Connect with us


The Untold History of Hillary Clinton’s Vitriol for Tulsi Gabbard



In January of 2013, Tulsi Gabbard (then just 31 years of age) was being promoted as the next rising star of the Democratic Party.  At the time, Representative Gabbard was everything the Democratic Party alleges to care about as a walking embodiment of cultural diversity.  Gabbard was one of the first female combat veterans elected to Congress and a member of both a religious and ethnic minority (as the first Hindu and American Samoan ever to sit in Congress).  Being from Hawaii, Gabbard is also an avid surfer and is active in both physical conditioning and martial arts training.  As a young, fit, and socially dynamic progressive woman committed to public service and ending wasteful regime-change wars, she was showered with praise from party leaders as she was unanimously elected to serve as Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee:

advertisement - learn more

“Congresswoman Gabbard’s story is an inspiration and her dedication to public service showcases the best of our party’s values.” ~Former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“She’s an emerging star.” ~House Leader Nancy Pelosi

“I think she’s wonderful. She’s been in combat in a leadership role, and she knows how to lead. She deals well with men and women, young and old, Republican and Democrat. She’s got an extraordinary political talent.”  ~Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer

So what changed?  How and why did Tulsi go from DNC darling to Establishment enemy #1? (Well, maybe #2 behind Bernard Sanders). To understand the vitriol that Hillary Clinton and Establishment Democrats hold for Tulsi Gabbard, it’s imperative to put her trajectory in its historical context.

It was on the morning of February 28, 2016 that Tulsi Gabbard’s political life would forever change.  I remember that day perfectly.  It was a crisp, sunny winter morning in Kittery, Maine where I found myself drinking coffee at one of my favorite local cafes, when a headline buzzed across my phone:

advertisement - learn more

“Tulsi Gabbard Resigns as Vice Chair of the DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders.” 

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders wave to supporters during a campaign event in Miami at the James L. Knight Center on Tuesday, March 8, 2016. (Pedro Portal/El Nuevo Herald/TNS via Getty Images)

In relinquishing her prestigious position as Vice Chair of the DNC – Tulsi did the unthinkable:  She stood up to Hillary Clinton and the Establishment behemoth that controls the inner workings of the Democratic party.  But why?  Why was Tulsi Gabbard willing to do what no other high-profile Democrat had the integrity to do at the time: put her political life on the line and risk her ascendant star status within the party infrastructure to endorse Sanders, an outsider who was thought to have no chance of mounting a viable challenge to the Clinton machine. (Incidentally, Sanders would go on to win 22 states and birth a soaring progressive political movement that continues to thrive to this day). Incidentally, Gabbard is the only 2020 Democratic candidate who endorsed Sanders in the 2016 primary.  Every other candidate opted to throw their respective weight behind Hillary Clinton.

Tulsi Gabbard actually has a conscience; a moral compass; an inner drive to speak truth to power even if it means risking her own advantageous position within the political elite.  After the revelations by Wikileaks (via troves of leaked internal emails) that the DNC was actively and pointedly conspiring to thwart Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Primary (to guarantee a Clinton nomination), Tulsi felt that she could not sit on the sidelines and perpetuate this injustice to our democracy.  Gabbard subsequently announced that she was stepping down as Vice Chair of the DNC, called out the inequitable adjudication and administration of the primary, and cited Bernie’s nuanced and strong track record on foreign policy as additional reasoning for her endorsement, calling out Hillary Clinton’s abysmal record as Secretary of State where she mirrored a war-hungry NeoCon foreign policy that is the delight of Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger & Donald Rumsfeld.

And then all hell broke loose within the Clinton circle.  How *dare* Tulsi Gabbard buck party orthodoxy and refuse to fall in line to kiss the Clinton ring! Overnight, Tulsi went from future face of the party to a target for vengeance by Clinton and her proxies:

The above email was sent by Darnell Strom on behalf of himself and Michael Kives (with long-time Clinton stalwart John Podesta doing the cheer-leading by exclaiming, “Hamme(r) Dropped!”)  Both Strom & Kives are serious power brokers who command high-profile platforms that span Hollywood celebrities, Washington power-brokers, media giants and pop culture icons.  Both men also boast powerful clients in Washington, namely Joe Biden, Kamala Harris & Cory Booker who are some of Hillary Clinton’s most loyal adherents.

But this threat was just the beginning.  As soon as Tulsi announced her candidacy for the 2020 Democratic nomination, the smears came hard and fast.  Literally the week of her announcement, coordinated hit-pieces were queued up and reeled out by Establishment outlets, like clockwork.  First, there was the bogus NBC article claiming that Tulsi was propped up by the Russians which relied on fabricated data from a now outed propaganda firm known as “New Knowledge.”  Thanks to the precision journalism of Pulitzer Prize journalist Glenn Greenwald, this disgraceful hit-piece was readily debunked, but the damage was done – and the hits kept on coming as smear after smear was polluting political media with unfounded, sensational conspiracy theories aimed to thwart any momentum that Gabbard’s candidacy mounted within a Democratic electorate starved for progressive champions.

Fast forward to this past week, and Clinton proxies were strategically deployed with ratcheted up intensity to denigrate Tulsi’s character, threaten her political life, and spin her personal story (a story which they once lauded as their inspiration) into a twisted tale of fiction whereby she is now a Russian asset, a Putin apologist, and even a magnet of white nationalism.

Just days before Clinton’s unhinged personal attack on a David Plouffe podcast where she hurled a baseless accusation of Gabbard being a Russian asset (a claim that could implicate the death penalty), Clinton proxies were peculiarly foreshadowing Clinton’s conspiracy theory, parroting the same old anti-Tulsi talking points, in formation.  First it was former 2016 Clintonista surrogate and AIPAC errand boy Bakari Sellers disgracing himself on CNN.  Then, of course Clinton crony Neera Tanden had to cape for her boss after Andrew Yang bravely and swiftly defended Gabbard in a tweet.  This cycle would repeat itself as legions of Clinton loyalists surfaced, fixated and obsessed with derailing Gabbard, willing to risk what was left of their integrity to bully and dog-pile on a decorated combat veteran who has risked her life to serve her country.

Note the timing of this smear:  It was coordinated and released into the viral cesspool of mainstream media just a day before Clinton arch-rival Bernie Sanders was set to host a historic rally in Queens, NY (which featured nearly 30,000 supporters).  Sanders had just received the coveted endorsement of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, with Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib’s endorsements to follow.  Clinton’s smear also came after recent polls showed Tulsi in a dead-heat with the new DNC darling, Kamala Harris, weeks after Tulsi obliterated Kamala (who has inherited a significant amount of Clinton staffers and infrastructure) in a debate.  Nothing is done at random in the Clinton world, it’s always done with calculation and coordination.

In what has been a somewhat surprising and telling development, many have to come to the defense of Gabbard in the aftermath of this dangerously reckless smear.  Fellow 2020 candidates Andrew Yang, Beto O’Rourke & Marianne Williamson  have all made strong public statements in defense of Gabbard.  Additionally, Bernie Sanders, Nina Turner & Ilhan Omar have also voiced their strong support in defense of Gabbard, dismissing the absurdity of Clinton’s baseless accusation on its face.  Even mainstream pundits like Van Jones, Jake Tapper & Chuck Todd have expressed their disgust at Clinton peddling this junk conspiracy – which illustrates that even some voices in the mainstream are not buying into the contrived Clinton claim that anyone who opposed her candidacy in 2016 *must* somehow be associated with Russian meddling.  Despite the many voices who came to Tulsi’s defense, there are others who have been noticeably silent in response to this hit-job, namely Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Amy Klobuchar.  Additionally, Elizabeth Warren has been nowhere to be found with regards to this issue.  Warren notably refused to support Bernie Sanders in the hotly contested 2016 Democratic primary – instead opting to endorse Hillary Clinton (despite being clearly more aligned with Sanders on policy) – which has since earned her brownie points with the DNC as she vies for the 2020 Democratic nomination with favorable positioning among her rivals.

In a time when the Democratic party needs to be as united as ever to defeat Donald Trump, the DNC has acquiesced to Clinton’s outrageous smear.  Democratic leadership has remained absolutely silent – that is – until Adam Parkhomenko (former National Field Director for the DNC and co-founder of Ready for Hillary Super Pac) decided to disgrace himself by angrily venting his vulgarity aimed at Bernie Sanders because of his defense of Tulsi against Clinton’s smear:

Clinton’s smear and the subsequent attacks by Clinton proxies against Gabbard and anyone who defends her is doing more to sew division and discord within the Democratic electorate than any Russian Twitter bot could ever achieve.

Undoubtedly, the most prominent rift between Tulsi Gabbard and Hillary Clinton features their divergent views on foreign policy.  Gabbard – a decorated veteran with a nuanced, first-hand understanding of the cost of war and geo-strategic power struggle – has been one of the strongest and most credible voices opposing reckless, offensive regime-change wars.  In contrast, Hillary Clinton’s track record on foreign policy is consistent: It is both hawkish and religiously pro-interventionist.  It was then Senator Clinton who enthusiastically embraced the Bush/Cheney position on the Iraq War in 2003, where she fervently advocated for the illegal war which led to the death and displacement of millions in what is largely regarded as the most disastrous foreign policy blunder in our nation’s history.  Even worse, Clinton failed to learn the hard lessons from Iraq, and doubled down as Secretary of State to spearhead the horrific regime-change usurpation of Muammar Gadaffi, which left Libya in ruins, overrun with extremists and violence.  This atrocity in Libya was cited by President Obama as the biggest mistake of his two-term presidency.  As open slave markets persist in Libya right now because of Clinton foreign policy, all Hillary could do was gloat like a psychopath, exclaiming, “we came, we saw, he died.”  If Clinton had her way, this grave mistake would’ve already been repeated in Syria.

Despite the shameful efforts of Clinton and her cohorts to wane Tulsi’s star, Representative Gabbard continues to shine and remains steadfast in her commitment to something bigger than partisan politics; bigger than a Democratic primary race; and certainly something much bigger than the twice-a-failure Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — and that is the impenetrable integrity of a truth-teller who fights for justice, love, and the people.  It’s fair to disagree with Gabbard on the issues and to debate her on the merits – but to smear her in this shameful manner means that either Clinton and the Establishment view her as a viable threat, or they’ve completely lost their minds.  Certainly, an unintended consequence of the Clinton smear has seen Tulsi Gabbard’s name recognition elevate, drawing more attention to her unique story and one-of-a-kind political trajectory to where she now finds herself navigating the sewers of our dark body politic with an incorruptible spirit strong enough to rebuke the seduction of powerful interests, committed to never abandon her hard-fought integrity in exchange for political expediency and Establishment trappings.






Free: Regenerate Yourself Masterclass

In this free 7-part masterclass, Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo, explains how revolutionary new developments in biology can be leveraged to help prevent and manage the most common health afflictions of our day: cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative diseases and metabolic syndrome.

Click HERE to attend for Free!
advertisement - learn more


Some Doctors Claim Babies Should Share Their Mother’s Bed Until The Age Of 3



In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A study involving 16 infants monitored the babies while they slept in their mother's bed. It's not the only study examining the benefits of close contact between mother and child shortly after birth.

  • Reflect On:

    How much of what we do today in a conventional way, especially with regards to childbirth, is the best way to do it?

When it comes to parenting, everyone seems to have an opinion, and rightfully so, especially if you are yourself a parent. But what about controversial topics? Is there a right or wrong way to raise your children? Are there certain things that you should or should not be doing? Of course, some things are more important than others. But new advice given by a paediatrician suggests children should sleep in bed with their mothers until they reach the age of three. 

Dr. Nils Bergman, from the University of Cape Town, South Africa, argues that for optimal development, healthy newborns should sleep on their mother’s chest for at least their first few weeks. After that, he believes they should stay in bed with mom and dad until they are three or even four years old.

Because there has been a lot of fear propaganda created around the risk of cot death — the notion that a parent might roll over and suffocate their child — co-sleeping is generally not advised, and in fact, a recently published British study found that almost two-thirds of the cases of SIDS occurred when the bed was being shared.

But, according to Dr.Bergman, “When babies are smothered and suffer cot deaths, it is not because their mother is present. It is because of other things: toxic fumes, cigarettes, alcohol, big pillows and dangerous toys.”

A study involving 16 infants monitored the babies while they slept in their mother’s bed. It found that the baby’s heart was under three times as much stress when he or she slept alone. While sleeping in a cot, they had a more disrupted sleep and their brains were less likely to cycle and transition between the two types of sleep, called active and quiet.

In the cots, only 6 of the 16 babies had any quiet sleep at all, and their sleep quality was much worse.

advertisement - learn more

Dr. Bergman continued to explain how changes to the brain that are brought on by stress hormones can actually make it more difficult to form relationships and close bonds later in life.

Another study published in the journal Biological Psychiatry monitored results from 73 premature infants receiving Kangaroo Care, or skin-to-skin contact with their mothers, and another three premature infants received standard incubator care. The subjects of the study were monitored over a 10-year period, and the results were as follows:

KC increased autonomic functioning (respiratory sinus arrhythmia, RSA) and maternal attachment behavior in the postpartum period, reduced maternal anxiety, and enhanced child cognitive development and executive functions from 6 months to 10 years. By 10 years of age, children receiving KC showed attenuated stress response, improved RSA, organized sleep, and better cognitive control. RSA and maternal behavior were dynamically interrelated over time, leading to improved physiology, executive functions, and mother–child reciprocity at 10 years.

The National Childbirth Trust supports bed sharing provided the parents have not been drinking, smoking, or using drugs, or if they are obese, chronically ill, or suffer from chronic exhaustion, all of which could cause them to roll over onto the baby or otherwise impact their health.

Overall, it’s a very controversial issue. Many swear by bed sharing, and it certainly used to be standard practice before cribs became so common and affordable. There are many upsides to this, but it is also important to be aware of and consider the potential dangers.

We all know babies need to be snuggled and cuddled and given love; they need to feel safe and secure, and how could they possibly feel this all alone in another room in a crib? When you actually think about it, it seems pretty backwards.

Every parent is just doing what they feel is best for their baby, but the opinions of others tend to get in the way. We’ve all heard those comments like, Oh you shouldn’t pick up that baby, you need to let them cry, they are going to have attachment issues, how are they going to develop their independence? Well, they are babies; they can’t care for themselves and they need to be taken care of. It is a natural urge for the mother to take care of her child.

What are your thoughts on this? Did you co-sleep with your child? Did you ever feel it was unsafe? Do you prefer your child to sleep in a crib? Let us know!

Free: Regenerate Yourself Masterclass

In this free 7-part masterclass, Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo, explains how revolutionary new developments in biology can be leveraged to help prevent and manage the most common health afflictions of our day: cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative diseases and metabolic syndrome.

Click HERE to attend for Free!
Continue Reading


Yale Study Reveals 1 in 3 Drugs Have Safety Issues Even After FDA Approval



In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association conducted by a team of researchers from Yale University discovered that nearly one in three drugs that the that the FDA tests and approves ends up having safety issues.

  • Reflect On:

    Are prescription drugs as safe as they're marketed to be?

In 2014, Harvard University stated that prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death, yet pharmaceutical companies continue to hide behind their profits and promote their products as safe. Doctors and even their patients are willing to turn a blind eye to many of the adverse side effects of drugs, opting for the “bandaid” effect they provide instead of seeking alternative treatments and preventative methods.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and conducted by a team of researchers from Yale University studied the effectiveness of the FDA’s drug approval process. The team discovered that nearly one in three drugs that the FDA tests and approves ends up having safety issues.

Research Finds Serious Issues With FDA Drug Approval Process

In order to establish whether or not pharmaceutical drugs are safe for consumers, the FDA implements drug testing and clinical trials. These trials typically test fewer than 1,000 patients over a short timeframe, usually around six months or less. The Yale researchers suggested that safety issues could only truly be detected if more patients were studied over a longer period of time, speaking to the ineffectiveness of the FDA’s testing.

To identify how to effectively determine any safety issues with pharmaceutical drugs, the Yale researchers studied data on new drugs approved between 2001 and 2010, with follow up through 2017. Their findings proved that approximately 32% of new drugs approved by the FDA had notable safety issues.

A shocking 71 of the 222 drugs approved within this timeframe were withdrawn, had a “black box” warning regarding the side effects, or required a safety announcement to the public about newfound risks. This begs the question: Why are these drugs being approved in the first place if they warrant so many safety concerns?

“That is very rarely a drug withdrawal, but more commonly a black box warning, or drug safety communication issued by the FDA to let physicians and patients know that new safety information has been determined,” explained Associate Professor of Medicine and Public Health Dr. Joseph Ross, who led the research team.

advertisement - learn more

The researchers also specified characteristics of pharmaceuticals that were more likely to pose a higher risk of safety issues to patients, including biologic therapies and drugs that were approved through the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. The accelerated approval process often uses surrogate endpoints, which means that the researchers measured a factor other than survival, such as tumour size, to figure out whether the drugs should be approved.

“This [finding on surrogate endpoints] has the greatest relationship to policy today,” Ross further elaborated. “In the 21st Century Cures Act, there’s a push to have the FDA move to further support the use of surrogate markers … [but] they’re more likely to have concerns in the post-market setting.”

“While the administration pushes for less regulation and faster approvals, those decisions have consequences,” Ross stated. The Yale team’s previous studies exposed that the FDA approval process for drugs is much faster than that of other government organizations in Europe, which is interesting given the nature of the business in both countries. Prices of drugs are far higher in America than they are abroad, and Americans take a lot more drugs, meaning U.S. pharmaceutical companies make a lot more money.

The timing of this study is interesting too, as the FDA has been facing increased pressure lately to quicken the drug approval process. “It shows that there is the potential for compromising patient safety when drug evaluation is persistently sped up,” said Ross. “At the very least, the study should inform ongoing debate about premarket drug evaluation,” the researchers concluded.

Dr. Caleb Alexander, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, weighed in on the study, commending the researchers for their work. “It’s important to keep in mind that the post-approval safety issues cover the spectrum from relatively minor to serious,” Alexander said.

“A good next step would be to dig into the extremely serious safety problems, determine whether the FDA could have flagged them sooner and how they might have been missed,” he continued.

“All too often, patients and clinicians mistakenly view FDA approval as [an] indication that a product is fully safe and effective,” Alexander explained. “Nothing could be further from the truth. We learn tremendous amounts about a product only once it’s on the market and only after use among a broad population.”

Dr. Alexander makes a great point: Just because a drug is approved by the FDA, doesn’t mean it’s safe. In an ideal world, FDA approval would mean that the drug is entirely safe to use, but the reality is that the testing is not extensive enough to even determine the safety of the drug, let alone guarantee it.

Far too often, people place their doctors and health care practitioners on pedestals and fail to conduct their own research. Though I am not qualified to professionally advise anyone on their health, I certainly do not trust everything that my doctor recommends, which is largely because no doctor knows everything there is to know about health. It’s up to you to figure out your own health, not your doctor.

Though doctors can provide wonderful advice and can help immensely when diagnosing and treating illnesses, they can also drastically hinder your health. However, that’s not necessarily their fault, it’s often yours. The onus is on you to conduct your own research, get multiple professional opinions if need be, and ensure you are making informed decisions.

Further Proof of Misconduct at the FDA

In journalism, embargo refers to a “back-room deal” in which journalists and their sources agree not to publish an article prior to a specific date or time. The FDA goes one step further by implementing a “closely held embargo,” which gifts the organization complete control over all new FDA information privy to exposure for the American public.

The FDA’s use of the “close embargo” reveals that the institution likely wants to prevent reporters from leaking information. The biggest concern seems to be that, when officials begin giving the go-ahead for this special access, it makes it much easier for the agency to prevent stories they don’t like from being exposed.

The FDA hinders the public’s right to know about scientific fraud and misconduct as well. In an article for Slate wrote:

For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a pattern of burying the details of misconduct. As a result, nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretenses. The FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public, but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a dangerous drug couldn’t get forthright answers. For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public.

You can read more about that in the following CE article:

FOIA Investigation Unearths Documents Showing How The FDA  Manipulates Media & Science Press

The FDA also works hand-in-hand with pharmaceutical companies, which you can read about in the following CE article:

Merck & The FDA Caught ‘Fast Tracking’ The Approval Of HPV Gardasil Vaccine Without Scientific Approval

To make matters worse, pharmaceutical companies also hold close ties to doctors, which you can learn about here:

This Website Tells You How Much Big Pharma Pays Your Doctor To Prescribe Drugs

To be clear, 128,000 people die every year in the U.S. from drugs prescribed to them, which is being done under the approval of the FDA and doctors. The reality is, drug companies make a lot of money from selling prescriptions, and so do those involved with them, including doctors.

At the end of the day, the medical industry is a booming business, one that thrives off sick people. These companies actually benefit when their drugs cause adverse effects, because they then have additional reasons to sell you even more drugs. The system is designed to help you in one way, and then disadvantage you in another. In essence, they want you healthy, but not too healthy, and until we educate ourselves and take control of our health, we will continue to perpetuate this cycle.

Free: Regenerate Yourself Masterclass

In this free 7-part masterclass, Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo, explains how revolutionary new developments in biology can be leveraged to help prevent and manage the most common health afflictions of our day: cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative diseases and metabolic syndrome.

Click HERE to attend for Free!
Continue Reading


Intermittent Fasting Is Great, But Alternate-Day Fasting Is Having A Big Impact On My Body



In Brief

  • The Facts:

    I started alternate day fasting a few months ago. I've lost a healthy chunk of fat from my body and my weight has stabilized. Fasting is a great way to boost your health and help your body utilize its fat stores.

  • Reflect On:

    The science of fasting is very interesting, and it shows that fasting can be used as a therapeutic intervention for multiple diseases and/or to simply be healthier. Is it ignored by medicine because it doesn't generate a profit?

Several years ago I remember coming across an old study from 2013 about caloric restriction, emphasizing how it extends life span and prevents as well as helps to reverse several age-related diseases in a variety of species. This was very intriguing to me, especially given the fact that humans have been bombarded with the idea that we need to eat at least three meals a day, plus snacks in order to be healthy and fit. Fast forward to today, and fasting has become quite popular, and this is thanks to a wealth of research that’s emerged showing that not only caloric restriction, but fasting, has a number of health benefits.

Fasting has been shown to extend life, protect against neurodegenerative and age-related diseases, ‘starve’ certain cancer cells, reverse and manage type two diabetes, trigger new stem cell generation and help people lose weight. If done for a long enough time, although we don’t quite know exactly how long, fasting also actives autophagy, the body’s self-cleaning system, which allows the cell to get rid of old cell machinery, breaking them down into smaller parts to be reused by the cell. Fasting stimulates the production of ketone bodies in the blood, which have also been shown to have a number of benefits and is one of many mechanisms by which fasting benefits the body.

Fasting Is Beneficial

When you eat food, that food is converted into glycogen which your body then burns. When you fast, your body uses up stored fat for energy after its glycogen reserves are depleted, and the process of the body switching from burning glucose to efficiently burning fat is something that seems to have been built into our biology, meaning we are designed to go short, or even prolonged periods of time without any food, and that this ‘stress’ on the body actually benefits us in many ways.

There is absolutely no evidence that, for the average person, fasting can be dangerous. In fact, all evidence points to the opposite. If you’re on prescription medication, or experience other medical problems, then there are obviously exceptions. But it’s quite clear that the human body was designed to go long periods of time without food, and that it’s completely natural.

If you want to learn more about the science of fasting, there is plenty of research out there. Sifting through scholarly articles on the subject will yield many interesting results. You can find a number of lectures on Youtube as well. The main takeaway for me after studying fasting and its mechanisms for fifteen years now is that it’s an extremely healthy and safe practice with a number of health benefits, and I wanted to share my current experience instead of simply diving deep into the science of it all.

My Alternate-Day Fasting Experience

I have found that the research directly correlates with my experience of fasting on a regular basis, and it’s something I’ve been doing for fifteen years. I have done a lot of prolonged fasts in my life, weekly fasts, as well as many periods of intermittent fasting where I condense my eating period to a time of 5-8 hours. But only within the past few months have I tried alternate-day fasting, and so far it’s the fasting method that’s been the most successful for me. Everybody is different, and at the end of the day you just have to find what works for you.

advertisement - learn more

I’ve always put on weight quite easily, and have had no problem storing food. Perhaps it’s genetics, my family has a strong and long history of type two diabetes, hinting to the idea that insulin levels in my family can remain high, thus making it impossible to access my fat stores. Obviously, fasting drops your insulin levels, allowing your body to access and burn its fat reserves which, again, has been shown to have a tremendous amounts of benefits.

Alternate-day fasting has given me something consistent to go with when it comes to maintaining and stabilizing my weight. For me, intermittent fasting just wasn’t doing it, I found I could not eat what I enjoy without packing on extra fat and slowly increasing my weight. I also did many prolonged fasts, which helped me drop my extra fat, but then I’d put it back on. This was true for me even whilst eating a healthy, whole grain fully plant-based diet.

With alternate-day fasting, I do not gain weight, and my energy levels have increased to the point where I am now working out at the end of every fast. I’ve never experienced so much energy an I’ve never felt so alert. I had a glimpse of it with intermittent fasting, but the period without food just wasn’t long enough for me, I feel, to really tap into the benefits of fasting.

Simple Schedule

So what does alternate-day fasting look like? It’s when you eat one day, and then fast the next. Simple.

So, for example, what I do is I will eat on a Monday, and then have my last meal in the evening. Then, I wait until Wednesday morning to eat again. So, I am doing 36-40 hour fasts, quite often. What recommended alternate-day fasting looks like is eating on Monday, and then not eating until 24 hours after, or Tuesday night. Or, eating on Monday, and then restricting your calorie intake the next day to only 500 calories., and then repeat throughout the week.

I’ve been fasting for a quite a long time, so my body is quite fat adapted. It’s not difficult for me to fast and when I do I do not feel hungry at all, which means my body has adapted itself to ‘consuming’ it’s stored energy. I am at the point where alternate-day fasting for me usually means not eating for at least 40 hours and after a workout, and every now and then I will extend my fast to 72 or more hours and throw in a workout at the end those fasts as well. The food I eat during my eating periods is, again, a whole foods plant-based diet.

Related CE Article going into more detail: What Working Out In A Fasted State (Not Eating) Does To Your Muscles

Weight Loss

That’s how I do it, and doing it this way I dropped nearly 20 pounds before eventually stabilizing my weight. I usually do alternate-day fasting, but every now and then I will eat two days in a row here and there. So I am not extremely strict on myself, but then again, my fasting periods are longer and I believe it’s easier for me simply because I am well adapted to the practice, and my body type and perhaps my genetics helps me have an easier time with it.

If you’re looking to shed some fat from your body, it’s something I recommend you try, it’s great because it forces you to enter into a fat period for a longer state than intermittent fasting, and allows you to utilize more of your fat reserves.

You can look at alternate-day fasting as an ‘extreme’ form of fasting, although there is nothing extreme about it and it’s completely safe. If you’re someone who has never fasted before, I recommend you start off with intermittent fasting, as fasting alone for someone who has never practiced it can be quite difficult at first until your body gets used to it.


If you’re looking for some great resources on this topic beyond simply reading and searching for scholarly peer-reviewed publications on the subject via online journal databases (there are lots), you can visit Dr. Jason Fung’s website blog here. There are a lot of great informative articles on the subject there.

Another great resource is Krista Varady, PhD, a Professor of Nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Her research focuses on the efficacy of intermittent fasting for weight loss, weight maintenance, and cardio-protection in obese adults. Her work is funded by the NIH, American Heart Association, International Life Sciences Institute, and the University of Illinois. She has published over 70 publications on this topic, and is also the author of a book for the general public, entitled the “Every Other Day Diet”.

Her “book for the general public,” The Every-Other-Day Diet: The Diet That Lets You Eat All You Want (Half the Time) and Keep the Weight Off is a great place to start.

Free: Regenerate Yourself Masterclass

In this free 7-part masterclass, Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo, explains how revolutionary new developments in biology can be leveraged to help prevent and manage the most common health afflictions of our day: cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative diseases and metabolic syndrome.

Click HERE to attend for Free!
Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more



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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!