by Dr. Joseph Mercola

I originally wrote this article 12 years ago. But the topic is so important that I wanted to publish an update spreading the word that, in most cases, there’s no reason to fear a fever. Reaching for fever-reducing medications right away is also typically counterproductive and may make it take longer for you to get better.1,2

Fever is a sign that your, or your child’s, immune system is working at its best. Virtually all animals – and even fish3 – naturally develop a fever when they’re fighting a bacterial or viral illness. This response occurs because it improves your body’s ability to get rid of infection.

Fever Benefits Your Body

When an organism invades your body, it triggers the release of pyrogen, a substance that signals your brain’s hypothalamus to raise your body’s temperature. This is done through a number of different mechanisms, including:

• Shivering
• Release of the hormone TRH
• Increasing your metabolic rate
• Restricting blood flow to the skin to minimise heat loss
• Piloerection (raising the small hairs), which suppresses sweating, a cooling mechanism

The fever, in turn, launches a number of beneficial body processes, including immune-protective mechanisms, that either directly or indirectly help ward off the invading bacteria or virus. For instance, temperatures from 104 to 105.8 degrees Fahrenheit (40 to 41 degrees Celsius) reduce the replication rate of poliovirus in cells by 200-fold, while increasing the susceptibility of Gram-negative bacteria to antibody destruction.4

“Given the complexity of these immune mechanisms, it is remarkable that fever-range temperatures stimulate almost every step involved in this process, promoting both innate and adaptive immunity,” researchers wrote in Nature Reviews Immunology.5

“Febrile temperatures serve as a systemic alert system that broadly promotes immune surveillance during challenge by invading pathogens.”6 Some of these wide-reaching benefits include:

Increase in antibodies – cells trained to attack the exact type of invader that your body is suffering from	More white blood cells are produced to help fight off the invading bugs
More interferon, a natural antiviral and anticancer substance, is produced, which helps block the spread of viruses to healthy cells	Walling off of iron, which bacteria feed on
Increased temperature, which directly kills microbes (most bacteria and viruses grow better at temperatures lower than the human body)	Improved ability of certain white blood cells to destroy bacteria and infected cells
Fever also impairs the replication of many bacteria and viruses

Fever? Let It Ride

“The fever response is a hallmark of infection and inflammatory disease and has been shaped through hundreds of millions of years of natural selection,”7 yet many health care providers still consider it dangerous and worthy of treating because it causes discomfort.

Scientists also continue to debate fevers’ merits. One side favours the idea that fever should be suppressed because of its high metabolic costs. Every 1.8oF rise in body temperature requires a 10% to 12.5% increase in metabolic rate,8 which is significant.

This is one of the reasons why you frequently lose weight when you have a fever. However, increasing research supports the “let it ride” philosophy, which contends that fever is protective.9 Writing in the Journal of Thoracic Disease, researchers with the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine described a classic 1975 study10 on fever and survival in iguanas infected with bacteria:11

He gave them the opportunity to seek heat via sunlamps and all but one sought the warmth to raise their temperature. The one who did not was the only one who died. Next, he injected the iguanas with bacteria and gave them antipyretics [fever-reducing drugs]. The iguanas that were able to mount a fever despite the antipyretic were the only ones that survived.

A 1987 study on rabbits also found that administering fever-reducing drugs caused more harm than good. The team found fever suppression in the animals “had a markedly deleterious effect on the course of infection, resulting in an increased content of infectious virus in the mesenteric lymph nodes, increased mortality, and retarded recovery in animals that survived the infection.”12

Similar striking findings have been found in people, specifically critically ill patients in the intensive care unit. One group of patients was treated aggressively for fever, receiving acetaminophen every six hours if their temperature rose above 101.3oF (38.5oC).

The other group only received treatment if their fever reached 104oF (40oC), which consisted of acetaminophen and cooling blankets until their temperature went below 104oF.

The study had to be stopped early because so many people in the aggressive treatment group died compared to the other group – seven deaths versus one, respectively. “Aggressively treating fever in critically ill patients may lead to a higher mortality rate,” the team concluded.13

Another study, this time on fish, showed that allowing a fever to run its course cleared the infection in about half the time it took for animals without a fever to heal.14,15 In addition to rapidly clearing infection, fever helped control inflammation and repair tissue damage.

“We let nature do what nature does, and in this case, it was very much a positive thing,” study author and immunologist Daniel Barreda, with the University of Alberta, said in a news release.16 “Every animal examined has this biological response to infection,” she says, suggesting that fever provides a strong evolutionary survival advantage.

Moderate Fever Is Protective Against Covid-19

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (“ARDS”), which involves programmed cell death in the lungs’ alveolar cells, is a primary cause of death in covid-19 patients. The natural rise in body temperature that occurs during mild or moderate fever, however, may raise cellular levels of beneficial heat shock protein 70 (HSP70), which is protective in cases of sepsis-induced ARDS.

Writing in Frontiers in Medicine, researchers suggested that several hours of mild fever, defined as less than 101.8oF (38.8oC), is advantageous for covid-19 patients, “allowing lung cells to accumulate protective HSP70 against damages from the inflammatory response to the virus SARS-CoV-2.”17 Again, simply allowing a mild or moderate fever to take its course helps increase HSP70, offering you a survival advantage:18

HSP70s can use the energy from ATP hydrolysis to forcefully unfold and dismantle different types of aggregated and functional protein oligomers in the cell. Hence, it can drive conformational changes in various large cytotoxic protein aggregates and convert them into soluble, harmless, functional proteins.

… Conversely, degenerative neuronal and muscular tissues in ageing nematodes and humans that systematically express lower cellular levels of HSP70s than young individuals are particularly fragile and stress-sensitive. Cells with low HSP70 levels tend to spontaneously undergo apoptosis, and consequent tissue losses in ageing humans lead to progressive degenerative diseases.

Because the ability to develop fever and accumulate HSP70 decreases with age, the team even suggested using thermotherapies or physical training to raise body temperature in these cases. Scientists writing in Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health also suggested letting fever do its job, particularly in the pandemic era:19

For covid-19, many public health organisations have advised treating fever with medicines such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen. Even though this is a common practice, lowering body temperature has not improved survival in laboratory animals or in patients with infections.

Blocking fever can be harmful because fever, along with other sickness symptoms, evolved as a defence against infection. Fever works by causing more damage to pathogens and infected cells than it does to healthy cells in the body. During pandemic covid-19, the benefits of allowing fever to occur probably outweigh its harms, for individuals and for the public at large.

Fever-Reducing Drugs May Backfire

In most cases, fever-reducing medications should be avoided, as they typically only suppress the natural healing mechanisms of the fever and prolong the illness. For example, in people with influenza, using fever-reducing drugs is linked to a 5% increase in mortality.20 Even the American Academy of Paediatrics (“AAP”) warned against “fever phobia” and overuse of fever-reducing drugs:21

Appropriate counselling on the management of fever begins by helping parents understand that fever, in and of itself, is not known to endanger a generally healthy child. In contrast, fever may actually be of benefit …

When counselling a family on the management of fever in a child, paediatricians and other health care providers should minimise fever phobia and emphasise that antipyretic use does not prevent febrile seizures.

Further, in their advice for parents wondering if they should treat their child’s fever, AAP states, “The key is to watch your child’s behaviour. If they are drinking, eating, sleeping normally, and are able to play, you do not need to treat the fever. Instead, you should wait to see if the fever improves by itself.”22

Remember, the point of the fever is to stimulate the immune system and create an inhospitable environment for invading organisms, essentially turning up the heat high enough that the invading microbes cannot live. So, anytime you lower a fever artificially you’re making your body more hospitable to the invading pathogens.

Lowering a fever with medications also masks your symptoms, which may lead you to return to your normal activities too soon, when your body could still benefit from extra rest. The drugs may also prolong illness. In a study of acetaminophen for children with chickenpox, the drug led to prolonged itching and time to scabbing compared to placebo treatment.23

Further, a study of adults with colds found that aspirin and acetaminophen suppressed production of antibodies and increased cold symptoms, with a trend toward longer infectiousness.24

These medications also carry risks of side effects, including liver damage with acetaminophen, stomach upset with Ibuprofen and Reye’s syndrome with aspirin. It’s recommended that children under 19 not be given aspirin when they have a fever, due to the link to Reye’s syndrome.

When Is a Fever Dangerous?

It’s rare for a fever to rise higher than 104oF or 105oF (40oC), and as long as your child isn’t distressed, there is no harm in letting a fever run its course. Keep in mind also that fevers tend to spike in the late afternoon and evening, so a slight increase in fever during this time is not necessarily cause for alarm.

In most cases, rest and plenty of fluids is all that’s needed when a fever strikes. Fever does increase fluid loss, so it’s important to give your child plenty of fluids, even if they don’t feel thirsty, to prevent dehydration. There are some instances, however, when a fever does require medical attention. This includes:

• Fever in an infant younger than 3 months (at any temperature)
• Fever above 102.2oF (39oC) in children between 3 months and 36 months, if they appear ill
• Anytime a fever rises over 104.5oF (40oC)
• In some cases of sepsis or neurological injuries, uncontrolled fever may lead to worse outcomes25

In children 5 years and under, fever can also lead to a seizure, known as a febrile seizure. Though this can be frightening, it typically will cause no lasting effects. During a febrile seizure, lay your child on his side or stomach on the ground, loosen any tight clothing and support the child to prevent injury.

When the seizure stops, you should seek medical attention right away to be sure the seizure was not caused by something other than the fever, such as meningitis or bacteria in the blood.

However, remember that letting a fever run its course is typically the best choice to fight off a viral or bacterial infection. You can further bolster your immune system’s ability to ward off pathogens and reduce the likelihood of developing a fever in the first place, by eating right, getting plenty of daily movement, using sound methods for stress relief and sleeping well.

Sources and References

• 1, 14, 16 Science Daily March 15, 2023
• 2, 3, 15 Immunology and Inflammation March 14, 2023
• 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 20, 25 Nat Rev Immunol. 2015 Jun; 15(6): 335–349
• 9, 11 J Thorac Dis. 2015 Dec; 7(12): E633–E636
• 10 Science. 1975 Apr 11;188(4184):166-8
• 12 J Infect Dis. 1987 May;155(5):991-7. doi: 10.1093/infdis/155.5.991
• 13 Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2005 Winter;6(4):369-75. doi: 10.1089/sur.2005.6.369
• 17, 18 Front Med (Lausanne). 2020; 7: 564170
• 19 Evol Med Public Health. 2021; 9(1): 26–35
• 21 American Academy of Pediatrics March 2011, Volume 127, Issue 3
• 22 AAP, Healthychildren.org, Treating Your Child’s Fever
• 23 J Pediatr. 1989 Jun;114(6):1045-8. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(89)80461-5
• 24 The Journal of Infectious Diseases December 1, 1990

About the Author

Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder and owner of Mercola.com, a Board-Certified Family Medicine Osteopathic Physician, a Fellow of the American College of Nutrition and a New York Times bestselling author. He publishes multiple articles a day covering a wide range of topics on his website Mercola.com.

The second one has begun – following Fitch, Moody’s is now preparing to downgrade the US credit rating . Fitch already dropped from AAA to AA+ in August. Moody’s still gives a negative outlook – but it could also arrange a downgrade, especially if there is a US government shutdown.

The reasons for the decline are a huge budget deficit of $2 trillion and a sharp increase in public debt . This is also due to the fall in tax revenues against the backdrop of stagnation in many areas of the economy. And with soaring costs due to high inflation and military spending. It is becoming increasingly difficult to service the national debt – interest rates are rising, and other countries are reducing investments in US bonds.

A credit rating downgrade is long overdue – but it will only worsen the US budget crisis . For example, convincing China or Saudi Arabia to resume purchases of US treasury securities will become even more difficult. Demand for them is already falling quickly.

The White House immediately blamed this on Republican “extremists” in Congress . Although they are just demanding to cut costs. The Democrats don’t want to cut social services or the military, which is why the split in Washington is growing. And at one moment it can lead to a radical scenario – like a technical default in the United States.

In the meantime, Washington is mentally preparing for a possible shutdown on November 18 – if it is not possible to quickly approve the next short-term budget and prolong the agony for another couple of months. The split is so strong that there is no talk of adopting a full budget for the year ahead. The current budget crisis against the background of two wars threatens the most serious consequences for the United States.

by Gilbert Doctorow

To those who believe that I spend all my time watching news broadcasts and talk shows on Russian state television, let me open this essay by correcting that misperception. I also do keep an eye on major national broadcasters in Western Europe, including Euronews and the BBC. And, in spare moments, when I am not doing something more intellectual like reading and writing, I flip on CNN.

All of which leads me to a conclusion that is likely to shock readers of these notes in Europe and America: just as on the subject of the Ukraine war, so on the subject of the Hamas-Israel war, there is far more diversity of opinion aired on the American broadcaster than on its Continental counterparts. And that is exactly as it should be, because there is much more freedom of expression in the United States today than anywhere in Europe and Britain. [category cultural/ideological divide

I have several answers to the “why” that this assertion certainly will raise. The biggest reason is the one most readers will least suspect: Donald Trump. During the presidential race of 2016, candidate Trump said things in his public appearances which normal folks like you or me would never have said for fear of inviting a knock on the door from the FBI under charges of subversion. He got away with it as a candidate, he thereby liberated all of us, and then he continued speaking the unspeakable as President, with the net result that society was split down the middle and there was room for every political view to be published. In my own field of Russian affairs, the daily digest of our leading disseminator of writings by analysts and pundits, Johnson’s Russia List, went from being deadly boring for having content only supplied by Russia haters to being a garden of a thousand blooms.

Europe had no Trump. Europe was in 2016 and remains today a cemetery of the intellect. I have in mind not just peer group pressures for creative spirits to just shut up and not rock the boat. No, there are laws in Germany, France and elsewhere that push a fist down your throat if you go public with opinions on Putin, on sanctions and now on Palestine that are not in conformity with the local government line.

For the above reasons, European broadcasters today crop the news on Gaza to say only that Israel has a right to self-defense. Meanwhile, CNN is devoting a lot of air time to the suffering of the Gaza Palestinians under the ongoing hourly bombardments by Israeli ground and air forces that are grinding all residential areas of Gaza City into dust and that have uprooted at least 700,000 Palestinians in a forced move to nowhere in the southern half of the enclave.

Let me add another factor to explain the more serious journalism that subscribers to CNN are receiving compared to your average European television viewer: Black Lives Matter.

It is not in the least surprising that BLM have come out in support of the Gaza Palestinians, for reasons that go back to the Black Panthers. What they are calling for is an immediate cease-fire, urgent delivery of medical supplies, water, fuel, food into Gaza ramped up to at least the pre-October 7th rate of 200 trucks per day. American authorities are forced to accept the demonstrations of BLM in favor of the Palestinians lest all hell break loose in cities across the country.

I think of yesterday’s comments to the The Financial Times by the leading candidate to replace Mark Rutte as prime minister of The Netherlands, the current justice minister Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius, on the dangers that the Hamas-Israel war poses for Europe, namely that cleavages in our society will open up. Regrettably, that is the mindset of an authoritarian if not purely fascist politician. When everyone is perfectly aligned and there are no nay-sayers tolerated, then freedom is dead.

The problem of conformism in Europe is not something new. In the past, democracy busting conformism was most common, perhaps, in Scandinavia, as I saw as a frequent business visitor to Sweden in the 1980s. My job required that I meet periodically with the factory management of our subsidiary there to coordinate marketing efforts. We talked about the target markets I was serving, Yugoslavia in particular, where my interlocutors went to promote product sales and also to pick up cheap eyeglasses and other personal and household necessities at a fraction of their cost in Sweden. We never talked politics, only about the pleasures of good raki. But then prime minister Olaf Palme was assassinated and over a lunch in the company cafeteria, my main contact told me “Thank goodness they’ve killed the s.o.b.” I was shocked, since I had never heard a word of criticism in Sweden directed at their politically correct, almost angelic leader. However, my talking partner, like most other managers at the plant was an engineer and he hated Palme for having destroyed the engineering and other departments of Swedish universities.

It is this destructive silence that I see around me in Europe. And so I say, three cheers for healthy cleavages in society that give life to representative democracy, and, at the present moment, three cheers for Black Lives Matter.

Governments, NGOs, and social media companies are using “disinformation” as an excuse to throttle free speech in violation of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a group of over 130 academics, activists, journalists, and free speech advocates have warned in an open letter.

Published on Wednesday, the ‘Westminster Declaration’ was signed by journalists Matt Taibbi, Glen Greenwald, and Julian Assange; psychologists Steven Pinker and Jordan Peterson; and actors Tim Robbins and John Cleese, among more than 100 other luminaries.

“Coming from the left, right, and center, we are united by our commitment to universal human rights and freedom of speech, and we are all deeply concerned about attempts to label protected speech as ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and other ill-defined terms,” the group wrote. [category cultural/ideological divide

The letter condemned government-led efforts to restrict free speech, naming the UK’s Online Safety Bill and ‘Hate Speech’ bills in Ireland and Scotland as direct threats to freedom of expression. It also denounced social media companies for filtering, labeling, and banning legitimate content at the behest of governments or NGOs.

The extent of this form of censorship was revealed with the publication of the ‘Twitter Files’ last year, which proved that the social media platform (since purchased by Elon Musk and renamed ‘X’) collaborated with the White House to remove factually correct information about Covid-19, colluded with the FBI to remove content the agency wanted hidden, assisted the US military’s online influence campaigns, and censored “anti-Ukraine narratives” on behalf of multiple US intelligence agencies.

In multiple cases highlighted in the ‘Twitter Files’, governments did not directly ask platforms to remove content. Instead, NGOs and academics played that role. In 2021, for example, a group of academics funded by the CIA, Pentagon, US State Department, and other agencies, pressed Twitter to ban users spreading “true content which might promote vaccine hesitancy.”

“We do not want our children to grow up in a world where they live in fear of speaking their minds,” the signatories wrote. “We want them to grow up in a world where their ideas can be expressed, explored and debated openly – a world that the founders of our democracies envisioned when they enshrined free speech into our laws and constitutions.”

The letter urged governments and tech companies to comply with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

In conclusion, the letter also called on the general public to “build an atmosphere of free speech from the ground up by rejecting the climate of intolerance that encourages self-censorship.”

via RT

Absolute neutrality – The Swiss want to lift sanctions against Russia.

The right-wing People’s Party, likely the future winner of the Swiss elections, has proposed enshrining “endless” neutrality in the country’s constitution. The People’s Party intends to collect 100,000 signatures by May and put this issue to a vote.

If the country’s citizens support this initiative, Switzerland may lift the sanctions imposed against Russia, Bloomberg reports. Elections will take place at the end of October. Switzerland may lift the sanctions imposed against Russia

SPACE BLOC: Germany, citing “security impact”, becomes part of US-led space exploration bloc as it signs Artemis Accords, designed by Washington to exploit Moon, Mars and other profitable and mineral-rich asteroids.

Germany joins Ukraine, India, Italy and others to become 29th nation to sign the Artemis Accords as US leads effort to divide space into (military) blocs.

The Artemis Accords were first launched and signed by eight nations in October 2020, with representatives of its signatory nations meeting in person for the first time at the International Astronautical Congress in Paris on September 19, 2022.

In terms of scope, the accords relate to activities on in orbit, on the surface, and in the subsurface of the moon, Mars, comets, and asteroids. It also covers the stable orbital points known as the Lagrangian points for the Earth-moon system and is applied to objects in transit between these celestial bodies and locations.

Co-led by NASA and the U.S. Department of State, the Artemis Accords are signed at a national level rather than on an organizational level, and countries that sign the accord do so on a voluntary basis. The question that arises though is: why is such a peaceful accord of global significance not conducted under the auspices of the UN as a global treaty? Because it is not envisioned to be an accord for the common good, but to rally the vassals to serve the One-Party interests.

According to NASA as of Aug. 1, 2023, the nations signed up to the Artemis Accords are as follows:

1. Argentina
2. Australia
3. Bahrain
4. Brazil
5. Canada
6. Columbia
7. Czech Republic
8. Ecuador
9. France
10. Germany
11. India
12. Israel
13. Italy
14. Japan
15. Luxemburg
16. Mexico
17. New Zealand
18. Nigeria
19. Poland
20. Republic of Korea
21. Romania
22. Rwanda
23. Saudi Arabia
24. Singapore
25. Spain
26. Ukraine
27. United Arab Emirates
28. United Kingdom
29. United States of America

Is the Biden administration already preparing the public for the loss of Ukraine? Is the Biden administration changing the focus to the new wave of hysteria about the Covid Hoax as a cover up for the loss of Ukraine? It seems pretty much so. Is the loss of Ukraine a precursor to the dismantling of NATO, or at least its partial dismantling?

This is not about Covid but about the start of the collapse of the US hegemony. It is the introduction of a form of Martial Law and a new regime of authoritarian governance by the defeated elites. Where are we going from here? Nuclear war or regime change in the US?

Strange events are coming. We haven’t seen much, as of yet.

First, YouTube to Censor Content Contradicting WHO Guidelines YouTube has introduced a new “medical misinformation policy” that will censor any medical or health-related content that doesn’t align with claims made by the World Health Organization (WHO). YouTube earlier had a “COVID-19 Misinformation Policy” webpage that stated that the platform doesn’t allow any content that “poses a serious risk of egregious harm” and spreads “medical misinformation” contradicting what the WHO or local health authorities (LHA) say about the COVID-19 pandemic. The webpage now redirects to a “medical misinformation policy” page that expands the censorship rule to “specific health conditions and substances” rather than COVID-19 alone. Content that contradicts guidance on treatments, including promoting “specific harmful substances or practices” not approved by authorities or the WHO as safe and effective, also won’t be allowed on the platform. Claims that vaccines cause chronic side effects “outside of rare side effects” recognized by health authorities would be deemed as “vaccine misinformation” by YouTube.

Second, Biden Admin Preparing to Bring Back Full Covid Restrictions, Rollout to Begin Mid-September – Report. Whistleblowers from the TSA and Border Patrol have raised the alarm to Infowars that the Biden administration is setting the stage for full Covid lockdowns that will begin with incremental restrictions like masking TSA employees in mid-September.

The first source, a high-level TSA official confirmed and known to Infowars, reached out to Infowars and cited a Tuesday meeting in which TSA managers were told new memorandums & policies were being completed that would reimplement masking, starting with TSA & airport employees as early as mid-September.

The TSA official also said next week they will receive new guidelines on how the policy will escalate: by mid-October, mask-wearing will be required by pilots, flight staff, passengers, and airport patrons.

After hearing from the TSA manager, Infowars reached out to our trusted Border Patrol source who is also a manager. This source confirmed the same directives were being given to Border Patrol.

They were told it was not a matter of “if” but “when” official Covid numbers will go back up and they expect by mid-October a return to forced-masking policies that the Biden administration previously only reluctantly ended after massive pressure.

Both whistleblowers were told this rollout will be in tandem with the new Covid “variant” hysteria that the MSM has been reporting on this week.

by Megan Redshaw, J.D. via The Epoch Times
(Kateryna Kon/Shutterstock)

Experts are seeing a puzzling rise in cancer in people under 50 that appears biologically different from late-onset cancers. While some claim cancer rates have been rising for decades and attribute the increase to sugary drinks, lifestyle, and sleep disruptions, others say mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have caused an emergence of “turbo cancers”—and U.S. regulatory agencies have not addressed the ever-growing problem.

Although there is no official medical definition for what doctors are calling “turbo cancers,” the term is commonly used to define aggressive, rapid-onset cancers resistant to treatment—primarily in young, healthy individuals following COVID-19 vaccination. These cases often present in a late stage with metastasis and quickly turn fatal.

“What’s happening is these cancers we’re used to seeing, their growth patterns and their behavior are completely out of character … So ‘turbo cancer’ is something that wasn’t there and, all of a sudden, it’s everywhere,” Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist and CEO of Cole Diagnostics, said in an interview on EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders.”

Dr. Cole told The Epoch Times in a later interview that he first noticed an uptick in certain types of cancers after the vaccine rollout in December 2020 and believes researchers are starting to understand how these cancers are occurring.

“Physicians are seeing multiple types of cancers in their day-to-day practices—and in young patient cohorts where you typically don’t see cancer. Although the increase in cancer has been blamed on missed screenings, you know it isn’t due to missed screenings because young people don’t typically get screened,” Dr. Cole said.

Cancers are increasing at a rate above what’s expected, and countless doctors and clinicians around the world have confirmed this. Their patients are cancer-free for years, but then after a booster, cancers “pop up,” he added. What’s unique about turbo cancers is that they do not respond to traditional treatment because the cells have been altered in the bone marrow, and the cells “aren’t doing what they’re supposed to.”

Studies and Case Reports of Cancer Following COVID-19 Vaccination

Studies and case reports of various cancers following mRNA vaccination are helping experts understand the potential mechanisms that may be allowing these cancers to proliferate.

In a recent Belgian study published in Frontiers Oncology, researchers presented the first case of malignant lymphoma in mice. Malignant lymphoma is a rare adverse event reported following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

Two days after receiving a booster dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, one of 14 mice suffered spontaneous death. Upon examination, the 14-week-old mouse had abnormally large organs and cancerous lymphoma in the liver, kidneys, spleen, heart, and lungs. Although showing direct causality is complex, the authors said their findings add to “previous clinical reports on malignant lymphoma development following novel mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.”

In a January 2023 paper in Medicina, researchers presented the case of a 66-year-old man who developed swollen lymph nodes 10 days after receiving his third dose of Pfizer. After further testing, the patient was diagnosed with stage 2 non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). A literature review found eight additional cases of NHL that developed shortly after COVID-19 vaccination. Five lymphoma cases occurred after vaccination with Pfizer, one case after vaccination with AstraZeneca, one after the Johnson & Johnson shot, and one after vaccination with Moderna.

In an August 2022 Letter to the Editor in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology & Venereology, physicians described two patients diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma that developed from swollen lymph nodes following vaccination with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The study’s authors found that diffuse large B-cell lymphoma “may rapidly grow” after vaccination with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine and urged dermatologists to pay attention to swollen lymph nodes or masses near the injection site.

Swollen lymph nodes, or lymphadenopathy, is considered a common side effect of COVID-19 vaccination, more often observed following immunization with novel COVID-19 mRNA vaccines than other vaccines.

Lymphadenopathy is also an acknowledged “non-serious” adverse event of COVID-19 vaccination listed in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) fact sheets for health care providers for both Moderna and Pfizer’s monovalent and bivalent vaccines. However, pharmaceutical companies and U.S. regulatory agencies have not assessed whether there’s a link between vaccine-related lymphadenopathy and cancer.

A year after the vaccine rollout, researchers published a case report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) of a healthy 39-year-old woman diagnosed with “vaccination-associated reactive lymphadenopathy” following vaccination with Pfizer’s vaccine. Six months later, she was diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in her right breast—the same side of the body where she received her vaccination and experienced swollen lymph nodes.

Urgent Need to Determine Underlying Causes of Turbo Cancers

The exact mechanism giving rise to turbo cancers is unknown, and it’s unclear whether one or multiple mechanisms are responsible for these cancers, Dr. William Makis, an oncologist, cancer researcher, and nuclear medicine radiologist, told The Epoch Times in an email.

Dr. Makis provided the following several possible hypotheses for how mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could cause turbo cancers:

1. The current COVID-19 mRNA vaccines contain pseudouridine-modified mRNA,which attenuates or alters the activity of key proteins in the innate immune system, impairing cancer surveillance.

When activated, these key proteins, called toll-like receptors, can prevent tumorsfrom forming and growing.

1. Vaccination alters T-cell signaling that induces profound impairmentin type 1 interferon and cancer surveillance.

T-cells, a type of white blood cell, help the body’s immune system prevent cancer. Studies show that getting multiple shots increases the level of a particular antibody called IgG4, causing T-cell and interferon suppression, leading to an inability to keep cancer in check, Dr. Cole told The Epoch Times.

“Everyone gets atypical cells in their body every day, and having a surveillance system is important, but when the surveillance system is shut off, that allows these cells to go haywire. How long it stays suppressed, nobody knows, and these are the studies NIH (the National Institutes of Health) should have been doing,” said Dr. Cole.

1. The shift of the antibody IgG4 caused by repeated mRNA vaccination could create a tolerance for spike protein and impair the production of the antibodies IgG1 and IgG3 and cancer surveillance.

2. The spike protein produced by the body after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination may interfere with important tumor suppressor proteins—P53, BRCA 1, and two tumor suppressor genes.

3. The spike protein may interfere with DNA repair mechanisms.

4. The RNA from the COVID-19 vaccines may be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome.

5. Pfizer and Moderna vials found to be contaminated with plasmid DNA containing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein may integrate into the human genome.

6. The presence of the simian virus 40 (SV40) in DNA discovered in Pfizer mRNA vaccine vials may lead to cancers—most notably, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other lymphomas—as it did with SV40-contaminated polio vaccines.

7. mRNA-based vaccines may be triggering the release of oncogenes—oncomiRs or microRNAs, which can enhance or inhibit cancer development and participate in cancer biological processes, such as proliferation, invasion metastasis, angiogenesis, chemoresistance, and immune escape.

“I believe there is an urgent need to determine the underlying mechanisms of turbo cancers because, at this time, oncologists have nothing to offer patients who have developed a turbo cancer, and conventional cancer treatments offer minimal or no benefit,” Dr. Makis told The Epoch Times.

Mr. David Wiseman, a research scientist in pharmacy, pharmacology, and experimental pathology, told The Epoch Times in an email that neither Comirnaty—Pfizer’s fully approved version of its COVID-19 vaccine—nor Spikevax by Moderna has been evaluated for its potential to cause cancer.

On March 30, 2023, Mr. Wiseman and four other experts submitted a 27-page document to the National Academies Committee, an ad hoc committee tasked with reviewing relevant adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines.

Using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)—a database co-managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and FDA used for reporting vaccine adverse events—Mr. Wiseman and his coauthors found an excess of cancer signals for COVID-19 vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020, to July 24, 2023, compared to all other vaccines for all years beginning in 1990.

A safety signal indicates a condition may be linked to a vaccine but requires further analysis to confirm an association.

The findings complemented the CDC’s Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) analyses obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that assessed adverse events reported from Dec. 14, 2020, to July 29, 2022.

A PRR compares reports of specific adverse events experienced after receiving Moderna or Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to those following vaccination with any other vaccine or all non-COVID-19 vaccines. The CDC’s PRR report detected cancer signals for colon cancer, metastatic breast cancer, metastasis to the liver, bones, central nervous system, lymph nodes, breast masses, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma.

Mr. Wiseman said it’s clear from the FOIA documents that the CDC is aware of cancer reports and isn’t being forthcoming.

“Government agencies knew there were going to be cancers with these shots, and they were trying to cover it up, but the data is trickling out,” Dr. Cole told The Epoch Times, referring to 490 pages of communications obtained from the NIH through a FOIA request.

The CDC is supposed to report on morbidity and mortality—and when a pathologist diagnoses anything, he or she uses a diagnosis code, and it goes to the federal basis that’s reported to federal tracking agencies, Dr. Cole explained.

“All these data subsets should be easy to find if agencies would report what they have,” he said. “We could see statistical changes in diagnosis in the past two and a half years since shots were rolled out. The question is, why are other governments around the world not doing this?”

Sent from my iPad

by Tim Cushing via The TechDirt

Ever since the fall of 2018, the DHS has been threatening the American public with increased surveillance on top of the insults and intrusions TSA officers physically perform at security checkpoints.

The first inklings of this rollout came in the form of a Privacy Impact Assessment released by the DHS in September 2018. The assessment suggested there wasn’t enough privacy impacted to prevent the expansion of this program from international airports (where terrorism might be more of a threat) to domestic airports and wholly domestic flights, to ensure all citizens boarding aircraft were forced to interact with the TSA’s biometric collection/verification programs.

This was confirmed a month later, when the TSA announced the expansion of the program to extend past borders/international airports to cover PreCheck passengers and, finally, everyone else who hadn’t decided to opt in or had been forced to opt in by passing through an international airport.

Despite it being clear for a half-decade the DHS intends to subject all travelers to problematic tech, the DHS and TSA reps continue to pretend this collection/verification process is still optional. The TSA would prefer it be far less optional, since it will allow it to reduce the number of officers it employs and let machines do (most of) the work.

In fact, the TSA has said as much publicly. In March of this year, TSA administrator David Pekoske again noted the process is still (supposedly) optional, but that it’s not going to stay that way for long. How long that will be remains to be seen, but as Wilfred Chan reports for Fast Company, the rollout is continuing with hundreds more airports on the horizon.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is preparing to expand its controversial facial recognition program to around 430 airports over the next “several years” after finding “extremely promising” results from its pilot program, an agency spokesperson tells Fast Company. The expansion comes amid allegations by rights advocates that the agency is improperlycoercing travelers to participate.

The TSA is currently “assessing” the facial recognition program at 25 airports. TSA press secretary Robert Langston said this small sample size has been an unmitigated success, with the TSA’s algorithm reportedly matching people with a 97% success rate “across demographics.”

And the TSA still maintains the program is optional for travelers. And yet real world experience seems to indicate the TSA is just hoping everyone encountering the scanners believes it isn’t.

Out of 67 responses collected by Algorithmic Justice League this week, 60 travelers reported that they saw no signs warning that they would be asked to submit to facial recognition, and 65 travelers said that TSA officers did not ask them for consent.

“I didn’t know there was an option. It happened so quickly, and it didn’t seem like there was a choice,” one traveler wrote. “I hadn’t flown in 10 years and I was overwhelmed and didn’t realize what was happening.”

Another traveler said that they started to walk away after their traditional ID check was finished, only to be stopped and told to return to the camera. “I was not told I could disagree to it, and it was made to seem like it was a new procedure,” they wrote.

Others reported feeling there was no alternative option or that opting out would subject them to body frisks or detainment. So, technically optional, but with plenty of travelers being made to feel engaging with the TSA’s biometric scanners is the only real option.

The TSA doesn’t mind projecting success from an extremely small sample size of 25 airports. (And it says it will not be releasing the results of this limited study to the public, so we’re just expected to take it at its word.) But it does have a problem with other small sample sizes, especially when the majority of responses undercut the TSA’s “this is all extremely optional” PR statements.

When forwarded these accounts, TSA’s Langston dismissed their allegations. “While TSA cannot respond to a summary report that seems to lack statistical validity with 67 respondents, I can tell you that TSA’s two-year study was based in scientific rigor and that signs are posted at each podium highlighting the voluntary nature of participation and that if anyone expressed reservation at the podium, the officer is there to conduct a manual identification verification process with ease and without delay,” he says.

Statistics are only valid if you agree with them. That appears to be the TSA’s stance. Its press secretary insists that if anyone feels this scanning might not be optional, they’re free to “speak up.” This is an ignorant thing to say when it’s the TSA that gets to decide who gets to board a plane and/or how much additional scrutiny they’re subjected to. “Speaking up” is generally not the best way to get officious officers to wave you through security. But it’s a great way to ensure you’ll be spending a lot more time talking to people who believe you’re a troublemaker.

The only other evidence of the TSA’s side of the story presented by its press secretary is even further removed from “statistical validity.”

“[W]hat we’ve heard anecdotally is that people appreciate the convenience of being able to get through security with the image capture. People love these things.”

Riiiiiiiiight. I’m sure travelers are walking up to generally unqualified government agents with the power to take away their freedoms and thanking them for adding more surveillance tech to the flying experience. Anecdotally, the press secretary is full of shit.

The TSA wants every airport to be manned by facial recognition tech and every passenger to be mandatorily subjected to it. That’s the end goal. What we’re seeing now are just the waypoints en route to a massive, connected surveillance apparatus. I guarantee that once it’s fully in place, all the assurances the TSA has made about extremely limited data retention will evaporate. It’s just too tempting to collect it all and retain it as long as possible. And the DHS has never been praised for its willpower or its discretion.