- The Facts:
This article was written By Dr. Alan Palmer, a contributing writer for Children's Health Defense.
- Reflect On:
Why have we been misled? Why does mainstream media simply ridicule thee types of arguments instead of actually addressing and countering the points made? Why is Facebook censoring vaccine safety information?
Before you begin...
Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. and other Western nations made progress tackling problems related to nutrition, sanitation, hygiene, water, garbage and pests. With these improvements, the death rates from childhood infectious diseases plummeted—long before the advent of vaccines for those illnesses. U.S. vital statistics affirm that the measles mortality (death) rate had dropped 99.4% before introduction of the first measles vaccine in 1963.
Fuzzy measles math
Prior to the measles vaccine’s U.S. introduction, the estimated number of measles cases annually was between 4 and 6.5 million (depending on the source). The government-reported mortality rate—pre-vaccine—was approximately 1 in 10,000 cases. So why do today’s media often report it as 1 in 1,000 cases? This appears to be an attempt to exaggerate the facts and promote fear to drive the vaccine mandate agenda. Ninety percent or more of all measles cases were so mild that they were never reported because parents never took their children to the doctor. Only 10% of overall cases were severe enough to warrant seeking medical care, but even in that subgroup, not all cases were reported. It was only among the 10% that sought medical care and were reported that the fatality rate was about 1 in 1,000. Modern news outlets get away with inaccurately reporting the death rate as 1 in 1,000 by leaving out the crucial word “reported” and referring only to “cases.”
-->Free e-book - Eat to Defeat Cancer : Are you eating any of the foods that fuel cancer... or the foods that help PREVENT it? Get the TRUTH, and discover the top 10 Cancer-Fighting Superfoods Click here to get the free ebook.
But even a death rate of 1 in 10,000 cases does not accurately reflect the situation for the majority of the population, for whom measles mortality was far less. Socioeconomic factors are very important in this discussion but often overlooked. In the middle of the last century, U.S. children living in poverty had poorer nutrition, less sanitary living conditions and less access to medical care. As one might expect, this resulted in less viable and resilient immune systems that made them more vulnerable to measles complications and death.
Two Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) studies support the observation that poorer children suffered more serious complications and a higher measles mortality rate. One study, titled “Measles mortality: a retrospective look at the vaccine era” (authored for the CDC’s Bureau of Epidemiology and published in 1975 in the American Journal of Epidemiology), reviewed statistics from 1958-1963. A 1980 study from the CDC’s Immunization Division, titled “Measles mortality in the United States 1971-1975” and published in the American Journal of Public Health, reviewed records from 1971-1975. Both studies showed that children who lived at or below the poverty level, and especially in rural settings, were significantly more likely to die from measles than those in the higher income brackets. In fact, the second study found a ten times (1,000%) higher death rate for those below the poverty level than for the more affluent population.
As I thought about those numbers and the 1000% greater incidence of death in poverty-stricken children, I became curious as to how disproportionate those numbers might be when considering the population as a whole. Remember, the overall mortality rate for the entire country was reported as approximately 1 death for every 10,000 cases of measles. In the pre-measles-vaccine era from 1959-1962, the total U.S. population was from 178 million (1959) to 189 million (1963), and the percentage of families living at or below the poverty level was about 8% (approximately 14 million). If that 8% had a 1,000% higher mortality rate than the more affluent population, it would stand to reason that the mortality rate for that affluent segment must be far less than 1 in 10,000 cases. Here are the CDC measles mortality numbers for 1971-1975 reported in the American Journal of Public Health:
- Families with incomes of less than or equal to $5,000/year: 1 death in 237,467 (population)
- Families with incomes between $5,000 and $10,000/year: 1 death in 1,009,437 (population)
- Families with incomes over $10,000/year: 1 death in 2,190,837 (population)
In other words, for higher-income households, there was less than a one in two million measles fatality rate.
Even lower mortality today
In modern-day America, there are many variables that would contribute to a dramatically lower measles mortality rate. What follow are but a handful:
- The percentage of people living in poverty in the United States has decreased about 50% since the early 1960s (dropping from 8% to 4%). This alone would translate into a much lower measles mortality rate today.
- Individuals living in poverty today have better access to sanitary water, nutrient-enriched foods, vitamins and medical care than 60 years ago.
- Today, rural America has better access to medical care and doctors than in the middle of the last century.
- Knowledge of personal hygiene and its importance has become part of the fabric of society. This helps to reduce the spread of disease and improves outcomes.
- Since 1960, much has been learned about the power of vitamin A in reducing complications and deaths from measles. The World Health Organization (WHO) has touted the success of its vitamin A campaign in developing countries for reducing measles-related complications and deaths.
- Many other herbal and natural antiviral compounds have been discovered in the last 60 years.
- Immunoglobulin therapy is available today for individuals who are vulnerable to measles complications.
When it comes to advances in quality of living and easier access to all the resources that can promote better health, wouldn’t you agree that most people in the U.S. are experiencing the polar opposite of what people living in abject poverty in low-income nations experience? Today, more American families and children benefit from a higher standard of living than ever before; more are able to afford nutritious food and even nutritional supplements; more enjoy clean living conditions; more have access to better medical and social services; and more are knowledgeable about key health principles. In this context, it only makes sense that measles morbidity and mortality rates would plummet.
Contrary to what the pharma-controlled media would have us believe, the United States today is not equivalent to an impoverished low-income country. Yes, measles can be a deadly illness in those parts of the world where living conditions are similar to those that prevailed in large overcrowded U.S. and European cities in the 1800s and early 1900s—yet big pharma would have everyone in the U.S. and the West believe that if they don’t take all the vaccines that officials can muster, they will be in danger of sliding back to the Dark Ages, with millions of people ravaged by infection and hanging on by an extremely fine and frayed thread.
The MMR vaccine’s history and risks
It is impossible to say for sure what the mortality rate would be if measles were to return to the U.S. on a wider scale, but the evidence just described and the continued advances in treating infectious diseases both holistically and medically indicate that the rate could well be one death per 200,000 cases—or less. If there were four million measles cases, that would amount to around 20 deaths.
Many will say that one death is one too many—and I would agree. But we must contrast the complications and deaths that might be caused by natural measles infection with the rates of injuries and deaths attributed to the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. We must also consider the probability that the MMR vaccine—along with the ever-increasing childhood vaccine schedule—may well play a role in the meteoric rise of neurodevelopmental disorders, autism, learning and behavioral problems, gastrointestinal disorders, reproductive disorders and autoimmune and other chronic diseases. All of these conditions are at epidemic levels, and the human and financial costs are becoming astronomical!
In a historical look at the adverse reactions and deaths due to the measles and MMR vaccines, titled “Can measles vaccine cause injury and death?,” we learn the following: “As of May 31, 2019, there have been more than 94,972 reports of measles vaccine reactions, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths following measles vaccinations made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), including 468 related deaths, 7,127 hospitalizations, and 1,820 related disabilities.” And these statistics are most certainly just a drop in the bucket. According to CDC-sponsored research, less than 1% of the adverse reactions from vaccines are ever reported to VAERS. The report describing the widespread problem of underreporting was titled Electronic Support for Public Health-Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS) and is often referred to as the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care study. Multiply the May 31 statistics about adverse reactions and vaccine injuries just from the measles/MMR vaccines by 100 (or add two zeros to those numbers), and you are closer to the actual number of measles-vaccine-related adverse reactions. Given that VAERS receives total reports of somewhere in the neighborhood of 60,000 adverse reactions annually, the true number of vaccine-related adverse events in the U.S. alone is more likely to be around six million annually.
While the media portray the MMR vaccine as the 21st-century “holy grail” of vaccines, the MMR has many skeletons in its closet. For example, a 215-page internal Merck document recently came to light thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on behalf of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN). It reports on the pre-licensure studies that were performed on the MMR vaccine. Among many interesting observations, one of the most glaring is a summary of findings on page 43 where it states: “Upper respiratory and gastrointestinal infections were reported in about 55% and 40% of vaccinees respectively.” Oh, the irony—it appears that Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s findings regarding the pathological changes in the gastrointestinal tracts of the children in his famous since-retracted 1998 study have been vindicated by Merck’s own pre-licensure studies! In other words, Merck and the vaccine industry knew about the evidence that Dr. Wakefield presented all along, yet they ruined his career to protect their investment in the MMR vaccine.
In addition, there are several scandals surrounding the MMR’s pre-licensure and post-licensure studies. First, two whistleblower scientists (Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski) who worked on the pre-licensure studies to gain FDA approval for the mumps component of the vaccine have accused Merck of “spiking” samples of human blood with mumps antibodies from rabbit’s blood. They brought a case under the False Claims Act, alleging fraud against Merck that is still working its way through the courts. According to an article in Global Research titled “Merck senior management tried to pay off its own vaccine scientists to remain silent about scientific fraud,” the filing accuses Merck of lying about the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccines, tampering with study data, defrauding the U.S. government and various other high-level crimes.
Second, Dr. William Thompson, a senior CDC scientist working on a major study to determine whether the MMR vaccine was associated with increased rates of autism, came forward in 2014 alleging CDC fraud. Dr. Thompson stated that when the data showed a significant vaccine-autism association, supervisors ordered the CDC researchers working on the study to bring all of their notes and study-related documents to a meeting to deposit them into a large trash can to be destroyed. Suspecting foul play, Dr. Thompson kept a full copy of all the records. Several years later, compelled by his conscience, he contacted Brian Hooker, PhD with a full confession. Dr. Thompson provided Dr. Hooker with over 10,000 pages of documents supporting his allegations and other examples of malfeasance.
On September 10, 2019, Children’s Health Defense published a response by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to a misleading article in The New Yorker—which The New Yorker itself refused to publish—that made several more critical points about vaccine risks:
- Merck’s MMR pre-licensure studies found that 40% of children receiving the MMR suffered gastrointestinal illnesses within 42 days of the injection, and 55% suffered respiratory illnesses. These are symptoms that might persuade rational consumers to choose the infections over the vaccine.
- The MMR’s package insert includes an almost two-page listing of over 60 adverse reactions ranging from vomiting and irritability to permanent brain damage and anaphylaxis. The Institute of Medicine has repeatedly pointed out the CDC’s failure to perform the studies necessary to confirm whether the MMR vaccine is causing these injuries.
- Merck acknowledges that an astonishing 26% of post-pubertal females might develop arthritis and arthralgia from the MMR vaccine.
- A 2017 letter published in The BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) cited research showing that children receiving the MMR vaccine had five times the seizure rate of children with measles infections. A 2004 JAMA study found that an additional 1 in 640 children has seizures after MMR vaccination compared to unvaccinated children; about 5% of these will progress to epilepsy.
For further information, download my free eBook, 1200 Studies: Truth will Prevail. It has easy search and navigation features and links directly to article abstracts on PubMed or the source journal. These features make it an invaluable research and reference tool. Now 718 pages long, the eBook covers over 1,400 published studies—authored by thousands of scientists and researchers—that contradict what officials are telling the public about vaccine safety and efficacy.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Most Diabetic, Heart Disease & Alzheimer’s Deaths Categorized As “Covid” Deaths (UK)
- The Facts:
According to professor of evidence based medicine at Oxford Dr. Carl Heneghan , who is also an emergency GP, most diabetic, heart disease & alzheimer's deaths were categorized as COVID deaths in the United Kingdom.
- Reflect On:
How many deaths have actually been a result of COVID? Why is this pandemic surrounded with so much controversy? Why does mainstream media fail at having appropriate conversations about 'controversial' evidence/opinions?
Before you begin...
Dr. Carl Heneghan has an interesting view on the pandemic, not only is he a professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, he also works Saturday shifts as an emergency GP. This allows him to see healthcare from both the academic perspective as well as the healthcare experience, more specifically, it allows him to see COVID from both perspectives.
What Happened: In a recent article he wrote for The Spectator, he writes the following,
It’s hard to imagine, let alone measures, the side effects of lockdowns. The risk with the government’s ‘fear’ messaging is that people become so worried about burdening the NHS that they avoid seeking medical help. Or by the time they do so, it can be too late. The big rise in at-home deaths (still ongoing) points to that. You will be familiar with the Covid death toll, updated in the papers every day. But did you know that since the pandemic, we’ve had 28,200 more deaths among diabetics that we’d normally expect? That’s not the kind of figure they show on a graph at No. 10 press conference. For people with heart disease, it’s 17,100. For dementia and Alzheimer’s, it’s 22,800. Most were categorised as Covid deaths: people can die with multiple conditions, so they can fall into more than one of these categories. It’s a complicated picture. But that’s the problem in assessing lockdown. you need to do a balance of risks.
Evidence-based medicine might sound like a tautology — what kind of medicine isn’t based on evidence? I’m afraid that you’d be surprised. Massive decisions are often taken on misleading, low-quality evidence. We see this all the time. In the last pandemic, the swine flu outbreak of 2009, I did some work asking why the government spent £500 million on Tamiflu: then hailed as a wonder drug. In fact, it proved to have a very limited effect. The debate then had many of the same cast of characters as today: Jonathan Van-Tam, Neil Ferguson and others. The big difference this time is the influence of social media, whose viciousness is something to behold. It’s easy to see why academics would self-censor and stay away from the debate, especially if it means challenging a consensus.
This is something that’s been a concern since the beginning of the pandemic. For example, a report published during the first wave in the British Medical Journal titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19″ has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom, as a result of the new coronavirus, may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the months of April and May.
According to the data, COVID-19, at the time of publication, only accounted for 10,000 of the 30,000 excess deaths that have been recorded in senior care facilities during the height of the pandemic. The article quotes British Health officials stating that these unexplained deaths may have occurred because quarantine measures have prevented seniors from accessing the health care that they need.
Fast forward to more recent research regarding lockdowns, and these concerns have grown. Professor Anna-Mia Ekström and Professor Stefan Swartling Peterson have gone through the data from UNICEF and UNAIDS, and came to the conclusion that at least as many people have died as a result of the restrictions to fight COVID as have died of COVID. You can read more about that here.
These are just a few of many examples. You can read more about the hypothesized “catastrophic” impacts of lockdown, here.
When it comes to what he mentions about academics shying away from debate, especially if their research goes against the grain, we’ve a seen a lot of that too. Here’s a great example you can read about from Sweden regarding zero deaths of school children during the first wave despite no masks mandates or lockdown measures. Jonas F Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute is quitting his work on COVID-19 because of harassment from people who dislike what he has discovered.
Why This Is Important: Heneghan’s words are something that many people have been concerned about when it comes to the deaths that are attributed to COVID-19. How many of them are actually a result of COVID? The truth seems to be that we don’t really know. But one thing we do know is that total death toll caused by COVID doesn’t seem to be quite accurate.
That being said, we do know that people with comorbidities are more susceptible to illness and death from COVID, and that’s something to keep in mind. For people with underlying health conditions, covid, just like flu or pneumonia, can be fatal.
Ontario (Canada) Public Health has a page on their website titled “How Ontario is responding to COVID-19.” On it, they clearly state that deaths are being marked as COVID deaths and are being included in the COVID death count regardless of whether or not COVID actually contributed to or caused the death. They state the following:
Any case marked as “Fatal” is included in the deaths data. Deaths are included whether or not COVID-19 was determined to be a contributing or underlying cause of death…”
This statement from Ontario Public Health echoes statements made multiple times by Canadian public health agencies and personnel. According to Ontario Ministry Health Senior Communications Advisor Anna Miller:
As a result of how data is recorded by health units into public health information databases, the ministry is not able to accurately separate how many people died directly because of COVID versus those who died with a COVID infection.
In late June 2020, Toronto (Ontario, Canada) Public Health tweeted that:
“Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto.”
It’s not just in Canada where we’ve seen these types of statements being made, it’s all over the world. There are multiple examples from the United States that we’ve covered since the start of the pandemic.
For example, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health stated the following during the first wave of the pandemic:
If you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live and then you were also found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death, despite if you died of a clear alternative cause it’s still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who is listed as a COVID death that doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of death.
Also during the first wave, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment had to announce a change to how it tallies coronavirus deaths due to complaints that it inflated the numbers.
As you can see, we’ve struggled to find an accurate way to go about tallying COVID deaths since the start, creating more fear and hysteria around total numbers that are plastered constantly in front of citizens by news stations. That being said, a lot of people who are dying of COVID do have co-morbidities as well. But as the professor says, “it’s a complicated picture” and hard to figure out, and probably something we will never figure out.
There’s been a lot of “fear mongering” by governments and mainstream media, and some believe that lockdowns and masks are simply being used as a psychological tool to keep that fear constant, which in turn makes it easier to control people and make them comply.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of experts in the field who are pointing to the fact that yes, COVID is dangerous, but it does not at all warrant the measures that are being taken, especially when the virus has a 99.95 percent survival rate for people over the age of 70. There are better ways to protect the vulnerable without creating even more chaos that lockdown measures have created, and are creating throughout this pandemic.
That said, it’s also important to note that some calls for lockdown measures are focused on stopping hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. Why do some places with very restrictions see no hospital capacity issues? Why do some places with a lot of restrictions see hospital capacity issues? Why do we also see the opposite for both in some areas? These questions appear to be unanswered still. That being said. Hospitals have always been overwhelmed. This is not a new phenomenon.
The main issue here is not who is right or wrong, it’s the censorship of data, science, and opinions of experts in the field. The censorship that has occurred during this pandemic has been unprecedented.
Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. COVID-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science. – Dr. Kamran Abbasi, recent executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal (source)
This censorship alone has been an excellent catalyst for people to question what we are constantly hearing from mainstream media, government, and political scientists. Any type of information that calls into question the recommendations or the information we are receiving from our government seems to be subjected to this type of censorship. Mainstream media has done a great job at not acknowledging many aspects of this pandemic, like clinically proven treatments other than a vaccine, and therefore the masses are completely unaware of it.
Is this what we would call ethical? When trying to explain this to a friend or family member, the fact that they are not aware of these other pieces of information, because they may be avid mainstream news watchers, has them in disbelief and perhaps even sometimes labelling such assertions as a “conspiracy theory.” This Brings me to my next point.
The Takeaway: As I’ve said in a number of articles before, society is failing to have conversations about “controversial” topics and viewpoints. This is in large part due to the fact that mainstream media does such a poor job at covering these viewpoints let alone acknowledging them. The fact that big media has such a stranglehold over the minds of many is also very concerning, because we are living in a time where independent research may be more useful. There seems to be massive conflicts of interest within mainstream media, and the fact that healthy conversation and debate is being shut down by mainstream media contributes to the fact that we can’t even have normal conversations about controversial topics in our everyday lives.
Why does this happen? Why can’t we see the perspective of another? To be honest, I still sometimes struggle with this. When it comes to COVID, things clearly aren’t as black and white as they’re being made out to be, and as I’ve said many times before when things aren’t clear, and when government mandates oppose the will of so many people, it reaches a point where they become authoritarian and overreaching.
In such circumstances I believe governments should simply be making recommendations and explaining why certain actions might be important, and then leave it to the people to decide for themselves what measures they’d like to take, if any. What do you think? One thing is for certain, COVID has been a catalyst for more and more people to question the world we live in, and why we live the way that we do.
To help make sense of what’s happening in our society today, we have released a course on overcoming bias and improving critical thinking. It’s an 8 module course and you can learn more about it here.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Lebanese Hospital Becomes The World’s First To Go 100 Percent Vegan (Food)
- The Facts:
A hospital in Lebanon has become the first in the world to adopt a completely vegan menu.
- Reflect On:
Are people aware of the physical and emotional torture the majority animals we eat go through? Are people aware that a diet free of animal products can be very beneficial for human health. Are people aware that animal agriculture is destroying Earth?
Before you begin...
At the beginning of March, Hayek Hospital in Beirut, Lebanon became the first hospital in the world to serve 100 percent vegan only meals. Prior to this change, patients had a choice between animal based meals and vegan meals, and included with that was information about the health benefits of choosing plant-based foods versus the dangers of consuming animal products. The hospital made the announcement via their Instagram page, stating that “Our patients will no longer wake up from surgery to be greeted with ham, cheese, milk, and eggs…the very food(s) that may have contributed to their health problems in the first place.”
When the World Health Organization classifies processed meat as a group 1A carcinogenic (causes cancer) same group as tobacco and red meat as group 2A carcinogenic, then serving meat in the hospital is like serving cigarettes in a hospital. When the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) declare that 3 out of 4 new or emerging infectious disease comes from animals. When adopting a plant based exclusive diet has been successfully proven not only to stop the evolution of certain diseases but it can also reverse them. We then, have the moral responsibility to act upon and align our beliefs with our actions. Taking the courage to look at the elephant in in the eye.
Their various statements also point to the role that animal agriculture plays in spawning infectious diseases, citing the Centers for Disease Control’s estimate that 3 out of 4 new or emerging infectious diseases come from animals. “We believe it’s well about time to tackle the root cause of diseases and pandemics, not just treat symptoms,” they note.
This was a great statement. The modern day medical industry only seems to be focused on medications, and only medications that can turn a hefty profit, to treat and cure disease instead of addressing root causes. It’s good to see things changing, but a big problem remains. If a plant that grows in abundance, for example, has the potential to cure a disease, will we ever hear about it? Will the medical industry be interested in it? Probably not, but when a drug is made and patented from that plant in a specific way, that’s when we will. This is not to say that modern day medicine is useless, but today now more than ever a big problem exists, and this problem may be killing more people than it’s helping.
Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), a Harvard professor of medicine and also a former Editor-in-Chief of NEMJ, was frustrated that “the medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” (source)
According to Forks Over Knives,
While Hayek is the first hospital to completely purge animal products from its menu, a number of hospitals have begun offering more plant-based options in recent years. Both New York and California have enacted laws requiring hospitals to offer a plant-based option with every meal. In 2018 NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue launched the Plant-Based Lifestyle Medicine Program to help patients transition to a whole-food, plant-based lifestyle.
The American Medical Association passed a resolution in 2017 calling on U.S. hospitals to provide healthful plant-based meals to promote better health in patients, staff, and visitors. The American College of Cardiology has issued similar recommendations.
In my opinion, “veganism is a very fine form of nutrition” (Dr. Ellsworth Wareham, heart surgeon), and as mentioned above, there is plenty of science to back up that statement. I’ve written about it many times before from a health perspective.
Here’s an article that goes into more detail and science if you’re interested, it also addresses history, and how our teeth and guts are designed and more. Here’s another one regarding a study that found a strong association between eating animal protein and a premature death from all causes, including multiple cancers and type 2 diabetes.
The studies cited in that article note that meat eating is strongly associated with up to a 75 percent increased chance of early mortality, and that protein from animals may cause harm, while protein from plants may help reverse disease and have a protective effect.
There are hundreds of these studies, and the ones I cite are just a few examples.
This is obviously a very controversial topic in the eyes of many, and it’s not hard at all to find conflicting information on the subject. I am no doubt bias in my beliefs and opinions here.
One thing is for certain, the way we treat animals on this planet is extremely heartbreaking and unnecessary. Animals are separated from their families, raised for slaughter and are kept in torturous conditions on a daily basis. It’s truly unbelievable and horrific. It’s the biggest genocide and example of both physical and emotional torture the world has ever seen. I don’t think anybody can witness what really goes on in most slaughterhouses can come out not being impacted.
On top of this, animal agriculture is one of, if not the greatest contributer to environmental degradation and pollution on our planet. Animal agriculture is actually the leading cause of deforestation. Every single day, close to 100 plant/animal/insect species are lost because of this practice.
Final Thoughts: At the end of the day it seems that, from a health perspective, processed meats, and other meats are no doubt harmful to human health. People can make the argument that other animal products may not be and that we are meant to consume them. People can also make the complete opposite argument. One thing that can’t be argued is, again, the torture, physical and emotional abuse that comprise the source of where animal products come from for the majority of people who eat them.
There is a big split, as with many other topics, amongst people on this issue. There are even vegan influencers who are creating splits within the ‘vegan community’ itself, which is unfortunate. I personally believe that, from a health perspective, animal products are not at all required for anybody and are again, overall, harmful to human health.
The more pressing issue, again, is the treatment of our animal brothers and sisters, and how we are constantly using and abusing them. It’s indicative of world that lacks empathy, compassion, understanding and love, as well as our inability to see ourselves in another. This can be seen in many aspects of the current human experience, be it war, human trafficking and more. That being said, it’s great to see human consciousness shifting towards a more compassionate, empathetic type of awareness. This is evident by the “vegan” movement alone, as it’s become quite large over the past few years and will continue to grow. Some of the biggest animal food producers have already gone out of business, and it’s great to see more people in the health community as well recognize that it’s a win for health, a win for environment, and most importantly, a win for the very emotional, intelligent, animals, who are similar to us in so many ways. We have so much to learn from them.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Caloric Restriction vs. Fasting: Why One Can Result In Weight Gain While The Other Helps Burn Fat
- The Facts:
In the video below, Dr. Jason Fung explains the difference between caloric restriction and sending the body into "starvation" mode compared to fasting.
- Reflect On:
Fasting has been used as a health intervention for thousands of years, and is being used today by doctors who are educated on the topic. Why is it completely ignored by mainstream medicine? Is it because "big pharma" can't make any money off of it?
Before you begin...
Some would say that the best solution to weight gain is eating right and exercising. I couldn’t agree more. Obesity is one of the deadliest problems humanity faces today, and just as important as diet and exercise is for addressing this issue, even more important are the emotional and personal reasons as to why so many people damage themselves and make themselves more prone to serious disease.
Apart from diet and exercise, initiating a proper fasting regimen can have tremendous health outcomes, especially for overweight people. It wasn’t but a decade ago when fasting to lose weight was considered unhealthy and dangerous. Today, we have a tremendous amount of science that’s been published clearly showing that fasting can be an effective health intervention for people of all body types, especially for people who are overweight and suffer from certain diseases. It’s an excellent way to help your body burn fat. Fasting has been used and is currently being used as an intervention for type two diabetes, cancer and more. Fasting has been shown to trigger stem cell regeneration, autophagy, which in turn can help clear out toxins and damaged cells, repair DNA, improve metabolism, lower blood sugar, boost brain function, reduce the risk of age related disease, lessen inflammation which improves a wide range of health issues from arthritic pain to asthma and more. It’s no wonder why so many ancient cultures from different parts of the world used fasting as medicine and as a health intervention.
As shown in the science, fasting is generally safe for everybody. This many not be true if you already have underlying health conditions or are taking certain medications. This is why it’s important to consult a health professional about it, but the issue is, the majority of health professionals are not well educated in fasting interventions. Those who have educated themselves have been treating their patients with fasting and are drawn to it due to its ability to provide so many benefits.
One of these doctors is Dr. Jason Fung, who on his blog and his YouTube channel, as well as the books he’s written provides a wealth of information and science regarding fasting. I often refer people to the work of Fung, or others like Dr. Valter Longo if they want to begin their own research about fasting. Again, there is a wealth of science and “scholarly” articles available on the subject for anybody who wants to search for it as well. It’s not heard to find.
In the video below, Fung explains why fasting is much different from caloric restriction or having your body go into “starvation mode.” You can also check out his article, “The difference between calorie restriction and fasting” for some great information as well.
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
F18 Navy Pilot Uses His iPhone To Take A Picture of UFOs: Pentagon Confirms
Follow me on Instagram here. There are so many leaks coming out regarding UFOs right now that it’s difficult to...
Ontario, Canada To Impose Stricter Measures: Lockdown & Stay At Home Orders Are Not Working
What Happened: Ontario, Canada is and has been well into a province wide lockdown and stay at home order. Most businesses,...