Tag: safety

EPA Flags Silicone Chemical D4 as Risk to Humans, Wildlife

U.S. regulators said that D4, a chemical used to make silicone goods from solar panels to cosmetics, may harm women’s fertility and damage aquatic and land animals.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Sept. 17 draft risk evaluation concluded that D4—formally known as octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane—presents “unreasonable” risks to human health in almost two dozen uses and to the environment in seven cases. The agency found no such risk in 37 other applications.

EPA said the human health concerns are driven mainly by worker exposures in 23 uses, such as manufacturing D4, processing it into adhesives and sealants, and applying D4-containing paints and coatings in industrial and commercial settings.

The agency’s draft risk evaluation points to reproductive toxicity studies as the hazard driver for the human health finding. In the document, EPA notes that D4 exposure is linked to adverse reproductive outcomes in women.

While one consumer use—inhalation of fumes or skin contact with paints and coatings—was also flagged as hazardous, the agency determined that for the general population, no uses of D4 “significantly contribute to unreasonable risk.”

The agency noted that its findings did not assume the use of personal protective equipment, though it said that equipment like respirators and gloves could mitigate risks.

Keep reading

RFK Jr. vaccine advisers to examine shots during pregnancy

A panel of federal vaccine advisers appointed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will launch a new review on the use of vaccines during pregnancy, the panel’s chair said.  

Martin Kulldorff, a statistician and former Harvard professor who chairs the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), made the announcement at the start of Thursday’s meeting, where panelists will consider recommendations related to the pediatric vaccine schedule, including hepatitis B. 

The panel is set to vote later Thursday on changing the current recommendation that infants receive the hepatitis B vaccine at birth. 

Another working group will examine the vaccines given between childhood and adolescence, Kulldorff said. 

Most of the working groups consider a singular vaccine or group of related vaccines, Kulldorff noted, not broad categories or the entire concept of a vaccine schedule. 

Thursday’s meeting comes after a tense Senate hearing Wednesday where former CDC Director Susan Monarez testified she was fired after refusing to rubber-stamp the panel’s recommendations before they were made. Kennedy handpicked the panelists, many of whom are critical about vaccinations, after firing their predecessors 

In his opening remarks, Kulldorff challenged nine former heads of the CDC to a public debate on vaccination, after they accused him and the panelists of being unqualified and of spreading “dangerous and unscientific views.”  

“False accusations that we and other respectable vaccine scientists are unscientific and dangerous anti-vaxxers, that just adds legitimacy to anti-vax positions, damaging both public health and the confidence in vaccines,” Kulldorff said.  

Kulldorff said if the former directors won’t have a debate, they shouldn’t be trusted. 

Keep reading

‘PFIZERGATE’: EU Commission Forced To Admit That COVID ‘Vaccines’ Were Given to the Population Without ‘Complete Safety Data’

The COVID jabs were ineffective, untested and unsafe.

Whatever else happens in the career of the European Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen, her legacy will always be tainted by the Pfizergate scandal.

It’s true that she did survive a motion of censure (or vote of no-confidence) that was brought by Romanian nationalist Gheorghe Piperea.

The author of the motion criticized the Commission’s refusal to disclose text messages between von der Leyen and the chief executive of vaccine maker Pfizer during the COVID-19 crisis.

But while the lack of transparency and suspicion of corruption are bad enough, there’s an even darker side to this story: as we all know, the mRNA shots were untested and unsafe.

Keep reading

44 US AGs Write a Letter Warning AI Companies

On the heels of Meta’s Internal AI leak, 44 US Attorney Generals wrote a strongly worded letter to major AI companies.

On the heels of Meta’s Internal AI leak, 44 US attorneys general wrote a strongly worded letter to major AI companies.

The attorneys general condemn exposing children to sexualized content through personalized AI. The letter cites several recent cases where personalized AI went wrong, including:

  • Google’s chatbot drove a teenager towards suicide
  • The Character.ai chatbot told a teenager that he should kill his parents

Oddy, the letter gave the AI companies leeway when it comes to development:

We understand that the frontier of technology is a difficult and uncertain place where learning, experimentation, and adaptation are necessary for survival. You are figuring things out as you go. But in that process, you have opportunities to exercise judgment.

The letter also acknowledged social media has harmed children, but pins the blame on a lack of regulation.

You will be held accountable for your decisions. Social media platforms caused significant harm to children, in part because government watchdogs did not do their job fast enough. Lesson learned

…

We wish you all success in the race for AI dominance. But we are paying attention. If you knowingly harm kids, you will answer for it.

It’s okay if AI dominates the world, replaces everyone’s jobs, and makes people dumber—just watch out when it comes to children.

Forty-four US attorneys general signed this letter because they care about protecting children. In the coming months, we’ll see if they really mean that.

Keep reading

New Look at Old Data Shows COVID Vaccine Dangers Hiding in Plain Sight

Soon after the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines in 2020, top scientific journals published studies declaring the vaccines to be safe and effective — even amid mounting evidence of serious health concerns that eventually led vaccine manufacturers to add warning labels and pull products off the market.

In a new preprint study, scientists from Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and the Brownstone Institute reanalyzed data from those studies. Their analysis found clear health risks linked to the Pfizer and AstraZeneca shots, suggesting the studies “appear biased by design.”

CHD Senior Research Scientist Karl Jablonowski, an author of the preprint, criticized the highly credentialed researchers involved in one of the earlier studies.

“The bedrock, the foundation, the cornerstones, and the pinnacle of the scientific establishment” published an analysis of 46 million adults in England only “to proclaim ‘cardiovascular safety’ where, in fact, there is a veritable cardiovascular catastrophe,” he said.

For their preprint, Jablonowski and his co-researchers performed a safety analysis of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines using information from several large datasets from the U.K. — the same datasets used as the basis for numerous earlier studies, published in major journals, that concluded the vaccines were safe.

The new analysis confirmed that a significant risk for myocarditis and pericarditis associated with the Pfizer vaccines was evident in those earlier studies. Yet the studies’ results explicitly promoted the “cardiovascular safety” of the shots. The Moderna vaccines were also linked to heart risks.

CHD and Brownstone researchers also found that the risks for cardiovascular disease and death from the AstraZeneca vaccine were significantly higher than those of the Pfizer vaccine.

The AstraZeneca vaccine was a non-mRNA vaccine. It was never authorized or approved in the U.S., but was widely distributed in the U.K. during the early phase of the vaccine rollout. Like other vaccines, the AstraZeneca shot was advertised as safe and effective.

In 2024, AstraZeneca admitted in court documents that its shot could cause deadly blood clotting known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome — also referred to as vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia. The Johnson & Johnson shot was also linked to the condition.

Months later, AstraZeneca withdrew its vaccine from the market, though it denied the move was linked to the drug’s serious health risks.

At this time, major studies were published — including a highly cited 2024 study in Nature Communications — that promoted the safety of the AstraZeneca vaccine and other COVID-19 shots.

Keep reading

Vaccine Safety Myth Crumbles at Senate Hearing

The September 9 hearing on vaccine safety led by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) exposed what many Americans are now beginning to realize: the medical community has arguably been duped into believing that vaccines are unequivocally safe.  The hearing, titled “How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines,” was led by Johnson’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.  It followed other hearings conducted by Johnson on the subject of COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID-19 mRNA shots.

Three witnesses —  physician Dr. Jake Scott, attorney Aaron Siri, and Stanford infectious diseases researcher Dr. Toby Rogers, with Scott defending vaccine research and trials and Siri and Rogers questioning them — offered sharply divergent pictures on the reliability of vaccine research and, by extension, vaccine safety.  Both camps cited data, but Siri and Rogers proved to be the more nimble and better-informed interpreters of the evidence.  Taken together, their testimony reinforced the growing impression that vaccines have never been subjected to the kind of rigorous study the public assumes.

Importantly, the committee put into the public record two irreconcilable records about how vaccine safety should be demonstrated.  Siri submitted to the committee an unpublished study conducted inside Henry Ford Health in Detroit.  The Ford study contends that real-world comparison is the most meaningful.  It studied two cohorts over time, vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, showing large, repeated signals of vaccine harm in the Ford health system.

The study tracked 18,468 children from birth within the Henry Ford system (1,957 unvaccinated, 16,511 who received at least one vaccine).  Using Cox proportional hazard models, the analysis found that vaccination exposure was independently associated with elevated risks across several outcomes: any chronic condition (HR 2.53, 95% CI 2.16–2.96), asthma (HR 4.25, 3.23–5.59), autoimmune disease (HR 4.79, 1.36–16.94), atopic disease (HR 3.03, 2.01–4.57), eczema (HR 1.31, 1.13–1.52), and neurodevelopmental disorder (HR 5.53, 2.91–10.51).

Keep reading

Dealing With the Microplastics Silent Invasion

We’re living in an era where we have never been so heavily subjected to toxicity, coming from so many different sources. The extent to which these toxicities are capable of assaulting our bodies and their ubiquitous nature means that we can never be completely free from their effects. 

However, there are ways in which we can protect ourself to minimize their effects. For a list of unprecedented health threats and how we can protect ourselves go here.

Another nasty to include in the list of toxicities is microplastics. 

They have been detected in the remotest areas of the world: The Arctic, Antarctic, deepest oceans and other isolated environments, such as, for example, in the glaciers, snow-covered mountainous areas, rivers making up the Gela Dandong Peak in China, untouched by humans.

Not that long ago research was done on the brains of deceased humans to look for plastic content. The research, conducted by Professor Matthew Campen, University of New Mexico, revealed that the plastic content of their brains was found to be 0.5% on average for each individual. -That’s the equivalent of a plastic spoon weighing 5g. Hence the above image showing a plastic spoon pasted on the brain.

The 0.5% result was a 50% increase on comparing average brain plastic content in 2016. 

-This disturbing evidence suggests that we are facing an inevitable, unstoppable generational increase in body plastic toxicity. Not just in our brains, but an invasion of microplastics in other areas of our bodies, including other vital organs such the liver, kidneys and heart…

So named the ’silent invasion’ because the microplastics, tiny shards the size of 200 nanometers (0.0002 millimeters) or even smaller, such as nano-plastics (1 billionth of a meter), are too small to be detected by the naked eye. These pollutants are present in the air, land and water.  

When ingested or inhaled, they enter our bodies bypassing natural immune defenses, unable to be broken down when in the body. 

Bisphenol-A or phthalates are examples of the toxic ingredients that accumulate, having the ability to affect body pH, and mimic or block hormones: The consequences of hormonal disruptions include infertility, pregnancy complications, cognitive impairment and oxidative stress (leading to cell damage) through  imbalances… 

Further, besides affecting the body’s organs they are able to clog up arteries and veins, leading to cardiovascular illnesses.

As microplastics are present in oceans, soil and reservoirs where our drinking water and food comes from, they have become hotbeds for antibiotic resistant superbugs. 

A Boston University study showed that E. Coli bacteria became 5 times more resistant to over several different antibiotics when in a microplastics environment. This disturbing link between microplastic toxicity and increasing antibiotic-resistant superbugs should sound alarm bells ringing. 

Consider the implications. For example, consider wastewater (effluent) treatment. This now has superbugs in a microplastic environment that poses a public health threat when released back into the environment if not treated properly. What about the areas where there are poor people and there is a lack of sanitation…?  

-In short, the microplastics silent invasion has become a world-wide health emergency threatening both humans and wildlife in the environment.

However, there are a number of necessary precautionary measures we can take to protect ourselves. 

Keep reading

The Nuclear Waste Problem Haunting UK Energy Expansion

  • Effective nuclear waste management is a critical global challenge, particularly for countries like the UK looking to expand their nuclear power sectors.
  • The UK has a substantial amount of existing radioactive waste and is struggling to implement a long-term disposal solution, with the proposed underground geological disposal facility facing significant hurdles and cost concerns.
  • Public and local community pushback against potential nuclear waste sites further complicates the development of new disposal facilities, making finding a solution an ongoing and difficult process.

One of the biggest hurdles to expanding the global nuclear power sector is the concern over how best to manage nuclear waste.

While some believe they have found sustainable solutions to dispose of nuclear waste, there is still widespread debate around how safe these methods are and the potential long-term impact of waste disposal and storage.

In the United Kingdom, the government has put nuclear power back on the agenda, after decades with no new nuclear developments; however, managing nuclear waste continues to be a major barrier to development. 

Keep reading

Are Pregnant Women Being Told the Truth about Antidepressants?

Across the world, thousands of pregnant women are being prescribed antidepressants. Yet few are warned about the potential harms to their unborn babies.

That concern came to the forefront at a 2-hour expert panel convened last month by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), moderated by Dr Tracy Beth Høeg, the agency’s senior adviser for clinical sciences.

A lineup of doctors, scientists, and former regulators gathered to examine a thorny question: do selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) cause more harm than good when used during pregnancy?

Their opinions were not unanimous, but all agreed on one striking fact—there are no “gold-standard” randomised trials that have addressed the issue.

Instead of sparking serious debate, the panel was savaged by the media. The ferocity of the reaction only highlighted how difficult it has become to speak honestly when the message challenges psychiatric drugs.

Keep reading

Aspartame Alters Gut Bacteria and Triggers Cancer Genes in Glioblastoma

Aspartame Activates Brain Cancer Genes, Study Finds

A recent animal study published in Scientific Reports investigated the effects of aspartame on gene expression and gut bacteria in mice with glioblastoma. Researchers assessed whether aspartame could influence tumor progression on a molecular level, even in the absence of visible tumor growth.1

•The mice used in the study had gliomas induced by transplanting cancerous cells — These test subjects were then split into two groups. One received aspartame in their drinking water, while the control group was given plain water.

•One of the most striking findings was the activation of cancer-linked genes — The researchers discovered dramatic internal changes — particularly at the genetic and microbial level — in the aspartame-exposed group. Specifically, they observed a significant upregulation of three key genes — myelocytomatosis (MYC), cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1A (CDKN1A), and transforming growth factor-β (TGFB1).

•These three genes are well-established contributors to cancer progression — MYC is an oncogene, meaning it plays a direct role in driving uncontrolled cell growth, while TGFB1 is often associated with a poor prognosis in glioblastoma due to its ability to suppress immune function and promote tumor cell survival. CDKN1A is typically involved in controlling the cell cycle, but when dysregulated, it contributes to tumor aggressiveness.

•The most unsettling part? These changes happened without any measurable increase in tumor size. That means even if your tumor isn’t growing, it could still be genetically evolving into something far more dangerous.

Aspartame Alters Your Gut Microbiota by Affecting the Gut-Brain Axis

Aspartame was accidentally discovered in 1965 and had been used in consumer products since the 1980s. Being a low-calorie sweetener that’s 200 times sweeter than regular sugar, it became widely popular among people who want to cut back on their calorie consumption. It’s now used in over 6,000 different products worldwide, including diet soda, sugar-free gum and candy, and even condiments like ketchup and salad dressings.2

However, aspartame is not as safe as it seems — in fact, it has been associated with a long list of health problems, such as obesity, headaches, and depression.3 In 2023, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans4 — and now, this animal study provides stronger evidence backing up this classification.

•The changes in gene activity were traced to a powerful biological process called RNA methylation — These changes occurred specifically along the N6-methyladenosine (m6A) pathway. RNA methylation is a chemical modification of messenger RNA (mRNA), the molecule your body uses to translate DNA into proteins.

This modification acts like a dimmer switch — it fine-tunes how active a gene becomes. When aspartame exposure elevated this process, the dimmer switch turned all the way up on cancer-promoting genes.

•Aspartame increases glioblastoma risk by affecting the gut-brain axis — This is the bidirectional pathway by which your gut and brain communicate with each other. Your gut bacteria synthesize short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) like butyrate and metabolize dietary components like tryptophan into molecules that regulate the tumor microenvironment.

When these metabolites reach tumor sites, they improve immune surveillance mechanisms and alter cellular metabolic processes to inhibit tumor growth.

•Conversely, tumors also influence gut microbial composition — Certain gut bacteria that colonize tumor tissues contribute to carcinogenesis through multiple mechanisms — they induce DNA damage, suppress the immune system’s ability to recognize tumor antigens, and disrupt vital metabolic pathways. These create conditions conducive to tumor survival and proliferation.

To put it simply, some gut bacteria produce substances that help fight cancer, while others actually help tumors grow and spread; Aspartame alters your gut to increase the growth of tumor-spreading bacteria.

•Mice fed aspartame had a significant drop in bacteria from the Rikenellaceae family — Rikenellaceae are part of a group of microbes involved in producing SCFAs, which, as mentioned above, help inhibit cancer formation. According to the study authors:

“The composition and abundance of gut microbiota, particularly the Rikenellaceae family, are closely associated with the levels of volatile fatty acids, such as acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid.

Numerous findings have provided compelling evidence of a robust connection between the abundance of the Rikenellaceae family in the gut and a diverse array of metabolic health conditions, including Parkinson’s disease and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Our study concluded that although the aspartame diet did not significantly affect tumor growth, it did induce changes in the composition of the gut microbiota, particularly a decrease in the relative abundance of the Rikenellaceae family. We speculated that gut microbiota could influence the progression of glioblastoma multiforme by gut-brain axis.”5

Keep reading