Do you know how White folks got rich? Have you ever been to Macy’s? Gimbles? All of these big department stores, like Sanger-Harris in Atlanta? Did you ever go shopping for jewels at Kay Jewelers? You did? But you don’t even care who owns it, do you?

How did they get it? Brothers and sisters, when the Jews came into America, the more “seasoned” Jews had backpacks, with lots of things in the backpack that the people in the South needed.

So they loaded the Jewish fellow up that had just come over from the old country with a “100-pound backpack.” And if you’re thinking, “Aww man, that’s a lot of weight!”: Well, if you’re in the Army, you have to carry that too, don’t you? Don’t worry about that then; because now you are “carrying something for yourself.”

Now look at this: They came with their backpacks, and they sold pots and pans and things that the people would need. They sold to the slave master and they sold to the slave who was on the plantation!

From those backpacks, they consolidated, and then started setting up stores in Alabama, in Mississippi. And in their stores, they would tell you that you couldn’t come in there; or, “You go round there (to the back).”

See, they set it up for themselves at our expense, and from there they became bigger and bigger, where they controlled huge department stores. Now when you go in the department stores, Jews own most of that; but it started from cotton.

Well, we’re studying you now. Suppose we go back South and buy up the plantations? Some of them may not want to sell, but we may give them “an offer they can’t refuse.” See, if God is with you, He is going to help you! We’re not stealing, we’re buying: “Okay, how much acreage do you have? We’d like to have all of that.” From the farm is where all industry starts!

Consider what you can produce from “one bale of cotton”: 215 jeans, 249 bed sheets, 409 men’s sport shirts, 690 terry bath towels, 765 men’s dress shirts; 1,217 men’s t-shirts; 1,256 pillowcases; 2,104 boxer shorts; 2,419 men’s briefs; 3,085 diapers; 4,321 mid-calf socks; 6,436 women’s knit briefs; 21,960 women’s handkerchiefs; or, 313,600 “$100 bills.”

All that came from one bale of cotton. When the Jews sent the cotton North to their brother who had a mill that turned the cotton into cloth, that brother then sold the cloth to his brother in New York, and they made the jeans, the pillowcases; they made the sanitary napkins; they made the baby diapers—from cotton!

Now, if we could pick it for the White man, and make him rich, what’s wrong with us, now, owning huge tracts of land with cotton growing? “Well, I don’t feel like pickin’ no cotton … .” No, they’ve already made a machine, so you just buy the machine, and you won’t have to mess up your hands again.

But “the machine” doesn’t take everything out of the field! So we could take a young brother and show him how to pick it, and give him a decent wage. Clean the field, and bale the cotton! And then start an industry from cotton that gives your people what? Jobs. Jobs, just from cotton!

We must learn ‘Growing Power’ to become self-sufficient land owners. The Messenger said that “God is curtailing the land on its sides”—and this is written in the Holy Qur’an. If you look at the storms that are raging on the East Coast, the West Coast; the fires, you will see that He is pushing people toward the center of the country!

Now, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad said we should start North, and go South, buying land. Well, I like Michigan; at the top of Michigan, called “the thumb”: They are the greatest producers of the navy bean. They (the navy beans produced in the region) had a little disease recently. … And that’s good, because God promised them disease! He didn’t promise that for us.

Do we eat corn? Do we eat rye? Do we eat barley? Do we need wheat? Well, then let’s study what are the wheat-producing states! Now, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin are states that either produce corn and/or soybeans; and Wisconsin also produces dairy products.

And, we have a little farm in Michigan—but, we won’t grow soybeans, because we don’t eat that. (We’ll tell you why at another time.) We grow the navy bean.

Agricultural scientists once came down from the University of Michigan, and they said, “Umm, Farrakhan, navy beans don’t grow in this kind of soil!” I said, “Well, watch and see!” We planted the navy beans; then the people from the University came again, and they couldn’t believe it! The bean was so nice … . Man, you put it in the pot, and it just acts like it wants to get in your stomach!

We met a man named Will Allen: A giant Black man! He taught us how to “sweeten the land” away from the pesticides! So during one fall/winter, we planted winter wheat. Mr. Allen said, “But don’t let it ‘seed’: Cut it down just before it seeds, and turn it under.” (i.e. “cover crops”/“crop rotation”).

We had over 50 acres where we planted winter wheat; and when it got to the point where it was about to “seed,” we cut it down, turned it under; then, we planted sorghum (which produces a sweetener), and that cane grew three, four, five feet tall! But after it grew we cut it down, and turned it under.

We also planted “winter rye”; and it wasn’t a week before the whole field had turned green! So by springtime, we will turn that crop under, and then plant our navy beans. We checked the “ph factor” of the land—because you have a “ph factor”! 

We are from the Earth, and if you don’t know how to care for the Earth, the Earth won’t care for you! And if you love God, and love the Earth, then the Earth will give you all the health and well-being that you need;

But you must know how to care for what God has given us! And since White folks (not “all” White people, but those that were in power): Because you just messed up the Earth, with your greedy self, you’ve got to go!

The post We Are From The Earth appeared first on Final Call News.

by Sentient Media Published on The Defender Written by Natasha Gilbert

This article was originally published by the Defender—Childrens Health Defense News & Views Website August 18, 2026

Intensive farming, where animals are kept in close quarters, creates environments that encourage the evolution of harmful bacteria and other pathogens so that they gain traits making it easier to infect people and more difficult to cure, a new study suggests.

Hygiene and welfare standards are often low on industrial farms, also called factory farms, and the rising widespread use of antimicrobials has led to concerns that overuse in animal farming is playing a key role in driving antimicrobial-resistant infections in people.

To gain insights into how intensive animal farming influences the evolution of harmful bacteria, a new study investigated how modern densely populated chicken farms have shaped the evolution of strains of Campylobacter jejuni bacteria, which are the leading cause of gut illness and diarrhea from bacterial food poisoning in people, typically after eating contaminated chicken.

Chickens are of particular interest because populations have shot up sevenfold since the 1960s due to agricultural growth and increasing demand for poultry. Today, roughly 31 billion chickens inhabit the globe. Together, poultry accounts for around 70% of all bird biomass on Earth.

The results showed that C. jejuni evolved rapidly in chickens, developing genetic strains resistant to antimicrobials and more likely to adapt to other species, which makes it easier for them to infect people.

Published in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers from the universities of Oxford and Sheffield in the United Kingdom analyzed the genetic information of 2,747 C. jejuni samples from wild birds and chickens.

They found that since 1900, the transmission between chickens and wild birds has increased by more than 100-fold.

Farming intensification has changed how pathogens interact between populations of wild birds and domesticated chickens, says Oakem Kyne, a lead researcher on the study at the University of Oxford.

There is a much wider variety of chicken-adapted C. jejuni strains now than before they were domesticated, with a large jump since 1900 when modern poultry farming intensified, says Kyne.

The transmission across species, or spillover, can occur in this case when there is direct contact between the wild birds and chickens or contact with the other species’ poop.

The chickens act like “sponges,” their modeling showed, absorbing different bacterial strains from the environment, says Kyne.

“Having a lot of different strains of pathogens within these chickens means that there’s a lot more potential for human disease,” explains Kyne.

The researchers also found that chicken-adapted strains developed genetic traits that help C. jejuni survive and become more antimicrobial-resistant. For example, some strains are resistant to the common antibiotic tetracycline, which is used in intensive poultry farming and to treat infections in people.

There was also evidence that some strains gained a better tolerance for environments with oxygen, and the researchers suggested this could potentially enable them to survive on food more easily and then be more likely to infect people.

Andrew deCoriolis, executive director of Farm Forward, an advocacy group campaigning to end factory farming, says that industrial poultry production is a breeding ground for bacteria and viruses that pose risks to public health.

In a report published earlier this month, Farm Forward shows that modern poultry farming is also supercharging strains of salmonella that are becoming easier to spread and increasingly resistant to certain antibiotics.

Compared with 48% a decade earlier, in 2025 around 73% of poultry samples that tested positive for salmonella were resistant to at least one antibiotic that the World Health Organization considers highly important for human medicine.

Protecting the health of wild and farmed animals requires better biosecurity to prevent spillover, or transmission from animal to human, says Kyne. Farmed populations must be better isolated so that diseases aren’t entering the food system or escaping into wild populations, he says.

“When poultry companies cram tens of billions of birds into industrial facilities and dose them with routine antibiotics, they’re not just risking outbreaks,” says deCoriolis.

“They’re running an evolution experiment on a massive scale and the bacteria are winning.”

This article was published by the Defender—Childrens Health Defense News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BYNCND 4.0. Originally published by Sentient Media. Sentient Media is a nonprofit news outlet investigating factory farms and their effect on climate, animals, health, politics and more.

Natasha Gilbert is a freelance journalist reporting on the environment, science and health. 

The post ‘The bacteria are winning’: How factory farms cause human sickness appeared first on Final Call News.

A new report is making the case for ending a widely-hated and sometimes deadly tactic used by for-profit health insurers to deny needed care.

It’s called “prior authorization,” and it allows health insurance companies to override physicians and decide whether certain care is medically necessary before it is covered.

The policy brief, published Aug. 10 by the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), an anti-monopoly think tank, argues that the system is a massive drag on the U.S. healthcare system, draining doctors of their time, fueling hiring shortages, and—most importantly—worsening treatable health problems for millions of Americans.

“This practice has massive financial and human costs, as I know personally from my family’s own tragic experience,” said the report’s author, Hannah Garden-Monheit—a senior fellow at the AELP, whose late father was denied rehab by UnitedHealthcare after cancer forced his leg to be amputated.

“Prior authorization may have started as a narrow cost-control tool,” she explained. “But it’s mushroomed into private insurers’ strategy for diverting resources from care toward their own profits. It’s time to ban prior authorization as we know it.”

The report examines how prior authorization went from a tool used sparingly to prevent payment for unnecessary treatments to what Garden-Monheit and co-author, AELP senior healthcare fellow Emma Freer, described as a “corporate care veto.”

Around 1 in 5 adults with private insurance report that they or a family member had experienced a coverage denial in the past year, with 28% reporting that it worsened their health problem, according to a June survey from the Commonwealth Fund.

While insurers claim that their decisions to deny care are “evidence-based,” the authors say that “in reality, the practice empowers distant corporate entities with a financial conflict of interest to override the professional judgment of physicians with firsthand knowledge of patients’ medical needs.”

“There is generally little to no transparency or accountability for these decisions,” the authors wrote.

While insurers claim that denials are reviewed by qualified clinicians, one survey from the American Medical Association (AMA) found that only 16% of physicians participating in peer-to-peer reviews reported that the “peer” was often or always qualified.

Garden-Monheit said United denied her father’s claim multiple times, first citing his cancer diagnosis—the reason his leg was amputated in the first place—then by claiming that he had made significant enough “progress” that paying for rehab was unnecessary. The “progress” was that he “had figured out how to hop on one leg from his hospital bed to a chair.”

Garden-Monheit describes how she, her father, and their care team were forced to navigate a “bureaucratic maze” by United, which ultimately led them to give up.

“At least twice, I learned of a denial only after calling United to check on the status of their request. They hadn’t even bothered with a letter,” she said. “While the lines of communication felt frustratingly unpredictable, the answers always led to the same place: ‘no.’”

As she explained in a recent op-ed for MS NOW: “My family’s experience wasn’t a one-off glitch. For United, the system was working as designed.”

Former United chief medical officer Dr. Archelle Georgiou estimated that across just two Medicare Advantage plans from United and Humana, the companies save an estimated $100 million per year by denying claims that never get appealed. She said that’s a “conservative estimate.” Across the two plans, 1.75 million people were denied care, even after appeal.

While insurers pad their profits, patients suffer, the researchers found. Among people reporting a prior authorization denial, 41% said it delayed their care and 28% said their health problem worsened, according to the Commonwealth survey.

Meanwhile, the AMA survey found that 95% of physicians said that prior authorization delays care, 79% said it causes patients to abandon recommended treatments, and more than 1 in 4 doctors said it has caused a serious adverse event, including hospitalization, permanent impairment, or death.

Denied timely treatments, many patients end up paying for costly and ineffective alternatives that only make their situations worse and cause the costs to increase down the line.

“It was extremely difficult to obtain authorizations for substance abuse treatment when I covered the emergency department as a practicing psychologist,” one healthcare professional, identified in the report as Nancy, said.

“Other times, in my private practice, I would get authorizations and later experience ‘clawbacks’ where Blue Cross, for example, would decide the treatment was not medically necessary and take back the money already paid.”

“It is impossible at times to provide sound ethical treatment and extremely hard to make a living,” she said, “when reimbursement rates kept going down, and the insurance companies could take back the money they had already paid for no obvious reason.”

Prior authorization doesn’t just deny care to patients. It also creates piles of paperwork for their doctors, taking away precious time that could be dedicated to their care.

The report found that physicians and their teams now spend so much on prior authorization paperwork that it consumes the equivalent of nearly 100,000 full-time physician and advanced practice clinician workloads, plus more than 213,000 clinic staff, costing as much as $32.7 billion each year. If prior authorization were eliminated, they found, it would free up enough capacity to turn a national physician shortage into a surplus.

A YouGov poll for AELP found that more than two-thirds of voters in both parties want legislation banning prior authorization outright. But the researchers said both the Trump and Biden administrations have enacted only minor reforms that “fail to address the structural conflict of interest that underpins the corporate care veto strategy.”

Meanwhile, the industry is making the denial process even more ruthlessly efficient, increasingly deploying artificial intelligence to deny requests en masse.

According to a 2023 class action lawsuit, United’s NaviHealth system used a predictive AI model to determine whether Medicare Advantage patients should receive rehabilitation care despite knowing that the model had a 90% error rate.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has expanded prior authorization for traditional Medicare through a pilot program that allows AI models to adjudicate claims in some states. In July, Senate Republicans blocked Democrats’ attempt to end the pilot program.

As part of a national pro-AI strategy, Trump has also sought to preempt state laws banning the use of AI to deny care.

The AELP researchers called for a series of reforms to end prior authorization as it currently exists. Among other changes, they said decisions to authorize treatments should be made by independent third parties without the incentive to deny care.

That denials must be evidence-based, that the use of AI tools to deny claims should be banned, and that physicians should review patients in person before denying their claims.

“For too long, prior authorization has allowed insurance companies to put profits ahead of patients by overruling doctors and delaying and denying essential care,” Freer said.

“This status quo is failing patients, ratcheting up costs, and undermining the basis of effective, expert-informed care. It’s time to end this ‘corporate care veto’ and put medical decisions back where they belong: with patients and their doctors.”

The post Advocates call for end of deadly tactic used by for-profit health insurers to deny treatment appeared first on Final Call News.

by Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D. The Defender

This article was originally published by the Defender—Childrens Health Defense News & Views Website July 29, 2026

It was only last year that Nobel laureate Drew Weissman spoke with complete confidence about the mRNA technology he helped create.

When asked whether the genetic material or lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used in COVID-19 vaccines could persist in the body or spread far beyond the injection site, his answer was unequivocal. “It is absolutely impossible. … The RNA is gone in days,” said Weissman, who shared the 2023 Nobel Prize in Medicine for co-inventing the technology.

But four years earlier, behind closed doors, his message was very different.

Newly released documents made public by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) reveal that Weissman privately alerted Dr. Anthony Fauci to some concerning findings from his own laboratory.

Those findings triggered discussions among some of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) most senior vaccine scientists before eventually finding their way into Fauci’s personal diary.

Still emerging technology

When the pandemic hit, mRNA vaccines were still an emerging technology. Just two years prior, Weissman and his colleagues published a review in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

While praising the technology’s potential, they highlighted unresolved hurdles—including RNA instability, unwanted immune reactions and the challenge of getting genetic material into the right cells.

Though initial animal studies showed promise, early human trials yielded modest results, leading the authors to urge “cautious expectations.”

Significant questions also remained around the safety of mRNA vaccines during pregnancy, as pregnant women were excluded from the pivotal Pfizer and Moderna trials.

Regulators had to rely on animal reproductive data while human data accumulated post-rollout.

It was against this backdrop that Weissman reached out directly to Fauci.

Fauci alerted to new data

On Feb. 8, 2021, Weissman emailed Fauci.

“I wanted to alert you to some new data we generated.”

Weissman reported that when injected into pregnant mice, mRNA-LNPs crossed the placenta and entered the fetus, generating viral proteins and triggering an immune response in the amniotic fluid.

In non-pregnant mice, the LNPs accumulated in the uterus and ovaries.

While these initial experiments used intravenous (IV) delivery at doses roughly 100 times higher than a standard vaccine, they aligned with broader research.

As early as 2013, French scientists had shown that LNPs could accumulate in organs such as the ovaries, highlighting the need to understand how different delivery methods behave inside the body.

This was also reflected in regulatory documents for COVID-19 vaccine pre-clinical studies, which showed that mRNA LNPs accumulated in organs, including the ovaries.

Weissman wanted to test a more clinically relevant scenario, so he planned to repeat the study using intramuscular (IM) injections, matching standard vaccination practices.

“We are waiting to release the findings until these studies are completed,” Weissman told Fauci, noting he had already alerted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Moderna, BioNTech/Pfizer and DARPA.

Fauci replied that evening.

“It would be interesting to see what human dose levels given IM do.”

Three weeks later, on March 1, 2021, Weissman emailed back with a confidential report attached. “Here is the human dose IM studies in pregnant mice. We still have some concern over the data,” he wrote.

Within the hour, Fauci forwarded the report to Dr. John Mascola, director of the NIH Vaccine Research Center, writing, “Let us discuss.”

Mascola quickly circulated the report to his senior leadership team for review.

Dismissed by officials

Despite Weissman’s status as a leading mRNA pioneer, NIH officials swiftly dismissed his concerns. Karin Bok, senior adviser for vaccine development at the NIH, dismissed the study almost immediately.

“I have no comments or concerns,” she wrote, claiming the results were standard for mouse studies and that it made sense for mRNA to travel beyond the injection site, “including placenta.”

This private assessment sharply contradicted public messaging at the time, which assured the public that vaccine material remained largely at the injection site (arm).

Bok added that obstetric experts involved in developing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) pregnancy recommendations were already “aware that mRNA might reach the foetus.”

Dr. Emily Erbelding, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, was similarly dismissive of Weissman’s concerns. “I don’t know what Drew Weissman is trying to accomplish with this,” she wrote, noting that regulatory oversight rested with the FDA.

The divide was striking. One of the inventors of mRNA technology believed the findings warranted further investigation, but senior health officials saw no cause for concern.

Weissman wanted a press conference

Despite his staff’s dismissal of the data, Fauci remained uneasy—largely because Weissman was planning to hold a press conference.

In his private diary, Fauci noted that the FDA and both vaccine manufacturers considered Weissman’s findings “invalid.”

Ordinarily, that might have ended the matter. But Fauci recognized the public relations nightmare if Weissman went public with his findings.

“We cannot blow them off for obvious reasons,” Fauci wrote. “The fact that they are holding a press conference is going to create a huge mess.”

Instead, he hoped repeat studies could be performed “to counter this finding.”

The issue quickly reached the highest levels of government. That same evening, White House COVID-19 coordinator Jeff Zients called Fauci to discuss the situation. Fauci noted that the FDA needed to publicly clarify its safety data.

After that point, the paper trail goes cold. Fauci’s diary records contain no further mention of Weissman’s findings or whether subsequent studies resolved the concerns.

What changed?

Between 2021 and 2025, Weissman’s public stance shifted dramatically.

In March 2021, after completing follow-up intramuscular studies, he explicitly told Fauci that he and his colleagues “still have some concerns over the data.”

That confidential report has never been made public, nor has any peer-reviewed paper detailing those specific follow-up results been published to my knowledge.

By September 2025, however, Weissman was expressing no such reservations.

The CDC COVID-19 vaccine workgroup chaired by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Retsef Levi had raised concerns about the “wide biodistribution and prolonged persistence of spike, mRNA and nano-lipid particles.”

Asked by STAT to respond, Weissman dismissed those concerns as poor science.

“It is absolutely impossible,” he said. “The RNA is gone in days. … If you put a vaccine-equivalent dose, you see it in the muscle, you see it in the draining lymph node, and that’s about it.”

So, what evidence transformed Weissman’s private concerns into public certainty?

The documents released by Paul do not answer that question. But over that same period, Weissman was awarded the Nobel Prize, and financial disclosures show BioNTech provided roughly $2.48 million to support research in his lab.

What the newly released documents do show is that during a critical juncture in the global vaccine rollout, one of mRNA’s key creators privately raised troubling laboratory findings about COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant animals.

Then, behind closed doors, senior health officials quickly brushed those concerns aside, and the public was never told.

Originally published on Maryanne Demasi’s MD Reports Substack page. This article was published by the Defender—Childrens Health Defense News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BYNCND 4.0.

The post Behind closed doors: What the inventor of mRNA told Fauci about COVID vaccines and lipid nanoparticles appeared first on Final Call News.

Conference held on the campus of Morgan State University on November 22, 2014. The title of this message is, “The 2nd Annual B.U.S.I. Conference: ‘Re-Claim, Re-Pair, Re-Form, Re-Produce—REPARATIONS Now!’”]

Now those of you who are “doctors”:  I know you have your Ph.D. degree—along with a little cancer, and a little problem with diabetes and high blood pressure, right “doc”?  Mmm-hmm.  Doctors hardly live as long as their patients because doctors are obese, dying of a heart attack, eating McDonald’s. 

You mean, “doc,” you don’t know how to eat better than that?  Everybody eats: The pimp eats, the prostitute eats; everything eats!  And we don’t have any land, nor are we producing any food, to give health and well-being to ourselves. 

They’re killing us all over the earth by killing our ability, or will, to farm.  And then they come and give us the food that they produce, which is poison dressed up to look good.

America is for sale!  The F.B.I. headquarters was up for sale ($50 million):  We could buy it, and lease it back to them!  There are people coming into this country buying roads, and toll roads, and other infrastructure … .

America is in bad shape!  And with the $1 trillion, they say, comes through our hands this year:  We don’t know how to “pool” any resources so we could buy up thousands of acres of land, and set up agribusiness.

He who produces your food is he who maintains your life

To all my preacher friends:  What was the first profession mentioned in the Bible?  See, God is something, man!  He is showing you how to make your “Genesis”—and you won’t listen!  According to the Book of Genesis He did all this wonder in “six days,” and then He said,

“But there was no man to till the ground.”  Now, the earth is here, but there has to be a man who knows how to not get “economics”—because economics will come when you work the land! 

This enemy is a trickster, boy.  He gets you into studying all kinds of “research”… . You’re in “Agriculture Research.”  And what is that?  “We’re learning what bugs will kill ‘this and that,’” but you better learn what “bug” is killing you! 

And you better understand that you have an enemy that is wiping us out little by little; because they are vaccinating you, and you don’t know what is in the vaccine!  Can you imagine? 

The same man that gave your Native American brother smallpox by giving them a blanket for the winter:  You’re letting that same enemy vaccinate your children!

“Agriculture” is the first profession.  It is the greatest of all professions, because he who produces your food is he who maintains your life.  Since your life springs from the earth, then the more you know about the earth—its chemistry, and the chemistry of your body, and the needs of your body from the chemistry of the earth—then you will grow food that will give you life and energy!

The White man has crafted agriculture, where they’re taking minerals and vitamins out of the food, and then putting it in a pill and sending you to the health food store, when grandma never knew anything about a “health food store.”  The “health food” is what you grow from the earth.  How many of you have erectile dysfunction? 

Great-grandpa never had a problem; he didn’t have “Viagra,” “Cialis”!  See, the enemy is working on us.  There was a time when there was an emission of sperm that there would be two billion sperms at one time!  Now sperm is getting less and less because there’s so much estrogen in the water, in the food. 

Have you seen this commercial on TV that says:  “If you have taken ‘this’—and you are developing breasts—call this number”?  Do you know, brothers and sisters, that the wicked scientists of this enemy, who are masters of chemical, biological science:  They feed you things that give you hormones that are making you female.  You think you are “naturally” a homosexual.

Let me say this:  I love my homosexual brothers and sisters.  I’m not against you; I love you very, very much.  But somebody is interfering with nature, with chemistry and science!  Once you get a person hormonally going in a certain direction, you can suggest to the mind, and the mind will accept it because the chemistry of the body has been gradually altered.  So if you notice, it’s like an epidemic.

The elders, the young and the enemy:  What is God’s plan for you?

My dear beloved brothers and sisters, according to scripture:  The elders are going to die in the wilderness.  God will not want you in The Promise Land because there’s too much “Pharaoh” in you, and you refuse to let Pharaoh go. 

To the professors in the college:  You have your degree from the Caucasian; and it’s not that it’s not a “good degree,” but it’s only good if you can do good with it. 

Because the Caucasian isn’t giving you a degree so you can break his grip on you, he wants to keep you as a subservient, ignorant to the full knowledge that you seek so that you will always be to him used as a “tool” and a slave.  So dear professors, don’t be apologists for White people.

And to the young men and women:  It is you, in the Bible, that inhabited The Promise Land, because the elders were afraid of Pharaoh, and they were afraid because there were some “giants” already in the land that God was going to give them! 

Now God tells you in the scripture that He takes The Kingdom from whom He pleases, and He gives it to whom He pleases.  So, if God wants to give you The Kingdom, what are you griping about?  The Earth is His! 

You, (the enemy) don’t have any ownership of God’s Earth!  You are just renting; leasing—and your lease is up; so God has come to take you off the planet if you don’t submit.  I like that.  So, the young, in the days of Moses and Aaron and Joshua:  See, they were not afraid to take on “the giants.” …

The post ‘They’re killing us all over the earth’ appeared first on Final Call News.

by Mikaela Conley U.S. Right To Know

Potassium bromate is a powerful oxidizing agent commonly used as a food additive in baked goods, including breads, pastries, bagels, and crusts. It has been linked to various cancers, along with thyroid disease, kidney damage, gut irritation and reproductive abnormalities. In 1999, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), categorized potassium bromate as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

It has been banned as a food additive in Europe since 1990, in Canada since 1994, and in India since 2016. Other countries that have banned potassium bromate include Nigeria, Brazil, Argentina, South Korea, Peru, China, and Sri Lanka. 

California bans potassium bromate

In October of 2023, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law banning the use of potassium bromate, along with three other common food additives (brominated vegetable oil, propylparaben, and red dye No. 3). 

The California Food Safety Act takes effect in 2027, when it will be outlawed to sell, distribute and manufacture the additives in the state. It is the first time that a U.S. state has prohibited food additives that are deemed safe by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Medical research suggests health risks

Over the last 50 years, animal studies have linked several adverse health effects to potassium bromate.

Renal cancer, toxicity and damage 

Several major studies and reviews have linked the consumption of potassium bromate to damage and cancer of the kidneys.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), in its 1999 evaluation of potassium bromate, wrote: “In rats, [potassium bromate] produced renal tubular tumors (adenomas and carcinomas) and thyroid follicular tumors in animals of each sex and peritoneal mesotheliomas in males.

In mice, it produced a low incidence of renal tubular tumors in males. In hamsters, the incidence of renal tubular tumors was marginally increased.

Potassium bromate did not increase tumor incidence in bioassays in newborn rats and mice, but it enhanced the induction of kidney tumors by N-nitrosoethylhydroxyethylamine in several experiments.” 

In a review published in 1990 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, Japanese scientists examined the links between potassium bromate and renal cell tumors, mesotheliomas of the peritoneum, along with follicular cell tumors of the thyroid.

They wrote that experiments demonstrated that the food additive “is a complete carcinogen, possessing both initiating and promoting activities for rat renal tumorigenesis.”

Researchers also noted the “strong potential” of potassium bromate to trigger chromosome aberrations, along with its “inhibitory effects on inducing lipid peroxidation in the rat kidney.”

The researchers concluded that potassium bromate “is a genotoxic carcinogen inducing renal cell tumors, mesotheliomas, and thyroid follicular cell tumors in rats. … [It is a] complete carcinogen having both initiating and promoting activities for the development of renal cell tumors.” 

In a 1986 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Japanese researchers separated rats into several groups and gave them various doses of potassium bromate for 104 weeks. Afterward, the animals were autopsied and examined histopathologically.

The researchers found that the animals given the highest dose had the lowest survival time. And the combined incidences of renal adenocarcinomas and adenomas were “significantly increased” in rats treated in the groups given the three highest doses of the additive.

They also found that the group treated with the highest dose, “the combined incidences for follicular adenocarcinomas and adenomas of the thyroid and for mesotheliomas of the peritoneum were shown to be significantly increased.”

In a 1983 study published in the Journal of National Cancer Institute, researchers gave groups of rats different concentrations of potassium bromate in drinking water and examined survival rates. The group given the highest concentration had the shortest survival time.

Researchers observed high rates of renal cell tumors in the groups given the highest doses of potassium bromate, along with mesotheliomas of the peritoneum in males given the highest dose.

The tumor incidences in the test groups were “significantly” higher than those in the control group.  The researchers concluded: “When orally administered under the conditions of this experiment, potassium bromate was carcinogenic to F344 rats.”

In a 2018 study published in the Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, researchers examined the effects of potassium bromate by dividing mice into three groups, a control group, a group given a low-dose of potassium bromate, and one given a high dose.

Animals in both the low- and high-dose groups experienced a decrease in white blood cells, red blood cells, and platelets. They also noted altered lipid profiles, along with impaired renal and hepatic histology.

And decreased glutathione levels in both renal and hepatic tissue in treated mice. The authors concluded: “These results show that potassium bromate has serious damaging effects and therefore, its use should be avoided.”

Testicular and peritoneal mesotheliomas

Researchers from North Carolina State University examined the effects of potassium bromate administered in various concentrations in drinking water to 344 rats. In the study, published in 2000 in the journal Toxicologic Pathology, the scientists found that all the animals showed  mesotheliomas of the peritoneum and in the membranes of the scrotum.

The researchers noted: “The mesorchium appears to be the major mesothelial target site for potassium bromate-mediated carcinogenesis. The frequency of occurrence of mesotheliomas by location was tunica vaginalis testis (25%), mesosplenium (20%), mesentery (10%), mesojejunum/mesocolon (8%), bladder (6.5%), mesogastrium (13%), liver serosa (5%), and kidney, small intestine, and rectum (1% each).”

Oxidative stress

Oxidative stress refers to an imbalance of the production of free radicals and antioxidant defenses (which neutralize free radicals) in the body. Numerous animal studies show that the consumption of potassium bromate can induce such an imbalance in the body.

In a study published in the journal Toxicology in 2006, researchers examined the contribution of oxidative stress in potassium bromate-induced cancers. The scientists fed rats drinking water with multiple concentrations of potassium bromate for 2 to 100 weeks, and then analyzed gene expression on kidney, thyroid and mesothelial cell RNA.

They found “families of mRNA transcripts differentially expressed with respect to bromate treatment included multiple cancer, cell death, ion transport and oxidative stress genes.” The researchers concluded:

“These results suggest that carcinogenic doses of potassium bromate require attainment of a threshold at which oxidation of tissues occurs and that gene expression profiles may be predictive of these physiological changes in renal homeostasis.”

In a 2019 study published in the journal Toxicology and Industrial Health, researchers investigated the effects of perinatal potassium bromate exposure “on the development of sensorimotor reflexes and redox status, and on the histological architecture of the brain, liver, and kidney of newborn mice.”

They separated pregnant mice into two groups, one of which was given, from 5 days gestation to 21 days postnatal, water with dissolved potassium bromate. The other was the control group and given uncontaminated drinking water. 

The researchers wrote: “KBrO3 induced a decrease in the postnatal body weight in the newborn mice. KBrO3-exposed newborn mice showed poor performance and delayed development of the sensorimotor reflexes.

Histological changes, increased lipid peroxidation, and altered antioxidants were reported in the cerebrum, cerebellum, medulla oblongata, liver, and kidney of the KBrO3-exposed newborn mice.”

The scientists concluded: “These findings demonstrated that perinatal exposure to bromate induced oxidative stress, histological and behavioral alterations, and was a potential teratogen in newborn mice.”

In 2022, Saudi Arabian researchers published a study in Mutation Research – Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, which sought to examine the oxidative stress, genotoxicity, and apoptosis induced by potassium bromate.

They did this by administering various doses of the food additive to mice over multiple time periods (24, 48, and 72 hours). They found that potassium bromate “significantly induces oxidative damage by increasing the levels of reactive oxygen species and lipid peroxidase and depleted the levels of catalase, superoxide dismutase and glutathione enzymes in the serum and liver.”

The scientists also observed “a significant increase of chromosomal aberrations in bone marrow cells and an elevated incidence of micronuclei in the peripheral blood.” They concluded: “Consumption of potassium bromate should be discouraged and used with proper precautions.”

Genotoxicity/cytotoxicity

Genotoxicity refers to a chemical’s potential to cause DNA damage, which can, in turn, lead to cancer. Cytotoxicity is a general term that refers to the ability to cause damage to cells.  

In a 2007 study published in the journal Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, researchers sought to examine in vitro any potentially genotoxic effects of potassium bromate on human peripheral blood lymphocytes.

Over 24 and 48 hours, cells were treated with varying doses of the oxidizing agents. Among other findings, potassium bromate “statistically significantly induced” chromosomal aberrations after both treatment periods.

The researchers concluded: “These in vitro results provide important evidence about genotoxicity of potassium bromate on a human cell culture system.”

A 2018 study published in the journal Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, researchers examined the oxidative stress induced by potassium bromate, and how potassium bromate affects ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) proteins.

Which are involved in DNA damage response. They found that “ATM-defective LCLs are hypersensitive to potassium bromate in terms of chromosomal damage.”

In a 2020 study published in the Journal of Food Biochemistry, researchers investigated the effects of potassium bromate on the stomach epithelial in an ulcerated stomach. The researchers wrote:

“Potassium bromate exacerbated gastric ulcers, increased malonaldehyde levels, catalase, and sodium pump activities, but reduced nitric oxide levels. Potassium bromate further increased mast cell count in the muscularis mucosa.

While inducing chronic inflammation and moderate angiogenesis in the gastric mucosa. Our results delineate potassium bromate-induced gastric epithelial cytotoxicity that is ameliorated by protocatechuic acid.”

In a 1999 study published in the journal Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, scientists compared the genotoxic properties of potassium bromate and potassium superoxide.

They wrote: “Both substances clearly induced cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and increased DNA migration in the alkaline comet assay.” They added, “We detected oxidative DNA base damage only after potassium bromate treatment.

HPLC analysis also revealed significantly increased levels of 8-oxodeoxyguanosine after potassium bromate treatment but not after potassium superoxide treatment.” Potassium bromate also “clearly induced gene mutations at the HPRT locus.”

Hearing loss and inner ear damage

“For years, it has been known that ingested potassium bromate and sodium bromate can induce hearing loss,” Dr. Kathleen Campbell wrote in a 2006 report published in Toxicology.

She went on to note that, after ingesting high doses of bromate, hearing loss has been observed to occur quickly and severely. Campbell wrote of the intricacies of the hearing loss:

“Based on animal studies, in the cochlea, bromate damages the stria vascularis, Reissner’s membrane, inner and outer hair cells, Claudius cells and inner sulcus cells. Physiologically, bromate reduces the endocochlear potential, cochlear microphonics, and electrophysiologic auditory thresholds.”

Neurobehavioral changes

In a 2016 study published in the journal Behavioral and Brain Functions, researchers investigated the effects of potassium bromate on the brain function of albino mice by grouping them into three groups: a control group, a group that was administered a low dose of the oxidizing agent and a third group that was administered a high dose.

While researchers observed body weight changes in the high-dose group, they also observed neurobehavioral changes and a reduction of neurotransmitter levels in both the low-dose and high-dose group. Glutathione levels also decreased in both groups.

The researchers concluded: “These results show that potassium bromate has serious damaging effects on the central nervous system and therefore, its use should be avoided.”

Disrupts mitochondrial distribution

In a 2018 study published in the journal Reproductive Medicine and Biology, researchers examined whether potassium bromate causes harmful effects on nuclear maturation and mitochondrial cluster formation in oocytes in mice. The researchers cultured the oocytes with various amounts of potassium bromate.

Researchers observed “significantly decreased rates of metaphase II (MII) oocytes … with 750 μM and 1000 μM of potassium bromate, while a significant increase in abnormal mitochondrial clusters was induced at 500 μM.”

What exactly is potassium bromate?

Potassium bromate (KBrO3) is a chemical compound composed of the elements potassium (K), bromine (Br), and oxygen (O). It is a white crystalline powder that is used as an oxidizing agent, lab reagent, and food additive.

As a food additive, it is known as E924 and is used to strengthen dough, improve texture, and enhance the volume and appearance of baked goods. It is one of the most inexpensive flour improvers in the baking industry, and, when used properly in food, potassium bromate reduces to the nontoxic byproduct bromide in the baking process.

Problems arise if baking conditions are incorrect (for example, the item is baked at a low temperature or too much potassium bromate is added) and potassium bromate residues persist in the final baking product. 

In countries where it is still permitted, regulations often specify maximum residual limits for potassium bromate in finished baked goods. These limits are intended to ensure that the level of residual potassium bromate is within acceptable safety margins.

The U.S. FDA currently permits 0.0075 parts potassium bromate for every 100 parts by weight of flour used in food preparation and products. As a food additive, it appears on ingredient lists as “potassium bromate” or “bromated flour.”

Grandfathered into “GRAS”

Potassium bromate was first patented for use in baking in 1914 and went on the market soon after. At the time, there were no regulatory agencies in the United States to oversee the safety of food additives in consumer goods.

When the Food Additive Amendments of 1958 was enacted  out of concern for the health risks of chemicals in the food supply, this required new additives to be determined as “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, before going to market.

But, if food additives like potassium bromate were already on the market, they were not required to be reassessed and simply grandfathered into the GRAS categorization. 

This article was published November 15, 2023. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Potassium bromate

The post Potassium bromate: 50 years of research shows serious health risks appeared first on Final Call News.

Food addiction and the eating of improper foods has one-quarter of Americans overweight. Black women are in the worst condition as nearly half of them are overweight. Our weight problem is the result of eating too much food and eating the wrong foods.

Uninformed eating habits has us buying and living off unhealthy, high-fat, high-cholesterol, and low-fiber diets that completely destroy our appearance.

Thirty percent [now almost 40 percent] of the population has high cholesterol, which leads to heart disease and cancer, especially colon and rectal cancer. Half of what we eat is eaten out, predominantly at fast food chains that advertise heavily to drive the purchase of overly processed foods.

Advertisers often use our most gifted athletes to get us to buy death burgers, with their additives, pork, bleached bread, hormones and preservatives.

And we buy it and eat it and get fatter and sicker and poorer each day from doctor bills we can’t afford to pay, and from buying pills for acid indigestion and heartburn and headaches.

All due to the toxins that get stored in our bodies from the overly processed and improper foods that we eat.

Fifty percent of the population has high blood pressure and hypertension, which are the leading causes of 500,000 strokes [now 795,000] each year and major contributors to heart attacks.

High blood pressure and hypertension are again the result of, eating fried, salty, sugary foods, and a lack of exercise. 

What we are witnessing is that fast food equals fast death. And a sedentary lifestyle, meaning a lifestyle where you just sit as a couch potato observing the television, or work in a stationary position, getting no form of exercise, gets you an early seat in the grave.

Now I don’t know about you, but I would certainly like to stay out of the grave since we’re going to be in the grave for such a long time. Wouldn’t you like to prolong your life? Then someone has to inspire you to change your way of living. 

Did you know that the simple, cost-you-nothing things like prayer, proper rest, proper diet and fasting can help heal whatever ails you? The Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught that 90% of our illnesses could be cured by just fasting. Proper rest, proper diet and fasting can help the body heal itself of toxins, especially those caused by stress.

But do we rest properly? Do we fast? Do we have a proper diet? Do we maintain a connection with the Divine Being through prayer?

No. Instead we engage in riotous behavior and we have moved away from God in a very extreme way, leading us many steps closer to the grave.

THE MERCHANTS OF DEATH

There’s tremendous profit in promoting the death-dealing lifestyles that many of us lead. You may not believe it but the leading promoters of our destructive lifestyles are the United States government, the food and drug industries and the medical community.

Images of fast food and junk food. An unhealthy diet leads to many health problems.

The post The ‘Death Style’ of the American People’  appeared first on Final Call News.

by Pamela Ferdinand U.S. Right To Know

E-cigarettes can quickly lodge toxic metals deep into the lungs, where they may damage tissue, according to new research that provides detailed evidence about risks of vaping. Even short-term exposure produces a measurable buildup of toxic metals in lung tissue, potentially increasing the risk of chronic lung problems, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other conditions. 

The study, published last month [April 2026] in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, is the first to use a specialized method to break apart e-cigarette vapor, separate its components, and precisely measure toxic metals.

The researchers detected for the first time chemical evidence that certain metal-based compounds (organometallics) that are easily absorbed by the lungs travel in e-cigarette aerosols. 

The findings come as the FDA yesterday (May 5) announced its authorization of fruit-flavored vapes, including mango and blueberry, for adult smokers. The shift in policy follows months of appeals to President Donald Trump from the vaping industry.

“Collectively, these findings provide novel evidence that vaping delivers toxic elements to the lung, disrupts iron homeostasis [normal balance], and poses risks for pulmonary and systemic health,” the authors wrote.

Exposures to toxic metals can come not only from the liquid, but also from the metals in the heating devices, Dr. Pamela Ling notes. That suggests that regulation of e-cigarettes needs to include the whole device, similar to the definition of “e-cigarette” in California, she says.

“Research like this is important because the tobacco companies are aggressively promoting vaping as ‘harm reduction’ to distract from the fact that the majority of their profits are still from cigarettes and they are not, in fact, transforming but instead growing a new nicotine market,”

Said Ling, a professor of medicine and director of UCSF’s Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. “This study contributes to the growing body of evidence that e-cigarettes carry their own significant health risks.”

Dr. Laura Crotty Alexander, a professor of medicine and associate division chief at the University of California, San Diego, agrees: “These findings will help us understand exactly why vaping causes lung damage and raises cancer risk. Identifying accumulation of inhaled metals in lung tissue is an important clue—helping to explain the ‘how’ behind vaping-related diseases.”

E-cigarette surge sparks public health concerns

In the U.S., young adults and adolescents use e-cigarettes more than any other tobacco product. Industry product design, aggressive marketing, widespread access targeting vulnerable populations, and limited regulatory oversight worldwide have led to more than 100 million people, including at least 15 million children, using e-cigarettes.

Though industry promotes vaping as a safe alternative to traditional smoking, research shows children, adolescents, and young adults who vape are about three times more likely to start smoking cigarettes than non-users. A review last year in Carcinogenesis concluded that nicotine e-cigarettes are likely carcinogenic and may increase oral and lung cancer risk. More recent findings show that widely promoted sweet, minty, and fruity flavors can increase nicotine use and addiction risk. 

The new study builds on emerging research showing vapers are exposed to toxic and carcinogenic metals. A 2020 study found that levels of metals and metalloids (elements like arsenic) in e-cigarette users were similar to or higher than those in cigarette users, and higher than in cigar users.

In another study from Johns Hopkins University, researchers found that nickel, chromium, and lead appeared across multiple device types. Toxic metals were detected in every sample.

A complex aerosol, not just nicotine

E-cigarettes, most of which contain nicotine, heat liquid into an aerosol that users inhale. Both the liquid and aerosol, however, are chemically complex mixtures. They contain many substances beyond nicotine, which itself is harmful and highly addictive.

These include toxic metals, air pollutants, flavoring chemicals, and cancer-linked compounds from device hardware or e-liquid ingredients. High temperatures in the heating element (device coil), combined with chemicals in the liquid, may also create new metal-containing compounds, the researchers say.

Breathing in toxic metals and other pollutants can cause inflammation, disrupt lung and immune system development, and lead to long-term breathing problems and disease. Some metals, like zinc and copper, are essential in small amounts but harmful at higher levels. 

“The question remains as to whether these metals detected in the lungs remain confined to the respiratory system or enter the circulation to accumulate in distant organs, which requires further investigation,” the researchers wrote. “This possibility of redistribution extends the potential health implications of vaping beyond local lung injury.”

Metals deposit quickly and unevenly

The researchers analyzed e-liquids, aerosols, and lung tissue from mice exposed to nicotine vapor twice daily for 30 minutes over four days. They chose a lab mouse strain that responds strongly to cigarette smoke, developing lung inflammation and airway changes similar to human smokers.

The team then combined chemical testing with spatial imaging to trace how and where metals moved from device to lung. They detected multiple metals in both liquid and aerosol, including nickel, lead, copper, aluminum, tin, arsenic, and traces of mercury.

Metal buildup increased with more exposure, and different metals collected in different areas. For example, lead, nickel, and tin concentrated in the lung’s upper regions, while zinc was more common in lower lung areas.

Even brief exposure led to measurable metal accumulation, the study shows. Metals clustered in patchy, localized deposits rather than spreading evenly. This buildup may increase the risk of lung damage, chronic disease, and impaired healing over time.

“Of concern is that measurable changes in [lung] tissue metal concentrations were observed after only a small number of puffs, indicating that even brief exposure was sufficient to alter metal levels,” the researchers wrote.

More puffs, more toxic metals in lungs

The exposure patterns suggest inhaled metals can persist in lung tissue rather than clearing quickly, the researchers say. Nickel levels increased significantly, while copper, lead, and tin also rose:

• Nickel rose from about 77 nanograms per gram (ng/g) in unexposed lung tissue to 368 after 8 puffs) and 242 after 32 puffs.
• Copper and lead spiked at high levels, with peak amounts increasing more than 3 times for copper and 25 times for lead, compared to controls.
• Tin also rose sharply, reaching levels about 15 times higher than controls at the highest exposure.

Because there are no specific regulatory limits for metals in e-cigarettes, the researchers could compare results only to safety standards for inhalation from other fields, like workplace air and pharmaceutical products. This gap exists due to limited inhalation data, not because the metals are safe, the researchers say.

Compared to pharmaceutical limits (namely, USP 232) for inhaled medicines, several metals were far higher than what is considered safe. Copper and tin also exceeded recommended limits, while:

• Arsenic was about 480 times higher
• Nickel about 250 times higher
• Chromium about 60 times higher
• Mercury about 180 times higher
• Lead about 17 times higher

“Although USP 232 limits were developed for pharmaceutical inhalation products rather than e-cigarettes, they represent a conservative, health-based benchmark for inhalation exposure,” the authors wrote.

“The magnitude by which several metals herein exceed these limits reinforces the concern of metal contamination in the tested e-cigarette liquid and the absence of equivalent product-specific standards for e-cigarette emissions.”

Iron levels fall as toxic metals rise

At the same time, vaping exposure significantly lowered iron levels in the lung to the extent that the researchers called it concerning. Iron supports oxygen transport, immune function, and energy production for cells. Iron deficiency has been linked to serious lung diseases like chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD), cystic fibrosis, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Researchers suggest the drop may reflect a subtle shift or redistribution of iron within the body. Or it may be due to changes in how iron is processed, rather than simple loss.

Taken together, the combination of lower iron, localized lead buildup, and increases in other metals and metalloids (like nickel, copper, tin, and arsenic) are “particularly concerning,” the researchers say.  “These risks are compounded by the high prevalence of e-cigarette use in adolescents, who may be more vulnerable to toxicant effects during critical developmental periods,” they wrote.

Study limits and next steps

Researchers experimented with a mouse model over four days, so the study does not measure long-term disease outcomes in humans. Exposure patterns also may differ across devices, liquids and user behavior, the researchers note.

Still, the study likely underestimates real-world exposure and risk, Crotty Alexander suggests.

“First, it was conducted in mice, which breathe exclusively through their nose, meaning many metal particles got filtered out before ever reaching the lungs,” she said. “Second, the mice were only exposed once, whereas most people who vape do so repeatedly throughout the day, every day.”

Rising use and regulatory gaps

Unlike cigarettes, e-cigarette devices and liquids vary widely and often lack quality control, using materials with unknown health risks and limited oversight.

No specific limits exist for metals in e-cigarette liquids or vapor, meaning users may be exposed to unsafe levels without knowing it. Agencies like the FDA and World Health Organization (WHO) focus on nicotine and labeling.

The researchers call for stricter standards for device materials, mandatory testing for metal emissions, and human studies, especially among adolescents who may be more vulnerable to toxic effects during critical developmental periods. They also urge studies comparing devices, long-term exposure, diverse e-liquids, and whether metals spread beyond the lungs.

“Given the widespread use of disposable e-cigarettes among adolescents, regulatory oversight of device materials and mandatory metals testing are urgently needed,” the authors wrote.

The post Vaping drives toxic metals into lungs within days appeared first on Final Call News.

[Editor’s note: The following is the continuation of this article from U.S. Right To Know, the first part of which was republished in Vol. 45, No. 42 of The Final Call.]

Sen. Sanders’ letter to FDA about tough warning labels for ultra-processed foods

Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a call for strong warning labels on ultra-processed foods to combat the obesity and diabetes epidemics in the United States, wrote in a letter to the FDA in February 2024,

“For far too long, the food and beverage industry has been allowed to use deceptive and misleading tactics to entice children to eat foods and consume beverages loaded up with sugar, salt and saturated fats that are purposely designed to be overeaten.” 

Addicting consumers leads to poor public health 

Tying together concerns around food addiction and its harmful effects, Ashley Gearhardt, professor of psychology at the University of Michigan and a leading expert in food addiction, wrote in 2023 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions titled, What is Fueling the Diabetes Epidemic?:

A “scientific body of evidence suggests that addictive processes play an important role in contributing to patterns of ultra-processed food intake implicated in poor health, obesity, and diabetes.

If addictive mechanisms are being triggered by ultra-processed foods, this may be an overlooked reason why it can be challenging to reduce intake of ultra-processed foods even in the face of health conditions like diabetes.”

What is the evidence ultra-processed foods are addictive? 

A 2026 review in Milbank Quarterly “synthesizes findings from addiction science, nutrition, and public health history to identify structural and sensory features that increase the reinforcing potential of both cigarettes and UPFs.” The review finds:

“Cigarettes and UPFs are not simply natural products but highly engineered delivery systems designed specifically to maximize biological and psychological reinforcement and habitual overuse.

Both industries have used similar strategies to increase product appeal, evade regulation, and shape public perception, including adding sensory additives, accelerating reward delivery, expanding contextual access, and deploying health-washing claims.

These design features collectively hijack human biology, undermine individual agency, and contribute heavily to disease and health care costs.”

The researchers conclude that “UPFs should be evaluated not only through a nutritional lens but also as addictive, industrially engineered substances. Lessons from tobacco regulation, including litigation, marketing restrictions, and structural interventions, offer a roadmap for reducing UPF-related harm.”

A 2023 review of 281 studies in 36 countries found that “the combination of refined carbohydrates and fats often found in UPFs seems to have a supra-additive effect on brain reward systems, above either macronutrient alone, which may increase the addictive potential of these foods.” Overall.

The researchers found that 14% of adults and 12% of children were addicted to ultra-processed foods, which is “similar to the levels of addiction seen for other legal substances in adults (eg, 14% for alcohol and 18% for tobacco),” the authors added.

The research, published in BMJ, noted: “the speed at which UPFs deliver carbohydrates and fats to the gut may also be important to their addictive potential. Drugs and routes of administration that affect the brain more quickly have a higher addictive potential.”

The authors also noted the social justice implications with UPF addiction. They wrote: “People facing food insecurity are more reliant on UPFs to meet their daily energy needs and are more likely to exhibit higher levels of UPF addiction.”

In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2011, researchers examined neural activity in 48 women with high “food addiction” scores using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). They found that, while “there were limited differences in reward circuitry activation between participants with high FA and low FA during food intake,

The high food addiction group exhibited patterns of neural activation associated with reduced inhibitory control.” This suggests “that consumption of a palatable food may override desires to limit caloric food consumption in participants with high FA, resulting in disinhibited food consumption.”

The study authors concluded: “Similar patterns of neural activation are implicated in addictive-like eating behavior and substance dependence: elevated activation in reward circuitry in response to food cues and reduced activation of inhibitory regions in response to food intake.”

Withdrawal is a key component of addiction. With this in mind, researchers conducted a review to determine whether highly processed (HP) foods are linked to withdrawal symptoms in animals and humans. The research, published in the journal Obesity Reviews in 2022, found: “Evidence suggests that HP food withdrawal occurs in animals.

Well-controlled experimental animal studies have demonstrated behavioral and biological indicators of HP food withdrawal, which follow a similar time course to other addictive substances. Anecdotal and self-report evidence also suggests that humans experience withdrawal-like symptoms when they attempt to reduce their intake of HP foods.”

In an editorial published in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, study authors wrote that the increase in UPF consumption in the U.S. notably increased in the 1980s, when tobacco corporations bought major food companies, including General Foods and Kraft in the 1980s.

The corporations soon became the largest manufacturers of ultra-processed foods. In the commentary, which was published in 2022, they wrote that the same strategies used to market cigarettes were then used to advertise highly processed foods, particularly to children, by “reinforcing UPFs with optimal combinations of rewarding ingredients (e.g., fat, sugar) to maximize palatability and profitability.”

It’s also important to note “that food addiction is prevalent across weight classes (e.g., 12–17% of youths and adults with normal weight) and exhibits similar associations, regardless of BMI, with addiction risk factors (e.g., impulsivity), poorer quality of life, compulsive eating behaviors, and increased physical and psychological comorbidities.”

They concluded: “The lessons learned from past addiction epidemics are relevant for the negative public health consequences of food addiction and UPFs, particularly the need for policies that reduce the accessibility of UPFs in the modern food environment, reformulate UPFs to reduce their addictive potentials, and minimize risks for children and adolescents to develop food addiction.”

“Ultraprocessed foods … were consistently more associated with [the Yale Food Addiction Scale] indicators than were naturally occurring, minimally processed foods,” according to the study authors of a review titled, Is Food Addictive, republished in 2021 in the Annual Review of Nutrition.

“Notably, ultraprocessed foods were significantly more problematic for individuals who endorsed experiencing elevated YFAS symptoms of addictive-like eating, providing further support for the role of ultraprocessed foods in food addiction.” They concluded:

“As with addictive drugs, some (but not all) individuals exhibit an addictive pattern of consumption marked by diminished control over intake, intense cravings, and an inability to cut down despite negative consequences … higher YFAS scores are associated with mechanisms implicated in addictive disorders and poorer clinical outcomes.”

In a study published in 2022 in the journal Appetite, researchers compared the consumption of ultra-processed food in 735 young Australian adults who had and did not have food addiction. Researchers assessed foods as addictive according to the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS).

They found that young adults who were food addicted ate more of their energy percentage (%E) from ultra-processed foods. Those who did not identify as food addicted ate a lower energy percent from UPFs. The study authors added: “For each additional food addiction symptom reported, the %E from ultra-processed foods was higher and %E from unprocessed foods was lower.” 

A 2022 national poll conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation found that 1 in 8, or about 13%, of adults over the age of 50 displays signs of addiction to highly processed foods. This was determined if the person had “two or more symptoms out of 11 plus significant impairment or distress.”

The authors noted that 44% of the adults indicated at least 1 symptom of food addiction, the most common being intense cravings to processed foods. Notably, “older adults who rated their mental health as fair or poor were at least three times more likely to meet food addiction criteria compared with those reporting excellent, very good, or good mental health.”

The researchers added: “Many people report eating highly processed foods not only for the calories they provide, but also to experience pleasure and cope with negative emotions. Cravings for highly processed foods can also be intense and challenging to resist, and people may experience withdrawal-like symptoms when they try to reduce the amount they consume.”

A Brazilian-based cross-sectional study that included around 6,000 people examined whether consuming ultra-processed food was associated with food addiction. (The Yale Food Addiction Scale was used to determine food addiction in participants.)

The results, which were based on self-reported questionnaires and published in the journal Appetite in 2023, found that “individuals with food addiction had lower consumption of fresh fruits, vegetables, and beans. They also had higher consumption of UPF: hamburgers/sausages, instant noodles, packaged snacks, and/or salty cookies, and sandwich cookies, sweets, and/or treats.” 

In an article published in 2020 in Nutrients, Dr. Robert H. Lustig wrote that the global pandemic of non-communicable diseases stems from markers of obesity and poor diet, and argued that ultra-processed foods should be regulated in the same way other addictive substances are regulated.

This is because they fall under the same four criteria (abuse, toxicity, ubiquity, and externalities) that are considered by the public health community as “necessary and sufficient” for regulation. Of the addictive nature of UPFs, Lustig wrote:

“Added sugar (and specifically the fructose moiety) is unique in activating reward circuitry; fructose works both directly and indirectly to increase consumption; and that both obesity and chronic fructose exposure down-regulate dopamine receptors, requiring greater and greater stimuli to enact a reward-signaling effect (tolerance), a primary component of addiction.”

A systematic review published titled What Is the Evidence for Food Addiction?, scientists assessed 52 studies and 32 articles on processed food and addiction. Their research, which was published in the journal Nutrients in 2018, found that, “Overall, the majority of the studies in the present systematic review evaluated foods with added sweeteners (e.g., sugar, saccharine).

And many experiments combined sweeteners with fats such as hydrogenated oils or lard. The current review found that the most common foods associated with addictive symptoms were those high in added fats and/or refined carbohydrates such as sugar.”

When given the choice between saccharin-sweetened water and cocaine, rats are more likely to choose the sweeteners, according to a 2018 study published in PLoS One. In the study, researchers tested rats that had never been fed refined sugars or sweeteners before; no prior experience with refined sugar or artificial sweetener.

“Rats were allowed to choose mutually—exclusively between water sweetened with saccharin–an intense calorie-free sweetener—and intravenous cocaine–a highly addictive and harmful substance–the large majority of animals (94%) preferred the sweet taste of saccharin. … Importantly.

Each day before making their choices, rats were allowed to alternatively sample [the other option] learn their respective reward value.” The researchers concluded: “Our findings clearly demonstrate that intense sweetness can surpass cocaine reward, even in drug-sensitized and -addicted individuals.”

How big tobacco acquired big food

In the late 1980s, major tobacco corporations like R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris (now Altria) acquired and owned several Big Food brands, including Kraft, Nabisco and General Mills. At this time, Big Tobacco began to change and reformulate these food products.

Using the same tactics in targeted marketing and formulation of their tobacco products, with an increase in colors, flavors and additives, to create more appealing and addictive processed foods. This also included food specifically marketed to children. 

Though these tobacco companies have severed ties with food corporations, many of these processed food formulations remain. In fact, a 2023 research report published in the journal Addiction found that “tobacco-owned foods were 29% more likely to be classified as fat and sodium hyper-palatable food (HPF) and 80% more likely to be classified as carbohydrate and sodium HPF than foods that were not tobacco-owned between 1988 and 2001.

The availability of fat and sodium HPF and carbohydrate and sodium HPF was high in 2018 regardless of prior tobacco-ownership status, suggesting widespread saturation into the food system.”

Using criteria for tobacco addiction to measure food addiction

In 1988, the Surgeon General concluded that cigarettes and other tobacco products are addictive by using three criteria: “(1) they trigger compulsive use, (2) they have psychoactive effects and (3) they are reinforcing, ” writes Gearhardt in a 2022 analysis published in Addiction.

And since then, a fourth criteria was also added to addictive identification—the product’s ability to “trigger strong urges or craving”. Using this same standard of criteria for tobacco products, Gearhardt argues that ultra-processed foods can be considered addictive.

And, “to identify the key addictive components in [highly processed foods], the same care and control employed in understanding the addictive potential of drugs needs to be applied to studies of [highly processed foods].”

The Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS)

Because food addiction has been controversial to define, Gearhardt, then a doctoral student at Yale University, created The Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS) in 2009 as a standardized tool to measure the signs of addictive eating behaviors.

The self-reported questionnaire uses questions based on criteria used for substance disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

It is meant to evaluate behavior with questions similar to those that would ask about other substance abuse issues, including drugs and alcohol,  regarding cravings, withdrawal symptoms, and failed efforts to stop. The scale has become a staple for food research around the world, and has been translated into many languages.

Gearhardt explained to the Guardian, “I took the standard diagnostic criteria for alcohol, nicotine, cocaine and heroin, and translated them to food.”

The YFAS is the basis for much of the research conducted on food addiction in the past 15 years.

The post Some ultra-processed foods are as addictive as cigarettes and cocaine, continued appeared first on Final Call News.

Ultra-processed foods are industrially formulated with added sugar, artificial sweeteners, additives and flavorings to be highly rewarding and even addictive. They can alter the brain’s reward pathways the same way that other addictive substances do, making them challenging to consume in moderation.

In fact, a body of scientific research has emerged in recent years to show that some ultra-processed foods (UPFs) can be as addictive as cigarettes and cocaine. 

Several major food brands were once owned by the world’s largest tobacco companies. Evidence suggests the same tactics used to formulate and market cigarettes were used in the creation of food products.

Finding the bliss point

Manufacturers of ultra-processed foods often seek to find the most alluring combination of salt, sugar, and fat in their products. This point of perfection is known as “the bliss point,” a term coined by American market researcher and food scientist Howard Moskowitz in the 1990s. 

“The bliss point is just that sensory profile where you like food the most,” Moskowitz, who is known for his work on soft drinks and pasta sauces, told RetroReport. “There is no one bliss point. There are groups of bliss points.” Manufacturers usually work to locate the bliss point through rigorous focus-group testing, alongside the use of psychological research. 

The bliss point triggers dopamine—a neurotransmitter in the brain that is responsible for feelings of pleasure and well-being—to spike, then crash. This brings about good feelings, then bad feelings, and generates the craving to feel good once more.

How ultra-processed food manufacturers addict consumers

Food companies not only research taste, but also consumers’ responses to color, smell, and “mouth feel” of products. And sometimes food scientists tweak a specific ingredient in products, like the salt, sugar, or fat itself, Michael Moss writes in his book, Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us. For example, food scientists have changed the shape of fat globules to improve how products feel in the mouth. And they’ve ground salt finer, which helps the flavor hit the taste buds faster for an “improved flavor burst.”

“One hallmark of addiction is the speed with which substances hit the brain,” Moss explains in his 2021 follow-up book, Hooked: Food, Free Will, and How the Food Giants Exploit Our Addiction. “Measured in milliseconds, and the power to addict, nothing is faster than processed food in rousing the brain.” Along with speed, “addiction is also deeply enmeshed with memory, and the memories we create for food are typically stronger and longer lasting than any other substance. Childhood memories of food can wield an uncanny power over our eating habits for the rest of our lives.” 

Today, about 57% of the calories American adults consume come from UPFs. That percentage rises to 67% in American children. 

The continuation of this article will be published in an upcoming edition of The Final Call. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

The post Some ultra-processed foods are as addictive as cigarettes and cocaine appeared first on Final Call News.