Connect with us

Awareness

Another Study Suggests That Humans Are Not ‘Designed’ To Eat Meat

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A recent study conducted by researchers in California and France found that meat protein is associated with a very sharp increased risk of heart disease, while protein from nuts and seeds is actually beneficial for the human heart.

  • Reflect On:

    There are multiple studies linking consumption of animal products to several diseases, and plant foods to the reversal and prevention of them. Does this suggest our biology is not designed to eat animal products?

Are humans supposed to eat meat and consume animal products? If you look into it, you may be surprised. Take milk, for example. The majority of people on the planet are lactose intolerant for a reason. In some parts of the world, lactose intolerance is 90 to 100 percent.(source) Humans are the only species to drink milk after weaning and the only species to drink the milk of another animal. Have we been fooled by big food marketing? Why are global food guides changing to a more plant-based foundation? It’s because things are changing.

advertisement - learn more

The reason why I have a hard time believing that humans are meant to consume meat and animal products is because there’s so much science proving this. Meat eating of all kinds is linked to a variety of diseases. Some of the latest information to emerge in this area compares protein from meat and protein from plant-based sources, suggesting that plant-based protein is much healthier.

--> FREE Documentary Series: "Exhausted" explores how you can regain, restore and replenish the endless energy you thought you had lost forever. Click here to save your spot!

A recent study conducted by researchers in California and France found that meat protein is associated with a very sharp increased risk of heart disease, while protein from nuts and seeds is actually beneficial for the human heart.

The study is titled “Patterns of plant and animal protein intake are strongly associated with cardiovascular mortality: The Adventist Health Study-2 cohort,” It was a joint project between researchers from Loma Linda University School of Public Health in California and AgroParisTech and the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique in Paris, France.

It was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology. The researchers found that people who ate large amounts of meat protein, which is a daily norm for many people, represented a portion of the human population that would experience a 60 percent increase in cardiovascular disease (CVD), while people who consumed large amounts of protein from nuts and seeds actually experienced a 40 percent reduction in CVD.

81,000 participants were analyzed for this study. According to Gary Fraser, MB, ChB, PhD, from Loma Linda University, and François Mariotti, PhD, from AgroParisTech and the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, who served as the co-principal investigators:

advertisement - learn more

“Dietary fats are part of the story in affecting risk of cardiovascular disease, proteins may also have important and largely overlooked independent effects on risk.”

The authors emphasized that they, as well as their colleagues, have long suspected that the protein from nuts and seeds in the diet protects against heart and vascular disease, while protein from meat, especially red meats, increases your risk.

Fraser said the study leaves other questions open for further investigation, such as the particular amino acids in meat proteins that contribute to CVD. Another is whether proteins from particular sources affect cardiac risk factors such as blood lipids, blood pressure and overweight, which are associated with CVD.

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 often stored as fat. This stored animal protein contributes to weight gainheart diseasediabetesinflammation, and cancer.

The study concluded that:

Associations between the ‘Meat’ and ‘Nuts & Seeds’ protein factors and cardiovascular outcomes were strong and could not be ascribed to other associated nutrients considered to be important for cardiovascular health. Healthy diets can be advocated based on protein sources, preferring low contributions of protein from meat and higher intakes of plant protein from nuts and seeds.

On the other hand, the protein contained in whole plant foods is connected to disease prevention. According to Dr. Michelle McMacken:

The 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%.

Multiple studies have shown the difference between animal protein and plant protein. Another great example comes from Colin Campbell, a Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University, whose experiments on laboratory rats showed cancer cell growth can be turned on or off by simply varying the amount of animal protein included in their diet. This was an enormous discovery, with implications to the diets of millions of people. His results, from what’s known as the “China Study,” have proven to be replicable.

A study conducted in 2016  by researchers at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital followed more than 130,000 people for 36 years, monitoring illnesses, lifestyles, diets and mortality rates.

They found that substituting between 15g and 19g of animal protein, the equivalent of a single sausage, for legumes, pulses, nuts and other planet protein, significantly decreased the risk of early death. Replacing eggs with plant-based protein also lead to a 19 percent reduction in mortality risk.

Researchers found that a 10 percent higher intake of meat was associated with a two percent higher mortality rate and an eight percent higher chance of cardiovascular death.

With overwhelming scientific evidence to many of the most common deadly diseases, I discovered that the meat, egg, and dairy industries have been engaged in a covert response, funding studies that deny this evidence while burying their involvement in the fine print. One of the hired guns paid to conduct these studies is Exponent, INC. A company whose research was used by the Tobacco industry to deny the connection between second hand smoke and cancer. For more than 50 years, Exponent has generated studies that challenge the health-risks of everything from asbestos, arsenic and and mercury, to animal foods.” – James Brett Wilks, a retired English professional mixed martial artist, Producer and narrator of  “The Game Changers” documentary

“The formula, works beautifully for people selling food, it works beautifully for people selling drugs to treat the diseases that bad food causes, and it works beautifully for the media, which can give us a new story about diet, everyday. But despite the appearance in our media of confusion, there’s massive global consensus about the fundamentals of a health-promoting, and it’s a diet that every time… In every population, every kind of research, it’s a plant food predominant diet, every time.” – Dr. David Katz, Founding Director of Yale University Prevention Research Center (The Game Changers documentary)

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.

Increases in 1GF1, which also goes way down during fasting, is correlated with a number of diseases. Again, protein increases it, but, as the study above states, “these associations were either abolished or attenuated if the source of proteins was plant-based.”

This trend is gaining more scientific inquiry as popularity grows. At least 542,000 people in Britain now follow a vegan diet –  up from 150,000 in 2006 – and another 521,000 vegetarians hope to reduce their consumption of animal products. It is evident that veganism has become one of the fastest growing lifestyle choices. (Source #2)

“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.”  Dr. Deepak Bhatt, a Harvard Medical School professor and Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Heart Letter (source)

In America alone, approximately 40% of the population is pre-diabetic. This translates to millions of people. Multiple studies have shown that red and processed meats (also recently linked to cancer by the WHO), as well as animal protein in general, increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. In omnivore populations, the risk of diabetes is doubled compared with vegans. Another study found that eating meat once a week or more over a 17-year period increased the risk of diabetes by a startling 74%. A follow up study was conducted and found that increasing red meat intake by more than just half a serving per day was closely associated with an almost 50% increased risk of contracting diabetes over four years.

Eating meat specifically increases your chances of having elevated levels of inflammation in your body, which can lead to a number of short-term and long-term health consequences.

Chronic inflammation has been linked to atherosclerosis, heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, and autoimmune diseases, among other problems.

Plant-based diets, on the other hand, are naturally anti-inflammatory. This is because they offer lower inflammatory triggers (versus the saturated fat, endotoxins, and other toxins released from bacteria found in animal foods). Multiple studies have shown that those who switch to a plant-based diet can dramatically lower their level of C-reactive protein (CRP), an indicator of inflammation in the body.

Another big risk factor for heart problems is high blood cholesterol. Saturated fat, primarily found in meat, cheese, poultry, and various other animal products, dramatically influences our blood cholesterol levels. Yet when people switch to plant-based diets, their blood cholesterol drops significantly, as several studies have shown.

Studies have confirmed that plant foods help shape a healthy intestinal microbiome. This is just another reason (out of many) why scientists and health professionals are becoming big advocates for plant-based diets. The fibre found in plant foods helps promote the good bacteria that’s needed in our guts. Dairy, eggs, and meat, on the other hand, help foster the growth of disease-causing bacteria.

“Landmark studies have shown that when omnivores eat choline or carnitine (found in meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, and dairy), gut bacteria make a substance that is converted by our liver to a toxic product called TMAO. TMAO leads to worsening cholesterol plaques in our blood vessels and escalates the risk of heart attack and stroke.

Interestingly, people eating plant-based diets make little or no TMAO after a meat-containing meal, because they have a totally different gut microbiome. It takes only a few days for our gut bacterial patterns to change – the benefits of a plant-based diet start quickly!”

– Michelle McMacken, MD

So Why Do We Eat Meat?

Again, I ask, what makes us believe we need to eat meat? Many people like to point to those who roamed the Earth before use, like Neanderthals. I found those arguments to be very weak, and they always fail to acknowledge Neanderthal groups that were completely vegan, and how animal protein wasn’t really important. They may also not even be related to us, but that’s a separate topic.

The evidence is mounting. It seems to be quite clear that our bodies suffer from meat eating and benefit from a whole foods, plant-based diet. This is why I am so confused.

“When you actually look at the way our digestive systems are constructed, we have the anatomy and the physiology of a strict plant eater or herbivore.  We don’t have any adaptations in our digestive system or in our physiology that is adapted to eating or consuming animal flesh. And that’s why we can’t consume animal flesh without the aid of technology. But when you look at the jaw structure, jaw mechanics, our esophagus, our stomach and the length of our intestines, it’s clear that we have the anatomy of a committed herbivore.”

The quote above comes from Dr. Milton Mills, an internal medicine physician who, in the video linked within this article, explains that human beings aren’t really built to digest meat, or at the very least, they have a choice. More and more research is pointing towards the benefits of consuming a plant-based diet.

More Info

Recent advances in technology and science have discovered that microscopic fossils of plant foods are abundant at various sites of ancient humans, indicating a vegan diet. Furthermore, dental, bone, DNA, and ancient human fecal analysis have shown considerable evidence that many of these people ate mostly plants.

One of these experts is Dr. Christina Warinner (seen in the picture above), who earned her Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2010 and received her postdoctoral training at the University of Zurich (2010-2012) and the University of Oklahoma (2012-2014). She became a Presidential Research Professor and Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Oklahoma in 2014, and is currently a Leader in Microbiome Sciences at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.

Her work has led to some very interesting findings and conclusions:

“Humans do not have any specialized genetic anatomical or physiological adaptations to meat consumption. By contrast, we have many adaptations to plant consumption.” (The Game Changers documentary)

She goes deeper in her presentation at the 2016 International Conference on Nutrition in Medicine. She brings up various points, going into her research analysis of ancient gut micro-biomes and more. She also brings up the fact that our digestive systems are clearly constructed to digest plants and fibres that require a longer processing time, not meat. They are much longer than those of meat-eating animals, and the fact that no adaptations exist within our digestive system to consume animal flesh is a crucial point.

here are many facts that Dr. Warinner points to in her research, like how humans cannot produce their own vitamin C, which is one of many factors indicating just how reliant we are on plant foods for certain vitamins. There is nothing essential within meat that cannot be found within plant foods. Some may point towards vitamin B12, but B12 isn’t made by animals.

B12 is made by bacteria that all animals consume. It’s found in the soil and in water. It’s the same as protein, as all protein originates from plant sources, which is how the animals that people eat actually acquire their protein in the first place. Before industrial farming, humans and animals got their B12 from the traces of dirt found on plant foods or by drinking water from freshwater lakes, rivers, and streams. As a result of pesticides polluting our waterways, forcing us to chlorinate our water among other things, the B12 bacteria originally in water has been killed off for the most part. Even farm animals are required to take B12 supplements. Both meat eaters and vegetarians/vegans are commonly found to be low in B12–it has nothing to do with eating meat.

Another common argument is that we need to eat meat for essential amino acids. This is simply false, as there are multiple plant sources where we can get all of our required amino acids.

Gradual increases in brain sizes of early humans have also been attributed to meat, but research is showing that “because there is not a very strong match between meat consumption and gradual increases in brain size, scientists have looked to other options. And given that plant foods are such an important part of modern humans that hunt and gather foods, the money is on plant foods and shift in the kinds of plant foods as being the major driving factor in increasing brain size.” – Nathaniel J. Dominy, Adjunct Professor of Biological Sciences Professor, Ecology, Evolution, Ecosystems and Society (EEES) Graduate Program Charles Hansen Professor of Anthropology at Dartmouth. (The Game Changers Documentary.)

In primates, you might think canine teeth are associated with a diet of meat, but they’re not. In Gorilla’s, if males want to intimidate other males they will show the length of their formidable canines. On the other hand carnivores have distinctive teeth and they’re shaped like scissor blades, they simply shred the meat off and they swallow. Compare that to the teeth of a human being, square and low cusp for crushing and grinding tough plant tissue. Right there in your own mouth is the best evidence for a diet that could not have been meat – Dominy (The Game Changers Documentary)

“We have a brain, that just is desperate for glucose. It’s such a fussy organ, that’s the only thing it really takes in for energy. Well, meat is not a very good source of glucose, to have a big brain like this you need to eat something different. And the most efficient way to get glucose is to eat carbohydrates.” – Dr. Mark Thomas, geneticist, University College, London (The Game Changers documentary)

Just looking and studying human anatomy, again, it seems we are built to eat plants, and  “substantial evidence shows that the ancestral lineage that led to humans had a plant-based diet.” (source)

The bottom line is that most ancient humans, and human-like creatures, were predominately vegan. Some ate meat, but many didn’t. For example, Neanderthals in Spain ate no meat at all, according to a study published by Nature.

That being said, even if some did eat meat, there were none that had a diet that was predominate in meat. One group of researchers published a study in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology which stated:

“We are suggesting that animal proteins would be less important overall and that’s particularly true for interpretations of Neolithic farmers. What that would mean is that they are having more of a balance of animal and plant protein in their diet, suggestive of a mixed existence strategy.” (source)

An article by Rob Dunn written for Scientific American titled “Human Ancestors Were Nearly All Vegetarians” goes into greater detail about this issue, from an evolutionary perspective, bringing up multiple points about how our guts evolved to stick to a vegetarian diet.

A great article I like to point people towards comes from University of Utah geochemist Thure Cerling, who spearheaded a set of fairly recent new studies that show how early humans and their ancestors and relatives made a surprising dietary switch some 3.5 million years ago, changing from an ape-like diet of mostly leaves and fruits and shrubs to a grass-based diet of grasses and sedges. He gives a great timeline and overview, which you can read here.

I’m just trying to hammer home the fact that it’s been strongly established in scientific literature that ancient human-like ‘ancestors’ predominately ate plant-based diets.

SEE our articles and take on the theory of evolution.

The Takeaway

One thing is quite clear, and that’s the fact that a plant-based diet has great benefits for our health and impacts our biology in a very positive way, while meat eating and consuming animal products does the exact opposite. This is not really a matter to debate, we instead need to question what we are doing on this planet and how we are treating other animals as well. They are being tortured and it’s extremely heart-breaking. It’s very cruel and very bad for our planet to consume meat. All signs point to the fact  that it’s not natural at all.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Landmark Case Filed Against U.S. Federal Communications Commission On 5G & Wireless Health Concerns

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Environmental Health Trust is has filed a case against the U.S. Federal Communications Commission regarding 5G and wireless radiation, citing health and environmental concerns.

  • Reflect On:

    How are federal health regulatory agencies able to approve this technology without any appropriate safety testing? Is there an Industry influence? Why are health concerns raised by thousands of papers considered a "conspiracy?" What's going on here?

The case is Environmental Health Trust, et al. v. FCC  case number 20-1025, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Environmental Health Trust is a think tank that promotes a healthier environment through research, education, and policy and the only nonprofit organization in the world that carries out cutting edge research on environmental health hazards. They work directly with communities, health and education professionals, and policymakers to understand and mitigate these hazards. Dr. Devra Davis founded the non-profit Environmental Health Trust in 2007 in Teton County, Wyoming. She has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and has authored more than 200 publications in books and journals. She is currently Visiting Professor of Medicine at The Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel, and Ondokuz Mayis University Medical School, Samsun, Turkey. Dr. Davis lectures at the University of California, San Francisco and Berkeley, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Harvard, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and major universities in India, Australia, Finland, and elsewhere.

She’s actually one of the scientists who was creating awareness about big tobacco and how they were deceiving the public back in the day, and she’s compared that with the current climate of wireless technologies, proving that these technologies, like 5G and its predecessors, may be harmful to not only human health, but environmental health as well. The bottom line is, it’s firmly established in scientific literature that there are biological effects to be concerned about. These technologies pose great risks, and it’s quite alarming that federal health regulatory agencies have approved the rollout of these technologies without our consent, and furthermore, without any health and/or environmental safety testing.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of scientists doing their part to try and tackle this issue together by raiding red flags.

What Happened: The Environmental Health Trust has filed a case against the Federal Communications Commission. They explain:

Environmental Health Trust v. FCC challenges the FCC’s refusal to update its 25-year-old obsolete wireless radiation human exposure “safety” limits and the FCC’s refusal to adopt scientific, biologically based radio frequency radiation limits that adequately protect public health and the environment. The brief is filed jointly with Children’s Health Defense.

Our joint brief proves that the FCC ignored the record indicating overwhelming scientific evidence of harm to people and the environment from allowable levels of wireless radiation from phones, laptops and cell towers. Furthermore, the FCC “sees no reason to take steps to protect children”, despite being presented with scientific evidence indicating that children are uniquely vulnerable due to their developing brains and bodies.  Therefore, its decision not to review the “safety” limits is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence-based and unlawful.

Our brief contends the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA).

Here is a clip of Senator Richard Blumenthal during a hearing that took place last year, questioning wireless industry representatives about the safety of 5G technology. During an exchange with wireless industry representatives who were also in attendance, Blumenthal asked them whether they have supported research on the safety of 5G technology and potential links between radio-frequency and cancer, and the industry representatives conceded they have not.

The EHT goes on to explain that:

The FCC opened an Inquiry into the adequacy of its exposure limits in 2013 after the Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2012 stating that the limits may not reflect current science and need to be reviewed. In response, hundreds of scientists and medical professionals submitted a wealth of peer-reviewed studies showing the consensus of the scientific community is that RFR is deeply harmful to people and the environment and is linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and other biological ills to humans, animals, and plants.

Notwithstanding the extremely well-documented record of these negative impacts from RFR, the FCC released an order in December 2019 deciding that nothing needed to be done and maintaining that the existing, antiquated exposure limits are adequate now and for the future.

In large measure, the FCC simply ignored the vast amount of evidence in the record showing an urgent need for action to protect the public and the environment. EHT contends that the FCC ignored the recommendations of hundreds of medical experts and public health experts who called for updated regulations that protect against biological impacts and for the development of policies to immediately reduce public exposure.

The brief contends the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because its order is arbitrary and capricious, and not evidence-based; violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the FCC did not take a hard look on the environmental impacts of its decision; and violated the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA) because the FCC failed, as required by the TCA, to consider the impact of its decision on the public health and safety.

“The FCC entirely ignored the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, hundreds of scientists and over 30 medical and public health organizations. Wireless emission limits should protect children who will have a lifetime of exposure,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust. Scarato pointed out that the FCC “saw no reason to take steps to protect children” despite voluminous scientific evidence on the record showing that children are uniquely vulnerable due to their developing brains and bodies.

“Equally shocking is how the FCC could state that the existing limits which were developed in 1996 are protective without even addressing the impact of the existing limits on the natural environment. In this regard, there was a noticeable absence of on-the-record comments by the EPA. In fact, the EPA recently stated that it has no funded mandate to even review research on RFR. Yet there is a great deal of evidence in the FCC proceeding showing that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to birds, bees and trees.”

Video of Press Conference 

Opening Brief 

EHT Submissions to 13-84

The science is also clear, there are thousands of peer-reviewed publications raising cause for concern. For example, A study published in 2019 is one of many that raises concerns. It’s titled “Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices.”

It outlines how, “In some countries, notably the US, scientific evidence of the potential hazards of RFR has been largely dismissed.  Findings of carcinogenicity, infertility and cell damage occurring at daily exposure levels—within current limits—indicate that existing exposure standards are not sufficiently protective of public health. Evidence of carcinogenicity alone, such as that from the NTP study, should be sufficient to recognize that current exposure limits are inadequate.”

Would it not be in the best interests of everybody to simply put this technology through appropriate safety testing?

It goes on to state that “Public health authorities in many jurisdictions have not yet incorporated the latest science from the U.S. NTP or other groups. Many cite 28-year old guidelines by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers which claimed that “Research on the effects of chronic exposure and speculations on the biological significance of non-thermal interactions have not yet resulted in any meaningful basis for alteration of the standard”

It’s one of many that call for safety testing before the rollout of 5G testing, because all we have right now from those who claim that it’s safe are ‘reviews of literature’ that are determining it’s safe.

This particular study emphasizes:

The Telecom industry’s fifth generation (5G) wireless service will require the placement of many times more small antennae/cell towers close to all recipients of the service, because solid structures, rain and foliage block the associated millimeter wave RFR (72). Frequency bands for 5G are separated into two different frequency ranges. Frequency Range 1 (FR1) includes sub-6 GHz frequency bands, some of which are bands traditionally used by previous standards, but has been extended to cover potential new spectrum offerings from 410 to 7,125 MHz. Frequency Range 2 (FR2) includes higher frequency bands from 24.25 to 52.6 GHz. Bands in FR2 are largely of millimeter wave length, these have a shorter range but a higher available bandwidth than bands in the FR1. 5G technology is being developed as it is also being deployed, with large arrays of directional, steerable, beam-forming antennae, operating at higher power than previous technologies. 5G is not stand-alone—it will operate and interface with other (including 3G and 4G) frequencies and modulations to enable diverse devices under continual development for the “internet of things,” driverless vehicles and more (72).

Novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being followed. Higher frequency (shorter wavelength) radiation associated with 5G does not penetrate the body as deeply as frequencies from older technologies although its effects may be systemic (7374). The range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been reported with millimeter wavelength exposure. These include oxidative stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin and systemic effects such as on immune function (74). In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts (73), acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized biological impacts from this range of frequencies, and highlight the need for research before population-wide continuous exposures.

A number of countries have already banned wireless technology in schools, and more are taking action steps, but it’s difficult when so many governments are dominated by corporations. Many people believe we now live in a corporatocracy, not a democracy, given the fact that they (corporations) have amassed so much power and have ways of dictating government policy. Paul Bischoff, a tech journalist and privacy advocate, recently compiled data regarding telecom’s political contributions to influence policies that benefit their industry, it’s quite revealing.

The list is quite long, and for the sake of a short read, if you want to learn more and access more of the science, you can start by visiting the Environmental Health Trust. It’s an excellent resource. There is a bit more information this article I recently published, but we’ve published many on the topic so you can browse around our site as well if interested, just use the search bar.

Why This Matters: 5G technology, and wireless technologies in general are a great example of measures being imposed on us against our will. It’s one of many examples that should have us questioning, do we really live in a democracy? Why has so much effort and awareness been raised, yet the idea that these technologies could pose a threat, and do pose a threat, is still considered a conspiracy theory within the mainstream? Why? What’s really going on here? Are there constant battles over human perception when it comes to certain topics? How much have we been misled? Is it time to start thinking for ourselves instead of relying on federal health regulatory agencies? How are we living? Why do we think the way we do? Human beings are full of unlimited potential, and there are better ways to do things here on planet Earth!

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Awareness

Study: Exercising With Mask Induces a “Hypercapnic Hypoxia Environment” – Not Good

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A study published in June 2020 raises some health concerns about people wearing masks while exercising. It also calls into question the ability of masks to stop Covid-19.

  • Reflect On:

    Are the mandatory orders that we are being given from government health authorities really the right thing to do? Why is there such a back-lash for questioning these measures? Should we not encourage questioning and discussion?

What Happened: A recent study published in the Journal Medical Hypothesis titled “Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword? – A physiological hypothesis” claims the following:

Exercising with facemasks may reduce available Oxygen and increase air trapping preventing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. The hypercapnic hypoxia may potentially increase acidic environment, cardiac overload, anaerobic metabolism and renal overload, which may substantially aggravate the underlying pathology of established chronic diseases. Further contrary to the earlier thought, no evidence exists to claim the facemasks during exercise offer additional protection from the droplet transfer of the virus. Hence, we recommend social distancing is better than facemasks during exercise and optimal utilization rather than exploitation of facemasks during exercise.

According to the authors, exercising with facemasks induced as “a hypercapnic hypoxia environment [inadequate Oxygen (O2) and Carbon dioxide (CO2) exchange] . This acidic environment, both at the alveolar and blood vessels level, induces numerous physiological alterations when exercising with facemasks: 1) Metabolic shift; 2) cardiorespiratory stress; 3) excretory system altercations; 4) Immune mechanism; 5) Brain and nervous system.’

Further, poor saturation of haemoglobin would be anticipated due to increased partial pressure of CO2 at higher exercise intensity Fig. 2 demonstrates the extreme right shift of the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve, which would be higher than that expected during exercise. This acidic environment would unload O2 faster at the muscle level, but due to higher heart rate and reduced affinity at the alveolar junction, the partial pressure of O2 would substantially fall, creating a hypoxic environment for all vital organs.

In the figure below, the authors present a dissociation curve that “is showing the extreme right side shift with the carbon dioxide rebreathing (PaCO2) and inadequate available Oxygen (PAO2). Red dotted lines show the right shift of the curve due to exercise without masks (↑PaCO2, PH and temperature). Violet dotted lines show the extreme curve shift during exercise with masks (↑↑↑↑PaCO2, PH and temperature). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)”

The authors also point out that “wearing of facemasks to prevent the community spread of the novel Covid-19 is itself debatable, considering the limited evidence on the subject matter. WHO recommends masks only for Covid-19 patients but the usage of masks is morally “exploited” among community individuals.”

This is important to recognize, the use of masks is indeed debatable. Right now, “fact-checkers” are going around the internet censoring and labelling any information that seems to question the efficacy of masks when it comes to Covid-19, or anything that contradicts the WHO organization. Why do voices looking at facts ad science, and providing another perspective get silenced?

The purpose of the paper cited in this article is to explore and question: Does the use of facemasks offer any benefit for ‘social exercisers’ during this pandemic; 2) Does exercising with facemasks alter normal physiological responses to exercise; 3) Does exercising with facemasks increase the risk of falling prey to Coronavirus; 4) How could “social exercisers” combat the physiological alteration?

Here’s another interesting claim by the researchers:

The study concludes:

Exercising with facemasks might increase pathophysiological risks of underlying chronic disease, especially cardiovascular and metabolic risks. Social exercisers are recommended to do low to moderate-intensity exercise, rather than vigorous exercise when they are wearing facemasks. We also recommend people with chronic diseases to exercise alone at home, under supervision when required, without the use of facemasks. Given the identified and hypothesized risks, social distancing and self-isolation appear to be better than wearing facemasks while exercising during this global crisis.

This isn’t the only paper that has called into question the use of a mask. This study, is one of multiple that conveys the idea that they might in fact increase one’s chance of contracting a respiratory infection.

For example,

According to a study published in BMJ Open in 2015,

This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.

We have provided the first clinical efficacy data of cloth masks, which suggest HCWs should not use cloth masks as protection against respiratory infection. Cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection than medical masks, and also performed worse than the control arm. The controls were HCWs who observed standard practice, which involved mask use in the majority, albeit with lower compliance than in the intervention arms. The control HCWs also used medical masks more often than cloth masks. When we analysed all mask-wearers including controls, the higher risk of cloth masks was seen for laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection.

According to another study published a year after the one mentioned above,

The physiological effects of breathing elevated inhaled CO2 may include changes in visual performance, modified exercise endurance, headaches and dyspnea. The psychological effects include decreased reasoning and alertness, increased irritability, severe dyspnea, headache, dizziness, perspiration, and short-term memory loss. (source)

There are many examples. Doctors have been making YouTube videos and giving interviews about the same concerns as well. Again, many of these videos and interviews have been deleted from big tech platforms like YouTube.

Why?

Why This Is Important: We are living in a time where simply questioning information that’s dished out to us is becoming harder and harder to do and talk about on the internet – a place where ideas are shared. When something credible opposes a narrative handed to the population via some very powerful people, not only is it censored and often removed, but a mass media campaign of ridicule ensues. Of course, the main strategy used in the mainstream is to call these ideas a “conspiracy theory” and cast doubt. Censorship + Ridicule = massive perception manipulation.

Below is a screenshot of what has happened with our YouTube channel January 1st 2019. We were demonetized and shaddow banned. This is just one example of big tech censorship we have experienced. Our Facebook page has been heavily cut, and we no longer get ranked in Google search. We often joke at the office that, if people knew what we’ve gone through to keep Collective Evolution afloat for the past 11 years they wouldn’t believe it.

This is why we created CETV. Our own platform we created to help us continue doing what we do. CETV is our inner circle membership site that provides news and tools to raise collective consciousness. You can support our work and get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

We thank everybody who has joined so far, you’ve truly kept CE going!

Why are there a digital authoritarian “fact-checkers” going around the internet and censoring information? Should people not have the right to examine information openly, freely and transparently and decide for themselves what is, and what isn’t, instead of having people in positions of power do it for them? Does this not leave room for mass manipulation of information?

The good news is that the censorship of information has drawn the attention of even more people, and has been a catalyst for some to recognize what’s really going on here.

Our physical rights are slowly being taken away under the guise of good will. Crisis’ like the coronavirus, or terrorism have always been used to do this. Create the problem, propose the solution and make it justified in the eyes of the masses. If we continue down this path and choose to be governed by those who do not have the best interests of humanity at heart, we are going down the path of total and complete population control.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, there is so much controversy and information out there that completely opposes the mainstream media narrative. This information and evidence, once seen, has such a big impact on one’s consciousness and perception of the world we live in. Just like 9/11, this coronavirus incident is serving the collective and sparking more questions about what exactly we are doing here. Why do we live the way we live? Why do we respond the way we respond? Why do we continue to follow orders from those whom we choose to let govern us when it isn’t even clear that their recommendations are for the best interest of humanity?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Trump Gives 1.16 Billion To Bill Gates’ Vaccine Alliance & Inks Deal With Pfizer For A COVID Vaccine

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Not long ago, President Trump gave more than a billion dollars to a vaccine alliance called Gavi that was co-founded by Bill & Melinda Gates. He also inked a deal with Pfizer for 100,000,000 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.

  • Reflect On:

    Are you going to get the vaccine? Will it be required to travel and to enter into certain buildings? If so, will you get it then? Are mandatory medical measures a violation of our freedom and human rights? Is it really for the good of everyone?

What Happened: Last month, US President Donald Trump “donated more to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, to prevent the spread of infectious diseases worldwide.” He did so in a statement of support for Gavi at the public Gavi pledge conference, which was hosted by the United Kingdom, on June 4th. So far, the United States has donated more than $12 billion for the development of COVID-19 vaccines and therapies, and “the U.S. commitment to immunization complements the work of innovators in the United States and other countries who are racing to find a vaccine and treatments for COVID­19.” (source)

Bill and Melinda Gates co-founded the Gavi alliance in the year 2000, it’s a public-private partnership that claims to support “global health-system strengthening and vaccine deployment for infectious diseases worldwide.”  (source)

Here’s a video clip of Trump talking about his decision.

Shortly after this, Trump announced that they will give nearly $2 billion to Pfizer, a big pharmaceutical company, for 100 million doses of a COVID-19 vaccine that could make its way into the public domain sometime next year. According to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, the U.S. could buy another 500 million doses under the agreement if the vaccine is safe and effective in the U.S.

Multiple countries are now purchasing vaccines for the new coronavirus.

Why This Is Important: It’s important because the coronavirus vaccine is extremely relevant right now and on the minds of many as the only possible solution to this pandemic, at least that’s how it’s being marketed, despite the fact that multiple peer-reviewed studies and examples have emerged from all over the world regarding the success of other interventions.

For example, a study published last month in Frontiers in Immunology titled “Quercetin and Vitamin C: An Experimental, Synergistic Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Related Disease (COVID-19)” concluded the following:

Quercetin displays a broad range of antiviral properties which can interfere at multiple steps of pathogen virulence – virus entry, virus replication, protein assembly – and that these therapeutic effects can be augmented by the co-administration of vitamin C. Furthermore, due to their lack of severe side effects and low-costs, we strongly suggest the combined administration of these two compounds for both the prophylaxis and the early treatment of respiratory tract infections, especially including COVID-19 patients.”

As far as vitamin C goes, this is not the only study or article to recommend its use when it comes to treating COVID-19. For examplem Medicine in Drug Discovery of Elsevier, a major scientific publishing house, recently published an article on early and high-dose IVC in the treatment and prevention of Covid-19. High-dose intravenous VC was successfully used in the treatment of 50 moderate to severe COVID-19 patients in China. The doses used varied between 2 g and 10 g per day, given over a period of 8–10 h. Additional VC bolus may be required among patients in critical conditions.”

New York hospitals were also seeing success with Quercetin and Vitamin C. You can read more about that here. Vitamin C isn’t the only ‘alternative’ therapy, Hydroxychloroquine also caused quite a bit of controversy. The main point I am trying to make here is that mainstream media has not only ignored these facts, but there seemed to be a coordinated attack on the idea that these therapies can work. Once the mainstream media and organizations who are threatened come up with a way, whether it be by paying scientists or manipulating data, to ridicule an idea, that idea instantaneously loses credibility in the minds of the masses. That’s how much of a stranglehold mainstream media has, and has had on our collective perception.

Secondly, it’s important because according to organizations like the American Medical Association as well as the World Health Organization, vaccine hesitancy among people, parents, and, as mentioned by scientists at the World Health Organization’s recent Global Vaccine Safety Summit, health professionals and scientists continues to increase. This is no secret, as vaccines have become a very popular topic over the past few years alone. In fact, the World Health Organization has listed vaccine hesitancy as one of the biggest threats to global health security. The issue of vaccine hesitancy is no secret, for example, one study (of many) published in the journal EbioMedicineoutlines this point.

This fact was also  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.

There are a number  of physicians and scientists raising awareness about this. The Physicians For Informed Consent are one of many such groups. This brings me to my next point, informed consent.

Vaccine mandates have already caused quite a controversy when it comes to children. The right to receive a medical or religious exemption is being taken away in various states, and a child cannot attend a public school unless they are up to date with the CDC’s recommended vaccination schedule. This is done on the basis that unvaccinated children are a danger to vaccinated children, which is a highly flawed argument given the fact that vaccines aren’t safe and effective for everyone, which is why the National Childhood Vaccine Injury act has paid nearly $4 billion to families of vaccine-injured children, and that’s only counting approximately 1 percent of vaccine-injured children because most of them go unreported. You can read more about that here.

It’s also important because we need to weigh the dangers of the vaccine compared to the actual disease. The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%.

Similar to CDC estimations, PIC’s analysis results in a COVID-19 CFR of 0.26%, which is comparable to the CFRs of previous seasonal and pandemic flu periods. “Knowing the CFR of COVID-19 allows for an objective standard by which to compare both non-pharmaceutical interventions and medical countermeasures,” said Dr. Shira Miller, PIC’s founder and president. “For example, safety studies of any potential COVID-19 vaccine should be able to prove whether or not the risks of the vaccine are less than the risks of the infection. (source)

You can read more about that story here.  So far, multiple clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines have shown severe reactions within 10 days after taking the vaccine. You can read more about that story, here.

Alan Dershowitz and Robert F. Kennedy recently had a vaccine debate regarding the safety of vaccines. It includes a discussion about the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine. You can watch that and read more about it here.

Last but not least, it goes to show just how susceptible politicians and presidents are to what many before them have referred to as the invisible government. Donald Trump was clearly not a fan of vaccines, and that was made clear during his 2016 election campaign. When it comes to politics, big business always seems to win. Even those from within our federal health regulatory agencies are speaking up. In fact, only a few years ago, more than a dozen scientists from within the CDC put out an anonymous public statement detailing the influence corporations and rougue interests  have on government policy. They were referred to as the Spider Papers.

The invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation…The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties…(and) control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under the cover of a self-created screen and seizers  our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.” (source)(source) – John F. HylanMayor of New York City from 1918-1925

Another great one from Theodore Roosevelt

“Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”(source)

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, the new coronavirus and the measures taken to combat it have caused a lot of controversy. When someone like NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden said governments are using the coronavirus to push more authoritarian measures upon the population, it’s important that we listen. Instead, we prosecute them, exile them, and put people like Julian Assange who expose war crimes in jail while we agree with and identify with those who are committing the crime. What is encouraging, however, is that just like 9/11 did, COVID-19 is shifting human consciousness in a major way.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!