I want to share a very personal story and confession with you. When I was in medical school in the late ‘70s, I was on the front cover for the national medical student handbook. I’m sharing this photo with you that shows me administering a vaccine. At that time and for the next 15 years, I rigidly followed all vaccine guidelines.
Even when I started seeing patients at my own clinic, I never once questioned the safety of any vaccine and I rejected information from people voicing their concerns. In the late ‘80s, one particularly kind patient of mine, a mother, patiently shared a personal testimony about her vaccine-injured son, Jack.
She opened my eyes to a reality that I was previously unaware of and did not want to accept. She confronted me with clinical data that I could no longer ignore. In the years that followed, I saw more and more parents who had serious fears about certain vaccines; I slowly came to the realization that informed consent was practically nonexistent and there were serious medical risks being covered up by pharmaceutical companies and the federal government.
We are now in the midst of vaccine mandates that have affected nearly every person on the planet. If you don’t know someone personally who has suffered a reaction to these vaccines, you are likely in the minority.
Sheryl Ruettgers, who is the wife of former Green Bay Packers offensive lineman Ken Ruettgers, is among those who have suffered severe adverse effects from a COVID-19 injection.
Four days after receiving the first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 shot in January 2021, Sheryl experienced a severe neurological reaction. She is still experiencing muscle pain, numbness, weakness and paresthesia that inhibit her daily activities.1 When she connected on social media with others who had been injured by the injections, the private pages were shut down.
After connecting with doctors, nurses and other individuals who had experienced firsthand accounts of adverse reactions, the group wrote a letter to Dr. Janet Woodcock, acting commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It stated:2
“We deserve and strongly request transparency and acknowledgment of these vaccine reactions so that there can be a beginning to the discoveries and developments in the care that we desperately need. Until acknowledgement of these adverse reactions exists, it will be impossible for people to receive care.
We are pleading that you make the medical community aware of these reactions so we can get the medical care that we need and hopefully recover and return to our previously healthy lives.”
The group received no response from federal officials, which led Ken to start the website C19 Vax Reactions,3 for people to share their stories. There you can read over 500 real testimonies of adverse reactions to the shots and view dozens of videos detailing individuals’ reactions.
In one example, 17-year-old Everest Romney received his first dose of the Pfizer shot, and experienced extreme swelling in his arm and neck that night.4 Two days later, the previously healthy athlete was unable to lift his head due to the pain and swelling. A pediatrician dismissed the concerns, blaming them on a sports injury.
His mother insisted on a CT scan, which revealed a blood clot inside his jugular vein on the same side he got the shot. Rare blood clots in his brain were also later revealed. He ended up in the ICU, where doctors still refused to acknowledge that the clots could be linked to the shot.
Medical observations from doctors, nurses, first responders, general practitioners and other medical professionals regarding negative vaccine reactions are also included at C19 Vax Reactions. For example, Karen W. stated:5
“I work in andrology in a fertility clinic. The rumors about the increase in miscarriages is not a rumor. It’s real. We are seeing it, and it started when the shots rolled out to the general public, in March/April.”
Another medical professional, Dr. Katherine R., said:6
“I have seen pulmonary emboli, DVTs, psoriasis exacerbations/ diffuse rashes, peripheral neuropathy, and CVAs from the shots. I purposefully look to see when the patient has received their shots. None of my colleagues care to look or ask. It is a nonissue for them. A potential reaction after vaccine is likely to be a coincidence, I’m told.”
Y.D., another doctor, similarly stated:7
“I've seen 2 instances of previously localized cancers turn metastatic within a month of the second dose. I've seen 1 instance of polyarticular arthritis in an otherwise healthy mid 30's male. 1 instance of disseminated mucosal vasculitis in a 20 something female. 1 death from a rhinovirus infection after vaccination.”
This is the type of data that need to be collected, analyzed and studied in the midst of this unprecedented injection campaign, but instead those who speak out are silenced or discredited. Kyle Warner, a 29-year-old professional mountain bike racer, developed pericarditis, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and reactive arthritis following his second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot.8
An ER doctor refused to believe it was an adverse reaction to the jab and instead blamed it on a “psychotic episode.” At the Real, Not Rare rally held in Washington, D.C., Warner spoke before politicians to make a difference in the support level for vaccine-injured people — which is nonexistent in the U.S. — and voice opposition to vaccine mandates.
Their mission is to gain acknowledgement from elected officials and federal health agencies of vaccine adverse reactions and raise awareness within the medical community about these reactions. The Real, Not Rare website has also collected dozens of stories from people who have been injured by COVID-19 shots.9 They also want to stop the denial of certain vaccine exemptions and stop vaccine mandates:10
“Real lives are being affected by ‘not so rare’ consequences. Many vaccine injured individuals are seeking acknowledgment by the media and government so they can receive better healthcare and treatment. Vaccine injured individuals did their part by getting this vaccine, and now they need your help.”
In a second letter to the CDC and FDA, dated September 4, 2021, the “ever-growing group of Americans who have suffered severe and ongoing neurological adverse reactions” to the COVID-19 shots, asked for acknowledgement that these reactions exist. “Until you acknowledge us, we simply do not exist,” they wrote, adding:11
“Doctors tell us repeatedly that if neurological reactions were occurring, the medical community would be promptly notified by the CDC and FDA … The experts at the NIH have stated that they believe these reactions are treatable and that early intervention is key to reducing the severity and duration of these disabling reactions.
Given that these adverse reactions are being denied recognition, it is impossible for those who are injured to receive any early intervention and, therefore people remain hopelessly injured.”
While health officials remain silent about COVID-19 injection reactions, the growing number of reports cannot be silenced forever. Board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough12 detailed the nonfatal syndromes that are occurring after COVID-19 shots, which cause symptoms similar to that of long COVID in many cases. The shot-induced syndromes fall into four areas, the first being cardiac.
In addition to myocarditis, a recognized adverse reaction to the shots, atrial fibrillation in young people and pericarditis can also occur post-COVID-19 shot. The second category of shot-induced syndromes is neurologic, which causes neurological symptoms similar to those among COVID-19 long haulers, as well as additional, more serious, effects. This includes Guillain-Barré syndrome, which can be fatal, bell’s palsy, seizures, persistent headaches and blood clots in the brain.
The third category is immunologic, which includes suppression of lymphocyte count and reactivation of other viral syndromes, including Epstein-Barr virus and shingles. The fourth category — hematologic — occurs about two weeks after the shot and describes vaccine-induced thrombocytopenic purpura.
Signs include bruising all over the body, bleeding from the gums and nose and dark urine. If you notice these signs in the weeks after receiving a COVID-19 injection, get to a hospital immediately.
For those suffering from these shot-induced syndromes, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group’s I-RECOVER13 protocol for long-haul COVID syndrome has been used to treat shot-induced symptoms with similar success. The protocol can be downloaded in full,14 giving you step-by-step instructions on how to treat reactions from COVID-19 injections.
I am dedicated now more than ever to individuals and families who have been injured by these vaccines. They were not informed of the risks. They believed what they were told — that the vaccines were safe and effective. These people’s lives have been changed forever. They have been isolated, unsupported and shamed; wading through grief in the wake of vaccine mandates established “for the greater good.”
The more devoted I became in supporting the ethical principal of informed consent to medical risk taking — which includes the legal right to make voluntary decisions about getting an experimental injection — the more the attacks from the media, the government and pharmaceutical companies were compounded.
People recognize truth when they see and hear it. We are united in our philosophical opposition to government health officials intimidating, threatening and coercing citizens to violate their conscientiously-held beliefs. Censorship is pervasive; big tech has colluded with dictators and pharmaceutical companies to bury the harms occurring through these experimental vaccines, including death.
If you want your voice to be heard, I will help you share your testimony. Vaccine mandates have led to injuries, devastation and deaths — while the brainwashing “get your vaccine now” campaign is being used to divide and conquer.
One parent’s personal grief shared with me nearly 30 years ago changed my life and opened my eyes. One spark is all that is required to start a fire. There is a revolution building — a revolution for freedom to live your life without medical mandates or dictators calling the shots.
Please share your story with us, and encourage others you know who have a story to share theirs. It’s never been more important than now, for you and your family, to take control of your health.
Source: mercola rss
Heart disease has ranked No. 1 in the top 10 leading causes of death in the U.S. for years. In 2020,1 690,882 people died from heart disease. This is compared to 633,842 who died in 2015, which represents a 9% jump in six short years. One of the key risk factors for heart disease is high blood pressure.2 New data show a diet rich in herbs and spices may help reduce high blood pressure.3
Blood pressure measurements are expressed as two numbers.4 The top number is called the systolic number and the bottom is called the diastolic number. These numbers represent the pressure measured in millimeters of mercury (mmHg) required to move blood through your arteries. The top number is how much pressure is on the artery as the heart beats and the diastolic number is how much pressure remains in the artery between heart beats.
In 2017, the American College of Cardiology,5 in collaboration with the American Heart Association,6 published new guidelines that defined high blood pressure. This moved the measurement to diagnose high blood pressure from 140/90 to 130/80 mmHg.7
Researchers had been noticing a rise in heart disease in individuals whose blood pressure was previously thought to be within normal limits. With the changed guidelines, the American Heart Association8 estimated more than 100 million Americans have high blood pressure.
High blood pressure increases the risk of heart attack, kidney disease, vision loss, stroke and damaged blood vessels.9 New data published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition demonstrate how closely associated your diet is to your blood pressure measurement.10
Researchers at Pennsylvania State University11 sought to understand the effect that eating herbs and spices would have on cardiovascular disease. According to the researchers,12 this was the first controlled feeding study to evaluate mixed herbs and spices in a traditional U.S. diet against the risk factors for heart disease.
The researchers recruited 71 people with known risk factors for heart disease. Of those, 63 participants completed the controlled feeding study. The researchers used blood samples and blood pressure to gauge the effect of a low (0.5 grams), moderate (3.2 grams) and high (6.5 grams) intake of herbs and spices.
The participants consumed each diet in random order for a period of four weeks with a two-week washout between each diet.13 The remainder of the diet was based on the average American intake. The herbs and spices included basil, thyme, cinnamon and turmeric.
The researchers discovered that those consuming the diet high in herbs and spices had lower systolic blood pressure then those who consumed the diet with medium or low-dose herbs and spices. The participants wore a blood pressure monitor for 24 hours at the start of the study and at the end of each treatment period.
The researchers were excited by the results because the study did not specifically change the diet to be heart healthy. The only difference was in the number of herbs and spices consumed by the participants. Penny M. Kris-Etherton, professor of nutritional sciences at Penn State Evan Pugh University,14 said in a press release:15
“I think it’s really significant that participants consumed an average American diet throughout the study and we still found these results. We didn’t decrease sodium, we didn’t increase fruits and vegetables, we just added herbs and spices. It begs the next question that if we did alter the diet in these ways, how much better would the results be?”
Several important factors influence your blood pressure, and your vitamin D level is one of them.16 Researchers have found vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency are associated with high blood pressure in adults and now find that low levels in infants and children can increase the risk of high blood pressure later in childhood and during the teen years.17
Vitamin D plays a significant role in several health conditions, and it may be one of the simplest solutions to a wide range of problems. Optimally, you'll want to obtain vitamin D through sun exposure. However, since many dermatologists and other agencies18,19,20 began telling people to avoid the sun and use liberal amounts of sunscreen, vitamin D deficiency has reached epidemic proportions.21,22,23
In the U.K., the optimal level of vitamin D is 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L) and higher.24 However, in the U.S., sufficient levels are between 30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L) and 60 ng/mL (150 nmol/L)25 or from 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) to 60 ng/mL (150 nmol/L).26 One study27 published in 2018 found 39.92% of the people had a vitamin D level of 20 ng/mL or less and 60.08% had levels of 20 ng/mL or greater.
Since the lowest sufficient level is 30 ng/mL, at least 40% of the population surveyed were deficient in vitamin D, and likely higher. Evidence suggests that low levels are associated with high blood pressure. One literature review28 of 30 randomized clinical trials and 4,744 participants found that vitamin D3 could help reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The effect appeared dependent on the dose, duration and population.
A second review29 of 17 trials with 1,687 participants found supplementation with vitamin D had a statistically significant difference in reducing systolic and diastolic pressure in people who were vitamin D deficient and had high blood pressure.
Low levels of vitamin D also appear to have a predictive value in children. Researchers30 followed 775 children in ages ranging from birth to age 18 from 2005 to 2012 to investigate the effect vitamin D had on the development of high systolic blood pressure. Low vitamin D status was defined as less than 11 ng/mL at birth and less than 25 ng/mL during early childhood.
The researchers31 compared those with low levels of vitamin D to children who were born with adequate levels. They found that children with low levels had about a 60% higher risk of elevated systolic blood pressure from ages 6 to 18. Children who experienced persistently low levels throughout childhood were at double the risk of elevated systolic blood pressure between ages 3 and 18.32
In the U.S. and many other developed countries, salt has been vilified as a primary cause of high blood pressure.33 The idea is with more salt, your body retains more fluid and therefore increases the work of the heart. According to research presented at the American Heart Association meeting in 2013,34 excessive salt contributed to 2.3 million heart-related deaths worldwide in 2010.
However, it is important to understand that sodium and potassium work together to affect your blood pressure. The average reported intake of potassium from food is about half35 of the 4,700 mg recommended.36 Research has demonstrated these low levels of potassium may have a significant impact on blood pressure,37,38,39 especially as it relates to the amount of salt normally found in the Western diet.
Potassium works to relax the walls of your arteries, which keeps your muscles from cramping and lowers your blood pressure.40 Reduction in blood pressure with added potassium has also been associated with a reduced risk of stroke and all-cause mortality.41
It's recommended that you consume in the range of two to three times more potassium than sodium, depending on whether you currently have a heart condition or diabetes.42,43 But most Americans consume more sodium than potassium.
If researchers are looking only at sodium levels and not the ratio, which is more important than the overall salt intake,44 then it may appear as if salt is driving high blood pressure. Therefore, by lowering your salt intake you automatically improve the ratio.
There are many factors that can positively or negatively affect your blood pressure. As discussed, your diet plays an important role in the nutrients supplied to your arterial system. Several other strategies you may consider include:
Exercise more — The American Heart Association45 recommends activity and exercise to help manage blood pressure. Studies have also demonstrated the effectiveness of exercise, including as a preventive strategy.46 Regular activity47 can lower blood pressure, reduce heart rest and prevent remodeling from high blood pressure that is pathological and increases the risk of heart failure and mortality.
Reduce stress — The American Heart Association48 also recommends managing your stress to help control high blood pressure. Stress stimulates the nervous system to produce hormones that cause vasoconstriction.49 This may cause short-term increases in blood pressure.50
Chronic stress can also affect sleep patterns,51 dietary habits52 and motivation to exercise,53 all of which are key factors in raising blood pressure.54 Acute stress is also associated with broken heart syndrome, which is a potentially life-threatening condition that mimics a heart attack.55
Try inspiratory muscle strength training — One study56 showed using high resistance inspiratory muscle strength training (IMST) could reduce blood pressure measurements as well as aerobic exercise or meditation. IMST was originally developed for critically ill patients with respiratory diseases. The strategy uses a handheld device that provides resistance to the user as they inhale vigorously, thus strengthening muscles.
Incorporate meditation — Mind-body practices that trigger your body's relaxation response,57 such as meditation, play an important role in lowering blood pressure by favorably influencing a recently identified set of genes and biological pathways.58 As the relaxation response is elicited, biochemical changes occur, including decreased oxygen consumption, blood pressure, heart and respiratory rate.59
Use intermittent fasting — This is a form of time restricted eating during which you typically fast for 16 to 18 hours with a window of six to eight hours to eat. Evidence shows that there are several benefits to the cardiovascular system, including lowering blood pressure.60 A recent study61 from Baylor College of Medicine suggested that fasting may help normalize blood pressure by impacting the gut microbiota.
Sauna bathing — Sometimes some of the simplest strategies can have a tremendous impact. Sweating in a sauna can help expel toxins, improve blood circulation and improve mitochondrial function. In a video lecture by Rhonda Patrick, Ph.D.,62 she reviews how sauna bathing can be used as an exercise mimetic to increase your longevity.
In this lecture she notes that just a single sauna session has been shown to lower blood pressure, improve heart rate variability, and improve arterial compliance. Some of the positive benefits of the sauna on heart health may have to do with similar physiological changes that also occur during physical exercise.
Check your magnesium — Magnesium deficiency can contribute to a significant number of health problems since it is involved in hundreds of biochemical reactions in the body.63 One scientific review64 suggested that low magnesium may be the greatest predictor of heart disease and another65 suggested subclinical deficiency can compromise cardiovascular health.
Low magnesium levels have been linked to a high risk of high blood pressure,66 stroke67 and sudden cardiac death.68 The best way to determine your status is to do an RBC magnesium test. This measures the amount of magnesium in your red blood cells.
There are several reasons why you may have insufficient or deficient levels of magnesium, including not getting enough from your diet, sweating, stress and lack of sleep. Seek to eat more magnesium-rich foods and consider high-quality magnesium supplements if necessary. Another way of effectively boosting your level is to use an Epsom salt bath as the magnesium is effectively absorbed through your skin.
Source: mercola rss
Get our best relaxation products for 20% off today. Use code RELAX at checkout. Sale lasts until 9:30 am MT […]
Source: plant therapy Blog
The type of fat you eat has an impact on your health and can affect your risk of certain diseases. An animal study published in Nature1 in November 2021 found a link between palmitic acid from palm oil and cancer metastasis. Another compelling report published in the journal Gastroenterology2 offers a radically novel, yet logically sound, explanation as to why unsaturated fat intake is associated with increased mortality from COVID-19.
According to the Gastroenterology study, data indicate that mortality rates are heavily influenced by the amount of unsaturated fats you eat. On the bright side, they believe early treatment with inexpensive calcium and egg albumin could reduce rates of organ failure and ICU admissions.
Although no clinical studies have been done yet, the authors believe it's time as it appears that early albumin and calcium supplementation may bind unsaturated fats and reduce injury to vital organs. They also point out that saturated fats are protective by reducing lipolysis.3
The argument over what constitutes a healthy diet is highly influenced by processed food manufacturers who liberally use omega-6 fats in their products and promote seed oils as a “healthy” alternative to lard and butter. However, the evidence against unsaturated fats continues to mount and this time it’s been linked to the spread of cancer.
The Institute for Research in Biomedicine in Barcelona conducted the study published in Nature.4 In this experiment, the researchers demonstrated that palmitic acid promoted metastasis of melanoma and oral cancers in mice.5 Some of the hallmarks of metastasis are fatty acid uptake and altered metabolism.
In this study, oral tumor cells and skin cancer melanomas were exposed to palmitic acid and then transplanted into mice. The researchers watched how quickly the cells spread and found even when they were exposed to the palmitic acid for a short period there was a greater capacity to metastasize. There appeared to be permanent alterations in the genome of the metastatic cells.6
Subsequently, these cells had the most aggressive properties, which the authors described as a “stable memory.” The researchers believe that the results favor the development of malignant cancer when cells are exposed to palmitic acid, even in the very early stages when a tumor may not have been detected. When palmitic acid was removed, cancer cells that had already been exposed remained highly metastatic.7
The cells appeared to have a colonizing capacity as a result of palmitic acid but not after exposure to oleic acid or linoleic acid.8 This suggested that the aggressive nature of the cells was linked to epigenetic modifications that occurred in response to palmitic acid. One of the pathways identified in this study was a neural network that forms around a tumor after the cells are exposed to palmitic acid.
Tumor cells with the greatest capacity to metastasize worked with the animals’ neural network to produce a regenerative environment where the cells could grow and spread. The researchers’ cellular analysis indicated that the genetic influence of palmitic acid affected Schwann cells,9 which are a primary part of the peripheral nervous system.10
These Schwann cells secreted an extracellular matrix that triggered metastasis. The researchers concluded the evidence suggested palmitic acid induced changes that “lead to a long-term stimulation of metastasis, and that this is related to a pro regenerative state of tumor-activated Schwann cells.”11
The researchers believe blocking the epigenetic changes that occur with exposure to palmitic acid could effectively stop metastasis for these tumor cells. The idea was to identify how the process could be blocked to interfere with a tumor response. Salvador Aznar-Benitah, Ph.D., said in a press release:12
“In 2017, we published a study indicating that palmitic acid correlates with increased risk of metastasis, but we didn’t know the mechanism responsible for this. In this study, we detail the process and reveal the involvement of a metastatic capacity “memory” factor and we point to a therapeutic approach to reverse it. This is promising.”
He believes that using medication to block the process is a realistic approach, which “doesn’t depend on whether a patient likes Nutella or pizza. Playing with diets is so complicated,” he says.13
Greg Hannon, Ph.D., is director of the Cancer Research U.K. Cambridge Institute. He was not part of the study, but spoke with The Guardian about the potential implications of the data, saying:14
“This is a rigorous and comprehensive study that suggests that exposure to a major constituent of palm oil durably changes the behaviour of cancer cells, making them more prone to progress from local to potentially lethal metastatic disease. Given the prevalence of palm oil as an ingredient in processed foods, this study provides strong motivation for further study on how dietary choices influence the risk of tumour progression.”
One paper published in 2019 in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization15 looked at the large-scale industrial use of pal palm oil in food processing, which they acknowledge as “one of the world’s most commonly used vegetable oils.”16 The researchers found a mutually profitable relationship between agriculture and the processed food industry.
The review also showed the detrimental practices in the industry that are linked to environmental and human health damage. They believe their analysis demonstrated there were parallels between the practices in the palm oil and vegetable oil industries and the actions adopted by the tobacco and alcohol industries.17
Palm oil is found in roughly half of frequently consumed foods and consumer products such as cosmetics. Production has risen from 15 million tons in 1995 to 66 million tons in 2017. The rise in production is related to the clear advantages the oil has in the processed food industry, including a high smoke point and being semi-solid at room temperature.
One meta-analysis18 pulling data from across 23 countries demonstrated that with an increased use of palm oil there was a significantly higher mortality rate from ischemic heart disease in the population. Another review19 demonstrated populations with high palm oil consumption had higher levels of atherogenic low density lipoprotein cholesterol.
Across the world, oil-palm plantations cover an area totaling approximately the size of New Zealand. Experts estimate the industry in 2019 was worth $60 billion and directly employed 6 million people.20 The industry is expected to reach a value of $88 billion by 2022.
In the meta-analysis, writers did a rapid review of the literature in 2018. They identified 40 review and research articles published from 2002 to 2018. From the literature, they found consistent environmental concerns linked to the industry, including biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, pollution and habitat fragmentation.
They also found mixed reports linking palm oil to health. However, four of the nine studies that demonstrated positive health associations were composed by the Malaysian Palm Oil board.
Not to mention the environmental damage the land-clearing practices for cultivation of palms has caused, they also have affected the health of people in Southeast Asia, leading to premature death, cardiovascular disease and respiratory illness from air pollution.21 A major concern of the air pollution resulting from land clearing practices is on child mortality and cognitive impairment.
It has become increasingly clear that one of the most damaging factors in the modern diet is processed vegetable oil. These oils contain excessive amounts of omega-6 linoleic acid (LA). This is a polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) that triggers damage even worse than that caused by refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, as it incites mitochondrial dysfunction that drives the disease process.22,23,24
In this action, the resulting higher proportion of LA causes proinflammatory conditions that can lead to thrombus, atheroma, allergic reactions and inflammatory diseases.25 However, the good news is that replacing these dangerous oils can go a long way toward boosting your health and reducing your risk of chronic disease.
Humans used to eat a diet with an omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of approximately 1-to-1.26 Both fatty acids are essential to human health. However, in the current Western diet, that ratio is at least 16.7-to-1 or greater, with a deficiency of omega-3 fatty acids.
In those consuming a diet where the ratio is 4-to-1, there is an associated 70% decrease in mortality.27 In addition to understanding the dangers associated with consuming higher levels of omega 6, it's important to remember that the LA28 and palmitic acid29 found in processed foods and seed oil degrade when heated.
It is the missing hydrogen atoms30 that make PUFAs highly susceptible to oxidation. This means the fat breaks down into harmful metabolites called OXLAMS (oxidized LA metabolites). These have a profoundly negative impact on human health.31 While excess sugar is certainly bad for your health and should be limited to 25 grams per day or less, it doesn't oxidize like LA does, so it's nowhere near as damaging.
If you think the answer is to just consumer more omega 3s, I have found it's nearly impossible to correct the imbalance of omega-6 to omega 3 by simply consuming more omega-3 fat. In an interview with Tucker Goodrich,32 we discuss the damage omega-6 triggers in the body.
While it is important to increase your intake of omega-3, it is crucial that you also eliminate vegetable oils and processed foods that are loaded with omega-6 PUFA. Even foods we generally think of as healthy, such as olive oil and chicken (fed LA rich grains) are high in omega-6 fat. Goodrich explains:33
"The ratio is not really what's important. What's important is avoiding the omega-6 fats. There are disease models, like age-related macular degeneration (AMD), where that's starting to be clearly understood, and you can find papers saying explicitly that the important intervention that prevents AMD from progressing is reduction of omega-6 fats, and you can't prevent it by increasing your omega-3 fats.
I've got papers that show, in animal models, very nasty outcomes, such as liver failure, with a lower omega-6 to omega-3 ratio, but high absolute levels of both fats still allows pathology to progress."
Helen Rippon, Ph.D., is chief executive of Worldwide Cancer Research, one of the featured study’s funding sources34 and a charity that funds "visionary, pioneering researchers to develop groundbreaking treatments that will help end cancer."35 She spoke with The Guardian about the results of the research demonstrating the effect palmitic acid has on cancer metastasis, saying:36
“This discovery is a huge breakthrough in our understanding of how diet and cancer are linked and, perhaps more importantly, how we can use this knowledge to start new cures for cancer. Metastasis is estimated to be responsible for 90% of all cancer deaths — that’s around 9 million deaths a year globally. Learning more about what makes cancer spread and — importantly — how to stop it is the way forward to reduce these numbers.”
Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D., has long been a proponent of classifying cancer as a metabolic disease that is a result of following a poor diet. Seyfried also has been one of the pioneers in the application of nutritional ketosis for cancer therapy.37
This stems from the work of Dr. Otto Warburg, who was undoubtedly one of the most brilliant biochemists of the 20th century and who received the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1931 for the discovery of metabolism of metal malignant cells.38 Seyfried has followed in these giant scientific footsteps, conducting important research to advance the science and shedding light on the metabolic underpinnings of cancer.39,40,41
His book, "Cancer as a Metabolic Disease,"42 has made important contributions to the field of study. By setting aside the traditionally held view or dogma that cancer is a genetic disease, Seyfried discovered how defective cellular energy metabolism in the mitochondria contributes in large part to the development and progression of cancer.
Together with further research into the dangers associated with seed oils and palmitic acid, science is moving closer to understanding the development and metastasis of cancer cells. This has offered strong evidence of the lifestyle choices that may reduce your risk of cancer and may contribute to developing choices that can successfully treat the disease.
Source: mercola rss
Gratitude is a simple practice that can have profound effects on your health and well-being. Its underpinnings are believed to be principles of cooperation that were pivotal in the development of human communication and social reciprocity, and the ability to experience gratitude to others is a fundamental feature of human cognition.1
The positive effects linked to gratitude include social, psychological and physical benefits,2 which increase the more you make gratitude a regular part of your daily routine.
“The limits to gratitude’s health benefits are really in how much you pay attention to feeling and practicing gratitude,” noted neuroscientist Glenn Fox, Ph.D., a gratitude expert at the University of Southern California. “It’s very similar to working out, in that the more you practice, the better you get. The more you practice, the easier it is to feel grateful when you need it.”3
Gratitude has distinct neurobiological correlates, including in brain regions associated with interpersonal bonding and stress relief.4 When Fox and colleagues elicited gratitude in 23 female subjects, via stories of survivors of the Holocaust, “ratings of gratitude correlated with brain activity in the anterior cingulate cortex and medial prefrontal cortex,” which are associated with moral cognition, value judgment and theory of mind.5
Individual differences in proneness to gratitude are also linked to increased gray matter volume in the brain,6 and it’s possible that it elicits long-term changes in your psyche. Fox grew deeply interested in gratitude after his mother’s death from ovarian cancer. During her illness, he would send her studies on the benefits of gratitude in cancer patients, and she kept a gratitude journal in her last years.
In one example, 92 adults with advanced cancer engaged in mindful gratitude journaling or routine journaling. After seven days, those who kept a gratitude journal had significant improvements in measures of anxiety, depression and spiritual well-being, such that the researchers concluded “mindful gratitude journaling could positively affect the state of suffering, psychological distress and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer.”7
“Grateful people tend to recover faster from trauma and injury,” Fox told The Pulse. “They tend to have better and closer personal relationships and may even just have improved health overall.”8 When he tried to find gratitude after losing his mother, what he experienced wasn’t a quick fix or an immediate route to happiness, but a way to make his grief more manageable in the moment.
As it turns out, grateful writing such as letters of gratitude is a positive psychological intervention that leads to longer term changes in mental health. Among 293 adults who sought out psychotherapy services, those who engaged in gratitude writing reported significantly better mental health after four and 12 weeks than people who did not writing or who wrote about their thoughts and feelings.9
Gratitude can be difficult to define, as it has elements of an emotion, a virtue and a behavior, all rolled into one. Robert Emmons, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis, and an expert on gratitude, defines it as a two-step process.
As explained in “The Science of Gratitude,” a white paper by the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley, the two steps include “1) ‘recognizing that one has obtained a positive outcome’ and 2) ‘recognizing that there is an external source for this positive outcome.’”10
In this regard, the benefits of gratitude may be gleaned from the actions of other people or experienced in an internalized manner, such as when feeling gratitude about good fate or nature. In this way, gratitude is both a state and a trait.11
As a state, it’s based on a person’s ability to be empathic and elicit grateful emotions that promote prosocial behavior. As a trait, gratitude describes the practice of being grateful, noticing the little things in life and appreciating the positive in the world and other people. Gratitude can be felt both from being helped by others and habitually focusing on the good in your life.
A study published in Clinical Psychology Review found that gratitude has a positive effect on psychopathology, especially depression, adaptive personality characteristic, positive social relationships and physical health, including stress and sleep. What’s more, they noted that “the benefits of gratitude to well-being may be causal.”12
Fox also explained, “Benefits associated with gratitude include better sleep, more exercise, reduced symptoms of physical pain, lower levels of inflammation, lower blood pressure and a host of other things we associate with better health,”13 including improved resilience.
It’s likely that gratitude leads to benefits via multiple mechanisms, not only by improving life satisfaction14 but also by contributing to an increase in healthy activities and a willingness to seek help for health problems.15 Those who are grateful have even been found to have a better sense of the meaning of life by being able to perceive good family function and peer relationships.16
Gratitude is known to facilitate improvements in healthy eating17 and benefits depression by enhancing self-esteem and wellbeing.18 Further, people who are more grateful tend to be:19
A 2021 study comparing gratitude and optimism similarly found that both traits were associated with:20
Lower heart rate and blood pressure
Better sleep quality
More positive expectations and reflections
Greater feelings of appreciation toward others
Feeling gracious can help you sleep better and longer, too, perhaps by improving your thoughts prior to sleep. “The relationship between gratitude and each of the sleep variables was mediated by more positive pre-sleep cognitions and less negative pre-sleep cognitions,” according to a study in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.21
Those who scored higher on measures of gratitude had better sleep quality and sleep duration and less sleep latency (the amount of time it takes you to fall asleep) and daytime dysfunction. Among adolescents, the simple practice of keeping a gratitude journal significantly reduce materialism while reducing the negative effect of materialism on generosity.22
Those who wrote down what they were grateful for donated 60% more of their earnings to charity, for instance. There’s good reason to teach children the importance of gratitude, too, as doing so can improve school performance and orient individuals toward a positive life approach.23
Fox likens gratitude to a muscle that must be trained — something that you can practice and become better at over time:24
“I think that gratitude can be much more like a muscle, like a trained response or a skill that we can develop over time as we’ve learned to recognize abundance and gifts and things that we didn’t previously notice as being important. And that itself is its own skill that can be practiced and manifested over time.”
Rather than a magic bullet, Fox added, it’s the regular practice of being grateful that makes a difference: “You know, it’s like water cutting rock through a canyon,” he said. “It’s not done all at once, and it’s just steady practice is where you start to get things.”25 Two “gratitude interventions” that you can try in your daily life to promote gratitude include keeping a gratitude journal and expressing gratitude.
With a gratitude journal, you write down lists of what you’re grateful for on a regular basis. The behavioral expression of gratitude involves expressing grateful feelings to others, such as by saying thank you or writing gratitude letters, which you then read to the recipients.26
Showing gratitude to your partner is also a good way to boost your relationship. In a study of romantic partners, gratitude from interactions was linked to increased connection and satisfaction with the relationship, with researchers suggesting, “gratitude had uniquely predictive power in relationship promotion, perhaps acting as a booster shot for the relationship.”27 Emmons also shared tips for living a more grateful life:28
If you want to get started today, keep a notebook by your bedside and make a point to jot down one or two things you’re grateful for each night before bed, and express gratitude to others often, such as writing quick thank you notes to friends.
Source: mercola rss
Go organic today and save 20%! All organic products 20% off using coupon code ORGANICGIFTS at checkout. Sale lasts until […]
Source: plant therapy Blog
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, an internal medicine doctor and former head of health at the Council of Europe, spoke with Planet Lockdown on the fundamental corruption at the World Health Organization and how it contributed to manufacturing a “test pandemic.”1
The seeds were sown more than a decade ago during the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic. In 2010, Wodarg accused pharmaceutical companies of influencing WHO’s pandemic declaration, calling swine flu a “false pandemic” that was driven by Big Pharma, which cashed in on the health scare.2
According to Wodarg, the swine flu pandemic was “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”3 As noted by Planet Lockdown, Wodarg, then a member of the German Parliament, “knew something wasn't right when 800 cases in Mexico was declared a pandemic”:4
“He dug into the issue and discovered a hornet’s nest of lies and corruption inside the WHO. He floored a bill called Fake Pandemic and did much to deflate that fake scare at the time, to the consternation of the corrupt functionaries of these institutions.”
Secret agreements were made between Germany, Great Britain, Italy and France with the pharmaceutical industry before the H1N1 pandemic began, which stated that they would purchase H1N1 flu vaccinations — but only if a pandemic level 6 was declared by WHO.
Six weeks before the pandemic was declared, no one at WHO was worried about the virus, but the media was nonetheless exaggerating the dangers.5 Then, in the month leading up to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, WHO changed the official definition of pandemic, removing the severity and high mortality criteria and leaving the definition of a pandemic as "a worldwide epidemic of a disease."6
This switch in definition allowed WHO to declare swine flu a pandemic after only 144 people had died from the infection worldwide.7 While the swine flu scare was eventually deflated, this wasn’t so with COVID-19, even though the real signs of a pandemic are absent. As Wodarg explained, it used to be that a pandemic was associated with widespread severe illness and death, but that’s no longer the case:8
“There was an explanation of what a pandemic is and it always was going with many, many people dying from infections. Many severe diseases, hospitals being overcrowded. It was such a catastrophe … and everyone in the street would notice that there is a pandemic because the neighbors would get ill, the people at work would get ill. In the bus, you would see people coughing.
In a pandemic … it’s something each of us would experience. This was a pandemic. And WHO changed it.”
By removing the severity and high mortality criteria, WHO could make a pandemic whenever they wanted. “The pandemic is just a picture spread by the media, making us afraid. But what the people experience is not what we used to understand when we used the word epidemic or pandemic,” he said.9 Now, the word pandemic has to do with fear, not illnesses. “It’s a brand for fear.”
If there hasn’t been a true pandemic, in the old definition of the word, then how are the media and government getting all of these high case numbers for COVID-19? This is due to the PCR test.
“It was accepted by WHO, and they said when the test is positive, we have a case of COVID-19. And this is how they started counting the cases,” Wodarg said. “What they counted was the activity of testing. And the more they tested, the more cases they found.”10
Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests are not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as they cannot distinguish between inactive (noninfectious) viruses and "live" or reproductive ones.11
Inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick from it and you cannot spread it to others. Further, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing "positive.”
The higher the cycle threshold (CT) — i.e., the number of amplification cycles used to detect RNA particles — the greater the chance of a false positive. While any CT over 35 is deemed scientifically unjustifiable,12,13 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended running PCR tests at a CT of 40.14
A test known as the Corman-Drosten paper and tests recommended by the World Health Organization were set to 45 cycles.15,16,17 When labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a grossly overestimated number of positive tests, so what we're really dealing with is a "casedemic"18,19 — an epidemic of false positives.
Wodarg says COVID-19 “was a ‘test’ pandemic. It was not a virus pandemic,”20 because PCR tests may give a positive result when it detects coronaviruses that have been around for 20 years. He explained:21
“The SARS viruses, they are very long RNA viruses. There are 30,000 letters in this genetic information. The PCR test only takes a very small part of them, or two parts of them. So two words out of a whole book … before you start testing, you can already estimate how often this test will be positive. If you take a sequence which is in many varieties of viruses, you will have many positive tests.”
The PCR test only tests for certain sequences of the RNA. It gives a positive result when it only finds a small fragment; it doesn’t need the whole virus. If the virus was there weeks ago or you have a touch of the virus present, but no infection, it can still test positive and add another COVID-19 “case,” even though you’re not actually sick.
The mass COVID-19 shot campaign is riddled with conflicts of interest at a fundamental level, and these conflicts are putting people’s lives at risk by putting vaccine production ahead of disease prevention. As Wodarg noted, if you want to earn money producing vaccines, you need new markets in which to use them, and new diseases so you can sell your vaccine.
“This is a very serious matter,” he said, which has nothing to do with health or hygiene — “it has to do with criminology”:22
“When they want to sell their vaccines, they need people who are ill so they can make clinical studies. So when there is an outbreak, and they want to make clinical studies with their vaccine to protect people against this disease just breaking out … there is a conflict of interest.
If you have normal ways to stop the infection, with hygiene, with distancing, with isolating, with consulting with people, giving advice how to behave … if you stop the disease quickly, you’re not able to have enough cases for your study.”
So we have a “pandemic” that’s based on a test that doesn’t prove infection, but what it did do was make people afraid. And that fear was the basis for saying we need a vaccine. The shots, however, aren’t effective.
In November 2020, Pfizer, in a joint venture with Germany-based BioNTech, announced that their mRNA-based injection was “more than 90% effective” in a Phase 3 trial.23 This does not mean that 90% of people who get injected will be protected from COVID-19, however, as it’s based on relative risk reduction (RRR).
The absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the jab is less than 1%. “Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the jab, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a jab, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs,” researchers wrote in The Lancet Microbe in April 2021.24
Nonetheless, the jabs received emergency use authorization, which has paved the way for vaccine mandates and other assaults to your freedom and health.
The lack of effectiveness is one key reason why Wodarg believes most people do not need a COVID-19 jab. The other reasons include serious risks of adverse events from these experimental jabs, and the fact that, Wodarg says, cross-immunity exists due to multiple previous exposures to other coronaviruses in most people.25 “The genetically produced so-called vaccines are not necessary, because we have immunity.”26
As he stated, your immune system is well-equipped to protect you, and new viral exposures each year help to keep this complex system updated. Risk increases when you avoid regular viral exposures to keep your immune system ready:27
“Those new ones that come, this is some work for your immune system to get an update, but it doesn’t make most people very sick, only in a few, rare cases.
When we are not trained, or we didn’t have contact with viruses for a very long time, because we were isolated somewhere alone, not having our grandchildren on our knees, not experiencing any training — it’s the same when you are out of training and you suddenly have to climb a high mountain. Maybe your heart goes into failure and you die — maybe you die when you have contact with something your immune system has forgotten.”
The spike protein that the shots stimulate your cells to produce is also deeply concerning, since it’s toxic:28
“Vaccines are made to stimulate our cells, we don’t know which cells, or where the injection goes, but those cells that get contact with the vaccine, they produce spike proteins, which are very toxic. Normally, those spike proteins don’t come into the blood, this is why we don’t get seriously ill from coronaviruses. When you inject them, you bypass the natural immunity.”
This is a likely reason why there are so many side effects associated with the shots, as injecting these spike proteins is unnatural and very dangerous. It’s since been revealed that the spike protein on its own is enough to cause inflammation and damage to the vascular system, even independent of a virus.29
Further, Wodarg says, once your body has been injected with the spike protein, it may have an overreactive response the next time it comes in contact with a typical coronavirus, potentially leading to a dangerous cytokine storm.
When counting COVID-19 cases this winter, Wodarg believes it is important to ask whether the person received a COVID-19 shot or not. “I am quite sure,” he said, “that those people vaccinated will be the severe cases and that those who are not vaccinated will just experience a normal flu.”30
What’s more, once you’re vaccinated, they have all your data — the batch of the shot, the date and time. So, you’re essentially part of a clinical trial that you’ve never agreed to, and there’s no transparency about the risks involved. Wodarg believes that the pandemic “emergency” is being prolonged from month to month because it helps their injection studies, even as there are massive conflicts of interest involved.
If you listen to the media, you’ll be brainwashed that the jab is necessary, but don’t fall for the hype, including that getting the shot will earn you your freedom back. Wodarg said:31
“You won’t be free to travel. You will be controlled nevertheless, because the next virus already comes, the next jab is waiting. They want to perpetuate this game with us, with vaccines and with vaccine passports. It’s just the perfect control by this market and it has nothing to do with health. So we have to stop it.”
Source: mercola rss
Are you prepared to wear masks forever? Some are, but their positive attitude toward masks is a likely result of deceptive and misleading information. The resulting magical thinking relating to masks has created one of the most polarized debates in U.S. history and led to anti-maskers being labeled as “grandma killers.”1
To be clear, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has blatantly lied about masks’ effectiveness. November 5, 2021, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky tweeted, “Masks can help reduce your chance of #COVID19 infection by more than 80%.”2
But as Dr. Vinay Rasad, MPH, a hematologist-oncologist and associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco, put it in the Brownstone Institute, “I don’t know how to put this politely, but it is a lie, and a truly unbelievable one at that … The idea that masks could reduce the chance of infection by 80% is simply untrue, implausible and cannot be supported by any reliable data.”3
Walensky didn’t give a reference for her claim that masks reduce COVID-19 infection by 80%, but a large study4 from researchers at Yale, Stanford and the University of California Berkeley found much less impressive results from masks.
The trial involved 342,183 people from 600 villages in rural Bangladesh from November 2020 to April 2021. In villages that received masks, the number of symptomatic COVID-19 infections were 9.3% lower compared to villages without masks, or 11% lower in villages that received surgical masks instead of cloth masks.5
Why, then, hasn’t Walensky’s tweet been flagged for misinformation and targeted by “fact checkers” calling out the blatant lie? Rasad featured a tweet6 by Carnegie Mellon University mathematician Wesley Pegden, who said:7
“The head of the agency responsible for providing Americans with accurate and trustworthy information about interventions (like vaccines) that we actually know are really effective should not also be making fabricated quantitative statements in support of poorly evidenced ones.”
While face masks continue to be recommended or mandated, little has been said about the risks inherent to covering your mouth and nose with fabric or other materials. Both cotton and surgical masks collect pathogens that may increase your risk of infectious illness — a factor that’s rarely taken into account when discussing their merits.
When researchers from the University of Antwerp, Belgium, analyzed the microbial community on surgical and cotton face masks from 13 healthy volunteers after being worn for four hours, bacteria including Bacillus, Staphylococcus and Acinetobacter were found — 43% of which were antibiotic-resistant.8
In order to best clean masks to remove the bacteria, the study found boiling at 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees F), washing at 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees F) with detergent or ironing with a steam iron worked best, but only 21% of survey respondents said they cleaned their cotton face masks daily.9 According to the researchers:
“Taken together, this study suggests that a considerable number of bacteria, including pathobionts and antibiotic resistant bacteria, accumulate on surgical and even more on cotton face masks after use. Based on our results, face masks should be properly disposed of or sterilized after intensive use. Clear guidelines for the general population are crucial to reduce the bacteria-related biosafety risk of face masks …”
Researchers from Germany similarly questioned whether a mask that covers your nose and mouth is “free from undesirable side effects” and potential hazards in everyday use.10 It turned out they were not and instead posed significant adverse effects and pathophysiological changes, including the following, which often occur in combination:11
Increase in dead space volume
Increase in breathing resistance
Increase in blood carbon dioxide
Decrease in blood oxygen saturation
Increase in heart rate
Decrease in cardiopulmonary capacity
Feeling of exhaustion
Increase in respiratory rate
Difficulty breathing and shortness of breath
Feeling of dampness and heat
Decrease in empathy perception
Impaired skin barrier function with acne, itching and skin lesions
The study referred to this cluster of symptoms as mask-induced exhaustion syndrome (MIES) and warned that children, pregnant women and those who are sick or suffering from certain chronic conditions may be particularly at risk from extended masking. While short-term effects include microbiological contamination, headaches, exhaustion, carbon dioxide retention and skin irritation, the long-term effects may lead to chronic issues:12
“Extended mask-wearing would have the potential, according to the facts and correlations we have found, to cause a chronic sympathetic stress response induced by blood gas modifications and controlled by brain centers. This in turn induces and triggers immune suppression and metabolic syndrome with cardiovascular and neurological diseases.”
Further, “it can be assumed,” they wrote, “that the potential adverse mask effects described for adults are all the more valid for children: … physiological internal, neurological, psychological, psychiatric, dermatological, ENT, dental, sociological, occupational and social medical, microbiological and epidemiological impairments …
The masks currently used for children are exclusively adult masks manufactured in smaller geometric dimensions and had neither been specially tested nor approved for this purpose.”13
Again, in taking on these unknown risks — both short- and long-term — to wear masks, the benefits are highly questionable and intended to thwart a pathogen with a low death rate for most populations:14
“[R]ecent studies on SARS-CoV-2 show both a significantly lower infectivity and a significantly lower case mortality than previously assumed, as it could be calculated that the median corrected infection fatality rate (IFR) was 0.10% in locations with a lower than average global COVID-19 population mortality rate.
In early October 2020, the WHO also publicly announced that projections show COVID-19 to be fatal for approximately 0.14% of those who become ill — compared to 0.10% for endemic influenza — again a figure far lower than expected. On the other hand, the side effects of masks are clinically relevant.”
It’s clear that the evidence in support of masks for physical protection against disease is lacking, while their potential for psychological harm is immense. Brownstone Institute highlighted the story of folk saint Escrava Anastácia, a slave of African descent who lived in Brazil during the 19th century.15
She was forced to wear a metal, muzzle-like mask during her lifetime in order to silence her from speaking out about the oppression and injustice she was facing. As written by Roberto Strongman, associate professor in the department of black studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara:16
“The apparition of Anastásia at anti-lockdown rallies represents an opportunity to understand the current medical tyranny as a form of enslavement and to forge links of solidarity between communities whose freedom is threatened across all racial groups. The claim of cooptation deserves to be unpacked for a valid claim of cultural usurpation could easily work towards severing important alliances in a divide-and-conquer model.
While there are clear specificities between the suffering of Africans under the system of chattel slavery and the deprivation of civil liberties endured by most citizens around the world during the current pandemic panic, Anastásia reminds us of certain transhistorical constants in the process of dehumanization and subjugation of populations through the gagging and muzzling of their bodies to quell their protestations.”
Strongman pointed out several undeniable reasons why face mask mandates “fashion the citizenry as slaves” and act as symbols of enslavement. Among them, they:17
Lead to oxygen deprivation, promoting a state of physical and mental weakness
Are symbols of submission and used as part of master-slave dynamics
Enforce the creation of a carceral culture
Erase personhood and homogenize the masses — “The collectivized wearing of masks results in an enforced uniformity in which the individual cedes way to the nameless collectivity as the neo-meta citizen.”18
Are theatrical and act to conceal identities, rendering us alien to others and ourselves
Delete facial expressions and inhibit nonverbal communication, including that necessary for social organization that can lead to revolution
Reduce verbal output
Are visible displays of allegiance to the “system of medicalizing technocratic control”
Are part of preparing individuals for new societal roles — “However transitory the current regime of face masking might be, the population must face that we are being forced to undergo a rite of passage, a process of resocialization into the new normal.”
Promote a culture of fear
Act as deterrents of solidarity by making your neighbor into a “nameless pathogenic vector instead of your ally”
In addition to flat-out lies, the CDC also makes nonsensical statements, like this: “Cloth masks will not protect you from wildfire smoke … They might not catch small, harmful particles in smoke that can harm your health.”19
But we are to believe that they will protect us from an aerosolized virus? “The virus is 25X smaller than a smoke particle,” wrote Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation. “So it’s like trying to stop a mosquito with a chain link fence.”20
Yet magical thinking — the belief that you can influence outcomes by doing something that has no causal connection to them — persists. Robert Dingwall, a consulting sociologist, questioned why the U.K.’s Health Security Agency expert panel used only a second-class evidence base that failed to demonstrate clear benefits on which to base their conclusion that face masks in the community help reduce transmission. He wrote:21
“The state of the face mask debate is rather as if Galileo had published his account of the heliocentric universe and then included a paragraph at the end telling the reader to ignore all the evidence because the Church had declared that everything revolved around the Earth.
In the absence of better-quality work — and we must ask why that research has not been done — some of the claims for face masks look much more like magical thinking than anything that demonstrates the sort of casual connection that might be recognizable as science.”
As the pandemic stretches on, science continues to be ignored and recommendations are primarily pushed based on emotional justifications and triggers. If science were actually followed, universal mask wearing by healthy people would not — indeed could not — be recommended.
In the beginning, health officials did, in fact, advise against masks for healthy people,22 but somewhere along the way — early on — they flip-flopped. Why? According to Strongman:23
“Just as masks function as liminal artifacts in rites of passage and as part of animal training, these covid mask are harbingers of further intrusions to our integrity.
Wearing the masks is just one step away from receiving the shots, then accepting the vaccine passports and the implantable neural links until one’s original persona is buried by a cyborg. The masks function as an empirical compliance test for the projected acceptability of future corporeal technologies of control. Where will you draw the line?”
Source: mercola rss
Get customer favorites for 20% off today! Use code FAVORITES at checkout. Plus a new blend, Hot Buttered Rum is […]
Source: plant therapy Blog
According to a commentary in the journal Nature, it is nearly impossible to get both sides of the fluoride issue to meet in the middle of anything.1 On one side, fluoride treatment supporters say it prevents cavities and strengthens teeth.
On the other side, Michael Connett of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and others say the risks fluoride presents to children’s overall health far outweigh any dental benefits.
Connett had been preparing his testimony to give before the Environmental Protection Agency for nearly four years when he gave his opening statement June 8, 2020, from his office over a Zoom call. The bulk of his testimony and that of his witnesses argued that fluoride is a neurotoxin, the addition of which to the water supply is not necessary to lower the rate of oral cavities.
He and others provided scientific evidence of the damage that fluoride causes in infants. Proponents, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and the Oral Health Division of the CDC, have spent millions of dollars on promotion2 and public relations3 to sell fluoridation using half-truths, convincing talking points, and diversions.
To date fluoride is hailed by the CDC as "one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century,"4,5 with roughly 72.4% of the U.S. population drinking from a fluoridated public water supply.6 The history of fluoridated water begins in the 1940s, when published studies supported the addition of fluoride to the drinking water to aid in the reduction of tooth decay.7
Yet, research since then paints a different picture. Despite a lack of fluoridated water in some communities, the rates of tooth decay have continued to decline in tandem with fluoridated communities.8
The first fluoride community trials9 were done in New York, Michigan and Ontario, Canada. In each area, the researchers compared a pair of cities, one with fluoridated water and one without. For example, they compared Newburgh and Kingston in New York state and Grand Rapids and Muskegon in Michigan.10
The researchers conducted surveys over 13 to 15 years and found in the communities where children drank fluoridated water, cavities were reduced by up to 70%. After the data were released, communities around the U.S. began adding fluoride to their water.
Since the initial studies looked at the difference between children and adults drinking fluoridated water and those who did not consume it, scientists theorized that the best benefit came from consumption. However, in the following years, it was discovered that fluoride is most effective against tooth decay only after teeth have erupted from the gums.11
According to the article in Nature,12 in the early years, researchers thought fluoride would benefit an infant growing in its mother's womb. But, they later found that while fluoride is incorporated into a fetus’ developing teeth, it only works after the baby is born and the teeth have erupted.
Another discovery they made was that, when the mouth environment becomes acidic, fluoride ions move out of the plaque and pull minerals from saliva to raise mineral levels in the enamel surface and slow cavity development. When researchers showed that topical application was another way to ward off dental decay, dentists began using topical fluoride applications, fluoridated toothpaste flooded the market and children in primary schools were given fluoride tablets.
All the while, health officials continued to add fluoride to the water supply, right up until the present day. This is one of the reasons for Connett’s charges against the EPA — that water fluoridation is no longer necessary when fluoride applications appear to have the same benefit.
Findings from a fluoride study published in JAMA Pediatrics13 in 2019 and another published in Environmental Health14 in 2017 have garnered the most attention in fluoride research in recent years.
Researchers in the JAMA study compared the IQ of children who were born in areas using fluoridated water against those in areas using non-fluoridated water. The data demonstrated there was as much as a five-point drop in IQ when an infant is exposed to fluoride in utero. Christine Till is a neuropsychologist from Toronto, Canada, and lead scientist on the study. She told Nature:
“It’s not disputed that fluoride is toxic at high levels. You have some weaker studies saying there’s no effect. And then you have our study, and the Mexico study [which found a correlation between a pregnant woman’s ingestion of flouridated water and reduced IQ in their children], that are high quality, saying there is an effect.”
Following these two studies, Philippe Grandjean, environmental medicine researcher from Denmark, developed a benchmark dose study on fluoride to determine when there would be detectable adverse effects on IQ.15 His June 2021 paper showed levels as low as 0.2 mg per liter had a distinct effect on IQ.
This is less than one-third of the level recommended for water supplementation and one-20th of the maximum allowable level in the U.S.16 In other words, Grandjean determined that the levels of fluoride currently being used for U.S. water supplementation are much higher than the lowest level at which fluoride consumption negatively affects an infant’s IQ.
Added to this is a 2015 meta-analysis of 107 studies published by the Cochrane Library,17 which found there was “insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation program results in a change in disparities in carries across socioeconomic status levels.”18
This conclusion is important since many who argue for a fluoridated water supply believe it's necessary for cavity prevention in communities where people cannot afford dental care and not all children can be given topical fluoride.
E. Angeles Martinez Mier studies dental public health at Indiana University. Despite poor evidence that consuming fluoride can reduce the development of caries, Martinez Mier told the Nature reporter,19 “A lot of public-health dentists are adamant that fluoridated water is the only thing we have that reaches the public, regardless of access to care, regardless of public health.”
What is sometimes forgotten is that fluoride was added to the water supply not because scientists originally believed that it would help reduce cavities in children's teeth, but because they had an abundance of the key chemical used in making the atomic bomb. Unfortunately, it was also one of the most toxic chemicals for the workers and nearby communities.20
Investigative reporters Chris Bryson and Joel Griffiths wrote an article in 1997 which was originally commissioned by the Christian Science Monitor. The story was fully documented but remained unpublished until the FAN published it in September 1997.21
It is a fascinating story of how science and the military joined forces in the name of national security. In a race to build the atomic bomb, documented evidence that fluoride was a neurotoxin was classified and buried with information about the Manhattan Project, the code name for the atomic bomb.22
Declassified documents revealed a body of evidence that fluoride had significantly negative health effects. Without a way to adequately dispose of the toxin, scientists and the military developed “Program F” in an effort to find evidence that could help defeat litigation against fluoride's effect on human injury.23
This has allowed manufacturers to make hundreds of millions of dollars24 a year selling a hazardous industrial waste for use as a water additive rather than having to pay for toxic waste disposal.
“Toxic Treatment: Fluoride’s Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle” in the March 2018 issue of Origins,25 a joint publication by the history departments at The Ohio State University and Miami University, notes:
“Without the phosphate industry’s effluent, water fluoridation would be prohibitively expensive. And without fluoridation, the phosphate industry would be stuck with an expensive waste disposal problem.”
Today, Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act allows citizens and nongovernmental organizations to petition the EPA to remove toxic substances found to pose an “unreasonable risk”26 either to the population or a subset of that population.
This is the law that FAN used to bring litigation against the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoride chemicals to the U.S. drinking water supply. The petition included a large body of research demonstrating fluoride is neurotoxic and included over 2,500 pages of scientific evidence detailing the health risks.27
Based on current evidence that fluoride consumption is a neurotoxin to developing infants and young children, it would seem reasonable that it represents an unreasonable risk.
One of the neurotoxic effects scientists have demonstrated is reduction in IQ. Interestingly, scientists have also found that IQ scores have been falling since the 1970s.28,29 Researchers from Norway published their data in 2018, which showed that scores declined in individuals born after 1975.
Other studies have found similar results in Britain, France, Denmark and Finland. Ole Rogeberg was one of the researchers who told CNN30 that the cause of the decline is likely due to environmental factors. Although access to education is one environmental factor being considered, the team acknowledges that more research is needed to understand what else may be linked to intelligence.
Coincidentally, sulfuryl fluoride has been a registered pesticide in the U.S. since 1959.31 The product is a colorless and odorless gas that's used to fumigate for bed bugs, termites, mice and rats.
It’s also used on some agricultural products and was approved as a food fumigant on post-harvest food in 2004.32 Since it breaks down into fluoride after it’s applied, it can leave fluoride residues on the grains, fruits, tree nuts and other foods to which it’s applied.33 This approval raised the level of fluoride residue on food to its highest level in history. In 2005 the EPA gave an additional approval to sulfuryl fluoride for direct treatment of coffee and cocoa.
Recognizing the neurotoxicity effect that this could have in reducing IQ and because it's a highly potent greenhouse gas,34 the EPA drafted a risk assessment in 2011 recommending that the aggregate exposure from water, toothpaste and food was too high for infants and children.
They proposed canceling acceptable pesticide residue levels on food to phase out sulfuryl fluoride over a three-year period. However, in 2013,35 the House of Representatives Appropriations Interior and Environmental subcommittee voted to cut the budget of the EPA and prevent the agency from enforcing the decision to phase out sulfuryl fluoride from the food supply.
In other words, with full knowledge of declassified early studies that fluoride has a neurotoxic effect, and data demonstrating the effect it has on IQ of all infants, the House of Representatives chose to protect the financial interests of the industry, rather than the health and brains of the children.
One of the arguments for maintaining the status quo is that fluoride now reaches children and adults of all socioeconomic statuses. Even those who are unable to get routine dental care are now exposed to fluoride on a regular basis.36
What is not considered is exposure to the same individuals through toothpaste, mouthwash and their food supply. It also doesn't appear that any governmental agency or legislative body is interested in reducing your exposure.
During that June 2020 testimony, Connett spoke of the 2019 National Toxicology Program (NTP) draft report that reached the same conclusion — fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin.37 The report was not entered as evidence and the case remains open as the judge waits for the 2022 NTP conclusion.
If you need further proof of fluoride’s neurotoxicity, in addition to slowly dumbing down the next generation to protect teeth and gums, scientists have revealed that fluoride acts as an endocrine disruptor38 and has been linked to thyroid disease.39 This in turn can contribute to obesity, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and depression.
Exposure to fluoridated water also increases the number of children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.40 But, the effects of fluoride do not end in infants and children. One 2019 study41 demonstrated that chronic low-level fluoride exposure alters sleep patterns of adolescents aged 16 to 19.
The study used data from the 2015-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey that included plasma fluoride and water fluoride measurements. An analysis of the data revealed that for every 0.52 milligram per liter increase in water fluoride, there were 197% higher odds of symptoms that suggested sleep apnea, a 24-minute later bedtime and a 26-minute later waking time.42
Exposure to too much fluoride also causes dental fluorosis. This condition changes the appearance of the tooth enamel so there are white spots and sometimes pitting. While the CDC43 says a mild condition does not affect dental function, a study published in Sweden in 202144 found there was as much as a 50% higher rate of hip fractures in postmenopausal women in areas with up to 1 mg per liter of fluoride in the drinking water.
The level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline. During an interview with me in June 2021, Connett, who holds a degree in chemistry and specializes in environmental toxicology, said:45
“Fluoride is following the same trajectory as lead because basically, whether or not you found a neurotoxic effect for lead was simply a function of how well designed your study was. The better your study was designed, the more likely you were to find that lead was lowering IQ. The same thing is happening with fluoride.”
Source: mercola rss