Aspartame

Sweet Misery (Documentary)

Artificial Sweeteners--The Lie That Kills - Dissident MD

It’s understandable why Americans are confused. Artificial sweeteners like aspartame (Nutrasweet), saccharin (Sweet and Low), and sucralose (Splenda) make up a $30 billion industry that has victimized Americans for decades, in particular those struggling with insulin resistance and obesity. The manufacturers have paid off celebrities, oncologists, dietitians, and even the American Dietetics Association itself (ADA), to endorse their products. They put up websites rich in research citations, like “safetyofaspartame.com,” to deny valid claims of health risks associated with their products. The maker of Splenda, on its website, proudly announces, “We help people live happier and healthier lives by making it easier to reduce sugar.” They are as corrupt as Pfizer and Moderna. Even the NIH reports that both Nutrasweet and Splenda are associated with glucose intolerance. – Dr Mark McDonald

I’ve had my fair share of Coke Zero over the years, unfortunately.

Then my daughter convinced me to look into the fact that it was worse than normal Coke, which I did albeit superficially, and then stopped about a year ago.

In Australia they label it, if you can read the fine print on the can, as Sweetener 951.

More recently I decided to dig a bit deeper and found the documentary Sweet Misery, and here we now are with this stack.

It’s an excellent documentary that delves into the history of how Aspartame came to be approved by the FDA.

Donald Rumsfeld was the key. Yes, you read that right. We all have Rumsfeld to thank for Aspartame in the global food and drink supply. More on that later.

It features the great Dr Russell Blaylock quite heavily, and a raft of other doctors that explain the toxicity of Aspartame. It has been known for about 50 years.

It has all the familiar ingredients that we have come to understand about how American Oligarchy works.

• A toxic product made by industry, with a multi-billion dollar market potential.

• Significant and clear evidence as to its dangers.

• Honest scientists and doctors ignored and marginalized.

• Regulatory capture and FDA corruption.

• Increase in disease immediately after its public release that is ignored.

This all sounds very familiar.

I can definitely recommend Sweet Misery.

This documentary is under rated. My grandmother died 2 years ago from the majority or the side effects of aspartame. I pleaded my family to make her stop drinking diet coke. To turn to more natural drinks, but it's hard since she was diabetic. She had tumors in her brain, liver, ovaries, as well as cancer. I can't get over the fact that this could of been prevented, how can this known poison be in our beverages and food supply? Their is so much evil in this world that only care about themselves more, and don't care about our loved ones.. - @rodolfoperaza9872

Also on Rumble.

Based on Sweet Misery, I have created a list of Q&As, and within this list I’m including related information from a variety of other sources.

By the end of this stack, you will have a good understanding of the history of the chemical, what it does to the body and the political and FDA corruption that brought it about.

Sweet Misery – Questions & Answers

What is aspartame and how is it commonly used?

Aspartame is an artificial sweetener that is approximately 200 times sweeter than regular table sugar. First discovered in 1965, it was approved for use as a food and beverage additive starting in the early 1980s. Today, aspartame is found in over 6,000 consumer products including diet sodas, sports drinks, yogurt, chewing gum, cereal, flavored waters, and more. It is marketed under brand names like NutraSweet, Equal, and Sugar Twin. The appeal is that it provides sweetness with zero calories so products containing it are positioned as diet or low calorie options.

When was aspartame first approved for use in foods and beverages?

Aspartame was first approved for limited use as an artificial sweetener additive by the FDA in 1974, however there were numerous concerns raised prior to full approval regarding its safety. After additional industry studies were provided, it gained fuller approval in 1981 under Reagan's new FDA commissioner to be included in dry goods like chewing gum, despite remaining unresolved concerns on brain related impacts from scientific advisory panels. The approval was controversial but then extended to all carbonated beverages in 1983, leading to widespread adoption.

What were some early safety concerns raised about aspartame prior to approval?

Some early concerns prior to approval included animal testing results in the early 1970s that indicated brain tumors, abnormal brains cell development, endocrine system disruptions, and even grand mal seizures in studies of rats and monkeys. There were also flaws in research practices found regarding some industry-funded studies, as highlighted in later FDA reports. Accusations surfaced claiming attempts may have been made to conceal negative research findings regarding brain impacts.

Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, a professor of neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi, put together a book thoroughly detailing the damage that is caused by the ingestion of excessive aspartic acid from aspartame. Blaylock makes use of almost 500 scientific references to show how excess free excitatory amino acids such as aspartic acid and glutamic acid (about 99 percent of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is glutamic acid) in our food supply are causing serious chronic neurological disorders and a host of other acute symptoms.

Aspartic acid acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain by facilitating the transmission of information from neuron to neuron. Too much aspartic acid in the brain kills certain neurons by allowing the influx of too much calcium into the cells. This influx triggers excessive amounts of free radicals, which kill the cells. The neural cell damage that can be caused by excessive aspartic acid is why it is referred to as an "excitotoxin." It literally "excites" or stimulates the neural cells to death. – The Culling of Man – J. Micha-el Thomas Hays

What are the key components that make up aspartame at a molecular level?

The aspartame molecule is comprised of two key amino acids - phenylalanine and aspartic acid, along with a methyl ester component that becomes methanol (wood alcohol). Upon human digestion, the phenylalanine and aspartic acid impact neurotransmitters in the brain while the methanol converts into formaldehyde. These components provide the sweetness but also accounted for many of the neuro and health safety concerns.

How is the metabolism of fruit different from aspartame regarding methanol and ethanol content?

While similar levels of methanol may occur naturally in some fruits, the difference is it remains bound to pectin fibers during digestion, preventing absorption in the body. This means fruit consumption does not lead to methanol toxicity. Additionally, ethanol is present which counterbalances and competes for digestion compared to isolated methanol from aspartame.

Can you explain what amino acids are and their role in the body and brain?

Amino acids are the basic building blocks that combine to form all proteins used throughout the human body. When proteins break down, amino acids like phenylalanine and aspartic acid are what remain. These then get utilized to build new proteins. In the brain, amino acid levels impact critical neurotransmitters for nervous system functioning. Changes to their ratios via artificial additives like aspartame were a noted concern in early lab tests.

What is phenylalanine and how does it relate to aspartame?

Phenylalanine is one of the two amino acids that occur naturally and make up about half of the molecular structure of aspartame. Phenylalanine can cross the blood brain barrier and alter neurotransmitter processes once inside the brain. Combined with another amino acid, it helps form important brain chemicals like norepinephrine. Changes to normal phenylalanine ratios from increased, concentrated artificial sources were hypothesized to affect neurotransmitter availability in the brain from early testing of aspartame exposure.

What is an excitotoxin and how does it impact neurons and the brain?

An excitotoxin is a substance that overexcites brain cells called neurons to the point that it can exhaust and damage them through a mechanism referred to as excitotoxicity. The amino acid aspartic acid, a key component of aspartame's structure, was identified as such due its chemical similarities with glutamate. Excess or high doses of excitotoxins like glutamate and aspartate can literally overstimulate neurons by over-activating receptors until cellular processes fail, resulting in potential brain cell death over time.

Why Do Foods Make Us Gain Weight and Where Do Food Cravings Come From? (midwesterndoctor.com)

Aspartame (a toxic artificial sweetener) frequently signals the body to store fat. Its presence explains why individuals who consume Diet Pepsi or Diet Coke often gain more weight than those who drink regular (high-calorie) sodas. Furthermore, this link is common enough that studies have observed it, and a few endocrine signaling mechanisms have been established to explain it (see this review, this article, and this article). Due to its effects on the endocrine system (and possibly its known effects on neurological signaling), patients frequently become partially addicted to aspartame and will not give it up even if advised to by their physicians.

Can you define what the blood brain barrier is meant to protect?

The blood brain barrier refers to the specialized protective lining surrounding blood vessels supplying the brain with blood flow. It acts as a filter to prevent many toxins and chemicals from permeating brain tissue and cerebrospinal fluids where neurons reside. Its purpose is to maintain stable homeostasis for proper functioning of the central nervous system. Changes to blood brain barrier permeability was a noted concern with chronic aspartame exposure.

What conditions may lead to a compromised blood brain barrier?

A compromised blood brain barrier with increased permeability and reduced protections can occur through both short term acute events like head injuries or infections and chronic diseases like autoimmune disorders. Other factors leading to openings include normal aging, diabetes, dementia, hypertension, alcoholism, chronic stress, and free radical cellular damage over time. This results in the brain losing safeguards over what can enter brain fluids.

Who were some of the key scientists and researchers referenced regarding early aspartame testing?

Key scientists named who studied aspartame and had concerns regarding toxicity included Dr. John Olney, Dr Jerome Bressler with the FDA, and neuroscientist Dr. Louis Elsas. Olney first identified neuronal damage occuring in rat brains in 1969. Bressler led an FDA investigative task force report on flaws found in Searle Pharmaceutical company studies and testing in the mid 1970s. Elsas also raised human toxicity concerns during approval attempts with the FDA later on.

Top Sweetener Officially Declared a Carcinogen

• The World Health Organization has finally gotten around to declaring the popular artificial sweetener aspartame a potential carcinogen

• The ruling comes from sources with WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who said aspartame will be listed as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in July 2023

• I’ve been warning about aspartame’s cancer-causing potential since 2010, so you can see just how long this danger has been known

• For over a decade, researchers have been warning of aspartame’s neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity, stating reevaluation of aspartame consumption is “urgent and cannot be delayed”

• A 2022 large-scale cohort study found people who consumed higher levels of artificial sweeteners had higher risk of overall cancer compared to non-consumers

What were some of the concerning findings from animal studies on aspartame in the 1970s?

Very concerning results were beginning to surface from independent research on the impacts to rat brains in early feeding trials conducted by Dr. Olney in 1969 and through the early 1970s. His work showed destruction of nerve cells, indications of brain tumors, and the first identification of excitotoxicity. Concurrent industry funded studies often had contradictory results, however flaws identified in their methodologies by later FDA reviews brought their conclusions into greater question regarding safety assurances.

What government agency regulates food additives like aspartame?

The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is the federal administration responsible for overseeing the safety of pharmaceutical drugs, medical products and importantly, food additives proposed for use within the United States. Manufacturers must apply with supportive research and receive FDA approval before being able market additives like aspartame for human consumption.

Can you summarize the history of FDA reviews, reports, and regulations regarding aspartame safety over the first 10 years?

The FDA first granted limited approval for aspartame's usage in 1974 despite emerging toxicity concerns. Their own later review of underling industry safety research highlighted flawed methodologies. Still, in 1981 amidst remaining concerns, it gained full approval for limited dry goods usage. Approval followed for all carbonated beverages by 1983. Timeline issues included a 1981 Reagan executive order halting FDA power during a transition. Controversy followed FDA Commissioner decisions to approve aspartame while over-ruling contrary recommendations by agency advisory panels and scientists.

What was the ultimate decision on allowing aspartame by the FDA in 1981 and what were the concerns raised?

In 1981, Reagan's new incoming FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, decided to overrule a prior Public Board of Inquiry ruling prohibiting aspartame's use until further safety testing could be conducted regarding brain tumors. This extraordinary decision defied three agency senior scientists who concurred with the Public Board's conclusion arguing risks outweighed evidence of safety regarding long term neurological impacts. His move green-lit approval raising ethics concerns.

Donald Rumsfeld and the Strange History of Aspartame

So how does Donald Rumsfeld fit in to all this? A little history:

In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors." The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved. Here's how it happened:

Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan's transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners' authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan's new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor.

One of Hayes' first official acts as FDA chief was to approve the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener in dry goods on July 18, 1981. In order to accomplish this feat, Hayes had to overlook the scuttled grand jury investigation of Searle, overcome the Bressler Report, ignore the PBOI's recommendations and pretend aspartame did not chronically sicken and kill thousands of lab animals. Hayes left his post at the FDA in November, 1983, amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors. Just before leaving office in scandal, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in beverages. After Hayes left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position as a high-paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame. FYI, here's Rachel Maddow on Burson-Marsteller: "When Evil needs public relations, Evil has Burson-Marsteller on speed dial." Evil, thy name is chemical food additives.

Here's the kicker: When Searle was absorbed by Monsanto in 1985, Donald Rumsfeld reportedly received a $12 million bonus, pretty big money in those days. Also, while at Searle, Rumsfeld was awarded Outstanding CEO in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981)! Imagine that...

Can you explain the Delaney amendment regarding approval of food additives found to cause cancer in animal studies?

The Delaney Amendment refers to a 1958 legal clause stipulation that expressly prohibits the approval of any food additives demonstrated to cause cancer in animal testing. This federal cancer clause should have barred aspartame's initial approval due to a study finding increased risks of brain tumors in mice. However, the FDA indicated they felt evidence did not prove conclusively it could cause harm at expected human consumption levels.

What have epidemiological brain tumor studies indicated since aspartame approval starting in the 1980s?

In the early 1980s after approval, multiple disturbing disease trends began emerging that correlated closely with timing of initial aspartame product launches in 1981-1983. Report highlights included statistical increases found in malignant brain cancers, diabetic rates, and brain lymphoma cases in the years following - defying previous trajectory declines or expectations. This suggested associated links to scientists, but confirmation to prove direct causation remained difficult.

Aspartame destroys families. It’s an endocrine disrupting agent, stimulates prolactin, changes the menses and causes infertility. Women who desperately want children throng fertility clinics sipping Diet Coke, the reason they're there. Dr. Madelon Price, Biochemist, explains this infertility: "I was concerned about aspartic acid, one of the major breakdown products. Aspartic acid, like glutamic acid (mono sodium glutamate, MSG, Accent) readily passes from the blood into the circumventricular organs of the brain. Sexual dysfunction is associated with aspartame and MSG. If enough arcuate neurons are lost, that dysfunction is irreversible. Rodents that ingest high levels of aspartate or glutamate when young become infertile adults." - Dr Betty Martini

How truthful do you think corporate funded research can be regarding aspartame safety?

It is a problematic expectation for unbiased research crucial to public health policy decisions to be left mostly in hands of those who stand to directly profit from approval to market. Nutrasweet/Searle along with lobby groups who later sought its adoption in products funded tremendous amounts of benign safety research. However, the vast majority of independent, non-industry funded work uncovered troubling toxicity findings instead. This clear contrast rightfully fosters distrust in reliability of overly self-interested safety conclusions.

What are some concerning statistics highlighted regarding consumer complaints to the FDA about aspartame?

Internal FDA figures highlighted that by 1988, over 80% of all volunteered consumer complaints about concerning food additive reactions sent to their administration centered on aspartame more than any other substance. Given it still represented a relatively new additive, this volume of reports should have sounded alarms regarding safety assurances. However it persisted without restriction.

Aspartame Effects Show Up in Offspring 2 Generations Later

• A study published in PNAS linked aspartame consumption to anxiety and, worse yet, found the mental health changes were passed on to future generations

• When you consume aspartame, it’s broken down into aspartic acid, phenylalanine — a precursor of monoamine neurotransmitters — and methanol, which may have “potent” effects on your central nervous system

• The research involved mice drinking water that contained aspartame at a dosage of approximately 15% of the FDA’s maximum daily intake, equivalent to a human drinking six to eight 8-ounce cans of diet soda daily

• The study came about after the research team looked at the transgenerational effects of nicotine, revealing epigenetic changes in sperm cells; similar effects may be occurring with aspartame

• The shocking findings add yet another reason why you should toss any aspartame-containing products from your kitchen cabinets

How were regulations and approvals for aspartame achieved globally over time?

The means in which aspartame won adoption in other prominent regulatory domains like Europe were also questionable based on review. Once approved in the US, its manufacturer Searle likely utilized employing key figures in tangled conflicts of interest schemes abroad mirrored from American counterparts. This helped rapidly achieve rubber stamping rather than conducting fulsome, locally relevant independent reviews on safety there as well.

What are some of the highlighted documentary sources and reports referenced regarding regulation controversies?

Critically reviewed materials highlighting concerns included the 1975 FDA commissioner task force report led by Jerome Bressler on GD Searle's insufficient safety research protections, along with the Centers for Disease Control 1985 report on consumer health complaints both faulting evidence. A Senate hearing record also revealed troubling ties suggesting inappropriate political maneuvering regarding the 1981 aspartame approval.

How do you summarize the various non-industry aligned positions on whether aspartame is safe for human consumption?

The recurring theme across scientists, researchers, health advocates, and physicians without overt industry sponsorship referenced is consistent warnings that risks likely outweigh any benefits for susceptible segments of population regarding aspartame's use as a sweetener additive. Compelling human case reports and independent animal research identify biological mechanisms that can provoke chronic conditions. Hence recommendations range from re-evaluation to outright bans on its continued approval.

What are some of the key mission groups and faces attempting to spotlight harm concerns related to aspartame consumption?

Groups like Dr. Roberts Palm Beach Institute for Medical Research and Dr. HJ Robert's foundation led awareness and consumer case accumulations in the 1990s onward. Prominent activism later was lead by anti-aspartame advocate Dr. Janet Starr Hull alongside Mission Possible founder Betty Martini who disseminated FDA report research and aided those recognizing symptoms. Networks of concerned physicians continue communication.

How easy do you think it is for physicians to connect patient issues or symptoms to excitotoxins like aspartame and why?

It remains difficult for physicians unaware of intricacies in toxicity research to correlate patient health complaints with regularly consumed chemical food additive sources. Since aspartame gained widespread adoption, implications of issues like neural excitotoxicity weren't integrated well into conventions of medical education and diagnosis frameworks. This results in dismissal of causation possibilities for patient advocates whose lives improved upon elimination.

Artificially Sweetened Drinks Can Lead to an Early Grave

• In a study analyzing data from 451,743 people from 10 countries over 20 years, researchers found that those who drank artificially sweetened drinks suffered a higher all-cause mortality — specifically from circulatory disease — while those drinking sugar-sweetened drinks had a higher risk of death from digestive disease

• These associations remained constant, even when the researchers removed confounding factors such as higher body mass index, smoking and other mortality risks

• One of the most commonly used artificial sweeteners is aspartame, which is associated with increased risk of obesity, as it appears to encourage sugar cravings and does not activate the brain's reward pathway in the same way natural sweeteners do. Research also links aspartame with neurobehavioral symptoms such as insomnia, depression, headaches and seizures

• Alterations in gut bacteria by artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain and insulin resistance. The American Beverage Association is pushing back as the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Heart Association call for federal and state policy changes to protect children and adolescents from marketing targeted at them

Can you explain what methanol toxicity is and how chronic exposure over time could be damaging?

Methanol alone is clearly toxic to humans, but aspartame delivers both isolated methanol (wood alcohol) and its metabolized derivative formaldehyde in small doses with accumulation over years. Formaldehyde is a potent nerve toxin that inhibits critical neural enzyme activity even at low levels. Either compound concentrating over longer periods from diet additive sources can manifest as cronically impairing conditions where the body struggles to remove them.

How thoroughly do you think most consumers research or understand additives like aspartame that are put in common products?

Failures in consumer protections often arise when additives like aspartame permeate the mainstream processed food supply without individuals consciously opting in or having accessible ways to opt out. Given most nutrition details fall under assumptions of regulatory confidence rather than average individuals expertly interpreting chemistry, insufficient research around adopted food chemicals remains the norm. More visible information would empower choice.

What are the highlighted case examples covered in the discussion regarding harm accounts correlated to aspartame?

Story examples attempting to demonstrate parallel experiences eliminating then rechallenging aspartame with recurrent symptoms include the veteran Jim McDonald's toxicity and recovery account alongside descriptions of neurological deterioration impacts from heavy diet soda intake in lawyer Victoria Inness-Brown's story. Relevant too is the highly questionable prosecution of Virginia teacher Diane Fleming for murder via alleged methanol poisoning of her husband in a case omitting his aspartame consumption.

Artificial Sweeteners Are Toxic to Gut Bacteria

A 25-year study found very moderate consumption of this is linked to a 65% higher likelihood of being overweight and a 41% increased likelihood of being obese.

• Animal research shows all artificial sweeteners currently approved and deemed safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cause DNA damage in, and interfere with the normal and healthy activity of gut bacteria

• Artificial sweeteners reviewed in this study include aspartame, sucralose, saccharin, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-k

• Saccharin caused the greatest, most widespread damage, exhibiting both cytotoxic and genotoxic effects, meaning it is toxic to cells and damages genetic information in the cell (which can cause mutations)

• Aspartame and acesulfame potassium-k were both found to cause DNA damage. Neotame was found to cause metabolic disruption, and raised concentrations of several fatty acids, lipids and cholesterol

• Other recent research shows artificial sweeteners damage vascular function and cause cellular changes that may be important during the onset and progression of diabetes and obesity

Why do you think there is debate between industry and non-industry research concluding contradicting safety positions on something like aspartame?

John Olney's captured observation that "one man's poison is another man's meat" is relevant to why corporations like drug makers who petition to market inventions aren't necessarily considering certain sensitive health risks impacting only percentages of consumers the same while having conflicts of interest. More vulnerable communities get overlooked absent independent science prioritizing discovery over profits in policy evaluations.

Source material and further reading:

Aspartame and mRNA - by Timothy Winey (substack.com)

How Aspartame Became Legal - The Timeline (rense.com)

NWV -- Donald Rumsfeld and Aspartame (newswithviews.com)

Dr. John Olney Statement Aspartame - l987 | PDF | Food And Drug Administration (scribd.com)

Aspartame (Nutrasweet) Toxicity Information Center (holisticmed.com)

MISSION POSSIBLE WORLD HEALTH INTERNATIONAL (mpwhi.com)

Thank You for Being Part of Our Community

Your presence here is greatly valued. If you've found the content interesting and useful, please consider supporting it through a paid subscription. While all our resources are freely available, your subscription plays a vital role. It helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. Please make full use of our Free Libraries.

Discover Our Free Libraries:

Unbekoming Interview Library: Dive into a world of thought-provoking interviews across a spectrum of fascinating topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Explore concise summaries of groundbreaking books, distilled for efficient understanding.

Hear From Our Subscribers: Check out the [Subscriber Testimonials] to see the impact of this Substack on our readers.

Share Your Story or Nominate Someone to Interview:

I'm always in search of compelling narratives and insightful individuals to feature. Whether it's personal experiences with the vaccination or other medical interventions, or if you know someone whose story and expertise could enlighten our community, I'd love to hear from you. If you have a story to share, insights to offer, or wish to suggest an interviewee who can add significant value to our discussions, please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com. Your contributions and suggestions are invaluable in enriching our understanding and conversation.

Resources for the Community:

For those affected by COVID vaccine injury, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Discover 'Baseline Human Health': Watch and share this insightful 21-minute video to understand and appreciate the foundations of health without vaccination.

Books as Tools: Consider recommending 'Official Stories' by Liam Scheff to someone seeking understanding. Start with a “safe” chapter such as Electricity and Shakespeare and they might find their way to vaccination.

Your support, whether through subscriptions, sharing stories, or spreading knowledge, is what keeps this community thriving. Thank you for being an integral part of this journey.