now browsing by category


COVID-19 Vaccine Tested on Babies Even as Death Toll Mounts

© April 5th 2021 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC.
Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here:
Reproduced from original article:
Posted on: Thursday, March 25th 2021 at 12:45 pm
Written By: Dr. Joseph Mercola

Originally published on www.mercola.com


  • Mid-March 2021, Moderna started testing its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine on children between the ages of 6 months and 11 years
  • As of March 5, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received 31,079 adverse reaction reports for COVID-19 vaccines, including 1,551 deaths
  • Using March 5 VAERS statistics, assuming all deaths have been reported as required, the lethality rate of COVID-19 vaccines is 0.0028%
  • CDC statistics puts the death rate following COVID mRNA vaccination at 0.0024% — significantly higher than that following influenza vaccination at 0.0000265%
  • There are compelling reasons to suspect these vaccines may contribute to death further down the line, perhaps months or a few years into the future. Those ending up with permanent disability as a result of these vaccines will be at increased risk of early death, and there’s no telling how these vaccines might impact the longevity of children

If early statistics are any indication, we are facing the greatest public health calamity in modern history. No, I’m not talking about a third, fourth or fifth wave of COVID-19. I’m talking about the current vaccination campaign. I have no doubt that deaths caused by COVID-19 vaccines will end up far exceeding the number of actual COVID-19 deaths.

The greatest tragedy here is that while COVID-19 kills already unhealthy elderly individuals who are just years from their natural death, the vaccines are killing the young and healthy who typically have many more decades to live. From my perspective, there’s simply no justification for this. There’s no “greater good” argument that can ever make this type of tradeoff OK.

Equally unjustifiable is the fact that death within months of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test was automatically pegged as a COVID-19 death, whereas death within days or even hours of the vaccine is shrugged off as coincidental, no matter how many times it happens. It is reprehensibly inexcusable the way these deaths are being attributed.

Now, these experimental gene therapy “vaccines” are being tested on young children and even babies as young as 6 months old, the ramifications of which are wholly unknown.

According to Forbes1 and The New York Times,2 Moderna has officially started testing its vaccine on children between the ages of 6 months and 11 years. A total of 6,750 children will be included in the trial. Testing on 12- to 17-year-olds began in December 2020, the data from which are still unpublished. Considering what’s happening in the adult population, testing on young children and babies seems extremely premature and risky beyond belief.

Deaths Mount by the Week

Unfortunately, there’s no simple way to keep tabs on vaccine-related deaths. Each country has its own reporting mechanism, and vaccine reactions aren’t always properly reported.

In the U.S., for example, past investigations have shown only somewhere between 1%3 and 10%4 are ever reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is a passive, voluntary reporting system.

Granted, unlike other vaccines, deaths following COVID-19 vaccination are supposedly required to be reported,5 so perhaps VAERS data are more reliable for COVID-19 vaccines than for others. As of yet, though, it’s impossible to confirm that all related deaths are in fact being reported.

VAERS data processed as of March 5, 2021, show a total of 1,551 deaths. (This includes all locations, ages, genders and location of vaccine administration.) At that time, a total of 31,079 adverse reaction reports had been filed for COVID-19 vaccines, which means deaths account for 4.99% of adverse events. Life-threatening events account for 3.56% of total side effects reported, and permanent disability accounts for 2.10% of total side effects reported.

Comparing COVID-19 and Vaccine Death Rates

Another difficulty is matching different data sets together. For example, to put these numbers into greater context, you’d want to know how many people have been vaccinated as of that same date, March 5, 2021.

This too can be tricky to determine, as vaccination statistics6 will often use breakdowns such as the number of vaccinated people per 100, or vaccine doses administered, which doesn’t tell you how many people were vaccinated, seeing how some vaccines require a single dose while others require two.

Accepting those limitations, we can at least get an approximate idea. Using Our World in Data’s statistics,7 as of March 5, 2021, 55.55 million Americans had received at least one dose. (Another graph shows that as of March 5, 28.7 million Americans were considered fully vaccinated, having received all prescribed doses. However, since side effects can occur after the first dose, I will use that statistic.)

Dividing reported deaths, 1,551, by the number of people having received at least one dose, 55,550,000, we end up with a reported lethality rate of 0.0028%. If only 10% of adverse events are reported to VAERS, we’re looking at approximately 15,510 deaths and a lethality rate of 0.028%.

If only 1% are reported, there may be around 155,100 deaths, and vaccines may be killing 0.28% of all who get them. Again, while any and all deaths following COVID-19 vaccination are supposed to be reported, it’s still unclear whether mandatory reporting is actually taking place.

While 0.0028% or even 0.28% might not seem like a shockingly high percentage of deaths, it’s hard to justify even a single death of a young and healthy individual. For comparison, the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio from COVID-19, for all age groups, is 0.26%. Those under 40 have only a 0.01% risk of dying from COVID-19 if infected.8

As of right now, the vaccine may not match or exceed the lethality of COVID-19 itself, but we’re only three months into the vaccination campaign. According to NPR,9 21.7% of the U.S. population had received at least one vaccine dose as of March 16, 2021.

There are compelling reasons to suspect these vaccines may contribute to death further down the line, perhaps months or a few years into the future. Those ending up with permanent disability as a result of these vaccines will be at increased risk of early death, for example, and there’s no telling how these vaccines might impact the longevity of children.

If premature death occurs a year or more down the line, it’s unlikely that anyone will suspect it being connected to the vaccine. Right now, even deaths that occur within 24 hours in people who were young and in good health are chalked up to coincidence, which is truly remarkable.

Comparing COVID-19 Vaccines With Flu Vaccines

Another way to judge the lethality of COVID-19 vaccines is to compare it to seasonal flu vaccines which, by the way, used to account for a majority of vaccine injuries. As reported by The Vaccine Reaction:10

“The death rate following COVID mRNA vaccination is much higher than that following influenza vaccination. The CDC’s data allows only a ballpark estimation of the rate of deaths following flu vaccination. In the 2019-2020 influenza season the CDC reports that 51.8 percent of the U.S. population received a vaccine, which is approximately 170 million people.

VAERS reports that in the calendar year 2019 (not the 2019-2020 influenza season) there were 45 deaths following vaccination. To provide context, in 2018 VAERS reports 46 deaths, and in 2017 it reports 20 deaths.

The 45 deaths in 2019 are occurring at a rate of 0.0000265% when calculated using the number of vaccines given in the 2019–2020 influenza season. As of Feb. 26, 47,184,199 COVID vaccinations had been given with 1,136 deaths reported following vaccination, which is approximately a rate of .0024%.”

Are These Deaths Pure Coincidence?

As of March 5, 2021, the youngest recorded death shortly following COVID-19 vaccination was 23.11 Among the more recent reports is that of a healthy 39-year-old mother who died of multiple organ failure just four days after receiving her second dose of the Moderna vaccine.12

The average age of death post-vaccination is 75 and older,13 which is near-identical to the age of death for COVID-19 itself. However, whereas COVID-19 primarily kills elderly in nursing homes who have multiple comorbidities, the vaccines are cutting lives short among elderly who appear to be in relatively good health.

Examples include baseball legend Hank Aaron, who died in his sleep 17 days after receiving the vaccine. He was 86. His death was reported as completely natural and unrelated to the vaccine.14

Another is that of boxing champ Marvin Hagler who, according to his friend Thomas Hearns, was admitted to the ICU due to side effects from his COVID-19 vaccination. (Hearns had posted on his Instagram and Twitter accounts that Hagler was in the hospital ICU “fighting the after effects of the vaccine” and that he wanted fans to pray for his recovery.15

His posts have since been removed, but a screenshot of a retweet16 by Tariq Nasheed is still available.) Hagler died shortly thereafter. He was 66.

I suspect that once more celebrities start dying from the vaccines, more people might start to rethink their decision to get vaccinated. Mainstream media and industry-allied fact checkers are working overtime, though, to “debunk” any suggestion of a link between deaths and the vaccines.

Side Effects Range From Mild to Serious

Aside from sudden death,17,18,19,20,21,22 which is most serious of all, a range of other side effects are being reported, many of which will have a significant impact on quality of life. Examples of side effects reported after vaccination with Pfizer’s, Moderna’s and AstraZeneca’s vaccines from around the world include:

Persistent malaise23,24

Bell’s Palsy25,26,27

Extreme exhaustion28

Swollen, painful lymph nodes

Severe allergic, including anaphylactic reactions29,30,31

Thrombocytopenia (a rare, often lethal blood disorder)32,33

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome34 and/or myocarditis35

Miscarriages and premature birth.36,37,38 As of March 5, 2021, 85 cases of miscarriage or premature birth had been reported39

Chronic seizures and convulsions40,41

Severe headache/migraine that does not respond to medication


Sleep disturbances

Psychological effects such as mood changes, anxiety, depression, brain fog, confusion, dissociation and temporary inability to form words

Cardiac problems, including myocardial and tachycardia disorders43

Blindness, impaired vision and eye disorders44,45


As reported by The Defender, March 5, 2021, while vaccine injury reports are growing in number, consistent trends have emerged, including the following:48

  • Overall, 31% of deaths have occurred within 48 hours of vaccination
  • People who report getting sick within 48 hours of vaccination account for 47% of deaths
  • About 20% of deaths are cardiac-related

A majority of these side effects are from the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, which use mRNA technology. The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a chimpanzee adenovirus vector genetically engineered to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein instead. However, while many hoped this vaccine would be safer than mRNA versions, this doesn’t seem to be the case.

As of March 16, 2021, more than 20 European countries had suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine, either in full or in part, following reports of deadly blood clots.49,50 According to a March 2, 2021, report51 by The Defender, U.K. data show the AstraZeneca vaccine actually has 77% more adverse events and 25% more deaths than the Pfizer vaccine.

Like AstraZeneca’s vaccine, Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine also uses an adenovirus vector to carry the gene for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein into your cells, thereby triggering your cells to produce this protein.52 Business Insider has created a comparison chart53 of the four vaccines currently available in the U.S. and Europe — Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson.

Concerned Doctors Speak Out

Sadly, the vaccine debate is nothing if not one-sided. Medical professionals expressing concern are roundly ignored, despite their growing number. Among them is cardiac surgeon and patient advocate Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, who recently sent a public letter54 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner detailing the risks of vaccinating individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection.


He’s urging the FDA to require prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins to reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination. He warns the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus.

Immunologist Dr. Bart Classen has also warned there is troubling evidence suggesting some mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s and ALS,55 and Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist specializing in multisystem inflammatory syndrome, has expressed concern about mRNA vaccines’ ability to cause “microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in safety trials.”56

Doctors for COVID Ethics Want Answers to Safety Questions

February 28, 2021, a dozen doctors and scientists with Doctors for COVID Ethics published an open letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), expressing a number of concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. It reads, in part:57

“We note that a wide range of side effects is being reported following vaccination of previously healthy younger individuals with the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, there have been numerous media reports from around the world of care homes being struck by COVID-19 within days of vaccination of residents.

While we recognize that these occurrences might … have been unfortunate coincidences, we are concerned that there has been and there continues to be inadequate scrutiny of the possible causes of illness or death under these circumstances …”

Doctors for COVID Ethics is requesting the EMA provide responses to a series of questions, including evidence that gene-based vaccines won’t enter the bloodstream and disseminate throughout the body and be taken up by endothelial cells, and that platelet activation won’t result in disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Importantly, they also “demand conclusive evidence that an actual emergency existed at the time of the EMA granting conditional marketing authorization” for all three vaccines, seeing how by the time the vaccines became available, “health systems of most countries were no longer under imminent threat of being overwhelmed because a growing proportion of the world had already been infected and the worst of the pandemic had already abated.”

If the EMA fails to produce all of the evidences requested, the group demands “that approval for use of gene-based vaccines be withdrawn” until all safety issues have been properly addressed.

What to Do if You Regret Getting the COVID-19 Vaccine

If you already 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 review these strategies at the end of “Why COVID Vaccine Testing Is a Farce.”

Additionally, if you’re experiencing side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:58

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

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.

The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.

In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.

Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.



Forbes March 16, 2021

New York Times March 17, 2021 (Archived)

The Vaccine Reaction January 9, 2020

BMJ 2005;330:433

5, 10 The Vaccine Reaction March 13, 2021

Our World in Data COVID-19 Vaccination

Our World in Data COVID-19 Vaccination, Number of people who received at least one dose as of March 5, 2021

Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352

NPR March 16, 2021, Updated March 17, 2021

11, 48 The Defender March 5, 2021

12 The Vaccine Reaction March 15, 2021

13 NVIC March 5, 2021 VAERS data

14 NJ.com January 27, 2021

15 Fox News March 15, 2021

16 Twitter Tariq Nasheed March 13, 2021

17 Daily Star December 30, 2020

18 RT January 4, 2021

19 The Defender January 7, 2021

20 The Vaccine Reaction January 24, 2021

21, 26, 36, 44, 46 Gov.UK Weekly Summary of Yellow Card Reporting February 25, 2021

22, 27, 37, 45, 47 Principia Scientific International February 9, 2021

23 Facebook Haley Nelson December 30, 2020

24 Facebook Tara Sekikawa December 27, 2020

25 Mirror December 11, 2020

28 Facebook Karl Dunkin case January 5, 2021

29 RT December 26, 2020

30 The Defender December 21, 2020

31 CDC.gov Anaphylaxis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccine receipt (PDF)

32 The New York Times February 8, 2021 (Archived)

33 Newsweek February 10, 2021

34 The Defender January 12, 2021

35 Israel National News February 15, 2021

38, 39 Medalerts.org March 5, 2021

40 Facebook, Shawn Skelton January 7, 2021

41 WioNews January 2, 2021

42 Facebook, Alanna Tonge-Jelley January 9, 2021

43 The Defender February 16, 2021

49 The Defender March 16, 2021 Countries Suspend AstraZeneca Vaccine

50 The Defender March 11, 2021

51 The Defender March 2, 2021

52 New York Times February 27, 2021

53 Business Insider March 1, 2021

54 Medium February 15, 2021

55 Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 2021; 5(1): 1-3 (PDF)

56 University of California Public Comment related to consideration of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, December 8, 2020 (PDF)

57 Doctors for COVID Ethics February 28, 2021

58 The Defender January 25, 2021

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Research Shows Digital Devices Are Destroying Our Eyes

© April 4th 2021 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC.
Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here:
Reproduced from original article:
Posted on: Tuesday, August 21st 2018 at 11:00 am
Written By: GMI Reporter
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2021

Do your eyes frequently ache after staring at your tablet or smartphone? It’s not just the strain of looking at a small screen. It may be a sign of irreversible damage being done to your eyes—cellular damage that can lead to blindness

We’ve all heard that we shouldn’t stare too long at our screens, but is the faint blue glow from tablets and mobile phones really dangerous? According to a new study, the light from our digital devices is not only harmful, prolonged exposure can spur macular degeneration, a condition that can lead to blindness.

More than one-quarter of the world’s population spends at least seven hours per day on a smartphone,[1] and our total time exposed to media, including computers, tablets, and TVs, has exceeded a jaw-dropping twelve hours per day.[2] This alarming rise in screen use—and it’s growing each year—has led researchers to question the effects this trend is having on eye health.

We’ve known since the 1950s that blue light is capable of disturbing the delicate light-balance of photosensitive life forms, however science is just beginning to recognize the extent to which overexposure to lighted screens can affect the human organism. “Maintaining synchronized circadian rhythms is important to health and well-being,” says Dieter Kunz, director of the Sleep Research and Clinical Chronobiology Research Group. “Desynchronization of circadian rhythms may play a role in various tumoral diseases, diabetes, obesity, and depression.”[3]

Recent research conducted by University of Toledo scientists and published in the journal Scientific Reports,[4] adds a layer to the discussion of harms that can be experienced when we don’t put down the glowing screens. The study, entitled, “Blue light excited retinal intercepts cellular signaling,” examined a unique spectrum of light called blue light, the wavelength on the visible electromagnetic spectrum which has the greatest power to disturb our circadian rhythms.

According to researchers, blue light emitted from cell phones, laptops, and other digital devices causes damage to vision by triggering the formation of poisonous molecules in the eye’s light-sensitive cells. Retinal, or retinaldehyde, is a form of Vitamin A and the key molecule involved in vision, responsible for converting the energy in light photons into electrical impulses in the retina.[5] While the cornea and lens of the eye are transparent to blue light, this light spectrum excites retinal molecules, creating condensation byproducts called lipofuscins: phototoxic, non-degradable materials that cause macular degeneration. This “blue light excited retinal” causes irreversible changes to the plasma membrane of the eye, disrupting its function and causing oxidative damage to the core of the membrane. Simply put, shining blue light on retinal kills photoreceptor cells.

What makes this finding deeply troubling for eye health is that once dead, these cells do not regenerate. Adults over the age of 50, and those with compromised immune systems, are most at risk for significant loss of vision due to the death of these nonregenerative cells. Age-related macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in the United States and is estimated to effect nearly 2 million people over the age of 40.[6]

According to Dr. Ajith Karunarathne, one of the contributing researchers and assistant professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Toledo, “We are being exposed to blue light continuously and the eye’s cornea and lens cannot block or reflect it.” What we can do, according to Dr. Karunarathne, is wear sunglasses that block both UV and blue light. Central to this research is avoiding excessive use of digital devices. While each person must determine what “excessive use” constitutes, listen to your body and know when enough is enough. Pain in the eyes, headaches, and blurred vision are all signs that you may be suffering from too much blue light exposure.

For many people, the use of digital devices is not optional. Clearly, there is a need to protect our eyes, but what can we do besides quit our jobs, toss our devices, and move to the countryside?

How to Support Your Eyes Naturally

According to experts at the American Optometric Association, Computer Vision Syndrome, or Digital Eye Strain, refers to “a group of eye and vision-related problems that result from prolonged computer, tablet, e-reader and cell phone use.” This type of eye strain causes varying levels of discomfort among individuals who use digital devices, with amount of discomfort tightly correlated to length of use each day. With many modern jobs requiring the use of computers and devices, even during off-hours, it’s no surprise that the average American worker spends as much as seven hours a day on the computer. [7] Add to that, the number of times a day we check phones, Facebook accounts, personal email, etc. and it’s safe to say that many Americans spend more time looking at screens each day than looking at the outside world.

There are ways to protect your eyes that don’t require abandoning your way of life. For starters, the American Optometric Association recommends “the 20-20-20 rule”: take a 20-second break from the screen to view something 20 feet away from you, every 20 minutes.[8] Keep screens at a reasonable distance from your eyes; an arm’s-length and 4-5 inches below eye-level is considered a safe distance. Enlarge text and zoom-in to see clearly, rather than holding devices closer to your eyes. Make sure your computer room is well-lit and avoid staring at your phone or tablet while in the dark, such as lying in bed with the lights-out. When blue light is the primary wavelength penetrating the eye, it can be even more damaging.[9]

Eye doctors essentially agree that some decline to the central field of vision is normal as we age, hence why wearing “readers” is common among people over age forty. Yet, there are many things we can do to prevent and even reverse macular degeneration. As with many age-related health issues, nutrition is one of our best lines of holistic defense.

No matter how much nutrient-dense food we consume, we only benefit to the degree that our bodies can absorb and utilize these nutrients. Therefore, improving the health of gut bacteria is an essential prerequisite to reversing vitamin-based deficiencies that can weaken eyesight. Probiotics and an organic, produce-rich diet are vital to healthy gut flora, which can help ward-off all types of physical maladies, including macular degeneration.


Increasing consumption of certain foods can help give eyes a natural boost. Carotenoids, the organic nutrient that gives carrots their orange color, are also why carrots are known for being an eye-health bonanza. Carotenoids nourish the macula, which is central to the retina and responsible for our sharpest vision. Consuming a diet that is high in beta-carotene supports eye through by providing abundant carotenoids, and the carrots don’t have to be orange to have this benefit! Other vitamins that are known to support eye health include Vitamins A, C, and zinc, found abundantly in leafy greens, sweet potatoes, and citrus fruits.

Another important dietary component of eye health is cholesterol. Recent genetic studies have shown that the presence of several cholesterol-related genes increase risk factors for age-related macular degeneration.[10] Supplementation with niacin and fish oil can help to achieve a healthy cholesterol balance, which is recognized as being key to ensuring that the macula receives the benefits of enhanced nutrition.[11] Consuming a diet that is low in trans-unsaturated fat and rich in omega-3 fatty acids helps the body maintain healthy blood lipids and is important for proper visual development and retinal function. Omega-3s can even improve vision by strengthening the nerves in the eye.[12]

Consider holistic alternatives to statin drugs. The eye-damaging effects of statins may not be well-publicized, however users of statin drugs have been shown to have a 48% higher risk of pathological eye lens changes (nuclear sclerosis and cortical cataract) associated with cataracts.

Finally, do the things that are necessary to maintain overall eye health, such as blinking often, which naturally lubricates and refreshes the eyes, and clears dust and particles. Keep your devices clean, and free of smudges and dust which can increase glare. Visit your eye doctor annually, and make sure you have up-to-date prescription lenses, if required. Inquire about specialized glasses that can reduce glare from computer screens, and provide a layer of protection between your retina and the blue light.

If you can’t avoid hours of screen time, at least you can support your eye health, naturally. By consuming a healthy diet and practicing good personal-use habits, you can minimize the damage and enjoy use of your digital devices.

To learn more about natural, evidence-based interventions for macular degeneration, use the GreenMedInfo.com Research Dashboard:




[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/781692/worldwide-daily-time-spent-on-smartphone/


[2] https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2017/the-nielsen-total-audience-q2-2017.html


[3] Holzman DC. What’s in a Color? The Unique Human Health Effects of Blue Light. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2010;118(1): A22-A27.


[4] Kasun Ratnayake, John L. Payton, O. Harshana Lakmal & Ajith Karunarathne. Blue light excited retinal intercepts cellular signaling. Scientific Reports, volume 8, 05 July 2018; Article number:10207.


[5] https://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/vchemlib/mim/bristol/retinal/retinal_text.htm


[6] https://www.cdc.gov/visionhealth/basics/ced/index.html


[7] https://www.aoa.org/patients-and-public/caring-for-your-vision/protecting-your-vision/computer-vision-syndrome?sso=y


[8] IBID


[9] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/smartphones-blue-light-blindness-why-eyesight-macular-degeneration-a8485846.html


[10] Pikuleva IA, Curcio CA. Cholesterol in the retina: the best is yet to come. Progress in retinal and eye research. 2014;0:64-89. doi:10.1016/j.preteyeres.2014.03.002.


[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC305368/


[12] https://www.aoa.org/patients-and-public/caring-for-your-vision/diet-and-nutrition?sso=y



Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Mycotoxins: The Hidden Hormone Danger In Our Food Supply

© 8th August 2020 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter
Reproduced from original article:
Posted on: Friday, July 31st 2020 at 6:00 am
Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2020

Over 30 years ago, scientists observed mycotoxin contaminated animal feed (grains) interfering with normal sexual development in young female pigs, resulting in estrogenic syndromes and precocious puberty. More recent human research in the U.S. is confirms that the contamination of our food supply with fungal toxins is adversely affecting the sexual development of young girls.

Grains, once considered the foundation of the USDA’s “food pyramid” (and still a key component of its updated “food plate”), have recently come under scrutiny due to their purported evolutionary incompatibility (e.g. Paleo and/or ancestral diets), their co-option by biotech and agricultural corporations (e.g. Monsanto/Bayer’s Franken-Corn), as well as the fact that they convert to “sugar” within the body, to name but a few of a growing list of concerns. But there may be a more ancient problem affecting all grains, including both organic and conventional varieties, that Nature herself produces, and it goes by the name of mycotoxins.

What Are Mycotoxins?

Mycotoxins are toxic secondary metabolites produced by organisms of the fungi kingdom, commonly known as molds. If you eat grains, or grain-fed animal products, there is a good chance you are already being exposed because mold infestation and mycotoxin contamination affects as much as one-quarter of the global food and feed supply.[i]

Food contaminated with mycotoxins can cause acute, even life-threatening adverse health effects. As recently as April 2004, in Kenya, an outbreak of aflatoxicosis, caused by aflatoxin contamination in corn, resulted in 317 cases and 125 deaths.[ii]  When samples of the corn were evaluated for levels of aflatoxin, 55% of the maize products tested had aflatoxin levels greater than the Kenyan regulatory limit of 20 parts per billion, ranging from 100 ppb (35%) to 1 part per million (7%).

While it is remarkable that these exceedingly low concentrations can have deadly effects, the absence of acute signs and symptoms of mycotoxin poisoning does not necessarily mean you are not being affected.  Indeed, much lower, harder to detect, concentrations of various mycotoxins are capable of profoundly disrupting endocrine function in exposed population, likely contributing subclinically to many other chronic degenerative health conditions.

Mycotoxins As Endocrine Disruptors

A groundbreaking study published in the journal The Science of Total Environment  found that the estrogen-disrupting mycotoxin known as zearalenone (ZEA), produced by the microscopic fungus Fusarium graminearum, was detectable in the urine of 78.5% of New Jersey girls sampled, and that these Zea-positive girls, aged 9 and 10 years, “tended to be shorter and less likely to have reached the onset of breast development.”[iii]

ZEA mycotoxins originate in grains such as corn, barley, oats, wheat, rice and sorghum,[iv] but also travel up the food chain to grain-fed meat, eggs and dairy products, and are even found in beer. Indeed, the researchers were able to find an association between the young girls’ urinary levels of ZEA and their intake of commonly contaminated sources such as beef and popcorn.

Interestingly, derivatives of ZEA mycotoxin have been patented as oral contraceptives. Also, according to a recent article “[zearalenone] has been widely used in the United States since 1969 to improve fattening rates in cattle by increasing growth rate and feed conversion efficiency. Evidence of human harm from this practice is provided by observations of central precocious puberty. As a result, this practice has been banned by the European Union.” Other research has confirmed the link between mycotoxins and premature puberty.

Pigs fed zearalenone contaminated corn fed pigs has resulted in estrogenic syndromes including uterine enlargement, swelling of the vulva and mammary glands, and pseudopregnancy, according to research published almost 4 decades ago.

Molecular research on ZEA’s endocrine disruptive properties indicate that it has much higher estrogen receptor binding affinity, when compared nanogram to nanogram, than found in other well-known endocrine disruptors, such as DDT and bisphenol A, in both estrogen receptor subtypes.[v]  Also, healthy human intestinal microflora have been shown incapable of degrading zearalenone, unlike bisphenol A. [vi]

Surprisingly, the ZEA study in young NJ girls was the first ever performed to evaluate this mycotoxin’s potential estrogen-disrupting properties, and indicates just how great a need there is for further research on the topic, as far as public health is concerned.  There are already over 40 mycotoxins of great enough concern to be subject to regulation by over 100 countries.[vii]  And yet, most of these have not been fully characterized or evaluated for their potential health risks.

What Can We Do About The Mycotoxin Problem?

Unfortunately, both conventional and organic grain products are equally susceptible to mycotoxin contamination.[viii]  Also, cooking mycotoxin contaminated grains does not appear to significantly reduce their concentrations. The solution, therefore, may require shifting away from cereal grains, altogether – especially those that are not fresh, i.e. corn on the cob.  Due to the fact that much of the U.S. corn supply is contaminated with agrichemicals such as glyphosate, the primary herbicide ingredient within Roundup, and has been altered with recombinant DNA technology to contain potentially harmful transgenes, kicking the corn habit  may not be so difficult. However, our infatuation with other susceptible grains, such as wheat, may be harder to kick.


One of the best approaches to modifying the diet to exclude mold-susceptible grains is to focus on low-starch, high-nutrient vegetables such as kale instead, and choosing fresh produce instead of consuming more shelf stable, but mycotoxin rich, processed grain-based products.

Also, garlic has been studied to be capable of reducing the adverse effects of zearalenone toxicity, indicating that it would be an excellent seasoning to use if one were to consume potentially contaminated grains or grain-derived products of any kind. In fact, it is likely that the near universal use of spices within world culinary traditions may, in part, be due to their role in reducing adverse health effects associated with mycotoxins and related food-borne pathogens. You can view the GreenMedInfo database to access research on over 40 natural substances found to mitigate the adverse effects of mold exposure and toxicity here: Mold Toxicity Database.

Learn more about mold toxicity at the upcoming summit from August 17th-23rd.

The unrecognized consequences of mold toxicity can create hormonal imbalances, brain disrepair, chronic gastrointestinal issues and multiple autoimmune conditions — join us and learn to identify and treat exposure.  



Sayer Ji

5G Radiation Linked To Coronavirus Infection, New Study Suggests

© 18th July 2020 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter
Reproduced from original article:
Posted on:  Wednesday, July 22nd 2020 at 1:15 pm
Written By:  Sayer Ji, Founder
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2020

A new paper published in the Journal of Biological Regulators & Homeostatic Agents posits there may be a unique, causally connected relationship between 5G millimeter wave exposure and coronavirus  an idea which, though widely discussed early on in the global COVID crisis, was eventually dismissed as “conspiracy theory” by the mainstream media and government officials, resulting in widespread censorship on social media platforms. 

The new study, titled “5G Technology and induction of coronavirus in skin cells,” authored by an international collaboration of scientists from Italy, the U.S. and Russia, suggests that 5G radiation may be absorbed by dermatologic cells that act like antennas,* thereby transferring its effects to other cells, including activating DNA-based biosynthetic processes within the nucleus of the cell, possibly resulting in the de novo synthesis of coronaviruses in biological cells.

The authors describe how this may work as follows:

“DNA is built from charged electrons and atoms and has an inductor-like structure. This structure could be divided into linear, toroid and round inductors. Inductors interact with external electromagnetic waves, move and produce some extra waves within the cells. The shapes of these waves are similar to shapes of hexagonal and pentagonal bases of their DNA source.

These waves produce some holes in liquids within the nucleus. To fill these holes, some extra hexagonal and pentagonal bases are produced. These bases could join to each other and form virus-like structures such as Coronavirus.

To produce these viruses within a cell, it is necessary that the wavelength of external waves be shorter than the size of the cell. Thus 5G millimeter waves could be good candidates for applying in constructing virus-like structures such as Coronaviruses (COVID-19) within cells.”

The idea that one of the causes of illness associated with the coronavirus crisis derives from non-native electromagnetic radiation exposure, including from 5G millimeter waves, was proposed by Dr. Thomas Cowan in the highly controversial presentation below. This has been labeled as “false and harmful” information on a variety of social media and global mainstream media platforms.



According to Cowan, 5G millimeter waves may induce cell damage that results in the excretion of cellular contents, which include nucleic acids and exosomes (virus-like nanoparticles produced within cells as natural forms of intercellular communication).

This debris, which he describes as part of the detoxification of the damaged cells (“cellular pooping”), may be mistakenly identified as exogenous viruses such as coronavirus and may result in false positives on RT-PCR tests, which are notoriously ineffective at positively distinguishing specific strains of viruses and identifying them with any certainty.

While this idea differs slightly from the one proposed by the study authors, they overlap in significant ways. In both explanations, 5G associated radiation induces cell changes that are identified as being caused by “COVID virus.”

Whether or not there is a de novo synthesis of coronaviruses as a result of 5G radiation exposure, or whether or not the damage to the cell produces debris containing COVID virus like nucleic acid, remains to be determined. But in both scenarios, what is perceived as a COVID illness from the outside in may in fact be the byproduct of cellular changes resulting from EMF exposure and not an exogenous viral infection, as commonly assumed.

Dr. Andrew Kaufman has also explored this topic and discovered that what the global mainstream medical establishment and media are identifying as “COVID-19” is likely our own exosomes being secreted by either healthy or damaged cells.

I highly recommend viewing his presentation below, and you can obtain more presentations of this kind in section two of QuestioningCovid.com, titled, Questioning Germ Theory, Contagion and Viral Testing.

My take on it, which I explore in the video below  “COVID-19 — is it really about a virus?” is that exosomal processes within the body and between bodies simulate infectious processes, but rather than being simply a sign of pathology and imminent morbidity and mortality are designed to support the collective health of a group of individuals or species, or even between species.

In this view, what is commonly understood to be infection and contagion is actually a surface misunderstanding of a process of horizontal information exchange designed to facilitate enhanced detoxification, xenohormesis and the activation of resiliency pathways within a species, and is the very origin of what is known as “herd immunity.”

This latest paper opens back up an important topic that has been all but suppressed and censored today, namely, that health problems associated with infections such as coronavirus involve a wide range of factors, including foremost the role of the so-called “bioterrain” of the cell in determining susceptibility to infection and illness.

Viruses do not exist in a vacuum and don’t simply attack helpless bodies. When the cellular terrain is healthy and resilient infections tend not to take hold, or even have effects that confer lasting health benefits.

Moreover, the discovery of the human microbiome (and the total set of viruses or viral-like components of the microbiome known as the human virome) reveals that classical germ theory is bankrupt, and that what we once believed were invisible viral threats “out there” are surprisingly similar, if not identical, to endogenous viral-like elements within our cells known as exosomes, and often cannot be distinguished from them.

For example, the widespread use of RT-PCR tests to identify “COVID” may simply be identifying our bodies’ own viral or exosomal contents, and thereby generating “false positives,” which justify the continual implementation of allopathic approaches that result in profound iatrogenic damage to the body, falsely described as “caused by COVID.”

I highly recommend that those interested in understanding the true nature of viruses and their indispensable role in establishing immunological self-tolerance, homeostasis, and ultimately health, watch distinguished National Institutes of Health speaker and virome expert Dr. Herbert Virgin’s presentation:

Also, you can learn more about the New Biology and its impact on our understanding of infectious disease by reading:

*Incidentally, the notion that the harms of 5G radiation extend beyond the surface of the skin, as commonly paroted by the telecom industry and its would-be regulators, and that human skin may act as a 5G radiation receiver was discussed in a paper published in 2018 titled, “The human skin as a sub-THz receiver – Does 5G pose a danger to it or not?

Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Is Quercetin a Safer Alternative to Hydroxychloroquine?

Reproduced from original article:

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola     Fact Checked
is quercetin safer alternative to hydroxychloroquine


  • A Chinese trial comparing clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine and those receiving standard of care alone reports “disappointing” result
  • The hydroxychloroquine group only had a 28-day negative conversion rate of 85.4% compared to the control group’s rate of 81.3%. No difference in the alleviation of symptoms was observed between the two groups
  • The study did not, however, use supplemental zinc, which helps prevent viral replication. Evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine works for COVID-19 because it acts as a zinc ionophore, meaning it shuttles zinc inside your cells
  • A Brazilian chloroquine trial stopped the high-dose arm of the study early due to patients developing ventricular tachychardia, a dangerous heart rhythm problem. Chloroquine is known to be more toxic than hydroxychloroquine
  • Quercetin is a naturally occurring zinc ionophore. Taken with zinc, it may be helpful to prevent and potentially treat COVID-19. Research is currently underway to assess quercetin’s effectiveness against COVID-19

The debate about whether the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues, as a Chinese trial1,2,3,4 comparing clinical outcomes of those treated with the drug and those receiving standard of care alone reports “disappointing” results.

Hydroxychloroquine Trial Reports Disappointing Results

Seventy-five COVID-19 patients at 16 Chinese treatment centers received 1,200 milligrams of hydroxychloroquine in addition to standard of care for the first three days of treatment, followed by a maintenance dose of 800 mg per day for two weeks in mild to moderate cases and three weeks for severe cases. Another 75 patients received standard of care only.

The primary endpoint was a 28-day negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 (viral load reduction). Secondary endpoints included improvement rate of clinical symptoms and the normalization of C-reactive protein and blood lymphocyte count within 28 days.

According to the authors, the hydroxychloroquine group only had a 28-day negative conversion rate of 85.4% compared to the control group’s rate of 81.3%. No difference in the alleviation of symptoms was observed between the two groups.

Adverse events were also higher in the hydroxychloroquine group (30%) compared to controls (8.8%). You can find a listing of the adverse events in Table 2 of the study.5 The most common adverse event, at 10%, was diarrhea. That said, the authors point out that:6

“A significant efficacy of HCQ [hydroxychloroquine] on alleviating symptoms was observed when the confounding effects of anti-viral agents were removed in the post-hoc analysis (Hazard ratio, 8.83, 95%CI, 1.09 to 71.3).

This was further supported by a significantly greater reduction of CRP (6.986 in SOC [standard of care] plus HCQ versus 2.723 in SOC, milligram/liter, P=0.045) conferred by the addition of HCQ, which also led to more rapid recovery of lymphopenia, albeit no statistical significance.

Conclusions: The administration of HCQ did not result in a higher negative conversion rate but more alleviation of clinical symptoms than SOC alone in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 without receiving antiviral treatment, possibly through anti-inflammatory effects. Adverse events were significantly increased in HCQ recipients but no apparently increase of serious adverse events.”

Limitations of This Study

A few things are worthy to note about this study. Aside from its small size, the patients received a far higher dose of hydroxychloroquine than typically used in the U.S. — 1,200 milligrams for the first three days, followed 800 mg per day for two to three weeks, compared to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s suggested dosage of 800 mg on Day 1, followed by 400 mg per day for four to seven days, depending on severity.7

Secondly, most patients had mild disease with little hypoxemia, and thirdly, treatment was administered quite late, on average 16 to 17 days after the onset of disease. Commenting on the findings, Josh Fargas, associate professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Vermont writes:8

“Much of the pathogenesis of critical illness seems to result from dysregulated inflammation, rather than direct viral cytopathic effect. This raises a question of whether any antiviral treatment will be beneficial for late-presenting patients with severe illness.

Of course, it is possible that earlier use of hydroxychloroquine could be beneficial (e.g., perhaps at the first signs of illness on an out-patient basis). This is under investigation and additional data is likely to be forthcoming soon. Even if this does work in the outpatient clinic, it would probably have little impact on the management of these patients within the intensive care unit.”


Click here to learn Dr. Mercola's ultimate guide to combating coronavirus

This Study Failed to Use Zinc

Perhaps most importantly, however, is the absence of zinc, which Fargas does not mention. We now know that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine act as zinc ionophores,9,10 meaning they shuttle zinc into your cells, and zinc appears to be a “magic ingredient” required to prevent viral infection.11

If given early, zinc along with a zinc ionophore should, at least theoretically, help lower the viral load and prevent the immune system from becoming overloaded. Without zinc, hydroxychloroquine may be more or less useless.

So, in my view, I doubt this study is worth placing too much stock in, seeing how it did not administer supplemental zinc. As noted in the preprint paper, “Does Zinc Supplementation Enhance the Clinical Efficacy of Chloroquine / Hydroxychloroquine to Win Todays Battle Against COVID-19?” published April 8, 2020:12

“Besides direct antiviral effects, CQ/HCQ [chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine] specifically target extracellular zinc to intracellular lysosomes where it interferes with RNA-dependent RNA polymerase activity and coronavirus replication.

As zinc deficiency frequently occurs in elderly patients and in those with cardiovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, or diabetes, we hypothesize that CQ/HCQ plus zinc supplementation may be more effective in reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality than CQ or HCQ in monotherapy. Therefore, CQ/HCQ in combination with zinc should be considered as additional study arm for COVID-19 clinical trials.”

Chloroquine Trial Stopped Due to Side Effects

In related news, a Brazilian chloroquine trial13,14 stopped the high-dose arm of the study early due to patients developing ventricular tachychardia, a dangerous heart rhythm problem. As reported by Live Science:15

“The Brazilian researchers planned to enroll 440 people in their study to test whether chloroquine is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. Participants took either a ‘high dose’ of the drug (600 milligrams twice daily for 10 days) or a ‘low dose’ (450 mg for five days, with a double dose only on the first day) … 

However, after enrolling just 81 patients, the researchers saw some concerning signs. Within a few days of starting the treatment, more patients in the high dose group experienced heart rhythm problems than did those in the low dose group. And two patients in the high dose group developed a fast, abnormal heart rate known as ventricular tachychardia before they died.”

As explained in my previous article, “Antimalarial Medications: A COVID-19 Treatment Option?” chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been shown to be effective in the lab against the SARS coronavirus that appeared in 2003.16,17,18 Laboratory testing also suggests chloroquine is effective in cell cultures against COVID-19 when combined with an antiviral drug, remdesivir.19

However, chloroquine (Aralen) appears to be a more hazardous choice than hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil), which is a derivative of chloroquine.20 Both use the same pathway, but hydroxychloroquine is thought to be about 40% less toxic21 and, overall, has a safer side effect profile.22,23

Quercetin — A Safer Alternative to Hydroxychloroquine?

Considering the risks of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, and the evidence suggesting the reason these drugs work for COVID-19 is because they act as zinc ionophores, it’s worth questioning whether other more natural zinc ionophores can be used.

One prime example would be quercetin, which is a naturally occurring zinc ionophore.24 As reported by the Green Stars Project,25 “Researchers from Oak Ridge National Lab used the world’s most powerful supercomputer, SUMMIT, to look for small molecules that might inhibit the COVID-19 spike protein from interacting with human cells and, interestingly, quercetin is fifth on that list.”26

Quercetin is one of only three natural products found to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The only natural product found to be slightly more effective is luteolin, a polyphenol found in radicchio, green peppers, serrano and green hot chili peppers, chicory, celery and many other foods.27

Quercetin is another flavonols compound found in a variety of foods, including apples, Brassica vegetables, capers, onions, tea and tomatoes, just to name a few. It’s also contained in medicinal products such as Ginko biloba, St. John’s Wort (Hypericum perforatum) and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).

Research has already demonstrated that quercetin is a powerful immune booster and broad-spectrum antiviral. As noted in a 2016 study28 in the journal Nutrients, quercetin’s mechanisms of action include the inhibition of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) production in macrophages.

TNF-α is a cytokine involved in systemic inflammation, secreted by activated macrophages, a type of immune cell that digests foreign substances, microbes and other harmful or damaged components. Quercetin also inhibits the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines and histamine by modulating calcium influx into the cell.29

According to this paper, quercetin also stabilizes mast cells and has “a direct regulatory effect on basic functional properties of immune cells,” which allows it to inhibit “a huge panoply of molecular targets in the micromolar concentration range, either by down-regulating or suppressing many inflammatory pathways and functions.”30

Another 2016 study31 concluded it helps modulate the NLRP3 inflammasome, an immune system component involved in the uncontrolled release of pro-inflammatory cytokines that occurs during a cytokine storm.

In vitro studies32,33,34 have shown quercetin exerts antiviral activity against SARS-CoV, and preliminary findings35 suggest quercetin can inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 main protease as well. You can get even more details about the anti-inflammatory and antiviral powers of quercetin in “Quercetin Lowers Your Risk for Viral Illnesses.”

Quercetin Being Studied for Its Use Against COVID-19

The good news is researchers are in fact planning to study the use of quercetin against COVID-19.36 As reported by Maclean’s,37 Canadian researchers Michel Chrétien and Majambu Mbikay began investigating quercetin in the aftermath of the SARS epidemic that broke out across 26 countries in 2003.

They discovered a derivative of quercetin provided broad-spectrum protection against a wide range of viruses, including SARS.38,39 The Ebola outbreak in 2014 offered another chance to investigate quercetin’s antiviral powers and, here too, they found it effectively prevented infection in mice, “even when administered only minutes before infection.”

So, when the COVID-19 outbreak was announced in Wuhan City, China, in late December 2019, Chrétien contacted colleagues in China with an offer to help. In February 2020, Chrétien and his team received an official invitation to begin clinical trials. According to Maclean’s:40

“The Canadian and Chinese scientists would collaborate on the trials, which would include about 1,000 test patients. Chrétien and Mbikay plan to join colleagues from the non-profit International Consortium of Antivirals — which Chrétien co-founded with Jeremy Carver in 2004 as a response to the SARS epidemic — in manning a 24/7 communications centre as soon as clinical trials go ahead.

The U.S.-based Food and Drug Administration has already approved quercetin as safe for human consumption, which means the researchers can skip testing on animals. If the treatment works, it’ll be readily available … Chrétien’s team says their treatment would cost only $2 a day.”

Dosage Recommendations for Quercetin and Zinc

While the COVID-19 pandemic is in full swing — and for any future influenza season — supplementing with quercetin and zinc may be a good idea for many, in order to boost your immune system’s innate ability to ward off infectious illness. As for dosage, here are some basic recommendations:

Quercetin — According to research from Appalachian State University in North Carolina, taking 500 mg to 1,000 mg of quercetin per day for 12 weeks results in “large but highly variable increases in plasma quercetin … unrelated to demographic or lifestyle factors.”41

Zinc (and copper) — When it comes to zinc, remember that more is not necessarily better. In fact, it can backfire. When taking zinc, you also need to be mindful of maintaining a healthy zinc-to-copper ratio. As noted by Chris Masterjohn, who has a Ph.D. in nutritional sciences,42 in an article43 and series of Twitter posts:44

“In one study, 300mg/day of zinc as two divided doses of 150 mg zinc sulfate decreased important markers of immune function, such as the ability of immune cells known as polymorphonuclear leukocytes to migrate toward and consume bacteria.

The most concerning effect in the context of COVID-19 is that it lowered the lymphocyte stimulation index 3 fold. This is a measure of the ability of T cells to increase their numbers in response to a perceived threat. The reason this is so concerning in the context of COVID-19 is that poor outcomes are associated with low lymphocytes …

The negative effect on lymphocyte proliferation found with 300 mg/day and the apparent safety in this regard of 150 mg/d suggests that the potential for hurting the immune system may begin somewhere between 150-300 mg/d …

It is quite possible that the harmful effect of 300 mg/d zinc on the lymphocyte stimulation index is mediated mostly or completely by induction of copper deficiency …

The negative effect of zinc on copper status has been shown with as little as 60 mg/d zinc. This intake lowers the activity of superoxide dismutase, an enzyme important to antioxidant defense and immune function that depends both on zinc and copper …

A study done with relatively low intakes of zinc suggested that acceptable ratios of zinc to copper range from 2:1 to 15:1 in favor of zinc. Copper appears safe to consume up to a maximum of 10 mg/d.

Notably, the maximum amount of zinc one could consume while staying in the acceptable range of zinc-to-copper ratios and also staying within the upper limit for copper is 150 mg/d.”

How Much Zinc Do You Need?

Masterjohn goes into even greater detail in his zinc article, discussing maximum absorption rates and much more.45 In summary, he recommends taking 7 mg to 15 mg of zinc four times a day, ideally on an empty stomach, or with a phytate-free food.

The recommended dietary allowance in the U.S is 11 mg for adult men and 8 mg for adult women, with slightly higher doses recommended for pregnant and breastfeeding women,46 so we’re not talking about taking significantly higher dosages.

Additionally, you can take one zinc acetate lozenge per day, which will provide you with an additional 18 mg of zinc. If you’re exposed to the virus, take one additional lozenge after the exposure.

Masterjohn stresses that you’ll want to keep your total zinc intake below 150 mg per day to avoid negative effects on your immune system. He also recommends getting at least 1 mg of copper from food and supplements for every 15 mg of zinc you take.

Keep in mind that there are many food sources of zinc, so a supplement may not be necessary. I eat about three-fourths of a pound of ground bison or lamb a day, which has 20 mg of zinc. I personally don’t take any zinc supplement other than what I get from my food, which is likely in an optimal form to maximize absorption.

– Sources and References

Junk Foods Promote Hunger and Overeating

Reproduced from original article:

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola      March 04, 2020


  • While the food industry has become notorious for funding anti-obesity programs that focus on physical activity, research clearly shows that processed foods, sugary beverages and high-carbohydrate diets are a primary concern
  • Processed vegetable oils, which are a staple ingredient in processed foods, also promote obesity and ill health. Soybean oil, the most widely consumed fat in the U.S., upregulates genes involved in obesity and is more obesogenic than fructose
  • Sugar-rich diets generate excessive reward signals in your brain that can override normal self-control mechanisms and lead to addiction and overeating
  • Recent research found a single week of bingeing on fast foods impaired appetite control, making the volunteers more likely to desire more junk food, even if they’d just eaten
  • The more added sugar your diet contains, the lower your intake of important micronutrients such as calcium, folate, iron, magnesium, potassium, selenium, vitamin C, vitamin D and zinc

The struggle with weight gain and obesity is a common and costly health issue, leading to an increase in risk for heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and cancer, just to name a few.1

Obese individuals also have substantially higher medical expenses and indirect costs associated with lost productivity, transportation and premature mortality, and obesity is the reason why 1 in 3 fail to qualify for military service in the U.S.2

According to the 2019 State of Obesity report,3 18.5% of American children (ages 2 to 19) and 39.6% of adults are now obese, not just overweight. Between the 1988-1994 and 2015-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, the adult obesity rate rose over 70% and the childhood obesity rate rose by 85%, and there are no signs of this trend slowing or reversing.4

While the food industry has become notorious for funding anti-obesity programs that focus on physical activity, research clearly shows that processed foods, sugary beverages and high-carbohydrate diets are a primary concern. Sure, inactivity certainly contributes to the problem, but you cannot exercise your way out of a poor diet.

Processed vegetable oils, which are high in damaged omega-6 fats, are yet another reason why processed food diets are associated with higher rates of heart disease and other diseases.

Soybean oil, which is the most widely consumed fat in the U.S.,5 has been shown to play a significant role in obesity and diabetes, actually upregulating genes involved in obesity.6 Remarkably, soybean oil was found to be more obesogenic than fructose. It’s also been shown to cause neurological changes in the brain.7,8

Junk Foods Addiction Is Real

Processed junk food destroys your metabolism and promotes obesity through a variety of mechanisms. Among them is the way these kinds of foods affect your appetite control. Several studies have also demonstrated that processed foods are addictive.

As detailed in “The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food,” your body is designed to naturally regulate how much you eat and the energy you burn. Food manufacturers have figured out how to override these intrinsic regulators, engineering processed foods that are “hyper-rewarding.”

According to the food reward hypothesis of obesity, processed foods stimulate such a strong reward response in our brains that it becomes very easy to overeat. One of the guiding principles for the processed food industry is known as “sensory-specific satiety.”

In a 2013 New York Times article, investigative reporter Michael Moss described this as “the tendency for big, distinct flavors to overwhelm your brain.”9 The greatest successes, whether beverages or foods, owe their “craveability” to complex formulas that pique your taste buds without overwhelming them, thereby overriding your brain’s satiety signals.

Potato chips are among the most addictive junk foods on the market, containing all three “bliss-inducing” ingredients: sugar (from the potato), salt and fat. And while food companies abhor the word “addiction” in reference to their products, scientists have discovered that sugar, in particular, is just that. In fact, sugar has been shown to be more addictive than cocaine.

Research10 published in 2007 showed 94% of rats allowed to choose between sugar water and cocaine chose sugar. Even cocaine addicted rats quickly switched their preference to sugar once it was offered as an alternative. The rats were also more willing to work for sugar than for cocaine.

The researchers speculate that the sweet receptors (two protein receptors located on your tongue), which evolved in ancestral times when the diet was very low in sugar, have not adapted to modern times’ high-sugar consumption.

As a result, the abnormally high stimulation created by sugar-rich diets generates excessive reward signals in your brain, which have the potential to override normal self-control mechanisms and thus lead to addiction and overeating.


Regenerative Food & Farming Week 2020

Junk Foods Interfere With Appetite Control

Most recently, Australian researchers found a single week of bingeing on fast foods impaired appetite control, making the volunteers more likely to desire more junk food, even if they’d just eaten.11 They also scored lower on memory tests, thus confirming previous findings12 showing a Western-style diet impairs learning and memory. As reported by Science Alert:13

“The findings suggest something is amiss in the hippocampus — a region of the brain that supports memory and helps to regulate appetite. When we are full, the hippocampus is thought to quieten down our memories of delicious food, thereby reducing our appetite. When it’s disrupted, this control can be seriously undermined.”

For this eight-day experiment, healthy volunteers between the ages of 17 and 35 with a body mass index14 between 17 and 26 (slightly underweight to mildly overweight) were instructed to eat:

  • Two Belgian waffles on four days
  • A main meal and a drink or dessert from a popular fast food chain on two days

On days 1 and 8, the volunteers were given a toasted sandwich and milkshake for breakfast at the lab. The control group were given the same breakfast at the start and end of the study, but were instructed to eat normally during the remainder of the week.

On days 1 and 8, participants also completed pre- and post-breakfast “wanting and liking tests,” in which they were first presented with six sugary breakfast foods and asked to rate how strong their desire to eat the food right now was. Next, they were instructed to consume the samples and rate how much they liked it, and how much more of it they thought they would be able to eat right then. As reported by the authors:15

“One week’s exposure to a WS-diet [Western-style diet] caused a measurable weakening of appetitive control, as measured by the two key ratings on the wanting and liking test.

Prior to the intervention, participants viewed palatable breakfast foods and judged how much they wanted to eat them, and then how much they liked their actual taste. This test was repeated after participants had eaten to satiety.

Across these pre- and post-meal tests, wanting ratings declined far more than ratings of taste liking. This manifestation of appetitive control — that is the expectation that food is less desirable than it actually tastes — changed in participants following the Western-style dietary intervention.”

High-Sugar Diets Lower Nutrient Absorption

If you eat a fast-food burger, you can easily take in close to half your daily caloric requirements. Add in fries and a soda and you may be nearing an entire day’s worth of required calories. However, you have not received the vitamins and minerals, the live enzymes and micronutrients, the healthy fats or high-quality protein that your body needs to function, let alone thrive.

This was recently demonstrated in a Swedish study,16,17 which found that the more added sugar your diet contains, the lower your micronutrient intake (i.e., vitamins and minerals).

To examine this relationship, the researchers examined dietary data collected in two Swedish population based studies (the National Swedish Food Survey and the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study).

Each individual’s added sugar intake was estimated by subtracting naturally-occurring fructose from the total sugar content of the diet as a whole. Energy intake for added sugar was then stratified into six groups:

Less than 5% of energy intake from added sugar 5% to 7.5%
7.5% to 10% 10% to 15%
15% to 20% Greater than 20%

They also calculated the intake of calcium, folate, iron, magnesium, potassium, selenium, vitamin C, vitamin D and zinc, finding an inverse relationship between added sugar intake and intakes of all nine micronutrients. According to the authors:18

“These findings suggest that in two Swedish populations the higher the intake of added sugar in the diet, the more likely it is that the intake of micronutrients will be compromised …

However, although the trends are significant and consistent with those obtained in other studies on the subject, future studies are needed in order to build the necessary scientific knowledge to establish a threshold of added sugar intake based on micronutrient dilution.”

When fast food meals are consumed day in and day out, for months and years on end, weight gain is virtually guaranteed, yet your body may still be starving and malfunctioning for lack of essential nutrients.

Depression Is a Junk Food State of Mind

Aside from promoting obesity, processed food and fast food diets have also been strongly linked to depression, especially in teens. In a 2019 study,19 researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham looked into the role diet plays in symptoms of depression.

To do that, they analyzed the excretion of sodium and potassium in the urine of 84 urban, low‐income adolescents. Higher levels of sodium in the urine can be an indication of a diet high in sodium, such as processed foods and salty snacks. A low level of potassium, meanwhile, is indicative of a diet lacking in fruits, vegetables and other healthy potassium-rich foods.

As expected, higher sodium and lower potassium excretion rates were associated with more frequent symptoms of depression at follow up 1.5 years later. “This study was the first to demonstrate relationships between objective indicators of unhealthy diet and subsequent changes in depressive symptoms in youth,” the authors wrote.20

It’s possible that eating foods high in sodium and low in potassium may lead to depression by negatively influencing neurotransmitters and neural function during a time that is particularly vulnerable.

“Given the substantial brain development that occurs during adolescence, individuals in this developmental period may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of diet on the neural mechanisms underlying emotion regulation and depression,” the researchers said.

In addition, poor diet could influence depression by disturbing the gut microbiome, which could further influence brain function. Past studies have also confirmed the diet-depression link among children and teens.

For example, a systematic review21 of 12 studies involving children and adolescents also found an association between unhealthy diet and poorer mental health. Conversely, those with healthier diets had better mental health. The consumption of junk food has also been linked to a higher risk for psychiatric distress and violent behaviors in children and adolescents.22

Adults may also suffer mentally from a diet based on unhealthy foods. A 2016 study23 found women who ate a pro-inflammatory diet (which can include one high in processed foods), were more likely to have recurring depressive symptoms, and a 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis,24 which looked at data from 101,950 participants, also found an association between a pro-inflammatory diet and risk of depression.

The Scourge of Ultraprocessed Food

Unfortunately, Americans not only eat a preponderance of processed food, but 60% of it is ultraprocessed25 — products at the far end of the “significantly altered” spectrum, or what you could typically purchase at a gas station.

Any food that isn’t directly from the vine, ground, bush or tree, is considered processed. Depending on the amount of change the food undergoes, processing may be minimal or significant. For instance, frozen fruit is usually minimally processed, while pizza, soda, chips and microwave meals are ultra-processed foods.

The difference in the amount of sugar between foods that are ultraprocessed and minimally processed is dramatic. Research26 has shown 21.1% of calories in ultraprocessed foods come from added sugar, compared to just 2.4% of the calories in processed food and none in unprocessed foods.

In addition to obesity, depression and other chronic health problems, ultra-processed foods will also shorten your life span. French researchers found that for each 10% increase in the amount of ultraprocessed food an individual consumed, the risk of death rose by 14%.27

This link remained even after taking confounding factors such as smoking, obesity and low educational background into account. The primary factors driving the increased death rate was chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer.

In my view, eating a diet consisting of 90% real food and only 10% or less processed foods is an achievable goal for most that could make a significant difference in your weight and overall health.

Ultraprocessed foods should be kept to an absolute minimum and consumed only rarely. As noted in a 2016 study,28 “Decreasing the consumption of ultraprocessed foods could be an effective way of reducing the excessive intake of added sugars in the USA.” To get started, consider the following basics. For more detailed guidance, see my nutrition plan:

Focus on fresh foods, ideally organic, and avoid as many processed foods as possible (if it comes in a can, bottle or package and has a list of ingredients, it’s processed).

Severely restrict carbohydrates from refined sugars, fructose and processed grains, and increase healthy fat consumption. Examples of healthy fats include grass fed butter, ghee, lard, coconut oil and coconuts, avocados, nuts and seeds, raw cacao butter, extra virgin olive oil, organic pastured eggs.

You can eat an unlimited amount of nonstarchy vegetables. Because they are so low in calories, the majority of the food on your plate should be vegetables.

Replace sodas and other sweetened beverages, including fruit juices, with pure, filtered water.

Gradually reduce your eating window to six to eight hours with your last food intake at least three hours before bedtime.

Shop around the perimeter of the grocery store where most of the whole foods reside, such as meat, fruits, vegetables, eggs and cheese. Not everything around the perimeter is healthy, but you’ll avoid many of the ultra-processed foods this way.

Stress creates a physical craving for fats and sugar that may drive your addictive, stress-eating behavior. If you can recognize when you’re getting stressed and find another means of relieving the emotion, your eating habits will likely improve.

The Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) can help reduce your perceived stress, change your eating habits around stress and help you create new, healthier eating habits that support your long-term health. To discover more about EFT, how to do it and how it may help reduce your stress and develop new habits, see my previous article, “EFT is an Effective Tool for Anxiety.”