There seems to be a smear campaign bouncing around mainstream media against coconut oil. I’ve read headlines titled “Coconut oil has more saturated fat than beef fat, but is it still healthy?,” “Coconut oil isn’t healthy. It’s never been healthy,” and even “Coconut Oil Is Unhealthy According To The American Heart Association.”
A lot of this came as a shock to the public, as the media was just reporting how healthy coconut oil is a few short months ago. Yet, with our seemingly limitless access to information, we are now faced with science and news stories that support every side to every issue. That’s why it’s crucial that we look at all sides through an unbiased lens, taking an observational approach rather than allowing our belief systems to affect our perceptions.
So, is coconut oil really unhealthy? Well, the American Heart Association seems to think so. But then again, the AHA also recommends consuming poultry, fish, and dairy to promote a “heart healthy” diet, all of which can have a negative impact on your health. For example, conventional chicken is often injected with tons of sodium, and so even if you’re eating what you think is plain, unseasoned chicken, you’re still intaking loads of salt.
The AHA even addressed this issue, as spokeswoman and dietician Liz Trondsen said that “People believe that when they’re getting chicken, they’re getting a low-sodium food. They need to be aware of this.”
However, the AHA did make some excellent points, and we really should not be consuming high amounts of fat (although some people do thrive on high fat diets like the ketogenic diet, so this is all relative to your own body). So, is coconut oil really comparable to beef and butter? Should we cut coconut oil out of our diets altogether? Let’s take a look at the different health benefits and risks of coconut oil.
Is Coconut Oil Healthy? Here’s the Controversy
The debate over coconut oil originally stemmed from a June 2017 report published by the AHA comparing coconut oil to beef and butter. The report stated that 82% of coconut oil is saturated fat, whereas butter contains only 63%, beef fat contains 50%, and pork lard contains 39%.
It’s not that the information provided by the AHA is incorrect per se, it’s that it’s easily taken out of context. It’s no secret that red meat is linked to cancer and heart disease, and can even take years off of your life, according to Harvard University. Is the AHA really suggesting that it’s better for your body to ingest beef fat than coconut oil?
In truth, this is not necessarily the case. Yes, beef fat, butter, and pork lard contain less saturated fat than coconut oil, but than doesn’t mean they’re better for you than coconut oil, especially as red meat and dairy have both been linked to heart disease. That’s sort of like saying consuming a low-calorie, low-fat, chemical-ridden dressing is better for you than consuming a dressing made with a whole avocado.
We’ve seen this type of confusion before in regards to sugar as well. People will go on sugar-free diets thinking they’re better for you, but they’ll cut fruit out as well. People literally thrive off of eating fruitarianism diets, which is because the sugar in fruit and the sugar found in conventional baked goods is very different. Fruit won’t cause cancer, but refined sugar could.
The report suggested not consuming coconut oil because it can increase “bad” cholesterol (LDL); however, what the report left out is that it can also increase “good” cholesterol (HDL). A Brazilian study found that coconut oil can provide a healthy increase to HDL cholesterol, and can even help heart disease patients reduce excess body mass and slim their waistlines, both of which can help prevent heart problems. Interestingly enough, coconut oil could also be used to treat elevated LDL.
Harvard University explained the importance of HDL, stating: “The ratio of total cholesterol-to-HDL is important; the smaller the number the better. For example, someone with a total cholesterol of 200 and an HDL of 60 would have a ratio of 3.3 (200 ÷ 60 = 3.3). If that person’s HDL was low — let’s say 35 —the total cholesterol-to-HDL ratio would be higher: 5.7.”
Another Harvard doctor, Walter C. Willett, M.D., weighed in on the unusual comparison between beef fat, butter, lard, and coconut oil, explaining that “plant-based oils are more than just fats. They contain many antioxidants and other substances, so their overall effects on health can’t be predicted just by the changes in LDL and HDL.”
It’s important to note that cholesterol is not necessarily the main cause of heart disease either, and there’s a lot of misinformation surrounding this, namely because Big Pharma makes a lot of money off of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Some doctors such as Dr. Axe and certain studies (1, 2, 3) have suggested that we should focus more on lowering inflammation, as this could be the leading cause of heart disease.
MIT Scientist Raymond Francis wrote a fascinating paper on this subject titled “The Cholesterol Myth,” arguing that “the answer is a story involving the triumph of money and power over science.”
Francis goes on to explain:
Atherosclerosis—the main cause of heart attacks and strokes—is the accumulation of fatty plaque inside the walls of major arteries. As the disease progresses, arteries become increasingly narrow, making it easier for a blood clot or piece of dislodged plaque to completely block blood flow, resulting in either a heart attack or a stroke. When cholesterol was found to be a major component of arterial plaque, the “cholesterol theory of heart disease” was born, thinking that high cholesterol levels cause atherosclerosis. The truth, however, is not so simple. Cholesterol is an anti¬oxidant, a repair and healing molecule. The body produces more of it in response to stress and tissue damage, when repair and healing are needed. Remove the causes of the body’s distress, like inflammation and oxidation, and you lower cholesterol. It turned out that blaming cholesterol for heart disease makes as much sense as blaming the Red Cross for the disasters it responds to.
You can read more about that in our CE article here.
Dr. Axe further explains why we need to address the root cause of the problem, which is inflammation, stating, “Imagine your arteries as pipes in your home. If your pipe is damaged and springs a leak, you need to go and patch and repair the area. The problem isn’t high cholesterol. That’s merely the cause of an inflammatory lifestyle.”
One of the more concerning elements of the AHA’s recent report was their ranking of oils. The only oil that ranked worse than coconut oil was palm kernel oil, and instead the AHA recommended consuming soy and corn oils instead. The issue there is that approximately 90% of all soy and corn crops are genetically modified, meaning that they’re sprayed with Monsanto’s potent herbicide, Roundup. Keep in mind that pesticides don’t just wash off, as they end up in the food they’re sprayed on. (For example, this Norwegian study found high levels of glyphosate on GM soy.)
The active ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate, which poses a large variety of health risks. One study suggested that glyphosate can cause celiac disease, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, kidney failure, miscarriages, infertility, birth defects, obesity, autism, depression, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and cancer.
Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), revealed a disturbing fact: Glyphosate is possibly “the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies.”
So, is coconut oil unhealthy for you? It’s difficult to say, as there are clearly some downsides, but there are some serious upsides to consuming it too. It’s high in saturated fat, which is clearly not good for you in high quantities, but that doesn’t necessarily make coconut oil an enemy to our bodies given the long list of health benefits.
In addition, the comparisons the AHA made are relatively misleading. Butter, red meat, pork lard, and conventional soy and corn oils are not healthy for the human body. To recommend these as substitutes is irresponsible, and should make you question whether or not the AHA is your best source for information.
Additional Potential Health Benefits and Risks of Coconut Oil
The benefits of coconut oil include, but are not limited to: improves digestion and metabolism, fights infections, regulates body weight, supports organ and heart health, enhances immune system function, treats yeast infections, and more.
A study published in the journal Cancer Research suggested that coconut oil could play a role in treating colon cancer, as an active anti-cancer component in coconut oil called lauric acid constitutes 50% of its makeup. Researchers at the University of Adelaide discovered this component completely exterminated more than 90% of colon cancer cells after just two days of treatment in a colon cancer cell line (CRC) in vitro. Read more in our CE article here.
Medium Chain Triglycerides (MCTs) are the primary type of fat found in coconut oil. MCTs have been found to boost cognitive performance in older adults suffering from memory disorders like Alzheimer’s. MCTs have been viewed as a superfood of late, thus becoming more popular in the mainstream.
So, coconut oil clearly has some health benefits, but that’s not to say it’s healthy for you 100% of the time. Oil isn’t something you want to consume lots of, since it is pure fat, which isn’t good for our bodies in high contents. However, fat is a necessary part of our diets, to a certain degree.
As Dr. Axe explains, “The truth about saturated fat? We need it. At least 50 percent of our cell membranes are made of saturated fatty acids. This does everything from enhancing the immune system to protecting the liver from toxins.“
Plus, any oil can become unhealthy if cooked at a certain temperature. The smoke point of coconut oil is 350°F, which means that if you cook with it at a higher temperature than its smoke point, it will burn, producing toxic fumes and harmful free radicals. This can be related to any type of cooking oil, and is why many people prefer not to cook with extra-virgin olive oil, which has a lower smoke point.
Coconut oil is clearly both healthy and unhealthy at times, which is why you should still limit your intake. However, this is true of all oils, because an extremely high fat diet doesn’t always serve your body in the best way possible. If you choose to consume coconut oil, try to make it cold-pressed and organic.
This entire AHA situation is an excellent example of why you should do your own research and not simply believe things at face value. Just because someone says that something is “better for you” doesn’t mean it’s healthy.
For more information on coconut oil, check out our CE articles:
Two Doctors Explain Autophagy, How To Induce It (Fasting) & What It Does To The Human Body (Video)
- The Facts:
Dr. Guido Kroemer and Rhonda Patrick sit down and discuss autophagy, how to induce it and it's health benefits.
- Reflect On:
Why do we never hear about fasting interventions as an 'official' treatment for certain from our federal health regulatory agencies when there is so much scientific proof?
Fasting and caloric restriction, if done correctly in a healthy and appropriate manner, combined with a healthy diet can have tremendous benefits for the human body. Interventions like fasting are gaining tremendous amounts of popularity, and that is in large part due to the fact that this information is being spread across the world via alternative media outlets and independent websites, youtube channels, etc. It’s not really a health topic that we’re hearing from mainstream media sources or our federal health regulatory agencies. Why? Because you can’t make money off of fasting. Perhaps when drugs are developed that mimic the effects of fasting, that’s when its popularity will skyrocket; but unfortunately, modern day health authorities don’t really seem to be as concerned with our health and wellbeing as they are about profiting and making money, and nobody is going to make any money if people starting eating less. That being said, the information revolution cannot be stopped, and fasting is now on the minds of many, and for good reason.
On October 3rd, 2016, the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to Yoshinori Ohsumi for his discoveries of mechanisms for autophagy, a term that translates to “self-eat.” In short, autophagy is the body’s self-cleaning system, a mechanism in which cells get rid of all the broken down, old cell machinery (organelles, proteins and cell membranes). It is a regulated, orderly process to degrade and recycle cellular components.
The process of autophagy is like replacing parts in a car—sometimes we need a new engine or battery for the car to function better. The same thing happens within each of our cells. During autophagy, old cellular debris is sent to specialized compartments within the cell called “lysosomes.” Lysosomes contain enzymes that degrade the old debris, breaking it down into smaller components to be reused again by the cell.
Scientists have found that fasting for 12 to 24+ hours triggers autophagy, which is thought to be one of the reasons that fasting is associated with longevity. There is a large body of research that connects fasting to improved blood sugar control, reduced inflammation, weight loss, and improved brain function, and Oshumi’s findings provide greater insight into this research.
“Sporadic short-term fasting, driven by religious and spiritual beliefs, is common to many cultures and has been practiced for millennia, but scientific analyses of the consequences of caloric restriction are more recent… short-term food restriction induces a dramatic upregulation of autophagy in cortical and Purkinje neurons. As noted above, disruption of autophagy can cause neurodegenerative disease, and the converse also may hold true: upregulation of autophagy may have a neuroprotective effect.
Food restriction is a simple, reliable, inexpensive and harmless alternative to drug ingestion and, therefore, we propose that short-term food restriction may represent an attractive alternative to the prophylaxis and treatment of diseases in which candidate drugs are currently being sought.”
If you look at the plethora of studies that’ve been published regarding caloric restriction and fasting, the benefits are overwhelming. These benefits are seen across the board, not just in humans, but in animals as well. Some of these benefits are talked about below in a fascinating interview and discussion between Dr. Rhonda Patrick and Dr. Guido Kroemer. Dr. Patrick, as her website states, “is dedicated to the pursuit of longevity and optimal health and shares the latest research on nutrition, aging, and disease prevention with her audience. She has a gift for translating scientific topics into understandable takeaways for all levels of education and interest.” She has a lot of great content on her Youtube channel with some very interesting people who are leaders in their respective field.
Dr. Guido Kroemer is currently a Professor at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Paris Descartes, Director of the research team “Apoptosis, Cancer and Immunity” of the French Medical Research Council (INSERM), Director of the Metabolomics and Cell Biology platforms of the Gustave Roussy Comprehensive Cancer Center, Deputy Director of the Cordeliers Research Center, and Hospital Practitioner at the Hôpital Européen George Pompidou, Paris, France. He is also a Foreign Adjunct Professor at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
The takeaway here is to recognize the potential of dietary interventions for certain ailments. It’s also to recognize the importance of seeking out knowledge and wisdom, and not just relying on your doctor for advice or prescription medications.
Related CE Articles on Fasting
Ladies, Ditch the Bra
- The Facts:
There is evidence of a relationship between bras and breast cancer may rethink the societal convention of wearing bras.
- Reflect On:
Have you looked into the research about how bras can be contributing to poor health?
I realize it may feel some combination of uncomfortable, unprofessional, or unnecessarily provocative. Societal convention has most of us trussing up before going out.
If you are reading this at home, do me a favor and unhook. Then keep reading.
There’s Some Evidence of a Relationship Between Bras and Breast Cancer Yes, seriously.
Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras
Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer authored a book called Dressed To Kill. They interviewed 4,000+ women in five major U.S. cities over two years. Half the women had been diagnosed with breast cancer. They found:
- 75% of women who slept in their bras developed breast cancer
- 1 in 7 who wore their bras 12+ hours per day developed breast cancer
- 1 in 168 who did not wear a bra developed breast cancer
- Within one month of ditching their bras, women with cysts, breast pain, or tenderness found their symptoms disappeared.
Breast Size, Handedness, and Breast Cancer Risk
A 1991 article in the European Journal of Cancer found that premenopausal women who do not wear bras had half the risk of breast cancer compared with bra users. The data also suggest that bra cup size (and breast size) may be a risk factor for breast cancer.
Cancer Is Not a Disease
Andreas Moritz revealed that Japanese, Fijians, and women from other cultures were found to have a significantly higher likelihood of developing breast cancer when they began wearing bras. His book explains how cancer is an adaptive healing mechanism, arguing that people would die more quickly if the body did not form cancer cells.
Bras and Girdles Can Reduce Melatonin Levels
Japanese researchers found they can lower melatonin by 60%. Melatonin has anti-cancer properties. And Spanish researchers wrote about the use of melanonin in breast cancer prevention and treatment.
There’s No Downside to Being Cautious.
Am I suggesting this scanty fact base offers definitive proof of a causal relationship? No.
Am I suggesting you should be comforted that the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the New York Times all believe it to be bunk? No.
That’s a longer discussion, but it’s sufficient to say that politics and economics create active bedfellows and the absence of a commercial imperative might have something to do with the dearth of research.
Many of us don’t need to wait in order to do something that intuitively seems to make a lot of sense. Frankly, in view of the alarming rate of breast cancer prevalence in this country (12.3% of women) and the growing trend to remove body parts in an attempt to improve our odds, it seems we might be receptive to a bit of behavior modification.
Things to Consider Doing:
Go braless as much as possible.
It actually gets easier. When these muscles and ligaments are forced to bear the weight of our breasts, muscle tone returns. The more you wear a bra, the more you need to wear a bra. Chest muscles and breast ligaments atrophy, which then makes it feel uncomfortable to go braless.
A 15 year French study conducted by Besancon CHU professor Jean-Denis Rouillon found that “medically, phyisiologically, and anatomically, breasts gained no benefit from their weight being supported in a bra.” There was some evidence that eliminating bra use helped ease back pain. He described bra wearing as a “false need.”
Remove your bra when you get home. Don’t wear a bra to bed. And if you’re self-conscious when going out, try wearing camisoles, thicker material, or nipple pads. It does make sense to wear a support bra while exercising.
Wear Loose Bras in Softer Materials and Avoid Underwires
Tight bras and underwires restrict lymphatic drainage, promoting congestion and stagnation of toxic waste materials that are supposed to be flowing out for excretion. Further, the closing of lymphatic vessels reduces the delivery of oxygen and nutrients to the cells.
Michael Schachter, MD, FACAM wrote that bras and tight clothing can impede lymph flow and contribute to the development of breast cancer.
John MacDougall, MD wrote in The Lancet that repeated inflammation from constricting bras are implicated in painful breast cysts and lumps, scar tissue develops, and milk ducts become plugged, all of which is associated with a higher risk of breast cancer.
The metal in underwire bras can create an “Antenna Effect” according to the father of Applied Kinesiology, George Goodheart, DC. Repeated pressing of metal over an acupuncture point can cause longer-term stimulation of neuro-lymphatic reflex points corresponding to the liver, gallbladder, and stomach. “It will likely make her sick; slowly and quietly,” said John Andre, ND, DC.
Here’s a list of no-underwire bras recommended by Donna Eden, Vicki Mathews, and Titanya Dahlin. Donna adds that plastic underwires have the same negative impact as metal underwires.
Slide the Wires Out!
There’s no need to toss your expensive underwire bras. If you cut a small opening at one end of the wire, you can manually remove it from each cup. You’ll probably find that your bra supports you nearly as well without them. Oh, and don’t be fooled. They make look like plastic, but they’re actually plastic-coated metal. If you find you still need the support, you can buy and insert plastic wires. Andre explains how.
For additional research on the harms of bras read our article Breast Cancer Cover-Up Continues or get the book “Dressed To Kill: The Link between Breast Cancer and Bras.”
Originally published: 2014-07-14 13:06:54 -0500
Article updated: 2019-03-10
Louise Kuo Habakus is the co-author of Vaccine Epidemic, the Executive Director and co-founder of the Center for Personal Rights, the founder of Fearless Parent, and the Executive Director of Health Freedom Action.
For more info from Greenmedinfo, you can sign up for their Newsletter HERE.
Greenmedinfo Article Link
65 Chemical Cross-Contaminants Found In Popular Children’s Vaccine INFANRIX Hexa
- The Facts:
The National Order of Biologists made a €10,000 donation to a group that questions the safety of vaccines. The Infanrix Hexa vaccine was the first one tested, and results showed no trance of antigens and a high level of contamination.
- Reflect On:
Why is this not big news? Why does the vaccine not contain any of the antigens it's supposed to guard against? This test shows clear and large causes for concern, so why does it not make mainstream headlines?
Facebook, which seems to have become a government-run agency claiming to help fight the war on ‘fake news,’ has pledged to delete and flag content that spreads misinformation. This is great, and should be done, but the only problem is that content around the internet is being taken down, flagged, and deemed as a ‘conspiracy theory’ when it is well-supported, factual, and backed by peer-reviewed science.
I just wrote an article about the recent measles outbreak in Washington State for example, and how that state is pushing hard for all school-aged children to receive a mandatory MMR vaccination. These outbreaks are constantly being blamed on unvaccinated children, but the mainstream never points people towards the actual statistics showing that Washington State, like many other states, have not experienced a drop in MMR vaccination coverage. Instead, MMR vaccine coverage is very high.
Furthermore, they don’t mention that there’s been a long history of measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated and fully vaccinated populations (see article linked below for examples and sources), and they don’t mention the deaths, disabilities, and adverse reactions that’ve occurred as a result of the MMR vaccine either. Why don’t they mention that the death rate from measles in Washington State was just 1.4/10,000 (source in article below) before the introduction of the vaccine? You can read more about that and access multiple studies and testimonies on this subject in the article linked below:
Information and science are constantly emerging regarding vaccinations, but we never hear about any of it from mainstream media. I also recently published an article of Robert F. Kennedy explaining how big pharmaceutical companies are the biggest lobbyists, even more than big oil, and how they’ve completely compromised both the Democrats and the Republicans.
They’ve captured them (our regulatory agencies) and turned them into sock puppets. They’ve compromised the press… and they destroy the publications that publish real science – Robert F. Kennedy
So, what’s some of the latest information regarding vaccine safety?
An article published in Nature, International Journal of Science titled “Italian scientists protest funding for vaccine-safety investigation” outlines how The National Order of Biologists made a €10,000 donation to a group that questions the safety of vaccines.
The groups name is Corvelva, and they received the donation on the 26th of October of 2018. The group believes that the research it conducts is necessary because “previous studies it has funded, which have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, indicate that some vaccines contain impurities, or lack the active ingredients they claim to contain.”
Nature points out that “Some scientists in Italy are up in arms over a donation from the organization that oversees the nation’s professional biology qualification to an advocacy group that opposes the country’s policy of mandatory childhood vaccination.”
This part is confusing: Why would any group or any scientist oppose more safety studies regarding vaccinations? Wouldn’t professionals on both sides of the coin be in support of as much vaccine safety testing as possible?
ONB president Vincenzo D’Anna told Nature in an e-mail interview that there is a need for truly independent vaccine research because, in his opinion, work conducted in public laboratories and at universities is usually influenced or funded by companies that produce vaccines.
“The goal is to contribute to complete the biological and chemical analyses on vaccines,” he said in the interview, part of which the ONB has published in its Bulletin.
Again, Nature points out that many scientists dismiss the need for more vaccine safety testing and that they are upset. That being said, it’s a comforting thought that ONB disagrees and that they are supporting this type of thing. Clearly, many professionals within that organization don’t believe that vaccines go through rigorous safety testing, as is claimed by many. Again, what harm could be done by further testing?
What Did They Find?
The first vaccine that was tested was the Infanrix Hexa vaccine. It’s a six-in-one vaccine that’s manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) that’s supposed to contain the following antigens: tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis toxoids; inactivated poliomyelitis viral strains 1-2-3; and hepatitis B surface antigen.
Corvelva discovered that none of these antigens were actually in the vaccine, which means it had zero antibodies to the intended antigens to be created. This was a huge shock, and in addition to that they also found the following:
Traces of 65 chemical cross-contaminants from other manufacturing lines:
- chemical toxins;
- unrecognizable macromolecules;
- various free bacterial peptides that are potential allergens and are capable of inducing autoimmune reactions.
According to Corvelva,
Tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis toxoids, D antigens of Poliomyelitis 1-2-3, hepatitis B proteins obtained with genetic engineering and Haemophylus polysaccharides chemically linked to tetanus toxoid as carrier. Toxoids are created by treatments with formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde that should remove toxicity keeping intact their ability to stimulate protective antibodies against original toxins.
We were expecting to find the three toxoids and the other antigens not modified by treatment with formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde, to separate the antigens from each other and to be digestible by the enzyme specific for proteins (trypsin). We have found instead a real polymer, insoluble and indigestible, that we supposed to be the set of antigens chemically bound together (has to be defined if this is present as an aggregate of the individual antigens or a single macromolecule), on which we can find in literature partial information regarding the single antigens.
This macromolecule could not be recognized in any way by the protein databases, and in fact it turned out to be a solid compound of an unknown chemical structure.
Proteins solubility and their digestion (i.e. the capacity to divide them into small peptide fragments) are two typical proteins characteristics that not only makes it possible to study them through some specific analysis methods but are also fundamental for the interaction with the immune system to create protective antibodies, because if the protein structure is heavily altered from the original one, the new antibodies result completely different from those that are able to attack the original antibodies causing illnesses.
Since this polymer we have encountered, derived from the antigenic mix, is not only different for its spatial conformation but it’s chemically different, so we can state that we are not facing antigens similar to the original ones but in the form of a compound with an unknown and unpredictable toxicity and efficacy. (source)
The fact that the vaccine antigens were not detected is seriously concerning, and so is the fact that, of the 65 signs of chemical contaminants, only 35% are known. This was only the first phase of this safety testing, as a second analytical study with standard controls will be released.
7 chemical toxins were also identified, and the group states that these toxins have a structure that could probably be partially derived from the formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde and cyanogen bromide reactions with other chemical contaminants in the vaccine.
We’d like to point out that the toxicity of many of these toxins have been confirmed and published in Pubchem or Toxnet and this poses important safety problems, issues and concerns.
From the protein and peptide fraction study, various free peptides of bacterial origin have been obtained probably coming from the bacterial culture cells used for the antigen extraction. Literature reports bacterial peptides as potential allergens 5 and also as capable of inducing autoimmune reactions 6 and these too put a safety issue that needs to be further clarified with the regulatory bodies.
Coming back to the two basic principles that have been our topic on this analysis path, we reaffirm what we have said in the recent interview on the scientific journal Nature: we are inquiring the vaccines efficacy and safety and we can’t quite understand how it is possible to claim that this vaccine is even able to generate the 6 protective antibodies – reason why it is designed for – and furthermore to understand how this cluster made of 6 neurotoxic antigens bound together can be claimed as not toxic for newborns.
Infanrix Hexa hexavalent, as for the method we have commissioned, casts major doubts on both its effectiveness and on its safety…
One thing is for sure: we will not stop to proceed.
More Vaccine Controversy From Italy
In the 90s, Dr. Antonietta Gatti discovered the relationship between micro- and nano-particles as well as a great number of pathologies: cardiovascular diseases, many forms of cancer, multiple neurological diseases, and autoimmune diseases. She’s taken part in many international research projects, including the pathologies induced by depleted uranium, waste incineration, food polluted with inorganic particles, and more.
Currently, she is the coordinator of the Italian Institute of Technology’s Project of Nanoecotoxicology, called INESE.
She is also a selected expert of the FAO/WHO for the safety in nanotechnological food, a Member of the NANOTOX Cluster of the European Commission, the author of the book “Nanopathology: the health impact of nanoparticles,” on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Biomaterials Applications, and a Member of the CPCM of the Italian Ministry of Defense.
Furthermore, her and her husband Dr. Stefano Montanari founded a laboratory called Nano-diagnostics for the evaluation of the pathological tissues of patients. It’s presently at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Recently, the Italian police raided their home, and the police took all digital assets that were owned by the the two nanopathologists including their laptops, computers, and flash-drives; basically years of work and research.
“Because Gatti and Montanari had taken their research of nanodust and nanoparticles, from in-vivo (performed in a living organism) and in-vitro (performed in a test tube) to what unseen contamination might reside in vaccines in 2016, they came under the microscope of the United States, European, and Italian authorities. They had touched the third rail of medicine. They had crossed the no-go zone with the purported crime being scientific research and discovery. By finding nano-contamination in random vaccines, Gatti and Montanari revealed, for the first time, what no one knew: Vaccines had more than aluminum salts adjuvants, Polysorbate-80, and other inorganic chemicals in them, they also harbored stainless steel, tungsten, copper, and other metals and rare elements that don’t belong in shots given to fetuses, pregnant women, newborns, babies and toddlers developing their lungs, immune and nervous systems.”
The scientists published their work in January of 2017, titled, New Quality‐Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro‐ and Nanocontamination. If science wasn’t plagued by corruption, an investigation would have started, healthcare agencies would be involved, and vaccine safety policies would have come under intense scrutiny, but that never happened.
You can read more about this story and access an interview with the scientists here.
There are numerous vaccine safety issues. The bioaccumulation of various vaccine ingredients, for example, are one. Ingredients like aluminum have been added to vaccines for more than 100 years under the assumption that they are safe. It’s only within the last couple years that scientists decided to look to see where these ingredients go after being injected. They found that aluminum, when injected, doesn’t exit the body, it actually travels to distant organs and the brain. You can access those studies and read more about that here. You can also watch a short video from Dr. Christopher Shaw from the University of British Colombia explaining the difference between injectable aluminum and the aluminum our body takes in from food. Here is another related study you can read that goes into further detail.
The main point I’m trying to make is that no parent should ever be made to feel guilty for not vaccinating their children. Vaccines are clearly not as safe as they’re marketed to be, and it’s important that we ask ourselves why this type of information goes virtually unacknowledged by the masses.
“Existence of Extraterrestrial Space Vehicles OF Enormous Size & Power Is a Fact” – Ex NASA Scientist
When it comes to credible sources for the existence of UFOs, there is no shortage. The evidence for the existence...
Before Roswell: The 1941 Cape Girardeau, Missouri UFO Crash With Extraterrestrial Bodies
Roswell New Mexico is known for the famous alleged ‘crash’ that happened there in 1947. But if you’re not a UFO researcher,...