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.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

What If Everything We Know About Depression Was Wrong? [Video]

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    There is a lot more to depression than currently meets the eye. If it is a chemical imbalance in the brain, then there is still something that is causing it. It's time to dig deeper and shed some light on this issue that affects millions worldwide.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we more depressed now more than ever? Our current society isn't set up for us all to have a fair chance of living the best possible life imaginable.

It is no secret, the amount of people who are suffering from mild to severe depression is astronomical, at an all-time high. In fact, the World Health Organization estimates that over 300 Million people around the world have some form of depression. Not to mention many sufferers go undiagnosed. What is going on here? Science tells us that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, but why are we seeing the rise illness at such alarming rates? Perhaps, it’s time to rethink what we think we know about depression.

Is it possible that it is not our brains that are causing us to be depressed, but rather our society? We do not have our basic needs met, we have to work hard to afford to live, often doing jobs in which we have no passion for. We have debt that keeps us completely enslaved to this whole never-ending cycle, and through all this, we are expected to be feel good?

Whether we are working a job with a 6-figure salary or a minimum wage job, many of us are still depressed. Money won’t make us happy, although this is what we are often led to believe. Even those pulling in large salaries find it difficult to find the time to spend with their families, or do something that they are passionate about or brings them joy.

Why are we the only species on the planet that has to pay for our food, water, and shelter? This is such a simple question that is rarely asked.

Now this isn’t to say we blame our society for how we feel, because ultimately WE have control over how we feel. It’s simply that our environment makes it no easier. True peace, is found within, yet our society is pushed to be so distracted that we find little time to go within and find that peace. Instead we’re in constant survival mode.

Opening Up The Dialogue

The video below is a brilliant explanation by author, Johann Hari. He describes an alternate view of what is really causing us to be so depressed in the first place. He has suffered from depression as well and was convinced that this issue was all in his head — the chemical imbalance we hear so much about. He felt it was a sign of weakness and was ashamed of his condition.

advertisement - learn more

After being prescribed anti-depressant medication and being on the highest dose possible, Hari was still suffering. This is what led him to realize that there had to be more to this issue than a chemical imbalance. After all, what kept causing these feelings to reemerge?

Check out the video below to hear the insight he’s gained after years of studying the true causes of depression.

Where Do We Go From Here?

By talking about this issue, in-depth, and opening up this dialogue, perhaps we can gain new insight in regards to what we can actually do to begin to try and solve this problem. We don’t have to live a life of despair and hopelessness, there are solutions to this issue and at the very least it’s worth a shot, especially when it seems as though all else has failed.

If there is a chemical imbalance within the brain, something has caused that, and as said in the video, there are a number of different things that may be contributing to that. Lack of nature, connection, purpose, holding on to grief, shame, and trauma. As mentioned, we also spend little time turning within and truly reflecting on self. This is probably the greatest relief found in moving beyond depression.

Can we find out what is truly ailing us in order to let it go so we can move on with our lives and thrive as we were meant to?

Much Love

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Awareness

U.S. Hesitates To Approve Resolution To Promote Breastfeeding In Order To Protect Corporate Interests

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    At a World Health Organization meeting, The U. S. Delegation was the sole objector to a resolution to encourage breast-feeding, in favor of corporate interests.

  • Reflect On:

    When will we, as a collective, be able to take our power back from corporations so that they can no longer have a negative influence on the health and well-being of humanity?

Let me know if you’ve seen this playing out in the geopolitical arena before:

  1. A proposal is made to a large governing body that is in the interests of humanity
  2. A state power objects because the proposal is not in the particular interests of corporate sponsors of that state power
  3. A battle ensues, where the virtually self-evident truths of what is of interest to humanity are countered by arguments of cunning deceptive pretense
  4. Whoever is most powerful wins the battle regardless of the cogency or sincerity of their respective arguments

Familiar? Sure it is. It plays out weekly in the headlines, across a swath of issues of human concern: our health, safety, freedom, and prosperity. Let’s take a look at the latest example concerning a breastfeeding resolution made recently to the World Health Organization.

1. The Proposal

According to this New York Times article, a resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly. Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Elisabeth Sterken, director of the Infant Feeding Action Coalition in Canada, said four decades of research have established the importance of breast milk, which provides essential nutrients as well as hormones and antibodies that protect newborns against infectious disease.

2016 study in The Lancet found that universal breast-feeding would prevent 800,000 child deaths a year across the globe and yield $300 billion in savings from reduced health care costs and improved economic outcomes for those reared on breast milk.

It is a matter of debate whether the World Health Organization is fundamentally working on behalf of humanity, but in the case of this resolution, it appears that its passing would clearly have both health and economic benefits for the people of the planet.

advertisement - learn more

2. The Objection

Before the resolution was brought to the floor the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations. American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

The State Department declined to respond to questions, saying it could not discuss private diplomatic conversations. However the Department of Health and Human Services, the lead agency in the effort to modify the resolution, explained in an email that,

“The resolution as originally drafted placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children. We recognize not all women are able to breast-feed for a variety of reasons. These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so.”

Ah, the care and concern over human welfare by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services is heart-warming, especially as an organization so fastidiously sucking the golden teet of large corporations.

3. The Battle

Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was first confronted by the American delegation. If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. In addition to the trade threats, Todd C. Chapman, the United States ambassador to Ecuador, suggested in meetings with officials in Quito, the Ecuadorean capital, that the Trump administration might also retaliate by withdrawing the military assistance it has been providing in northern Ecuador, a region wracked by violence spilling across the border from Colombia, according to an Ecuadorean government official who took part in the meeting.

The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced. The showdown over the issue was recounted by more than a dozen participants from several countries, many of whom requested anonymity because they feared retaliation from the United States. Health advocates scrambled to find another sponsor for the resolution, but at least a dozen countries, most of them poor nations in Africa and Latin America, backed off, citing fears of retaliation, according to officials from Uruguay, Mexico, and the United States.

During the deliberations, some American delegates even suggested the United States might cut its contribution to the W.H.O., several negotiators said. Washington is the single largest contributor to the health organization, providing $845 million, or roughly 15 percent of its budget, last year.

“We were astonished, appalled and also saddened,” said Patti Rundall, the policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action, who has attended meetings of the assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization, since the late 1980s. “What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the U.S. holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on the best way to protect infant and young child health,” she said.

4. The Outcome

In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them. A Russian delegate said the decision to introduce the breast-feeding resolution was a matter of principle.

“We’re not trying to be a hero here, but we feel that it is wrong when a big country tries to push around some very small countries, especially on an issue that is really important for the rest of the world,” said the delegate, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

He said the United States did not directly pressure Moscow to back away from the measure. Nevertheless, the American delegation sought to wear down the other participants through procedural maneuvers in a series of meetings that stretched on for two days, an unexpectedly long period.

The final resolution preserved most of the original wording, though American negotiators did get language removed that called on the W.H.O. to provide technical support to member states seeking to halt “inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children.” The United States also insisted that the words “evidence-based” accompany references to long-established initiatives that promote breast-feeding, which critics described as a ploy that could be used to undermine programs that provide parents with feeding advice and support.

Theatre Of The Absurd

It is worth reading the New York Times article itself to see that, while it does clearly lay out the egregious abuse of power that corporations can bring to the political area, the main purpose of the article was to blame Donald Trump for the entire arsenal of strong-arm tactics, even framing the corporations fundamentally as bystanders.

If you are able to disentangle the anti-Trump rhetoric, what you will find underneath is a kind of ‘Theatre of the Absurd’ playing out in front of our eyes, again and again, where there is a clash between good (in the interests of humanity) and evil (in the interests of the few). I can’t help but think that at some transcendent level, this drama continues to play over and over again in the media to somehow wake us up to this reality we have been condoning; that we as a collective have been willing to give our power over to corporations to act against the best interests of humanity simply for their own profit.

If so, it’s time for us, as individuals and as a collective, to take our power back and create a world where large corporate entities are dissolved or stripped of the power to continue to negatively impact the health and well-being of humanity.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Awareness

Nearly 1/3 Of Early Deaths Could Be Prevented By Giving Up Meat, Says Harvard

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    More and more evidence is emerging that highlights the tremendous benefits of adopting a plant-based diet. This lifestyle can have a drastic impact on our environment, animal welfare and our health.

  • Reflect On:

    What small changes could you make in your diet today to protect yourself from easily preventable diseases? Why is it that we are so addicted to meat to begin with? Have you considered at least cutting down meat intake?

Whether it be from a place of compassion, growing concern for environmental sustainability or a more thorough understanding of what it really means to be healthy, one thing is clear — more and more people are cutting out or at least cutting back on meat and other animal products, and for good reason. Scientists from the University of Harvard have found that at least one-third of all early deaths could be prevented if everyone moved over to a vegetarian diet.

Dr. Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard Medical School says that the overwhelming evidence in regards to the benefits of a plant-based diet has been extremely underrated.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that around 24 percent or, 141,000 deaths each year in Britain were entirely preventable, the majority of those numbers were due to smoking, alcohol or obesity.

New figures from Harvard are now suggesting that at a minimum, 200,000 lives could be spared each year if people were to simply cut meat from their diets.

While speaking at the Unite to Cure Fourth International Vatican Conference in Vatican City, Dr. Willet said, “We have just been doing some calculations looking at the question of how much could we reduce mortality shifting towards a healthy, more plant-based diet, not necessarily totally vegan, and our estimates are about one-third of deaths could be prevented.

“That’s not even talking about physical activity or not smoking, and that’s all deaths, not just cancer deaths. That’s probably an underestimate as well as that doesn’t take into account the fact that obesity is important and we control for obesity.

advertisement - learn more

“When we start to look at it we see that healthy diet is related to a lower risk of almost everything that we look at. Perhaps not too surprising because everything in the body is connected by the same underlying processes.”

Another speaker at the conference, British-born Professor, David Jenkins of the University of Toronto, credited with developing the glycemic index, which outlines how carbohydrates impact blood sugar, also told the conference that the benefits of a plant-based diet have been ‘undersold.’

According to Jenkins, humans would do better by following a “simiam” diet, similar to that of lowland gorillas who eat stems, leaves, vines, and fruits compared to the increasingly popular “paleo” diet, which cuts out carbohydrates and encourages regular consumption of meat.

Where’s The Science?

Dr. Jenkins and his team recently teamed up with The Bronx Zoo in New York and traveled to central Africa to research and record the feeding habits of gorillas.

After recreating the diet for humans, translating to 63 servings of fruit and vegetables a day, they observed a 35 percent fall in cholesterol in only two weeks, which is the equivalent of taking statins.

“That was quite dramatic,” he said, “We showed that there was no real difference between what we got with the diet and what we got with a statin.”

Statins are a prescription drug that is often prescribed by doctors to patients with high cholesterol in an attempt to stave off heart disease. Nearly 15.5 million people are currently eligible for statins equating most men over 60 and most women over 65. Because of side effects, many prefer not to or stop taking the drugs — what if the answer was much more simple the whole time?

According to Dr. Jenkins, “We’re saying you’ve got a choice, you can change your diet to therapeutically meaningful change or you can take a statin. Drug or diet.”

President of the Committee for Responsible Medicine has also stated that people need to wake up to the health benefits of a plant-based diet.

“I think we’re underestimating the effect,” he told delegates. “I think people imagine that a healthy diet has only a modest effect and a vegetarian diet might help you lose a little bit of weight. But when these diets are properly constructed I think they are enormously powerful.

“A low-fat vegan diet is better than any other diet I have ever seen for improving diabetes. With regards to inflammatory diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, we are seeing tremendous potential there too. Partly because of things we are avoiding and cholesterol but also because of the magical things that are in vegetables and fruits which just aren’t in spam.”

Not Sure If A Plant-Based Lifestyle Is Right For You?

Vegetarianism and veganism is no longer a fad or a hipster trend — the benefits, for our environment, to learn to live compassionately towards all beings and for our health are countless and evidence is only growing. With more and more plant-based alternatives, vegetarian restaurants, recipe blogs and a large growing community, it has never been easier to consider cutting back on meat and other animal products.

If it is too drastic for you to just cut out these products altogether, that’s fine in the short term. By starting small, perhaps by making one day a week a meatless day, be it Meatless Monday, or some other day, you can begin to get a feel for plant-based recipes and meals that could be a nice segue for your transition. From there, you may want to consider something called Reducetarianism, which is pretty much what it sounds, drastically lowering your consumption of meat and other animal products. Often when people think about adopting a plant-based diet they start to think of all of the things that they will no longer be able to have.

Well, fortunately, this isn’t an all-or-nothing type of scenario; by significantly lowering your consumption of these products you are still making a huge difference. You can eat a primarily plant-based diet and eat your grass-fed, ethically raised steak, too — if that’s your thing.

These rules aren’t set in stone, play around with it, start incorporating more fruits and veggies, taking days off meat, find what works best for you and your lifestyle! You may find that the less meat you are eating the more in tune with your body you are and the easier it is to see what makes you feel good and what doesn’t.

Have you recently made the transition to a plant-based diet? We’d love to get the discussion going over at the CE Community on Facebook.

Much Love


Related CE Articles

Why I’m A Weekday Vegetarian (Video)

Would You Go Vegan To Save The World? New Study Suggests It’s The Best Option

If You Think A Plant-Based Diet Means Eating Salad & Broccoli All Day Then Read This

Why Veganism In The U.S. Has Grown 600% In The Past 3 Years

Why Killing Animals For Food Will Soon Be A Thing Of The Past — According To Richard Branson

Everything You Need To Know About Getting your Protein From Plants

Studies Show What Happens To Hear When You Go Vegan Or Vegetarian

Federal Report Finds Plant-Based Diet Is Best: The Meat Industry Is Not Happy About It

And countless others…. HERE.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

Watch: Exclusive Uncut Interview With David Wilcock'Disclosure & The Fall Of The Cabal'

Enter your name and email below to watch the interview.

You have Successfully Subscribed!