FDA is kicking out all petroleum-based food dyes this year.
Sounds great, until you look at what's replacing them.
Here are five "natural" colors that look more dangerous than the old artificial dyes they're replacing.
Thread 1/9 🧵
2/9 Spirulina Blue vs. Blue #1
NEW COLOR: Spirulina extract (phycocyanin)
> Only 90-day studies; no lifetime cancer or fertility work.
> Nickel, mercury, microcystins found in every retail sample screened
> 41% were over WHO limits for consumption for microcystins.
BANNED COLOR: Brilliant Blue FCF (Blue #1)
> 50 yrs of clean rodent & human data.
Why banned? FDA wanted a "zero-petroleum" rule for optics and simplicity, NOT because Blue #1 failed a safety test.
NEW COLOR: Butterfly-pea-flower extract
> Approved on short-term rat data only; no long-term studies.
> Color fades < pH 3; formulators often "over-dose" in sodas to keep the neon blue.
> Large data gaps.
BANNED COLOR: Indigo Carmine (Blue #2)
> Five full chronic studies, two high-quality; lone rat tumor finding in a single low-quality study not confirmed in any of the other four.
Why banned? "Guilt by association." Keeping one petroleum blue while scrapping the rest looked messy, so FDA tossed it for policy uniformity.
1. N95s fail in clinical trials to meaningfully reduce respiratory viral infections. 2. N95's seal is easily broken. They are not effective over long periods. 3. According to CDC, N95s are harmful if worn over long periods.
Rochelle Walensky, Director of CDC, infamously declared on MSNBC: "Vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick."
Emails obtained by FOIA from Jan 30, 2021 show that Walensky knew this was a lie at the time she said it.
1/4
See for yourself.
Without these lies, unconstitutional vaccine mandates would not have been possible.
That's why she lied.
She and her colleagues need to be held accountable for these lies.
2/4
During the pandemic, journalists were restricted to speaking only to Walensky. No other CDC staff, of tens of thousands, were allowed to speak to the press.
This has never happened before.
That is why the media parroted Walensky's misinformation.
A thread breaking down the recent @sciam hit piece and revisionist history by University of Pittsburgh public health professor Steven Albert on @DrJBhattacharya 🧵
The article is so devoid of substance that it does not deserve serious consideration.
However, people do read these articles, so I want to clarify what is being done--and not done--in this piece.
I will do so analytically, not resorting to smears or misrepresentations.
It's important to start with the author. A chaired professor of public health at a good university, he should understand many of the issues he writes about in this article.
The @nytimes's @fstonenyc has responded to our letter of the editor about @zeynep's recent op-ed about @DrJBhattacharya's NIH Director nomination.
Let's break it down.
Word for word.
A🧵. Instructing @zeynep and @fstonenyc how to read basic sentences in the English language.
@MartinKulldorff @Bryce_Nickels @anish_koka
@fstonenyc opens his response by claiming that, in fact:
"The March 24, 2020 essay in the Wall Street Journal, co-written by Dr. Bhattacharya, never describes 2 million as the high range of potential death estimates."
Oh really?
Let's take a look at the article, then, shall we?
Bhattacharya:
"The degree of bias is uncertain because available data are limited. But it could make the difference between an epidemic that kills 20,000 and one that kills two million."
"In the early days of the pandemic, Bhattacharya repeatedly predicted that the virus would likely kill about 20,000 to 40,000 Americans. (The death toll turned out to be about 1.2 million.)"