Sally Fallon Morell takes on the Diet Dictocrats
GLYPHOSATE AND FERTILITY
Glyphosate—the main compound in the herbicide Roundup—is the chief ingredient in 19 percent of all herbicides used globally, with over two hundred million pounds sprayed annually across America. Although the industry claims that glyphosate is safe, the herbicide is actually harmful to our health in many ways—it disrupts the gut microbiota, substitutes for glycine in glycine-containing enzymes, deranges healthy collagen production and binds tightly to toxic metals like aluminum, depositing them in the intestinal and blood-brain barriers and making these tissues more porous. Now it turns out that glyphosate can cause infertility in several ways. Glyphosate disrupts estrogen and follicle-stimulating hormone ( FSH), which is required for ovulation and egg maturation. It also raises testosterone and progesterone, leading to ovarian tissue damage and conditions like polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis. Glyphosate exposure during pregnancy can cause damage to future offspring. In men, glyphosate exposure can damage Leydig cells and the production of testosterone. This is one reason why it is so important to avoid industrial seed oils, which are heavily sprayed, and conventional wheat and legumes, which are sprayed with the herbicide as a desiccant just before harvest (Mercola.com April 22, 2025).
GLYPHOSATE AND THE LIVER
Thereʼs more. In addition to killing fertility, glyphosate raises the risk of chronic liver disease. These are the review findings of more than forty scientific studies published over the past seventeen years. Higher urinary levels of glyphosate are linked to a higher risk of fat buildup in the liver, liver scarring and more liver enzymes in the blood, indicating injury and inflammation. In a long-term study of childhood exposure to the herbicide, youth ages five to eighteen with a twofold increase in glyphosate breakdown products in the urine were more likely to develop liver damage at age eighteen. In short, soaring rates of chronic liver disease match the rise in glyphosate exposure (Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, April 28, 2025).
EMBARRASSING FINDINGS
The Cleveland Clinic is a bastion of conventional medicine and naturally promotes the flu vaccine to its employees every year. But a Cleveland Clinic study, titled “Effectiveness of the Influenza Vaccine During the 2024-2025 Respiratory Viral Season,” found that those who got the jab were more likely to get the flu than those who refused! Among over fifty-three thousand employees, 82.1 percent had received the influenza vaccine by the end of the study. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, clinical nursing job and employment location, the risk of influenza was 27 percent higher for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. Of course, embarrassing results like this call for damage control. According to Robert H. Hopkins, Jr., medical director for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, “The Cleveland Clinic study does not evaluate the primary benefit for getting vaccinated against influenza: reducing one’s risk for severe illness, hospitalization and death.” (Nevertheless, the new HHS administration pulled the CDC “Wild to mild” flu vaccine campaign a few months ago.) Hopkins said he “completely” disagrees with the social media post calling for the flu vaccines’ removal from the market. “That action would result in more disease and death from flu,” he said. Nabin Shrestha, a physician and co-author of the study, said that although the results found an increased risk of influenza among vaccinated participants, the authors understood that the increased risk “could have been from an unrecognized factor,” and, therefore, they did not conclude that the vaccine increases infection risk. “Overall, the flu vaccine is an important public health tool,” he said (politifact.com, April 11, 2025).
TRAGIC FINDINGS
Dr. Paul Thomas, MD (retired), was a fellow of the American Board of Integrative and Holistic Medicine and a diplomat of the American Board of Addiction Medicine. During an interview with CHD.TV, Thomas disclosed an alarming statistic: a tragic 97 percent of all sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths happen within ten days of the child’s receiving a vaccination. The remaining 3 percent of SIDS deaths happen between ten and twenty days after vaccinations—these findings can be interpreted as showing that vaccines cause 100 percent of all SIDS cases. Thomas examined six datasets in studies that looked at SIDS, examining when the infant died relative to when they were vaccinated. In one dataset, 97 percent were in the first ten days after the vaccine. In the other datasets, 75-90 percent of the SIDS deaths happened in the first week after the vaccines. “So, it’s real clear,” says Thomas, “You get a vaccine, your infant dies.” Moreover, in the studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children, “we know without a doubt that things like neurodevelopmental concerns, learning disabilities, ADD, ADHD, autism, we know they’re clearly linked to vaccines. The more you vaccinate, the more likely you are to have these problems.” Moreover, “The vaccinated will get more ear infections, more sinus infections, more lung infections. The more we vaccinate, the sicker our kids are” (slaynews. com, April 14, 2025).
DEATH BY VACCINATION
At her pediatric “wellness” appointment, the nurse said she needed to “catch up” on missed vaccines from her six-month appointment. One-year-old Sa’Niya was given six shots for twelve vaccines. Twelve hours later she was dead. According to Sa’Niya’s grandmother, the girl’s mother was uncomfortable with her daughter receiving so many shots at once, but the nurse became angry and said, “She needs these shots, You got to give her these shots.” Within a few hours, the infant had a seizure and, at the hospital, four more seizures before going into cardiac arrest. Unfortunately, with such a full vaccination schedule, getting multiple “catch-up” shots at a “wellness” visit is not unusual. Even if the parents have kept up with the schedule, most babies are potentially given around nine vaccines at their one-year visit if the provider is following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule. This schedule calls for seventy-two doses of vaccines from pregnancy to the age of eighteen. Not a single study exists that looks at the safety of two or more vaccines given together (childrenshealthdefense.org, March 31, 2025).
TATTOO DANGERS
Tattoo inks contain heavy metals like cadmium, cobalt, mercury and chromium, along with nasties such as propylene glycol. Tattoo ink is known to transfer from skin to blood and accumulate in nearby lymph nodes. Researchers in Denmark have established a Danish Twin Tattoo Cohort to see whether tattoos have more serious effects. Comparing tattooed and non-tattooed twins, they found that skin cancer and lymphoma were more frequent in those who had tattoos larger than the palm of a hand. Said the researchers, “We are concerned that tattoo ink interacting with surrounding cells may have severe consequences (BMC Public Health (2025)25:170).
EAT YOUR SAUERKRAUT!
A study out of UC Davis has confirmed what we at WAPF have known all along: that lacto-fermented foods like sauerkraut are good for our health. The researchers compared raw cabbage, fermented sauerkraut and the leftover brine from the fermentation process. The results showed that sauerkraut helped preserve the integrity of intestinal cells, while raw cabbage and brine did not. They found no difference between store-bought and lab-made versions. Said study author Maria Marco, “Some of the metabolites we find in the sauerkraut are the same kind of metabolites we’re finding to be made by the gut microbiome, so that gives us a little more confidence that this connection we found between the metabolites in sauerkraut and good gut health makes sense.” The study indicates that sauerkraut can protect against inflammation and make our digestive tract more resilient. “A little bit of sauerkraut could go a long way,” said Marco, “We should be thinking about including these fermented foods in our regular diets and not just as a side on our hot dogs”—something WAPF has been saying for twenty-five years (Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 7 April 2025).
VITAMIN C FROM GUT BACTERIA
A 2013 article, “Bacteria as vitamin suppliers to their host: a gut microbiota perspective,” summarizes what we know so far about the production of vitamins by gut bacteria (Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2013 Apr;24(2):160-8). These friendly critters can produce most of the B vitamins—biotin, riboflavin, pantothenate, thiamine and folate—but the real surprise is ascorbate, vitamin C! Scientists have long thought that human bodies cannot produce vitamin C, but that’s one of those beliefs that needs revisiting. The bacteria Corynebacterium glucuronolyticum has an ascorbate biosynthesis pathway. This species has been linked to human urogenital and so is considered “pathogenic.” But maybe we need to reinterpret urogenital infections as the body’s need for vitamin C, to which the helpful Corynebacterium respond with “overgrowth.”
BRAIN TUMOR CLUSTER
A startling cluster of brain cancer cases has occurred at Newton-Wellesley Hospital in Massachusetts. As many as ten nurses working on the fifth-floor maternal care ward have received a brain cancer diagnosis within just a few years. The first suspect is, of course, the mRNA Covid shots which employees are “highly encouraged” (that is, forced) to take—and all these nurses did take the Covid shot—but there could be another culprit. What are the levels of EMR on that unit—and how do they compare with other units? Is there a cell tower right outside? Are the nurses using their individual cell phones rather than an old-fashioned intercom system? What about all the high-tech gadgetry? The hospital claims they did a thorough investigation and found “no environmental risk,” but did they measure levels of EMR on the ward—and the frequencies and power densities to which the nurses are exposed (thepeoplesvoice.tv, March 29, 2025)?
THE PROTEIN RAGE
According to the Wall Street Journal (April 19, 2025), Americans these days are protein-obsessed. As an example, they describe the diet of a twenty-eight-year-old sales rep who eats six eggs every morning, a smoothie with protein powder for lunch and a pound of red meat for dinner. The eggs and steak are real foods, but unfortunately, many people are getting their “protein” in processed food products containing protein powders. Food makers in 2024 introduced ninety-seven products with “protein” in the brand name. These include a nasty-sounding protein chip made from chicken breasts, egg whites and bone broth, cookie dough and mint chip-flavored ice cream tubs with thirty grams of protein each, brightly colored protein candy with the protein equivalent of eating a half cup of cottage cheese per bag of candy, and protein-infused beverages including sodas and fruit-flavored “protein water.” What Americans—including American nutritionists—don’t understand is that eating protein calls on the body’s reserves of vitamin A and can rapidly deplete this vital nutrient. That may be why a recent study found that consuming more than 22 percent of daily calories from protein can increase the risk of atherosclerosis (nature.com, February 19, 2024); and protein overload is a known threat to kidney health. When will it finally sink in that there is no substitute for real food, with a traditional mix of protein, carbs and fats—with fats predominating.
ALTERNATIVE PROTEIN BUST
Remember when Beyond Meat fake products showed up in your local supermarket? Accompanied by what must have been one of the most intense publicity campaigns in history, products from companies such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Burgers appeared in grocery stores, on menus and at fast food outlets like McDonaldʼs and Chipotle. No longer. Three years later, products like McPlant burgers and plant-based chorizo are absent from the grocery aisles and the menus. As real-food advocate Nina Teicholz puts it, “Consumers are turning towards real food, especially dairy, meat—and even red meat, which is an astonishing rejection of the elite opinion on every front—the media, doctors, nutrition experts, public health agencies, and an abundance of vegan A-listers.” Yet despite consumer rejection of fake, meat-like substances, the federal government is still investing in cell-based, lab-cultured meat, to the tune of thirty-two million dollars in government grants, with the promise that it is better for the environment. But a 2023 study by UC Davis authors found that several previous “life-cycle assessments” aiming to calculate the lab meatʼs impact on emissions had been flawed, because the models did not account for factors including the mining of metals needed for bioreactor construction, the removal of endotoxins produced by “gram-negative” bacteria and the process of “purification” (ACS Food Science & Technology, December 29, 2024). When the entire lab-meat process is factored in, lab-meat is not more environmentally friendly than real meat, even feedlot beef.
🖨️ Print post
Leave a Reply