Connect with us

Health

The Real “Weapon Of Mass Destruction” They Want To Make You Think Is A “Conspiracy Theory”

Published

on

A recent study was conducted  on the “chemtrail” phenomenon.” It was picked up by multiple alternative media outlets and according to the Huffington Post, the study’s authors believe this is the first peer-reviewed scientific paper that evaluates the claims made by many, and provides proof that most real-life scientists just aren’t buying their theories. But this simply isn’t the case, there are many who actually do buy it, and have examined the evidence and come to a conclusion that’s never presented in the mainstream.

advertisement - learn more

The researchers point out that a 2011 study revealed nearly  only 17 percent of respondents believed it was at least partly true that streaks in the sky left by aircrafts are actually attempts by the government to secretly spray harmful chemicals into the atmosphere.

Below are segments of various articles I’ve written on the subject that these mainstream media outlets never really mention. At the very end, a couple of documentaries are looked to illustrate why many people thing these programs are actually operational.

A couple of months ago,  HRH Princess Basmah Bint Saud, humanitarian and daughter of King Saud, compared geoengineering science and programs to weapons of mass destruction, arguing that their implementation is like setting off a bomb without the nuclear explosion.

She also stressed that geoengineering threatens the world’s water and food supply, and is one of the keys of the “new power” in the world. She emphasized as well that the people behind these programs have a wealth of resources at their disposal, but are playing a very dangerous game with the planet’s equilibrium through geoengineering, and that this is a method of “slow poisoning.”

This occurred at the Istanbul Security Conference on December 5th, 2015, where she gave a keynote speech on “Global Justice and Ethics in the Changing World Order.”

advertisement - learn more

You can see the full interview she did with Patrick Roddie below:

More On Geoengineering

“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” –  World Meteorological Association (source)

For those of you who don’t know, geoengineering is the deliberate and large-scale intervention into the Earth’s climatic system. This is done through various means, one of which is the spraying of chemicals into the atmosphere via planes. Weather modification actually dates back to the 1940s, when the General Electric Company demonstrated that a cloud of super-cooled water droplets could be transformed into ice crystals when seeded with dry ice. Shortly after this it was discovered that fine particles of pure silver iodide, with a crystal structure similar to that of ice, could be effectively used for global weather modification. 

The Hughes Aircraft Company even has a patent dating back more than twenty years ago, to 1990. You can take a look at it here. It contains 18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide, thorium oxide, and refractory Welsbach material.

Fast forward to today, with even more chemicals added to the mix, and it becomes clear why so many people are concerned about these initiatives. Since their inception in the 1940s, geoengineering programs have become increasingly more ubiquitous, springing up at various universities around the globe. The debate still rages on about whether these programs are actually operational, however, but for anybody who has done the research, it’s fairly easy to see the truth of the matter. According to M. Granger Morgan, the University and Lord Chair Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University:

I want to reiterate what John said, which is I think that any research in this area needs to be open. I think it would be truly disastrous if, you know, we discovered a few years from now that there was a “black program” that some government had stood-up to sort of learn on-the-quiet how to do this. . . .

We do stuff in the stratosphere all the time, of course, and so it’s not as though the stratosphere is absolutely pristine. But you don’t want to have people going off and doing things that involve large radiative forcings; or go on for extended periods; or, for that matter, provide lots of reactive surfaces that could result in significant ozone destruction. (source) 

If we look at SPICE, a United Kingdom government funded geoengineering research project that collaborates with the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Bristol, some of the proposed particles to spray in the air include:

  • Sulphate/Sulphuric Acid/Sulphur Dioxide
  • Titania
  • Silicon Carbide
  • Calcium Carbonate
  • Alumina
  • Silica
  • Zinc Oxide

They refer to it as Solar Radiation Management, and the idea is to spray these chemicals into the atmosphere in order to combat the effects of global warming by deflecting them away from Earth’s surface.

Geoengineering has also been used for more mundane purposes, such as to modify the weather in China for the 2008 Olympics. (source) This, to me, seems like a grossly irresponsible use of technology.

Solar

It’s also noteworthy to mention that these programs seem to be under the control of federal agencies. This means that if they are actually spraying things into the atmosphere, we would never hear about it, because it would fall under the category of ‘national security’ — a term used to justify the classification of millions of pages of documents every single year.

The CIA and NASA are certainly supporting the National Academy of Sciences with regards to geoengineering projects. This is quite clear in a United States government document printed at the request of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in November of 1978:

In addition to specific research programs sponsored by Federal agencies, there are other functions related to weather modification which are performed in several places in the executive branch. Various federal advisory panels and committees and their staffs -established to conduct in-depth studies and prepare comprehensive reports, to provide advice or recommendations, or to coordinate Federal weather modification programs – have been housed and supported within executive departments, agencies, or offices.

I should mention as well that it’s not just the Princess who is speaking out against these programs. Concerns have been being voiced for years by various individuals from all over the world. For example, Rosalind Peterson, President and Co-Founder of the Agriculture Defense Coalition (ADC) and an ex-United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) employee, made this statement at a 2007 United Nations hearing on global warming:

One of the things that is affected by climate change is agriculture, but some of what we are seeing is manmade, but manmade in a different way than you may guess. Weather modification programs, experimental ones done by private companies, done by the US government, done by states across the United States, are underway; there’s more than 50 of them in operation across the United States. All of these impact agriculture because they change the micro-climates needed for agriculture to survive. None of these programs that I know of today, and this all public record, are available at anytime with oversight. . . . International corporations are modifying our weather all the time, and they’re modifying it in ways that cover thousands and thousands of square miles. Most of it is chemically altered, so that what happens is that we are putting chemicals, ground based chemicals that are shot into the air, or chemicals coming from airplanes, that change and modify our weather.

You can read more, and view that full hearing here.

A 1996 report conducted by top military personnel in the U.S., titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier; Owning the Weather in 2025,” reveals the supposed urgency to implement these programs:

Current demographic, economic, and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn this weather-modification ability into a capability.

In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels. 

Dr. Marvin Herndon, PhD., a nuclear chemist, geochemist, and cosmochemist – most noted for deducing the composition of the inner core of Earth (it being nickel silicide rather than partially crystallized nickel-iron metal) – has published a groundbreaking paper in the peer-reviewed journal Current Science (Indian Academy of Sciences) titled “Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India” which demonstrates how dangerous geoengineering is to the health of both humans and the environment. The abstract reads as follows:

In response to an urgent call through an article in Current Science for assistance to understand the geological association of high aluminum mobility with human health in the Ganga Alluvial Plain, I describe evidence of clandestine geoengineering activity that has occurred for at least 15 years, and which has escalated sharply in the last two years. The geoengineering activity via tanker-jet aircraft emplaces a non-natural, toxic substance in the Earth’s atmosphere which with rainwater liberates highly mobile aluminum. Further, I present evidence that the toxic substance is coal combustion fly ash. Clandestine dispersal of coal fly ash and the resulting liberation of highly mobile aluminum, I posit, is an underlying cause of the widespread and pronounced increase in neurological diseases and as well as the currently widespread and increasing debilitation of Earth’s biota. Recommendations are made for verifying whether the evidence presented here is applicable to the Ganga Alluvial Plain. (source)(source)

The paper goes on to discuss and cite publications which have detected heavy metals like aluminum, barium, and strontium in rainwater, fly ash, and more. During the period between July 2011 and November 2012, for example, 73 rainwater samples were collected and analysed for aluminum and barium; 71 were collected from 60 different locations in Germany, 1 from France, and 1 from Austria. Aluminum was detected in 77% of the rainwater samples, and concentrations of barium and Strontium were also very high.

Dr. Rose Cairns, PhD., who belongs to the University of Leeds School of Earth and Environment, published a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Journal titled “Climates of suspicion: ‘chemtrail’ conspiracy narratives and the international politics of geoengineering.” She is also currently undertaking research into the Governance of Geoengineering as part of a multi-disciplinary collaborative project between Sussex University, UCL, and Oxford University (http://geoengineering-governance-research.org). The project examines the social, ethical, and political implications of climate geoengineering proposals. (source)

In her paper, she describes developments in mainstream academic and political discourse regarding geoengineering, and how climate modification, also being discussed by the citizens of the world (who use the term “chemtrails”), is having devastating ecological and health effects worldwide. According to her paper:

Understanding the emerging politics of geoengineering, and taking seriously claims regarding the importance of public participation, requires an understanding of the whole discursive landscape around ideas of global climate control – including marginal ideas such as those held by chemtrail activists. Ignoring or dismissing these discourses out of hand as pathological or paranoid is to ignore potentially revealing insights about the emerging politics of geoengineering. (source)

She goes on to write that her “analysis suggests a number of ways in which the chemtrails narrative may contain important insights and implications for the emerging politics of geoengineering that cannot be dismissed out of hand as ‘paranoid’ or ‘pathological.’ ” (source)

As you can see, this topic is far from a conspiracy theory. Geoengineering has the concerned attention of many important and informed people worldwide, and the Princess is just one of many to whom we can refer. Given the political circles to which she is privy, I think it’s safe to assume she knows a thing or two that goes beyond her own research into the topic.

Thanks for reading, and feel free to leave some remarks in the comments section below.

Additional Resources Where You Can Find Out More Information:

What In The World Are They Spraying? (Full Length)

Why In The World Are They Spraying? (Full Length)

Annotated Bibliography:

Obtained from the National Archives. A United States government document printed at the request of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in November 1978.

(1) https://archive.org/stream/weatificat00unit#page/n1/mode/2up

Obtained from the NASA archives, a document prepared for the Interdepartmental Committee For Atmospheric Sciences. Prepared by Homer E. Newell,  a mathematics professor and author who became a powerful United States government science administrator—eventually rising to the number three position at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in the early 1960s.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/19680002906_1968002906.pdf

A history of weather modification programs prepared by Dr. Vermeeren, Professor At The Delft University of Technology, faculty of industrial design engineering.  It’s a  300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” It was prepared for the Belfort Group by a team of scientists but presented anonymously. It was sent to embassies, news organizations and interested groups around the world “to force public debate.”

(2) http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/case_orange-5-10-2010-belfort-chemtrails.pdf

In 2009, researchers published “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” which proposed two methods of delivery for this same proportion of metallics to silica and the same staying power of one to two weeks. The report notes that “the proposed scenario by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] in 2001 is identical to the claims” in Hughes Aircraft’s 1991 patent. Hughes was acquired by Raytheon, a private defense contractor, in 1997, “the same company that acquired E-systems and the HAARP contract.” 

The above referred to patent is linked within the article.

David L Mitchell and William Finnegan, “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global warming,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 4 No. 4, 30 Oct 2009. Available by subscription: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102

 A 1996 report by top military personnel in the U.S., “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” to evidentiary details (like governmental spraying schedules, chemical orders, correct nomenclature used in airline operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists) to support its notion of “heavy involvement of governments at the top level in climate control projects.” 

(3) http://fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm

In 2007, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published a statement that included “Guidelines for the Planning of Weather Modification Activities.” Acknowledging that the modern technology of weather modification began in the 1940s, it is still “an emerging technology.”

(4) http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WM_statement_guidelines_approved.pdf

 What Can We Do?

At this point, awareness is key, and it seems to be working. More people in influential positions are now voicing their concern, and members of parliament are slowly becoming aware of this issue. As of right now, the best thing you can do in your life is to simply share this information, and develop healthy habits. If you are worried about potential dangers to your health because of aerial spraying, it’s a great idea to strengthen your immune system with healthy foods and exercise, the body is really amazing at detoxing itself and adapting. Fear is useless, and it’s something I’ve gone through having been researching various topics for many years, but when you overcome it and see the bigger picture, it’s really a great feeling.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

How X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating The Epidemic of Cancer

Published

on

Article written by Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo LLC, posted here with permission.

While a growing body of research now suggests that x-ray mammography is causing more harm than good in the millions of women who subject themselves to breast screenings, annually, without knowledge of their true health risks, the primary focus has been on the harms associated with over-diagnosis and over-treatment, and not the radiobiological dangers of the procedure itself.

In 2006, a paper published in the British Journal of Radiobiology, titled “Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme,” revealed the type of radiation used in x-ray-based breast screenings is much more carcinogenic than previously believed:

Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times – butpossibly as much as six times – more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.[1]

In other words, the radiation risk model used to determine whether the benefit of breast screenings in asymptomatic women outweighs their harm, underestimates the risk of mammography-induced breast and related cancers by between 4-600%.

The authors continued

Risk estimates for radiation-induced cancer – principally derived from the atomic bomb survivor study (ABSS) – are based on the effects of high energy gamma-rays and thus the implication is that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancer arising from mammography may be higher than that assumed based on standard risks estimates.

advertisement - learn more

This is not the only study to demonstrate mammography X-rays are more carcinogenic than atomic bomb spectrum radiation. There is also an extensive amount of data on the downside of x-ray mammography.

Sadly, even if one uses the outdated radiation risk model (which underestimates the harm done),* the weight of the scientific evidence (as determined by the work of The Cochrane Collaboration) actually shows that breast screenings are in all likelihood not doing any net good in those who undergo them.

In a 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review,** also known as the Gøtzsche and Nielsen’s Cochrane Review, titled “Screening for breast cancer with mammography,” the authors revealed the tenuous statistical justifications for mass breast screenings:

Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.[2]

In this review, the basis for estimating unnecessary treatment was the 35% increased risk of surgery among women who underwent screenings. Many of the surgeries, in fact, were the result of women being diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a “cancer” that would not exists as a clinically relevant entity were it not for the fact that it is detectable through x-ray mammography. DCIS, in the vast majority of cases, has no palpable lesion or symptoms, and some experts believe it should be completely reclassified as a non-cancerous condition.

A more recent study published in the British Medical Journal in 2011 titled, “Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modeling of Forrest report,” not only confirmed the Gøtzsche and Nielsen’s Cochrane Review findings, but found the situation likely worse:

This analysis supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening might have caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening.[3]

So, let’s assume that these reviews are correct, and at the very least, the screenings are not doing any good, and at worst, causing more harm than good. The salient question, however, is how much more harm than good? If we consider that, according to data from Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2011), a mammogram uses 4 mSv of radiation vs. the .02 mSv of your average chest x-ray (which is 200 times more radiation), and then, we factor in the 4-600% higher genotoxicity/carcinogenicity associated with the specific “low-energy” wavelengths used in mammography, it is highly possible that beyond the epidemic of over-diagnosis and over-treatment, mammograms are planting seeds of radiation-induced cancer within the breasts of millions of women.***

With the advent of non-ionizing radiation based diagnostic technologies, such as thermography, it has become vitally important that patients educate themselves about the alternatives to x-ray mammography that already exist.  Until then, we must use our good sense – and research like this – to inform our decisions, and as far as the unintended adverse effects of radiation go, erring on the side of caution whenever possible.

Additional Reading

Is X-ray Mammography Findings Cancer or Benign Lesions?

The Dark Side of Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Does Chemo & Radiation Actually Make Cancer More Malignant?


*This discrepancy in radiation risk models/estimates follows from two fundamental problems: 1) the older risk model was based on higher-energy radiation emissions, such as are given off from atomic bomb blasts 2) it was a crude model, developed before the discovery of DNA and a full understanding of radiotoxicity/genotoxicity.

** Keep in mind that the Cochrane Database Review is at the top of the “food chain” of truth, in the highly touted “evidence-based model” of conventional medicine. Cochrane Database Reviews are produced by The Cochrane Collaboration, which is internationally recognized as the benchmark for high quality, evidence-based information concerning the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of common health care interventions. The organization, comprised of over 28,000 dedicated people from over 100 countries, prides itself on being an “independent” source of information, and historically has not been afraid to point out the corrupting influence of industry, which increasingly co-opts  the biomedical research and publishing fields.

***The low-energy wavelengths cause double strand breaks within the DNA of susceptible cells, which the cell can not repair. Through time these mutations result in “neoplastic transformation”; radiation has the ability to induce a cancerous phenotype within formerly healthy cells that has cancer stem cell-like (CSC) properties.


[1] Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme. Br J Radiol. 2006 Mar ;79(939):195-200. PMID: 16498030

[2] Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(4):CD001877. Epub 2009 Oct 7. PMID: 19821284

[3] Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report. BMJ. 2011 ;343:d7627. Epub 2011 Dec 8. PMID: 22155336


Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

If you want to learn more from Greenmedinfo, sign up for their newsletter here

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Awareness

Why Water Fluoridation Is A Forced Experiment That Needs To Stop

Published

on

The United States stands almost entirely alone among developed nations in adding industrial silicofluorides to its drinking water—imposing the community-wide measure without informed consent. Globally, roughly 5% of the population consumes chemically fluoridated water, but more people in the U.S. drink fluoride-adulterated water than in all other countries combined. Within the U.S., just under a third (30%) of local water supplies are not fluoridated; these municipalities have either held the practice at bay since fluoridation’s inception or have won hard-fought battles to halt water fluoridation.

Dozens of studies and reviews—including in top-tier journals such as The Lancet—have shown that fluoride is neurotoxic and lowers children’s IQ.

The fluoride chemicals added to drinking water are unprocessed toxic wasteproducts—captured pollutants from Florida’s phosphate fertilizer industry or unregulated chemical imports from China. The chemicals undergo no purification before being dumped into drinking water and often harbor significant levels of arsenic and other heavy metal contamination; one researcher describes this unavoidable contamination as a “regulatory blind spotthat jeopardizes any safe use of fluoride additives.”

Dozens of studies and reviews—including in top-tier journals such as The Lancet—have shown that fluoride is neurotoxic and lowers children’s IQ. Fluoride is also associated with a variety of other health risks in both children and adults. However, U.S. officialdom persists in making hollow claims that water fluoridation is safe and beneficial, choosing to ignore even its own research! A multimillion-dollar longitudinal study published in Environmental Health Perspectives in September, 2017, for example, was largely funded by the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences—and the seminal study revealed a strong relationship between fluoride exposure in pregnant women and lowered cognitive function in offspring. Considered in the context of other research, the study’s implications are, according to the nonprofit Fluoride Action Network, “enormous”—“a cannon shot across the bow of the 80 year old practice of artificial fluoridation.”

According to declassified government documents summarized by Project Censored, Manhattan Project scientists discovered early on that fluoride was a leading health hazard to bomb program workers and surrounding communities.

A little history

During World War II, fluoride (a compound formed from the chemical element fluorine) came into large-scale production and use as part of the Manhattan Project. According to declassified government documents summarized by Project Censored, Manhattan Project scientists discovered early on that fluoride was a “leading health hazard to bomb program workers and surrounding communities.” In order to stave off lawsuits, government scientists “embarked on a campaign to calm the social panic about fluoride…by promoting its usefulness in preventing tooth decay.”

To prop up its “exaggerated claims of reduction in tooth decay,” government researchers began carrying out a series of poorly designed and fatally flawed community trials of water fluoridation in a handful of U.S. cities in the mid-1940s. In a critique decades later, a University of California-Davis statistician characterized these early agenda-driven fluoridation trials as “especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.” As one example, a 15-year trial launched in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945 used a nearby city as a non-fluoridated control, but after the control city began fluoridating its own water supply five years into the study, the design switched from a comparison with the non-fluoridated community to a before-and-after assessment of Grand Rapids. Fluoridation’s proponents admitted that this change substantially “compromised” the quality of the study.

In 1950, well before any of the community trials could reach any conclusions about the systemic health effects of long-term fluoride ingestion, the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) endorsed water fluoridation as official public health policy, strongly encouraging communities across the country to adopt the unproven measure for dental caries prevention. Describing this astonishingly non-evidence-based step as “the Great Fluoridation Gamble,” the authors of the 2010 book, The Case Against Fluorideargue that:

advertisement - learn more

“Not only was safety not demonstrated in anything approaching a comprehensive and scientific study, but also a large number of studies implicating fluoride’s impact on both the bones and the thyroid gland were ignored or downplayed” (p. 86).

In 2015, Newsweek magazine not only agreed that the scientific rationale for putting fluoride in drinking water was not as “clear-cut” as once thought but also shared the “shocking” finding of a more recent Cochrane Collaboration review, namely, that there is no evidence to support the use of fluoride in drinking water.

Bad science and powerful politics

The authors of The Case Against Fluoride persuasively argue that “bad science” and “powerful politics” are primary factors explaining why government agencies continue to defend the indefensible practice of water fluoridation, despite abundant evidence that it is unsafe both developmentally and after “a lifetime of exposure to uncontrolled doses.” Comparable to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s bookThimerosal: Let the Science Speak, which summarizes studies that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and “credulous journalists swear don’t exist,” The Case Against Fluoride is an extensively referenced tour de force, pulling together hundreds of studies showing evidence of fluoride-related harm.

… death rates in the ten most fluoridated U.S. states are 5% to 26% higher than in the ten least fluoridated states, with triple the rate of Alzheimer’s disease.

The research assembled by the book’s authors includes studies on fluoride biochemistry; cancer; fluoride’s effects on the brain, endocrine system and bones; and dental fluorosis. With regard to the latter, public health agencies like to define dental fluorosis as a purely cosmetic issue involving “changes in the appearance of tooth enamel,” but the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology (IAOMT)—a global network of dentists, health professionals and scientists dedicated to science-based biological dentistry—describes the damaged enamel and mottled and brittle teeth that characterize dental fluorosis as “the first visible sign of fluoride toxicity.”

The important 2017 study that showed decrements in IQ following fluoride exposure during pregnancy is far from the only research sounding the alarm about fluoride’s adverse developmental effects. In his 2017 volumePregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix, John D. MacArthur pulls together hundreds of studies linking fluoride to premature birth and impaired neurological development (93 studies), preelampsia (77 studies) and autism (110 studies). The book points out that rates of premature birth are “unusually high” in the United States. At the other end of the lifespan, MacArthur observes that death rates in the ten most fluoridated U.S. states are 5% to 26% higher than in the ten least fluoridated states, with triple the rate of Alzheimer’s disease. A 2006 report by the National Research Council warned that exposure to fluoride might increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s.

The word is out

Pregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix shows that the Institute of Medicine, National Research Council, Harvard’s National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Toxicology Program all are well aware of the substantial evidence of fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity, yet no action has been taken to warn pregnant women. Instead, scientists with integrity, legal professionals and the public increasingly are taking matters into their own hands. A Citizens Petitionsubmitted in 2016 to the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act requested that the EPA “exercise its authority to prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies.” This request—the focus of a lawsuit to be argued in court later in 2019—poses a landmark challenge to the dangerous practice of water fluoridation and has the potential to end one of the most significant chemical assaults on our children’s developing bodies and brains.

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.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Awareness

Doctor Explains Why She Never Recommends The ‘Ketogenic Diet’

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Michelle McMacken, an internal medicine physician, shares why she does not recommend the ketogenic diet at all for her patients.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we so quick to jump on bandwagons, especially when it comes to health topics, without ever really looking into it deeper? The ketogenic diet has many health benefits, but it may not be as healthy as many think.

The ketogenic diet has gained a tremendous amount of popularity over the past few years, and it’s become a trend that many people are adopting without doing their own research first. We’ve written multiple articles on the ketogenic diet, a diet that promotes a high fat/low carb intake in order to prolong the production of ketone bodies in one’s blood. The release of these ketone bodies happens when we fast and deplete our glucose reserves, which develop from eating carbohydrates that turn into sugar. One can prolong the production of these ketones by sticking to a low carbohydrate/high fat diet, and essentially run off of fat instead of their glucose reserves.

The ketogenic diet is being used as an intervention for cancer, and there are multiple studies showing how ketones can actually kill cancer. It’s becoming well known that cancer cells cannot efficiently process ketone bodies for energy. Essentially, the cell starves itself, and ketones help slow the proliferation of tumor cells. Dietary ketones have been shown to completely halt metastasis. For example, a study titled “The Ketogenic Diet & Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Prolong Survival in Mice with Systemic Metastatic Cancer” explains how it’s already known that the ketogenic diet elevates blood ketones and has been shown to slow cancer progression in both animals and humans. The study also revealed that the ketogenic diet “significantly decreased blood glucose, slowed tumor growth, and increased mean survival time by 56.8 percent in mice with systemic metastatic cancer.”

Fasting (when you fast you produce ketones) is also being used for cancer intervention, seizure prevention (epilepsy), and as a potential therapy for alzheimer’s disease, parkinson’s disease, and other neurodegenerative disorders.

A TEDx talk given by Mark Mattson, the current Chief of the Laboratory of Neuroscience, at the National Institute on Aging goes into detail about fasting, ketones, and how beneficial it is for the brain. He is also a professor of Neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University and one of the foremost researchers of the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying multiple neurodegenerative disorders.

In 1923, scientist Otto Warburg hypothesized that cancer was caused by a metabolic process whereby cancer cells fuel their growth “by swallowing up enormous amounts of glucose [blood sugar] and breaking it down without oxygen.” Coined the Warburg Effect, the theory was considered controversial at the time, but the past few decades have sparked new interest in it and oncologists now use the dependence on glucose that cancer cells have to locate tumours within a patient’s body.

Warburg made his discovery around the same time the ketogenic diet was found to be beneficial for epilepsy. Studies have shown that when the body produces ketones, they form a protective barrier around the brain, which is why more and more paediatricians are recommending the diet for children with epilepsy. It has a huge success rate, but since fasting is neither marketable nor profitable, it receives little mainstream attention.

advertisement - learn more

All of these are specific interventions for certain diseases, and they can be healthy. On a personal level, I believe fasting a few times a month is extremely healthy and can be very beneficial for the body. All of the studies in human and animal models show nothing but benefits.  Keep in mind that while you fast, you also get the benefits of ketones.

This is far different from continuing on with a no carb, high fat diet where you are constantly producing ketones and burning fat. It doesn’t seem normal unless you have to do it for a specific intervention, like cancer. Despite the potential health benefits, the ‘ketogenic diet’ has become a fad with potential dangers that people should also be aware of.

The Five Reasons

Below is a list of points regarding the ketogenic diet from Michelle McMacken, an internal medicine physician, Assistant Professor of Medicine at the NYU School of Medicine, and Director of Bellevue Hospital Weight Management Clinic.

I came across these via her Instagram, which make it clear she does not support the diet:

1. That we know of, no population in history has ever thrived on a very-low-carb/high-fat diet. There is exactly zero scientific evidence that a keto diet is conducive to longevity & longstanding vitality – unlike a plant-centric diet, the foundation of the longest-lived people on earth.

2. A keto diet may cause short-term weight loss, but possibly at a serious price. A 2010 review found that low-carb, animal-based diets increased cardiovascular death by 14%, cancer death by 28%, & all-cause mortality by 23%- trends confirmed in other large studies.

3. A keto diet hasn’t been shown to prevent, control, or reverse type 2 diabetes in the long run. Avoiding carbs will temporarily lower your blood sugar if you have diabetes. But this simply masks the underlying problem, which is insulin resistance – ie. glucose in our blood can’t enter our cells & the liver overproduces sugar. This is NOT the fault of carbs from healthy foods – whole grains, legumes, fruit, or even starchy vegetables. In fact, a high-carb, high-fiber, plant-based diet is exceptionally protective against diabetes & can actually REVERSE insulin resistance & lower diabetes complications. In contrast, low-carb diets can promote diabetes over time, as they foster inflammation & fat buildup in our cells, causing insulin resistance.

4. Keto diet research is in its infancy, focusing on short-term blood results & body weight – not actual rates of disease or death. And some findings are concerning. LDL cholesterol levels tend to rise (or at best, stay the same) on keto diets. An overwhelming wealth of research shows that the higher the LDL, the higher the risk of cardiovascular disease.

5. A keto diet is low in refined grains & added sugar, which is great. But it also can be low in phytonutrients, antioxidants, & fiber, all of which have profound benefits, and it forbids some of the most powerfully health-promoting foods on earth – whole grains, legumes, & many fruits. To me, that’s just not good medicine.

Her references:


The Takeaway

It’s great to see the world becoming more health conscious, it’s one of multiple contributing factors in raising our vibrational frequency, and feeling more ‘alive.’ That being said, a lot of ‘fads’ seem to pop up in this field, which are coupled with a great misunderstanding of how these specific diets, like the ketogenic diet, is supposed to be used. At the end of the day, balance is key, and it’s best to incorporate more organic fruits and vegetables in your diet, and completely cut out all processed foods, and substances like high fructose corn syrup etc. Being healthy is not hard, and it’s not complicated. If you’re going to incorporate a specific diet into your lifestyle, just make sure it’s not one that’s specifically designed to combat certain diseases, like the ketogenic diet.

Related CE Articles:

Study Shows What A Ketogenic Diet Did To Mice With Systemic Metastatic Cancer

Doctor Explains What Happens To The Body When It Goes Into Ketosis

The Biggest Misconception About The Ketogenic Diet…You Don’t Actually Have To Follow It

Ending The Debate About The Ketogenic Diet – 9 Studies You Must Be Aware Of 


 

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

CETV

Watch this 4-part Exclusive Interview Series with Anneke Lucas.

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.