Zbigniew Brzezinski said, “It is easier to kill a million people today than to control a million people.” And while at the same time the Third World peoples are multiplying, the White population is diminishing in Europe, it’s diminishing in America, by The Power of Allah (God)!

Putting poison in the water to sterilize human beings so that the gift of reproduction, which God gives to every creature to maintain and sustain and reproduce itself:

That very process is being killed by food that we need to eat, water that we need to drink; poison in the air that we need to breathe, and poison in the earth that is under our foot to produce what we put in our mouths as food and as seeds for planting.

Yes, even the seeds, too, are poisoned. And in next week’s broadcast, we will mention “Monsanto” and “DuPont,” and what they’re doing to seeds.

In the Honorable Elijah Muhammad’s monumental book, “How To Eat To Live, Book 1,” the Honorable Elijah Muhammad wrote over 50 years ago about the dangers of chemical sterilants and additives being put in our water and food!

[By the way, all of you: If you don’t have this book, why don’t you write to us and get a copy of it? And if you have it, take it down and re-read it. And when we get into this book on “How To Eat To Live,”

We will bring you the new writings from the M.G.T. & G.C.C. class of The Nation of Islam that will show you not only what to eat, but how to cook it; and the nutritional value of everything that you put in your mouth … .]

On Page 26, in the chapter “How Allah’s Way Prolongs Life,” he writes: “Many are advertising what to eat, and what medicines to take to make you eat or stop you from eating.

Many books are written and sold on good and bad foods, as well as on reducing the weight and on how to increase the weight, introducing the many chemicals used to bring about the desired result.

“But Allah, in the Person of Master Fard Muhammad, to Whom praises are due forever, has given us a better and safer way to do these things.” Which, of course, we will go into in future broadcasts. And on pages 107-108, in the chapter “Poisonous Food and Water,” the Honorable Elijah Muhammad continues:

“Take, for instance, the use of fluoride, chloride, and sodium, which if not used correctly can destroy our entire life. Maybe it is best to find something else that will clear our water without killing both us and the poison in our food and water.

The scientist should not advocate the use of such poisonous chemicals as fluoride, chloride, and sodium, which may have a bad effect on our brains and our human reproductive organs.

“The scientist that uses such poison on human beings wants to either minimize the birth rates or cause the extinction of a people. D.D.T., which is sprayed on food while it is growing up from the earth, is also a poison that should not be put into the human body, regardless of the desire to kill the insects that loves to dine on the same food on which we dine. The poison may not take instant [effect] on us, as it does the insects, but it can, over the long years, help shorten the span of our lives.

“We live in world commercializing on everything where money is involved, and this has speeded production of everything but human lives, in order to fill the demand of the people. This has caused many scientists to overlook the dangerous effects that such fast production has on the health of the people.

“Therefore, the only way out for us, the poor Lost-Found Black man and woman of America, is to seek refuge and guidance in Allah for our protection from the evil plannings and doings of Satan.

Allah (God) has pointed out to us in both the Bible and the Holy Qur’an the right foods for us to eat and He has pointed out the poisonous food and drinks. Follow Allah (God’s) guidance or suffer the consequences.”

In fact, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad says of His Teachings: “What I am teaching you is life! Accept it and live! Reject it, and the consequences are an untimely and early death.”

The post Combating America’s Depopulation Plan: We Must Learn ‘How To Eat To Live’ appeared first on Final Call News.

Are there data showing whether routine childhood vaccines pose less risk than the diseases they target? A review of some childhood vaccines suggests those data don’t exist. What the available data do show is this: The risk of serious adverse events caused by vaccines often outweighs the risk of contracting the disease if not vaccinated.

This article was originally published by the Defender—Childrens Health Defense News & Views Website, September 22, 2026.

Recent measles outbreaks attributed to the unvaccinated, and President Donald Trump’s executive order last month recommending fewer childhood vaccines have fired up the debate over childhood vaccines—and whether “anti-vaxers” are putting public health at risk.

But according to some physicians and medical experts, evidence supporting the safety and benefits of vaccines is inconclusive. And in fact, many routine childhood vaccines may pose a greater risk to children than the diseases those immunizations are said to protect against.

A peer-reviewed study published in July in Medical Research Archives, the journal of the European Society of Medicine, supports that argument. The study, based on official data from the German Children’s Health Survey, found that “vaccinated children are not healthier than unvaccinated children.”

On his blog, German researcher Harald Walach, Ph.D., who co-authored the study, wrote that vaccinated children “are less likely to contract measles, mumps, whooping cough, and rubella. But they are more likely to contract chickenpox, scarlet fever, Epstein-Barr, herpes, salmonella, and hepatitis.”

The German Children’s Health Survey data initially led Germany’s public health agency, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), to claim in 2011 that there were no health differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

But after researchers reexamined the same dataset, the authors of the new study determined that RKI’s conclusion was incorrect.

“The RKI had every incentive to find that vaccines made kids healthier,” said Dr. Michelle Perro, a pediatrician. “They didn’t. And when independent researchers dug deeper, the signal went the other direction.”

Walach told The Defender that his team’s findings are significant, especially given that “the effect of cumulation of vaccines has not been studied.”

Other physicians and public health experts agreed. Retired pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas told The Defender: “For every vaccine on the childhood schedule, not one used a full saline control group. They tend to use other vaccines or vaccine ingredients as the control group.

None had adequate follow-up times. None looked at all health outcomes, thus missing the serious side effects and deaths that were directly vaccinerelated. None had an unvaccinated control group, so they could not detect vaccine effects and side effects.”

Dr. Ben Edwards, an integrative medicine and family practitioner, said vaccines that focus on one strain of a disease may lower the odds of being infected by that strain—but they “very well may dysregulate, damage, imbalance or manipulate the immune system to such a degree that it misses other germs and increases the likelihood of getting and succumbing to other germs that you would not have otherwise.”

Are there data showing whether routine childhood vaccines pose less risk than the diseases they target? A review of some childhood vaccines—including those for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR); diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP); hepatitis B (Hep B); polio; and flu vaccines, suggests those data don’t exist.

What the available data do show is this: The risk of serious adverse events caused by vaccines often outweighs the risk of contracting the disease if not vaccinated. Data also indicate that many once-common childhood diseases were declining long before vaccines became available, due to improvements in nutrition and sanitation.

Yet, those same common childhood vaccines are frequently promoted to the public as treatments that are safe, effective and fully tested.

Lack of safety data ‘an indictment of the entire vaccine safety enterprise’

Perro told The Defender that for many common childhood vaccines, we “don’t have the data” to determine whether they are deadlier than the diseases they target— but we also lack the data to definitively conclude they are safer and pose less risk.

“That is itself an indictment of the entire vaccine safety enterprise,” Perro said.

Dr. Elizabeth Mumper, a pediatrician and CEO of Advocates for Families, said several factors play a role in determining the risk a disease—or the vaccine targeting that disease—may pose to kids.

“Case fatality rates vary by age, nutrition, comorbidities, access to care and location,” Mumper said. “Mortality rates for measles and pertussis decreased significantly prior to the development of vaccines against those diseases, probably due to public sanitation measures.”

The development of antibiotics and other non-vaccine treatments, such as vitamin A treatments for measles, “have made those diseases very manageable with very low risks for children living in developed countries,” Mumper said.

‘Vaccines and the Diseases They Target’—what the book says and doesn’t say

Mumper’s analysis mirrors that of a 2025 book, “Vaccines and the Diseases They Target: An Analysis of Vaccine Safety and Epidemiology,” published by Physicians for Informed Consent.

The book analyzes data from multiple studies and public health authorities on common childhood vaccines and the diseases they target—and identifies several key trends.

The book’s analysis of the MMR, DTaP, Hep B, polio and flu vaccines finds these diseases have a low incidence rate in the U.S. and developed countries, even among the unvaccinated:

• Measles: only 1 in 10,000 measles cases in the U.S. are fatal, 7 in 1,000 result in hospitalization, and 3 to 3.5 in 10,000 result in seizure.

• Rubella: Up to half of infections are asymptomatic and most are not reported to public health authorities.

• Diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis: The total annual risk of infection for children from any of the three diseases covered by the DTaP vaccine is 1 in 200,000.

• Polio: 95% of infections are asymptomatic, and 84% of cases that cause paralysis result in recovery without disability.

• Flu: Only 1 in 1.26 million children die from the flu, with or without other high-risk conditions.

The analysis also showed that infection rates of formerly common childhood diseases had sharply declined even before the introduction of vaccines targeting those conditions:

• Measles: Between 1900 and 1963, before the introduction of the measles vaccine and its subsequent inclusion as part of the combination MMR vaccine, the measles mortality rate declined from 13.3 per 100,000 to 0.2 per 100,000.

• Diphtheria: Between 1900 and 1945, before the introduction of a vaccine targeting diphtheria, the mortality rate dropped from 40.3 per 100,000 to 1.2 per 100,000.

• Tetanus: Between 1900 and 1945, before the introduction of a vaccine targeting tetanus, the mortality rate decreased from 2.4 per 100,000 to 0.5 per 100,000.

• Pertussis: Between 1900 and 1945, mortality declined from 16.1 per 100,000 to 1.3 per 100,000.

• Hep B: Before the vaccine was widely introduced, fewer than 1 in 7,000,000 children under age 10 at normal risk of exposure contracted chronic hepatitis B that led to fatal liver cirrhosis or to cancer later in life.

• Polio: Before the introduction of the polio vaccine, and among children who had not had their tonsils removed or did not rest after illness, 1 in 190,000 died or developed permanent disability.

The authors of the book couldn’t rule out a higher risk of severe adverse events — or deaths — from the vaccines listed above, compared to the risk posed by those diseases if a child remains unvaccinated. This includes:

• MMR: The 1 in 640 risk of seizure associated with the MMR vaccine is about five times higher than the risk of seizure from measles infection.

• Flu: Populations that receive the flu vaccine have shown a 65% higher risk of non-flu respiratory illness, and the vaccine has been shown to prevent the flu in approximately 65% of cases.

• Polio: The vaccine is associated with a 1 in 829 risk of seizure. A Journal of the American Medical Association study of nearly 379,000 children seeking an association between the polio vaccine and epilepsy found no association, but it also did not draw a specific conclusion when compared to the epilepsy risk posed by natural polio infection. The study did not rule out the possibility of the risk of an adverse event leading to permanent disability increasing by up to 56%, “which is greater than the risk of permanent disability from polio for children at normal risk.”

In an analysis posted on Substack, epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher identified at least three U.S. deaths likely linked to the MMR vaccine this year—compared to no U.S. deaths definitively linked to measles cases.

Several other studies also could not confirm a link between childhood vaccines and adverse events—but could not rule out an association. For example: A 2002 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) study looked for an association between the MMR vaccine and autism. According to the Physicians for Informed Consent book, “the results were inconclusive when compared to the risk of measles, mumps and rubella.”

An Institute of Medicine (IOM) study found that “the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between MMR vaccine” and severe adverse events potentially linked to the vaccine, including multiple sclerosis and Guillain- Barré syndrome.

The IOM study also could not accept or reject a causal relationship between the polio vaccine and severe adverse events like Guillain-Barré and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The book notes that the package inserts for the MMR, DTaP, Hep B and polio vaccines indicate that those vaccines have not been evaluated for their carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or possible adverse effects on fertility.

The NEJM study “did not rule out the possibility that the MMR vaccine increases the risk of an adverse event that leads to permanent disability by up to 95% … greater than the risk of death or permanent disability from measles, mumps and rubella for children at normal risk: 1 in 1,900 instead of 1 in 50,000,” the book states.

The book also cites a 1999 study finding no association between Hep B and adverse events, “but results were inconclusive when compared to the risk of Hep B. The study did not rule out the possibility that the Hep B vaccine increases the risk of an adverse event that leads to permanent disability by up to 110%.”

This figure is “greater than the risk of Hepatitis B for children at normal risk of exposure, 1 in 3,000 compared to 1 in 700,000,” the book states.

What doctors say they’ve observed

Mumper said that while studies have not drawn definitive conclusions, she’s made key observations involving patients at her practice. “My clinical experience suggests there are links. Forty-seven percent of the parents of patients with autism in my clinic cited MMR vaccine or multiple vaccines given when the child was ill as a trigger for their child’s regression into autism,” she said.

According to the Physicians for Informed Consent book, vaccine-induced immunity has reduced infection rates for diseases like measles—but this immunity is not lifelong and tends to wane by adolescence or early adulthood, whereas natural immunity has been shown to confer lifelong protection.

For instance, for the MMR vaccine, “by age 15, about 60% of vaccinated children are susceptible to subclinical infection with measles virus, and by age 24-26, 33% susceptible to clinical infection.” For the Hep B vaccine, “around 50% of children lose their immunity by age 5,” according to the book.

Edwards said that as people with naturally acquired immunity to measles age out of the population, measles incidence rates will increase because the measles vaccine does not provide lifelong protection.

“Everyone acquired measles naturally prior to the 1960s, and almost all survived—99+% range —and then had robust natural immunity for life. This generation is dying and will soon all be gone. Once this happens, we will see many more outbreaks,” Edwards said.

Aluminum adjuvants may account for worse outcomes in vaccinated kids

Walach told The Defender it’s “difficult to say” why vaccinated children may be more likely to contract at least some of the childhood diseases they receive shots for.

It’s his “educated guess” that these children are “able to go through some of these childhood diseases in a stable environment, where they are tedious, but not dangerous, allows the immune system to learn and ripen, such that other diseases are more easily curbed, even before they become symptomatic.”

On the contrary, “vaccine adjuvants — often aluminum oxide — are problematic and place a strain on children, particularly when they accumulate through multiple vaccinations,” Walach said.

The Physicians for Informed Consent book addressed aluminum adjuvants, which are used to “enhance the immune response to an antigen (foreign substance).”

The Hep B, DTaP (and Tdap) vaccines contain aluminum, which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has classified as a neurotoxin.

In 2008, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) determined that no more than 1 milligram (mg) of aluminum per kilogram (kg) of body weight should be taken orally per day to avoid aluminum’s harmful effects—including nervous system damage.

However, several vaccines sharply exceed this limit.

For instance, the Hep B vaccine contains 250 micrograms (mcg) of aluminum per dose, while the DTaP vaccine contains between 330 and 625 mcg per dose.

When combined with other childhood vaccines that contain aluminum, including the Haemophilus influenzae type B and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, cumulative exposure during the first year of life exceeds the ATSDR limit.

The ATSDR study noted that while the human digestive system is able to process almost all aluminum that is ingested, aluminum that is introduced intramuscularly by injection enters the bloodstream directly — even though the “rate at which aluminum from vaccines migrates from human muscle to the bloodstream is not known.”

Walach said it is wrong to exclusively blame the unvaccinated for outbreaks of diseases like measles, noting that “the highest load of measles cases in Europe is in Poland, which has had compulsory measles vaccination much longer than other countries.”

A peer-reviewed study published last year in Expert Review of Vaccines and co-authored by scientists from entities including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Emory University, Johns Hopkins University, Public Health Agency of Canada, and the Pan American Health Organization found that it is possible for the vaccinated to transmit measles.

Such cases “must be considered in public health investigations, as such transmissions can contribute to outbreaks,” the study stated.

Thomas suggested that vaccine-strain measles might be contributing to outbreaks, noting that “it is quite possible that much of the measles we are seeing is driven by shedding by the vaccinated.”

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, said measles “may be evolving to evade the vaccine.”

Perro drew parallels with what she called the “polio narrative.” She said, “Wild poliovirus has been eliminated from the Western Hemisphere since 1991. The only polio cases in the U.S. in recent decades have been vaccine-derived.”

“The real question shouldn’t be ‘do unvaccinated cause or drive or make up most of these outbreaks,’ which is kind of a nobrainer, but which kids come out the other side healthier — less death and disease of any kind,” Edwards said.

This article was originally published by the Defender—Childrens Health Defense News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BYNCND 4.0.

The post Are routine childhood vaccines deadlier than the diseases they target? appeared first on Final Call News.

Beyond preventing disease and cutting this country’s healthcare bill, Black people in particular have even more reason to make a change and adopt healthful living as a priority. We already know we live in a racist society.

But did you know that the very stress of racism cripples us in a way that leaves us susceptible to illnesses and lifestyles that lead to illnesses and death? The constant ever presence of racism in every aspect of our lives triggers physiological responses that release hormones into the body that can harm us.

One leading doctor, Dr. John L. Mason, wrote in his book “Guide to Stress Reduction,” that “if a stress response is chronic, the constant presence of stress hormones begins to wear down the body’s immunological systems.”

The stress from the constant bombardment of racism, from our being in America under this system of hatred toward Black people, works to increase the heartbeat, tense the muscles, increase the blood pressure and ultimately release adrenaline and other hormones into the body.

Without a physical outlet to free you of the buildup of these hormones and adrenaline, these things wear down the immunological systems and leave you vulnerable to illness and disease.

Or, you begin to seek mood-altering substances like drugs, alcohol, food, or even sex or violence to help make you feel better. After we destroy ourselves, through our response to the destructive enemy assault of racism, we then look to the doctor or the government to help us.

Let me remind you, the key to solving our problems begins with self-improvement. The government and the medical community cannot be relied on to solve our problems. Take cancer as an example.

When former President Nixon launched the National Cancer Act in 1971, he funded the National Cancer Institute with a $1.4 billion annual budget. Since that time there has been no marked improvement in cancer death rates.

All we’ve received is warnings that smoking, improper diet, lack of exercise, getting an annual checkup, all of these simple guidelines to healthful living can dramatically reduce the risk of cancer.

However, according to the Public Health Service, given the excessive deaths in the Black community, the government has written off the possibility of closing the gap in the near future. And if we are written off in the near future, then what future is there in continuing to look to the government for help?

We must now look to God and ourselves for solutions to our problems. The route to economic and political empowerment begins with affirming the Will of God and living in accord with His directions. Why would we add poor health to a condition that is already economically, socially and politically disadvantaged?

We compound our own disadvantage i by partaking of the slough-trough of the degenerate life of America’s popular culture instead of raising ourselves up and being a beacon of hope and an example to every oppressed group of people on the earth.

We need a healthy community to shoulder the responsibility of self-determination. You cannot fight for self-determination when you are at war with your own body and mind.

I’m urging you to adopt healthy lifestyles, not for vanity’s sake, but for the sake of our future, and our grandchildren’s future. Because without healthy, strong bodies, wise and disciplined minds, we only help the enemy by serving as the instruments of our own extinction.

The post Walking: Preventative Care Guidelines appeared first on Final Call News.

by Center for Biological Diversity
Published on The Defender

This article was originally published by the Defender—Children’s Health Defense News & Views website, October 15, 2026.

Conservation and public health groups filed a lawsuit on Oct. 14 to force the Trump administration to develop required water quality standards for atrazine, a cancer-linked pesticide found at dangerous levels in thousands of U.S. waterways and in drinking-water supplies.

“We’re taking the Trump administration to court because it’s refusing to protect Americans from the well-documented dangers of the cancer-linked, hormone-disrupting pesticide atrazine,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity.

“The rest of the world is banning this incredibly dangerous pesticide. Why is Trump’s EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] continuing to push this poison on people?”

Atrazine is the nation’s most widespread pesticide water pollutant. According to a new Center for Biological Diversity report, the pesticide contaminates 25% of all river miles in the continental U.S. at levels the EPA recognizes as harmful to aquatic life.

Atrazine pollution is caused by industrial agricultural operations using tens of millions of pounds of the pesticide each year.

The lawsuit challenges the lack of water quality protections in American waterways as required under the Clean Water Act. The Act requires the EPA to develop water quality standards for pollutants like atrazine. The agency initiated but failed to complete that step in 1999.

The EPA is moving toward reapprov-ing the hormone-disrupting pesticide for another two decades.

A recently published study found that the EPA’s proposal to continue atrazine use would leave 99% of the nation’s most contaminated watersheds polluted with the pesticide at levels that the agency itself considers unsafe.

“Protecting the environment from pesticides benefits farmworkers and farming communities suffering from these poisons polluting their water,” said Margaret Reeves, a senior scientist focused on agro-ecology and workers’ rights at the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.

“Building healthy soils and sustainable food systems will help us break our reliance on toxic pesticides like atrazine.”

Atrazine is banned as too dangerous in more than 60 countries but is the second most widely used pesticide in the U.S., behind glyphosate.

It is linked to birth defects, multiple cancers and fertility problems like low sperm quality and irregular menstrual cycles.

California health officials proposed to list atrazine as known to cause cancer earlier this month following the 2025 decision by the World Health Organization’s

International Agency for Research on Cancer finding that atrazine is probably carcinogenic.

Scientific research has found it chemically castrates male frogs at extremely low concentrations, including those allowed in drinking water.

“Pesticides like atrazine that are clearly linked to reproductive harms and cancer don’t belong in our water supplies,” said Tom Fox, senior legislative counsel at the Center for Environmental Health. “EPA needs to take action now as required by the Clean Water Act.”

ealthdefense.org/defender/groups-sue-

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by the Center for Biological Diversity, Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network, and the Center for Environmental Health.

Background The troubling health harms of atrazine, as well as glyphosate, were spotlighted in the Trump administration’s first Make America Healthy Again report. Atrazine has been a priority pesticide for public health advocates for decades because of the extreme threats it poses to human health and the environment.

During the first Trump administration, the EPA discarded safety precautions mandated under the Food Quality Protection Act that protect young children from pesticide exposures. In doing so, the agency ignored multiple independent epidemiological studies finding that developing embryos and young children are at a high risk of harm from this pesticide.

The EPA also reduced the protection factor it used to convert toxicity levels observed in rat and mouse studies to levels considered safe for humans. The more permissive benchmark relied on a model developed by the primary manufacturer of epa-pesticide-pollution-u-s-waterways atrazine, Syngenta.

Had the science-based, more-protective standards been used, atrazine use on lawns and turf would likely have been banned because of unacceptable harms to children. But the agency only proposed a modest reduction in application rates for turf.

The Trump administration also weakened environmental safeguards put in place in 2006 to protect aquatic life from harmful atrazine exposure, a move that increased the amount of atrazine allowed in waterways across the United States.

The change came in response to requests from the pesticide’s maker, Syngenta and the National Corn Growers Association.

Atrazine has saturated much of the country at levels that the EPA recognizes will harm wildlife.

Atrazine is primarily used on corn grown for animal feed and ethanol. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that ethanol production accounts for nearly 45% of total corn use; 40% of domestic corn use is for livestock feed; and some portion of the remainder is processed into ingredients used in ultrapro-cessed foods, like high fructose corn syrup, glucose, dextrose and corn oil.

This article was originally published by the Defender—Childrens Health Defense News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BYNCND 4.0.

Originally published by the Center for Biological Diversity.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/groups-sue-epa-pesticide-pollution-u-s-waterways-drinking-water

The post Groups sue EPA over pesticide pollution in U.S. waterways, drinking water appeared first on Final Call News.

by Pamela Ferdinand U.S. Right to Know

Gifts, payments, free meals and other marketing ploys by pharmaceutical companies heavily influence doctors to prescribe more drugs, choose less appropriate treatments and drive up prescription costs, according to a systematic review of 93 studies.

These prescribing choices can expose patients to drugs that offer fewer benefits, cause more side effects or are unnecessary, while increasing health system costs.

The review, published on Oct. 9 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, found that policies restricting interactions between drug companies and doctors were associated with better prescribing choices, lower costs and possibly fewer prescriptions.

“Overall, when doctors have more contact with drug company promotion, prescribing tends to become less appropriate, more frequent, and more expensive,” said co-author Dr. Lisa Bero, an affiliate professor at the University of Colorado Anschutz Center of Bioethics and Humanities.

“This is problematic for a number of reasons, and it matters because it directly affects patient care.” Dr. Quinn Grundy, director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Governance, Accountability and Transparency in the Pharmaceutical Sector, agreed.

Grundy, co-author and associate professor at the University of Toronto, said:

“It shows what we have long suspected—that when doctors accept free meals, payments for consulting or sitting on an advisory board, and visits from sales representatives, they tend to prescribe more of the promoted drug, that their prescribing costs go up, and that they are prescribing drugs that are less appropriate or unnecessary.”

Earlier this year, another systematic review found doctors with more contact with pharmaceutical companies prescribed more painkillers and spent more on opioid prescriptions. The findings also come at a time of increased pharmaceutical promotional activity, especially for GLP-1 weight-loss drugs.

One recent follow-up study found that the proportion of doctors reporting they received free drug samples rose from 11.4% in 2011 to 21.6% in 2024. Reports of discussions with pharmaceutical representatives increased from 30.4% to 45.6%.

What are the key findings?

An international team of researchers examined real-world prescribing patterns among millions of doctors exposed to pharmaceutical advertising and education, such as sales representative visits, gifts, payments or free samples.

Most studies examined prescribing at a single point in time, making it difficult to determine whether industry interactions caused the differences observed. However, researchers found:

Gifts or payments: Doctors who received gifts or payments tended to prescribe less appropriately and write more prescriptions. These marketing tactics by pharmaceutical companies probably also increased prescribing costs.

• “We found high-certainty evidence that gifts and payments have a harmful effect on prescribing appropriateness and are associated with higher volumes of prescribing,” the authors wrote.

• Advertising or education: Doctors exposed to pharmaceutical company advertising and educational activities tended to prescribe less appropriately and at higher costs. These activities probably increased prescriptions.

• Conflict-of-interest policies: Rules that restrict or manage industry interactions likely improved prescribing choices and may have reduced prescription numbers. Their effect on costs was unclear.

• Hospital drug lists: Promotional interactions may increase doctors’ requests to add drugs to approved hospital lists, but the evidence was uncertain. Evidence about the effects of free samples was also unclear.

What does

pharmaceutical marketing involve?

Pharmaceutical companies promote medicines through one-on-one visits by sales representatives, sponsored education, advertisements in medical journals, direct mail and conferences.

They also provide meals, travel expenses and free drug samples, and pay doctors to serve on advisory boards or speak at events.

Other promotional activities include sponsored clinical trials without a scientific justification, sometimes called “market seeding” trials, patient education services and ghostwriting.

In 2025, drug and medical device companies reported $2.6 billion in non-research payments to U.S. physicians, including fees for consulting and speaking, meals, travel and gifts.

Although these activities have not always been considered pharmaceutical promotion, internal industry documents released through litigation show that companies use them to promote products, the researchers note.

Promotional information tends to emphasize medicines’ benefits while minimizing their harms, putting patients’ health at risk.

“A prescriber who relies on information that exaggerates benefits or minimizes harms may prescribe featured medicines more often and to a broader set of patients than those who are likely to benefit, and may be less conscious of the need to avoid prescribing to specific at-risk patient groups than a prescriber who relies on more balanced, accurate information,” they wrote.

Advertising, gifts and payments linked to more prescriptions

The review included 82 studies from the U.S., where the Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires pharmaceutical companies to disclose payments to doctors through a publicly searchable database.

Eleven studies came from the U.K. and Europe. The studies, published largely over the past two decades, covered a wide range of clinical settings, drug treatments and medical conditions. These include cancer, diabetes, asthma, osteoporosis, depression and pain.

Most research on advertising and education examined visits from pharmaceutical sales representatives. All found that greater exposure was associated with more prescriptions, higher costs or less appropriate prescribing.

The largest and most consistent body of evidence covered gifts and payments. One study, for instance, found that patients were more likely to receive denosumab, described as a low-value, non-recommended treatment for prostate cancer, when their oncologists received payments from the manufacturer.

Notably, doctors receive food and drink gifts from pharmaceutical companies far more often than they receive consulting, advisory or speaking fees. These gifts typically have little monetary value. But the review shows a clear dose-response relationship between paid-for meals and inappropriate prescriptions.

“It’s very common for doctors to receive free meals from companies,” said lead author Dr. Barbara Mintzes from the University of Sydney in Australia. “Doctors often think that this is trivial and doesn’t influence them, that they ‘can’t be bought for the price of a sandwich,’

But the data shows this is an effective marketing strategy. The more free meals a doctor receives, the more likely they are to prescribe less appropriate or more expensive drugs.”

One study linked more meals to higher quantities and costs of long-acting insulin prescriptions. Another found that doctors prescribed 9.3% more opioids for each additional meal they received from drug companies in the previous year.

The overprescription of opioids is the most infamous example of pharmaceutical companies’ promotion exaggerating benefits and minimizing harms, Bero says. This review found that even inexpensive meals increased opioid prescribing, and that the more payments a doctor received from opioid manufacturers, the more likely they were to prescribe dangerously high opioid doses.

One study found that each 1% increase in payments was associated with an average of 50 additional daily doses. The widespread inappropriate overprescribing of opioids has led to an epidemic of addiction and deaths from overdoses. But it is not an isolated incident, Bero said.

“Patients should be offered the most appropriate treatment for their condition, based on clinical evidence not industry marketing,” she said. “[The opioid crisis] was high-profile due to the significant harms involved.

But the systems that enabled it are unfortunately considered business-as-usual within the industry. Interactions between pharmaceutical companies and prescribing physicians are widespread, and the harms they cause are rarely so visible.”

Which medicines were linked to industry payments?

The authors also examined studies that looked at what happened to prescribing outcomes when hospitals or medical schools introduced policies that limited doctors’ interactions with sales representatives, banned free samples or restricted doctors from accepting gifts.

Prescribers working under these policies prescribed fewer and more appropriate drugs, they found. For example, psychiatrists working under stricter policies limiting contact with sales representatives were less likely to prescribe antipsychotics and antidepressants to children, including for uses not officially approved for them.

The research team called for stronger conflict-of-interest policies to protect public health, including rules prohibiting gifts, payments and sales visits. They also recommended limiting doctors’ exposure to industry promotion during medical education and throughout their careers.

“Addressing pharmaceutical promotion isn’t about undermining trust in doctors, it’s about strengthening and protecting health systems so that patients always receive the most appropriate care,” Bero said.

Originally published by U.S. Right to Know under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. Pamela Ferdinand is an award-winning journalist and former Massachusetts Institute of Technology Knight Science Journalism fellow who covers the commercial determinants of public health.

The post Doctors who take meals, payments and gifts from drugmakers prescribe more drugs— even if patients don’t need them appeared first on Final Call News.

This article was originally published by the Defender—Childrens Health Defense News & Views Website, October 2, 2026.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier on Oct. 1 sued Pfizer and its CEO, Albert Bourla, alleging that the drugmaker misled the public by marketing its COVID-19 vaccine as safe and effective while not disclosing the vaccine’s potential risks to pregnant women, children and teenagers.

The 49-page lawsuit alleges Pfizer violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by deceptively marketing its vaccine to the public in turn for making billions of dollars in profit.

According to the complaint, Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine marketing campaign focused on two principal themes: that the shot “posed no material safety risks” and that “mass vaccination was necessary to stop the transmission of COVID-19”— even though Pfizer never tested the vaccine’s ability to stop the virus from spreading.

Pfizer possessed extensive evidence that its vaccine caused serious adverse events— including 1,223 reported deaths following vaccination as of February 2021 and 52 miscarriages among vaccinated pregnant women. However, the company assured the public the vaccine was safe.

“Today we sued Pfizer for deceptively marketing the products as safe—making billions—while pregnant women were miscarrying their babies and teenagers were having heart attacks,” Uthmeier said in a statement.

Florida AG says state has track record of success with similar lawsuits

In a statement, Pfizer said the allegations are baseless, and that the “representations made by Pfizer about its COVID-19 vaccine have been accurate and science-based” and that it “stands behind the safety and efficacy” of the product.

But Forrest B. Saunders, communications director for Uthmeier’s office, told The Defender “the complaint and comments by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier speak for themselves.”

Saunders said Florida has a track record of success with such lawsuits, having “recovered millions for Floridians through consumer protection efforts.”

Naomi Wolf, CEO of Daily Clout and  author of “The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity,” helped release documents in 2023 and 2024 revealing serious adverse events among pregnant women and irreversible harms to reproductive health. She called the lawsuit “a glimmer of potential justice long overdue.”

Florida resident Haley Schwartz, who was seriously injured following her COVID-19 vaccination in 2021, also welcomed the suit. She said injuries caused by the vaccine “have received inadequate attention” for years.

“Finally seeing these issues examined through a formal legal process feels significant and creates an important opportunity for greater scrutiny, transparency, and accountability regarding what was communicated to the public,” Schwartz said.

The lawsuit seeks civil penalties of $10,000 for each violation of the state’s consumer protection law—and $15,000 for each violation involving an elderly or disabled person.

Florida seeks to force Pfizer to return some of its profits and is asking for a permanent injunction against further deceptive practices.

Pfizer’s deceptive marketing sought to ‘ensure windfall profits’

According to the complaint, Pfizer engaged in a deceptive and “wide-ranging marketing campaign” to “drive consumer demand” for its COVID-19 vaccine, overcome widespread public skepticism and “ensure windfall profits.”

“This emphasis on the purported safety of the vaccine directly responded to widespread public concerns about a pharmaceutical product that had been developed on an unusually accelerated timeline, with uniquely limited testing and oversight, and employing novel mRNA technology,” the complaint states.

Pfizer’s campaign included public statements by Bourla claiming the COVID-19 vaccine was safe. The complaint cites a January 2023 interview in which Bourla claimed that Pfizer had not detected “a single [safety] signal” linked to the vaccine.

The complaint suggests public skepticism was warranted: “Pfizer knew that data showed its COVID-19 vaccine was connected to myocarditis and pericarditis among minors; had reason to believe its COVID-19 vaccine would cause adverse events for pregnant women and their unborn babies in the first trimester, including miscarriage [and] thousands of reports of other adverse events including stroke and even death, especially among the elderly.”

By Feb. 28, 2021, Pfizer’s internal adverse event database already contained 158,893 adverse event reports and reports of 1,223 deaths linked to its COVID-19 shot, according to the complaint.

Pfizer by then also “possessed reports for 458 pregnant women exposed to its COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy”—over half of whom sustained at least one adverse event. Of 52 miscarriages, most occurred during the first trimester, “many within days of vaccination.”

Pfizer ended its COVID-19 vaccine trial involving pregnant women early, due to low participation, particularly among women in the early stages of pregnancy. But the drugmaker didn’t disclose “material facts already in its possession showing the risks associated with its COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy.”

Pfizer official admitted vaccine not tested for stopping transmission

Pfizer promoted its COVID-19 vaccine as a means of “protecting … loved ones” through a “wide-ranging marketing campaign” which suggested that the vaccine would stop the spread of COVID-19, the suit alleges.

But Janine Small, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, said the vaccine was not tested on stopping the virus, according to a 2021 statement cited in the lawsuit.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph. D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said the “assurances of safety the company gave required knowledge Pfizer simply did not have.”

He cited a February 2021 Pfizer “nonclinical overview” document listing an extensive range of safety studies Pfizer did not conduct.

“Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine may actually have been the least-studied approved product it has made this century,” Jablonowski said. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/florida-ag-james-uthmeier-lawsuit-pfizer-albert-bourla-deceptive-marketing-covid-vaccines/ The lawsuit alleges that Pfizer’s misleading marketing claims translated into a financial windfall for Pfizer and Bourla. Between 2020 and 2023, Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine revenue exceeded $80 billion, and Bourla received nearly $102 million in compensation.

Legal liability shield may not protect Pfizer in Florida lawsuit

COVID-19 countermeasures, including vaccines, are protected by a legal liability shield under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) of 2005.

Attorney Ray Flores, CHD’s senior outside counsel, said these protections may not extend to state-level consumer protection cases.

“All states have consumer protection statutes that normally would allow individual consumers to bring suit for fraudulent practices. Under the PREP Act, however, only states have the potential for successful suits,” Flores said.

Kansas and Texas have active lawsuits against Pfizer in the 10th and 5th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, respectively. The suits make similar claims to Florida’s— namely, that Pfizer violated state consumer protection laws by marketing its COVID-19 vaccine as safe and effective.

“All three cases are remarkably similar, as they are brought under parens patriae,” a legal principle that allows states to file lawsuits to protect state residents, Flores said.

However, he said Florida’s lawsuit may face obstacles, as Pfizer may seek to move the case from state to federal court “to invoke PREP Act protection”—similar to what the company did in the Kansas and Texas lawsuits.

Flores said other states may be waiting on the sidelines for the outcomes of the Texas and Kansas cases. “I wish more attorneys general would take such legal action,” Flores said. “There was a rumor back in 2024 that Utah, Mississippi and Louisiana were also suing Pfizer. It sounded good, and got lots of press, but it was never true.”

Flores also said he would like to see state attorneys general pressure U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to “flex his muscles” by ending the PREP Act’s liability shield for COVID-19 vaccines. Bourla defended the liability shield for vaccine makers in an interview last year.

This article was originally published by the Defender—Childrens Health Defense News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BYNCND 4.0.

The post Florida AG Sues Pfizer, Bourla Over Deceptive Marketing of COVID Vaccines appeared first on Final Call News.

At about $750 billion (now $4.3 trillion) in spending, America spends more on health care than any other country. However, very little of this money is spent on preventive care. If America seriously hopes to end its crisis in health care, it must redirect its attention to preventive care.

While I support a reasonable universal health care coverage plan, making America healthy must become the personal responsibility of each citizen, and not the responsibility of government, except in those cases where preventive care is not adequate. 

This approach would require that each individual becomes more knowledgeable, and that leadership in the food industry, medical community and government become more responsible in providing and teaching the people the truth about caring for the human body.

The greatest gift that we have been given is the gift of life. The essence of our very being is housed within this magnificent creation of flesh and blood known as our bodies.

Unfortunately, we live in a society that misdirects us and misinforms us in such a way that we place our own bodies at risk. We take care of our clothes, our pets and our material possessions better than we take care of our own bodies.

Knowledge is the principle resource that can help us take better care of our bodies and our health. God, the Creator and Sustainer of all life, has given us direction for taking care of our health. However, we live in a society that is in opposition to the directions from the Giver of life, and as a result we suffer.

It is sad that buying material possessions is valued more than getting a simple yearly checkup by a competent doctor. It is sad that watching television several hours a day takes precedence over scheduling a few minutes of exercise that would help keep our bodies and our minds fit. 

It is sad that we put more emphasis on going to movies and listening to music feeding our minds through the reading of proper books and literature.

And it’s a tragedy that we overeat, eat the wrong foods, smoke, take drugs, drink alcohol, and take an excessive amount of pills to cope with life’s stresses instead of developing the core values and self­-control to protect ourselves from these addictions.

Here again, the airwaves can be used to promote a healthy lifestyle among the people.

The post Knowledge and valuing our bodies properly  appeared first on Final Call News.

by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. The Defender

This article was originally published by the Defender—Childrens Health Defense News & Views Website September 14, 2026

Pfizer and Israel’s Ministry of Health (MOH) knew in early 2021 about a significant “cardiac event” safety signal associated with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine—but withheld the information from physicians and the public for several months, a new peer-reviewed study has found.

The authors of the study, published last week in EXCLI Journal, reviewed an MOH dataset containing 531 hospitalization records dating from March 2021—just months after the rollout of the mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech shot—to May 2022.

The records included 67 deaths, including nine in patients under age 50. Two of the nine deaths were attributed to myocarditis, which can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death.

Myocarditis was recorded in 71.6% of the hospitalization records involving patients under 30. Nearly two-thirds of those patients “had no meaningful medical history” before their diagnosis.

The deaths and injuries were reported to Israel’s MOH and to Pfizer. Yet, public health authorities in Israel, the U.S. and elsewhere downplayed the safety signal, reporting it “only after a delay of approximately three to four months.” Even then, health authorities described most cases as “rare” or “mild”—and of less concern than the risk COVID-19 posed.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said none of the myocarditis deaths are found in the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), even though Pfizer was obligated to report the deaths to VAERS.

“The bereaved and the injured are owed an answer,” Jablonowski said.

Steve Kirsch, founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, said the study’s findings are significant because they are based on “internal government data” instead of data from vaccine makers or from publicly available databases.

Kirsch said the data show that Israel’s MOH “was clearly more interested in protecting the manufacturers than the public.”

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, said the findings reflect a trend across multiple countries, in which public health authorities and Big Pharma hid the risks of the COVID-19 shots.

“I don’t think Israel is an outlier. Pharmaceutical companies, public health authorities, organized medicine, and academics worldwide have performed shamefully and betrayed our trust,” Orient said.

‘Generally short intervals’ between vaccination and injuries, deaths

The study presents a breakdown of the 531 hospitalization records and 67 death records in the Israeli MOH data, noting that these cases involved a significant number of younger patients. These cases were reported to Pfizer in 2021 and 2022.

“Reported events spanned cardiac, neurological, inflammatory, and other serious clinical categories and involved a substantial proportion of younger individuals, with 211 of 530 hospitalization records with valid age data (39.8 %) involving patients under 30 years of age,” the study states.

Other key findings from the study include:

The two myocarditis-related deaths in people under 50 involved a 22-year-old woman and a 47-year-old man.

An additional death of a younger adult—a 35-year-old man—was also identified. His record indicated “worsening heart failure” but did not mention myocarditis.

Μyocarditis or pericarditis was identified in 250 of 531 hospitalization records (47.1%) and in 151 of 211 records (71.6%) of patients under 30.

48 patients under 18 were diagnosed with myocarditis or pericarditis.

134 of the 211 patients under 30 had “no meaningful medical history,” of which 99 of 134 were diagnosed with myocarditis and pericarditis — most of whom were male (90 out of the 99, or 90.9%).

According to the study, a significant number of records involving younger patients recorded the onset of “acute cardiac inflammation” that developed “within days to weeks of vaccination.”

Though the study focused on myocarditis and pericarditis, the researchers’ review of the records also identified a “broad spectrum” of other “serious clinical events.” These injuries included:

• Other cardiac events, including arrhythmias, syncope and heart failure.

Neurological disorders, including seizures, stroke, encephalitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome and cranial nerve palsies.

Allergic reactions, including “suspected anaphylaxis.”

Inflammatory and hematological conditions, including multisystem inflammatory syndrome and immune thrombocytopenic purpura.

Other serious conditions, including acute kidney injury and sudden hearing loss.

The combination of detailed case-level clinical documentation, the “generally short intervals” between vaccination and injury, the formal reporting to Pfizer and the fact that the data were sourced from a government health authority support the study’s credibility, the authors said.

Pfizer was kept in loop about deaths in 2021-2022

Israel MOH records also showed Pfizer was kept in the loop about the deaths and hospitalizations, receiving nine such reports between March 2021 and May 2022.

The first report, dated March 25, 2021, included information on 157 hospitalizations and 46 deaths.

“Reports to Pfizer, which began no later than March 25, 2021, included a notable proportion of young individuals, including many for whom no meaningful medical history was identified,” the study states.

Yet, Pfizer—and public health authorities worldwide—sat on this information for weeks or months before revealing it to the public.

The study cited documentary evidence of these delays—and the subsequent downplaying of the severity of the serious adverse events related to the vaccine. For instance, an October 2021 New England Journal of Medicine study found that early myocarditis cases were detected in Israel as early as January 2021—only a month after the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was released to the public.

On Feb. 28, 2021, Israel alerted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other public health authorities about approximately 40 myocarditis cases.

But this information didn’t become public until February 2023, following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that CHD submitted to the CDC. In early March 2021, the CDC was warned about “large numbers” of myocarditis and pericarditis cases among young people in Israel.

A week later, officials from the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) circulated an internal response about the myocarditis cases reported in Israel, stating that no additional details about those cases were available.

Yet on April 26, 2021, the CDC and FDA denied that “safety signals” existed for myocarditis. It wasn’t until May 28, 2021, that the CDC issued a recommendation to all clinicians to report “all cases” of myocarditis or pericarditis.

The authors of the EXCLI Journal study suggested that the decision by public health authorities and Pfizer to sit on this information “may have had implications for clinical awareness and informed decision-making.”

Epidemiologist M. Nathaniel Mead, Ph.D., a McCullough Foundation scholar, agreed. “Informed consent should have included an age-and-sex-specific warning in time for them to say no, delay a second dose, or choose differently. Many men never got that chance.”

Were more vaccine-related deaths concealed?

The study found that the dataset provided by Israel’s MOH appeared to have been revised several times, noting that later versions “added clinical information to existing records, revised diagnoses and reporting dates, and omitted some records.”

The omissions included a death report contained in an October 2021 version of the MOH’s dataset that was “no longer present in the December or any subsequent version.”

According to the study, the dataset contains no “methodological documentation” and “no formal audit trail identifying who made these changes or the reasons for them,” making it impossible to tell why these revisions were made based on the available data.

Later revelations show Israeli authorities continued to downplay the risks of the COVID-19 shot well into 2022. A leaked video from June 2022 revealed that researchers shared data with Israel’s MOH showing serious and long-term side effects linked to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot.

The video suggested that Israel’s MOH did not reveal this information to the expert committee that met later that month to decide on recommending the vaccine for children under age 5, or to leaders of Israel’s COVID-19 vaccine booster program.

Kirsch said the delayed public release of the data and the open questions that remain about how the data were entered and updated raise accountability concerns that span beyond Israel’s MOH and Pfizer to include the broader medical community.

“Nobody was fired. More importantly, no pro-vaccine doctor in the U.S. has expressed any outrage in the suppression of the Israeli safety data,” Kirsch said. Orient said the study adds to evidence supporting the suspension and withdrawal of mRNA vaccines from the marketplace.

“There is no justification for the continued use of these vaccines. There should be no further iterations unless and until all questions are answered and benefit is shown to exceed risk—if ever. We should instead be concentrating on treatment.”

This article was originally published by the Defender—Childrens Health Defense News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BYNCND 4.0.

The post Israel, Pfizer knew COVID vaccine caused fatal heart condition – But waited months before alerting public appeared first on Final Call News.

It starts with one sweeping new federal law, according to national research, healthcare advocates and professionals, including Lawanda Muhammad, a licensed Medicare and Medicaid advisor.

She works with seniors every day in California—one of the states where these changes are already playing out, and a useful window into what’s unfolding across the country.

In July 2025, the U.S. Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). It cuts hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years from Medicaid—called Medicaid in most states—but known as Medi-Cal in California, MassHealth in Massachusetts, and by other names elsewhere.

The good news is that seniors 65 and older are not affected by the new “work requirement” rule at all. They don’t have to prove they’re working to keep their coverage. That part of the law targets younger adults, ages 19–64.

The real issue for seniors isn’t a work rule—it’s paperwork, mail, and a shrinking safety net underneath the paperwork.

According to KFF, Black people in America are most affected. Roughly 21% of Medicaid enrollees are Black, compared to about 13% of the overall population. Roughly 73.9 million Americans are enrolled in Medicaid nationwide, according to KFF’s most recent tracker.

If Black people make up about 18% of that group, that’s roughly 13 million Black people in America on Medicaid—out of an estimated 44–45 million Black Americans in the country overall, per Census Bureau population figures. In other words, nearly 1 in 3 nationally relies on Medicaid, a far higher share than the population as a whole.

For seniors specifically, Black and Latino elders are more likely to be dual-eligible—enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid.  If a state tightens Medicaid rules and someone loses their Medicare Savings Program help, it’s disproportionately Black and Latino seniors who feel that loss first, since more of them rely on that help to begin with, advocates point out.

Every year, the standard Medicare Part B premium (what pays for doctor visits) gets adjusted nationwide. In 2026, it’s $202.90 a month, the same amount for seniors in every state, and it’s projected to rise to around $209.50 in 2027. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), however, won’t confirm the official rate until this fall.

What makes it feel connected is that many low-income seniors do not normally pay that $202.90 out of pocket, noted Ms. Muhammad. Medicaid pays it for them, through something called a Medicare Savings Program, but if they miss their paperwork or deadline for recertification, they lose benefits.

“They’re already on a budget … they look up, and now they’re missing $202.90 out of their check. That’s a big deal,” said Ms. Muhammad. Nearly all of the real damage comes down to seniors missing something in the mail, she continued, and recommended they watch for these three things in their mailbox:

1. Renewal forms. Starting in 2027, some Medicaid recipients nationwide will need to renew their eligibility every six months instead of once a year. Missing the deadline stops coverage—even for someone who still qualifies. “If they don’t respond in the cutoff time, they lose their [coverage],” said Ms. Muhammad, describing what she sees among her California clients.

2. A notice about SSI/SSP-linked Medicaid changing. Some seniors who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) get an extra state check on top of it—in California, called the State Supplementary Payment (SSP); other states have similar supplemental programs under different names.

Ms. Muhammad said some of her California clients are now getting letters saying that extra payment—often a few hundred dollars—is going away, and they’re being moved to a different Medicaid program. This doesn’t necessarily mean losing Medicaid entirely, but it can mean losing the automatic help that was paying a senior’s Medicare Part B premiums, she explained.

3. A letter about bank accounts. Separately, some states are reviving “asset tests” through their own state budget decisions—not the federal law. California brought back an asset test starting January 1, 2026, with a limit of $130,000 in countable assets for an individual, according to the state’s 2025–26 budget act.

Other states have their own limits, or none at all, depending on local budget choices. Illinois, by contrast, has kept a stable $17,500 asset limit in place since 2023—one of the more generous in the country, with no similar disruption for seniors there, according to the Illinois Department of Human Services.

Other large states have kept their own versions: Florida sets a $5,000 limit for aged/disabled Medicaid ($2,000 for nursing home care specifically); and Texas and Georgia generally hold to the federal minimum of $2,000.

This is a state-by-state budget decision, separate from the federal law, but it’s a reminder that Medicaid rules—and how much they can change year to year—vary significantly depending on where someone lives.

Justice in Aging, a national legal advocacy organization focused on senior poverty, has been one of the most vocal critics of how these changes are being implemented.

In comments submitted to federal regulators in July, the organization stated that the new rules take “a more restrictive standard than the statute for determining when an individual should be exempt from work requirements due to health or disability … .”

The group warned, this approach is “especially harmful for older adults, many of whom leave the workforce because of health or functional challenges.”

Justice in Aging has also pushed back on the caregiver exemption specifically, noting the rule “narrows the exemption for caregivers, which will leave out caregivers such as neighbors, friends, and chosen family who provide essential support to older adults.”

More broadly, it warns that the danger isn’t the underlying rule so much as the process around it.  Work requirements create administrative barriers that will lead to improper terminations and disrupted access to crucial healthcare, the group argues.

Further, older adults, people with disabilities and chronic health conditions, and family caregivers face heightened risk of losing Medicaid coverage because these administrative hurdles, reporting requirements, and narrow exemption processes can improperly terminate people, even when they still qualify, continued Justice in Aging.

The organization has also connected the dots to long-term care specifically, reporting that the work requirements could worsen staffing shortages at nursing homes, indirectly affecting residents who aren’t subject to the rule at all.

Ms. Muhammad emphasized, “Pay attention to the mail that’s coming in from the state … there’s a lot of changes.” If a letter looks confusing, she recommends calling the number on it, or call a trusted Medicare/Medicaid advisor, and ask “Do I still have Medicaid? And is it still paying my Part B premium?”

The post Understanding healthcare changes for seniors appeared first on Final Call News.

Do you like Pop Tarts? Do you like Frosted Flakes? A chemist who works for Kellogg came in the barber shop one day, and said: “Don’t eat sugared cereals, because in the sugar is the poison that sterilizes and brings cancer.” “Sugar” is a drug that makes you want it again, and again, and again. It’s a habit-forming chemical.

[Note: “Sugar” is the generalized name for a class of chemically related sweet-flavored substances, most of which are used as food. They are carbohydrates, composed of carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O).]

Well, what are “staple foods,” because these poisonous chemicals are not just in the water, now; they’re in the staple foods. A “staple food” is a food that can be stored for use throughout the year, or produced fresh any time of the year; and forms the basis of a traditional diet; it is a food that is eaten routinely, and in such quantities that it constitutes a dominant portion of a standard diet in a given population.

Typical examples of staples include tuber (or “root crops”), such as: Beets, Carrots, Parsnips, Potatoes, Turnips, Radishes, Sweet Potatoes. Other “staples” are Grains, Legumes and other seeds; maize (or Corn); Wheat, Rice, Cassava, Soy Beans, Sorghum, Yams and Plantain.

These are the staple foods of various cultures! From the Asian people, it’s “rice”; to the people of Central and South America, it’s corn (or maize), and some of the legumes, or beans. 

So when you get bread that is supposed to contain “wheat”—but, if you didn’t grow that wheat, where did you get the seeds from that wheat? Where is the corn coming from? These are the things that are being used to “cull” populations all over the planet Earth!

Wheat, now, is genetically engineered! Corn is genetically engineered! Many vegetables are genetically modified—and the food industry is fighting to keep from advertising what it really is! 

According to the American Society for Nutrition, in its Journal of Nutrition (April 2006, Volume 136, Number 4, pages 1064-1067), published an Abstract entitled “Biofortification of Staple Food Crops.” Well, according to this Abstract, “biofortification” is: “The development of micronutrient-dense staple crops using the best traditional breeding practices and modern biotechnology.” It goes on to state: 

“Deficiencies of vitamin A, iron, and zinc affect over one-half of the world’s population. Progress has been made to control micronutrient deficiencies through supplementation and food fortification, but new approaches are needed, especially to reach the rural poor.

Biofortification (enriching the nutrition contribution of staple crops through plant breeding) is one option… The challenge is to get producers and consumers to accept biofortified crops and increase their intake of the target nutrients.

“With the advent of good seed systems, the development of markets and products, and demand creation, this can be achieved.” Are they really “enhancing” the food with nutrients, or are they making sure that those who eat it become victims of the policy to cull the people of the Third World?

According to an October 2007 article by Lloyd Grove titled “The World According to Lynn Forester de Rothschild,” originally published on “Portfolio.com” (now renamed the Upstart Business Journal):

The Rothschilds made a major investment in the India produce market, and became the “No. 1 producer of fruits in the world and No. 2 vegetable growers.”

The Rothschilds’ upstart company Field Fresh has now taken over the food production of fruits and vegetables in India; so this says to us that they are going to push out “the small farmer,” and crush him—and they will be the mass producer, sending food from India all over the world.

When we juxtaposed the “decrease in farming,” with this “Memorandum 200” by Kissinger and “the culling of the population of the planet” with a policy of “population control”—or depopulation in the United States—then we can see now how food is used as a “weapon” in that process!

And then, the control of the “means of production of food” and the “methodology in producing the food”: All of this is a part of the policy, now, of the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), and the CIA! They are all linked together. The Chemistry of Death: Poisonous water supplies, and ‘the pawns’ of a chemical-filled makeup industry. 

Also in this book Ecoscience, Chapter 10 titled “Direct Assaults on Well-Being,” it talks about “depopulation” by putting certain chemicals in the water: “Water pollutants take many forms. One useful classification follows: Disease-causing organisms—specifically parasites, bacteria, and viruses.

Which often enter water with human sewage; Synthetic organic compounds in the form of industrial, household, and agricultural chemicals, as well as water-treatment chemicals added deliberately and the products formed by the reaction of these with other contaminants… Water pollutants also can be classified by their effects:

“Direct impact on health in the form of bacterial or viral disease; production of cancer, genetic defects, and birth defects; other varieties of acute and chronic toxicity to people; and effects on ecosystems, through which an impact on human beings may subsequently be felt… 

“Pesticides, radioactivity, fluorides, and heavy metals (which occur in air and soil as well as in water) are treated in more detail later in this chapter. These and other water pollutants receive further attention in the discussions of carcinogens and mutagens… .”

Fluoride is a poison! Sodium Fluoride is a poison that is used in the production of sarin gas! Sodium Fluoride is an inorganic chemical compound (formula “NaF”); a colorless solid. Toothpaste contains sodium fluoride, with a claim to “reduce cavities.”

So every time you drink from the tap, fluorinated water, you’re drinking some of the poison that they say will keep you from having cavities. But your children, by the age of 6 and 7 and 8, have cavities! When I grew up, I never knew what a “cavity” was; there was no “fluoridation of water” at that time!

Let’s look at some of the “Facts About Fluoride” that appear in an article by Paul Joseph Watson and Matt Ryan titled “Poison Tap Water” InfoWars.com: Fluoride is a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry, and it’s also a “Part II Poison” under the UK Poisons Act 1972; Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both Prozac (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

In an article by Maria Hoven titled “Foods Containing Fluoride,” posted on the website Livestrong.com dated July 25, 2013, she identifies foods containing this poison fluoride: “Fluoride toxicity can have adverse effects on your kidneys and it can also cause skeletal fluorosis in adults.

“Children who consume high amounts of fluoride can suffer from dental fluorosis, which develops when you consume too much fluoride from birth to age 8 when your teeth are forming … .” And she states some of the following foods that contain sodium fluoride, for example, instant formula—that you give your babies; juices and tea, soda, cereals; wine and beer.

Another toxic chemical additive in foods is the diet sweetener Aspartame, which is the sweetener used in all “diet” drinks. It is considered a “carcinogenic,” meaning it can, will, and is, producing cancers.

The American people really need to see what the government is doing, and how terrible the government is to allow something like this as “policy” not only in Third World countries, but its policy right here in America!

The post The chemistry of death: Staple foods used by various cultures are targets of wicked scientists  appeared first on Final Call News.