
  • Group B — only antigen B on the red cells (and A antibody in the plasma)
  • Group AB — both antigens A and B on the red cells (but neither A nor B antibody in the plasma)
  • Group O — neither antigens A nor B on the red cells (but both A and B antibody are in the plasma)

Both the A/AB/B/O and Rh antigens are genetically passed from both parents to their children.

Are People With Type A Blood More at Risk of COVID-19?

Type O blood is the most common blood type while about 33% of Caucasians, 24% of African Americans, 27% of Asians and 29% of Latino Americans have type A+ blood. A- blood type is much rarer, found in only 7% of Caucasians and 2% or less of African Americans, Asians and Latino Americans.6

In the featured study, researchers tested how SARS-CoV-2 RBD interacted with respiratory and red blood cells in different blood types. They noted, “The RBD of SARS-CoV-2 shares sequence similarity with an ancient lectin family known to bind blood group antigens.”7 Their testing revealed that SARS-CoV-2 RBD preferentially recognized and attached to the blood type A antigen found in the lungs.

According to the study, “SARS-CoV-2 RBD binds the blood group A expressed on respiratory epithelial cells, directly linking blood group A and SARS-CoV-2.”8 While the study doesn’t definitively demonstrate that blood type A directly contributes to SARS-CoV-2 infection, the findings may provide some insight into why people with blood type A appear to have a greater risk of COVID-19 and infection with other coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV.9

Study author Dr. Sean Stowell of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School explained in a news release:10

“It is interesting that the viral RBD only really prefers the type of blood group A antigens that are on respiratory cells, which are presumably how the virus is entering most patients and infecting them.

Blood type is a challenge because it is inherited and not something we can change. But if we can better understand how the virus interacts with blood groups in people, we may be able to find new medicines or methods of prevention.”

Blood Type as Significant Predictor of COVID-19 Risk

Genome-wide association studies identified that the locus responsible for blood type may be a significant genetic predictor of SARS-CoV-2 infection risk.11 In fact, in an October 2020 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers reported, “We identified a 3p21.31 gene cluster as a genetic susceptibility locus in patients with COVID-19 with respiratory failure and confirmed a potential involvement of the ABO blood-group system.”12

In a study of COVID-19 cases in Wuhan, China, women with blood type A were again found to have greater susceptibility to COVID-19.13 Similar results were confirmed using data from 14,112 individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 with known blood type in the New York Presbyterian (NYP) hospital system.14

Non-O blood types were found to have a slightly increased risk of infection, while types AB and B had an increased risk of intubation, and type AB had an increased risk of death, compared to type O.

“We estimated Rh-negative blood type to have a protective effect for all three outcomes,” those researchers noted, adding, “Our results add to the growing body of evidence suggesting blood type may play a role in COVID-19.” A systematic review and meta-analysis, which analyzed 31,300 samples, also found a link, with blood type A having an increased risk of infection from COVID-19 and blood type O appearing to be less susceptible.15

A Danish study of more than 500,000 people also found that blood type O was associated with a decreased risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection.16 The home-based genetic testing company 23andMe also released preliminary results from a study they conducted using the information of more than 750,000 people.17 Their early results suggest that a person’s blood type has an influence on their susceptibility to the virus.

The company reported that the percentage who tested positive for COVID-19 by blood type was 4.1% for blood group AB.18 The differences reported in the study showed that those with type O had a 9% or 18% lower potential for testing positive for the virus when compared to those with blood types A, B or AB.19

In a separate study, researchers found that individuals with blood type O Rh positive had the best protection.20 Still, more research is needed to determine if blood type is a significant factor in COVID-19, as at least one study found no association between blood type and COVID-19 risk. Those researchers noted:21

“Given the large and prospective nature of our study and its strongly null results, we believe that important associations of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 with ABO groups are unlikely and will not be useful factors associated with disease susceptibility or severity on either an individual or population level for similar environments and ancestries.”

Blood Type Is Associated With Other Diseases

While blood type’s role in COVID-19 infection remains to be determined, blood type is known to play a role in other diseases, such as hepatitis B and dengue hemorrhagic fever.22 Even chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease and cognitive decline may be affected.

For instance, people with blood type B+ have a 35% increased risk of Type 2 diabetes compared to those with type O-.23 Those with blood types A and AB were also at increased risk compared to type O — AB+ had a 26% increased risk, A- a 22% increased risk and A+ a 17% increased risk.

As for why, it’s been suggested that blood type may influence endothelial or inflammation markers, as well as plasma soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) and TNF receptor 2 (TNF-R2) levels, which have been associated with increased Type 2 diabetes risk.

It’s also possible that blood type is a genetically determined factor that influences the makeup of your intestinal microbiota, which in turn affects your metabolic health via energy balance, glucose metabolism and low-grade inflammation.24

As for cognitive impairment, those with blood type AB may be at increased risk,25 possibly due to its effects on alternative pathways such as the VIII-von Willebrand factor (vWF) complex. Two large cohort studies with more than 20 years of follow-up also found a link between blood type and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). According to the study, published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology:26

“In the combined analysis adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors, compared with participants with blood group O, those with blood groups A, B, or AB were more likely to develop CHD. Overall, 6.27% of the CHD cases were attributable to inheriting a non-O blood group.”

Proactive Steps You Can Take to Avoid Getting Sick

Whether or not blood type turns out to be a major player in COVID-19 infection risk, it’s not something you can control. There are, however, many other factors that you can control. If you’re obese, for instance, focusing on healthy weight loss may help to ward off viral illnesses, including COVID-19.

Nutrition-wise, I recommend adopting a cyclical ketogenic diet, which involves radically limiting carbs (replacing them with healthy fats and moderate amounts of protein) until you’re close to or at your ideal weight, ultimately allowing your body to burn fat — not carbohydrates — as its primary fuel.

This includes avoiding all ultraprocessed foods and also limiting added sugars to a maximum of 25 grams per day (15 grams a day If you’re insulin-resistant or diabetic). KetoFasting, the program I developed and detail in my book, “KetoFast: A Step-By-Step Guide to Timing Your Ketogenic Meals,” combines a cyclical ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting with cyclical partial fasting to optimize weight, health and longevity.

In addition, get regular exercise each week and increase physical movement throughout your waking hours, with the goal of sitting down less than three hours a day, while also getting sufficient sleep, optimizing your vitamin D levels and tending to your emotional health.

Chronic stress may increase your risk for visceral fat gain over time,27 which means addressing your stress levels is imperative for maintaining your ideal weight and lowering your risk of infection. Taking steps to lead a healthy lifestyle overall will have a snowball effect, bolstering your resilience against many types of infection and disease.

Sulforaphane for Your Heart and Brain

There is substantial evidence for the beneficial effects of sulforaphane on human health. Sulforaphane is a sulfur containing organic compound that is commonly found in cruciferous vegetables.1

The compound has known antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and immune stimulant properties,2 and as I discuss below, researchers have linked it to health benefits including reducing the accumulation of amyloid-beta common in Alzheimer’s disease, slowing age-related decline and protecting heart health.

Sulforaphane is a phytochemical that helps protect the body against free radical damage formed in the body after exposure to UV radiation, preservatives, pollution and even natural digestive processes. Sulforaphane belongs to the isothiocyanate category of phytochemicals,3 which is a well-known beneficial compound found in broccoli, Brussel sprouts, cabbage and cauliflower.

Protective Effects From Compound in Cruciferous Vegetables

Cruciferous vegetables are rich in a glucosinolate called glucoraphanin, found in particularly high levels in broccoli and broccoli sprouts. The combination of glucoraphanin and the enzyme myrosinase produces sulforaphane4 when you chop or chew the vegetable. Glucoraphanin acts as a natural pest repellent for the plant, since sulforaphane is produced as the insects begin chomping.

In my interview with nutritional biochemist Dr. Jed Fahey from Johns Hopkins Medical School, he describes how when you consume sulforaphane it raises your endogenous defense system, among which is the nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) pathway. He proposes:5

“They may actually have an effect on the heat-shock response, which has to do with protein folding and rescue of proteins from damage. There is a rather daunting list of beneficial biological activities that these isothiocyanates have. But the Nrf2 pathway is certainly the key pathway that we started looking at and that is certainly a primary defensive mechanism that’s upregulated.”

As Fahey explains, the Nrf2 pathway is vital to human health. He states that sulforaphane and isothiocyanates are referred to as “indirect and as long-lasting antioxidants because they crank up the activities of these antioxidant enzymes.”6 One of the benefits from the activities of sulforaphane has been to slow cancer cell growth.

In fact, the data has been so strong that some researchers have suggested that broccoli could be a key part of cancer prevention.7 Most certainly, the results of past studies have demonstrated that eating broccoli could improve your odds of preventing a cancer diagnosis. For example, in one study the data suggested eating about 400 grams of broccoli each week significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer.8

A higher intake of cruciferous vegetables also lowered the risk of bladder cancer9 and improved the rate of survival in those who had it.10 Eating broccoli three to five times a week may also reduce the risk of liver cancer and prevent the development of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).11

Free Radical Control Helps Keep Your Heart Healthy

Sulforaphane has helped reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease12 and has demonstrated the ability to reduce high blood pressure in an animal model.13 In one animal model,14 researchers sought to evaluate the efficacy of sulforaphane in the lab.

Past studies using exogenous antioxidants were not conclusive, leading the researchers to theorize inducing endogenous antioxidant activities may have promising cardioprotective effects. Their theory was confirmed in the lab:15

“… by the decrease in intracellular reactive oxygen species production, the increase in cell viability, and the decrease in DNA fragmentation after long-term treatment accompanied by the induction of antioxidants and phase II enzymes in cardiomyocytes.”

The overproduction of reactive oxygen species has a pathogenic response on the myocardium, triggering damage and dysfunction.16 The antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of sulforaphane may be related to the activation of the Nrf2 pathway that acts as a defense mechanism against oxidative stress. In one review of the literature, researchers concluded that:17

“SFN [Sulforaphane] found in cruciferous vegetables is an indirect antioxidant that can activate Nrf2 and its downstream target genes to induce antioxidant effects. The findings presented in this review indicate that SFN, a phytochemical isolated from extracts of an edible plant with a presumed low level of toxicity, protects against CVD. SFN could therefore contribute to the prevention of CVD.”

Brain Health Benefits From Sulforaphane

Sulforaphane also has a positive effect on the brain, including in those with Alzheimer’s disease, autism or schizophrenia. An initial study18 published in 2015 evaluated the effects on 10 outpatients with schizophrenia.

Patients were given a 30 mg supplement of sulforaphane glucosinolate every day for eight weeks. The authors reported that the clinical symptoms and cognitive function were evaluated at the start of the study and at the conclusion. Seven of the patients completed the trial and the results suggested “that SFN has the potential to improve cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.”19

Research appears to indicate that sulforaphane may benefit individuals with schizophrenia by helping to rebalance the glutamate levels in their brain. The data were gleaned from a series of three animal and human studies performed by researchers at Johns Hopkins school of medicine.20

In one of these studies published in JAMA Psychiatry,21 researchers found that schizophrenics had lower levels of key chemicals — including glutamate and glutathione — as the result of metabolic abnormalities that affected behavior.

In the second study22 the researchers blocked the enzyme that turns glutamate into glutathione and then used sulforaphane to activate the gene required for the synthesis of glutathione from glutamate. They found it normalized the brain cells in the animal study and allowed them to behave in a manner that was more like the healthy controls.23

Research into the use for Alzheimer’s disease also shows some exciting potential. In one animal study,24 researchers found that in mice treated with sulforaphane for four months there was a significant inhibition of the accumulation of amyloid-beta and the intervention alleviated several of the pathological changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

Another animal study25 demonstrated that sulforaphane could not only clear the accumulation of amyloid-beta and tau but also improve the memory deficits in the mice, hinting at a potential treatment that could be useful in humans.

Results from another series of studies has suggested cruciferous vegetables high in sulforaphane might benefit those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), primarily because it “upregulates genes that protect aerobic cells against oxidative stress, inflammation, and DNA-damage, all of which are prominent and possibly mechanistic characteristics of ASD.”26

Sulforaphane also boosts antioxidant capacity, glutathione synthesis, mitochondrial function, oxidative phosphorylation and lipid peroxidation, while lowering neuroinflammmation. According to the researchers, these characteristics also make it suitable for the treatment of ASD.27

More Benefits From Broccoli and Other Cruciferous Vegetables

Although sulforaphane receives most of the attention, broccoli also contains a number of other health promoting compounds including phenolic compounds, vitamins, minerals and Diindolylmethane (DIM). Phenolic compounds include flavonoids that have a powerful ability to eliminate damaging free radicals and inhibit inflammation.

Your body produces DIM when it breaks down cruciferous vegetables that have demonstrated multiple potential benefits, including supporting your immune system28 and helping to prevent cancer.29 Interestingly, broccoli has twice the amount of vitamin C as an orange30,31 and is rich in bioavailable calcium.32

While cruciferous vegetables are powerful allies in the fight against cancer and to keep your heart and brain healthy, they also offer more health benefits. Studies have shown that routinely eating cruciferous vegetables can:33

Prevent metabolic disorders and reduce the risk of Type 2 diabetes

Help control weight and reduce your risk of obesity

Prevent respiratory complications from human papilloma virus (HPV)

Reduce and prevent inflammation associated with respiratory disorders

Prevent oxidative stress, which can reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease

Slow down cognitive decline in older age

Exhibit antimicrobial effects against pathogenic bacteria like Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter aerogenes, Salmonella serovar typhimurium, Escherichia coli and Shigella sonnei

Prevent asthma

Help boost your body’s natural detoxification pathways

Broccoli May Help Heal a Leaky Gut

Researchers have also identified another major benefit from broccoli: a healthy gut. An animal study34 from Penn State demonstrated broccoli may be helpful in the treatment of colitis and leaky gut syndrome. What the researchers discovered is that broccoli contains a compound called indolocarbazole (ICZ), which catalyzes a healthy balance of bacteria in your gut and supports your immune system.

In the study,35 15% of the animals’ diet was swapped for raw broccoli, which is equal to you eating 3.5 cups of broccoli each day. Admittedly, that’s quite a bit of broccoli. However, the researchers say you can get an equivalent amount from one cup of Brussel sprouts as they contain three times the amount of ICZ as broccoli.36

Another key component to cruciferous vegetables is that they are high in fiber, which is an important source of nutrition for beneficial bacteria residing in your gut. This helps to strengthen your immune function and reduce your risk of inflammatory diseases.37

What Are Cruciferous Vegetables?

I’ve mentioned some of the more popular cruciferous vegetables including broccoli, Brussel sprouts, cabbage and cauliflower. Yet, there are others that belong to this family, which increases the number of ways you can add sulforaphane to your diet. Be sure to seek out non-GMO and organically grown vegetables to reduce your risk of exposure to toxins. Consider including these in your diet:

Broccoli sprouts

Collard greens



Mustard greens



Bok choy

Chinese cabbage






If you’re short on ideas on how to incorporate some of these vegetables into your diet, check out some of the recipes I have available by searching for the vegetable of your choice on To boost the benefits of sulforaphane in broccoli and other cruciferous veggies like those listed below, pair them with a myrosinase-containing food. Adding a myrosinase-rich food is particularly important if you eat the broccoli raw, or use frozen broccoli.

  • Arugula — This vegetable has a peppery taste that can easily be added to other mixed greens or tossed in a salad. Consider adding it to scrambled eggs, pesto or toss it into spaghetti sauce.
  • Brussels sprouts — These can be used in a variety of ways, such as shredding them raw into coleslaw, roasting them with garlic, slightly sauteing them or steaming them. The trick is to not overcook Brussels sprouts, or you degrade the protective compounds.
  • Cabbage — This is a classic ingredient in coleslaw for sauerkraut. Consider fermenting your own sauerkraut for greater control over the nutrient value and avoiding pasteurization. You can add it to mashed potatoes and onions or slightly wilted as a wrap for other leftover foods.
  • Bok choy — This vegetable is nutrient-dense and rich in calcium. Try chopping the stems and tossing it into salads or adding it to soups. It can be lightly sauteed with garlic and a drizzle of extra-virgin olive oil added when it’s off the heat. Also consider using it as a wrap stuffed with leftovers or your favorite protein.
  • Kale — The dark green kale leaves and earthy taste lend themselves well to a tossed salad, wilted with lemon and garlic or toasted kale chips eaten fresh from the oven.

Weekly Health Quiz: Iatrarchy, Censorship and Masks

1 What is iatrarchy?

  • Physical or mental condition caused by a physician
  • Collaboration between government agencies for the benefit of public health
  • Government by physicians

    Historical experiments with iatrarchy — meaning government by physicians — have been catastrophic. The medical profession has not proven itself an energetic defender of democratic institutions or civil rights. Most German doctors accepted lead roles in the Third Reich’s project to eliminate mental defectives, homosexuals, handicapped citizens and Jews. Learn more.

  • A psychological test designed to measure implicit attitudes

2 Censorship, lockdowns, social distancing, mask wearing, new domestic terrorism laws and vaccine passports are important for which of the following?

  • Eradicating COVID-19
  • Preventing all deaths
  • Preventing the breakdown of hospital care
  • The swift implementation of the Great Reset

    Under the pretext of public health safety, we’re told we need censorship, lockdowns, social distancing, mask wearing, new domestic terrorism laws and vaccine passports. We need none of those things in order to optimize public health. Those things, however, are necessary for the swift and easeful implementation of the Great Reset. Learn more.

3 Which of the following U.S. institutions funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China?

  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)

    The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, have funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. Several such grants were given to EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn subcontracted some of that research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Learn more.

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
  • African Development Foundation
  • Department of Agriculture (USDA)

4 Evidence suggest communism has reincarnated and spread through which of the following global movements?

  • The civil rights movement
  • The environmental “green” movement

    Evidence suggests communism has reincarnated under the flag of environmentalism and the green movement, which is part and parcel of the Great Reset, and climate policies are about the redistribution of wealth. Learn more.

  • The feminist movement
  • The organic and alternative health movement

5 The ugly truth about COVID-19 is that the world is being crippled by fear due to a:

  • Highly infectious, novel virus
  • Misunderstanding about herd immunity
  • False narrative

    He explains the ugly truth about COVID-19, which is that the world is being crippled by fear due to a false narrative. Learn more.

  • Lack of COVID-19 vaccines

6 The Paperwork Reduction Act established which of the following offices as the overseer of all federal agencies’ data?

  • The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics
  • The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

    The Paperwork Reduction Act requires data collection and publication to be overseen by the Office of Management and Budget. Proposed changes must be published in the Federal Register and be open to public comment. Learn more.

Will Vaccinated People Be More Vulnerable to Variants?

As soon as vaccine companies announced they were developing a COVID-19 vaccine, doctors, scientists, researchers and other experts raised warnings1,2 about the problematic history of coronavirus vaccines and their propensity to produce antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), which could make vaccinated individuals more susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2 or its variants.

It is also called paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE), which I believe is a more accurate description of what is happening.

Among those issuing early warnings were Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who in my interview with him — featured in “Well-Known Hazards of Coronavirus Vaccines” — recounted previous failed coronavirus vaccine trials in which he said the vaccinated animals died when exposed to the wild virus.

Considering all previous coronavirus vaccine efforts have failed for this reason, it seemed reasonable to suspect that a COVID-19 vaccine might have similar problems, and that such effects might remain hidden for some time since animal testing was bypassed. Recent research suggests such fears might still be warranted, although conclusive evidence that ADE is in fact occurring has not been produced.

Trial Subjects Have Not Been Informed of ADE Risk

The October 28, 2020, paper,3 “Informed Consent Disclosure to Vaccine Trial Subjects of Risk of COVID-19 Vaccine Worsening Clinical Disease,” stressed that “COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated,” and criticized vaccine makers for not clearly informing participants in current vaccine trials of this risk. 

“Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern:

That vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralizing antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE),” the paper stated.4

“This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.”

What Is ADE?

What exactly is ADE, and what does it mean? In a nutshell, it means that rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the vaccine actually enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated.5

Needless to say, this is the exact opposite of what a vaccine is supposed to do. The 2003 review paper “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Virus Infection and Disease” explains it this way:6

“In general, virus-specific antibodies are considered antiviral and play an important role in the control of virus infections in a number of ways. However, in some instances, the presence of specific antibodies can be beneficial to the virus. This activity is known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of virus infection.

The ADE of virus infection is a phenomenon in which virus-specific antibodies enhance the entry of virus, and in some cases the replication of virus, into monocytes/macrophages and granulocytic cells through interaction with Fc and/or complement receptors.

This phenomenon has been reported in vitro and in vivo for viruses representing numerous families and genera of public health and veterinary importance … For some viruses, ADE of infection has become a great concern to disease control by vaccination.”

Vaccinated People More Susceptible to South African Variant

As feared from the beginning, vaccinated individuals do appear to be more susceptible to infection by certain variants of SARS-CoV-2, although it remains to be seen whether they are more prone to serious illness.

A study by researchers at Tel Aviv University and Clalit Health Services in Israel found the South African variant of SARS-CoV-2, dubbed B.1. 351 — which presently accounts for about 1% of COVID-19 cases in Israel — affects people vaccinated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine to a greater extent than unvaccinated people.7,8,9,10

The researchers compared 400 individuals who had tested positive for the B.1.351 variant two weeks or more after receiving at least one dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine against 400 unvaccinated individuals who had been infected.

Among the 150 people who were fully vaccinated, having received both shots of the vaccine, the variant was eight times more prevalent than in unvaccinated individuals (5.4% compared to 0.7%).

An estimated 53% of Israel’s 9.3 million inhabitants have received the Pfizer vaccine.11 While Moderna’s vaccine is also available in Israel, it was not included in this investigation. According to professor Adi Stern, Ph.D.,12 at Tel Aviv University, who said the findings took her by surprise:13

“We found a disproportionately higher rate of the South African variant among people vaccinated with a second dose, compared to the unvaccinated group. This means that the South African variant is able, to some extent, to break through the vaccine’s protection.”

For clarity, while the risk of infection appears significantly greater, it is still unknown whether the variant might generate more serious illness in vaccinated individuals. The study did not report disease outcomes, stating it would be “statistically meaningless” to do so since the number of vaccinees infected was too low.

That said, professor Ran Balicer, director of research at Clalit Health Services, which provided assistance for the study, noted this is the first study “to be based on real-world data, showing that the vaccine is less effective against the South Africa variant, compared to both the original virus and the British variant.”14

Other Research Suggests B.1.351 May Evade First-Gen Vaccines

Another recent study,15 reported by Times of Israel,16 was done by researchers at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Here, they analyzed blood samples to assess vaccine response to the South African variant. As reported by Times of Israel:17

“The researchers collected blood samples from 10 people who recovered from COVID-19, five people who received the first dose of the vaccine, and 10 people who also received the second. Samples were drawn from participants 21 days after the first dose, or 10 days after the second. They then measured the antibodies’ ability to protect against infection.”

The study18 found that while the Pfizer vaccine produced high levels of neutralizing antibodies against the generic strain of SARS-CoV-2 and the British variant, it fared worse against the South African variant.

Overall, the neutralization potency of the Pfizer vaccine was 6.8 times lower for the B.1.351 variant compared to the generic strains. It was also less effective against strains that have attributes of both the British and the South African variants. According to the authors:19

“Our study validates the importance of the Pfizer vaccine, but raises concerns regarding its efficacy against specific SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants … Our data also indicate that the Pfizer vaccine is moderately compromised against SA-N501Y/K417N/E484K pseudo-variants.

Average decrease in mean neutralization potential of the vaccinated sera against this pseudovirus was 6.8-fold, relative to wild-type SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus. This result is only partly aligned with recent conclusions from Pfizer,20 reporting that its vaccine is almost similarly efficient against the SA [South African] variant as wild-type SARS-CoV-2.

A Moderna report21 also documented that its vaccine is 6.4-fold less efficient in neutralizing SA-B.1.351 variant, relative to neutralization of the wild-type SARS-CoV-2. However, their conclusion indicated that such a reduction is not clinically significant.

In our mind, the clinical significance of a 6.8-fold-reduced neutralization potency of convalescent or post-vaccination sera against the SA strain remains to be determined and raises concerns about vaccine efficiency against current or future SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Overall, these results call for close attention to variant spread. Moreover, development of new vaccines with improved neutralizing potency against specific SARS-CoV-2 variants may be required.”

As you’d expect, vaccine makers are already hard at work tweaking their formulas to target various mutations of the virus, so don’t be surprised if all of a sudden vaccinated individuals start getting called back for additional shots. As reported by STAT News:22

“Vaccine makers are working on booster shots specifically targeting B.1.351 or that could defend against multiple strains of the coronavirus, and regulators are considering how the updated shots could be authorized without needing to go through the full gamut of clinical trials.”

Pfizer Study Reports Drop in Effectiveness Against B.1.351

Last but not least, Pfizer’s own investigation, published in The New England Journal of Medicine23 March 8, 2021, found its vaccine was about two-thirds less effective, in terms of neutralizing potency, against the South African variant, B.1.351, compared to other forms of the virus.

“It can be difficult to extrapolate what such lab experiments mean for what happens if someone who received the vaccine is exposed to the variant. For one, these experiments only look at how one arm of the immune system, called neutralizing antibodies, responds to the modified virus,” STAT News reports.24

“The vaccines generate a range of immune fighters, including other types of antibodies and T cells, so it’s possible that overall people retain more of their defenses in fending off the virus. It’s also possible that even though neutralizing antibodies don’t work as well against the variant, they can still mount enough activity to have an impact.”

What STAT News does not mention is that the vaccines may also generate nonneutralizing (aka binding) antibodies25 which, instead of preventing infection, can trigger ADE, a paradoxical immune enhancement that increases your susceptibility to infection and more severe illness.

Aside from the studies already mentioned at the beginning of this article, many others have raised concerns about coronavirus vaccines and ADE in particular. Among them is the May 2020 mini review26 “Impact of Immune Enhancement on COVID-19 Polyclonal Hyperimmune Globulin Therapy and Vaccine Development.” As in many other papers, the authors point out that:27

“While development of both hyperimmune globulin therapy and vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 are promising, they both pose a common theoretical safety concern. Experimental studies have suggested the possibility of immune-enhanced disease of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infections, which may thus similarly occur with SARS-CoV-2 infection …

Immune enhancement of disease can theoretically occur in two ways. Firstly, non-neutralizing or sub-neutralizing levels of antibodies can enhance SARS-CoV-2 infection into target cells. Secondly, antibodies could enhance inflammation and hence severity of pulmonary disease …

Animal studies … have shown that the spike (S) protein-based vaccines (specifically the receptor binding domain, RBD) are highly immunogenic and protective against wild-type CoV challenge … However, immunization with some S protein based CoV vaccines have also displayed signs of enhanced lung pathology following challenge.

Hence, besides the choice of antigen target, vaccine efficacy and risk of immunopathology may be dependent on other ancillary factors, including adjuvant formulation, age at vaccination … and route of immunization.”

Th2 Immunopathology Is Another Potential Risk

Another potential risk is that of Th2 immunopathology, especially among the elderly. As reported in a PNAS news feature:28

“Since the 1960s, tests of vaccine candidates for diseases such as dengue, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have shown a paradoxical phenomenon: Some animals or people who received the vaccine and were later exposed to the virus developed more severe disease than those who had not been vaccinated.

The vaccine-primed immune system, in certain cases, seemed to launch a shoddy response to the natural infection …

This immune backfiring, or so-called immune enhancement, may manifest in different ways such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), a process in which a virus leverages antibodies to aid infection; or cell-based enhancement, a category that includes allergic inflammation caused by Th2 immunopathology. In some cases, the enhancement processes might overlap …

Some researchers argue that although ADE has received the most attention to date, it is less likely than the other immune enhancement pathways to cause a dysregulated response to COVID-19, given what is known about the epidemiology of the virus and its behavior in the human body.

‘There is the potential for ADE, but the bigger problem is probably Th2 immunopathology,’ says Ralph Baric, an epidemiologist and expert in coronaviruses … at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

In previous studies of SARS, aged mice were found to have particularly high risks of life-threatening Th2 immunopathology … in which a faulty T cell response triggers allergic inflammation, and poorly functional antibodies that form immune complexes, activating the complement system and potentially damaging the airways.”

Full Extent of Risks Remain To Be Seen

Whether or not COVID-19 vaccines can trigger ADE or Th2 immunopathology remains to be seen. As or right now, studies suggest vaccinated individuals are at increased risk of contracting lab-confirmed infection with variants such as the South African B.1.351 strain, but there’s no telling whether they actually get sicker than unvaccinated individuals.

Similarly, while there are now hundreds of cases of fully vaccinated individuals having being diagnosed with COVID-19, some of whom have died as a result,29 it’s too early to tell whether ADE is at play. We’re currently moving into summer in the Western hemisphere, a time when respiratory viruses tend to be less prevalent in general, so I suspect the real test will come this fall and winter.

So, while some argue that ADE is a “non-issue” with COVID-19 vaccines simply because we haven’t seen any signs of it yet,30 even with new variants, I have my doubts. I suspect we might still see it once flu season sets in. Besides, ADE is far from the only potential problem. There are many other potential side effects, some of which may take months or years to develop, while others may be lethal within days or even hours.

The vaccines may also be problematic for already immunosuppressed patients. The reason for this is because they don’t develop a robust neutralizing antibody response from the vaccines, and there’s research31 warning that developing a poor neutralizing antibody response after an initial exposure to certain coronaviruses might result in more severe illness upon re-exposure. Might the same apply if you fail to develop robust neutralizing antibodies in response to mRNA gene therapy?

A recent JAMA study32,33 found only 17% of organ transplant recipients mounted detectable antibodies after their first dose of Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine. Among patients taking antimetabolites, only 8.75% had detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 following vaccination. As noted by the authors:

“Given this observation, the CDC should update their new guidelines for vaccinated individuals to warn immunosuppressed people that they still may be susceptible to COVID-19 after vaccination. As the CDC guidelines are currently written, they assume that vaccination means immunity.

Our study shows that this is unlikely for most transplant recipients, and one could guess that our findings (especially those concerning anti-metabolites) could also apply to other immunosuppressed patients, such as those with autoimmune conditions.”

In my view, there are still so many potential avenues of harm and so many uncertainties, I would encourage everyone to do your homework, keep reading and learning, weigh the potential pros and cons, and take your time when deciding whether to get any of these COVID-19 gene therapies.

CDC Violated Law to Inflate COVID Cases and Fatalities

In this interview, Dr. Henry Ealy, ND, BCHN, better known as Dr. Henele, a certified holistic nutritionist and founder/executive community director of the Energetic Health Institute,1 reviews how U.S. federal regulatory agencies have manipulated COVID-19 statistics to control the pandemic narrative.

He earned his doctorate in naturopathic medicine from SCNM. After graduating from UCLA with a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering, he worked for a major aerospace company as a primary database developer for the International Space Station program. He holds over 20 years of teaching and clinical experience and was the first naturopathic doctor to regularly teach at a major university in the U.S., when he headed up a program at Arizona State University on bioanxiety management.

As he points out, he’s an avid data collector. In October 2020, Henele and a team of other investigators published a paper2 in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, titled, “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective,” which details how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has enabled the corruption of case- and fatality-reporting data in violation of federal law.

Accuracy of Data Is Paramount for Public Health Policies

The team started looking at CDC data on COVID-19 cases and fatalities in mid-March 2020. He explains:

“What I started doing on March 12 was going through all the data we could find from the Italian Ministry of Health and South Korea. We couldn’t validate any of the data coming out of China. There was just no independent way to do it. What we were seeing out of Italy and South Korea was that we were going to be concerned about people who are over 60, over 70 years of age with preexisting conditions.

That was the main thing coming out of that data. So, we were expecting the same kind of trends here … I started tracking the data on a daily basis from each state health department, and then making sure that what the CDC was reporting was matching up.

What we started to see, very early on, were some significant anomalies between what the states were reporting and what the CDC was saying. It was concerning, because the variance was growing with each day. We have an old saying: ‘Garbage in equals garbage out.’ And that was the concern, because we knew public health policies are going to be based upon the data, so accuracy is of paramount importance.

Then we started delving in a little deeper into how the CDC was supposedly collecting their data. That’s where we saw the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) March 24 guidelines, which were very concerning, and we saw the CDC adopt the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists paper on April 14.

What was incredibly concerning about this was that it was all done without any federal oversight, and it was all done without any public comment, especially scientific comment. That became increasingly problematic. We started to see discrepancies in the state of New York alone, in the thousands of fatalities.”

Special Rules for COVID-19 Fatalities Were Implemented

Importantly, in March 2020, there was a significant change made to the definition of what a COVID-19 fatality was. As explained by Henele, there’s a handbook on death reporting, which has been in use since 2003. There are two key sections on a death certificate. In the first part, the cause of death is detailed. In the second part, contributing factors are listed.

Contributing factors are not necessarily statistically recorded. It’s the first part, the actual cause of death, that is most important for statistical accounting. March 24, 2020, the NVSS updated its guidelines on how to report and track COVID-19-related deaths.

“They were saying that COVID-19 should be listed in Part 1 for statistical tracking, but [only] in cases where it is proven to have caused death, or was assumed to have caused death,” Henele explains.

“What was really concerning about this document was that it specifically stated that any preexisting conditions should be moved from Part 1, where it has been put for 17 years, into Part 2.

So, it was basically taking this and saying, ‘We’re going to create exclusive rules for COVID-19 and we’re going to do a 180 for this single disease …’ The big problem with that is that now you remove the ability for a medical examiner, a coroner, a physician, to interpret [the cause of death] based upon the collective health history of that patient …

You remove their expertise, and you say, ‘You have to count this as COVID-19.’ That takes on an added measure when you incentivize it financially, and that’s what we saw with some of the Medicare and Medicaid payouts …”

Who’s Responsible?

Who has the authority to do this? The answer is “no one.” A federal agency has the ability to propose a data change, at which time it would be registered in the Federal Register. At that point, federal oversight by the Office of Management and Budget kicks in, and the proposed change is opened up for public comment.

Since they did not register the proposed change, there was no oversight and no possibility for the public to comment on the change. Basically, what happened is that these changes were simply implemented without following any of the prescribed rules. “They acted unilaterally, and that’s not how [it] is supposed to work,” Henele says.

As to who took it upon themselves to alter the reporting rules, we don’t know. To identify the culprits, Henele and his team have sent out formal grand jury investigation petitions to every U.S. attorney and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), requesting a thorough, independent and transparent investigation.

“We did it at both state and federal levels. We have sent physical copies to every U.S. attorney and their aides. We sent out over 247 mailings in October [2020],” Henele explains. “We sent out an additional 20 to 30 to various people at the Department of Justice …

They would have the ability to call a grand jury, and that grand jury would have the ability to subpoena all those records to determine who were at fault … All we need is one U.S. attorney. All we need is one person at the Department of Justice to take up the cause.”

Dramatic Implications

The consequences of that change in the definition of the cause of death where COVID-19 is involved have been dramatic. For the full implications, I recommend reading through Henele’s peer-reviewed paper, “COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data.”3

“We’ve accumulated about 10,000 hours of collective team research into this [paper]. It’s been reviewed by nine attorneys and a judge for accuracy. It’s gone through the peer-review process before being published. We feel it’s tight.

On page 20 of the paper, we have a big graphic showing what the estimated actual fatality count should have been as of August 23, 2020. What was reported on August 23 was 161,392 fatalities caused by COVID-19 …

Had we used the 2003 guidelines, our estimates are that we would have roughly 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19. That’s a significant difference. That’s a difference on the scale of as much as 96%. The range that we calculated was 88.9% to 96% inflation.”

Indeed, this matches up with an admission by the CDC in late August 2020, at which time they admitted that only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death. The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 comorbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths.4

“For absolute 100% accuracy, we’d have to do something like what we were just alerted to by a whistleblower in Florida, where they’ve actually gone in and reexamined every single death certificate and the medical records with them. What they found was that roughly 80% of the fatalities were wrongfully classified as COVID-19 fatalities,” Henele says.

Science Foundations Have Been Violated

Mainstream media have justified pandemic measures “based on the science,” yet the very foundation of science has been violated. The ramifications are enormous, from the destruction of local economies and skyrocketing suicide rates to people being forced to die alone, their family members being barred from being at their bedside during their last moments.

“I lost my mother in in 2002,” Henele says. “The grace of it all was that we were able to get her out of the hospital and fulfill her last request, which was to pass away in her bed with family around her. I grieve for every single person who’s lost someone [during this pandemic] who was not able to be there.

Americans should not have to die alone because we’re worried about some virus that they’re telling us is a problem, when the data, even the data that we know to be inflated and fraudulent, still doesn’t suggest the virility that they want us to believe.”

COVID-19 Timeline

In their paper, Henele and his team detail a timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic and federal laws that impact data handling. Here’s a summary:

In 1946, certain administrative procedures were implemented. The Administrative Procedures Act requires federal agents and agencies to follow certain rules to get things done. These rules are to ensure transparency in government.

“If you’re a federal agency, you have an obligation to the people of this country to make sure that the data you’re publishing is not only accurate, but that it is transparent,” Henele explains.

In 1980, the Paperwork Reduction Act was written into law. In 1995, the Act was amended, designating the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the oversight body for all federal agencies’ data.

In October 2002, the Information Quality Act was implemented, which doubles down even further on the accuracy and integrity and data gathering. This act requires federal agencies to meet explicit criteria in order for their data to be published and analyzed.

In 2005, the Virology Journal published research demonstrating that hydroxychloroquine has strong antiviral effects against SARS-CoV (the virus responsible for SARS) primate cells. This finding was hailed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Henele notes. In other words, 15 years ago, Fauci admitted that hydroxychloroquine works against coronaviruses. This is public record.

As reported in “The Lancet Gets Lanced With Hydroxychloroquine Fraud” and “How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created,” the myth that this drug was useless at best and dangerous at worst was purposely created using falsified research and trials in which the drug was given in toxic doses.

This fraudulent research was then used to discourage and in some cases block the use of hydroxychloroquine worldwide. As noted by Henele, “It’s not science. We’re in this very weird faith-based model of science, which isn’t science at that point.”

In 2014, Fauci authorized $3.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). In 2019, WIV received another $3.7 million. In both instances, this funding was for gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

October 18, 2019, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted Event 201, in conjunction with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and a few other financial partners. November 17, 2019, China recorded the first known case of COVID-19.

“Now, they could be completely unrelated,” Henele says, “but for us, it’s a very incredible coincidence that you run a simulation a month before a pandemic breaks out. It’s a little tough for me to digest as just a coincidence.”

January 29, 2020, the White House installed a coronavirus task force, which included Fauci and then-CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield, as well as Derek Kan, then-deputy director of the OMB.

I found this to be a little interesting,” Henele says. “Why would you need an OMB person on a coronavirus task force?”

March 9, 2020, the CDC alerted Americans over 60 with preexisting conditions that they might be in for a long lockdown out of safety concerns.

March 24, the CDC changed how COVID-19 is recorded on death certificates, de-emphasizing preexisting conditions and comorbidities, and basically calling all deaths in which the patient had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test a COVID-19 death.

“We have, legitimately on record, people who’ve died in a motorcycle accident listed as a COVID-19 death. These are not fictitious things that we’ve made up. Rhode Island had over 80% of their fatalities at one point in either assisted living centers or hospice care. Why are we testing people in hospice care and life care? That’s another interesting question,” Henele says.

April 14, 2020, the CDC adopted a position paper from a nonprofit, the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, which identifies every single methodology for how to report a probable COVID-19 case, a confirmed COVID-19 case, an epidemiologically-linked or contact-traced COVID case.

“What’s so incredible about this is the standard of proof for a probable case is literally one cough. That’s all a physician needs, [according to] this document, to validate that that person is a probable COVID case,” Henele says.

“And it gets worse. On Page 6 of that document, Section 7B, it explicitly states that they are not going to define a methodology to ensure that the same person cannot be counted multiple times. So, what we end up with is a revolving door.

Now, in terms of new cases, the same person can be counted over and over and over again, without being tested, without having any symptoms. All they need to do is be within 6 feet of someone [who has been deemed positive for SARS-CoV-2] and then a contact tracer can say, ‘OK, well, that person is [also] positive.’

When we looked at data from last week, roughly 27% of the people who were said to be positive actually had a positive test. That means 73% were just told ‘Yeah, we think you got it.’ And that’s good enough, because we’re in this faith-based model of science, instead of a verifiable framework for science, which we’re supposed to be based on.

That person then cannot go back to work until they show a negative test. Well, let’s say they get tested 13 times. Guess what happens? That’s 13 new cases, when it really should only be one.

So, there are major flaws, and the issue that I think a lot of scientists like myself … have with this document and its adoption is that there was no oversight, and there was no public comment period to question some of the obvious flaws in what they were defining as data collection — let alone to ask a very simple question: ‘You’re the CDC, you’re supposed to be the pinnacle of this.

Why do you need to outsource rules and criteria for data collection to a nonprofit entity?’ That doesn’t make much sense to me.”

Transparency Rules Have Been Grossly Violated

So, what exactly is the connection between the Paperwork Reduction Act and the COVID-19 fatality data? Why is it so important?

“Well, the Paperwork Reduction Act is really about establishing oversight,” Henele explains. “It established the Office of Management and Budget, the OMB, which is under the executive branch. It established them as the key agency for oversight of all data in the entire federal government.

So, when you start seeing IHME [Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation] out of the University of Washington — which is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to the tune of $384 million in two installments — when you see their data being used at federal levels, you go and look at the Federal Register and you say, ‘OK, where is the 30 to 60 days that we were supposed to have to comment on the use of that data?’

Public comment is part of the Paperwork Reduction Act. That’s what it’s all about. What we saw instead was just, ‘Hey, this is what the IHME is putting out there. We’re going to go with it.’ Well, you can’t do that if you’re a federal agency … IHME is … technically an independent organization, but they don’t have any governmental designation.

They’re not a 501(c)(3), they’re not a 501(c)(4), they’re not a 501(c)(6). They’re just this amorphous nongovernmental organization within our country, and it’s kind of concerning. We’re doing more research on that, but it’s very, very concerning because they don’t have anybody to account to.”

Test-Based Strategy Has Been an Egregious Fraud

In addition to the manipulation of fatality statistics, the statistics of “cases” were also manipulated. Traditionally, a “case” is a patient who is symptomatic; someone who is actually ill. When it comes to COVID-19, however, a “case” suddenly became anyone who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using a PCR test, or worse, assumed positive based on proximity to someone who tested positive.

I’ve detailed this fraud in many previous articles over the past year, including “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun” and “The Insanity of the PCR Testing Saga.” “Cases” were also counted multiple times, as explained above. Henele expounds on this issue, noting:

“The CDC specifically enacted what’s called a test-based strategy, which we’ve never done before in medicine for anything. What that test-based strategy means is if you test positive, you got [COVID-19]. But what they didn’t do for the PCR testing was they didn’t identify the agreed upon number of cycles across all states across all labs that are testing.

What most people don’t know is that the closer you get to zero in terms of cycle times, the more likely that the result is going to be negative. The closer you get to 60, the more likely that it’s going to be positive.

Well, we’ve never seen a document coming out of the FDA, coming out of the CDC, coming out of any of the state health departments, that says, ‘We need all labs to be at this specific cycle [threshold]. And if a person is not deemed positive with that number of cycles, then they are not positive.’ So, there’s just flaw after flaw after flaw.”

Data Manipulation Created COVID-19 Pandemic

Most labs used cycle thresholds above 40 — as recommended by the CDC and the World Health Organization — which exponentially increased the likelihood of a positive test, even among completely healthy and noninfectious individuals. The only justification for all of this is that it was done to perpetuate the narrative that we were in a raging pandemic, which was then used to justify the unprecedented destruction of personal freedom and the economy.

“The thing I have to give the folks that have been involved in this credit for is the incredible number of sleights of hands,” Henele says. “It’s a little bit here, a little bit here, a little bit here, a little bit here.

And when that happens, it leads to something that is very dangerous scientifically, and very dangerous for public health policy, which is control of data — the ability to manipulate data … and if you can control the data, you get to control the narrative …

If we’re not going to have an absolute, transparent and verifiable data collection process that is based upon accuracy and integrity of that data, then you can turn that [pandemic emergency] dial up and down at your whim. My hope is that the objective scientist within all of us understands that this is bigger than politics. This is beyond it. This is a severely broken system that we have to fix, and we better do it.”

As discussed in many other articles, it appears the COVID-19 pandemic has in fact been a preplanned justification for the implementation of a global technocrat-led control system, which includes a brand-new financial system to replace the central bank-manufactured fiat economy that is now at the end of its functional life. Fiat currency is manufactured through the creation of debt with interest attached, and the whole world is now so laden with debt it can never be repaid.

If people understood how the central banks of the world have pulled the wool over our eyes, we would simply demand an end to the central banks. Currency ought to be created and managed nationally.

The central banks, of course, do not want this reality to become common knowledge, because then they will no longer be able to manipulate all the countries of the world, so they need the economic breakdown to appear natural. For that, they need a global catastrophe, such as a major war, or a fearsome pandemic necessitating the shutdown of economies.

Through this willful manipulation of case- and fatality statistics, the CDC has been complicit in willful misconduct by generating needless fear that has then been used against you to rob you of your personal freedoms and liberties and help usher in this massive transfer of wealth and global tyranny. As noted by Henele, “People are going to be complicit in their own slavery. People are complicit in putting digital shackles around themselves and really restricting their civil liberties.”

Hopefully, people will begin to understand how pandemic statistics have been, and still are, manipulated to control the narrative and generate unjustified fear for no other reason than to get you to comply with tyrannical measures designed to enslave you, not just temporarily but permanently.

More Information

To understand how we got to this point, please consider reading Henele’s paper, “COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data.” As noted by Henele:

“I’m looking forward to the day when we look back on this, and go, ‘Oh, we almost fell for one, but we woke up in time and we figured this out. And now we have a good balance of technology, but technology that doesn’t have the right to censor us, technology that doesn’t have the right to control us; we have figured out that having too much control in the hands of too few is not a good recipe for us as a species on this planet.’

We know it doesn’t pass the smell test, so it’s important to get informed and educated and it’s papers like this — and this isn’t the only one out there — that have done the homework. If we’re going to trust someone, it’s important to me that we trust people who’ve done the homework and have no vested interest in the outcome.

My team is a team of volunteers. We all do this in our spare time. We’re not making any money. We’re not going to seek to make any money off of this. We’re doing this because we believe in this country. We love this country and we love the people of this country. When I see people suffering, I have to help. I got to get in and help.

So, if you are an American that wants to help, we are setting up resources for you to be able to get engaged and help us push this forward, maybe grease some of these wheels of justice, so we can get an independent grand jury investigation.”

For additional information, or if you want to help, you can email Henele and his team at You can also use your voice and actions to support an investigation into the CDC’s actions.

Two Easy Ways You Can Take Action

  1. Add your signature to this petition to help mount public pressure to convene a formal grand jury to investigate allegations of willful misconduct by federal agencies during COVID-19 through Stand For Health Freedom, a nonprofit advocacy organization that Henele and his team have collaborated with
  2. Send a predrafted, customizable letter through Stand For Health Freedom urging key members of Congress to thoroughly investigate alleged violations of federal law by the CDC that compromised COVID-19 data

The Ugly Truth About COVID

Nick Hudson, an actuary and private equity investor, co-founded Pandemics ~ Data & Analytics (PANDA) in response to the many threats to civil rights and freedoms that have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic response. While media and public health institutions have engaged in a campaign of smoke and mirrors — one that is perpetuating paralyzing fear, needlessly, to this day — data and facts don’t lie.

Hudson and his team at PANDA, which include a data analyst, economist, medical doctors, big data analyst and public health experts, are using live data1 and open science to empower the public to exercise freedom of choice and preserve free societies.2

Hudson spoke at the inaugural BizNews Investment Conference in March 2021, and his keynote address is above. He explains the ugly truth about COVID-19, which is that the world is being crippled by fear due to a false narrative. Anyone who challenges that narrative is being labeled as a lunatic, a menace or a danger to society, which is furthering the repression and unjustified fear.

Bringing COVID-19 Truth to Light

George Washington famously said, “Truth will ultimately prevail where there are plans taken to bring it to light.”3 With that in mind, Hudson saw the “seeds of a great tragedy” being planted with the false COVID-19 narrative, and has made it a mission to get the truth out. So, what is the reality about the pandemic? According to Hudson:4

A virus that presents high risk to few and negligible risk to most hit some regions

Few are susceptible to severe disease

There are several available treatments

Asymptomatic people are not major drivers of disease

Lockdowns and mask mandates haven’t worked and instead caused great harm

The vulnerable were hurt instead of helped

The misinformation has been spewed from the beginning, including by World Health Organization director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. In a March 3, 2020, media briefing, he stated, “Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.”5

But according to Hudson, the 3.4% represents case fatality rate (CFR), which is the number of deaths from COVID-19 divided by the number of cases of COVID-19, while the 1% is infection fatality rate (IFR), or the number of deaths divided by all infected individuals.

“By conflating these two separate points (CFR and IFR),” Hudson said, “Tedros was effectively lying.” Quantitative scientist John Ioannidis, professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, calculated the IFR for COVID-19 in a review of 61 seroprevalence studies, which was a median of 0.23%, and 0.05% in people younger than 70.6

Based on this, the IFR for COVID-19 is lower than that of the flu. And wouldn’t you know it, in a New England Journal of Medicine editorial published March 26, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and colleagues wrote that “the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.”7

The media have suppressed this fact, Hudson noted, along with the fact that there’s a 1,000 times difference in mortality among those younger than 19 and those older than 70 — something that should have been taken into account in the pandemic response.

Is COVID-19 Really a ‘Novel Virus’?

Further inflaming widespread fear is the idea that COVID-19 is a “novel virus,” which makes it sound like it’s something humans have never encountered before. But is it really? According to Hudson:

“The reality is that the coronavirus is a very close relative, not even a separate subspecies, a very close relative of the 2003 SARS virus. There are seven related coronaviruses known to cause disease in humans, probably many others, and four of them are in general circulation.

Annual, global circulation. So the naming of this disease is terribly inconsistent. This is really a rose by any name, SARS. A variant of SARS. It’s not novel.”

One study even found that 81% of people not exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, were still able to mount an immune response against it, which “suggests at least some built-in immune protection from SARS-CoV-2 …”8

Nonetheless, Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO’s technical lead for the COVID-19 pandemic, stated that “a majority of the world’s population is susceptible to infection from this virus.”9 This is the first of two key elements that, Hudson said, lead to “homosapienophobia” — the idea that everyone is dangerous until proven healthy.

The idea of universal susceptibility to COVID-19 is nonsense, Hudson noted, as was demonstrated early on with the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Among the 3,711 passengers and crew onboard the Diamond Princess, 712 (19.2%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and of these 46.5% were asymptomatic at the time of testing. Of those showing symptoms, only 9.7% required intensive care and 1.3% (nine) died.10

PANDA data also showed that, starting in February 2021, there was not universal susceptibility to the virus. Their data showed cumulative COVID-19 deaths per million people. In Africa, Southeast Asia and Oceania, the population fatality rate was 112 per million compared to 710 per million in Europe and the Americas.

As for Africa, Southeast Asia and Oceania, Hudson said, “the population fatality rate there almost isn’t an epidemic. In a typical year, they’d have 10,000 deaths per million from all causes.”

Fear Mongering Over Asymptomatic Spread

The second element that enables the doctrine of “everyone being a danger” to continue is the idea of asymptomatic spread driving disease. “I was absolutely aghast to find out the poor quality of the science” behind it, Hudson said.

One of the seminal papers involved one woman who reportedly infected 16 colleagues while she was asymptomatic.11 The study was widely used to suggest that asymptomatic spread was occurring, but controversy later ensued over whether the woman was actually asymptomatic when the others were infected or if she was symptomatic and being treated for flu-like symptoms at the time.12

In June 2020, Kerkhove also made it very clear that people who have COVID-19 without any symptoms “rarely” transmit the disease to others. But in a dramatic about-face, WHO then backtracked on the statement just one day later. June 9, 2020, Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of WHO’s emergencies program, quickly backpedaled Van Kerkhove’s statement, saying the remarks were “misinterpreted or maybe we didn’t use the most elegant words to explain that.”13

“It’s utter, utter nonsense,” Hudson said, adding that Fauci also stated in January 2020, “asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person.”14

A JAMA Network Open study later found, in December 2020, that asymptomatic transmission is not a primary driver of infection within households.15 A study in Nature Communications also found “there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts.”16

Lockdown Madness

The myth of widespread asymptomatic spread is what was used to justify worldwide lockdowns of healthy people. “Bruce Aylward will go down in history as a criminal of immense stature,” Hudson said, referring to Aylward’s role as the head of a WHO team that visited Wuhan, China, and concluded lockdowns were working to stop COVID-19 spread.17

“He takes a delegation to China, spends a few days, then comes back and says everyone should follow China’s response, the doctrine of universal susceptibility,” Hudson said. Yet, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic official guidelines for pandemic response plans recommend against large-scale quarantine of the healthy.

In fact, WHO wrote that during an influenza pandemic, quarantine of exposed individuals, entry and exit screening and border closure are “not recommended in any circumstance.”18

Likewise, in 2021 a study published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation found no significant benefits on COVID-19 case growth in regions using more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as mandatory stay?at?home and business closure orders (i.e., lockdowns).19

Data compiled by PANDA also found no relationship between lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths per million people. The disease followed a trajectory of linear decline regardless of whether or not lockdowns were imposed.

What isn’t a lie, however, is that lockdowns cause a great deal of harm. Infant mortality, poverty, starvation and joblessness are on the rise, as are delays in medical treatment and diagnosis, psychological disorders among youth, suicide and deaths of despair.

Education has been disrupted for an estimated 1.6 billion children, Hudson said, and a survey of 2,000 U.S. adults revealed that 1 in 6 Americans started therapy for the first time during 2020. Nearly half (45%) of the survey respondents confirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic was the driving reason that triggered them to seek a therapist’s help.20 According to Hudson:

“Perhaps the hardest thing for me to swallow about all of this is in undergraduate epidemiology, it is a well-known finding that when you are confronted with a disease with sharp edge graduation, as you are with coronavirus, measures to generally suppress the spread of the disease have the effect, reliably, of shifting the disease burden onto the vulnerable, who we should be protecting. They worsen coronavirus mortality.”

Mask Rhetoric Is Misleading

It’s been touted that face masks are essential to stopping the spread of COVID-19 and could save 130,000 lives in the U.S. alone.21 But in 2019, the World Health Organization analyzed 10 randomized controlled trials and concluded, “there was no evidence that facemasks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”22

Only one randomized controlled trial has been conducted on mask usage and COVID-19 transmission, and it found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.23

You may remember that in the early days of the pandemic, face masks were not recommended for the general public. In February 2020, Christine Francis, a consultant for infection prevention and control at WHO headquarters, was featured in a video, holding up a disposable face mask.

She said, “Medical masks like this one cannot protect against the new coronavirus when used alone … WHO only recommends the use of masks in specific cases.”24 As of March 31, 2020, WHO was still advising against the use of face masks for people without symptoms, stating that there is “no evidence” that such mask usage prevents COVID-19 transmission.25

But by June 2020, the rhetoric had changed. Citing “evolving evidence,” WHO reversed their recommendation and began advising governments to encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult.26 Yet that same day, June 5, 2020, WHO published an announcement stating:27

“At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did a similar about-face on mask usage, citing a study of two hair dressers in Missouri, who were reportedly symptomatic with COVID-19 and styled 139 clients’ hair.

None of the clients tested positive for COVID-19, which the CDC suggested was because they and the stylists wore masks.28 Hudson believes, however, that the customers were probably young and not susceptible to the virus in the first place.

Another study published in the CDC’s journal Emerging Infectious Diseases stated, “We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.”29

PANDA data also showed no differences in transmission in states with mask mandates and those without. Still, health officials are now advising you should double or triple up on masks to make them work better.

Vaccines Being Sold as a Ticket to Freedom

People who stand to make countless billions out of COVID-19 vaccines are now selling them as a ticket to freedom, Hudson states:

“How convenient that we now have a logic that tells us that we need to vaccinate 7.8 billion people for a disease that has a mean survival rate of 99.95% for people under the age of 70. The profiteering here is naked. It is transparent.”

It’s a sad situation when teenagers, who aren’t at high risk, are lining up for vaccines just to get their freedoms back, he adds. When you add in all the other inconsistencies and lies — PCR tests that are not capable of diagnosing infectiousness, inflated death numbers, restrictions on travel, media propaganda and arbitrary rules, like the CDC’s recent change in physical distancing in classrooms from 6 feet to 3 feet30 — it’s as though we’re living in an Orwellian reality.

With looming vaccine passports, the loss of personal liberties is at an unprecedented level, while people are generally “enslaved by fear” — fear of infection or reinfection, “long COVID,” resurgence and mutant variants. “The underpinnings of our civilization are under threat,” Hudson noted, and we have a choice. “We’ve been pushed up against a precipice, will we be pushed off or will we push back?”

He urges people to support the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for “focused protection” and finding a middle ground between locking down an entire economy and just “letting it rip.” As of April 4, 2021, the declaration has collected 41,890 signatures from medical practitioners and over 13,796 signatures from medical and public health scientists.31

In addition, the declaration is open for public signatures and has collected 764,089 from concerned citizens around the world. The website allows you to read and sign the declaration, answers many frequently asked questions, shares the science behind the recommendations and explains how the declaration was written.

PANDA also published a protocol for reopening society “to provide a road map out of the damaging cycle of lockdowns.”32 Hudson quoted Nelson Mandela, who stated courage is not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. We all need to strive for courage and support awareness campaigns aimed at stopping the harmful narrative, relieving fear and protecting future freedom.

New Law to Force Masks While Swimming

Widespread mask usage has been virtually useless during the COVID-19 pandemic,1 but mandates were rolled out in countries worldwide nonetheless. Many of the mandates included a caveat that you must wear a mask unless you can maintain a 6-foot distance, or social distancing, from others. This meant that if you were outdoors, you could forgo wearing a mask in most cases and still be in compliance with mandates.

March 30, 2021, however, Spain’s Ministry of Health announced a new law, published in the Official State Gazette (BOE),2 that would remove the social distancing component, making masks mandatory in all public spaces, even if no one else is around — including when sunbathing at the beach or swimming in the ocean.3

While face masks were already mandatory in public and outdoor spaces when keeping a distance of 1.5 meters (3.2 feet) or more wasn’t possible, the updated rule suggests that mask usage is mandated at all times:4

“People from the age of six and older have the obligation to wear masks […] on public streets, in outdoor spaces and in any closed space that has a public use or is open to the public.”

The law also leaves no room for regional governments to make exceptions to the rules, such as at the beach. Previously, certain regions made exceptions to mask mandates at the beach or swimming pools.5

Backlash Ensues From Tourism Industry

With the tourism industry already reeling from the pandemic, the restrictive mask mandate would only worsen problems in Spain while offering only an illusion of “safety.” EL PAÍS, a daily newspaper in Spain, reported that the mask mandate change went largely unnoticed until they flagged it, reporting:6

“The obligation to keep mouths and noses covered in public spaces, including the beach and swimming pool, will undoubtedly put a number of tourists off coming to Spain, according to industry pundits who point out that businesses were not consulted on the measure.

‘We are going through the kind of hell that threatens to wipe out thousands and thousands of jobs and businesses,’ says José Luis Zoreda, vice-president of Exceltur, the main lobby group for Spanish tourism — a sector which accounted for 12% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) prior to the health crisis. ‘And now they want to turn the beaches into open-air field hospitals.’”

Wearing a mask in an outdoor area, even when others are far away, defies common sense and reason. Likewise, wearing a mask while swimming — assuming you were able to keep it on, which isn’t likely — could pose a drowning risk, not to mention, would the mask even work if it were soaking wet?

Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns, “Do not wear a mask when doing activities that may get your mask wet, like swimming at the beach or pool. A wet mask can make it difficult to breathe and may not work as well when wet.”7

Spain Backtracks on Beach Mask Mandate

Just days after releasing the new rules that would require masks to be worn at the beach, the Spanish Ministry of Health proposed revisions that would allow people to forgo a mask at the beach if they are swimming, playing a sport or resting in a fixed spot, and maintaining a distance of 1.5 meters from other people.8

A number of regional governments had already suggested that they would defy the initial orders, including the Balearic Islands, which stated masks would not be mandatory at area beaches and swimming pools. According to EL PAÍS:9

“… [I]n Andalusia the tension was palpable. Juan Marín, the deputy premier of the southern region, said he did not understand ‘this type of decisions that get made without consulting with the regions.’ And sources in the governments of Catalonia and the Canary Islands said that their legal services are already analyzing the law to determine their next steps.”

Yet, the back-and-forth passage of arbitrary health rules as policy is becoming so common that it’s hard to know what’s “allowed” from one day to the next. So, wearing a mask while walking along the shoreline of a beach in Spain is necessary for public health, but if you’re playing a sport it’s not?

The CDC is similarly confusing, with a recent change allowing physical distancing in classrooms to go from 6 feet to 3 feet.10 If SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is spread via aerosolized droplets, which research suggests,11 such droplets remain in the air for at least three hours and can travel over long distances of up to 27 feet.12

This further adds to the likelihood that cloth masks do little to stop you from getting COVID-19. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons explained:13

“The preponderance of scientific evidence supports that aerosols play a critical role in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Years of dose response studies indicate that if anything gets through, you will become infected. Thus, any respiratory protection respirator or mask must provide a high level of filtration and fit to be highly effective in preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.”

Masks at the Beach Are a Pollution Nightmare

Masks are a ticking time bomb when it comes to pollution, and wearing them at the beach provides direct access to the ocean. It’s estimated that 129 billion face masks are used worldwide each month, which works out to about 3 million masks a minute. Most of these are the disposable variety, made from plastic microfibers.14

Ranging in size from 5 millimeters (mm) to microscopic lengths, microplastics, which include microfibers, are being ingested by fish, plankton and other marine life, as well as the creatures on land that consume them (including humans15).

Mask pollution may end up being even worse than that from plastic bottles because while about 25% of plastic bottles are recycled, “there is no official guidance on mask recycle, making it more likely to be disposed of as solid waste,” researchers from the University of Southern Denmark and Princeton University stated. “With increasing reports on inappropriate disposal of masks, it is urgent to recognize this potential environmental threat …”16

When the masks become weathered in the environment, they can generate a large number of microsized polypropylene particles in a matter of weeks, then break down further into nanoplastics that are less than 1 mm in size.

Because masks may be directly made from microsized plastic fibers with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, they may release microsized particles into the environment more readily — and faster — than larger plastic items, like plastic bags. Most disposable face masks contain three layers — a polyester outer layer, a polypropylene or polystyrene middle layer and an inner layer made of absorbent material such as cotton.

In the environment, sunlight and heat are not enough to degrade the polypropylene, which is left to persist and accumulate in the environment.17

Multiple Studies Show Masks Are Ineffective

Spain’s choice to make their mask mandate even more restrictive is especially puzzling given the evidence that masks are ineffective. Only one randomized controlled trial has been conducted on mask usage and COVID-19 transmission, and it found masks did not statistically significantly reduce the incidence of infection.18

You may also remember that in the early days of the pandemic, face masks were not recommended for the general public. In February 2020, Christine Francis, a consultant for infection prevention and control at WHO headquarters, was featured in a video, holding up a disposable face mask.

She said, “Medical masks like this one cannot protect against the new coronavirus when used alone … WHO only recommends the use of masks in specific cases.”19 As of March 31, 2020, WHO was still advising against the use of face masks for people without symptoms, stating that there is “no evidence” that such mask usage prevents COVID-19 transmission.20

But by June 2020, the rhetoric had changed. Citing “evolving evidence,” WHO reversed their recommendation and began advising governments to encourage the general public to wear masks where there is widespread transmission and physical distancing is difficult.21 Yet that same day, June 5, 2020, WHO published an announcement stating:22

“At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

Dr. Jim Meehan, an ophthalmologist and preventive medicine specialist also compiled a number of studies showing the use of masks is highly questionable:23

A working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research24 found that nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as lockdowns, quarantines and mask mandates, have not significantly affected overall virus transmission rates.25

A CDC meta-analysis found that face masks did little to reduce virus transmission in the case of influenza, stating, “Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”26

A rapid systematic review of 31 studies concluded, “The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19,” adding that there was evidence for their use only for “particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.”27

In a perspective article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers state, “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” and go on to describe masks as playing a “symbolic role” as “talismans” to increase the perception of safety, even though “such reactions may not be strictly logical.”

“Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19,” they add.28

A commentary published by the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy further added, “We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because there is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission …”29

Is Wearing a Mask ‘Better Than Nothing’?

There’s a myth that wearing a mask makes sense if there’s even a chance that it can protect you from getting sick from COVID-19 — a disease with an average survival rate of 99.74%.30 This is because mask wearing itself can be harmful with longer term ramifications that are only beginning to be understood.

Germany’s first registry recording the experience children are having wearing masks31 used data on 25,930 children, revealing 24 physical, psychological and behavioral health issues that were associated with wearing masks.32 They recorded symptoms that:33

“… included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).”

They also found 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play.34 Hundreds more experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.”

Another potential issue that’s rarely talked about is the fact that when you wear a mask, tiny microfibers are released, which can cause health problems when inhaled. The risk is increased when masks are reused. This hazard was highlighted in a performance study to be published in the June 2021 issue of Journal of Hazardous Materials.35

Meanwhile, mask mandates represent another erosion of freedom, one that further “normalizes” the notion that people are sick unless proven healthy and that it’s acceptable to be forced to cover your face just to go about your daily life, even when you’re outdoors and away from others. Maybe even while you’re swimming.

The public narrative is building prejudice against people who refuse to wear masks or get an experimental vaccine, such that some are now fearful of people who aren’t masked or those who choose not to get vaccinated. With societal norms rapidly changing, and an increasingly authoritative environment emerging, it raises the question of whether or not the public will continue to blindly obey, no matter the consequences.

Investigation Finds Toxic Chemicals in Water Across the US

Drinking water safety is not often top of mind unless it has made the news, like the lead crisis in Flint, Michigan.1 However, the level of contamination in U.S. tap water is very concerning, whether your water supply is from the municipal water system or a well. Just because it looks clear and seems to taste normal does not mean it’s safe or pure.

A recent survey analysis of water supplies across the U.S. found what other studies have also found — it’s brimming with toxic chemicals.2 Test results from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) on 50,000 water utilities in 50 states also found 267 different contaminants out of 500 they tested for.3

One of the problems with the water supply is an aging infrastructure that may be “nearing the end” of its useful life.4 Water pollution from fire-fighting chemicals,5 agrichemicals,6 drugs and nerve toxins produced by freshwater cyanobacteria7 add an additional toxic load to the water supply.

Because your body is mostly water, you require a constant supply of pure water to fuel your filtration system and ensure your body is free of toxins. Your blood, kidneys and liver all require a good source of clean water to detoxify from the toxic exposure it meets every day.

But, as a recent collaborative water survey from Consumer Reports8 and The Guardian9 has demonstrated, the water supply is in desperate need of detoxification.

Toxic Chemicals Found in Drinking Water Across the US

The team from Consumer Reports and The Guardian10 asked readers for help investigating the nation’s drinking water supply and more than 6,000 people held up their hands to be counted.

Statisticians from Consumer Reports whittled the group down to 120 households that represented a cross-section of each of the EPA’s 10 jurisdictional regions. Within each region, the team chose a mix of locations in which they tested the water for multiple different contaminants.

The analysis showed that 118 of the 120 water samples collected had high levels of PFAS or arsenic as well as detectable levels of lead. The group acknowledged that the study had some limitations since water quality was tested in one day, which may not demonstrate the overall quality supplied throughout the system.11

According to the report from Consumer Reports, the challenges are not technological. In other words, they believe filtration systems exist that can clean the water of contaminants and “yet they are not being used uniformly by community water systems.”12

Although the deputy director of Public Works in New Britain, Connecticut, told Consumer Reports that a single sample may not be representative of the overall toxic exposure, EPA spokesperson Andrea Drinkard said that “93% of the population supplied by community water systems gets water that meets ‘all health-based standards all of the time.’”13

Drinking water contamination is a crisis. According to an analysis published in The Guardian14 in February 2021, more than 140,000 water systems in the U.S. are affected. The same analysis demonstrated that clean drinking water is not distributed equally since systems that service rural counties and poor areas have a higher likelihood of violations.

EPA Balances Cost Against Health When Setting Arsenic Levels

One of the factors new homeowners don’t often consider is the purity of their tap water supply. Consumer Reports15 learned one of the participants in the study, Sandy and Scott Phillips from Texas, had built a custom home in a new development just north of Austin. After moving in they invested thousands in a reverse osmosis and water softening system to take care of the unusual odor in the water.

What the couple learned from a survey was their water supply was high in multiple chemicals, including arsenic. Arsenic is a heavy metal that’s naturally present in groundwater and highly toxic.16 The greatest public health threat from arsenic is when it is used in drinking water, food preparation and irrigation of food crops.

Long-term exposure increases the risk of several forms of cancer, including skin, lung and bladder cancers.17 Other research has suggested there is an association with neurological effects, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and reproductive disorders.

The health impact of low-level exposure to arsenic does not occur immediately but happens over a long period of time.18 Exposure to arsenic can also reduce children’s IQ and increase the risk of skin discoloration and lesions. Arsenic can get into the drinking water supply from industrial processes and runoff from agricultural and mining concerns.19

The general manager for the Texas couple’s water supplier told Consumer Reports that it “has complied with all federal and state minimum contaminant level standards for arsenic and lead for many years.”20 He also commented that the results from the Consumer Report survey conflicted with their records.

The acceptable level set by the EPA for arsenic in drinking water in 1942 had been 50 parts per billion (ppb).21 The level was reduced to 10 ppb in 2001, which was an amount the EPA felt would help water system operators balance the cost of filtering the water against health challenges.22

Yet, this level is still more than triple the 3-ppb level at which experts, including scientists at Consumer Reports23 and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC),24 have long insisted it should be limited.

Nearly every water sample tested had measurable amounts of arsenic. A 2017 NRDC25 study noted that the EPA had set a maximum contaminant level for arsenic at zero since no level is safe. However, it set the enforceable level at 10 ppb, which continues to present a “substantial cancer risk.”

The same report26 showed there were 573 water systems across the U.S. that were delivering water with excessive arsenic to over 1.8 million people. One study27 found exposure to arsenic at 5 ppb or greater in the drinking water lowered IQ scores in children approximately five to six points in most cognitive areas, including working memory, verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning.

EPA: Wait Until 10% of Homes Have High Lead Levels

Survey results from the Phillips’ home in Texas also revealed their unfiltered water had 5.8 ppb of lead. In this instance, cost again has taken precedence over the potential health effects on consumers. Consumer Reports notes that while the EPA recognizes there is no safe exposure to lead, they do not require utility services to lower lead levels until 10% of the homes sampled in the area exceed 15 ppb.28

In the same NRDC report that surveyed violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the researchers found there were 5,367 water systems that were allowing high levels of lead and copper into the water system that affected over 18 million consumers.29

It wasn’t until 1986 that using lead pipes to connect the water main in the street to buildings was banned. However, many of the previous water systems are still in use, affecting up to an estimated 6 million homes and businesses across the U.S.30

Many of the health effects from lead exposure are well-known,31 including kidney and brain damage, anemia, weakness, neurological damage to a developing baby, lower IQ in children, and infertility in men and women.

Yet, despite the overwhelming costs to the community and individuals from exposure to lead, the EPA has not made significant changes to the maximum acceptable exposure levels for lead and many other toxins found in the drinking water supply.

The NRDC notes,32 “Weaknesses in the current Lead and Copper Rule, and numerous deficiencies in other EPA drinking water rules, require strengthening changes for the sake of public health.”

PFAS Are Forever Chemicals Found in Drinking Water

It may sometimes look like alphabet soup when scientists begin writing about perfluorinated chemicals, historically abbreviated PFC. To reduce confusion, the EPA made the move to use “PFAS” to refer to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances that describe the chemicals, which are sometimes referred to as “The Teflon Chemicals”33 or “forever chemicals.”34

PFASs make products water-, oil-, grease- and stain-resistant and are also found in firefighting foam. PFOS and PFOA are two PFAS chemicals that were voluntarily phased out by manufacturers.35 However, while they are no longer manufactured in the U.S., the EPA reveals “phased out” doesn’t mean “not being used.”36

The recent water survey confirmed the ubiquitous nature of PFAS in the water supply, finding 117 of the 120 water samples taken contained the chemical. Instead of enforceable legal limits, the EPA has established voluntary limits for PFOA and PFOS at 70 parts per trillion (ppt), which many experts believe is far too high.37

Harvard Environmental health expert Philippe Grandjean, Ph.D., believes research evidence suggests a lower limit of 1 ppt. The threshold is also supported by the Environmental Working Group and Consumer Reports chief scientific officer.

PFOA, commonly called C8, had been dumped from a plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, beginning in the 1950s. The C8 Science Panel38 assessed the links between exposure and several health conditions, finding probable links to high cholesterol levels, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, several types of cancer and pregnancy-induced high blood pressure.

The report from the NRDC39 did not include PFAS chemicals as they are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Instead, the EPA issued a health advisory establishing unenforceable levels that “inform” officials and water utilities of a level that may be safe.

An analysis published by the EWG40 showed there were 2,337 sites in 49 states with known PFAS contamination. Unfortunately, while evidence continues to mount demonstrating forever chemicals are hazardous, the EPA is unwilling to protect consumer health. According to the EWG, the EPA:41

“… recently released a so-called PFAS action plan,42 but it is woefully inadequate. The EPA plan will not address ongoing sources of PFAS pollution, will not clean up legacy pollution and will not even require reporting of toxic PFAS releases.”

Filtered Water Is a Health Priority

If you choose bottled water instead of tap water, you may only be slightly better off, depending on where you live. The purity of bottled water has been in question since at least 2009 when the EWG released a scorecard showing most water brands failed to disclose contaminants contained in their water.43

Another survey in 201144 revealed that 18% of bottled water did not show where the water came from and 32% did not disclose how the water was treated or the purity. In 2020, Consumer Reports45 tested 47 bottled water brands for heavy metals and 30 PFAS chemicals.

They found PFAS was detectable in most of the noncarbonated water brands and in all but one of the carbonated waters. For an objective analysis of your water quality, consider consulting the Tap Water Database46 created by the EWG. Unless you can verify the purity of your water, seriously consider installing a high-quality water filtration system.

Ideally, the water can be filtered at the point of entry and the point of use. This means adding a filter where the water enters the home and then again at the sink and shower. There are a variety of options that have benefits and drawbacks. You can read more about water filtration systems in “Properly Filter Your Water.”