Connect with us

Awareness

5 Ways Animal Protein Is Damaging Your Health

Published

on

According to Dr. Deepak Bhatt, a Harvard Medical School professor and Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Heart Letter:

advertisement - learn more

“When it comes to getting protein in your diet, meat isn’t the only option. Mounting evidence shows that reducing meat and increasing plant-based protein is a healthier way to go. A diet with any type of meat raises the risk of heart disease and cancer, when compared with a vegetarian diet.” (source)

There’s a big trend happening on our planet right now, and it has to do with our diet. On a mass scale, a lot of people are starting to change the way they eat for multiple reasons. Every single year, it seems that more and more people switch from a meat-eating to a vegetarian or vegan diet. Be it for ethical reasons (animal rights), environmental reasons, or health reasons, it’s a trend that continues to grow.

As a result, more awareness has been created, especially within the past few years, regarding multiple misconceptions when it comes to the vegetarian/vegan diet, and one of them is protein. It’s not uncommon for  someone who doesn’t eat meat to be asked, “where do you get your protein?”

There are a lot of misconceptions about not eating meat, and the main one was is probably that it’s necessary to be healthy and to survive. The science actually shows otherwise, “Studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses.” – Harvard Medical School (source)

It’s not only nutrition science, but anthropology. Many of our supposed ancestors who roamed the planet before us have long been thought to be heavy meat eaters, but this isn’t true. Although analysis has shown that many were indeed heavy meat eaters, it has also shown that many weren’t meat eaters, that some were completely vegetarian, and some were predominately vegetarian. This suggests, according to some, that the human gut is not designed to digest meat, or, that it’s not necessary to do so.

advertisement - learn more

This theory has also been emphasized due to the fact that modern day meat eating has been linked to a variety of diseases. For example, a recent study published by a team of archaeologists in Europe found that Neanderthals from Spain actually ate no meat at all. So, basing our current behaviour on the notion that “things have always been this way”  could actually be completely misguided, despite the fact that this is the general accepted consensus from the masses. But things are changing. You can read more about that in the article linked below, it goes into greater depth about that conversation:

Were Those Who Roamed The Earth Before Us Nearly All Vegetarian? 

“It’s difficult to comment on ‘the best diet’ for modern humans because there have been and are so many different yet successful diets in our species. Because some hunter-gatherer society obtained most of their dietary energy from wild animal fat and protein does not imply that this is the ideal diet for modern humans, nor does it imply that modern humans have genetic adaptations to such diets.”  – Katherine Milton, anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley (source)

Below is information gathered by Sofia Pineda Ochoa, MD. She’s a practicing physician in Houston, Texas who is certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. She was a biochemistry professor at the University of Guadalajara’s School of Medicine in Mexico, and is also the co-founder of Meat Your Future, an educational non-profit that provides fact-based information about the health, environmental, and ethical implications of consuming animal products.

You can view her article “7 Ways Animal Protein is Damaging Your Health,” here.

Animal Protein 

Animal Protein & IGF-1 (Increased Cancer Risk)

The IGF-1 levels (the hormone insulin-like growth factor) increases when animal protein intake increases. These levels drop when we are fasting, and that’s one of the reason fasting has been shown to destroy cancer cells, reverse age related diseases, re-generate the immune system and more.

When we take in proteins from animal sources, they have a much higher proportion of the essential amino aids, which in turn produces higher levels of IGF-1.

“This hormone stimulates cell division and growth in both healthy and cancer cells and, for this reason, having higher circulating levels of IGF-1 has been consistently associated with increased cancer risk, proliferation, and malignancy.” 

 Animal Protein, Heme Iron, and Free Radicals

Iron, for a human, can be consumed in two forms. One is heme iron, found in animal foods like fish, meat and poultry, and the other is non-heme iron which is found predominantly in plant-based foods.

“One of the problems with heme iron is that it can convert less reactive oxidants into highly reactive free radicals. And free radicals can damage different cell structures like proteins, membranes, and DNA….Heme iron can also catalyze the formation of N-Nitroso compounds in our bodies, which are potent carcinogens. So, not surprisingly, high intake of heme iron has been associated with many kinds of gastrointestinal cancers as well as other pathologies.”

The absorption and bioavailability of iron from a well-rounded plant-based diet is adequate for our needs, “and we can avoid the problems associated with heme iron and other negative health attributes of animal foods.”

Higher Sulfur-Containing Amino Acids and Bone Health Problems

Higher concentrations of amino acids that contain sulfur are also found within animal proteins, and this can create a state of acidosis when metabolized.

Metabolic acidosis happens when the body produces too much acid and becomes very acidic. This isn’t good, especially when you think about the fact that many experts warn against an acidic body, and believe that an alkaline diet can actually successfully treat cancer.

Metabolic acidosis forces the body to compensate by leaching calcium from the bones to help neutralize the increased acidity. Over time, all of this can have severe and detrimental effects on bone health, and studies have shown this. Science tells us that nations with high instances of hip fracture and osteoporosis also have a very high calcium intake. Given this correlation, and the fact that animal protein causes metabolic acidosis, sucking the calcium out of the bones — in direct contrast to what the dairy industry would have us believe — it’s easy to see that we have been misled.

This is thought to be one of the reasons why some studies have found that populations with higher dairy consumption, as well as higher consumption of animal protein in general, also have a higher incidence of bone fractures.

Animal Protein & Phosphorus

“Animal protein contains high levels of phosphorus. And when we consume high amounts of phosphorus, one of the ways our bodies normalize the level of phosphorus is with a hormone called fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23).

FGF23 has been found to be harmful to our blood vessels. It can also lead to hypertrophy of the cardiac ventricle (abnormal enlargement of our cardiac muscle) and is associated with heart attacks, sudden death, and heart failure. So eating animal protein with its high concentration of phosphorus can result in increased levels of this hormone in our bodies, which in turn is highly problematic for our health.”

Animal Protein & TMAO

Animal protein has higher levels of  trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO). TMAO wreaks havoc on our body by creating inflammation, injuring the lining of our vessels, and facilitating “the formation of cholesterol plaques in our blood vessels. And that, of course, is highly problematic for cadiovascuar health.”

“So, consuming animal foods result in higher TMAO levels, which is damaging to our vessels. Even without all of the other problematic aspects of animal foods, this one issue involving TMAO, according to the recent president of the American College of Cardiology Dr. Kim A. Williams, sufficient by itself for people to vigorously avoid animal foods.”

One of the most comprehensive studies ever performed on this subject is “The China Study” conducted by Drs. T. Colin Campbell and Thomas Campbell. Their findings showed direct correlations between nutrition and heart-disease, diabetes, and cancer, proving that cultures that eat primarily plant-based diets have lower to no instances of these diseases and that switching to a plant-based diet can successfully reverse diseases already established in the body. The China Studyis recognized as the most comprehensive nutritional study ever conducted on the relationship between diet and disease. I highly recommend watching the documentary Forks Over Knives (available on Netflix), which delves into this in more detail.

More On Animal Protein Compared To Plant-Based Protein

While underconsumption of protein is harmful to the body, overconsumption comes with risks as well. In the United States, the average omnivore gets more than 1.5 times the optimal amount of protein, and most of that protein is from animal sources. This is bad news, because excess protein is turned into waste or turned into fat. This stored animal protein contributes to weight gainheart diseasediabetesinflammation and cancer.

On the other hand, the protein contained in whole plant foods is connected to disease prevention. According to Michelle McMacken, MD, a board-certified internal medicine physician and an assistant professor of medicine at NYU School of Medicine:

“[T]he protein found in whole plant foods protects us from many chronic diseases. There is no need to track protein intake or use protein supplements with plant-based diets; if you are meeting your daily calorie needs, you will get plenty of protein. The longest-lived people on Earth, those living in the “Blue Zones,” get about 10% of their calories from protein, compared with the U.S. average of 15-20%.”

There are many comparisons between plant-based protein compared to protein from meat. You can read more about that in the article linked below which goes into more detail.

Plant-Based Protein VS Protein From Meat – Which One Is Better For Your Body? 

Sources:

1.Young VR , Pellett PL. Plant proteins in relation to human protein and amino acid nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;59(5 Suppl):1203S-1212S.
2. Dunaif GE, Campbell TC. Relative contribution of dietary protein level and aflatoxin B1 dose in generation of presumptive preneoplastic foci in rat liver. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1987;78(2):365-369.
3. Youngman LD, Campbell TC. Inhibition of aflatoxin B1-induced gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase positive (GGT+) hepatic preneoplastic foci and tumors by low protein diets: evidence that altered GGT+ foci indicate neoplastic potential. Carcinogenesis. 1992;13(9):1607-1613.
4. Campbell TC. Dietary protein, growth factors, and cancer. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85(6):1667.
5. Ornish D, Weidner G, Fair WR, et al. Intensive lifestyle changes may affect the progression of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2005;174(3):1065-1069.
6. Kleinberg DL, Wood TL, Furth PA, Lee AV. Growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor-I in the transition from normal mammary development to preneoplastic mammary lesions. Endocr Rev. 2009;30(1):51-74.
7. Allen NE, Appleby PN, Davey GK, Kaaks R, Rinaldi S, Key TJ. The associations of diet with serum insulin-like growth factor I and its main binding proteins in 292 women meat-eaters, vegetarians, and vegans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002; 1(11):1441-1448.
8. McCarty MF. Vegan proteins may reduce risk of cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease by promoting increased glucagon activity. Med Hypotheses. 1999;53(6):459-485.
9. Tang WH, Wang Z, Levison BS, et al. Intestinal microbial metabolism of phosphatidylcholine and cardiovascular risk. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(17):1575-1584.
10. Koeth RA, Wang Z, Levison BS, et al. Intestinal microbiota metabolism of L-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis. Nat Med. 2013;19(5):576-585.
11. Interview with Kim A. Williams Sr., MD, President of the American College of Cardiology (August 25, 2015; Chicago). http://meatyourfuture.com/2015/09/interview-with-kim-a-williams-sr-md-president-of-the-american-college-of-cardiology-extended-version. Accessed December 18, 2016).
12. Xiao Y, Peng C, Huang W, et al. Circulating fibroblast growth factor 23 is associated with angiographic severity and extent of coronary artery disease. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e72545.
13. Ozkok A, Kekik C, Karahan GE, et al. FGF-23 associated with the progression of coronary artery calcification in hemodialysis patients. BMC Nephrol. 2013;14:241.
14. Atamna H. Heme, iron, and the mitochondrial decay of ageing. Ageing Res Rev. 2004;3(3):303-318.
15. Ward MH, Cross AJ, Abnet CC, Sinha R, Markin RS, Weisenburger DD. Heme iron from meat and risk of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and stomach. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2012;21(2):134-138. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22044848 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
16. PJ Tuso, MH Ismail, BP Ha and C Bartolotto. Nutritional Update for Physicians: Plant-Based Diets. Perm J. 2013 Spring; 17(2): 61-66. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016)
17. WJ Craig and AR Mangels; American Dietetic Association. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jul; 109(7): 1266–82. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
18. E Giovannucci. Dietary Influences of 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D in Relation to Prostate Cancer: A hypothesis. Cancer Causes Control. 1998 Dec; 9(6):567-82. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10189042 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
19. Harvard T.H. Chan, School of Public Health: The Nutrition Source – Calcium and Milk: What’s Best for Your Bones and Health? Available here: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium-full-story (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
20. HC Sherman and AO Gettler. The Balance of Acid-Forming and Base-Forming Elements in Foods, and its Relation to Ammonia Metabolism. J. Biol. Chem. 1912 11: 323-338. Available here: http://www.jbc.org/content/11/4/323.citation (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
21. D Feskanich, WC Willett, MJ Stampfer, GA Colditz. Protein Consumption and Bone Fractures in Women. Am J Epidemiol. 1996 Mar 1; 143(5):472-9. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8610662 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
22. LA Frassetto, RC Morris Jr., DE Sellmeyer, A Sebastian. Adverse Effects of Sodium Chloride on Bone in the Aging Human Population Resulting from Habitual Consumption of Typical American Diets. J Nutr. 2008 Feb; 138(2):419S-422S. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18203914 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
23. MM Adeva, G Souto. Diet-induced Metabolic Acidosis. Clin Nutr. 2011 Aug; 30(4):416-21. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21481501 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
24. US Barzel, LK Massey. Excess Dietary Protein can Adversely Affect Bone. J Nutr. 1998 Jun; 128(6):1051-3. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9614169 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
25. DM Hegsted. Calcium and Osteoporosis. J Nutr. 1986 Nov; 116(11): 2316-9. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3794834 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
26. K Michaëlsson, A Wolk, S Langenskiöld, S Basu, EW Lemming, H Melhus and L Byberg. Milk Intake and Risk of Mortality and Fractures in Women and Men: Cohort Studies. BMJ. 2014; 349: g6015. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25352269 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
27. D Feskanich, HA Bischoff-Ferrari, L Frazier and WC Willett. Milk Consumption During Teenage Years and Risk of Hip Fractures in Older Adults. JAMA Pediatr. 2014 Jan; 168(1): 54–60. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3983667/ (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
28. HC Sherman, AR Rose and MS Rose. Calcium Requirement of Maintenance in Man. J. Biol. Chem. 1920 44: 21-27. Available here: http://www.jbc.org/content/44/1/21.citation (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
29. BJ Abelow, TR Holford and KL Insogna. Cross-cultural Association between Dietary Animal Protein and Hip Fracture: A hypothesis. Calcif Tissue Int. 1992 Jan; 50(1):14-8. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1739864 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
30. LM Ausman, LM Oliver, BR Goldin, MN Woods, SL Gorbach and JT Dwyer. Estimated Net Acid Excretion Inversely Correlates with Urine pH in Vegans, Lacto-ovo Vegetarians, and Omnivores. J Ren Nutr. 2008 Sep; 18(5):456-65. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18721741 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website: Life Stages and Populations – Deaths – Leading Causes of Death. Available here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
32. CB Esselstyn Jr. Updating a 12-year Experience with Arrest and Reversal Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease (An Overdue Requiem for Palliative Cardiology). Am J Cardiol. 1999 Aug 1;84(3): 339-41, A8. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10496449 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
33. CB Esselstyn Jr, G Gendy, J Doyle, M Golubic and MF Roizen. A Way to Reverse CAD? J Fam Pract. 2014 Jul; 63(7):356-364b. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25198208 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
34. D Ornish, SE Brown, LW Scherwitz, JH Billings, WT Armstrong, TA Ports, SM McLanahan, RL Kirkeeide, RJ Brand and KL Gould. Can Lifestyle Changes Reverse Coronary Heart Disease? The Lifestyle Heart Trial. Lancet. 1990 Jul 21; 336(8708):129-33. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1973470 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
35. CB Esselstyn Jr, SG Ellis, SV Medendorp and TD Crowe. A Strategy to Arrest and Reverse Coronary Artery Disease: A 5-year Longitudinal Study of a Single Physician’s Practice. J Fam Pract. 1995 Dec; 41(6):560-8. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7500065 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
36. TC Campbell, B Parpia and J Chen. Diet, Lifestyle, and the Etiology of Coronary Artery Disease: the Cornell China Study. Am J Cardiol. 1998 Nov 26; 82(10B):18T-21T. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9860369 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
37] CB Esselstyn Jr. Resolving the Coronary Artery Disease Epidemic Through Plant-Based Nutrition. Prev Cardiol. 2001 Autumn; 4(4):171-177. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11832674 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
38. Usual Intake from Food and Beverages 2007-2010 Compared To Dietary Reference Intakes; Part E. Section 2: Supplementary Documentation to the 2015 DGAC Report. Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Available here: http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-binder/meeting2/docs/refMaterials/Usual_Intake_072013.pdf (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
39. NS Rizzo, K Jaceldo-Siegl, J Sabate and GE Fraser. Nutrient Profiles of Vegetarian and Nonvegetarian Dietary Patterns. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013 Dec; 113(12):1610-9. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23988511 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
40. JY Wick. Diverticular disease: Eat your fiber! Consult Pharm. 2012 Sep; 27(9): 613-8. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22982746 (accessed Jul. 4 2016).
41. A Dilzer, JM Jones and ME Latulippe. The Family of Dietary Fibers: Dietary Variety for Maximum Health Benefit. Nutrition Today. 2013 May/June; 48(3):108-118. Available here: http://journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/Abstract/2013/05000/The_Family_of_Dietary_Fibers__Dietary_Variety_for.5.aspx (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).
42. PJ Skerrett and WC Willett. Essentials of healthy eating: a guide. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010 Nov-Dec; 55(6): 492-501. Available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20974411 (accessed Jul. 4, 2016).

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Updates On The New Coronavirus Vaccine – Are You Going To Take It? Will It Be Mandatory?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple companies have started clinical trials and testing of potential vaccines for the new coronavirus.

  • Reflect On:

    Vaccine hesitancy is at an all time high, will the coronavirus be mandatory, and what will be the penalty for those who refuse?

Special Note To Our Readers: We are concerned that our Facebook Page will be deleted, so we are encouraging all those who want to continue to receive and be able to find our content to sign up for our email list. Thank you. 

The coronavirus is taking the world by storm, and many pharmaceutical companies are in a race to develop the vaccine that will be put into circulation for the public. Obviously, it takes some time to develop a vaccine, usually just over a year, but there have been some initiatives put in place to potentially fast-track the coronavirus vaccine. We will have to wait and see.

As of now, media outlets are reporting on multiple developments. For example, tests in mice of a potential vaccine for the new coronavirus have shown that it does indeed induce an immune response against it, at levels that could possibly prevent infection. According to Global News,

A team at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in the United States said they were able to move quickly in developing a potential COVID-19 vaccine after working on other coronaviruses that cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).

Forbes is reporting that the second phase of human trials for a new vaccine from Moderna may start this spring. Moderna’s cofounder and chairman Noubar Afeyan told CNBC that, while it’s challenging to put a timetable on the vaccine’s progress, “We expect [phase two trials] to happen in the spring, perhaps early summer.”

The second phase involves expanding to hundreds of people in different groups based on certain characteristics like age and physical health. The third phase is potentially the last with the vaccine being given to thousands of people to test its efficacy and safety. Many vaccines also go through a fourth phase after they’ve been approved and licensed.

advertisement - learn more

And President Donald Trump had this to say:

We’re working with the best scientists, doctors and researchers anywhere in the world, we’re racing to develop new ways to protect against the virus, as well as therapies, treatments, and ultimately a vaccine and we’re making a lot of progress. (source)

The Big Questions

So, it seems to be coming. The big questions are: When? Will it be mandatory? Will You Take it?

According to organizations like the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization, vaccine hesitancy continues to increase among people, parents, and yes, even health professionals and scientists. The latter was a big concern for some high-profile speakers at the World Health Organization’s recent Global Vaccine Safety Summit.

No longer a secret, challenging vaccine safety has become a very popular topic over the past few years alone. In fact, the World Health Organization lists ‘vaccine hesitancy’ as one of the biggest threats to global health security. This is discussed in the introduction of this study (one of many) published in the journal EbioMedicine:

Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts, and science (Larson et al., 2011). These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviors and attitudes varying according to context, vaccine, and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services (Group, 2014,Larson et al., 2014Dubé et al., 2013). VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines and ensure satisfactory vaccination coverage.

This fact has been emphasized by Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project. She is referenced by the authors in the study above.At the WHO conference, she emphasized that safety concerns among people and health professionals seem to be the biggest issue regarding vaccine hesitancy.

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen–and we’re constantly looking on any studies in this space–still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider, and if we lose that, we’re in trouble.

So, the point is, vaccine hesitancy is increasing around the world. Given this fact, it’s safe to say that many people are not going to be interested in taking the coronavirus vaccine. This includes many scientists and doctors. Will it be mandatory as some vaccines are for children to attend public school?

The Greater Good?

The vaccine space right now is truly something else at the moment. Those who wish to maintain their freedom and keep informed consent in place are receiving a harsh backlash from Federal Health regulatory agencies who wish to take this freedom away, it seems, in the name of the ‘greater good.’

Scientists and doctors who are creating awareness and explaining why they don’t believe vaccines should be mandatory, or as safe as they’re marketed to be, receive a large amount of pushback and censorship. Platforms like Collective Evolution are having their social media platform distribution and reach completely cut. Physicians for Informed Consent is another one of many examples.

Because of all of the attacks and censorship of our ability to discuss vaccine safety concerns, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons are suing Rep. Adam Schiff for “censoring vaccine debate.” You can read more about that here.

Again, we ourselves have also received a tremendous amount of backlash, demonitizaton and more as a result of sharing peer-reviewed research and expert opinion that questions the safety of vaccines.  There are many examples, the latest one being presenting the work of Dr. Christopher Exley, a Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University. In our article, we explained why he believes aluminum is playing some sort of role in Autism. And no, he doesn’t mean that aluminum is directly causing autism, we made that quite clear. We also presented multiple other studies questioning the safety of the aluminum adjuvant in some vaccines. You can read that article here.

Why are we being censored for presenting such science? Why are scientists like Exley subjected to so much character assassination when his questions, concerns, and science is solid? This CE article about Exley was flagged by ‘fact-checkers’ as false news, despite the fact that it is scientifically sound and simply presents the opinion and research of multiple scientists and experts.

Since when is science supposed to stop asking certain questions? What was actually ‘false’ about the article cannot be adequately explained, and perhaps this is why Facebook or the fact checkers will not reply to us nor even have a discussion about it. They’ve simply flagged the article, one of many, and greatly reduced the reach of our social media platform without replying to our inquiries. We go into more detail about what we and others are experiencing, in the article Proof: Fact Checkers Are Misleading You.

We are actually worried that Facebook may delete our entire Facebook page, so we are encouraging all those who want to continue to receive and be able to find our content to sign up for our email list.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, I didn’t want to go too deep into the issues that are being brought up with regards to vaccine safety, as much as I wanted to outline that a coronavirus vaccine is coming, while simultaneously pointing out that vaccine hesitancy is still on the rise. This combination no doubt will spark even more controversy and censorship in the near future, when really, there should be full transparency of all sides and the concerns raised.

Terms and  ‘hostile language’ such as “anti-vax” should not be used. Encouraging people to ask questions about vaccine safety is in everyone’s best interest.  After all, it makes sense–in order to make our vaccines safer and more effective, you would think everybody would be on board with constant questioning and examination. That’s just good science.

These times also highlight how much trust the public has lost when it comes to trusting government and federal health regulatory agencies. Perhaps this is not a result of misinformation, but a shift in consciousness and so many examples of lies and deceit. Our world is starting to question measures and actions like it never did before. People are waking, people are thinking, people are becoming much more intelligent, not the other way around.

Articles From Collective Evolution That Go Into More Detail About The New Coronavirus.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Awareness

The “Inconvenient Truth” About Mental Illness & Prescription Medications

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Prescription drug sales and deaths are at an all time high. With side effects and dangers, and a lack of safety testing in some cases, are they always the best and only option for mental health treatment?

  • Reflect On:

    Why are alternative treatments for mental health lacking? Is it because they are not as effective as prescription medication or do not turn a profit?

A worrisome trend has emerged in the last few decades that many physicians are choosing to ignore: As the amount of psychiatric drug prescriptions increase, our mental health declines. It’s time we swallow the hard pill and ask ourselves, are psychiatrists doing more harm than good?

I know that, to some of you, this question seems absurd. Why would licensed medical practitioners purposefully harm their patients? But that isn’t really what’s happening here, as the issue relates more to the over-prescription and misuse of mental health drugs, and the corporately funded miseducation that prompts this behaviour, than any malicious intentions on the part of individual people.

The “Inconvenient Truth” About Mental Illness and Prescriptions

In 2013, approximately 17% of Americans were prescribed at least one mental health drug, in comparison to only 10% in 2011. The amount of people on psychiatric prescription drugs has drastically increased over the past 10 years and now 12% of adult Americans are taking some form of antidepressants alone (source).

It’s not just adults affected by the over-prescription of these drugs; according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 11% of children between the ages of 4 and 17 were diagnosed with ADHD as of 2011. However, the American Psychiatric Association maintains that even though only 5% of American children suffer from the disorder, the diagnosis is actually given to around 15% of American children. This number has been steadily rising, jumping from 7.8% in 2003 to 9.5% in 2007. The simple reason for this increase? Profit.

However, despite the fact that the number of mental health drugs prescribed increases every year, our mental health has actually decreased. The amount of people who are considered to be so disabled by mental illness that they require Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) has increased by almost two and a half times between 1987 and 2007, from one in 184 Americans to one in seventy-six. Not surprisingly, the rise in the number of children affected by this is even worse, with a thirty-five-fold increase in that same timeframe (source). So, if the number of prescriptions are increasing, why is our mental health declining?

This phenomenon is what Thomas Insel, former Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, refers to as the “inconvenient truth” of mental illness. Suicide rates per 100,000 people have reached a 30-year high and substance abuse, especially with opiates, has become a national epidemic.

advertisement - learn more

Edmund S. Higgins, MD and Professor of Psychiatry at the Medical University of South Carolina, explains, “More people are getting treatment and taking medications today than ever before, so what is going on? I would argue that a lack of precision and objectivity in diagnosing and treating mental illness has stalled our progress.” Furthermore, Big Pharma has played a crucial role in creating the mental health drug epidemic.

Big Pharma’s Role in Increasing Prescriptions

This seems to be the general consensus of the North American population: If an advertisement or a misinformed MD says, “There’s a pill for that,” you take it. Our reliance on pharmaceutical drugs didn’t form by accident, however; it was carefully planned and funded by Big Pharma. The pharmaceutical industry manufactured it by heavily advertising drugs, bribing physicians, and funding health studies.

Big Pharma has done an excellent job of feeding the public propaganda through advertisements and education, as the more pills you take, the more money they make. The pharmaceutical industry has played a substantial role in increasing the amount of prescriptions and overall diagnoses of A.D.H.D. in the U.S. (read an article I wrote about this here) and other mental health illnesses. As Dr. Irwin Savodnik of UCLA explains, “The very vocabulary of psychiatry is now defined at all levels by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Doctors typically use the knowledge from the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) to diagnose and treat mental illness. But the DSM has had its fair share of criticism, as it favours the use of pharmaceutical drugs over therapy and other healing modalities. Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine and Editor-in-Chief of The Carlat Psychiatry Report Daniel J. Carlat, M.D, criticized the DSM, stating, “In psychiatry, many diseases are treated equally well with medication or therapy, but the guidelines tend to be biased toward medication.”

Holistic mental health practitioner Dr. Tyler Woods further explains:

The DSM tends to pathologize normal behaviors. For instance, the label “Anxiety Disorder” can be given as a result of some kinds of normal and rather healthy anxieties but the DSM will have experts view it and treat it as mental illness. In addition simple shyness can be seen and treated as “Social Phobia”, while spirited and strong willed children as “Oppositional Disorder”. Consequently, many psychotherapists, regardless of their theoretical orientations, tend to follow the DSM as instructed. (source)

In fact, Big Pharma has played a significant role in manufacturing our very definitions of mental illnesses and how they form in the first place. For example, the U.S. considers A.D.H.D. a neurological disorder whose symptoms are the result of biological disfunction or a chemical imbalance in the brain, much like many other mental disorders. However, other countries such as France see these mental disorders, including A.D.H.D., as a social context issue rather than a biological one, with many contributing factors and recommended treatments other than drugs. Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician, author, and the Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, states:

When it was found that psychoactive drugs affect neurotransmitter levels in the brain, as evidenced mainly by the levels of their breakdown products in the spinal fluid, the theory arose that the cause of mental illness is an abnormality in the brain’s concentration of these chemicals that is specifically countered by the appropriate drug. For example, because Thorazine was found to lower dopamine levels in the brain, it was postulated that psychoses like schizophrenia are caused by too much dopamine. . . .

That was a great leap in logic . . . It was entirely possible that drugs that affected neurotransmitter levels could relieve symptoms even if neurotransmitters had nothing to do with the illness in the first place (and even possible that they relieved symptoms through some other mode of action entirely).

Why Pills Cannot Solve All of Our Problems

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t take prescription medication for mental illness; that’s something that you and your doctor should decide. However, if your doctor fails to address any other means of dealing with your mental health, always choosing pills first rather than as a last or even second resort, then perhaps you should think about finding a doctor who understands the benefits of at least considering alternative options.

It’s important to note that even if prescription drugs are the reason our mental health is worsening, they’re certainly not the only reason. We’ve increased our amount of time spent using technology, staying indoors, and being sedentary, as well as worsened our diets and overall physical health with fast food, chemicals, toxins, animal products, and more — all of which may contribute to this decline in mental health.

However, there’s no denying the fact that Big Pharma has had a tangible and worrisome role in the psychiatric drug epidemic. Medical journalist and Pulitzer Prize nominee Robert Whitaker addresses this “inconvenient truth” by using depression as an example. Depression used to be considered a self-limiting illness that, even in severe situations where a patient requires hospitalization, could be cured within six to eight months. Very rarely would patients relapse, and if they did it would typically be many years later.

When antidepressants hit the market, our outlook on depression completely shifted. Even though antidepressants may have been created with good intentions, the reality is that patients taking these drugs are relapsing more quickly and more often. Whitaker explains that many patients on antidepressants will only recover partially in comparison to the full recoveries he’s seen in people who never took them in the first place.

In fact, only around 15% of those treated with antidepressants actually go into remission and maintain their mental health long-term. The other 85% are continuously relapsing or experience chronic depression.

It is clear that in many cases, we need to stop looking for outside help when it comes to our mental health. Our mental health is just that — it’s ours. It’s controlled by us, whether we like it or not. Many mental illnesses don’t stem from biological issues, contrary to what Big Pharma wants you to think, but are rather the result of different stressors in our lives. So, if we were able to connect with ourselves on a deeper level and actually get to the root of the problem, perhaps some of these disorders wouldn’t be so severe.

Related CE Content:

Study Finds Turmeric Is As Effective As Prozac For Treating Depression

Almost No Children In France Are Medicated For ADHD: Here’s How They Define & Treat It

Professor Outlines The “Surprisingly Dramatic” Role That Nutrition Plays In Treating & Curing Mental Illness

Picture source. 

 

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Awareness

Fact-Checking The Fact Checkers About Coronavirus & Vitamin C Treatment – Is It Really “Fake News”?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The idea that vitamin C can have some potential in treating and preventing the new coronavirus is being invalidated and even labelled as 'fake news' by some. If this was true, why are clinical trials for intravenous vitamin C underway in China?

  • Reflect On:

    Can we rely on our medical system to provide the best possible solutions, or will profit always come first? How much trust have they lost among the general population over the years?

An article published by LiveScience, a mainstream science website, states that “Vitamin C is extremely unlikely to help people fight off the new coronavirus.” Mainstream media has been attacking the idea that vitamin C could have some potential to prevent or even treat the new coronavirus. This rhetoric follows statements that have come out from government health regulatory agencies. Take Health Canada, for example, who recently tweeted that there are no natural health products “that are authorized to protect against” the new coronavirus. They go on to state that “any claims otherwise are false.”

This is a problem that’s plagued our world since the introduction of the mainstream medical industry. Arnold Seymour Relman, a former Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal, states this problem clearly: 

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” (source)

The question people need to be asking is, where does government loyalty lie? Perhaps it’s with the industry that spends two times more than any other lobby in congress. This is why nothing can be used as a treatment, for any disease, unless it’s patented and presented to us by a pharmaceutical company. “Alternative” treatments are always branded as ‘fake’ and even ‘dangerous’.

Vitamin C Trials and Treatment

This recent coronavirus outbreak might provide the latest insight into this matter. Going back to the statement above from LiveScience that states “Vitamin C is extremely unlikely to help people fight off the new coronavirus”: if this is really the case, then why would China start multiple clinical trials to examine whether or not intravenous vitamin C can be helpful in treating people with coronavirus?

The article in LiveScience did not acknowledge this originally, but they added an update stating that researchers at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University had launched a clinical trial with 140 patients in February to test whether ultrahigh doses of vitamin C, delivered intravenously, could treat the viral infection more effectively than a placebo. The test group will receive infusions twice a day for seven days, with each infusion containing 12g of vitamin C. (The daily recommendation for an adult man is only 90mg.) The trial will be completed in September, and no results are yet available, according to ClinicalTrials.gov.

advertisement - learn more

That being said, Dr. Richard Cheng, MD, has been updating everyone via his YouTube channel about vitamin C treatment cases out of China. We have been covering his updates as he is in direct contact with this treatment and isn’t simply an armchair scientist at the moment. We feel at this time this is a very important detail as he is seeing and hearing results first hand, not simply theoretically. Dr. Cheng is a US board-certified anti-aging specialist. He claims that vitamin C is now in the Shanghai Government treatment plan.

Dr. Cheng was paramount in bringing high-dose vitamin C to the table as part of potential treatment and prevention measures. Unfortunately in the West, this option is still being denied by much of mainstream media and governments are not talking about it. Instead, it’s fear and chaos which we do not feel helps anyone to stay healthy or get better.

According to Cheng, 50 moderate to severe cases of Covid-19 infection were treated with high-dose IVC. Dosing of IVC ranged from 10,000 – 20,000 mg a day for 7-10 days, with 10,000 mg for moderate cases and 20,000 for more severe cases. The first bit of good news was that all patients who received IVC improved and there has been no mortality. Secondly, as compared to the average of a 30-day hospital stay for all Covid-19 patients, those patients who received high dose IVC had a hospital stay of about 3-5 days shorter than the other patients.

In one particularly severe case where the patient was deteriorating rapidly, an extra dose of 50,000 mg IVC was given over a period of 4 hours and it caused the patient’s pulmonary (oxygenation index) status to stabilize and improve as the critical care team observed in real time. You can watch all of the updates from Cheng via his Youtube Channel.

Related CE Articles: Good Coronavirus News: High Dose Vitamin C Shows Good Results In China Hospital

How To Take Vitamin C Orally. It MAY Help Protect Against Viruses

Enjoy This Free Conscious Breathing Course To Bring Peace & Heightened Immunity

So, at the very worst we can officially say that we don’t know, but there are some positive signs thus far, which again, is obvious due to the fact that they would even begin a clinical trial, and the explanation as to why such a hypothesis exists is explained within the clinical trial website listed earlier. To say that it’s false or extremely unlikely is, in fact, the false news.

Looking For Some Vitamin C?

For anyone looking for a high-quality vitamin C, we have been using and recommending liposomal vitamin C. There are many brands out there. We are using this one from PuraThrive as it is very high quality and has an incredible clinically proven absorption rate.

The Takeaway

Is it really safe and truthful to make the claim that “Vitamin C is extremely unlikely to help people fight off the new coronavirus”? This is the rhetoric we’ve been hearing from mainstream media sources for quite a while, and articles posted on social media providing evidence that it may show some promise are being flagged by fact checkers as fake news. Again, if it was extremely unlikely, why use so many resources that are required to start a clinical trial in the first place? Why are we getting a completely different perspective from an MD in China that’s providing the world with updates? These are important questions to ask, as this example simply highlights one of the biggest problems that plagues the mainstream medical industry, which is a complete denial of the potential of natural treatments. Because these treatments cannot be patented and turned a profit, they are ridiculed, ignored and brushed off.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!