Gardasil, the vaccine that supposedly protects young girls from the human papillomavirus and the cervical cancer which it can lead to, has come under intense scrutiny from medical professionals around the world over the past few years. Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets rarely if ever share information related to this scrutiny, despite the many eye-opening revelations which have made their way into the public domain.
This is why I commonly write about the HPV vaccine and continue to push this information; because it’s not really openly discussed, but should be.
One of these revelations comes from Dr. Dianne Harper, one of a select few specialists in OB/GYN (in the world) who helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved. There are only 50 HPV experts in the world, and Dr. Harper is one of them, inarguably making her an expert on the subject.
Since Harper’s involvement in getting Gardasil approved, she has condemned the vaccine, stating that it is neither safe nor effective. She has mentioned that the tested length of the efficacy of the vaccines in preventing HPV infection is not long enough to prevent cervical cancer, which, as she states, can take decades to develop. She has also stated that vaccination will not decrease the number of cervical cancer cases, but a routine of regular pap smears will.
Of all the women who get an HPV infection, approximately 70 percent of those will clear that infection all by themselves in the first year. You don’t even have to detect it or treat it. Within two years, approximately 90 percent of those women will clear it all by themselves. By three years, you will have 10 percent of that original group of women left who still have an HPV infection, and 5 percent of this 10 percent will have progressed into a pre-cancerous lesion. So, “now you have that small group of women who have pre-cancerous lesions and now let’s look at that moving into invasive carcinoma. What we know then is that amongst women with. . . [pre-cancerous] lesions. . . it takes five years for about twenty percent of them to become invasive carcinomas. That’s a pretty slow process. It takes about thirty years for forty percent of them to become invasive cervical carcinomas.” (source)
This begs the question, why do nine-year old girls need vaccinations for symptomless venereal diseases that their immune systems kill anyway?
Harper has told CBS that these vaccines are essentially useless, explaining that “the benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated.”
She also goes on to caution of their dangers:
Parents and women must know that deaths occurred. Not all deaths that have been reported were represented in Dr. Slade’s work, one-third of the death reports were unavailable to the CDC, leaving the parents of the deceased teenagers in despair that the CDC is ignoring the very rare but real occurrences that need not have happened if parents were given information stating that there are real, but small risks of death surrounding the administration of Gardasil.
“It is a vaccine that’s been highly marketed, the benefits are over-hyped, and the dangers are underestimated.” – Dr. Chris Shaw, Professor at the University of British Columbia, in the department of Neuroscience, Ophthalmology, and Visual Sciences (Taken from the One More Girl documentary)
“When one looks at the independent literature, so studies which are not sponsored by the vaccine manufacturers, so with relation to Gardasil there have been several reports documenting multiple sclerosis and encephalitis, which is brain inflammation, in girls who have received their Gardasil vaccine. So just because a study sponsored by the manufacturers does not identify problems with the vaccine does not necessarily mean that the vaccine is safe. In fact if one looks at the manufacturer studies, they’re often not designed to detect serious adverse events. There was a study done by a group of researchers sponsored by Glaxo Smith and Kline and they were looking at Cervarix, which is another HPV vaccine, and the authors acknowledged that none of the studies that they evaluated have been designed to detect autoimmune diseases. So obviously, you’re not going to find what you’re not looking for. And in spite of these obvious flaws, they concluded that there is no evidence that Cervarix is associated with increased risk for autoimmune diseases, and this is absurd because you haven’t looked for it, the study has not been designed to detect autoimmune diseases.”
– Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, Post-doctoral Fellow at the University of British Columbia, where she works in Neurosciences and the Department of Medicine (source)
Brand New Study Outlines Why Many Doctors Don’t Recommend HPV Shots
A brand new study recently published in the journal Pediatrics has found that many paediatricians don’t strongly recommend the HPV vaccine. For those of you who are unaware, the HPV vaccine, also known as the Gardasil vaccine, is designed to protect against four types of human papillomavirus, or HPV. Although the HPV vaccine is banned in multiple countries, like Japan for example, it has been approved for use in Canada and approximately 100 other countries.
Researchers used a national survey asking approximately 600 doctors to outline their stance on the HPV vaccine. Conducted between October 2013 and January 2014, the study found that a large percentage of paediatricians and family doctors — nearly one third of those surveyed — are not strongly recommending the HPV vaccine to parents and preteens, which is why, as illustrated by the study, HPV vaccination rates continue to drop.
The study mentioned that some doctors felt the need for a clearer understanding of reasons to vaccinate preteens, particularly given the fact that most do not become sexually active until later on in life, and that many parents would object to them assuming otherwise.
Prior to this, another study was published in the journal Cancer Epidemiolog in 2015. Written by Melissa B. Gilkey, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, the study was designed to assess how physicians recommend the HPV vaccine. The authors were surprised to find that “physicians so often reported recommending HPV vaccination inconsistently, behind schedule, or without urgency. Of the five communication practices we assessed, about half of physicians reported two or more practices that likely discourage timely HPV vaccination.” (source)
This study found that 27 percent of physicians across the United States do not strongly endorse HPV vaccination, and 39 percent reported that they do not give the vaccinations on time as recommended. Approximately 59 percent of physicians recommended it for adolescents.
Physicians questioning vaccine safety seems to be a growing trend, and this is evident and expressed in multiple publications. For example, a fairly recent study published in the journal Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics emphasized that “more research is needed to understand why some health professionals, trained in medical sciences, still have doubts regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccination.” (source)
A new study published in the journal EbioMedicine outlines how more and more physicians, more specifically those in France, do not follow the recommended vaccination schedule and have hesitancy with regards to vaccination for a number of reasons, mainly due to a lack of trust in pharmaceutical grade products, their perception of the utility and risks of vaccines, and their comfort in explaining them to patients. (source)
American College of Pediatricians Links HPV Vaccine (Gardasil) To “Very Rare But Serious Condition.”
“It has recently come to the attention of the College that one of the recommended vaccines could possibly be associated with the very rare but serious condition of premature ovarian failure (POF), also known as premature menopause. There have been two case report series (3 cases each) published since 2013 in which post-menarcheal adolescent girls developed laboratory documented POF within weeks to several years of receiving Gardasil, a four-strain human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV4).”
The press release goes on to state that adverse reactions are not commonly caused by the vaccine, and that there has not been a noticeable rise in POF cases in the last 9 years that the vaccine has been widely used. This is not the first time a statement from a government medical agency has contradicted the evidence of various scientists and doctors around the world. Nevertheless, it’s great to see them at least acknowledge these potentials, stating that there are “legitimate concerns that should be addressed.” These concerns, according to them, are as follows:
- Long term ovarian function was not assessed in either the original rat safety studies, or in the human vaccine trial
- Most primary care physicians are probably unaware of a possible association between HPV4 and POF and may not consider reporting POF cases or prolonged missing menstrual periods to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
- Potential mechanisms of action have been postulated based on autoimmune associations with the aluminum adjuvant used and previously documented ovarian toxicity in rats from another component, polysorbate 80
- Since licensure of Gardasil in 2006, there have been about 213 VAERS reports involving amenorrhea, POF or premature menopause, 88 percent of which have been associated with Gardasil
“The overwhelming majority (76%) of VAERS reports since 2006 with ovarian failure, premature menopause, and/or amenorrhea are associated solely with Gardasil. . . . A Vaccine Safety Datalink POF study is planned to address an association between these vaccines and POF, but it may be years before results will be determined. Plus, POF within a few years of vaccination could be the tip of the iceberg since ovarian dysfunction manifested by months of amenorrhea may later progress to POF.”
It’s also worth mentioning that more than a dozen girls recently came forward in Europe claiming that they are suffering from acute physical side effects from the HPV vaccine. You can read more about that here.
Concordia Professor Criticizes HPV Vaccine After Winning A Federal Grant To Study It
Dr. Genevieve Rail, Professor of Critical Studies of Health at Concordia University, recently received a grant of $270,000 from the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) to study the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). She concluded that there is absolutely no proof that the human papillomavirus directly causes cervical cancer.
“I’m sort of raising a red flag, out of respect for what I’ve found in my own study, and for the despair of parents who had totally perfect 12-year-olds who are now in their beds, too tired to go to school,” she said. “Yes, we’re going against the grain, and we are going against those who are believed, i.e. doctors and nurses and people in public health.” (source)
She feels there are “serious concerns” about the vaccine, yet no research on how young people “experience” the vaccine. (source)
You can read more about this story here.
Merck’s Former Doctor Predicts Gardasil To Become The Greatest Medical Scandal of All Time
Dr. Bernard Dalbergue is a former pharmaceutical industry physician with Gardasil manufacturer Merck who has started to raise his voice against the HPV vaccine, and against the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. He joins a long list of experts from within the industry who have slammed the rampant manipulation and control of clinical research done by the pharmaceutical industry.
This quote is taken from an interview that happened in April of 2014, from an issue of the French magazine Principes de Santé (Health Principles):
The full extent of the Gardasil scandal needs to be assessed: everyone knew when this vaccine was released on the American market that it would prove to be worthless. Diane Harper, a major opinion leader in the United States, was one of the first to blow the whistle, pointing out the fraud and scam of it all.I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune! In addition, decision-makers at all levels are aware of it! Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine. (source)
Dr. Dalbergue has also recently released a book titled Omerta dans les labos pharmaceutiques: Confessions d’un medicine which goes into more detail about corruption in the medical/pharmaceutical industry. He also recently made an appearance on a popular radio show in France which you can watch here. Althought it’s in French, it’s nice to put a face to the name so that you can see he is real.
Gardasil Contains More Than Double The Amount Of Aluminum Than It Previously Had
Gardasil, like several other vaccines, contains aluminum. Health authorities will tell you that using aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines is completely safe, but what they won’t tell you is that there are no safety assessments (toxicity studies) for vaccine ingredients. This can be quite eye-opening for those who were not already aware of this, especially considering the fact that aluminum has been being added to vaccines for approximately 90 years. Yet the Food and Drug Administration, or any other government agency for that matter, has not conducted or included appropriate toxicity studies/testing proving the safety of aluminum. Why is this? One reason could be that vaccines have traditionally (over the years) been viewed as non-toxic substances, therefore not warranting such research. (source)
“I have a document from 2002 from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)… discussing the assessment of vaccine ingredients… and testing specifically in animal models. Back then, the FDA stated that the routine toxicity studies in animals with vaccine ingredients have not been conducted because it was assumed that these ingredients are safe. When I read that I was kind of pulling my hairs out [thinking] ‘So, this is your indisputable evidence of safety?’ These documents never made it to mainstream media. It’s just a lie perpetuated over and over again; that we’ve been using these things for over nine decades and it’s been proven safe. No, it’s been assumed safe.”
– Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic (source)
Even if we look at the FDA’s current website/guidelines, this is not a secret. The statement above was made in response to their 2002 guidelines, which is a fairly recent document. More than 10 years later, however, despite all of the studies demonstrating clear cause for concern, not much has changed.
“Until recently, few licensed vaccines have been tested for developmental toxicity in animals prior to their use in humans.” (source)
Studies also continue to emerge every single year stressing the need to actually test vaccine ingredients for safety. You’d think this would be a no-brainer, wouldn’t you?
Here is a study published in 2015 that stresses how important it is for us to further examine the inclusion of mercury and aluminum in vaccines, arguing that “the safety levels of these substances have never been determined, either for animals or for adult humans—much less for fetuses, newborns, infants, and children.” (source)
Below is an excerpt from a paper that was published in 2015 in the journal Frontiers In Neurology which emphasizes various concerns about aluminum in vaccines:
The conceptual link between long-term persistence of alum particles within macrophages at the site of previous immunization, and the occurrence of adverse systemic events, in particular neurological ones, has long remained an unsolved question. Aluminum has long been identified as a neurotoxic metal, affecting memory, cognition and psychomotor control, altering neurotransmission and synaptic activity, damaging the blood–brain barrier (BBB), exerting pro-oxidant effects, activating microglia and neuroinflammation, depressing the cerebral glucose metabolism and mitochondrial functions, interfering with transcriptional activity, and promoting beta-amyloid and neurofilament aggregation (56). In addition, alum particles impact the immune system through their adjuvant effect and by many other means. They adsorb vaccine antigens on their surface, which protect them from proteolysis thus forming a persistently immunogenic pseudo-pathogen (57). Alum particles may also bind undesirable residual products inherent to vaccine production procedures, as shown for HPV DNA sequences (58) or yeast proteins (59) that may be potentially hazardous (60). Finally, alum particles can directly induce allergy (61, 62) as other metals (63) Concerns about long-term biopersistence of alum largely depend on the ability of alum particles to reach and exert toxicity in remote organs. This ability has been suggested by several studies.
A study published in the journal Current Medical Chemistry in 2011 does the same:
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.
Another one published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry shared the following conclusions:
We show that Al-adjuvanted vaccines may be a significant etiological factor in the rising prevalence of ASD. We also show that children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have a much higher exposure to Al from vaccines, particularly at 2 months of age. . . . 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 [vaccine] 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 enhanced 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.
The list regarding the concerns about aluminum goes on and on. Below is a video from Dr. Christopher Shaw, a professor at the University of British Columbia in the department of Neuroscience, Ophthalmology, and Visual Sciences.
Again, a growing number of studies have clearly demonstrated aluminum adjuvants in vaccines could be a factor in the development of serious autoimmune outcomes in humans. (source)(source)(source)(source)
Moreover, we know, from the work of Richard Flarend, that aluminum is commonly absorbed into the body — into areas it shouldn’t be — and has been found in various urine samples from multiple studies examining this topic… and that’s not just for aluminum in vaccines.
“We increasingly have this compound that was not part of any biochemical process on Earth, that can now only go and do havoc, which is exactly what it does. It causes all kinds of unusual biochemical reactions.” – Dr. Chris Shaw, a neuroscientist and professor at the University of British Columbia
Here is a great video by Dr. Christopher Exley, Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University and Honorary Professor at UHI Millennium Institute. He is known as one of the world’s leading experts on aluminum toxicity.
RELATED CE ARTICLE
Why Women’s Health Is Fracked Up
- The Facts:
Fracking is having a negative impact on our environment and our health. Specific to women, fracking can increase the risk of breast cancer, disrupt hormones and cause pregnancy problems.
- Reflect On:
If you live near areas where fracking is done, it is beneficial to think about how you can offset or avoid some of these potential health issues. We also can become active in asking our governments to stop this procedure.
Article was originally published on karamariaananda.com/ and is being re-published here by the author.
One of the greatest growing threats to women’s health today is the environmental and social devastation caused by fracking.
The landscape of the United States is changing irreversibly and rapidly. Over the past 20 years I have driven back and forth across this country from coast-to-coast 7 times and have seen first-hand the increasing devastation caused to our environment from the boom in gas and oil wells, and 95% of new wells are being fracked.
Hydraulic fracturing, aka fracking, is on the rise in the United States in a shocking way. This is the process of injecting pressurized water, sand, and a dangerous cocktail of hundreds of industrial chemicals deep into mined gas or oil wells in the Earth to stimulate greater production.
Over 12 million people in the United States currently live under a half-mile from active gas and oil wells, facilities, and processing plants today, in the highest threat radius, including nearly 3 million children in schools and daycares.
Modern high-volume hydraulic fracturing was only developed 20 years ago, and in the past decade it’s increased at a rapid fire rate due to advanced fracking technology and horizontal fracking practices, that even run right under the homes and neighborhoods of communities around the country.
The long-term repercussions of fracking on our health are unknown and may take decades to truly reveal themselves, as diseases like cancer can take many years to develop, and the consequences of pregnant women being exposed to extreme toxins will be passed on to the future generations.
What A Waste
A single fracking operation can use more than 9 million gallons of freshwater, and there are over 1.3 million active drilled gas and oil wells in the US today.
Over 700 chemicals are used in the drilling and fracking process and most are undisclosed due to proprietary trade secrets, yet many of the detected chemicals are known carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, and cause environmental pollution.
The wastewater from fracking is even more toxic and dangerous than the process itself, as it creates an enormous volume of radioactive toxic fluid that must be disposed of somewhere, and is not safe for humans, animals, or the environment.
The water is usually either trucked to treatment plants to filter it, or dumped back into the earth through deep well injection at high pressures which can lead to earthquakes and groundwater contamination, while a small amount is recycled into other fracking operations.
In addition, there can be contamination of the environment by the leaking of fracking fluids from the thousands of trucks used to transport the toxic liquid from the drilling sites to the treatment plants and disposal wells. In some cases, these trucks travel extensively between states, such as how much of Pennsylvania’s used fracking fluid is being trucked to Ohio, which has more deep injection wells. In other cases, such as in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, used drilling liquids are actually sprayed directly on public roads for de-icing.
There have been many recorded incidents of wastewater spills and explosions, as well as illegal dumping of wastewater and radioactive “filter socks”, which are used to separate solids from the post-fracking liquids.
The irreversible and immediate pollution of our water resources by fracking causes devastating environmental impacts, and effects all life and future generations, while the operations also cause significant air and noise pollution, as well as a myriad of health concerns.
We are facing a global water crisis today, and billions of gallons of water are being destroyed and removed from our water system by fracking. Yet, the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act, a federal law to protect public drinking water, does not apply to fracking operations, and fracking wastewater is exempt from federal hazardous waste regulations.
Water is the blood of the Earth that sustains all life, all plants, all people, and is recycled through our whole planet’s biosphere. Our health depends upon access to clean fresh water for drinking, food, and washing.
One of the biggest dangers to human health from the byproducts of fracking is reproductive and developmental toxicity, which disproportionally impacts women’s health in communities near gas and oil wells.
Due to the sensitivity of women’s reproductive organs to environmental triggers, exposure to industrial chemicals may lead to increased breast cancer, infertility, and fetal abnormalities, among other complex systemic health issues.
The toxic soup created by fracking is full of endocrine disruptors which mimic female sex hormones and disrupt hormones. This can result in not just reproductive and developmental problems, but also interfere with immune functioning and cause neurological disorders.
Fracking negatively impacts women’s health on many levels from the destruction of our homes and environment, the polluting of our water, air, food, and land, to the wide-scale sex trafficking, assault, and prostitution happening in “man camps” in large oil production sites.
It’s noteworthy that the term “frack” has also become a slang word for having sex with or taking advantage of someone. This exemplifies the connection between the violent raping of the Earth’s natural resources and fossil fuels, to the abuse of women’s bodies, health, sexuality, and lives even in the name itself.
Intensive oil and gas drilling and fracking operations bring thousands of workers to the areas, who are mostly single young transitory men, and many registered sex offenders, which results in drastic increases in violence, murder, rape, prostitution, and sex trafficking in the local regions.
The male workers are housed in vast “man camps”, which are often huge areas of mobile houses, RV’s, and barracks set up by the energy corporations.
In North Dakota, over 100,000 men have flooded in recent years to set up home in the man camps of the Bakken Shale, resulting in skyrocketing violence and sexual assault, particularly targeting the indigenous women and youth from the region, many who have become victims of rape, assault, and sex trafficking.
Native women and children are being murdered and disappearing at devastating rates, due to the complacency of the oil companies, and the government is doing nothing about this.
Sex trafficking is crime upon humanity, that affects women, children, families and communities, and disproportionally effects the indigenous population. Due to the man camps proximity to reservations, and the reduced legal prosecutorial abilities of Native governments, cases are less likely to be tried, even if a sexual abuser is known and identified.
Studies have also shown increased rates of sexually transmitted infections in areas with fracking. Research at the Yale School of Public Health has shown that Ohio counties with large-scale fracking have 21% higher rates of gonorrhea and 19% higher rates of chlamydia than the same state’s counties without high shale gas activity.
Increased Risk of Breast Cancer
New research has been released showing that prenatal exposure to fracking chemicals caused abnormal mammary gland development and pre-cancerous lesions in the female offspring of mice (Endocrinology). The scientists tested various levels of chemical exposure on the mice, from the potency that would be found in drinking water in areas near fracking, to the level found in wastewater pools on sites, and every level resulted in breast abnormalities.
In Texas, there are highly elevated breast cancer rates in the counties that have active fracking sites, despite statewide reductions in the overall breast cancer rate. Yet this is considered inconclusive evidence to show direct causation, and the Texas Department of State Health Services insists there is no reason to be concerned.
Proximity to fracking operations has been associated with multiple challenges with fertility, menstruation, pregnancy, and infant health. Exposure to fracking chemicals, has been linked to decreased sperm count, miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm birth, and low birth weight.
Studies in Pennsylvania have found a 25% increase in low-birth weight and decreased infant health with babies born to mothers living near active fracking sites. In response, a spokesperson for the Marcellus Shale Coalition insisted that “It’s dangerously misleading and inflammatory to suggest that natural gas development has done anything but improve public health.” (Science)
Tragically, the health problems from exposure to these chemicals during gestational periods aren’t always evident during pregnancy, birth or infancy, as seen with the mice in the breast cancer study, whose offspring didn’t develop breast lesions from prenatal exposure to fracking chemicals until puberty and maturation.
Pass On The Gas
It’s absolutely essential that the United States government and concerned citizens work together to stop this violent destruction of our environment and health due to fracking. Otherwise, we are set to experience an increasing boom of oil and gas fracking, that will destroy our land, homes, water, air, health, and future, and spread into new states.
Women are leading the way in environmental activism to address the concerns about fracking, yet are more likely to be dismissed, belittled, and threatened.
A study in the UK showed that 58% of men supported fracking, while only 31% of women did. In response, the chair of UK Onshore Shale and Gas made the claim that the reason more women were opposed to fracking than men were because they were more likely to be uneducated and lacked understanding of the science. This kind of belittling sexism is rampant from fracking proponents.
We must stop the spread of fracking in the US and invest into renewable forms of energy, divest money from big banks that support fossil fuels, and demand that the U.S. government protects our water, air, and communities now.
It is clear that fracking disproportionally affects the health and lives of women, and women’s health is a vital marker for the health and future of a nation. If we seek to grow a thriving country, we must prioritize the wellbeing of women and protect the children who are the future of this land.
This boom has been lauded by the energy companies and lobbyists as an answer to cheap and domestic energy production, reducing our dependency on foreign oil, as well as causing less air pollution than the coal industry. But is cheap energy today worth thousands of years of radioactive waste, the destruction of our precious water resources, and the compromising of the health of our people?
This article was originally published on http://karamariaananda.com/ and is being re-published here by the author.
Ending The Debate About The Ketogenic Diet – 9 Studies You Must Be Aware Of
- The Facts:
The Ketogenic diet is a popular fad diet that promotes quick weight loss and symptom management for bodies that are dealing with poor lymph, kidney and digestion health.
- Reflect On:
Based on the studies that are emerging, is our desire for quick weight loss more important than living a long and healthy life? Are we learning about these diets primarily through those with strong ties to upholding these diets?
The ketogenic diet has popped up as a popular approach to weight loss in the last few years. Is it successful at that? Sure, it is. I’ve experimented with the diet myself years ago when I was looking to lose some belly fat. I was entering into ketosis in a different way than most, as I was not eating any animal products, but it does in fact work.
But like any animal product based diet, what are the consequences of eating so much food that does not truly jive with our human bodies? Not only that, is fast weight loss more important than keeping our morality rate down?
In the last few years, we’ve reported a lot on the Keto diet and the various ways it can be done. We have explored the studies, the results and in some ways, we supported it. But lately, I have been thinking about how supporting this could actually be encouraging people to jump into these diets, including the paleo diet, when in reality these diets increase mortality rates and are not healthy for the human body.
It became a thought in the back of my mind, I have always strived to put the best information out that I can through this platform to promote good health. And so we must look at that, even if that means upsetting some people who currently are on paleo or keto and are seeing some good weight loss or symptom management. The truth is, like the many people I’ve seen crash on these diets after a few years, I want people to know the truth of what’s going on out there. And how we can get beyond diets that symptom manage, and instead get onto diets that truly heal.
Anytime we have fad diets, which paleo and keto are, we see products and bias pop up all over the place to support the continuation of these trends. It becomes less about health and more about upholding an identity or a business.
So as I recently looked into what experts are saying about these diets, I came upon two important videos I think everyone should check out. Both have been embedded below. Remember, it’s not that I care what you choose in your own life, or that I feel there is a right or wrong, it’s that I believe we should be informed and I wish to use this platform to promote as best a message as I can.
Thanks to Plant-Based News for creating such a good channel and resource of information on YouTube.
In this video, several plant-based health experts talk through 9 nutrition studies that would be of interest to low carb keto diet proponents. To read the 9 studies, click here.
Next up, Dr. Kim Williams (past President of the American College of Cardiology) shares his insights about the ketogenic.
Boy or Girl – Baby Gender Selection Issues
Some parents have the possibility to opt for gender selection; however, being able to decide whether to have a baby boy or girl is a controversial issue.
Many couples expecting a baby do not think it’s a big issue whether they have a boy or a girl; however there are several medical, social, and personal reasons that could influence parents to recur to some form of gender selection.
Like many other controversial practices, the legality of gender selection, also known as sex selection, varies from country to country.
The Legality of Baby Gender Selection
The United States has perhaps some of the most relaxed laws regarding baby gender selection in the world. Most European countries and Australia, on the other hand, have bans on sex selection and only allow it for medical reasons. For example, if a parent is a carrier of a mutation or gene with more chances of manifesting itself in a certain gender, baby gender selection is valid. However, if parents simply wish to balance the ratio of boys and girls in their family, they are not allowed to recur to sex selection.
This has generated a form of medical tourism in which couples from countries where gender selection is illegal, like the UK, travel to the US in order to be able to choose whether to have a baby boy or girl.
On the other hand, sex selection is illegal in the two most populated countries on Earth, China and India. In these countries, baby gender selection has been performed clandestinely for many years and for reasons other than family balancing or avoiding genetic diseases. In these societies, having a baby boy is preferred mainly for cultural and economic reasons. Parents believe that boys have better chances of earning income and eventually support them when they reach an old age.
Methods of Baby Gender Selection
There are two major types of gender selection methods: the first one is called sperm sorting, and involves separating X-chromosome sperm from Y-chromosome sperm by flow cytometry, a purification technique in which chromosomes are suspended in a stream of sperm and identified by an electronic detector before being separated. Intra-uterine insemination or in-vitro fertilization can then be performed with the enriched sperm. The success rates for this method vary from 80% to 93%.
The other method, called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, consists in generating several embryos through in-vitro fertilization, which are then genetically tested to determine a baby’s gender. The chosen embryos can then be implanted. This method has a success rate of almost 100%; however, it can be quite expensive, costing up to $15,000.
Issues Regarding Baby Gender Selection
While there are few objections against baby gender selection when it is performed for medical reasons, it has become a highly controversial issue when it is used for balancing the number of boys or girls in families. Some people raise the obvious ethical question of whether people who opt for gender selection are “playing God” by manipulating whether to have a baby boy or girl. Others believe that new parents will raise a baby more appropriately if he or she belongs to their preferred gender.
Gender Imbalance Caused by Baby Gender Selection
Gender selection has caused demographic concern in China and India since it has contributed to generate a gender imbalance in the populations of those countries. In some regions of China, for example, the sex ratio for newborns is 118:100, boys to girls. This phenomenon has in turn been associated with social problems such as an increase in violence and prostitution.
It seems like a logical solution for governments around the globe to legalize baby gender selection but to analyze the personal reasons why each couple intends to select a baby boy or girl. Gender selection for medical reasons should even be encouraged, since it could prevent serious genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and Haemophilia A. Balancing the gender ratio of a family should be accepted if by doing this, a healthy family environment is created. On the other hand, China and India have shown that baby gender selection as a result of a bias towards a particular gender can not only create a gender imbalance in the population, but contribute to social problems as well.
Donald Trump Implies 9/11 Was A Controlled Demolition
The destruction of the World Trade Towers on 9/11 is an event that continues to spark our awakening to the malice contained at the...
How To Clear Seriously Blocked Sinuses Naturally In 1 Minute
Having clogged sinuses isn’t fun. You can’t breath, you can’t smell, your head hurts, and your voice sounds funny. Finding...