- The Facts:
A ketogenic diet might not be as safe and effective in the long term as a balanced whole foods diet, and fasting is a more hazard-free way of promoting fat-burning ketosis in the body.
- Reflect On:
Many people are adopting the ketogenic diet for various reasons, completely cutting or drastically reducing their carb intake. But is this safe in all cases?
The ketogenic diet is becoming quite popular. However, many people are promoting it without acknowledging the fact that it might not be safe for everybody. I’m specifically referring to a diet that’s high in fat and low in carbs. Don’t get me wrong, these types of diets are proving to be great interventions for people with cancer, epilepsy, and neurodegenerative disorders. While there is no doubt that this type of diet might be quite an effective health intervention for some, that’s not true for all health issues, and we still have a long way to go with regards to the research to get the full picture.
I’ve written multiple articles about the benefits of ketones (what your blood produces when your body switches from burning glucose to burning fat). However it must be noted that promoting this fat burning state long term by only consuming fat, and no carbs, can in certain cases have negative health consequences.
I’ve always been a supporter of the body producing ketones by going into fat-burning mode. If we are constantly eating, especially carbs, we’re always going to be burning glucose and never really deplete those reserves so we can start burning our fat, much of which is the main cause of a variety of diseases.
The difference here is that I’ve promoted fasting as a way to reap the benefits of ketones instead of a low fat, high carb diet. If one fasts a couple times a month for a few days, your body will go into ketosis and experience autophagy. You can completely regenerate your immune system, repair damaged DNA, and even kill cancer when you practice fasting. This does not mean you should eat high fats and no carbs when you break your fasts, you should simply eat a healthy diet full of whole foods with plenty of fruits and vegetables–at least that’s what I believe based on my research.
Fasting (which produces ketones) is what is showing huge promise for cancer patients, as well as people who suffer from diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Combining fasting here and there, or even intermittent fasting here and there with a plant-based whole foods diet, which includes carbs, is extremely healthy. The prolonged state of ketosis might be necessary for cancer patients, but again, there are still a lot of questions unanswered.
Carbs are not the enemy, and this has been shown by multiple studies. A keto diet may cause short term weight loss, obviously (fasting would do the same thing, it’s the same as a keto diet without having to constantly eat high fats and no carbs). However, this may come at a serious price. A 2010 review found that low-carb, animal-based diets increased cardiovascular death by 14%, cancer death by 28%, & all-cause mortality by 23%- trends confirmed in other large studies.
Animal Proteins The Problem?
This however might not be due to not eating carbs, but simply from the protein found in animal products. Dr. Colin Campbell, is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University and an American biochemist who specializes in the effect of nutrition on long term health. Through his “China study” and other work, he found that over-consumption of animal protein actually “turned on cancer.” Protein from plants, however, had the opposite effect.
That being said, as mentioned earlier, the ketogenic diet may be used for treatment of various diseases. For example, a study titled “The Ketogenic Diet & Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Prolong Survival in Mice with Systemic Metastatic Cancer” explains how it’s already known that the ketogenic diet elevates blood ketones and has been shown to slow cancer progression in both animals and humans. The study also revealed that the ketogenic diet “significantly decreased blood glucose, slowed tumor growth, and increased mean survival time by 56.8 percent in mice with systemic metastatic cancer.”
Just to re-iterate, fasting has the same effect on tumor growth. So why utilize a ketogenic diet when one can utilize fasting instead which also elevates blood ketone levels and slows/kills the progression of cancer? Something to think about. Is it really that healthy to prolong a state of ketosis for so long and completely deprive your body of the nutrients found in many whole foods and plant foods?
Keto diet research is in its infancy, focusing on short-term blood results & body weight – not actual rates of disease or death. And some findings are concerning. LDL cholesterol levels tend to rise (or at best, stay the same) on keto diets. An overwhelming wealth of research shows that the higher the LDL, the higher the risk of cardiovascular disease.
A keto diet is low in refined grains & added sugar, which is great. But it also can be low in phytonutrients, antioxidants, & fiber, all of which have profound benefits, and it forbids some of the most powerfully health-promoting foods on earth – whole grains, legumes, & many fruits. To me, that’s just not good medicine. – Michelle McMacken, internal medicine physician
The truth is, you can still be on a ‘ketogenic diet’ and eat a whole foods plant based diet. If you throw in fasting periods you are going to get the benefits of burning your fat stores and producing blood ketones anyway. There is no reason to go so strict as to deprive your body of carbohydrates unless you are using it as an intervention for a specific disease, and those interventions still have a lot of science and examination to go.
Dr. Mark Mattson, Chief of the Laboratory of Neuroscience at the National Institute on Aging and professor of Neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, explains what fasting does to the brain in this great TED talk. Not once does he mention a high fat ketogenic diet, he is only referring to fasting. Here’s a great quote from that talk:
Why is it that the normal diet is three meals a day plus snacks? It isn’t that it’s the healthiest eating pattern, now that’s my opinion but I think there is a lot of evidence to support that. There are a lot of pressures to have that eating pattern, there’s a lot of money involved. The food industry — are they going to make money from skipping breakfast like I did today? No, they’re going to lose money. If people fast, the food industry loses money. What about the pharmaceutical industries? What if people do some intermittent fasting, exercise periodically and are very healthy, is the pharmaceutical industry going to make any money on healthy people?
If we take a look at a recent study from 2014, published in the journal Trends In Molecular Medicine, it outlines and confirms what several studies before it have already done:
- Caloric restriction (diet high in nutrients but low in calories) and its mimetics (CR) improve lifespan and reduce cancer incidence
- CR and CR mimetics sensitize cancer cells to chemotherapy
- CR and CR mimetics combined with chemotherapy enhance anticancer immune responses
According to the study:
Caloric restriction (CR) is currently the most robust environmental intervention known to increase healthy life and prolong lifespan in several models, from yeast to mice. Although the protective effect of CR on the incidence of cancer is well established, its impact on tumor cell responses to chemotherapeutic treatment is currently being investigated. Interestingly, the molecular mechanisms required to extend lifespan upon reduced food intake are being evaluated, and these mechanisms may offer new opportunities for therapeutic intervention. In addition, new findings suggest a beneficial effect of CR in enhancing the efficiency of tumor cell killing by chemotherapeutic drugs and inducing an anticancer immune response.
None of these studies mention adopting a ketogenic diet.
That being said, in 2010, a case report was conducted on a 65-year-old woman who had a brain tumor causing numerous neurological deficits. In addition to standard care, she was put on a ketogenic diet. After two months, she experienced a complete remission of her tumor, yet when the diet was suspended, the tumor returned. We’ve also seen similar results on cancer growth with just pure fasting.
My way is to just eat healthy, and do a little fasting if you want to experience the health benefits of ketosis. You can eat a plant-based whole foods diet and still deplete your glucose reserves with intermittent fasting if you are looking to lose weight.
Man Shares Why He Quit
I came across this post via Forks Over Knives (a great resource), and while it’s just onme perspective, I thought it was important to share because the best knowledge comes from experience.
Keep in mind I have written about fasting as a tool to manage and even reverse diabetes. You can read that here.
Exercise physiologist and diabetes educator Drew Harrisberg has been amazed at the improvements to his health within a month of going from keto to plant-based. We’ll continue to check in with Drew throughout his WFPB journey, so stay tuned here for updates.
If you’re reading this story in the hope of seeing drastic before and after photos, I’m afraid you’re going to be disappointed. However, if I could wear my body inside-out, I think you’d find my transformation pretty damn impressive (if I say so myself)! My story is about how a drastic change in my nutritional approach—going from keto to plant-based—allowed me to regain control of my insulin and blood sugar levels and, ultimately, to thrive again.
I’ll start by introducing myself. My name is Drew Harrisberg. I’m an exercise physiologist, diabetes educator, sport scientist, and most importantly, I’m a happy and healthy guy thriving with type 1 diabetes. I’ve not only accepted living with it; I’ve learned to love it and manage it so that it doesn’t manage me.
The diagnosis came unexpectedly when I was 22 years old. It was a moment that changed my life forever. I remember making a conscious decision that I would become an expert in managing my disease and that I would share everything I discovered with the world. So the journey began. I went back to university and completed my second degree to add to my exercise physiology title, this time in diabetes education and management.
Since being diagnosed with diabetes, my life has been one big self-experiment. The cool thing is, I’ve been the subject and the lead scientist. I’ve made countless mistakes and discovered just as many solutions.
My first nutritional triumph came very soon after my diagnosis, when I transitioned from the conventional food pyramid to a mostly plant-based, low carb (50-150 grams per day), Paleo approach. About 70 percent of my diet consisted of low-carb, non-starchy vegetables; nuts; and seeds. Animal foods (meat, fish, eggs, and dairy) made up only about 30 percent of my diet, but I had some animal products with every meal. I ate very minimal fruit (just berries) and almost no grains, legumes, or nightshades. I followed this way of eating for the first seven years of my diabetes journey, and it did help me to achieve some great results: My insulin requirements dropped significantly, my blood sugar levels were tightly controlled, and some physical ailments, such as chronic sinusitis and shin splints, disappeared and never came back. My overall health improved.
Recently, my desire for personal development led me down an entirely different road. All the buzz about the ketogenic diet had me interested, so I decided to try it out in the hope that I could further reduce my insulin requirements and achieve even better blood sugar control.
One Step Forward, 10 Steps Back
Initially, that’s exactly what happened. After two months on a ketogenic diet, I was lean, fit, had great focus and concentration, could go long hours without eating, had stable blood sugar levels, and had lower insulin requirements. At this point, it seemed like keto was a magic bullet, and I was a huge proponent of this way of eating. But after two months, everything took a horrible turn for the worse. I became the most insulin resistant I have ever been. I lost all metabolic flexibility. Sure, I was a very efficient fat- and ketone-burner, but it was at the expense of the ability to tolerate any glucose whatsoever. Not only could I no longer eat the smallest amount of carbs without a massive blood sugar spike but also I was resistant to the insulin that was meant to bring my levels back into the normal range. It would have been easy to blame my high blood sugar levels on the tiny amounts of carbs I was eating, but that would have been a mistake. Here’s why: Even if I didn’t eat anything and my liver dumped glucose into my bloodstream, I couldn’t fix my high blood sugar levels, because I was resistant to the insulin that I was injecting. It felt like I was on my way to developing type 2 diabetes (type 1 is more than enough, thank you). It was a very frightening reality and a huge wake-up call.
I came to an eye-opening realization: The ketogenic diet is a short-term, Band-Aid solution. By removing carbs from the diet, you’re simply removing a trigger that leads to symptoms (hyperglycemia) without addressing the actual cause. Then when you add carbs back in, your body can’t tolerate them, which makes it seem like carbs are “bad” for you, but really they’re the victim of something else. After spending hours and hours down a rabbit hole of research, it turns out that high amounts of intramyocellular fat accumulation cause the cell to become dysfunctional, leading to insulin resistance and impaired glucose tolerance. I’ve seen numerous keto advocates demonizing carbs because they personally can’t tolerate them. Once again, it may seem like the banana caused your blood sugar to go up, but what it really did was trigger a symptom that was caused by a much deeper problem. After becoming aware that the large amounts of saturated fat I was eating (from eggs, chicken, meat, and full-fat dairy, and coconut oil) was making me insulin resistant, I knew I had to make a change.
Getting to the Root of the Problem
Having made the connection between poor health outcomes and saturated fats, I was hesitant to return to a Paleo diet. I realized that perhaps when I’d previously done well on Paleo, I was just “getting away with it” because of the healthy plant foods that I was eating. Were my positive results on Paleo due to the 30 percent of my diet that was animal products or the 70 percent that was plants? I suspected it was the latter. The only way to truly find out was to start a strictly plant-based approach and track the changes.
So, I decided to embark on a journey to see if removing those foods altogether and eating more carb-rich plant foods would reverse the metabolic damage I had caused. I immediately embarked on a strictly whole-food-plant-based journey.
I dropped my fat intake from 75 percent of daily energy to less than 20 percent. I removed all animal foods and oils. Rather, I focused on getting healthy fats from avocados, nuts, and seeds. I also added whole grains and legumes back into my diet (both of which I hadn’t eaten in nearly seven years since following a paleo approach) and an abundance of all types of fruit. Within 48 hours my insulin sensitivity started to return to normal. Within 1 week my carbohydrate intake was the highest it had been since being diagnosed with diabetes, and my insulin intake was reducing day by day.
As I write this story, I’ve been strictly plant-based for 30 days and the results have been astonishing. I’ve achieved my best ever insulin-to-carb ratio, and it feels like I’ve regained control of my health. What started as a plant-based journey toward personal development and health has turned into something so much bigger. The positive impact I’m having on myself, the people around me, the environment, and animals gives me so much fulfillment and joy. I cannot wait to see where this journey takes me over the long-term.
Interesting discoveries and findings are often turned into fads. It’s important to really do the research, and listen to what your body needs. Everybody has different requirements, and at the end of the day, completely eliminating carbs from your diet doesn’t seem to be the healthiest choice. Fasting, on the other hand, if done correctly, has shown no adverse health effects and nothing but benefits for the body.
Multiple Scientists Explain How A Diet High In Protein Is NOT Good For Us – Even After Working Out
- The Facts:
The idea that we need to consume as much protein that is recommended to us by federal health regulatory agencies is not backed by much evidence. On the contrary, there is evidence suggesting that these guidelines are too high.
- Reflect On:
How truthful have our federal health regulatory agencies been? How much influence have big food corporations had on them? Has protein been used as a marketed tool? Is as much recommended really healthy, or unhealthy?
Protein is an extremely important and necessary component of every single cell in our bodies. Our bodies use protein for a number of things, from building muscle to repairing tissue, making enzymes, hormones and various other body chemicals. It’s essential, and we need it. But just as with anything else, too much of something can be detrimental, and this seems to be the case with protein. Even the recommended intake of approximately 60 grams per day for the average male, for example, is being called into question by multiple scientists and health experts.
Where did the idea that we need so much protein come from? Why do people take protein shakes after a workout? Why are vegans and vegetarians stigmatized with the idea that they do not get enough protein? Where did this type of thinking come from?
Protein is a huge money making tool for the food industry. It’s a great marketing tool, especially towards athletes and bodybuilders. The body building/athletic market alone provides a huge incentive to use protein as a marketing tool to drive up sales. But again, where is the science? Why do bodybuilders believe they need enormous amounts of protein to build muscle instead of just using food, and why aren’t we educated about the dangers of over-consuming protein?
For those of you who have looked into fasting, you know that multiple studies on fasting have shown extremely beneficial effects, from triggering autophagy and in turn repairing damaged DNA, to killing cancer cells and increasing longevity, to greatly reducing the risk of several different age-related diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.
It was through my research into fasting where I came across, multiple times, the importance of a low-protein diet and how vital it is to retain the effects of fasting as well as good overall health.
Calorie restriction (CR) extends life span and retards age-related chronic diseases in a variety of species, including rats, mice, fish, flies, worms, and yeast. The mechanism or mechanisms through which this occurs are unclear.
The quote above is from a review of literature that’s more than 10 years old. The work presented here is now showing some of these mechanisms that were previously unclear. Fast forward to today and we know a lot more.
A study published in the June 5, 2014 issue of Cell Stem Cell by researchers from the University of Southern California showed that cycles of prolonged fasting protect against immune system damage and, moreover, induce immune system regeneration. They concluded that fasting shifts stem cells from a dormant state to a state of self-renewal. It triggers stem cell based regeneration of an organ or system. (source)
There is so much literature on fasting and its benefits available for anybody who is curious. It’s easy to dive into the research through a scholarly search on Google, and there are multiple Youtube videos at your disposal of interviews with the scientists who are publishing these papers.
So, where does protein come in? Well, lower protein intake as well as fasting are correlated with a major reduction of IGF1 growth hormone.
A 2015 study published in Cell Metabolism is one of multiple studies that points out:
Mice and humans with Growth Hormone Receptor/IGF-1 deficiencies display major reductions in age-related diseases. Because protein restriction reduces GHR-IGF-1 activity, we examined links between protein intake and mortality. Respondents (n=6,381) aged 50–65 reporting high protein intake had a 75% increase in overall mortality and a 4-fold increase in cancer and diabetes mortality during an 18 year follow up period. These associations were either abolished or attenuated if the source of proteins was plant-based.
Before we go any further, I’d like to emphasize that there is a lot of literature suggesting that plant protein is far more beneficial than animal protein. I go into more detail and provide more sources in the articles linked below:
What about athletes and bodybuilders?
Who’s had this kind of protein intake before me? Nobody, right? So before these modern generations and all this push on protein nobody had a very high protein diet, not like this. So of course then that is, there is a danger of that we published a few years ago (referenced above), you know, three/four fold increase in cancer risk, seventy five percent increase in overall mortality. The mouse studies [and] the human studies, a great majority of them are negative for for high protein, and then if you look at the reasons for why they’re negative, well one of the things high protein controls is growth hormone and IGF1, and this pathway and axis really controls the growth and proliferation of cells. – Dr. Valter Longo, biogerontologist and cell biologist, one of the leading experts in the world regarding health science, longevity and the biological effects of fasting. (source)
Dr. Longo goes on to explain, as he references in his study above, that low protein intake means more longevity and more protection from diseases. In multiple interviews he recommends cutting in half your protein intake if you follow the daily recommended guidelines by health food authorities, I have also heard him say that after a heavy, strong workout, maybe only 30 grams, is required to build muscle.
If we look at the proliferation of multiple age-related diseases and cancers, the rates are extremely high and increasing. Could over-consumption of protein, among other reasons, have something to do with it?
Russel Henry Chittenden (1856-1943) looked into this issue in depth, before the mass marketing of high protein diets. He published 144 scientific papers as well as a text on protein requirements (Chittenden, 1904) that focused specifically on minimal protein requirements while resting or exercising.
Chittenden actually experimented on himself, and when he significantly decreased his protein intake, his health remained excellent without compromising any physical vigor or muscle. In this experiment he had less than 1 g per kg daily. He also did the same in a year long study, but with multiple athletic men in great health. They were also given the same low protein diet, and also suffered no deterioration of health or the ability to perform physical tasks. According to his research, even without a large protein intake, individuals were able to maintain their health and fitness levels.
In presenting the results of the experiments, herein described, the writer has refrained from entering into lengthy discussions, preferring to allow the results mainly to speak for themselves. They are certainly sufficiently convincing and need no superabundance of words to give them value; indeed, such merit as the book possesses is to be found in the large number of consecutive results, which admit of no contradiction and need no argument to enhance their value. The results are presented as scientific facts, and the conclusions they justify are self-evident. (source)
The bottom line? We don’t need as much protein as we’ve been made to believe.
Related CE Article: Fasting Does Not Burn Muscle: Here’s The Proof
Personally, I’ve been experimenting with gaining muscle this year without any specific focus on protein post-workout, and I am gaining muscle instead of losing muscle. My gains are as strong as they were when I was in my late teens when I was really into bodybuilding. Right now, I am eating normal food, on a vegan diet, with half the amount of protein that’s recommended (less than 0.8 grams per 1 kilogram of body weight). My experience matches up with the information that’s been shared above.
Over-protein consumption seems to have been the result of food industry marketing. Why has nobody ever asked for any type of scientific proof or experiments when it coms to how much protein the human body requires? Why have we simply believed that a diet high in protein is an absolute necessity, simply based on the fact that we know protein from food is necessary? Why didn’t we ask for proof until now?
Lyme Disease: The CDC’s Greatest Coverup & What They Don’t Want You To Know
Lyme disease, do you have it? If you did, you probably wouldn’t know – unless you’re one of the chronic sufferers that have had to visit over 30 doctors to get a proper diagnosis. Lyme disease tests are highly inaccurate, often inconclusive or indicating false negatives.
Why? Because this clever bacteria has found a way to dumb down the immune system and white blood cells so that it’s not detectable until treatment is initiated. To diagnose Lyme properly you must see a “Lyme Literate MD (LLMD),” however, more and more doctors are turning their backs on patients due to sheer fear of losing their practices! Insurance companies and the CDC will do whatever it takes to stop Chronic Lyme Disease from being diagnosed, treated, or widely recognized as an increasingly common issue.
Lyme is considered by the medical field to “only” transmit by way of a tick infected with bacteria. However, the CDC itself admits it is under-reported, and believes there are between 300,000 to half a million new cases each year. That makes Lyme disease almost twice as common as breast cancer and six times more common than HIV/AIDS. Where are all of these new cases coming from? (It’s interesting to note that since Avril Lavigne recently went public with her Chronic Lyme Disease battle, mainstream news outlets like The Daily Mail have been mentioning Lyme can be transmitted by mosquitoes, too!)
When Lyme isn’t detected in the early stages, it becomes Chronic Lyme, a condition which the CDC and IDSA both deny even exists. They will continue to deny it, because if there’s one thing insurance companies hate, it’s chronic disorders they have to spend time and money treating. Therefore, a panel with ties to insurance companies gathered to write up official Lyme guidelines that assure patients are only allowed a few weeks of antibiotic treatment and are not to be diagnosed with Chronic Lyme Disease (even if clear symptoms persist and invade the nervous system). Over half of the panelists who wrote the IDSA Lyme guidelines announcing that Chronic Lyme is not real — including the panel chairman — have obvious conflicts of interest including financial interests in drug companies, diagnostic tests, and patents, as well as consulting agreements with insurance companies. Researchers and scientists with evidence in support of Chronic Lyme were intentionally excluded from the panel. Because of these unjust Lyme guidelines, insurance companies have the “right” to deny coverage for the treatment of long-term Lyme disease. Doctors have even lost their practices for successfully diagnosing and treating Chronic Lyme, as shown in the film Under Our Skin. In the case of Dr. Joseph Jemsek of North Carolina, he not only lost his license, but also his livelihood. Dr. Jemsek can no longer practice simply because he gave antibiotics to Chronic Lyme sufferers, and was then sued by BCBS for 100 million dollars, following which he had to declare bankruptcy. You can read his closing remarks to the NC Medical Board just before they pulled his license here. You can also watch his story in the documentary at the end of this post.
Busted – Big Pharma bucks taint the IDSA
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal investigated the IDSA panel members for possible violation of antitrust laws and conflicts of interest.
Of the 14 panel authors of the first edition guidelines: 6 of them or their universities held patents on Lyme or its co-infections, 4 received funding from Lyme or co-infection test kit manufacturers, 4 were paid by insurance companies to write Lyme policy guidelines or consult in Lyme legal cases, and 9 received money from Lyme disease vaccine manufacturers. Some of the authors were involved in more than one conflict of interest. (Source: ‘Under Our Skin‘ )
Study: Strong Evidence Of Sexual Transmission
The bacteria that causes Lyme disease is Borrelia burgdorferi, a type of corkscrew-shaped bacteria known as a spirochete. The Lyme spirochete is a cousin to Treponema pallidum, the spirochete that causes syphilis.
Dr. Alan MacDonald, MD who appears in the documentary ‘Under Our Skin’ (2008), says in the film that he found found Borrelia (Lyme) DNA in 7 out of 10 postmortem Alzheimers patients’ brains. This makes perfect sense, since syphilis, its cousin, also invades the brain in tertiary or neurosyphilis. Dr. Klinghardt, MD (also quoted from ‘Under Our Skin’) stated that he’s “never had a single patient with Alzheimer’s, ALS, Parkinson’s Disease or Multiple Sclerosis who tested negative for Borrelia.”
Dr. Alan MacDonald, MD talks about Lyme.
Why are so many people suffering from Lyme disease and its allegedly associated chronic disorders, such as Alzheimers and ALS? A new study suggests that just like its spirochete cousin that causes syphilis, Lyme disease may be sexually transmitted! The study was presented at the annual Western Regional Meeting of the American Federation for Medical Research, and an abstract of the research was published in the January issue of the Journal of Investigative Medicine.
Medical Daily reports,
The study — presented at the annual Western Regional Meeting of the American Federation for Medical Research — a collaborative effort by an international team of scientists — tested semen samples and vaginal secretions of three groups of patients to investigate whether passing Lyme disease to a partner through unprotected sex is a possibility. The study observed control subjects without evidence of Lyme disease, random subjects who tested positive for Lyme disease, and married heterosexual couples engaging in unprotected sex who tested positive for the disease. The presence of B. burgdorferi and identical strains of the bacterium were of particular interest to the researchers in unprotected sex in spouses.
The control subjects were found to test negative for the bacterium in semen samples or vaginal secretions, as expected by the researchers. The researchers found traces of B. burgdorferi in the vaginal secretions of all women with Lyme disease. In contrast, approximately half of the men with the disease tested positive for the bacterium in semen samples. In addition, one of the heterosexual couples with Lyme disease were found to have identical strains of the bacterium in their genital secretions.
One researcher in the study notes, “There is always some risk of getting Lyme disease from a tick bite in the woods. But there may be a bigger risk of getting Lyme disease in the bedroom.”
“Our findings will change the way Lyme disease is viewed by doctors and patients,” said Marianne Middelveen, lead author of the study. “It explains why the disease is more common than one would think if only ticks were involved in transmission.” But will this actually change the way Lyme disease is viewed? Or will the money funneled in by insurance companies and vaccine manufacturers continue to blind and corrupt the IDSA board members? When is enough, enough?
The study was a joint effort by a team of scientists which included dermatologists, molecular biologists, microbiologists, internists, and family practitioners. The most revealing aspect of the study, in my opinion, is the fact I mentioned earlier: one of the heterosexual couples with Lyme disease showed identical strains of the Lyme spirochete in their genital secretions. “The presence of the Lyme spirochete in genital secretions and identical strains in married couples strongly suggests that sexual transmission of the disease occurs,” said Dr. Mayne.
Gestational Transmission From Mother To Child
A North Carolina State University researcher has discovered that Bartonella (a common Lyme co-infection) can be passed to unborn babies, causing chronic infections and possibly birth defects. Dr. Ed Breitschwerdt and his research group tested blood and tissue samples taken over a period of years from a mother, father and son who had suffered chronic illnesses for over a decade. Autopsy samples from their daughter–the son’s twin who died shortly after birth–contained DNA evidence of B. henselae and B. vinsonii subsp. berkhoffi infection, which was also found in the other members of the family. Breitschwerdt’s research appears online in the April 14 Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
You can read a transcript of one of Breitschwerdt’s interviews on Bartonella here.
Multiple Strains Of Lyme?
In 2002, W.T. Harvey, an MD from Houston, began finding large numbers of chronically ill Borrelia burgdorferi PCR- and seropositive patients in the area around his home and practice. Houston, Texas is declared a zoonotically “non-endemic” area, so he set out to understand just how this epidemic was occurring. W.T. Harvey had no competing financial interest (as the CDC and IDSA do) and received no grants when writing his study on Lyme.
“In order to understand this finding prior to sufficient data availability, we chose to examine critically the currently accepted but troublesome ‘Lyme disease’ concepts,” Harvey’s study reads. “Our method was to analyze each foundation ‘Lyme disease’ premise within the context of available medical and veterinary literature, then to reconstruct the disease model consistent with the preponderance of that data. We find the present conceptualization of the illness seriously truncated, with a high likelihood of two distinct but connected forms of human B. burgdorferi infection. The yet-unrecognized form appears to have a broader clinical presentation, wider geographic distribution, and vastly greater prevalence. We conclude that ‘Lyme disease’ currently acknowledges only its zoonosis arm and is a limited conceptualization of a far more pervasive and unrecognized infection state that must be considered a global epidemic.”
Could You Have Lyme From Your Pets?
Suzy Cohen of suzycohen.com is a registered pharmacist and best-selling author. When she graduated from pharmacy school in 1989, she believed that medication was the answer to helping patients get healthy. When that didn’t always work, she began to do some serious research. In one article addressing the truth about Lyme, she writes:
“Most Lyme sufferers have pet cats and dogs, they are not aware that their pets gave it to them. But it happens like this, your pets go out into the yard to do their duty, and ticks jump on them, especially in May and June, their breeding season but any time of the year is possible. Your pet totes these ticks into your house and then you cuddle with your pet. The ticks get on you, and numb your skin. They are teeny tiny, about the size of a poppy seed and you’ll never know you got bit. They like every part of your body, but especially warmer areas, like armpits for example. You may never know. Sometimes the Lyme can happen from a cat scratch or bite. When I ask pet owners about their pets, they go into a bit of denial, because of the great love they have for pets. But you have to realize pets, for as delightful as they are, are tick taxis. If you have Lyme, and get bit again by your pet, you are potentially introducing new coinfections or re-innoculating yourself with more Lyme organisms. It explains why some people just can’t get well, or get setbacks even under treatment.”
Borrelia spirochetes have been found in the urine of infected dogs, among several other animals. Studies on mice have found that the spirochetes in urine remained viable for 18-24 hours and concluded that “[u]rine may provide a method for contact non-tick transmission of B. burgdorferi in natural rodent populations particularly during periods of nesting and/or breeding.” Evidence for direct contact transmission has been demonstrated in mice. These findings suggest that further research is needed to evaluate alternate methods of Lyme transmission, such as by the urine of infected animals to humans.
Conclusion & How To Learn More:
Could you have Lyme? I suspect I might after a series of flea bites in 2011, and I’m almost positive my mother has had it for a very long time. Her doctors are finally thinking the same. This is no shock to me; as Dr. Klinghardt stated above, Lyme is one of the many microbes that has entered our system. We are all exposed to pathogens and parasites on a daily basis, and are never taught anything about how to cleanse or maintain a largely uninhabitable inner environment (hint: a strong immune system)! In fact, I’m on my third parasite cleanse and still passing worms. What else are we housing that we don’t know about? Why is all of this information ignored?
Lyme presents itself in symptoms often misdiagnosed as Crohn’s Disease, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, ALS, MS, Alzheimer’s, Colitis, Encephalitis, Fibromyalgia, Fifth’s Disease, Arthritis, Cystitis, IBS, Lupus, Prostatitis, Psychiatric Disorders (bipolar, depression), Sjogren’s Syndrome, sleep disorders, thyroid disease, and more.
This is a long list, and the number of people who go misdiagnosed or undiagnosed altogether is staggering. As I said, Lyme and hundreds of other pathogens and parasites have taken up residence in our bodies. We have improved our outer practices of hygiene, yet have increased our sources of autointoxication: GMO foods, processed food-like products, overeating, fluoride in water, and chemicals in everything from household cleaners to plastics – just to name a few.
Please watch “Under Our Skin” to learn more about Chronic Lyme disease and how the medical industry continues to ignore this epidemic. The full documentary is available here with a short preview below.
Japan Leads the Way: No Vaccine Mandates and No MMR Vaccine = Healthier Children
- The Facts:
This article was written By Kristina Kristen, Guest Writer, for Children's Health Defense, posted here with permission.
- Reflect On:
How much do pharmaceutical companies really care about our health? Why is important information on vaccines never acknowledged and countered by the mainstream?
In the United States, many legislators and public health officials are busy trying to make vaccines de facto compulsory—either by removing parental/personal choice given by existing vaccine exemptions or by imposing undue quarantines and fines on those who do not comply with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) vaccine edicts. Officials in California are seeking to override medical opinion about fitness for vaccination, while those in New York are mandating the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine for 6-12-month-old infants for whom its safety and effectiveness “have not been established.”
The U.S. has the very highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, with more American children dying at birth and in their first year than in any other comparable nation—and more than half of those who survive develop at least one chronic illness.
American children would be better served if these officials—before imposing questionable and draconian measures—studied child health outcomes in Japan. With a population of 127 million, Japan has the healthiest children and the very highest “healthy life expectancy” in the world—and the least vaccinated children of any developed country. The U.S., in contrast, has the developed world’s most aggressive vaccination schedule in number and timing, starting at pregnancy, at birth and in the first two years of life. Does this make U.S. children healthier? The clear answer is no. The U.S. has the very highest infant mortality rate of all industrialized countries, with more American children dying at birth and in their first year than in any other comparable nation—and more than half of those who survive develop at least one chronic illness. Analysis of real-world infant mortality and health results shows that U.S. vaccine policy does not add up to a win for American children.
Japan and the U.S.; Two Different Vaccine Policies
In 1994, Japan transitioned away from mandated vaccination in public health centers to voluntary vaccination in doctors’ offices, guided by “the concept that it is better that vaccinations are performed by children’s family doctors who are familiar with their health conditions.” The country created two categories of non-compulsory vaccines: “routine” vaccines that the government covers and “strongly recommends” but does not mandate, and additional “voluntary” vaccines, generally paid for out-of-pocket. Unlike in the U.S., Japan has no vaccine requirements for children entering preschool or elementary school.
Japan also banned the MMR vaccine in the same time frame, due to thousands of serious injuriesover a four-year period—producing an injury rate of one in 900 children that was “over 2,000 times higher than the expected rate.” It initially offered separate measles and rubella vaccines following its abandonment of the MMR vaccine; Japan now recommends a combined measles-rubella (MR) vaccine for routine use but still shuns the MMR. The mumps vaccine is in the “voluntary” category.
Here are key differences between the Japanese and U.S. vaccine programs:
- Japan has no vaccine mandates, instead recommending vaccines that (as discussed above) are either “routine” (covered by insurance) or “voluntary” (self-pay).
- Japan does not vaccinate newborns with the hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine, unless the mother is hepatitis B positive.
- Japan does not vaccinate pregnant mothers with the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine.
- Japan does not give flu shots to pregnant mothers or to six-month-old infants.
- Japan does not give the MMR vaccine, instead recommending an MR vaccine.
- Japan does not require the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.
No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses in the first two years of life.
In contrast, the U.S. vaccine schedule (see Table 1) prescribes routine vaccination during pregnancy, calls for the first HepB vaccine dose within 24 hours of birth—even though 99.9% of pregnant women, upon testing, are hepatitis B negative, and follows up with 20 to 22 vaccine doses in the first year alone. No other developed country administers as many vaccine doses in the first two years of life.
The HepB vaccine injects a newborn with a 250-microgram load of aluminum, a neurotoxic and immune-toxic adjuvant used to provoke an immune response. There are no studies to back up the safety of exposing infants to such high levels of the injected metal. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) upper limit for aluminum in intravenous (IV) fluids for newborns is far lower at five micrograms per kilogram per day (mcg/kg/day)—and even at these levels, researchers have documented the potential for impaired neurologic development. For an average newborn weighing 7.5 pounds, the HepB vaccine has over 15 times more aluminum than the FDA’s upper limit for IV solutions.
Unlike Japan, the U.S. administers flu and Tdap vaccines to pregnant women (during any trimester) and babies receive flu shots at six months of age, continuing every single year thereafter. Manufacturers have never tested the safety of flu shots administered during pregnancy, and the FDA has never formally licensed any vaccines “specifically for use during pregnancy to protect the infant.”
Japan initially recommended the HPV vaccine but stopped doing so in 2013 after serious health problems prompted numerous lawsuits. Japanese researchers have since confirmed a temporal relationship between HPV vaccination and recipients’ development of symptoms.
U.S. vaccine proponents claim the U.S. vaccine schedule is similar to schedules in other developed countries, but this claim is inaccurate upon scrutiny. Most other countries do not recommend vaccination during pregnancy, and very few vaccinate on the first day of life. This is important because the number, type and timing of exposure to vaccines can greatly influence their adverse impact on developing fetuses and newborns, who are particularly vulnerable to toxic exposures and early immune activation. Studies show that activation of pregnant women’s immune systems can cause developmental problems in their offspring. Why are pregnant women in the U.S. advised to protect their developing fetuses by avoiding alcohol and mercury-containing tuna fish, but actively prompted to receive immune-activating Tdap and flu vaccines, which still contain mercury (in multi-dose vials) and other untested substances?
Japan initially recommended the HPV vaccine but stopped doing so in 2013 after serious health problems prompted numerous lawsuits. Japanese researchers have since confirmed a temporal relationship between HPV vaccination and recipients’ development of symptoms. U.S. regulators have ignored these and similar reports and not only continue to aggressively promote and even mandate the formerly optional HPV vaccine beginning in preadolescence but are now pushing it in adulthood. The Merck-manufactured HPV vaccine received fast-tracked approval from the FDA despite half of all clinical trial subjects reporting serious medical conditions within seven months.
Best and Worst: Two Different Infant Mortality Results
The CDC views infant mortality as one of the most important indicators of a society’s overall health. The agency should take note of Japan’s rate, which, at 2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, is the second lowest in the world, second only to the Principality of Monaco. In comparison, almost three times as many American infants die (5.8 per 1,000 live births), despite massive per capita spending on health care for children (see Table 2). U.S. infant mortality ranks behind 55 other countries and is worse than the rate in Latvia, Slovakia or Cuba.
If vaccines save lives, why are American children dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a 57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood?
To reiterate, the U.S. has the most aggressive vaccine schedule of developed countries (administering the most vaccines the earliest). If vaccines save lives, why are American children “dying at a faster rate, and…dying younger” compared to children in 19 other wealthy countries—translating into a “57 percent greater risk of death before reaching adulthood”? Japanese children, who receive the fewest vaccines—with no government mandates for vaccination—grow up to enjoy “long and vigorous” lives. International infant mortality and health statistics and their correlation to vaccination protocols show results that government and health officials are ignoring at our children’s great peril.
Among the 20 countries with the world’s best infant mortality outcomes, only three countries (Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore) automatically administer the HepB vaccine to all newborns—governed by the rationale that hepatitis B infection is highly endemic in these countries. Most of the other 17 top-ranking countries—including Japan—give the HepB vaccine at birth only if the mother is hepatitis B positive (Table 1). The U.S., with its disgraceful #56 infant mortality ranking, gives the HepB vaccine to all four million babies born annually despite a low incidence of hepatitis B.
Is the U.S. Sacrificing Children’s Health for Profits?
Merck, the MMR vaccine’s manufacturer, is in court over MMR-related fraud. Whistleblowers allege the pharmaceutical giant rigged its efficacy data for the vaccine’s mumps component to ensure its continued market monopoly. The whistleblower evidence has given rise to two separate court cases. In addition, a CDC whistleblower has alleged the MMR vaccine increases autism risks in some children. Others have reported that the potential risk of permanent injuryfrom the MMR vaccine dwarfs the risks of getting measles.
Why do the FDA and CDC continue to endorse the problematic MMR vaccine despite Merck’s implication in fraud over the vaccine’s safety and efficacy? Why do U.S. legislators and government officials not demand a better alternative, as Japan did over two decades ago? Why are U.S. cities and states forcing Merck’s MMR vaccine on American children? Is the U.S. government protecting children, or Merck? Why are U.S. officials ignoring Japan’s exemplary model, which proves that the most measured vaccination program in the industrialized world and “first-class sanitation and levels of nutrition” can produce optimal child health outcomes that are leading the world?
A central tenet of a free and democratic society is the freedom to make informed decisions about medical interventions that carry serious potential risks. This includes the right to be apprised of benefits and risks—and the ability to say no. The Nuremberg Code of ethics established the necessity of informed consent without “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” Forcing the MMR vaccine, or any other vaccine, on those who are uninformed or who do not consent represents nothing less than medical tyranny.
Government Research Confirms Measles Outbreaks Are Transmitted By The Vaccinated
One of the fundamental errors in thinking about measles vaccine effectiveness is that receipt of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine equates to...
Lyme Disease: The CDC’s Greatest Coverup & What They Don’t Want You To Know
Lyme disease, do you have it? If you did, you probably wouldn’t know – unless you’re one of the chronic...