Editor's Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published January 3, 2018.

Americans spend a whopping $13 billion a year on over-the-counter and prescription proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), which are the most popular anti-reflux medications on the market.¹ Because they inhibit acid production, prescription PPI drugs like Nexium, Prevacid and Prilosec are used to treat acid reflux, also known as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a condition affecting about 20% of the U.S. population.²

Once prescribed, your doctor may keep you on a PPI drug for years, despite label warnings suggesting they be used only for short periods. If you regularly suffer from heartburn or acid reflux, you'll want to take note of research suggesting dietary changes are as or more effective than drugs in addressing acid reflux.

In many cases, you can begin to restore your body's proper gastric balance and function simply by avoiding processed foods and sugar. By eating real food and infusing your gut microbiome with beneficial bacteria from traditionally fermented foods or a high-quality probiotic supplement you can rebalance your digestive system and eliminate the need for PPIs and other medications. In addition, there are several natural remedies available to help you address this condition.

What Is Reflux?

Reflux, or GERD, occurs when contents from your stomach back up into your esophagus, causing stomach acid to irritate the lining of your esophagus. Other common names for this condition include:

• Acid indigestion
• Acid regurgitation
• Heartburn

If you experience acid reflux symptoms more than twice a week, you very likely have reflux disease or GERD, which involves bloating, burning pain in your chest and gut discomfort.

GERD sufferers who experience pronounced reflux symptoms concentrated in the upper throat area, including the pharynx and voice box, may have a more serious condition called laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). LPR occurs when pepsin, a digestive enzyme from your stomach, damages the sensitive tissues in the back of your throat, resulting in symptoms such as:³

• A "lump" in your throat that doesn't go away
• Excessive throat clearing or throat mucus
• Hoarseness
• Persistent cough or sore throat
• Trouble breathing or swallowing

Research Shows Diet...

Ivermectin, a drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is widely used to treat parasitic diseases.¹ The total doses of ivermectin distributed equal one-third of the worlds population, and its "considered extremely safe for use in humans."² Ivermectin even has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, widening its potential scope of use.

But when Dr. Pierre Kory, who is part of the group that formed the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC), pleaded with the U.S. government early on in the pandemic to review the expansive data on ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, keep those with early symptoms from progressing and help critically ill patients recover he was met with backlash.^3,4

While health care professionals and their patients have been ridiculed, threatened and denied the ability to use ivermectin to treat COVID-19, a deadly drug fentanyl continues to circulate unabated. 

Patients Denied Safe, Effective Ivermectin

Reports and videos have circulated online of pharmacists denying patients ivermectin, even when they have a doctors prescription.⁵ One pharmacist told Fox News that if he suspects an ivermectin prescription is intended to treat COVID-19, he wont fill it. "Based on the quantity and based on the dosage, I know exactly what it's for I've denied all of them, yes, he said.⁶

Further, in a video posted on Twitter, you see the patient trying to pick up his prescription of ivermectin, which the pharmacist flat out refuses to fill ... noting it's not FDA approved for the virus, TMZ reported:⁷

The customer is adamant that it was prescribed to him by a licensed physician, and that the pharmacist is breaking the law by overriding his doctor's orders but the pharmacist tells him to kick rocks, and to complain to whoever he feels he needs to complain to.

In September 2021, the American Medical Association told doctors to stop prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19. In a statement, AMA, along with the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), warned:⁸

Glaucoma is the second leading cause of blindness in the world. Worldwide, an estimated 80 million people are affected, and prevalence is rising.¹ Glaucoma develops when high pressure in your eye (ocular hypertension²) damages the optic nerve. Peripheral vision is impacted first, followed by central vision.

Ocular hypertension occurs when the front of your eye fails to drain fluid properly, thereby causing pressure to build and put pressure on the optic nerve. Factors that raise your risk for ocular hypertension include:

The only known way to prevent and/or stop the progression of glaucoma is to lower the pressure in the eye. Treatment options include drugs, lasers, laceration surgery, oral medications, nutritional supplements, herbs and other plant remedies, several of which Ill review below.

Keep in mind that loss of vision is usually the first and only symptom of glaucoma, so its important to get a thorough eye exam by an ophthalmologist to determine if your ocular pressure is elevated, which could make you a candidate for glaucoma. Once vision loss occurs, the damage to your optic nerve is irreversible.

The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS)

Being diagnosed with ocular hypertension does not mean youre destined to develop glaucoma, but it does significantly raise your risk, as its the primary underlying cause. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS), which began in 1994, has also identified other risk factors that can help determine your risk for glaucoma. As reported by Harvard Health:³

The researchers enrolled a diverse group of 1,636 participants with ocular hypertension from 22 sites across the US. To study glaucoma prevention, participants were randomly assigned to start either early eye pressure-lowering eye drops (medication group) or close observation (control group).

At five years the data showed that 4.4% of participants developed glaucoma in the medication group, compared to 9.5% in the control group. This t...

In the days leading up to the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations approval of Pfizer-BioNTechs COVID-19 shot, an agreement was made to keep serious adverse reactions under wraps. U.S. and U.K. health officials discussed anaphylactoid reactions due to COVID shots and emphasized their mutual confidentiality agreement regarding the topic.¹

The news was revealed by Judicial Watch, which obtained 57 pages of heavily redacted U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) records² via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. Initially, Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request in August 2021 that specifically asked for:³

All emails sent to and from members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee regarding adverse events, deaths and/or injuries caused by investigatory vaccines for the prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and/or COVID-19 currently produced by Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and/or Johnson & Johnson.

The request was ignored, prompting the lawsuit that ultimately revealed the confidentiality agreement between U.S. and U.K. regulators. "Why are we engaged in a secret deal to keep secret information about adverse events related to the vaccines?" Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton asked. "I just think it's troubling. The documents speak for themselves."⁴

US and UK Officials Make Pact to Keep Safety Issues Quiet

The pact was revealed in a series of email exchanges from December 2020. Initiated by Jonathan Mogford, policy director of the U.K.s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, and sent to FDA commissioner Janet Woodcock and Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Judicial Watch reported:⁵

As background, Mogford includes information on two cases of anaphylactoid reactions in individuals with a strong past history of allergic reactions. Marks replies to Mogford: It would be very helpful if our Office of Vaccines could receive additional details [redacted] from MHRA [UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency] under the terms of our mutual confidentiality agreement.

Mogford later replies, attached are [redacted] hope thats helpful in the meantime. If I can just remind information shared under our confidentiality agreement.

An email exchange from May 14, 2021, also discusses concerns about administering COVID-19 shots along with other vaccines dur...

Editor's Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published July 31, 2018.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified cellphones as a Group 2B "possible carcinogen"¹ based on the evidence available in 2011. Since then, the evidence of harm has grown significantly. Science delivered a scathing blow to the cellphone industry this year, with three major studies supporting suspicions that cellphone radiation increases your risk of cancer^2,3 and other health problems.

Still, public doubt seems to linger. Two articles written by Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie one in The Nation,⁴ the other in The Guardian⁵ highlight how such doubts are manufactured by the telecommunications industry which, barring public outcry, does not appear to have any interest in making their products safer.

Clear Evidence Cellphone Radiation Promotes Cancer

In February 2018, the findings of two government-funded lifetime exposure studies⁶ (one on mice, the other on rats) were published. The animals in these studies were exposed to cellphone radiation for nine hours a day for two years, which is the normal, full life span of both mice and rats.

This $25 million research conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency research program currently under the auspices of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences reveals a number of health concerns, including the following:

• Exposed male rats were more likely to develop heart tumors (malignant schwannomas) than unexposed ones. These heart tumors are very similar to acoustic neuromas found in humans, a benign type of tumor that previous studies have linked to cellphone use
• Female rats and newborns exposed to high levels of radiation during pregnancy and lactation were more likely to have low body weight
• DNA damage and damage to heart tissue were observed in exposed male and female rats, but not mice
• Brain, prostate, liver and pancreatic tumors were found in both rats and mice exposed to cellphone radiation over a lifetime

Remarkably, the NTP chose to downplay the results, saying there's no real cause for concern. Not only does this nonchalant dismissal contradict the urgent warnings issued by NTP researchers just two years ago, when preliminary re...

Thanks to its experimental gene therapy injection for COVID-19, in 2022, Pfizer became the first drug company in history to break $100 billion in annual sales.¹ But its mere existence didnt ensure Pfizers success.

No, massive media promotion and government-backed coercion did that. Not only did the U.S. government pay news media a staggering $1 billion to promote and build public confidence in the experimental jab, but as reported by Russell Brand in the video above, Pfizer also poured billions of dollars into advertising.

In 2022, Pfizer spent $2.8 billion on ads, an increase of $800 million from 2021. On top of that, Pfizer also paid big bucks to consumer, medical and civil rights groups to lobby for COVID jab mandates. Journalist Lee Fang reviewed this in his interview with Brand (video above) and in an April 24, 2023, Substack article.² As Fang told Brand:

San Francisco ... in September of 2021, enacted a very kind of strong mandate with no exemption for prior immunity ... or ... natural immunity. Pfizer was not playing a visible role here. They didn't comment on any of the articles. They weren't really talking to the press.

You saw consumer groups, civil rights groups, patient groups, doctors groups, public health organizations, all saying these mandates are necessary, even though there wasn't a lot of scientific evidence to support the basis that we needed these mandates. [The shots] were sold to us with the claim that they would stop transmission of the virus.

You had this coalition of community groups saying we need the mandate. Well, I'm taking a look at new disclosures that show that many of those organizations, these third party organizations ... were taking funds from Pfizer while lobbying for these controversial policies ...

[The drug industry doesnt] have to disclose how much they're spending on television, how much they're spending on TikTok ads, how much they're giving to these front groups, or these doctors groups, or these public health groups that set the nature of the debate.

They appear in the news media, they create events, and they create a discourse that looks authentic, that looks organic, but it benefits the bottom line of their benefactors companies like Pfizer.

And the vaccine debate ... has shaped our lives in the last three years of the pandemic. But...