Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Dr. William Li just revealed a mind-blowing connection: The probiotic bacteria in sourdough bread — Lactobacillus reuteri — is the same one mothers naturally pass to babies through breastfeeding. How? During late pregnancy, this gut bacteria gets “called” from the colon, rides in blood cells like an Uber, reaches... show more

Camus

454,498 subscribers

257,115 views • 7 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Health & Wellness Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Dr. William Li just blew my mind with this one. Sourdough bread isn’t just better tasting, it’s loaded with lactobacillus reuteri. That same bacteria a mother naturally passes to her baby during breastfeeding. That same bacteria a mother naturally passes to her baby during breastfeeding. Here’s the wild part: it travels from her colon, hitches a ride in blood cells, and gets delivered straight through her milk. And in the lab, this one bacteria can slow breast cancer growth, protecting not just the baby, but potentially four generations down the line. Even if your diet isn’t perfect, feeding your gut this strain seems to flip on serious immune defenses. Nature is next-level.

Dr. William Li just blew my mind with this one. Sourdough bread isn’t just better tasting, it’s loaded with lactobacillus reuteri. That same bacteria a mother naturally passes to her baby during breastfeeding. That same bacteria a mother naturally passes to her baby during breastfeeding. Here’s the wild part: it travels from her colon, hitches a ride in blood cells, and gets delivered straight through her milk. And in the lab, this one bacteria can slow breast cancer growth, protecting not just the baby, but potentially four generations down the line. Even if your diet isn’t perfect, feeding your gut this strain seems to flip on serious immune defenses. Nature is next-level.

Camus

69,728 views • 2 months ago

Dr. William Li reveals the single probiotic that hacks your brain to release social hormones "I take a probiotic called lactobacillus reuteri. It lowers inflammation, builds immunity, and it's actually the bacteria that text messages the brain. It causes our brain to release social hormones like oxytocin, which makes us feel good." "The kind I take is chewable. It turns out that the same bacteria is good for the gut, but if you chew it up, this is the bacteria that kills the bacteria that causes cavities and gum disease." "I haven't had a cavity in well over a decade. This is one of these types of practical things that just knowing the science can change."

Dr. William Li reveals the single probiotic that hacks your brain to release social hormones "I take a probiotic called lactobacillus reuteri. It lowers inflammation, builds immunity, and it's actually the bacteria that text messages the brain. It causes our brain to release social hormones like oxytocin, which makes us feel good." "The kind I take is chewable. It turns out that the same bacteria is good for the gut, but if you chew it up, this is the bacteria that kills the bacteria that causes cavities and gum disease." "I haven't had a cavity in well over a decade. This is one of these types of practical things that just knowing the science can change."

Health Almanac

85,695 views • 1 month ago

The truth about breast-feeding and breast cancer Is it true that 1 in 20 breast cancers could be prevented by breast feeding? This was a statement lifted from the Lancet Breast Cancer Commission Report published yesterday - but it’s a global estimate that assumes EVERY woman in EVERY country has an average of 6 children and breastfeeds them for 1-2 years. The facts - breastfeeding one child for 12 months reduces your lifetime risk of breast cancer by 4% That’s a drop from 17% to 16.4% - so the actual impact is small. The Report wants to increase breast-feeding education and support globally as en masse this will reduce the numbers of breast cancer - but you don’t need to feel guilty if you didn’t breastfeed for that long or didn’t have children If you want to find out your own individual risk of breast cancer, check out the iPrevent tool - Thanks to Wanda (Wanyuan) Cui The Lancet Breast Cancer Now

The truth about breast-feeding and breast cancer Is it true that 1 in 20 breast cancers could be prevented by breast feeding? This was a statement lifted from the Lancet Breast Cancer Commission Report published yesterday - but it’s a global estimate that assumes EVERY woman in EVERY country has an average of 6 children and breastfeeds them for 1-2 years. The facts - breastfeeding one child for 12 months reduces your lifetime risk of breast cancer by 4% That’s a drop from 17% to 16.4% - so the actual impact is small. The Report wants to increase breast-feeding education and support globally as en masse this will reduce the numbers of breast cancer - but you don’t need to feel guilty if you didn’t breastfeed for that long or didn’t have children If you want to find out your own individual risk of breast cancer, check out the iPrevent tool - Thanks to Wanda (Wanyuan) Cui The Lancet Breast Cancer Now

Dr Liz O'Riordan

45,182 views • 2 years ago

It’s been more than 20 years since media headlines about the Women’s Health Initiative study incorrectly linked HRT to an increased risk of breast cancer, but even today many women still avoid HRT because of perceived breast cancer fears. This misinformation is really damaging to women’s health, so on my podcast this week I invited Dr Avrum Bluming to join me. Avrum is a leading US oncologist and has spent 25 years studying the benefits and risks of HRT in breast cancer survivors. As you’ll hear in the episode, Avrum tells me about more recent studies that have shown that oestrogen alone decreases the risk of breast cancer development by 23% and the risk of death from breast cancer by 40%. Yet many people still do not realise this. It is so important that everyone knows the real story about the WHI study and the misreporting of the data so I really would recommend listening to the full episode:

It’s been more than 20 years since media headlines about the Women’s Health Initiative study incorrectly linked HRT to an increased risk of breast cancer, but even today many women still avoid HRT because of perceived breast cancer fears. This misinformation is really damaging to women’s health, so on my podcast this week I invited Dr Avrum Bluming to join me. Avrum is a leading US oncologist and has spent 25 years studying the benefits and risks of HRT in breast cancer survivors. As you’ll hear in the episode, Avrum tells me about more recent studies that have shown that oestrogen alone decreases the risk of breast cancer development by 23% and the risk of death from breast cancer by 40%. Yet many people still do not realise this. It is so important that everyone knows the real story about the WHI study and the misreporting of the data so I really would recommend listening to the full episode:

Dr Louise Newson

40,551 views • 2 years ago

This needs immediate attention American Surgeon Dr Elizabeth Potter blowing the whistle on a new bill Congress just put out The new bill takes away insurance companies liability to have to pay for breast cancer reconstructive surgery on all high risk prevention patients “There is a bill that has been introduced in Congress that, on the outside, looks like it might be a really good thing for the patients that I care for, for patients affected by breast cancer. But on the inside, there's some real problems with it, and I need your help in raising awareness about that. So when I see a patient who has breast cancer or a risk of breast cancer, there's one thing that I always say to them, and it's so important. It's that the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998 guarantees that if their insurance company covers their mastectomy, they have to cover their reconstruction. So as you can imagine, when women hear that, they're so relieved, right? They're like, "Okay, I have to lose my breast, but I'm gonna be able to have reconstruction." That all changes “The number one thing is that previously in the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act, coverage for all breast reconstruction really hinged on one thing, and that was if your insurance covers your mastectomy, they have to cover your reconstruction. When I read this new bill, I looked for that, and what I saw was that they had changed that fundamental thing. They changed that to say now reconstruction hinges on a diagnosis of breast cancer. That may sound similar, but that means that all of our patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2, all of our patients with other high risk for breast cancer, they would not have coverage for breast reconstruction under this new act, and there's no other thing that's providing coverage. So this new amendment would remove coverage for breast reconstruction for all of those patients” The bill limits coverage to those with a formal breast cancer diagnosis (excluding high-risk preventive cases like BRCA1/2 mutations) and tying reimbursements to outdated CPT codes instead of modern ones (like S codes for muscle-sparing reconstructions).

This needs immediate attention American Surgeon Dr Elizabeth Potter blowing the whistle on a new bill Congress just put out The new bill takes away insurance companies liability to have to pay for breast cancer reconstructive surgery on all high risk prevention patients “There is a bill that has been introduced in Congress that, on the outside, looks like it might be a really good thing for the patients that I care for, for patients affected by breast cancer. But on the inside, there's some real problems with it, and I need your help in raising awareness about that. So when I see a patient who has breast cancer or a risk of breast cancer, there's one thing that I always say to them, and it's so important. It's that the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998 guarantees that if their insurance company covers their mastectomy, they have to cover their reconstruction. So as you can imagine, when women hear that, they're so relieved, right? They're like, "Okay, I have to lose my breast, but I'm gonna be able to have reconstruction." That all changes “The number one thing is that previously in the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act, coverage for all breast reconstruction really hinged on one thing, and that was if your insurance covers your mastectomy, they have to cover your reconstruction. When I read this new bill, I looked for that, and what I saw was that they had changed that fundamental thing. They changed that to say now reconstruction hinges on a diagnosis of breast cancer. That may sound similar, but that means that all of our patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2, all of our patients with other high risk for breast cancer, they would not have coverage for breast reconstruction under this new act, and there's no other thing that's providing coverage. So this new amendment would remove coverage for breast reconstruction for all of those patients” The bill limits coverage to those with a formal breast cancer diagnosis (excluding high-risk preventive cases like BRCA1/2 mutations) and tying reimbursements to outdated CPT codes instead of modern ones (like S codes for muscle-sparing reconstructions).

Wall Street Apes

77,473 views • 8 months ago

Prof. Tim Spector made sourdough sound almost too straightforward on the ZOE podcast. You keep a bit of starter in the fridge like your grandmother probably did, feed it some flour and water, let the microbes do all the heavy lifting overnight, and the next day you’ve got fresh bread. Five minutes of actual work. No fancy equipment, no complicated chemistry — just the same living process people used for centuries before 1963 turned bread into something wrapped in plastic. What really hit me was the health angle: an Italian study found that some people with celiac disease who couldn’t tolerate normal bread could actually eat the sourdough version because the fermentation changes how the gluten is presented. Still gluten, but gentler on the body. It’s wild how something so ancient feels revolutionary now. In a world of ultra-processed everything, this is one small, doable way to take back a bit of real food — and it might even help people who thought bread was off-limits forever. I’ve been thinking about how many “complicated” healthy habits are actually this simple once you strip away the marketing. Makes me want to dust off a starter jar this weekend. Anyone else tried keeping a sourdough starter going, or is it still on your “one day” list?

Prof. Tim Spector made sourdough sound almost too straightforward on the ZOE podcast. You keep a bit of starter in the fridge like your grandmother probably did, feed it some flour and water, let the microbes do all the heavy lifting overnight, and the next day you’ve got fresh bread. Five minutes of actual work. No fancy equipment, no complicated chemistry — just the same living process people used for centuries before 1963 turned bread into something wrapped in plastic. What really hit me was the health angle: an Italian study found that some people with celiac disease who couldn’t tolerate normal bread could actually eat the sourdough version because the fermentation changes how the gluten is presented. Still gluten, but gentler on the body. It’s wild how something so ancient feels revolutionary now. In a world of ultra-processed everything, this is one small, doable way to take back a bit of real food — and it might even help people who thought bread was off-limits forever. I’ve been thinking about how many “complicated” healthy habits are actually this simple once you strip away the marketing. Makes me want to dust off a starter jar this weekend. Anyone else tried keeping a sourdough starter going, or is it still on your “one day” list?

Camus

24,509 views • 2 months ago

Dr. Byram Bridle, a virologist, has sounded a critical alarm about the systemic biodistribution of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and their alarming presence in breast milk. Years ago, Bridle warned that lipid nanoparticles in these shots could spread to organs like the bladder, intestines, and skin, raising concerns about vaccine shedding through urine, feces, sweat, and skin oils. Now, peer-reviewed science confirms his fears: fragments of synthetic mRNA from the vaccines are definitively present in the breast milk of vaccinated mothers. Bridle explains the mechanism: after injection, the vaccine migrates from the shoulder—contrary to claims it remains localized—through the lymphatic system and blood vessels to breast tissue. There, lipid nanoparticles fuse with mammary gland cells, which produce spike protein and release exosomes—tiny fat bubbles containing synthetic mRNA fragments—into breast milk. This means breastfeeding infants, including those under six months for whom the vaccines are not approved, are unknowingly ingesting these components orally, a route never authorized. Even more disturbing, Health Canada’s own vaccine monographs for Pfizer and Moderna shots admit there are no safety data for pregnant or breastfeeding women and no assurance that vaccine components won’t reach breast milk or harm infants. Despite this, the shots continue to be pushed on breastfeeding mothers without full disclosure, undermining informed consent. Bridle’s revelations demand urgent action. Why are infants being exposed to unapproved vaccine components? Why are breastfeeding women not informed of the risks?

Dr. Byram Bridle, a virologist, has sounded a critical alarm about the systemic biodistribution of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and their alarming presence in breast milk. Years ago, Bridle warned that lipid nanoparticles in these shots could spread to organs like the bladder, intestines, and skin, raising concerns about vaccine shedding through urine, feces, sweat, and skin oils. Now, peer-reviewed science confirms his fears: fragments of synthetic mRNA from the vaccines are definitively present in the breast milk of vaccinated mothers. Bridle explains the mechanism: after injection, the vaccine migrates from the shoulder—contrary to claims it remains localized—through the lymphatic system and blood vessels to breast tissue. There, lipid nanoparticles fuse with mammary gland cells, which produce spike protein and release exosomes—tiny fat bubbles containing synthetic mRNA fragments—into breast milk. This means breastfeeding infants, including those under six months for whom the vaccines are not approved, are unknowingly ingesting these components orally, a route never authorized. Even more disturbing, Health Canada’s own vaccine monographs for Pfizer and Moderna shots admit there are no safety data for pregnant or breastfeeding women and no assurance that vaccine components won’t reach breast milk or harm infants. Despite this, the shots continue to be pushed on breastfeeding mothers without full disclosure, undermining informed consent. Bridle’s revelations demand urgent action. Why are infants being exposed to unapproved vaccine components? Why are breastfeeding women not informed of the risks?

Camus

45,284 views • 1 year ago

They studied 81 identical twins. Same DNA. Same childhood. Same parents. Only ONE twin got Multiple Sclerosis. Then they found the difference hiding in their poop. Two completely normal gut bacteria — Eisenbergiella tayi & Lachnoclostridium — were SKY-HIGH in every single twin with MS… and almost absent in their healthy twin. Scientists then took those exact bacteria from the sick twins and transplanted them into mice. Result: • 60–70% of mice developed brain & spinal cord inflammation + paralysis • <10% of control mice got sick • In many cases, the bacteria exploded in numbers DAYS before the first symptoms • Female mice were hit hardest (just like real MS) This is the strongest evidence ever that MS — for a huge number of patients — may actually start in the gut. A second international study with 1,000+ people just confirmed the same two bacteria. Full 1:40 mind-blowing breakdown in the video 👇

They studied 81 identical twins. Same DNA. Same childhood. Same parents. Only ONE twin got Multiple Sclerosis. Then they found the difference hiding in their poop. Two completely normal gut bacteria — Eisenbergiella tayi & Lachnoclostridium — were SKY-HIGH in every single twin with MS… and almost absent in their healthy twin. Scientists then took those exact bacteria from the sick twins and transplanted them into mice. Result: • 60–70% of mice developed brain & spinal cord inflammation + paralysis • <10% of control mice got sick • In many cases, the bacteria exploded in numbers DAYS before the first symptoms • Female mice were hit hardest (just like real MS) This is the strongest evidence ever that MS — for a huge number of patients — may actually start in the gut. A second international study with 1,000+ people just confirmed the same two bacteria. Full 1:40 mind-blowing breakdown in the video 👇

Camus

129,083 views • 8 months ago

I have so much fun making sourdough I just decided I’m going to sell it at my local farmer’s market with my kids. I just bought two domains for it WaterSaltFlour . com SaltFlourWater .com Unit economics? I’m going to sell them in the standard bread size (loaf on the right in the 2nd pic) and pre sliced. I’m trying to compete with everyday sliced and bagged sandwich bread, not fancy $11 sourdough bread that you only buy occasionally and need a chainsaw to cut into. 3 ingredients. 0 microplastics. $4 per loaf. Salt, flour and water. Locally made sourdough from locally made sourdough starter. COGS is $.95 Labor is only about 20% if I paid someone $20/hour to make these. 30 loaves per hour. Overhead is negligible. Thanks to Texas cottage law I can legally make these at home. Yes I could charge more, but I don’t need to. I want people to buy 2-5 bags at a time, regularly. You can store in the freezer to keep fresh. Every bite tastes like sourdough straight from the oven. I can make 28 loaves in my home oven at a time. 4 rows of 7 across two ovens. I’ll of course document all this. This is even funnier than scaling a big business.

I have so much fun making sourdough I just decided I’m going to sell it at my local farmer’s market with my kids. I just bought two domains for it WaterSaltFlour . com SaltFlourWater .com Unit economics? I’m going to sell them in the standard bread size (loaf on the right in the 2nd pic) and pre sliced. I’m trying to compete with everyday sliced and bagged sandwich bread, not fancy $11 sourdough bread that you only buy occasionally and need a chainsaw to cut into. 3 ingredients. 0 microplastics. $4 per loaf. Salt, flour and water. Locally made sourdough from locally made sourdough starter. COGS is $.95 Labor is only about 20% if I paid someone $20/hour to make these. 30 loaves per hour. Overhead is negligible. Thanks to Texas cottage law I can legally make these at home. Yes I could charge more, but I don’t need to. I want people to buy 2-5 bags at a time, regularly. You can store in the freezer to keep fresh. Every bite tastes like sourdough straight from the oven. I can make 28 loaves in my home oven at a time. 4 rows of 7 across two ovens. I’ll of course document all this. This is even funnier than scaling a big business.

Chris Koerner

137,763 views • 1 year ago

🚨 A HARVARD TRAINED MD JUST EXPLAINED WHY IVERMECTIN IS BEING STUDIED IN CANCER RESEARCH AGAIN And the internet is paying VERY close attention. Dr. Shintani says researchers have explored how Ivermectin may interact with cancer cells in laboratory and preclinical studies involving: • Breast cancer • Prostate cancer • Colon cancer • Lung cancer • Leukemia • Liver cancer • Stomach cancer Why scientists are interested: ✅ Studies suggest Ivermectin may trigger apoptosis, also known as programmed cancer cell death ✅ Researchers are investigating how it may affect tumor growth pathways and cancer stem-like cells ✅ Some preclinical studies are exploring Ivermectin alongside chemotherapy in laboratory models And THAT is why repurposed medicine conversations have exploded across podcasts, TikTok, X, and cancer forums worldwide. Not because the science is settled. Because people are shocked that a low-cost anti-parasitic drug is even being discussed in cancer research at all. But whether critics like it or not… The public conversation around repurposed drugs is getting impossible to ignore.

🚨 A HARVARD TRAINED MD JUST EXPLAINED WHY IVERMECTIN IS BEING STUDIED IN CANCER RESEARCH AGAIN And the internet is paying VERY close attention. Dr. Shintani says researchers have explored how Ivermectin may interact with cancer cells in laboratory and preclinical studies involving: • Breast cancer • Prostate cancer • Colon cancer • Lung cancer • Leukemia • Liver cancer • Stomach cancer Why scientists are interested: ✅ Studies suggest Ivermectin may trigger apoptosis, also known as programmed cancer cell death ✅ Researchers are investigating how it may affect tumor growth pathways and cancer stem-like cells ✅ Some preclinical studies are exploring Ivermectin alongside chemotherapy in laboratory models And THAT is why repurposed medicine conversations have exploded across podcasts, TikTok, X, and cancer forums worldwide. Not because the science is settled. Because people are shocked that a low-cost anti-parasitic drug is even being discussed in cancer research at all. But whether critics like it or not… The public conversation around repurposed drugs is getting impossible to ignore.

Joe Tippens

10,621 views • 2 months ago

It’s CRAZY that we think soy powder is able to replace this 🍼 A mother’s milk is literally designed to nourish her child. It’s the most important thing a baby could eat: - Strengthens the baby’s gut & immune system - Lowers the stress levels of the baby & makes him feel more at ease - Strengthens the bond between mother & child It even CHANGES depending on what the baby needs! It starts out colostrum-rich and bolsters the gut lining of the baby. If the baby falls ill, it produces antibodies for it to fight the disease. It’s even different on a daily basis. Breast milk at night helps the baby sleep. Soy formula could never ‼️ Now you can understand why breast milk was deemed so important that we used to hire “wet nurses”, when mothers couldn’t feed their babies These days? We claim formula to be a good substitute. But is it really? 9.9/10 formulas in the supermarket are just poor. Even the most expensive ones are usually filled with soybean, canola oil and sometimes even weird gums & emulsifiers. It’s disgusting how they all have so many stickers on them that claim that they’re so healthy. Honestly, out of every aisle in the supermarket? The infant nutrition one is the worst. And there are plenty of poor aisles. Commercial formula is definitely not something a baby should be consuming, especially in the first 4-6 months where it doesn’t consume anything solid. But of course, not every mother is able to breastfeed, for a variety of reasons. The best alternative is to get a donor, but if you can’t the next is to procure full fat goat’s or cow’s milk. That’s what we’ve done for thousands of years. You CAN feed your child animal’s milk. Obviously Big Food doesn’t want you too, they want you to buy their soy mush lol. You can always use animal’s milk as a good base to make your own formula too. You can dilute it with spring water, add cream, gelatin & even coconut oil to improve consistency. Then, as the baby grows (roughly around the 6 month mark), you can slowly introduce the tiniest portions of foods like liver pâté, egg yolks, fruit & puréed meats. Babies are just tiny human beings at the end of the day. They need their programmed breast milk for a bit, then you can just give them what you eat (at a much smaller dose) Note: The quality of breast milk is entirely dependent on the nutrition of the mother. It needs to be on point, or else you risk poor quality breast milk & the deterioration of the mother’s health. Some countries ban vegan moms from donating breast milk because it’s usually deficient in B vitamins. 📹: [design_cells]

It’s CRAZY that we think soy powder is able to replace this 🍼 A mother’s milk is literally designed to nourish her child. It’s the most important thing a baby could eat: - Strengthens the baby’s gut & immune system - Lowers the stress levels of the baby & makes him feel more at ease - Strengthens the bond between mother & child It even CHANGES depending on what the baby needs! It starts out colostrum-rich and bolsters the gut lining of the baby. If the baby falls ill, it produces antibodies for it to fight the disease. It’s even different on a daily basis. Breast milk at night helps the baby sleep. Soy formula could never ‼️ Now you can understand why breast milk was deemed so important that we used to hire “wet nurses”, when mothers couldn’t feed their babies These days? We claim formula to be a good substitute. But is it really? 9.9/10 formulas in the supermarket are just poor. Even the most expensive ones are usually filled with soybean, canola oil and sometimes even weird gums & emulsifiers. It’s disgusting how they all have so many stickers on them that claim that they’re so healthy. Honestly, out of every aisle in the supermarket? The infant nutrition one is the worst. And there are plenty of poor aisles. Commercial formula is definitely not something a baby should be consuming, especially in the first 4-6 months where it doesn’t consume anything solid. But of course, not every mother is able to breastfeed, for a variety of reasons. The best alternative is to get a donor, but if you can’t the next is to procure full fat goat’s or cow’s milk. That’s what we’ve done for thousands of years. You CAN feed your child animal’s milk. Obviously Big Food doesn’t want you too, they want you to buy their soy mush lol. You can always use animal’s milk as a good base to make your own formula too. You can dilute it with spring water, add cream, gelatin & even coconut oil to improve consistency. Then, as the baby grows (roughly around the 6 month mark), you can slowly introduce the tiniest portions of foods like liver pâté, egg yolks, fruit & puréed meats. Babies are just tiny human beings at the end of the day. They need their programmed breast milk for a bit, then you can just give them what you eat (at a much smaller dose) Note: The quality of breast milk is entirely dependent on the nutrition of the mother. It needs to be on point, or else you risk poor quality breast milk & the deterioration of the mother’s health. Some countries ban vegan moms from donating breast milk because it’s usually deficient in B vitamins. 📹: [design_cells]

𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗞𝗬

592,621 views • 2 years ago

Why is raw milk illegal in 21 states? In 1911, Charles Porter’s Milk Diet documented raw milk as a remedy for chronic diseases—diabetes, cancer, hypertension—with testimonials of lifelong health. In 1929, Dr. J.E. Crewe of the Mayo Clinic called it “white blood,” curing heart disease, tuberculosis, and more. One patient lost 41 lbs and dropped their blood pressure from 220 to 170 in two weeks—on a gallon of raw milk a day. Yet today, the CDC warns raw milk is dangerous, citing 228 hospitalizations (zero deaths) over 20 years. For context: 5 million died from medical errors in the same period. Why is a food prized for millennia now banned? Why don’t we pasteurize breast milk? History shows milk as a delicacy. So what changed? Question everything. Even the narrative.

Why is raw milk illegal in 21 states? In 1911, Charles Porter’s Milk Diet documented raw milk as a remedy for chronic diseases—diabetes, cancer, hypertension—with testimonials of lifelong health. In 1929, Dr. J.E. Crewe of the Mayo Clinic called it “white blood,” curing heart disease, tuberculosis, and more. One patient lost 41 lbs and dropped their blood pressure from 220 to 170 in two weeks—on a gallon of raw milk a day. Yet today, the CDC warns raw milk is dangerous, citing 228 hospitalizations (zero deaths) over 20 years. For context: 5 million died from medical errors in the same period. Why is a food prized for millennia now banned? Why don’t we pasteurize breast milk? History shows milk as a delicacy. So what changed? Question everything. Even the narrative.

Camus

53,311 views • 9 months ago

DEEP DIVE: THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF COVID INJECTION 'SHEDDING' AND THE GRAVITY OF AN UNSTUDIED PHENOMENON (TWEET 1 / 29) CONCRETE EVIDENCE: SHEDDING IN BREAST MILK Described as a possibility in Pfizer's clinical trial protocol Recorded in Pfizer's post-authorization data Established in the peer-reviewed literature Anecdotal accounts Accounts in VAERS Although it appears that nobody willing to speak or research publicly knows entirely what's being "shed" by those who've been jabbed with the COVID bioweapon injections(1), nor how long they shed for, the most complete and studied body of evidence so far concerns transmission via breast milk. In this first video clip, biological pharmacist(2) and former research fellow at INSERM (the French Institute for Health and Medical Research) Hélène Banoun(3) (Hélène Banoun) describes for the Corona Investigative Committee(4)(5) the most pertinent evidence available, as of February 2023, on the issue of COVID-injection shedding via breast milk. Banoun, who published a hypothesis paper in the journal of Infectious Disease Research in November 2022(6) establishing numerous ways the COVID-injection material could shed based on existing research, tells the committee about one specific research letter in JAMA Pediatrics(7) that shows, unequivocally, mRNA from the COVID injections showing up in jabbed mothers' breast milk, as well as other peer-reviewed studies showing that extracellular vesicles (EVs)(8), such as exosomes(9), after which the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used in the COVID injections are modeled, appear in mothers' breast milk. Banoun notes that both LNPs and EVs "fuse with cell membranes and release their contents into the cell" and that EVs are protected from gastric juices, implying LNPs would be too. Meaning they would not be disintegrated by breastfeeding babies' digestive systems. 1. Hear about the overwhelming evidence supporting this fact from pharma insider Sasha Latypova: 2. In France and in other countries like Portugal, Spain, Belgium or Switzerland, a biological pharmacist is a pharmacist specialized in clinical biology, which is similar to clinical pathology. Source: 3. Banoun's ResearchGate profile: 4. Link to full interview: 5. Link to the organization's website: 6. Study: 7. Study: 8. "Extracellular vesicle are known to facilitate intercellular communication in diverse cellular processes such as immune responses and coagulation." Source: 9. "Exosomes are membrane-bound extracellular vesicles (EVs) that are produced in the endosomal compartment of most eukaryotic cells." Source:

Sense Receptor

177,225 views • 3 years ago

#WATCH | Dr Ashok Sharma, Additional Professor, AIIMS Delhi says, "This study is conducted at Mahavir Cancer Sansthan, Patna and AIIMS New Delhi jointly. The outcome of this study showed that, when we analysed breast milk from 40 lactating mothers, we found Uranium-238 in all samples. Although 70% of infants show potential non-carcinogenic health risks, the overall uranium levels were below the permissible limits, i.e. 30 micrograms per litre as per the WHO, and are expected to have minimal actual health impact on both mothers and infants. The highest average contamination occurred in Khagaria district, which is 5.25 micrograms per litre and lowest contamination in the Nalanda district, 2.35 microgram per litre. While uranium exposure may pose risks such as impaired neurological development and reduced IQ, breastfeeding should not be discontinued...Yes, we are in the process of examining heavy metals in other states and their impact on human health, which is a global need. Our study showed that 70 % of the infants had an IQ of less than 1, indicating a possible non-carcinogenic health risk from uranium exposure through breast milk. Uranium exposure in infants may affect kidney development, neurological development, cognitive and mental health outcomes, including low IQ and neurodevelopmental delay if long-term exposure continues. However, based on our observations, the uranium concentration in the breast milk sample is 5.25 micrograms per litre, which is well below the WHO permissible limit. The study still concludes that the actual impact of the infant's health is likely low, and most uranium absorbed by the mother is excreted primarily through urine, not concentrated in the breast milk. Therefore, breastfeeding remains recommended unless a clinical indication suggests otherwise..." (Source: Self-made)

#WATCH | Dr Ashok Sharma, Additional Professor, AIIMS Delhi says, "This study is conducted at Mahavir Cancer Sansthan, Patna and AIIMS New Delhi jointly. The outcome of this study showed that, when we analysed breast milk from 40 lactating mothers, we found Uranium-238 in all samples. Although 70% of infants show potential non-carcinogenic health risks, the overall uranium levels were below the permissible limits, i.e. 30 micrograms per litre as per the WHO, and are expected to have minimal actual health impact on both mothers and infants. The highest average contamination occurred in Khagaria district, which is 5.25 micrograms per litre and lowest contamination in the Nalanda district, 2.35 microgram per litre. While uranium exposure may pose risks such as impaired neurological development and reduced IQ, breastfeeding should not be discontinued...Yes, we are in the process of examining heavy metals in other states and their impact on human health, which is a global need. Our study showed that 70 % of the infants had an IQ of less than 1, indicating a possible non-carcinogenic health risk from uranium exposure through breast milk. Uranium exposure in infants may affect kidney development, neurological development, cognitive and mental health outcomes, including low IQ and neurodevelopmental delay if long-term exposure continues. However, based on our observations, the uranium concentration in the breast milk sample is 5.25 micrograms per litre, which is well below the WHO permissible limit. The study still concludes that the actual impact of the infant's health is likely low, and most uranium absorbed by the mother is excreted primarily through urine, not concentrated in the breast milk. Therefore, breastfeeding remains recommended unless a clinical indication suggests otherwise..." (Source: Self-made)

ANI

66,952 views • 8 months ago

A brand-new pilot study took healthy women with zero history of breast cancer, removed ONE single thing from their daily routine for only 28 days… and watched breast-cancer-related gene expression PLUMMET in their normal breast tissue. The one thing they removed? Products containing hidden “fragrance/parfum” (the legal loophole that lets companies hide phthalates, endocrine disruptors & carcinogens without listing them — yes, even in the EU). We’re talking deodorant, shampoo, conditioner, body lotion, skincare — the stuff 99 % of us use every single day. Before: normal breast cells biopsied After 28 days of clean swaps only: same women, same diet, same everything else → significantly lower oncogenic gene activity. Oncologist Dr. Ynoone just explained the entire study in 59 seconds flat. Watch this ↓ This is a pilot (small sample), but the drop was so clear that researchers are now pushing for massive follow-up trials. Your bathroom cabinet could literally be flipping genetic switches you didn’t know existed. Would you ditch “fragrance” for 28 days if it might turn cancer-related genes back OFF?

Camus

493,820 views • 8 months ago

Oncologist Dr. William Makis: "A...woman who had 6 mRNA vaccines...her breast cancer...[came] back...they stain it for spike protein from the [Covid] vaccine and...found [it] all over...the breast cancer metastasis...there was [jab] spike protein all over her tumor recurrence." "[And] another paper that is being attacked and being pushed for retraction is a paper that sequenced the vaccine-injured individuals, they took their blood, they sequenced their blood, and they found thousands of genetic alterations that were caused by the mRNA vaccines, [so] really... it just does all kinds of genetic damage that they've been able to now identify by sequencing the blood of a number of people who have had the vaccines." This clip of Dr. Makis (William Makis), a radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher, is taken from an interview with Seth Holehouse () posted to Rumble on November 21, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "Just in the past two months, there's been five or six studies that have come out looking at the integration of the genetic injections, the genetic 'vaccines' into the genome and causing cancer. There's the Italian study of 300,000 people, the South Korean study of 8.4 million people. "There's now been a case of an 85-year-old Japanese woman who had six mRNA vaccines. After her first three vaccines, which were Pfizer, she developed a breast lump. She was diagnosed with breast cancer, she had, two more vaccines, she had a mastectomy, she was considered cancer free. "Then she had her sixth vaccine, I believe it was a Pfizer vaccine. And then suddenly, within a few weeks, she has a new lump on her chest wall because she doesn't have her breasts anymore. New lump on the chest wall. They biopsy it, they find out her breast cancer has come back, but this time they stain it for the spike protein from the vaccine and they found the spike protein all over the metastasis, the breast cancer metastasis. And they test for nucleocapsid from the virus, no nucleocapsid, so it couldn't have been, that she got a COVID infection and that lingering infection, the virus somehow integrated and caused her cancer. "So this came out one month ago, proof that there was spike protein from the vaccine all over, her tumor recurrence. This was really the sixth Pfizer shot, caused her cancer to come back and the spike protein was in there, which means that there had been integration, into what became her cancer cells, her recurrent cancer cells. "We have another case that's been published in the past month, literally within days of this Japanese case. It was a 31-year-old woman who had three Moderna vaccines and developed an aggressive bladder tumor. The bladder tumor was genetically sequenced and the researchers found that it contained an exact match, a genetic sequence that was an exact match for the Pfizer vaccine. "Now it's interesting, she had the Moderna vaccines, they found a match for the Pfizer vaccine, but there are sequences that are the same in both vaccines. And they also did further genetic testing and they found that she had all kinds of genetic, instabilities and damage that had arisen after she had taken these three mRNA vaccines. "Again, published just a month ago, another paper that is being attacked and being pushed for retraction is a paper that sequenced the vaccine-injured individuals, they took their blood, they sequenced their blood and they found thousands of genetic alterations that were caused by the mRNA vaccines, really like that it just does all kinds of genetic damage that they've been able to now identify by sequencing the blood of, a number of people who have had the vaccines. [But] that paper is being pushed for retraction, and so, there's a heavy push to really not make any link between the vaccines and cancer."

Oncologist Dr. William Makis: "A...woman who had 6 mRNA vaccines...her breast cancer...[came] back...they stain it for spike protein from the [Covid] vaccine and...found [it] all over...the breast cancer metastasis...there was [jab] spike protein all over her tumor recurrence." "[And] another paper that is being attacked and being pushed for retraction is a paper that sequenced the vaccine-injured individuals, they took their blood, they sequenced their blood, and they found thousands of genetic alterations that were caused by the mRNA vaccines, [so] really... it just does all kinds of genetic damage that they've been able to now identify by sequencing the blood of a number of people who have had the vaccines." This clip of Dr. Makis (William Makis), a radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher, is taken from an interview with Seth Holehouse () posted to Rumble on November 21, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "Just in the past two months, there's been five or six studies that have come out looking at the integration of the genetic injections, the genetic 'vaccines' into the genome and causing cancer. There's the Italian study of 300,000 people, the South Korean study of 8.4 million people. "There's now been a case of an 85-year-old Japanese woman who had six mRNA vaccines. After her first three vaccines, which were Pfizer, she developed a breast lump. She was diagnosed with breast cancer, she had, two more vaccines, she had a mastectomy, she was considered cancer free. "Then she had her sixth vaccine, I believe it was a Pfizer vaccine. And then suddenly, within a few weeks, she has a new lump on her chest wall because she doesn't have her breasts anymore. New lump on the chest wall. They biopsy it, they find out her breast cancer has come back, but this time they stain it for the spike protein from the vaccine and they found the spike protein all over the metastasis, the breast cancer metastasis. And they test for nucleocapsid from the virus, no nucleocapsid, so it couldn't have been, that she got a COVID infection and that lingering infection, the virus somehow integrated and caused her cancer. "So this came out one month ago, proof that there was spike protein from the vaccine all over, her tumor recurrence. This was really the sixth Pfizer shot, caused her cancer to come back and the spike protein was in there, which means that there had been integration, into what became her cancer cells, her recurrent cancer cells. "We have another case that's been published in the past month, literally within days of this Japanese case. It was a 31-year-old woman who had three Moderna vaccines and developed an aggressive bladder tumor. The bladder tumor was genetically sequenced and the researchers found that it contained an exact match, a genetic sequence that was an exact match for the Pfizer vaccine. "Now it's interesting, she had the Moderna vaccines, they found a match for the Pfizer vaccine, but there are sequences that are the same in both vaccines. And they also did further genetic testing and they found that she had all kinds of genetic, instabilities and damage that had arisen after she had taken these three mRNA vaccines. "Again, published just a month ago, another paper that is being attacked and being pushed for retraction is a paper that sequenced the vaccine-injured individuals, they took their blood, they sequenced their blood and they found thousands of genetic alterations that were caused by the mRNA vaccines, really like that it just does all kinds of genetic damage that they've been able to now identify by sequencing the blood of, a number of people who have had the vaccines. [But] that paper is being pushed for retraction, and so, there's a heavy push to really not make any link between the vaccines and cancer."

Sense Receptor

35,372 views • 8 months ago

Aspirin — the cheap pill sitting in your medicine cabinet — could become a powerful new tool against cancer. A March 2025 study published in Nature found that aspirin helps “unleash” T-cells in the immune system, making them more effective at hunting down and attacking cancer cells, including metastatic ones. Dr. Elisa Port, Chief of Breast Surgery at Mount Sinai, explained on CBS News that this ties into the same mechanism that makes aspirin effective at preventing blood clots and heart disease. The research builds on earlier work showing aspirin’s anti-inflammatory effects can enhance immunotherapy responses by reducing platelet-driven immune suppression. It’s still early stages (mostly animal data so far), and doctors aren’t recommending it for cancer prevention yet — but the potential is intriguing. It’s honestly wild that something so common and inexpensive might play a real role in fighting cancer. Shows how much we still have to discover about everyday medicines. If this holds up in larger human trials, it could offer a low-cost way to support cancer treatment for millions. Would you be excited or cautious if a common drug like aspirin turned out to have real anti-cancer effects?

Aspirin — the cheap pill sitting in your medicine cabinet — could become a powerful new tool against cancer. A March 2025 study published in Nature found that aspirin helps “unleash” T-cells in the immune system, making them more effective at hunting down and attacking cancer cells, including metastatic ones. Dr. Elisa Port, Chief of Breast Surgery at Mount Sinai, explained on CBS News that this ties into the same mechanism that makes aspirin effective at preventing blood clots and heart disease. The research builds on earlier work showing aspirin’s anti-inflammatory effects can enhance immunotherapy responses by reducing platelet-driven immune suppression. It’s still early stages (mostly animal data so far), and doctors aren’t recommending it for cancer prevention yet — but the potential is intriguing. It’s honestly wild that something so common and inexpensive might play a real role in fighting cancer. Shows how much we still have to discover about everyday medicines. If this holds up in larger human trials, it could offer a low-cost way to support cancer treatment for millions. Would you be excited or cautious if a common drug like aspirin turned out to have real anti-cancer effects?

Camus

29,233 views • 3 months ago

Naomi Wolf: The Hidden Catastrophe – Vaccines, Pregnancy, and the Baby Die-Off The most horrific headlines reveal a chilling truth: the claims that COVID-19 vaccines were “safe and effective” for pregnant women were built on a house of cards. New findings from volunteer researchers—digging into Pfizer’s own documents—expose a nightmare scenario for mothers and babies. The “Study” That Wasn’t The CDC and The New York Times assured the public that vaccines were safe for pregnant women. But there were no human studies to back this up. The only “evidence”? A 42-day study on 44 French rats. Not even enough time for the rats to give birth and assess the health of their offspring. Instead, fetuses were autopsied, declared “fine,” and the results were extrapolated to human women. The conflict of interest? The study’s authors were Pfizer and BioNTech shareholders or employees—the very companies profiting from the vaccines. Missing Data, Missing Babies Pregnant women were excluded from vaccine trials, yet 270 women became pregnant during follow-ups. Records for 230 of them vanished. Of the remaining 36, 28 lost their babies. Twenty of those losses were neonatal deaths. This isn’t a coincidence—it’s a cover-up. A Global Baby Die-Off Investigative journalist Etana Hecht compiled reports from Scotland, Canada, and Israel, revealing a shocking pattern: - In Ontario, Canada, neonatal deaths spiked from a baseline of 5-6 to 86 in a single three-month period post-vaccination. - In Scotland, newborn deaths doubled in 2021 after mass vaccination. - At Rambam Hospital in Haifa, Israel, vaccinated mothers experienced a 34% increase in stillbirths, miscarriages, and spontaneous abortions compared to unvaccinated mothers. The Mechanism: Lipid Nanoparticles and Poisoned Milk The culprit? Lipid nanoparticles—hard, fatty casings that deliver mRNA. They cross every human membrane, including the blood-brain barrier (linked to strokes and dementia) and the amniotic sac, exposing unborn babies to foreign, toxic substances. But it doesn’t end at birth. Polyethylene glycol (PEG), a petroleum byproduct in the Pfizer vaccine, is turning up in breast milk. In Pfizer’s own documents: - Four mothers’ breast milk turned blue-green—a sign of blood contamination, per Dr. Harvey Risch. - Babies of vaccinated mothers showed gastrointestinal distress, agitation, and sleeplessness. - One nursing infant died with liver inflammation after consuming vaccinated breast milk. The Scale of the Crisis These aren’t isolated incidents. With 190+ vaccinated countries, the signals point to a global baby die-off. The NIH confirms PEG is present in breast milk—what’s a “trace amount” to a newborn with no immunity? We don’t know the long-term effects because Pfizer only followed these cases for two weeks. The Question No One Is Asking Why is this happening? The answer is in the documents: conflicted science, missing data, and a reckless disregard for the most vulnerable. The War Room Daily Clap volunteers have uncovered one of the reasons—but how many more are there? This must stop. The evidence is undeniable. The cost is unborn and newborn lives. Share this. Demand answers.

Naomi Wolf: The Hidden Catastrophe – Vaccines, Pregnancy, and the Baby Die-Off The most horrific headlines reveal a chilling truth: the claims that COVID-19 vaccines were “safe and effective” for pregnant women were built on a house of cards. New findings from volunteer researchers—digging into Pfizer’s own documents—expose a nightmare scenario for mothers and babies. The “Study” That Wasn’t The CDC and The New York Times assured the public that vaccines were safe for pregnant women. But there were no human studies to back this up. The only “evidence”? A 42-day study on 44 French rats. Not even enough time for the rats to give birth and assess the health of their offspring. Instead, fetuses were autopsied, declared “fine,” and the results were extrapolated to human women. The conflict of interest? The study’s authors were Pfizer and BioNTech shareholders or employees—the very companies profiting from the vaccines. Missing Data, Missing Babies Pregnant women were excluded from vaccine trials, yet 270 women became pregnant during follow-ups. Records for 230 of them vanished. Of the remaining 36, 28 lost their babies. Twenty of those losses were neonatal deaths. This isn’t a coincidence—it’s a cover-up. A Global Baby Die-Off Investigative journalist Etana Hecht compiled reports from Scotland, Canada, and Israel, revealing a shocking pattern: - In Ontario, Canada, neonatal deaths spiked from a baseline of 5-6 to 86 in a single three-month period post-vaccination. - In Scotland, newborn deaths doubled in 2021 after mass vaccination. - At Rambam Hospital in Haifa, Israel, vaccinated mothers experienced a 34% increase in stillbirths, miscarriages, and spontaneous abortions compared to unvaccinated mothers. The Mechanism: Lipid Nanoparticles and Poisoned Milk The culprit? Lipid nanoparticles—hard, fatty casings that deliver mRNA. They cross every human membrane, including the blood-brain barrier (linked to strokes and dementia) and the amniotic sac, exposing unborn babies to foreign, toxic substances. But it doesn’t end at birth. Polyethylene glycol (PEG), a petroleum byproduct in the Pfizer vaccine, is turning up in breast milk. In Pfizer’s own documents: - Four mothers’ breast milk turned blue-green—a sign of blood contamination, per Dr. Harvey Risch. - Babies of vaccinated mothers showed gastrointestinal distress, agitation, and sleeplessness. - One nursing infant died with liver inflammation after consuming vaccinated breast milk. The Scale of the Crisis These aren’t isolated incidents. With 190+ vaccinated countries, the signals point to a global baby die-off. The NIH confirms PEG is present in breast milk—what’s a “trace amount” to a newborn with no immunity? We don’t know the long-term effects because Pfizer only followed these cases for two weeks. The Question No One Is Asking Why is this happening? The answer is in the documents: conflicted science, missing data, and a reckless disregard for the most vulnerable. The War Room Daily Clap volunteers have uncovered one of the reasons—but how many more are there? This must stop. The evidence is undeniable. The cost is unborn and newborn lives. Share this. Demand answers.

Camus

31,561 views • 9 months ago

MUST WATCH. Pfizer board member admits to rise in Colon Cancer, revealing a stunning connection of research. NEW information revealing itself in real time. [Kevin McKernan] and Dr Sabine Hazan's research on mRNA covid vaccines intersect with what Pfizer Board member Scott Gottlieb just ADMITTED on CNBC. The rise in Colon Cancer. 3 x clips highlighting a disturbing connection: 1. Kevin McKernan: In a recent presentation on CHD, he presented scientific research about "Pfizer like" plasmids found in a Colon Cancer biopsy of a person (who passed away) that had 4 x Pfizer mRNA covid vaccines. 2. [sabine hazan md] has presented on multiple occasions, research relating to how mRNA vaccines "k*ll the Bifidobacteria", which is primarily found in the Colon. 3. Pfizer executive admits now on Mainstream Media that there is a RISE IN COLON CANCER. Correlation is not causation, but these are very interesting connections of research and should NOT be ignored. What do you think is going on here?

MUST WATCH. Pfizer board member admits to rise in Colon Cancer, revealing a stunning connection of research. NEW information revealing itself in real time. [Kevin McKernan] and Dr Sabine Hazan's research on mRNA covid vaccines intersect with what Pfizer Board member Scott Gottlieb just ADMITTED on CNBC. The rise in Colon Cancer. 3 x clips highlighting a disturbing connection: 1. Kevin McKernan: In a recent presentation on CHD, he presented scientific research about "Pfizer like" plasmids found in a Colon Cancer biopsy of a person (who passed away) that had 4 x Pfizer mRNA covid vaccines. 2. [sabine hazan md] has presented on multiple occasions, research relating to how mRNA vaccines "k*ll the Bifidobacteria", which is primarily found in the Colon. 3. Pfizer executive admits now on Mainstream Media that there is a RISE IN COLON CANCER. Correlation is not causation, but these are very interesting connections of research and should NOT be ignored. What do you think is going on here?

Humanspective

2,469,340 views • 1 year ago

Are you Hesitant to Date, Kiss, or Have Intercourse with Anyone who’s had the Covid Vaccine? Listen to this…. Holy Shizzles.. 👀 🔴 CAN mRNA TRAVEL THROUGH BODILY FLUIDS? — Studies show mRNA remains in the blood for 30 days — Studies show mRNA gets stuck in lymph nodes for 2-months — Studies show mRNA is in Breast Milk — Studies show it gets into the Placenta, into the fetus “If it’s breast milk, I can tell you, it’s in sweat, it’s in saliva, it’s in your genital secretions…” 🔴 Dr. Peter McCullough recommends unvaccinated people should refrain from close or sexual contact with anyone vaccinated for several months • The FDA Guidance says for Genetic Technology platforms like Pfizer and Moderna, & AstraZeneca, they say we have 5-15 years of observations…. After that last shot, they don’t know what’s going to happen in a body. 5-15 years could be someone’s entire reproductive lifetime…. Crazy…. This Clip Full Interview

Are you Hesitant to Date, Kiss, or Have Intercourse with Anyone who’s had the Covid Vaccine? Listen to this…. Holy Shizzles.. 👀 🔴 CAN mRNA TRAVEL THROUGH BODILY FLUIDS? — Studies show mRNA remains in the blood for 30 days — Studies show mRNA gets stuck in lymph nodes for 2-months — Studies show mRNA is in Breast Milk — Studies show it gets into the Placenta, into the fetus “If it’s breast milk, I can tell you, it’s in sweat, it’s in saliva, it’s in your genital secretions…” 🔴 Dr. Peter McCullough recommends unvaccinated people should refrain from close or sexual contact with anyone vaccinated for several months • The FDA Guidance says for Genetic Technology platforms like Pfizer and Moderna, & AstraZeneca, they say we have 5-15 years of observations…. After that last shot, they don’t know what’s going to happen in a body. 5-15 years could be someone’s entire reproductive lifetime…. Crazy…. This Clip Full Interview

MJTruthUltra

605,875 views • 2 years ago