This article is from Greenmedinfo.com, printed here with their permission. It was written by Larry Malerba, DO, DHt, a classical homeopath, osteopathic physician. For more from Greenmedinfo, sign up for their newsletter here.
Is the FDA acting out of malicious intent or willful ignorance in publishing a new draft guidance on homeopathics which would effectively treat them like pharmaceutical drugs, with similar regulatory requirements?
FDA’s Regulatory Overreach Reflects Poor Understanding of Homeopathy
When FDA announced a “draft guidance” in December 2017 stating its latest intentions regarding the regulation of homeopathic products, it became clear that the agency had paid little attention to the concerns of the homeopathic community of practitioners, consumers, patients, and manufacturers. It turns out that the FDA’s public hearing held in 2015—during which numerous representatives of homeopathic interests from across the U.S and around the globe gave overwhelmingly positive testimony as to the safety, efficacy, and unique nature of homeopathic medicines—was just a pretense designed to give the appearance that it was taking the public’s concerns into account.
Hiding behind rhetoric emphasizing concerns for the safety of consumers—“FDA is proposing a new, risk-based enforcement approach to homeopathic drug products that have the greatest potential to cause risk to patients”—FDA is intending to launch a two-pronged initiative that exaggerates the risks associated with homeopathic products and denies the existing evidence in support of their safety and effectiveness.
Regarding the Safety of Homeopathic Medicines
FDA has chosen to use a very small number of unsubstantiated accounts of adverse events supposedly associated with homeopathic products in order to justify overregulation of the industry as a whole. Failing to acknowledge that the current regulatory framework, Compliance Policy Guide 400.400 (adopted in 1988), is more than sufficient to accomplish its stated goal of protecting the public from potential harm, FDA appears bent on tearing that policy down in favor of either a new and unnecessarily stringent policy or no replacement policy at all.
No policy at all would likely result in confusion about FDA’s expectations of homeopathic manufacturers and could provide opportunity for FDA to exploit the lack of clear regulatory bounds. Ronald Whitmont, MD, President of the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH), echoes this sentiment:
“What is clear is that FDA has ignored the homeopathic community’s requests to update this guidance. By withdrawing CPG 400.400 the FDA is removing the only clear guidelines that have served to help the FDA, the homeopathic manufacturers, and the public to understand the policies surrounding the marketing and labeling of homeopathic products.
The AIH is very concerned that the withdrawal of this document will create a situation where anything can be labeled “homeopathic” and muddy the waters around what actually is homeopathic. The AIH is also concerned that withdrawal of the guidance would allow the FDA to act capriciously and to interpret the new guidelines more broadly than they should be.
If the FDA is unhappy with the current CPG 400.400 we advise that they amend it to make it a better, more comprehensive guideline, not one with less clear instructions that could result in abuses from both manufacturers and regulators. Only the public will suffer when this happens.”
I have written previously about FDA’s trumped-up scare tactics regarding homeopathic teething tablets. For decades, homeopathic medicines have been subject to unrelenting criticism from mainstream science and conventional medicine. Critics contend that the quantities of ingredients used are too small to have any physiological effects and, all observed effects must, therefore, be written off as placebo effects. In other words, the predominating belief is that homeopathic doses are too small to be of any health concern.
Astonishingly, we are witnessing a suspicious about-face whereby homeopathic medicines have apparently morphed overnight in the minds of FDA officials from useless placebos to dangerous toxins. Although the scientific community is talking out of both sides of its mouth, it can’t have it both ways. Truth be told, any qualified homeopathic doctor will tell you that neither assertion is the case. While homeopathic medicines are clearly not placebos, they are also nothing like conventional pharmaceuticals.
Homeopathic medicines are in a class completely on their own, which is why when homeopathic physician and New York State Senator, Royal Copeland, MD, sponsored legislation creating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, it was abundantly clear to the U.S. Congress that homeopathic products did not pose a risk and did not warrant the type of scrutiny that the modern-day FDA now claims it deserves.
Although the safety profiles of homeopathic medicines are unparalleled, FDA wants you to believe otherwise. A handful of isolated and unproven cases of seizures supposedly caused by homeopathic Belladonna elicited a “warning against the use” of teething tablets and a thorough review of FDA’s oversight of the entire homeopathic industry.
By contrast, here is a list of 200 drugs admittedly known to be able to produce seizures as possible side effects. I don’t see FDA clamoring to warn people against using these drugs. And I certainly don’t see them undertaking an audit of the entire pharmaceutical industry. When the safety of homeopathic products is compared against the track records of almost all conventional pharmaceuticals, FDA’s egregious double standard becomes unavoidably apparent.
If you understand homeopathy and you’ve seen it work, you know that safety is a virtual non-issue. If a remedy is manufactured according to standards of the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States (HPUS), there is no reason for concern and no need for FDA to think it would need greater oversight. Therefore, the only way a homeopathic medicine can cause harm is if it has been manufactured recklessly in a manner that does not follow proper protocol. A properly made homeopathic dilution, by definition, cannot be toxic because the degree of dilution is too great. For FDA to believe otherwise is unscientific and disingenuous.
Another completely specious contention that FDA makes in its draft guidance is that homeopathic treatment “may cause users to delay or discontinue medical treatments that have been found safe and effective.” This is a classic anti-homeopathy activist talking point, one that makes a number of bogus assumptions, and one that is inherently defamatory of the homeopathic medical profession. It implies that homeopathic treatment is inferior, that it does not constitute safe and effective treatment, and that turning to conventional allopathic drug therapy is always the superior, safe, and effective thing to do.
There is no possible justification for such a statement given that one Johns Hopkins study concluded that medical error is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., a number that represents more than 250,000 deaths per year. And FDA wants to ratchet up regulation of homeopathy due to a few uncorroborated case of seizures from one homeopathic product? Something smells very fishy, indeed.
The Homeopathic Industry Agrees That Safety Standards Are Needed
Now, it is true that unscrupulous parties have been known to market so-called homeopathic products that don’t follow proper manufacturing guidelines as set out by the HPUS or don’t adhere to “current good manufacturing practices” (cGMP). If and when that happens, FDA already has the regulatory authority to effectively handle such infractions. As such, there is no need to make any changes in regulatory policies regarding homeopathic products. Nevertheless, FDA appears ready to jump the shark, giving the clear but erroneous impression that homeopathic products have suddenly become a safety concern.
The homeopathic industry does not disagree with FDA regarding the need for safety standards. However, it objects to the need for revised standards that place homeopathic products at risk for overzealous and punitive regulatory actions. Current FDA policy as stated in Compliance Policy Guide 400.400 is both adequate and effective. Eric L. Foxman, R.Ph., Secretary of the American Association of Homeopathic Pharmacists, is rightfully concerned, and has this to say about FDA’s proposed actions:
“In its apparent zeal to address problematic products, the FDA has decided to do away with the existing regulatory framework under which the industry and the agency have worked together for over 25 years. This is poorly considered and ill advised. In fact, without some of the aspects of the existing Compliance Policy Guide, many more problematic homeopathic products could conceivably be brought to market. This could lead to the marketing of more adulterated, misbranded or fraudulent products masquerading as homeopathic. That would be an abdication of FDA’s role as a public heath agency, and would be a giant step backwards for homeopathy and, especially, the American consumer.”
Although the homeopathic manufacturing industry has tried to maintain a good faith relationship with FDA, the agency, in my opinion, has not acted in kind. Historically speaking, the two parties once did have a good working relationship, but this has not been the case for decades.
Regarding the Purported Lack of Evidence in Support of Homeopathy
FDA’s announcement and its new draft guidance statement make repeated references to the “unproven” nature of homeopathic medicines. Emboldened by another agency that also has little knowledge of homeopathic medicines, FDA makes reference to FTC’s claim that, “companies must have competent and reliable scientific evidence for health-related claims, including claims that a product can treat specific conditions.”
Here, in direct violation of the spirit of an act of Congress that created the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the modern FDA appears to be setting the stage for the possibility of removing the special status of homeopathic medicines. This would give them the same status as conventional drugs, potentially subjecting them to the same regulatory approval process.
This would likely bankrupt the industry, since homeopathic drugs would not be able to command the same outlandish prices that conventional pharmaceuticals have used to gouge the public and to pay for the exorbitant costs of the drug approval process. It amounts to a form of organized governmental crime that only the most obscenely wealthy companies can afford.
(I would like to make clear that this is not the opinion of the homeopathic manufacturers. They do not interpret FDA’s intent in the same conspiratorial way as do I and some others. They are of the opinion that FDA is looking to do its job to protect the public, and not out to undermine homeopathy. It is also important to note that while FDA’s actions could impact the manufacture and marketing of certain homeopathic products, it has no jurisdiction over those who practice homeopathic medicine.)
This brings us to the critically important issue of what it is that actually constitutes scientific evidence. First and foremost, I must state with unequivocal certainty that any claim that there is a lack of research evidence to support homeopathy is an absolute falsehood. Those who make such claims are either deliberately lying, are repeating bogus talking points that they have read or heard elsewhere, or do so out of pure ignorance. There are literally thousands of research trials, many of which shine favorably upon homeopathy. To examine the evidence and then deny its existence is to be deliberately obtuse.
Dr. Samuel Hahnemann developed his system of treatment by similars 200 years ago by studying the effects of his diluted medicines on healthy test subjects. FDA acknowledges this methodology, which Hahnemann called “proving.” It is an inherently safe process that involves using highly diluted medicines that are incapable of producing toxic effects. Diluted medicines are made, they are proven on test subjects, and the resulting information is used as a guide to treat people with symptoms that match the symptom patterns of the remedy provings. There is good reason to believe that it was Hahnemann himself who conducted the very first placebo-controlled, blinded research trials.
In addition to provings and modern research trials, homeopathy also has a vast body of clinical literature that dates back 200 years. Included in the literature, which was written almost exclusively by experienced physicians, are thousands upon thousands of clinical case studies. Physicians painstakingly documented the patients they encountered, the symptomatic presentation of their complaints, the remedies administered to them, and the short and long term outcomes of treatment. This process continues to this day, with countless case histories having been published in numerous international homeopathic journals both new and old.
What happens when we try to evaluate homeopathic products according to conventional pharmaceutical research standards? What all homeopathic practitioners understand—and FDA does not—is that successful homeopathic treatment is critically dependent upon context. It is not possible to get reliable results by choosing a target symptom or two to treat in isolation from all other symptoms of the patient. This type of symptomatic focus is the very thing that defines allopathic medicine. In contrast to a conventional cough suppressant drug, for example, there is no such thing as a homeopathic remedy that can be used to treat coughs in general. Each cough is unique and must be treated accordingly.
For example, Drosera is a well-known remedy for coughs of a specific type. It is especially suited to violent coughing paroxysms that can result in vomiting and even nosebleeds. The attacks are more likely to flare up after midnight. Pulsatilla, on the other hand, suits coughs that are much less aggressive. The cough gets worse when lying down, forcing the person to sit up to get relief. The person who needs Pulsatilla also complains of feeling worse in a warm room, needs fresh air to feel better, and experiences a noticeable decrease in thirst. Spongia is a remedy suited for hoarse, dry coughs. There is often tickling in the throat, which can be quieted by drinking warm drinks.
This is just a small sample of potential homeopathic cough remedies and their unique characteristics. While these types of details have little to no bearing on conventional drug therapy choices, they are crucial factors that determine successful homeopathic prescriptions.
Now imagine what would happen if FDA required a study to “prove” the value of Drosera in treating coughs. Of 100 test subjects, how many do you think would fit the criteria to justify a prescription of this particular homeopathic medicine? Very few, indeed. How long would it take to find 100 test subjects that do have symptom patterns that match Drosera? I suspect it would take years even under the best of circumstances.
Furthermore, although Pulsatilla is well-indicated for certain types of coughs, it can also be used it to successfully treat a wide spectrum of health problems, including hot flashes, ear infections, gallbladder attacks, eczema, depression, and many more. Unlike most pharmaceutical drugs, homeopathic medicines do not have single indications. They have many uses. This basic truth adds even further confusion to FDA’s already poor understanding of homeopathic products.
So when FDA demands proof of homeopathic effectiveness according to conventional medical standards, the deck is already stacked against any prospect of success. Conventional drug trials are very poorly suited to understanding the benefits of homeopathic medicines. Each homeopathic medicine has many potential therapeutic indications, and there are many potential homeopathic remedies that can help the various individuals diagnosed with the same illness.
The irony here is that FDA requires a homeopathic label to include a specific indication for its use, and then asks for proof that it can help that condition. FDA is under the false impression that it can treat homeopathic products as if they are no different from allopathic drugs. Furthermore, FDA’s latest draft guidance states the following:
Generally, a drug, including a homeopathic drug, is considered a “new drug” if it is not generally recognized as safe and effective (GRAS/E) by qualified experts for use under the conditions prescribed.
Although this guidance clearly implies that FDA should consult qualified experts when making judgments regarding homeopathic medicines and their uses, there are no such experts on FDA’s staff. Neither does FDA have any ongoing official working relationships with outside experts in spite of requests from the homeopathic community that FDA fulfill this obligation. FDA lives in an allopathic bubble with no conception of the true nature of homeopathic products, how they work, or how they should be regarded. It is clear that FDA just doesn’t get it; it has little understanding of how homeopathy works or how it should be evaluated.
There are only two plausible explanations for FDA’s misguided attitude toward homeopathy. One is that it is acting with malicious intent to undermine the homeopathic industry, and to subvert an act of Congress, in which case it would not be far-fetched to assume that they are being encouraged to do so by Big Pharma, which is the one party that stands the most to gain from this fiasco. Given FDA’s multiple references to the recent growth of the homeopathic market, this is not an unreasonable conclusion.
The other explanation is that FDA is acting out of willful ignorance. They act like they are listening but their minds are closed. Notwithstanding the possibility of good intentions to guard the public safety, FDA’s actions reveal that it has a very poor grasp of homeopathy, and it does not seem interested in learning from true homeopathic experts.
So what is the best way to study the effects of homeopathic medicines? In terms of conventional research methodology, the protocol most suited to studying homeopathy is one that treats each individual according to his or her unique symptom pattern. It would involve treating a particular disease category, such as ear infections for example, with as many different remedies as are needed to treat the various individuals involved in the study. Each case of ear infection would receive the single remedy that best matches its symptomatic expression. It might require 10, 15, 20 or more different remedies in order to properly treat all of of kids in the study. Of course, this does not satisfy FDA’s conception of a properly conducted research trial. Nevertheless, it is the only way to give homeopathy a fair shake.
As far as homeopaths are concerned, the types of evidence best suited to homeopathy are provings and case studies as previously described. Ironically, and perhaps conveniently for disbelievers, this is the type of evidence that modern medicine now derisively calls “anecdotal.” Medical science has devolved to a point where it trusts the statistical trickery of research trials that evaluate only a few limited parameters (such as the ability to suppress a cough) more than it trusts the first-hand experiences of patients and their doctors (case studies).
Modern standards of medical evidence are badly out of kilter. The first step in rectifying the imbalance will be for medicine to acknowledge the truth of the safety and effectiveness of homeopathy and the many lessons that it has to teach about health and healing.
We Must Continue to Stand for Freedom of Medical Choice
Here’s what you can do…
1. One way to help right now is to submit positive comments (not criticisms of FDA) to FDA in support of homeopathy. Tell FDA that its current regulatory guidelines (Compliance Policy Guide 400.400) for homeopathic products are more than adequate and that any further changes place your right to choose in jeopardy. The period for public comment before FDA makes its final decisions about this critically important policy closes on March 20, 2018. (Comment here)
2. The Homeopathic Pharmacists of the United States also urge those who live in certain states (CO, NM, PA, TN, WA, UT) to urge their legislators to tell FDA not to scrap the current guidelines regarding the regulation of homeopathic products. All you have to do is sign your name to the letter. Even better if you add your own personal story of homeopathic success. (Take Action Here)
About the author:
Larry Malerba, DO, DHt is a classical homeopath, osteopathic physician, and educator whose mission is to build bridges between holistic healing, conventional medicine, and spirituality. He is the author of Green Medicine and Metaphysics & Medicine. His new book, Dynamic Medicine: The World According to Homeopathy, offers an insightful introduction to the best kept secret in the holistic health world. Dr. Malerba is board certified in Homeotherapeutics and past president of the Homeopathic Medical Society of the State of New York.
Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.
If Your DNA Information Is Being Sold, Shouldn’t You Make The Profit?
- The Facts:
Companies like 23andMe, Ancestry.com and others are collecting your DNA data and can sell the data to third party companies. Timicoin is a blockchain based ecosystem that allows you to monetize your health data.
- Reflect On:
Shouldn't you have the option to sell your own data? Is your DNA data safe with some of these companies? The blockchain is helping to create further security and consumer-based monetization of personal data.
Amidst the rise in popularity of companies who take samples of our DNA in order to provide us with information about our ancestry and health risks, there are growing concerns that are not immediately apparent to the average consumer. While most are just happy to be getting exotic information about where they came from and what they should be watching out for health-wise, all for little more than a few hundred dollars, not many consumers are seeing this as a threat to their privacy, and more specifically, as a threat to their control over the most essential information about their unique personal identity–their DNA sequences.
“The key thing about your genetic data … it is uniquely yours. It identifies you, so if you are going to entrust it to a company, you should try to understand what the consequences are,” said Jennifer King, director of consumer privacy at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, whose research on the issue and interviews with individuals shows a lack of consumer knowledge.
Of course, companies who deal in such services will do all they can to convince consumers that their data is safe and secure. But as this CNBC article notes,
Companies in this space, including 23andMe, Veritas Genetics and Ancestry, have a good reason to protect your DNA — their business future depends on maintaining the trust of consumers. But there are thorny issues related to genetic privacy that still today don’t have easy answers or iron-clad legislative protections. And regulators aren’t convinced they are doing right by consumers. A recent Fast Company report indicates that 23andMe and Ancestry are being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission over their policies for handling personal info and genetic data and how they share that info with third parties.
All of these companies say they have clear policies that they will not share your DNA with any third-party unless you explicitly consent to it:
23andMe provides consumers the choice of opting into research conducted on behalf of academic, nonprofit and industry organizations. They also offer an option to consent separately to specific disease studies in which their DNA is used in conjunction with for-profit drug companies, such as the Parkinson’s disease research conducted with Genentech and the lupus and IBD research conducted with Pfizer.
Abuse Of Private Data
Hearing about research conducted on behalf of ‘academic, nonprofit and industry organizations’ reminds me of the article I wrote on Cambridge Analytica’s fraudulent effort to characterize themselves as an academic organization while mining people’s private Facebook information to target them with ads for the 2016 U. S. Presidential Election. Facebook knowingly sold the information to Cambridge Analytica demonstrating that, when it comes to big companies and corporations, the only thing we know for sure is that money and profit will eventually trump respect for the privacy of people’s information.
If there is money to be made by selling our personal information, corporations will do whatever they can to skirt around privacy agreements. They may even flat-out change their policy and inform us in a pages-long letter that they know no one reads and will simply click the ‘accept’ button. In the current environment, it is wise to be extremely cautious when deciding to consent to having one company share our information, especially our genetic information, with third parties.
Think about it. As technology evolves, surely there will be ways our DNA codes could be used in the future that we would not agree with. But once we have given our consent to the use of this most private information, we can no longer guarantee what happens with it. Wouldn’t it be great if WE had control over our genetic information, encrypted and only accessible by us, to use and share in a manner of OUR choosing?
If we so choose, we may even be able to profit from it. Did you know that health information is a commodity that is already collected and sold via third-party companies? Selling health data around the world is already a multi-billion dollar industry, much like how your data collected from Facebook is. But how do we get back control of our DNA information, which could be our most valuable resource about who we are?
Think outside the box. Think blockchain. Think Timicoin.
Timicoin is a platform bringing together a crypto token and the blockchain and is pioneering the tokenization of health information, including your DNA sequencing and other genetic information, through a decentralized blockchain ecosystem. They promise to allow users to monetize their own data, have access to their health information whenever they need it and verify that it is accurate.
The Timicoin platform is built on their own custom blockchain and it’s already fully functioning. This means that in a short time, you will be able to begin using Timicoin’s blockchain to monetize your health data. For more information, please refer to this earlier CE article. You can also read Timicoin’s White Paper here.
Shift In Business Paradigm
Analysts believe that Healthcare information on the blockchain will grow aggressively in the coming years given the global need for ease of sharing healthcare information. Secure storage of our DNA information is only one part of Timicoin’s larger endeavor to make your healthcare information available globally and instantaneously as needed, but only with your personal consent.
It represents a new business paradigm, whereby information is centralized in terms of permitted access but decentralized in terms of who has the power over the information. No longer will masses of valuable personal information be owned and controlled by large corporations, but rather will be owned and controlled by each individual, not only giving the individual the ability to monetize their personal information themselves, but also securing the validity of that information through personal verification and safeguarding against fraud. Supporting blockchain technologies is supporting individual empowerment in our society, a move that undoubtedly scares the power structure at top levels of our current corporatocracy.
Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.
The Damaging Effects Of 5G Wireless On Your Health
Wireless radiation is a huge health problem that continues to be ignored and another opportunity for us to gaze into the past of similar occurrences and learn from our mistakes. Take tobacco for example, at one time in history you were considered a fool and ‘crazy’ for speaking up against the big tobacco companies and letting people know that cigarettes compromise our health. Today, science has spoken, and it has spoken for a long time, despite what the corporations put out into the public and the “science” they used to approve these things in the first place.
There doesn’t seem to be much more of a difference between communication companies that sell and manufacture wireless products and services, which, according to hundreds of scientists and countless amounts of publications, are urging authorities to pay closer attention to what wireless radiation is doing to human health.
This is one of the multiple examples where corporate control rules and dictates government policy, policies that favour big corporations at the behest of planet Earth and the rest of the human population. But it’s more so apparent in North America.
In Europe, multiple countries have restrictions on WiFi and have pointed out some disturbing things. France passed a law in 2015 banning WiFi from all nursery schools, the law states that WiFi must be turned off in all elementary schools when it’s not in use. W wired connection if possible, is preferred. Advertisements directing cell phone use towards young children are banned.
An example from Namibia states quite clearly that current so-called “safety” standards don’t protect citizens from long-term health effects, and that the guidelines governing their use do not guarantee adequate protection against the effects of long-term exposure.
Other countries include Belgium, Spain, Israel, Australia, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, India, Finland, Cyprus and more.
Why are they saying no to WiFi? See for yourself:
You can access hundreds of these scientific papers and read more here, just click on the science section and under each heading, there are links directly to the research. If you click on the drop-down tab, a list of scientific references as documentation appears.
Related CE Article with more information:
Yes, we are making progress, and awareness is being created and steps are being taken, but the corporate take over of North America and almost the entire planet is simply brushing our health under the table, because, unfortunately, they have the power to do so.
At the same time, we are the ones using this technology. It’s becoming so useful, and so easy to just rely on the corporation like we do with everything else. How ironic is it that we raise money and advocate for cancer, yet support the very things that are contributing to it, on grande scales?
Millions of children and adults in schools around the world spend significant amounts of time around wireless devices and Wi-Fi. Many schools are introducing Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies and installing industrial wireless routers for tablets. However, wireless devices expose students and staff to microwave radiation that can impede learning and overall health. Studies have shown that microwave radiation can damage reproductive systems, impact the immune system, alter brain functioning, and may increase cancer risk. Tablets have up to 5 antennae that are constantly emitting short intense bursts of radiation even when not connected to the Internet. Wireless devices in classrooms thus result in multiple sources of wireless radiation exposure. – Environmental Health Trust
The 5G Health Concerns
So, what about 5G? Science already indicates that the current wireless technologies of 2G, 3G and 4G – in use today with our cell phones, computers, and wearable tech. – creates radio frequency exposure which poses a serious health risk to humans, animals and the environment. 5G is the term used to describe the next-generation of mobile networks beyond the 4G LTE mobile networks used today. 5G is intended to be the technology that allows the “Internet of Things” (IOT) to exist and connects all internet connected devices together.
Scientists have been studying the health effects of 5G and wireless radiation and are deeply concerned with their findings and are calling for a stop to the rollout of 5G, as well as a halt to the proposed increase in radio frequency radiation exposure to the public.
Thanks to all of the efforts by various researchers, scientists and more, the world is waking up to this information and it’s actually starting to become talked about within the mainstream. It always seems like such a long process from the point where something is known, to actually mass consensus and action steps being created.
A CBS news report recently emphasized:
The wireless industry is in a race to roll out. The network is supposed to be up to 100 times faster than current data speeds, but it requires cellphone tower equipment to be closer to users than before. Wireless companies in the U.S. say they’ll have to install about 300,000 new antennas – roughly equal to the total number of cell towers built over the past three decades. That’s causing outrage and alarm in some neighbourhoods, as antennas go up around homes.
5G requires the installation of new equipment across the U.S. Every wireless company is working to build its own 5G network. This is worse than cell phone use, and yet, according to government health authorities, “a limited number of studies have shown some evidence of statistical association of cell phone use and brain tumour risks… but most studies have found no association.”
Waiting for high levels of scientific and clinical proof before taking action to prevent well-known risks can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.
“Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely” (source)
Melissa Arnoldi, who leads AT&T’s efforts, said “if it’s not already in your neighbourhood, it’s coming.” This is quite concerning, she told CBS news that “5G uses high-frequency waves that support faster speeds but don’t travel as far as current wireless frequencies. So instead of relying on large cellphone towers spread far apart, they need “small cell” sites that are much closer together.”
Sometimes I wonder, how is this even allowed to happen? Who are the people which control what type of information with regards to our health gets emphasized, and what doesn’t?
This new 5G equipment is currently being installed in a neighbourhood near you.
I’ll leave you with this TED talk by a Silicon-valley engineer turned technology health advocate, Jeromy Johnson.
Related CE Article:
You can use a wired connection, which is very fast and in most cases faster than a wireless connection. Minimize your cell phone use, and perhaps look into some devices that may be used to block the biological effects this stuff is, does, and can have on us.
Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.
This Super Simple Breathing Technique Can Help Alleviate Anxiety & Depression
- The Facts:
Small study finds breathing technique can help treat major depressive disorder and anxiety.
- Reflect On:
The answers to our challenges are much simpler than we thought, we have everything we need inside of us. Great alternative to prescription anti-depressant medication, or other substances.
The breath is one of the most underrated and under-utilized methods of healing. Breathing comes naturally to us, we do it without thinking, which is why it is not something we generally think of as a way to connect deeply with ourselves, calm our anxieties or even reach higher levels of consciousness. Something as simple as breathing can help those who suffer from severe mental conditions and those who have survived global disasters.
There are many forms of breathwork, there is the well-known Holotropic Breathing, made popular by the Iceman himself, Wim Hof. There is another technique known as transformational breathwork and the featured practice of breathing that will be featured in this article, resonant breathing or Coherent Breathing, which is a trademarked term.
This specific style of breathwork came from years of studying the ancient breathing practices of indigenous people all over the world including those from African, Hawaiian, and Native American traditions.
Assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at New York Medical College, Patricia Gerbarg, studies the technique with her husband, Richard Brown, associate professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. “We wanted to identify a short program that could be given quickly to people, that they would have immediate relief within five or ten minutes, and that over time would produce long-term changes,” Gerbarg told Vice.
A study published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary medicine in 2017 led by researchers from Boston University asked 30 people with major depression to practice the breathing technique regularly as well as Iyengar yoga. After 3 months, results from a standard depression inventory test showed how the depressive symptoms had significantly declined.
Even though the study size was very small, it is comforting to know that something as simple as breath alone could help to alleviate symptoms of severe depression. No pills needed. This technique is especially powerful because it can be practiced anytime, anywhere. The process involved taking regular breaths in and out of the nose, at a pace of 5 breaths per minute, each breath in and out taking around 6 seconds. When starting out, it is recommended that this be practiced with the eyes closed, but once you get it under control you can easily do it with your eyes open, meaning while you’re driving, while in a meeting, anytime during the day that you may find yourself feeling anxious, stressed or down. Gerbarg says, “It’s totally private. Nobody knows you’re doing it.”
The breath should be calm and gentle because the goal is to balance the sympathetic — fight or flight with the parasympathetic — rest and digest areas of the nervous system. Interestingly, when the couple first began looking into the power of the breath, the first thought was that this must send extra oxygen to the brain that we may have otherwise been lacking. However, they knew that there must be more to this to explain the profound effects they had been seeing in those who practiced the breathing technique. Not to mention, some types of breathwork actually decreases the amount of oxygen going to the brain.
Why Does This Work?
Gerbarg and Brown believe that the reason this technique works is thanks to the vagal nerves, those connecting the brain to the body and what tell the organs when to beat, digest, breathe and all other functions, have been found in recent years to send even more messages in the opposite direction from the body to the brain. “These ascending messages strongly influence stress response, emotion and neurohormonal regulatory networks,” stated in a book written by the couple, Yoga Therapy: Theory and Practice.
According to Gerbarg, “Respiration is the only autonomic function we can voluntarily control,” it’s easy to see how changing the breathing pattern can shift the messages received by the brain.
The calm and even breaths send messages of safety, according to Gerbarg, this can reduce anxious or depressive thoughts and makes way for more loving and connected emotions to be felt. Adverse reactions are generally rare, but those with asthma or other breathing conditions should only try this practice under the guidance of a trained professional.
We really do have everything we need inside of us. Our human bodies are magnificent, and if something as simple as breathing can help alleviate symptoms of depression, then we should certainly be studying this more. If you are skeptical about this information and feel it’s too good to be true, give it a shot next time you find yourself feeling down or anxious and see if it helps!
Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.
Who Lucifer Actually Is & Why They Are Here (Part 2: Bloodline Families)
(Note: If you have not read part 1 of this article, my strong recommendation is to follow the link and...
You Asked For Our Stance On Trump, So Here It Is
Trump's presidency is playing a role for humanity much greater than many of us realize. Have you thought of his...