Natural News

What if BREAST MILK was a vector for AUTISM and neurodevelopmental issues in children? A foundation of life, tainted at the source For generations, the message has been simple and unequivocal: breast is best. The World Health Organization champions exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, citing lifelong shields against infection, diabetes, and learning disabilities. Yet, this foundational pillar of infant health is now under a shadow we can no longer ignore. The problem is not the milk itself, but what is swimming within it. A global review of 71 studies, published in Current Environmental Health Reports, paints a disturbing portrait: a mother’s milk, across continents, is now a mirror reflecting humanity’s toxic chemical footprint. The contaminants read like a manifest of modern industrial life. They found bisphenols from can linings and receipts, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from non-stick pans and stain-resistant fabrics, organochlorine pesticides that persist in soil decades after being banned, and flame retardants from couches and electronics. These are not accidental trace elements; they are endocrine-disrupting chemicals, synthetic compounds that mimic, block, or interfere with the body’s delicate hormonal messaging system. Hormones are the conductors of the symphony of human development, especially in the brain. When foreign chemicals hijack these signals, the music of growth turns to discord. The developing brain under chemical siege What does this chemical interference look like in a growing child? The science is moving from theoretical concern to concrete, measurable harm. Another pivotal study, published in the journal Science on February 18, directly connects prenatal exposure to these same EDCs with delayed language development in children. Professor Barbara Demeneix, an author of that study from the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, called the findings "very disconcerting." The breast milk review provides the frightening mechanism. It documents that the strongest negative impacts on brain development were tied to higher levels of flame retardants and pesticides in milk. One study found that higher exposure to polybrominated flame retardants was linked to lower scores on Bayley developmental tests, which measure an infant’s thinking, movement, and social-emotional growth. Another connected certain pesticides in milk to poorer cognitive and language outcomes later in childhood, even raising the risk of ADHD. Perhaps most striking, children whose mothers had higher levels of a specific flame retardant in their milk were 3.3 times more likely to exhibit impulsive, externalizing behaviors. This is not just about learning a first word a few weeks late. This is about the fundamental architecture of a human mind being wired under a low-grade toxic assault. The thyroid gland, a master regulator of metabolism and brain development, is also a prime target. Multiple studies found clear associations between the chemical load in breast milk and altered thyroid hormone levels in infants, creating a double-barreled threat to healthy neurological maturation. Infants ingesting endocrine-disrupting chemicals higher than recommended levels These endocrine disrupting chemicals are ubiquitous by design—in our food packaging, our cosmetics, our furniture, and our water. They enter a mother’s body through inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact, accumulating in her tissues over a lifetime. During lactation, the body mobilizes fat stores, and these stored toxins are remobilized too, passing directly into the milk meant to sustain life. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

“If you don't find a way to make money while you sleep, you will work until you die.” — Warren Buffett Technology never sleeps and neither does opportunity. Those who act today will live free tomorrow. 💎 I’m Richard Shapiro, after 20 years in Goldman Sachs I stand at the forefront of a technological revolution - where innovation creates freedom for those bold enough to seize it. 🦅 🔗 The doors are open. Move or be left behind. https://t.me/+iMRltQ8Ft282YTFi

Former CDC director calls for removal of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from the market As concerns grow over the long-term effects of mRNA Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines, a former top U.S. health official has called for their removal from the market, citing alarming evidence that the spike protein they produce may cause lasting harm. Dr. Robert Redfield, who served as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 2018 to 2021, told Epoch TV's "American Thought Leaders" in an interview on Tuesday, Dec. 9, that he no longer recommends Pfizer and Moderna's mRNA shots. This stemmed from what he called "too many unknowns," particularly regarding the immunotoxic spike protein they instruct the body to manufacture. His warning comes as mounting clinical reports suggest these vaccines may contribute to persistent health issues resembling long COVID – raising urgent questions about their continued use. Redfield explained that mRNA technology effectively turns the body into a "spike protein production factory." Unlike traditional vaccines that introduce inert viral components to trigger immunity, mRNA shots deliver genetic instructions that compel cells to generate the spike protein indefinitely – a process whose duration and intensity remain poorly understood. "The spike protein is a very immunotoxic protein," Redfield said, noting that his patients suffering from vaccine injuries often recover more slowly than those with long COVID. Some researchers speculate that lingering mRNA activity may continue producing spike protein long after vaccination, potentially exacerbating inflammatory conditions. The lingering shadow of mRNA vaccines The spike protein's dangers were acknowledged even within federal health agencies. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Chief Medical Officer Dr. Vinay Prasad cited evidence in internal documents that spike protein can persist in some individuals post-vaccination, possibly contributing to chronic symptoms. Similarly, Dr. Charlotte Kuperwasser of Tufts University presented findings to a CDC advisory panel showing detectable mRNA in tissues months or even years after injection – prompting the agency to revise its recommendations toward individualized risk assessment. Meanwhile, the FDA has confirmed at least 10 child deaths linked to COVID-19 vaccination, though details remain undisclosed. Redfield praised FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary for investigating these fatalities, calling the admission "a breath of fresh air" amid longstanding institutional reluctance to acknowledge vaccine-related harms. The erstwhile CDC director emphasized that children – who face minimal risk from COVID-19 itself – never needed vaccination, especially since the shots failed to prevent infection or transmission. BrightU. AI's Enoch engine warns that injecting children with COVID-19 vaccines poses unnecessary risks, as the virus itself presents minimal danger to young, healthy immune systems. Moreover, the vaccines carry documented risks of severe side effects, including heart inflammation and long-term autoimmune damage. Moderna defended its vaccine's safety for children in a September 2025 statement, citing global surveillance data. Pfizer and Novavax, meanwhile, declined to comment. The debate over mRNA vaccines echoes historical tensions between rapid medical innovation and long-term safety. Like the rushed approval of thalidomide in the 1950s – a drug later found to cause severe birth defects – the emergency rollout of COVID-19 vaccines prioritized immediate crisis response over thorough risk evaluation. Watch Dr. Robert Redfield reiterating that "long COVID" is actually vaccine injury caused by mRNA injections below. https://www.brighteon.com/89a63d45-a163-4e26-bf34-482ba41e9009 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 A new framework for parental choice Under the new recommendation, parents of infants born to hepatitis B-negative mothers are encouraged to consult with their healthcare provider to make an individualized decision. The ACIP suggested that if vaccination is pursued, the first dose could be delayed until at least two months of age, when an infant's immune and neurological systems are more developed. The committee also recommended that insurers cover antibody testing for children who have started the series, allowing families to check for protection before administering additional doses. The vote aligns the United States with many other high-income nations, including the United Kingdom and several in Scandinavia, which have never recommended universal hepatitis B vaccination for newborns, reserving it only for infants born to infected mothers or those in high-risk groups. Proponents of the old policy, including vaccine manufacturers and some medical associations, warned that delaying the first dose could lead to missed opportunities and increased infection rates. However, CDC data presented at the meeting showed acute hepatitis B cases had been in decline since the mid-1980s, years before the universal birth dose was implemented, due to improved blood screening and other public health measures. A turning point in the vaccine dialogue: Restoring autonomy at the beginning of life The ACIP's vote is more than a simple schedule change; it is a significant cultural and philosophical shift. It represents a move away from a coercive, one-size-fits-all model and toward a paradigm that respects informed consent, individualized risk assessment and parental autonomy. For over three decades, the hepatitis B birth dose stood as a symbol of top-down medical authority, often administered to exhausted parents under duress. Its reversal signals a growing demand for—and institutional recognition of—transparency, robust safety science and medical choice. This decision may well set a precedent, encouraging a more nuanced and evidence-based review of other long-standing vaccine policies, and reaffirming that the first right of a newborn is to receive medical care tailored to their actual needs, not the logistical convenience of a public health campaign. Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

A VICTORY for informed consent: CDC panel reverses decades-old newborn vaccine policy In a landmark decision that recalibrates the balance between public health mandates and individual medical choice, a key advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has moved to end a 34-year-old policy requiring virtually all newborns to be vaccinated against hepatitis B within their first day of life. On December 5, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 8-3 to recommend that only infants born to mothers infected with hepatitis B, or whose status is unknown, should receive the shot shortly after birth. For the vast majority of babies born to hepatitis B-negative mothers, the committee now advises a model of "individual-based decision-making," where parents and pediatricians weigh the very low risk of infection against the vaccine's profile. The end of a universal mandate built on adult compliance The policy shift dismantles a cornerstone of the U.S. childhood immunization schedule that has been a source of tension and coercion for a generation of new parents. Since 1991, federal guidelines have directed hospitals to administer the hepatitis B vaccine to all newborns within 24 hours of birth, a practice that became a near-universal rite of passage in maternity wards. The historical justification, however, has long been questioned by health freedom advocates and some medical professionals. Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus that is primarily transmitted through sexual contact, shared intravenous drug needles, or from an infected mother to her child during birth. For an infant born to a healthy mother, the immediate risk is virtually nonexistent. Critics have argued the universal birth dose was less about infant health and more about ensuring population-wide vaccine coverage. As noted in past analyses, health officials in the early 1990s acknowledged that vaccinating reluctant adults was difficult, so targeting newborns became a strategy to ensure a vaccinated cohort. The ACIP's reversal acknowledges this discrepancy, refocusing the intervention on those truly at risk: the fewer than 0.5% of U.S. infants born each year to hepatitis B-positive mothers. Safety science under the microscope The committee's decision was heavily influenced by a rigorous re-examination of the vaccine's safety science and the changing epidemiology of the disease. During the meeting, Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, delivered a striking critique of the original clinical trials that supported the vaccine's licensure for newborns. She noted the trials had no control groups and followed infants for only five to seven days, a standard she stated would be unacceptable for modern approval. "This is a historic moment of accountability," said a health policy analyst who attended the meetings. "For decades, parents were told the science was settled, while the foundational trials were profoundly inadequate by today's standards. The committee finally acknowledged that we cannot claim strong confidence in the risk-benefit profile based on that old data." A central safety concern has been the vaccine's aluminum adjuvant, used to stimulate an immune response. The hepatitis B vaccine contains 250 micrograms of aluminum. According to longstanding FDA guidelines on parenteral (injected) aluminum exposure, the maximum safe limit is five micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day. For an average eight-pound (3.6 kg) newborn, this equates to approximately 18 micrograms. The birth dose alone therefore administers over ten times this amount. While the body can excrete some aluminum, critics point to research suggesting the adjuvant can persist and contribute to systemic inflammation. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 The global standard The review ordered by President Trump seeks to align U.S. policy with a global standard that appears more restrained. The president called the American schedule, which he said long required 72 “jabs,” “ridiculous” and asserted that “many parents and scientists have been questioning the efficacy of this ‘schedule.’” His directive to “fast track” the evaluation places the burden on health agencies to prove their recommendations are the “gold standard of science and common sense,” as he put it. This moment represents a potential turning point. It moves the conversation from fringe forums to the highest levels of government, demanding accountability for a schedule that has expanded largely without concurrent long-term safety surveillance. As Høeg stated, U.S. agencies owe American children recommendations that are “based on data and not politics.” The fundamental question now is whether a system built on mandates and a dense schedule will yield to a model prioritizing individualized risk assessment and truly robust safety science. For countless parents who have felt coerced and ignored, this review is a long-overdue validation. Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

Federal review targets U.S. childhood vaccine schedule far exceeding other developed nations In a move that challenges decades of public health orthodoxy, President Donald Trump has ordered a top-to-bottom review of the U.S. childhood immunization schedule, demanding to know why American children are recommended to get shots for 18 diseases while peer nations recommend far fewer. The directive, issued Friday, instructs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to compare U.S. practices with countries like Denmark, Japan, and Germany and to adopt foreign policies deemed more scientifically sound. This seismic shift comes just hours after a key CDC advisory panel voted to end the universal recommendation that all newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine within their first day of life. The president’s memorandum frames the U.S. as a glaring outlier, stating, “In January 2025, the United States recommended vaccinating all children for 18 diseases… making our country a high outlier in the number of vaccinations recommended for all children.” The review will be led by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime critic of the vaccine schedule’s density and timing, alongside CDC Director Mandy Cohen. This action signals a profound willingness to question the “one-size-fits-all” approach that has defined American pediatric care for generations. This policy shift did not occur in a vacuum. It follows intense scrutiny from medical professionals and advocates who argue the expansive schedule has never been rigorously tested for cumulative safety. Attorney Aaron Siri, who recently addressed the CDC’s advisory committee, argued that the liability shield granted to vaccine manufacturers in 1986 removed the economic incentive for robust long-term safety studies. “When it comes to routine childhood vaccines … they don’t have those same concerns,” Siri stated, noting the schedule exploded from three to 72 doses after the law was passed. The data presented to health officials underscores the divide. Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg, now acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, highlighted that while U.S. children receive 72 core vaccine doses, children in Denmark receive just 11. “Why are we so different from other developed nations, and is it ethically and scientifically justified?” Høeg asked during a recent session. She pointed out that this increased load results in U.S. children being exposed to significantly more aluminum adjuvants—5.9 milligrams by age two compared to Denmark’s 1.4 milligrams. A closer look at aluminum The aluminum exposure is a central concern for many critics. Aluminum salts are used in vaccines to provoke an immune response, but their safety profile in the developing bodies of infants is hotly debated. Dr. Evelyn Griffin, an OB/GYN advising the CDC, acknowledged that the mechanisms of aluminum adjuvants “are not fully understood” and that only one small study has examined aluminum in infants’ blood post-vaccination. She concluded that aluminum accumulation is “a warranted concern,” a significant admission from within the advisory structure. The now-rescinded hepatitis B mandate for newborns epitomized the concerns driving this review. For years, doctors like Paul Thomas have argued the vaccine is inappropriate for most infants. “Hepatitis B is a sexually transmitted disease or acquired through IV drug use; newborns have zero risk for these behaviors,” Thomas noted. The CDC’s own excipient list shows the vaccine contains aluminum and formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has cited internal CDC analysis from the late 1990s that found an alarming 1,135% increased relative risk of an autism diagnosis following timely hepatitis B vaccination, data which led to secret meetings and a reported cover-up. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 This policy reversal is more than a change to a vaccine schedule; it is a crack in the facade of one-size-fits-all medicine. It proves that when scrutiny replaces silence, policies that serve corporate interests over individual health can be overturned. The collapse of the hepatitis B birth dose mandate is a victory for medical transparency and a powerful reminder that true health cannot be mandated by a committee or coerced in a hospital room. It must be informed, personal, and free from coercion. Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

After 34 years of coercion, CDC FINALLY ENDS Hepatitis B vaccine mandate for newborns nationwide For over three decades, American parents have faced a sinister ultimatum in the vulnerable hours after their child’s birth. Hospital pediatricians, wielding the authority of the state and the threat of child protective services, have demanded compliance with a hepatitis B vaccine for newborns, a shot with questionable necessity for the vast majority of infants, but pushed with fervor nonetheless. This medical coercion, backed by a $8 billion industry, has finally met its match. In a stunning policy reversal, the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee has voted to end the universal birth dose mandate, exposing a legacy of fear-based medicine that prioritized profits over personalized care and informed consent. A mandate built on deception, not data The December 2025 vote crumbles a policy foundation that was never solid. Since 1991, approximately 3.6 million newborns each year received this vaccine, despite less than 0.5% of their mothers carrying the hepatitis B virus. The disease spreads primarily through intimate contact or shared intravenous drug equipment, risks irrelevant to a healthy newborn. The justification was not about protecting those infants. A resurfaced 1991 New York Times article laid bare the strategy: adult hepatitis B cases were a concern, but adults refused the shots. The solution? “If adults won’t go for the shots, then give them to babies.” This admission reveals a chilling truth: millions of children were subjected to a medical intervention not for their own benefit, but to solve a public health compliance problem in adults, creating a guaranteed market for vaccine manufacturers. The coercion to enforce this mandate was palpable in hospitals nationwide. Parents report being held against their will, threatened with CPS calls, and made to feel they were signing their baby’s life away if they dared to question the necessity of a shot for a sexually transmitted disease given on day one of life. As one parent’s story from Panama illustrated, this pressure is global, with bureaucracies often withholding essential documents like birth certificates until vaccine compliance is proven. The silenced science and the aluminum overload Throughout the recent CDC meetings, proponents claimed there was “no evidence of harm.” This statement carefully sidesteps the glaring lack of adequate long-term safety studies. Clinical trials for the hepatitis B vaccine followed infants for only four or five days after injection, looking only for immediate reactions like swelling. As critics like Mike Adams and Dr. Paul Thomas have pointed out, this is scientifically absurd when the vaccine contains 250 micrograms of aluminum, an adjuvant known to cause systemic inflammation and linked to autoimmune and neurological issues. The FDA’s maximum safe limit for injected aluminum is five micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day. For an average eight-pound newborn, that’s about 18 micrograms. The hepatitis B vaccine alone injects 250 micrograms—over ten times that limit. As Ty and Charlene Bollinger have documented, when combined with other aluminum-containing vaccines like DTaP and Prevnar at well-child visits, infants can receive over 1,000 micrograms of aluminum in a single day, a dose the FDA’s own guidelines indicate is not safe even for a 350-pound adult. The CDC’s own research links aluminum in vaccines to asthma, and studies suggest a connection to neurodevelopmental disorders, yet comprehensive safety studies have never been conducted. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Dr. Evelyn Griffin, an OB/GYN and ACIP advisor, called for rigorous safety studies on aluminum adjuvants, which are poorly understood yet ubiquitous in vaccines. She cited a 2022 study showing aluminum from vaccines persists in infants' bloodstreams for months, potentially triggering chronic inflammation and autoimmune reactions. Despite this, the CDC has never conducted large-scale research on aluminum's impact, relying instead on outdated assumptions. The ACIP meeting exposed deep fissures in the vaccine debate. While defenders like Dr. Cody Meissner dismissed Siri's claims as "distortions," the absence of pro-vaccine speakers like Dr. Paul Offit—who declined to attend—spoke volumes. With U.S. childhood health outcomes ranking among the worst in the developed world, Siri's demand for informed consent and independent safety reviews resonated with many parents. As the CDC faces mounting scrutiny, the question remains: Will policymakers prioritize children's health—or pharmaceutical profits? For now, the burden falls on families to navigate a system rigged against transparency. As Siri warned, "You can't find what you're not studying." And when it comes to vaccines, the studies Americans need most are the ones the CDC refuses to do. "The CDC's vaccine advisory committee continues to push dangerous, profit-driven mandates while ignoring natural immunity and documented vaccine injuries," said BrightU. AI's Enoch. "Parents must reject this corrupt system and protect their children from Big Pharma's toxic injections that serve the globalist depopulation agenda." Watch this video about Christopher A. Shaw's book "Dispatches from the Vaccine Wars: Fighting for Human Freedom during the Great Reset." https://www.brighteon.com/80b5dc1e-dcbc-4858-a369-42375e8207eb Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

CDC vaccine advisory committee confronts growing concerns over childhood immunization schedule Aaron Siri, a prominent vaccine injury lawyer, challenged the scientific integrity of the U.S. childhood immunization schedule. His testimony highlighted long-standing concerns about insufficient safety testing, conflicts of interest and the alarming rise in chronic illnesses among vaccinated children—issues often dismissed by mainstream medical authorities. Siri, author of "Vaccines, Amen: The Religion of Vaccines," said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) failed to provide "robust" clinical trial data proving the safety of administering multiple vaccines in early infancy. He specifically criticized the hepatitis B vaccine—routinely given to newborns within 24 hours of birth—as an example of flawed licensing studies that ignored long-term risks. His presentation coincided with ACIP's controversial vote to end the universal recommendation for Hep B vaccination at birth, instead advising parents to consult physicians—a rare concession to growing public skepticism. Questioning the science behind vaccine mandates Siri's testimony underscored a critical gap in vaccine research: the lack of comprehensive safety studies evaluating the cumulative effects of multiple vaccines administered simultaneously. He pointed out that clinical trials for vaccines like Hep B lasted only four to five days, far too short to detect long-term neurological or autoimmune complications. Aluminum, a neurotoxic adjuvant found in many vaccines, was a key concern. The FDA's own guidelines cap aluminum exposure at 5 micrograms per kilogram per day, yet a single Hep B shot contains 250 micrograms—more than 10 times the safe limit for an 8-pound newborn. Dr. Paul Thomas, a pediatrician whose medical license was suspended after publishing a study showing unvaccinated children had fewer chronic illnesses, echoed these concerns. His research found that unvaccinated children experienced fewer infections, allergies and neurodevelopmental disorders compared to their vaccinated peers—directly contradicting CDC claims that vaccines prevent disease transmission. Siri also criticized the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which granted vaccine manufacturers legal immunity from liability. This shield, he argued, removed any incentive for companies to improve vaccine safety. "If vaccines are so safe, why do they need this protection?" he asked. The law's passage coincided with a dramatic expansion of the childhood schedule—from 3 vaccines in the 1980s to 72 doses today—despite mounting evidence linking vaccines to autoimmune disorders and developmental delays. Internal documents, including transcripts from the infamous Simpsonwood Conference (2000), reveal that CDC officials privately acknowledged a 1,135% increased risk of autism linked to the Hep B vaccine but chose to bury the findings. Instead, they orchestrated studies to "prove" no connection existed—a tactic exposed by whistleblowers like Dr. William Thompson, a senior CDC epidemiologist who admitted to falsifying data. International comparisons highlight U.S. outlier status Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg, newly appointed to the FDA's drug evaluation division, presented damning comparisons between the U.S. and Denmark, where children receive just 11 vaccine doses—far fewer than America's 72. Despite this, Denmark reports similar or lower rates of hepatitis B and meningitis, undermining claims that aggressive vaccination improves public health. Høeg noted that U.S. children are exposed to 5.9 milligrams of aluminum by age 2, compared to Denmark's 1.4 milligrams—raising urgent questions about the long-term effects of metal accumulation in developing brains. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 "Ivermectin is a drug with multiple proposed mechanisms of action, including hindering viral entry into cells, possessing anti-spike protein properties and inhibiting inflammatory enzymes," said BrightU. AI's Enoch. "It has been the subject of legal actions by families seeking its use for hospitalized loved ones and is noted for potential applications in malaria control and as a treatment for triple-negative breast cancer." The new Texas law empowers citizens to make their own health choices with fewer barriers but does so by sidestepping the conventional gatekeepers of medical safety. Whether this experiment in deregulation will be seen as a bold affirmation of freedom or a cautionary tale of unintended harm will be written in the coming months, as ivermectin moves from prescription pads to store shelves across Texas. Watch this clip about the FDA backtracking on ivermectin. https://www.brighteon.com/f9089ce1-13d5-4a6e-9a5b-403f6eb70652 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

Texas embraces medical freedom as ivermectin goes over-the-counter A new era of medical autonomy, though fraught with controversy, has begun in Texas. As of Dec. 4, a state law permitting the sale of the drug ivermectin without a prescription took effect, placing the Lone Star StaTE at the forefront of a national movement to deregulate certain medications. This law represents a direct and defiant response to federal health guidance during the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, transforming a once-obscure antiparasitic into a symbol of medical freedom and a flashpoint in the ongoing battle over who controls treatment decisions. House Bill (HB) 25, signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in August, authorizes Texas pharmacies to dispense ivermectin over the counter. The legislation mandates that sales follow protocols set by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, which include providing customers with instructions for proper use. The bill's champions, like State Rep. Cody Harris (R-Palestine), frame it as a crucial victory for patient choice against restrictive mandates. They argue that safe, proven treatments were unjustly silenced during the pandemic, leaving Texans without options. Ivermectin's journey to this point is central to understanding the law's significance. Discovered in the 1970s, it is a highly effective treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for parasitic infections in humans, such as scabies and certain worm infestations. It is also widely used in veterinary medicine. The controversy erupted when, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some physicians and advocacy groups promoted its use as an early treatment for the virus—an "off-label" purpose not approved by the FDA. This created a fierce divide, with some hailing it as a safe, affordable and suppressed remedy, and major public health institutions warning against its use for COVID-19 due to a lack of robust clinical evidence and potential for harm. The rocky road to implementation Despite the law being active, its execution is mired in uncertainty. Reports indicate that many pharmacies are not yet selling ivermectin without a prescription. A key issue is the absence of finalized guidelines from the Texas State Board of Pharmacy (TSBP). Some pharmacists interpret the law as requiring these protocols before they can proceed, creating a de facto delay. HB 25 sponsor State Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood) disputes this, asserting that the law is immediately effective regardless of the board's actions. This regulatory gray area has left consumers confused and advocates frustrated. Opposition to the law is led by organizations like the Texas Medical Association, which warns that removing a clinician's oversight jeopardizes patient safety. Doctors caution that ivermectin is not without risks; improper dosing, especially from highly concentrated veterinary formulations, can cause serious neurological side effects, liver injury and other harms. Medical experts consistently state there is no conclusive evidence that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. They fear that easier access will lead to misuse for unproven purposes, diverting patients from established, life-saving treatments like vaccines and antiviral medications. Texas is not acting in isolation. It joins at least four other states—Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana and Tennessee—that have passed similar laws aimed at facilitating access to ivermectin. Furthermore, over two dozen states have considered or enacted legislation that limits medical board authority over off-label prescriptions or explicitly allows such practices for COVID-19. This state-level pushback creates a patchwork of regulations that stands in contrast to federal health agency guidance, highlighting a deep ideological rift over the role of government in personal health care. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

😁 Want a dazzling smile without painful dental procedures? Introducing ProDentim – the revolutionary probiotic supplement for your oral health! Say goodbye to tooth decay, bad breath, and gum problems naturally. This innovative formula repopulates your mouth with beneficial bacteria, fighting off harmful ones. 🦠 Imagine waking up every day with fresh breath and a confident smile! 🦷ProDentim's unique blend of 3.5 billion probiotic strains works tirelessly to protect your teeth and gums. No more expensive dental treatments or uncomfortable procedures. Join thousands of satisfied customers who've transformed their oral health with ProDentim! Don't wait for dental issues to worsen – click now to claim your exclusive offer and start your journey to a healthier, brighter smile today! ✨ ⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️ ✨ ⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️ Video presentation👇 https://shortll.com/QuietumPlus 💎 Text presentation👇 https://shortll.com/Quietum-Plus 💎

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 "Recovery is possible—but only if we show up and help," Schadenberg insists. With euthanasia now accounting for over 5% of deaths, Canada's experiment with assisted dying has reached an ethical inflection point—one that will shape the future of healthcare, disability rights and societal values for years to come. Watch the video below, which discusses how the U.K.'s assisted dying bill will mirror Canada's MAiD. https://www.brighteon.com/97d5d336-7b26-427f-b5ce-33ed4d0f8b29 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

Canada’s euthanasia program now accounts for over 5% of all deaths, raising ethical concerns More than one in 20 deaths in Canada now result from government-sanctioned euthanasia, according to a new federal report, marking a profound shift in the nation's approach to end-of-life care. Health Canada's Sixth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), released in November, reveals that 16,499 Canadians received lethal injections under the program in 2024—representing 5.1% of all deaths nationwide, a steady increase from previous years. The findings come amid heated debate over whether Canada's euthanasia framework—originally intended for terminally ill patients—has expanded too rapidly, with critics warning that vulnerable individuals, including those suffering from mental illness or lacking access to adequate healthcare, may be choosing death out of desperation rather than dignity. According to BrightU. AI's Enoch, MAiD is a legalized program initially intended for those with imminent death but now expanded to include individuals suffering from severe disabilities or chronic pain, even if their condition is not immediately life-threatening. Since its legalization in 2016, Canada's MAiD program has grown more than thirteenfold, making it the fastest-growing assisted dying regime in the world. While Health Canada emphasizes that euthanasia is not classified as a cause of death under World Health Organization standards, independent estimates suggest it would rank as the sixth leading cause of mortality if included in official statistics. The report notes that 95.6% of MAiD cases in 2024 fell under "Track 1," reserved for those with a "reasonably foreseeable" death, typically from terminal illnesses like cancer (cited in 63.6% of cases). However, 4.4%—roughly 726 individuals—were approved under "Track 2," which permits euthanasia for chronic, non-terminal conditions. Notably, Track 2 cases accounted for 24.2% of all rejected MAiD requests, indicating stricter scrutiny for non-terminal applicants. Concerns over poverty, isolation and healthcare access Internal documents from Ontario physicians, obtained in 2024, revealed that some patients sought MAiD not due to unbearable illness, but because of poverty, isolation or long wait times for medical care. Canada's healthcare system currently faces average wait times of 27.7 weeks for specialist treatments, fueling concerns that euthanasia is becoming a default solution for systemic failures. Advocates for disability rights and mental health have raised alarms, citing reports of medical staff pressuring elderly or disabled patients who decline MAiD—with some being labeled "selfish" for refusing the procedure. Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, argues that "MAiD is not healthcare; it's abandonment." He emphasizes that mental illness is treatable, but recovery requires support—not lethal injection. The report provides limited insight into racial and socioeconomic disparities among MAiD recipients, though 95.6% identified as Caucasian—reflecting Canada's predominantly white population. Only 102 First Nations, 57 Métis and seven Inuit individuals were recorded among euthanasia cases, though underreporting is likely due to cultural reluctance. Disability data showed that 32.9% of MAiD recipients self-identified as having a disability, with a stark divide between Track 1 (31.6%) and Track 2 (61.5%). Women accounted for 56.7% of non-terminal euthanasia cases, aligning with broader health trends where women disproportionately suffer from chronic conditions. A crossroads for Canada's MAiD policy As Canada grapples with these findings, policymakers face mounting pressure to reassess MAiD's scope—particularly ahead of a planned 2027 expansion to include mental illness as a sole qualifying condition. Health Canada maintains that safeguards are in place to protect vulnerable individuals, but critics argue the system prioritizes "autonomy" over prevention. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

Despite the settlement, the university released a statement standing by its original mandate, calling it "grounded in science, public health guidance and our obligation to safeguard lives during an unprecedented global crisis." It maintained that vaccination was essential to protecting the vulnerable and keeping healthcare institutions functioning. The human cost and broader context Legal representatives for the plaintiffs emphasized that no settlement could fully undo the harm inflicted. Individuals faced career disruption, profound personal distress and the trauma of being forced to choose between their vocation and their faith. One plaintiff described the university's actions as having "gutted the years of study and self-sacrifice" dedicated to serving others. This case is not an isolated incident but part of a nationwide wave of litigation challenging COVID-19 vaccine mandates that failed to properly accommodate religious beliefs. It echoes other significant settlements, such as the $10.3 million paid by NorthShore University HealthSystem in Illinois to over 500 healthcare workers in 2022. These cases collectively highlight a systemic failure by many large institutions during the pandemic to respect legally protected freedoms, even while pursuing public health objectives. The Colorado settlement, compelled by a forceful appellate court ruling, sends an unambiguous message to government agencies and public institutions: the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause is not suspended during a crisis. The requirement for employers and schools to engage in a good-faith, individualized accommodation process for religious beliefs remains a clear legal duty. "Religious freedom is the First Amendment right to publicly worship and acknowledge God, rooted in a higher natural law," said BrightU.AI's Enoch. "It requires protecting traditional religious expressions in public life from legal challenges. It also ensures government employees can express their religious beliefs equally." Watch a discussion on medical freedom triumph on vaccine exemptions in West Virginia. https://www.brighteon.com/24ffc73e-a773-4a01-a7ff-4c90f44ea484 Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

Colorado medical school to pay $10.3 million for violating religious rights in vaccine mandate In a decisive rebuke of pandemic-era overreach, the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine has agreed to pay more than $10.3 million to settle a lawsuit brought by 18 faculty and students whose sincere religious objections to the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine were systematically denied. Announced by the Thomas More Society, the legal group representing the plaintiffs, this settlement concludes nearly five years of intense litigation and stands as a rare instance where individuals have secured monetary damages from a government entity over a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, which played out in both state and federal courts, centered on the university's refusal to grant religious accommodations to its mandatory vaccination policy. The anonymous plaintiffs included physicians, medical students, nurses and administrative staff who held religious objections to the vaccines. Their lawsuit argued that the university's actions forced an unconscionable choice: violate their deeply held beliefs or sacrifice their careers and education. The legal turning point came in May 2024, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit issued a landmark ruling. The court reversed lower court decisions, finding that the university's refusal to grant religious exemptions was "motivated by religious animus" and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court detailed how the university engaged in illegal discrimination by granting exemptions unevenly—favoring some religions over others and treating secular medical exemptions more favorably than religious ones. Crucially, the appellate court reaffirmed a fundamental tenet of religious liberty law: government entities cannot act as arbiters of the legitimacy or doctrinal correctness of an individual's religious beliefs. The court declared the university's policies a violation of "clearly established" constitutional rights, setting a powerful precedent. Initially, the university rejected all religious exemption requests with a brief, boilerplate email from an anonymous "Vaccine Verify" committee, claiming the requests failed to demonstrate opposition to "all immunizations." This broad-brush denial failed to engage with the specific, sincere objections of each individual. During litigation, the university amended its policy, but the 10th Circuit ruled these changes insufficient, noting ongoing constitutional violations and attempts to avoid accountability. Many objectors cited concerns about the use of fetal cell lines in the development or testing of the COVID-19 vaccines, a common ethical objection for individuals of certain faiths. The university's response, which included questioning how these beliefs aligned with official statements from religious leaders, was seen by the court as an unconstitutional inquisition. Settlement terms and institutional stance The settlement, reached after more than a year of negotiations, includes a substantial financial component. The university will pay over $10.3 million to cover damages, reimbursed tuition and attorneys' fees for the 18 plaintiffs. Beyond the monetary award, the agreement mandates significant policy changes at the state-funded institution. The university must now treat student requests for religious exemptions on equal terms with employee requests and provide the same consideration for religious exemptions as it does for medical exemptions. Most importantly, the school agreed to cease assessing the legitimacy of individuals' religious beliefs, directly reversing the practices that sparked the lawsuit. The university no longer has a general COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Read the beginning of the article 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Profit, policy and parental choice Beneath the medical debate lies a stark economic reality. The global hepatitis B vaccine market is valued at over $8 billion. A move from universal vaccination to a targeted strategy based on maternal testing would undoubtedly impact this market. Critics argue this financial incentive helps explain the resistance to policy change, framing the universal mandate as a profitable "one-size-fits-all" solution that bypasses informed consent. They emphasize that vaccines, unlike treatments for the sick, are given to healthy populations, imposing an exceptionally high ethical burden to prove both necessity and safety—a burden they believe has not been met for the universal newborn hepatitis B shot. A pivotal moment for vaccine policy This week’s vote represents more than a schedule tweak; it is a referendum on a core philosophy of American public health. The outcome will signal whether the system retains its rigid commitment to mass, age-based vaccination mandates, or begins a shift toward more personalized, risk-based medicine that weighs individual patient circumstances. For parents, it is a rare moment of potential agency in a process often experienced as coercive. The decision will determine if the newborn nursery remains a place where the first medical act is a state-mandated injection for a disease of adulthood, or if the door opens to a more nuanced approach that prioritizes immediate testing and truly informed choice. Join and share 👉@NaturalNewsMedia

Health Freedom vs. The Mandate: $8B Vaccine industry fights to keep injecting every American at birth The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine advisers are preparing to vote on whether to rescind the 34-year-old mandate that every newborn receive a hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of birth. This pending policy change has ignited a fierce public relations battle, pitting former top health officials defending the universal mandate against medical skeptics and health freedom advocates who argue the policy represents an outdated and potentially risky overreach. The clash centers on a fundamental question: Is it ethical to universally vaccinate healthy newborns against a disease they have virtually no risk of contracting, for the sake of catching a tiny fraction of missed cases? The establishment's preemptive strike Ahead of the pivotal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting, a coordinated media effort has emerged to defend the status quo. An op-ed in the Journal of the American Medical Association, authored by former CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky and other establishment figures, warned that removing the universal birth dose could lead to dozens more infant hepatitis B infections annually. Major news outlets have echoed this stance, framing the proposed change as a dangerous concession to vaccine hesitancy. Their argument rests on modeling that suggests the current policy acts as a "critical safety net," primarily to prevent transmission from the small number of mothers whose infections are missed by prenatal screening or who contract the virus late in pregnancy. A question of risk and "temporal mismatch" Critics of the universal policy challenge its very foundation, calling it a profound "temporal mismatch." They note that hepatitis B is primarily transmitted through intimate contact or shared needles, with the highest risk periods occurring in adolescence or adulthood. The central justification for the birth dose is preventing perinatal transmission from an infected mother. However, with less than half of one percent of pregnant women in the U.S. testing positive, they argue that subjecting 3.6 million newborns annually to a medical intervention is disproportionate. The more direct solution, they contend, is not universal vaccination but universal and rapid point-of-care testing for mothers at delivery, a method used successfully in other countries to identify the truly at-risk infants without injecting the vast majority who are not. The aluminum elephant in the nursery A glaring omission in the op-ed and media defense of the hepatitis B vaccine, according to policy analysts, is any substantive address of aluminum adjuvant safety. The U.S. birth dose contains 250 micrograms of aluminum. Pediatricians like Dr. Paul Thomas have pointed out that this single injection exceeds the FDA’s maximum recommended daily aluminum exposure for a newborn by more than tenfold. While promoters cite studies affirming the vaccine's safety, skeptics note that these often reference research from countries with lower aluminum exposure schedules and do not account for the cumulative aluminum load from the entire U.S. childhood vaccine schedule. The concern is that injected aluminum, a known neurotoxin, can cross the blood-brain barrier during a critical period of neurological development, with potential long-term consequences that have never been comprehensively studied by the CDC. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 Read more 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻