There is no single known cause for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but it is widely accepted by the scientific community that it is triggered by abnormalities in brain structure and function. This has been established in studies which illustrate the differences in the shape and structure of the autistic brain compared to those seen in the brains of neurotypical children. There is also a decent amount of evidence to support the theory that some children are born with a susceptibility to autism, but scientists have yet to identify this “trigger.” This is why researches have theorized that irregular segments of genetic code may be the root cause of autism.
In recent years, however, a wealth of information has emerged that was once never even considered. Despite the fact that the cause for autism isn’t certain, and that it’s highly unlikely researchers will ever find that ‘one’ cause of autism, scientists are now realizing that autism could be the result of the modern day human lifestyle. There are a number of significant studies that should be ringing alarm bells in the medical and scientific communities in this regard.
I’d also like to mention that autism is a large spectrum, some of what we are seeing here are in no way a ‘disability.’ Some may be due to malformations at critical stages of development due to the factors mentioned in this article. Other cases could be a gift, a slight evolutionary leap or an ability to access other parts of the brain. I just want to make it clear that the spectrum is huge, and many children who are diagnosed with ASDs do not have their brain scanned, much of the time they are diagnosed strictly through observation and social tendencies.
Since autism is strongly correlated with malformations during critical stages of development, especially in fetal states, scientists are finding that some of the strongest predictors for autism are associated with the environment. At particular stages of pregnancy the fetus is extremely vulnerable to whatever toxins the mother is exposed to, such as plasticers, prescription drugs, and environmental pesticides.
As Andrey Rzhetsky, Professor of Genetic Medicine and Human Genetics at the University of Chicago points out, “some of these small molecules essentially alter normal development.” A couple of years ago he published a study in the journal PLOS Computational Biology with researchers at the University of Chicago; it revealed that autism and intellectual disability (ID) rates are linked with exposure to harmful environmental factors during congenital development. His team looked at data that covered one third of the United States population, as well as more than 21 countries. They found that environmental lead, medications, and a large variety of other synthetic molecules (like pesticides, mercury, aluminum and more) all wreak havoc on the fetus. These substances were also linked with congenital malformations of male genitalia – which is strongly correlated with autism. (source)(source)
This is one out of many significant studies which should really be signalling to the medical and scientific community that preventative measures are crucial in the fight against autism; parents who want to decrease their risk of bearing a child with autism need to be educated in such measures.
“It’s time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism.” – Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Epidemiology Professor at University of California, Davis. (source)
It should be clear that autism goes well beyond a genetic problem. Our environment is full of neurodevelopment toxins, which are substances that alter how the brain grows. Polychlorinated diphenyl, lead, mercury, aluminum, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides are a few out of many examples.
There is a reason why, in the United States alone, autism rates have risen from 1;10,000 in 1981 to 1;68 in 2014. It’s time to look at our environment.
If we were to focus on just one (out of dozens) of these environmental toxins that we are exposed to on a daily basis, it would not be difficult to see how it could significantly increase the chances for autism. Throw in the dozens of other toxins that are equally as problematic, and the picture becomes much clearer.
Let’s take a look at pesticides, if only because billions of tonnes of these chemicals are sprayed on food and in our environment each year. In the United States alone, over 1 billion pounds of pesticides are sprayed every year, and approximately 5.6 billion pounds are used worldwide. It’s also disturbing to note, as emphasized by multiple publications, that all commercial formulations of pesticides are very complex mixtures of active and other ingredients. These “other” ingredients “include a wide variety of substances which are added to increase the efficacy of the product in a cost-effective manner. Information regarding these other compounds is considered proprietary business information and is not publicly available.” (source)
That being said, the information that we do have about the active ingredients in pesticides still paints a shocking picture.
For example, a study coming out of the University of California, Davis, determined that pregnant women who live in close proximity to land and farms where chemical pesticides are/were applied experience a two-thirds increased risk of having a child with autism spectrum disorder or some other developmental disorder.
The study examined associations between pesticides — including organophosphates (a main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide) — that were applied during the participants’ pregnancies and a later diagnosis of autism or developmental delay in their children.
The study was published online this summer in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.(1) It concluded that proximity to organophosphates alone, at some point during gestation, was associated with a 60% increased risk for ASD:
This study validates the results of earlier research that had reported associations between having a child with autism and prenatal exposure to agricultural chemicals in California. While we still must investigate whether certain sub-groups are more vulnerable to exposures to these compounds than others, the message is very clear: Women who are pregnant should take special care to avoid contact with agricultural chemicals whenever possible. – Janie F. Shelton, a UC Davis graduate student who now consults with the United Nations, lead author of the study (source)
Many people like to mention that correlation does not mean causation, but they fail to use the Bradford Hill Criteria and consider just how much information correlates with the evidence at hand.
“How could we have ever believed that it was a good idea to grow our food with poisons? . . . As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals — and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science. They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that GMOs were safe.” – Jane Goodall
The study cited above found that organophosphates applied over the course of pregnancy were associated with an elevated risk of autism spectrum disorder. The study also found that exposures to insecticides for those living near agricultural areas may be problematic, especially during gestation, because a developing fetal brain is more vulnerable to such chemicals than an adult’s.
Because these pesticides are neurotic, in utero exposures during early development may distort the complex processes of structural development and neuronal singling producing alterations to the excitation and inhibition mechanisms that govern mood, learning, social interactions and behaviour.
“Because of the observed associations in humans and direct effects on neurodevelopmental toxicity in animal studies, caution is warranted for women to avoid direct contact with pesticides during pregnancy.”(source)
These pesticides are not just potential factors for the development of atusim, The active ingredient in Roundup is Glyphosate, which was recently linked to cancer by the World Health Organization (source). It was also found to be 125 times more toxic than regulators claimed. (source)
Pesticides sprayed on our food have also been linked to birth defects. (source) A paper published in the journal Pediatrics found that prenatal exposure to some of the pesticides sprayed on our food could impair the anthropometric development of the fetus, reducing the birth weight, length, and head circumference. (source)
There are a number of studies that have examined pesticide-induced diseases in fetuses. You can view some of them here.
Canadian research has also identified the presence of GMO-associated pesticides in maternal, fetal, and non-pregnant women’s blood. They also found the presence of Monsanto’s Bt toxin. The study was published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology in 2011. (source)
The study concluded that, apart from pesticides, Monsanto’s Bt toxins are clearly detectable and appear to cross the placenta to the fetus. The study pointed out that the fetus is highly susceptible to the adverse affects of xenobiotics (foreign chemical substances found within an organism that are not naturally produced). This is why the study emphasized that knowing more about GMOs is crucial, because environmental agents could disrupt the biological events that are required to ensure normal growth and development.
Here is another study that shows glyphosate can cause abnormalities. It was published in 2010 by the American Chemical Society; the research was conducted at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
“The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to GBH in agricultural fields.”
In late 2013, the European Food Safety Authority determined that pesticides may negatively affect the development of neurons and brain structures in unborn babies.
“Given the ubiquitous exposure to many environmental toxicants, there needs to be renewed efforts to prevent harm. Such prevention should not await detailed evidence on individual hazards. . . . Toxic exposure to chemical pollutants during these windows of increased susceptibility can cause disease and disability in childhood and across the entire span of human life.” (source) – From the world’s foremost pediatricians, toxicologists, environmental scientists, and epidemiologists at a conference held in 2007
“Chemical pollution represents a serious threat to children and to Man’s survival.” (source) – The Standing Committee of European Doctors
As you can see above, environmental toxins are of big concern. Just to reiterate, we are talking about multiple toxins found in a variety of products that have found their way into the human lifestyle. Air fresheners, pesticides, prescription drugs, fluoride (neuro-toxin), and a host of other contaminants could all be contributing factors for autism. This is probably why scientists have not been able to identify one specific cause. Considering how many environmental toxins we are regularly exposed to, it becomes clear that we are dealing with multiple instigators which, in combination, represent serious cause for concern.
There are some within the medical/scientific community who scoff at the idea that vaccines could potentially be contributing to the rise in autism rates that we’ve seen over the past few decades. As with anything else, we can’t claim to have discovered one single, direct link to autism, but it remains important to identify the multiple factors which are working together to make this disorder so prevalent.
Despite this skepticism, there are many doctors who think vaccines are worth looking into.
For example, there are a number of studies that outline the current concerns over vaccine ingredients. A study published in the Journal of Toxicology by scientists from the University of British Colombia, Louisiana, and MIT outlines how aluminum, up until the 1820s — when the industrial extraction of AI made it possible to bring it into our food, manufacturing, medicines, and more — was almost completely absent from the biosphere. The paper outlines how aluminum is harmful to the Central Nervous System (CNS), “acting in a number of deleterious ways and across multiple levels to induce biosemiotic entropy.” (source)
A study published in the Journal Current Medical Chemistry in 2011 stated that:
Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue. (source)
The paper points out how aluminum could be a culprit in the development of a wide body of neurodegenerative diseases, one of them being autism.
Here is a statement I took from the paper. For links to the specific citations you can look at the actual paper:
The issue of vaccine safety thus becomes even more pertinent given that, to the best of our knowledge, no adequate clinical studies have been conducted to establish the safety of concomitant administration of two experimentally-established neurotoxins, aluminum and mercury, the latter in the form of ethyl mercury (thimerosal) in infants and children. Since these molecules negatively affect many of the same biochemical processes and enzymes implicated in the etiology of autism, the potential for a synergistic toxic action is plausible [31, 47]. Additionally, for the purpose of evaluating safety and efficacy, vaccine clinical trials often use an aluminium-containing placebo, either containing the same or greater amount of aluminum as the test vaccine [48-51]. Without exception, these trials report a comparable rate of adverse reactions between the placebo and the vaccine group (for example, 63.7% vs 65.3% of systemic events and 1.7% vs 1.8% of serious adverse events respectively ).
The same authors as above also published a paper in 2011 that was approved for publication in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. It stated:
We show that Al-adjuvanted vaccines may be a significant etiological factor in the rising prevalence of ASD. . . . According to the FDA, vaccines represent a special category of drugs as they are generally given to healthy individuals . Further according to the FDA, “this places significant emphasis on their [vac- cine] safety” . While the FDA does set an upper limit for Al in vaccines at no more than 850 μg/dose , it is important to note that this amount was selected empirically from data showing that Al in such amounts en- hanced the antigenicity of the vaccine, rather than from existing safety data or from the basis of toxicological considerations . . . . Nonetheless, given that the scientific evidence appears to indicate that vaccine safety is not as firmly established as often believed, it would seem ill advised to exclude pediatric vaccinations as a possible cause of adverse long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes, including those associated with autism. (source)
I included these particular authors because they are the most recent examples, but there are many which demonstrate that certain elements of vaccines could be a cause for concern.
A fairly recent Meta-Analysis published in the journal Bio Med Research International found that:
As seen in this review, the studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism. These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful. As mentioned in the Introduction section, many studies conducted by independent investigators have found Thimerosal to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Several studies, for example, including three of the six studies covered in this review, have found Thimerosal to be a risk factor for tics [10, 17, 24, 25, 34, 35]. In addition, Thimerosal has been found to be a risk factor in speech delay, language delay, attention deficit disorder, and autism [10, 11, 15–17, 24, 25, 34].
Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies. (source)
There are many reasons why vaccination rates have been dropping, and we must seek to understand the parents who are listening instead of lashing out at them. Most of the “pro-vaccine” community is not even aware of why parents are choosing not to vaccinate. The article below examines their reasoning:
Other Factors To Consider Outlined In The Article Below:
Cancer is Now the Leading Cause of Death
- The Facts:
Cancer has surpassed heart disease as the No. 1 cause of death in high-income countries, highlighting the urgent need to change the way this disease is prevented and treated.
- Reflect On:
Rather than being a random result of DNA mutations, it's possible that cancer could have much deeper roots that would be better targeted with natural therapies than toxicity.
This article was written by the Greenmedinfo Research Group, originally published by Greenmedinfo.com. Published here with permission.
Cancer has dethroned heart disease to earn the nefarious title of leading cause of death in high-income and certain middle-income countries.[i] While heart disease remains the No. 1 cause of death globally among adults aged 35 to 70, in high-income countries, which included Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Canada and Sweden, cancer caused twice as many deaths as heart disease.[ii]
Some middle-income countries, which included the Philippines, Iran, South Africa, Colombia, China, Brazil, Malaysia, Turkey, Poland, Argentina and Chile, also saw cancer become the leading cause of death.
While the U.S. was not included in the new analysis, research published in 2018 suggested, “the United States is in the midst of an epidemiologic transition in the leading cause of death,” moving from heart disease to cancer.[iii]
That study, too, found that cancer was quickly outpacing heart disease as the top killer, with high-income counties transitioning first. In fact, while only 21% of U.S. counties had cancer as the leading cause of death in 2003, this rose to 41% in 2015.
“The shift to cancer as the leading cause of death was greatest in the highest-income counties,” the researchers explained,[iv] echoing the current study, which also cited “a transition in the predominant causes of deaths in middle-age” in high-income countries.[v]
“The world is witnessing a new epidemiologic transition among the different categories of noncommunicable diseases, with CVD [cardiovascular disease] no longer the leading cause of death in HIC [high-income countries],” lead author Dr. Gilles Dagenais, professor emeritus, Laval University, Quebec, Canada, said in a statement.[vi]
Why is Cancer a Top Killer?
The study suggested cancer is rising to the top because heart disease is better treated in high-income countries, saving more lives from heart disease and paving the way for cancer deaths to flourish. But perhaps a better question is why cancer continues to kill so many.
Even globally, cancer still comes in as the second leading cause of death behind heart disease, responsible for 26% of deaths worldwide.[vii] In the U.S., Americans have a 1 in 3 risk of developing cancer at some point in their lifetimes, along with a 1 in 5 risk of dying from the disease.[viii]
In early 2019, it was announced that cancer death rates in the U.S. declined 27% since 1991,[ix] a statistic that makes it seem as though we’re winning the “war on cancer.” But most of these declines can be attributed to reductions in smoking — and perhaps a limited measure of increased early detection and treatment — and are not a sign that conventional medicine’s model of surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation to treat cancer is, on the whole, working.
While death rates from certain cancer have declined, others have increased. Overall, cancer deaths in the U.S. in 2016 were similar to those in 1930[x] — despite all the “advances” in detection and treatment.
Changing the Way We Think About Cancer
It’s becoming increasingly clear that in order to conquer cancer, it’s necessary to change the way we think about it. Cancer is found in virtually all animals, suggesting it has evolutionary significance.[xi] It’s possible that cancer is an ancient survival program unmasked — even a process the body undergoes in order to survive nutrient deprivation and exposure to toxins.
Rather than being the result of an accumulation of DNA mutations that create rogue cells that multiply out of control, cancer could be cells that have flipped an epigenetic switch into survival mode in the form of a tumor. In the journal Physical Biology, researchers theorized:[xii]
“[C]ancer is an atavistic [primitive] condition that occurs when genetic or epigenetic malfunction unlocks an ancient ‘toolkit’ of pre-existing adaptations, re-establishing the dominance of an earlier layer of genes that controlled loose-knit colonies of only partially differentiated cells, similar to tumors.”
If this is true, it makes sense that conventional cancer treatments aimed to poison or “kill” the cancerous cells may only make the problem worse by creating an even more toxic environment, which could trigger the cancer to reach back into its “ancient toolkit” to find additional means of survival.
This explanation may be overly simplistic, as there are many factors that contribute to cancer, but there is evidence to suggest that natural substances and therapies that support the body’s overall health can be useful in the fight against cancer.
Nearly 1,000 Natural Substances Have Anti-Cancer Potential
GreenMedInfo has a database of 986 substances that have been researched as potential cancer prevention and treatment strategies. There are undoubtedly many more out there that have yet to be discovered. At the top of the list is curcumin, the active ingredient in the curry spice turmeric, which targets cancer stem cells while leaving normal stem cells unharmed.[xiii]
Another top contender is vitamin D, which you can get for free from adequate sun exposure. Higher vitamin D levels are not only known to lower your cancer risk but also to improve outcomes if you’ve already been diagnosed.[xiv] Fiber, resveratrol, sulforaphane and vitamin E — all substances you can get from your diet — also show anti-cancer promise, as does coffee, perhaps because it improves the body’s ability to efficiently repair DNA damage.[xv]
So if there was one silver lining to the news that cancer is now the leading cause of death in some countries, it would be that it’s a condition that has many promising natural avenues for prevention and treatment. Current conventional cancer treatments are failing, but that doesn’t mean cancer is unstoppable — it means it’s time to broaden our research into and usage of traditional therapies.
Many natural substances, like noni leaf,[xvi] have even been shown to work better than chemotherapy, highlighting why, if we’re going to win the war against cancer, we’re going to need to do it with nature on our side.
For more on how to naturally fight Cancer, visit the GreenMedInfo database on the subject.
Originally published: 2019-09-14
For more info from Greenmedinfo, you can join their newsletter by clicking here.
Man Fasts For 382 Days Straight & Loses 276 Pounds
- The Facts:
Angus Barbieri, a man who, in June of 1965, began a fast under medical supervision for exactly 382 days. He remained completely healthy for the duration of the fast.
- Reflect On:
Today, it's firmly established in scientific literature that fasting can have tremendous benefits, if done correctly. It can also be used to treat a variety of diseases. Perhaps it's not emphasized because you can't make money off of not eating?
A study published in the Post Graduate Medical Journal in 1972 brought more attention to a gentleman by the name of Angus Barbieri, a man who, in June of 1965, began a fast under medical supervision for exactly 382 days and, at the time the study was published, had since maintained his ordinary weight. In his case, “prolonged fasting had no ill effects.” Barbieri’s weight decreased from 456 to 180 pounds during the fast.
This isn’t the only example that’s available in the literature, it’s similar to an earlier patient prior to Barbieri who reduced his weight from 432 to 235 pounds during 350 days of intermittent fasting (Stewart, Fleming & Robertson, 1966). Researchers have also fasted patients for 256 days (Collison, 1967, 1971), 249 and 236 days (Thomson et al., 1966) as well as 210 days (Garnett et al., 1969; Runcie & Thomson, 1970), all of which are cited in the 1972 study.
Since the publication of this time, there are many documented examples of prolonged fasting done by highly obese people. Here’s one recent example of a man who fasted for 50 straight days, while being medically supervised and tested the whole time.
When you fast, your body switches from burning glucose, to burning fat. Fasting lowers insulin levels which allows the body to access its fat stores for energy. When you eat, food is converted into glucose and that’s what we usually burn. This is why fasting has become a therapeutic intervention for many people with type two diabetes, and more doctors, like Dr. Jason Fung, a Toronto Based nephrologist, are having great success with utilizing fasting as an appropriate and necessary health intervention. Fung has many great articles regarding the science of fasting, you can access them here if you’re interested in learning more. This article references some of the leading scientists in the field so you can learn more by looking them up as well.
The graph below depicts what happens to your protein while fasting. Interesting isn’t it? People often believe that if you fast, you will experience a tremendous amount of muscle loss during fasting, but that’s simply not true. This graph is from Kevin Hall, from the NIH in the book “Comparative Physiology of Fasting, Starvation, and Food Limitation.”
“It seems that there are always concerns about loss of muscle mass during fasting. I never get away from this question. No matter how many times I answer it, somebody always asks, “Doesn’t fasting burn your muscle?” Let me say straight up, NO.” – source Dr. Jason Fung
But what about Angus Barbieri? Obviously we’re not saying long term fasts for this long are healthy, obviously for many people they will probably be unhealthy and unsafe unless medically supervised. In the 1972 study doctors measured a number of concentrations within the body. For example, plasma potassium concentrations over the first four months decreased systematically. As a result, they provided a very small daily dose that increased his potassium level. After another 10 weeks, no potassium was given, and from there on in until the end of the fast, plasma potassium levels remained normal. Cholesterol concentrations also remained around 230 mg/ 100 ml until 300 days of fasting, but increased to 370 mg/100 ml during refeeding.
Plasma magnesium levels decreased over the first few weeks of the fast but then went up and stabilized. This is interesting to note as there is nothing going into the body, yet levels still stabilized after the initial decrease.
Normal plasma magnesium concentrations, despite magnesium ‘depletion’ in muscle tissue, have been described (Drenick et al., 1969) during short-term fasting (1-3 months). The only other relevant report is a remark (Runcie & Thomson, 1970) that one patient who fasted 71 days had a normal plasma magnesium level of 2-2 mEq/l at the time when she developed latent tetany. The decrease in the plasma magnesium concentration of our patient was systematic and persistent.
The excretion of sodium, potassium, calcium and inorganic phosphate decreased to low levels throughout the first 100 days, but thereafter the excretion of all four urinary constituents, as well as of magnesium, began to increase. During the subsequent 200 days sodium excretion, previously between 2 and 20 mEq daily, reached over 80 mEq/24 hr, potassium excretion increased to 30-40 mEq daily and calcium excretion increased from 10-30 mg/24 hr to 250- 280 mg/24 hr. Magnesium excretion (which was not measured during the first 100 days) reached 10 mEq/ 24 hr between Days 200-300. Phosphate excretion, which had decreased to under 200 mg/24 hr, also increased to around 800 mg/24 hr, even exceeding 1000 mg/24 hr on occasion. Peak excretions of all these constituents were seen around Day 300, after which there was a marginal decrease, but excretion remained high.
Obviously, this is an extreme fast and such fasts have only been tested on people of tremendous obesity, and it shows that people with a high body fat percentage have the ability to fast longer simply because their body has more stores to pull from.
The study concluded in 1972 that:
We have found, like Munro and colleagues (1970), that prolonged supervised therapeutic starvation of the obese patient can be a safe therapy, which is also effective if the ideal weight is reached. There is, however, likely to be occasionally a risk in some individuals, attributable to failures in different aspects of the adaptative response to fasting. Until the characteristics of these variations in response are identified, and shown to be capable of detection in their prodromal stages, extended starvation therapy must be used cautiously. In our view, unless unusual hypokalaemia is seen, potassium supplements are not mandatory. Xanthine oxidase inhibitors (or uricosuric agents) are not always necessary and could even be potentially harmful (British Medical Journal, 1971) perhaps particularly in the long-term fasting situation.
It’s almost 2020, and the literature, studies and research that’s been published since 1972 is vast. We’ve learned a lot more about it and if done correctly it can be extremely beneficial. Shot term fasting presents minimal to no health risks, and so does long term fasting that lasts more than 24 hours, that is unless a person already has an underlying condition. That being said, it’s not easy to start. Most people are used to eating three meals plus snacks every single day, therefore they are never adapted to burning their fat stores, something that appears the human body was meant to do.
“Why is it that the normal diet is three meals a day plus snacks? It isn’t that it’s the healthiest eating pattern, now that’s my opinion but I think there is a lot of evidence to support that. There are a lot of pressures to have that eating pattern, there’s a lot of money involved. The food industry — are they going to make money from skipping breakfast like I did today? No, they’re going to lose money. If people fast, the food industry loses money. What about the pharmaceutical industries? What if people do some intermittent fasting, exercise periodically and are very healthy, is the pharmaceutical industry going to make any money on healthy people?” – Mark Mattson (source)
Fasting has also been shown to be effective as a therapeutic intervention for cancer. Fasting protects healthy cells while ‘starving’ cancer cells, it’s now being used as an intervention that’s being combined with chemotherapy. Fasting has also been shown to greatly reduce the risk of age related diseases like Parkinson’s Disease, and Alzheimer’s disease. Mark Mattson, one of the foremost researchers of the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying multiple neurodegenerative disorders has shown through his work that fasting can have a tremendous effect on the brain, and can even reverse the symptoms of multiple neurodegenerative disorders. You can watch his interesting TED talk here. Scientists have also discovered strong evidence that fasting is a natural intervention for triggering stem cell-based regeneration of an entire organ or system.
Fasting has actually long been known to have an effect on the brain. Children who suffer from epileptic seizures have fewer of them when placed on caloric restriction or fasts. It is believed that fasting helps kick-start protective measures that help counteract the overexcited signals that epileptic brains often exhibit. (source)
The list goes on and is quite long. At the end of the day if you do your research, fasting, under proper medical supervision, can have tremendous health benefits that go far beyond what’s mentioned in the paragraph above. Every single study that has looked at fasting as a therapeutic intervention for several diseases has shown nothing but positive benefits. Even studies conducted regarding caloric restriction, something completely different than fasting, have shown promising results in all animal models.
According to a review of fasting literature conducted in 2003, “Calorie restriction (CR) extends life span and retards age-related chronic diseases in a variety of species, including rats, mice, fish, flies, worms, and yeast. The mechanism or mechanisms through which this occurs are unclear.” Since this study was published, a great amount of research has been conducted from many researchers, and the mechanisms are being discovered and have become more clear. If you want to further your research, apart from the names listed above, Dr. Valter Longo and his research is another great place to start.
The body has a tremendous amount of storage, and it hangs on to what it needs during a fast, and uses up ‘bad’ things, repairs damaged cells, and more. When you fast and deplete all your glycogen, your body is going to start using fat for energy, it’s going to use damaged cells for energy, it’s basically going to use all of the bad things first, before it gets to the good thing…Your body will not burn protein, as protein is not a fuel source while fasting.
I bring this up because it’s interesting to see what the body loses and hangs on to during a fast.
The truth about fasting is that it’s not dangerous at all. Intermittent fasting and short term fasting can be done by just about anybody. From what we’ve seen with regards to prolonged fasting, it’s also not very dangerous when it comes to obese people doing it under medically supervised conditions. Theoretically, based on the science alone, any relatively healthy human being should be able to do a prolonged fast without any harmful consequences.
Obviously, prolonged fasts that are not medically supervised can be very detrimental. We are obviously not recommending this and you must do a lot of research and talk to your doctor if you’re interested in fasting, before trying it. For starters, a little bit of intermittent fasting here and there is a no brainer, and not dangerous at all if you have no underlying health conditions, but everybody’s body is different.
Fasting is making a lot of noise, and has been making a lot of noise within the health community, but it’s still not appropriately taught and used by the mainstream medical industry. Why is this so? The answer is simple, you can’t make money off of fasting.
Thousands Gather To Mark The 33rd Anniversary of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
Government’s gift to Pharma of liability-free vaccines puts children’s health at risk states Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chairman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Washington, DC – Thousands of advocates for children’s health will gather Thursday at the Vaccine Injury Epidemic (VIE) Event on the National Mall to mark the 33rd anniversary of National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). The rally on Nov. 14th will spotlight the devastating impact NCVIA has had upon the state of children’s health. While children continue to be injured by vaccines daily, vaccine makers cannot be held accountable, thereby eliminating incentive for vaccine safety.
In his remarks, RFK, Jr. will address the ramifications of NCVIA and honor those whose lives have been impacted by vaccine injury and death. “It’s time to call out Congress, the CDC, and drug companies for allowing industry profits to trump children’s health,” said Kennedy. “There is no crisis more urgent than the epidemics of chronic health conditions among our nation’s children.”
Following NCVIA’s passage creating the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), the childhood vaccine market sparked a gold rush for Pharma as more vaccines for routine childhood illnesses were developed. Coterminous with the burgeoning vaccine schedule, chronic health conditions in children rose from 12% to 54%. As vaccine industry profits grew to $50 billion annually, so did diagnoses of asthma, autism, ADHD, allergies, anxiety, depression, diabetes, obsessive-compulsive disorder and auto-immune diseases. Here are the facts:
- An HHS-funded study found only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported.
- Despite NVICP’s high burden of proof and two out of three claims dismissed, over $4.2 billion has been paid for claims of vaccine injury or death.
- The vaccine-injured find NVICP to be a years-long, litigious program with no jury, discovery and precedent. While medical bills mount, the injured are up against DOJ lawyers and HHS “Special Masters” that act as judges.
- The Department of Justice and the NVICP are accused of fraud and obstruction of justice in the Autism Omnibus Proceeding.
- The Institute of Medicine reports that the vaccine schedule as recommended has never been studied for long-term health effects despite independent research suggesting that unvaccinated children are healthier.
- Modern medicine acknowledges that not everyone responds the same to vaccination and the “one size fits all” vaccine policy is not science based.
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.
Doctors Explain How Hiking Actually Changes Our Brains
While it may seem obvious that a good hike through a forest or up a mountain can cleanse your mind,...
A Child Sacrifice God Now On Display In Rome Raises Questions About Elite Pedophilia & Ritual Abuse
Moloch is a Canaanite god in the Old Testament that’s associated with human sacrifice, specifically the sacrifice of human children....