Author: books

[ad_1]

A simple breathing exercise that strengthens respiratory muscles could be beneficial for the 47% of U.S. adults who have high blood pressure.¹ The exercise, known as high-resistance inspiratory muscle strength training (IMST), worked so well that it rivaled medication and lifestyle changes for lowering blood pressure.²

High blood pressure is a significant burden to public health, as it’s a major risk factor for coronary, cerebrovascular and peripheral vascular diseases, along with heart attack and stroke.³ More than 1.28 billion people worldwide⁴ suffer from the condition, with most offered medications as the first line of treatment.

High blood pressure drugs carry “burdensome” side effects that often cause people to stop taking them, researchers noted in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.⁵ Further, about 46% of adults with high blood pressure don’t know that they have it, putting them at increased risk of related heart, brain and kidney diseases.⁶

Breathing exercises could again provide an answer, as it takes just minutes a day to glean the benefits. Even for those without high blood pressure — or who don’t know they’re at risk — spending five minutes on focused breath training offers myriad benefits with virtually no downside.

Five-Minute Daily Breathing Workout Lowers Blood Pressure

For the study, researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder and the University of Arizona split 128 adults aged 18 to 82 years into two groups. One group did high-resistance IMST training consisting of 30 breaths a day for six weeks.

The other group did a low-resistance sham breathing exercise for the same period.⁷ Conventionally, IMST is used for recovery in people who have been on a ventilator, as well as to support breathing in those with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other breathing disorders.⁸

While no changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) occurred in the placebo group, those doing the high-resistance breathing exercise had an average reduction of 9 mmHg in systolic blood pressure.⁹

According to study author Daniel Craighead, the reduction is similar to what may be achieved with medication and potentially more effective than weight loss or reducing sodium in your diet. He told Insider, “People can expect fairly rapid results. We would expect that if you went longer, blood pressure would go down even more.” He recommended the technique for those with high blood pressure and those hoping to prevent it:¹⁰

“What’s really exciting about this is that it’s helpful for a wide range of adults. People with blood pressure at an unhealthy level could stand to benefit from adding this to their routine now. But someone could start in their thirties and stick to it for years to help delay or prevent hypertension.”

The breathing exercise takes just five to 10 minutes a day, with benefits noticeable within two weeks. It involves the use of an inhaler-like device, which provides resistance as you take a breath, causing your respiratory muscles to get a workout. While the trial used a $500 device, less expensive models are commercially available right now.¹¹

According to the study, “These compiled findings from multiple independent trials provide the strongest evidence to date that high-resistance IMST evokes clinically significant reductions in SBP and DBP.”¹²

Also noteworthy, the participants did the breathing exercises for six weeks, then took a six-week break. When their blood pressure was tested after the break, it was nearly as low as it was immediately after the exercise session ended. The researchers are now looking into whether a “maintenance dose” of the breathing exercise could help extend the blood pressure reductions even longer.¹³

Controlled Breathing Calms Your Brain, Relieves Stress

One way that IMST appears to be beneficial is by toning and strengthening the muscles used in breathing. Past research also found that high-resistance IMST lowered blood pressure and improved endothelial function in middle-age and older adults with above-normal blood pressure. The breathing technique increased the bioavailability of nitric oxide, helping widen arteries, and reduced oxidative stress.¹⁴

Stress is another factor in high blood pressure and relieving it may offer some relief. This is another mechanism by which controlled breathing may help blood pressure. The way you breathe — whether fast or slow, shallow or deep — is intricately tied to your body as a whole, sending messages that affect your mood, your stress levels and even your immune system.

In early 2017, researchers discovered breathing may directly affect your brain activity, including your state of arousal and higher-order brain function.¹⁵ As such, controlled breathing exercises may modify stress coping behaviors and initiate appropriate balance in cardiac autonomic tone, which is a term that describes your heart’s ability to respond to and recover from stressors.¹⁶

Also intriguing is a 2016 study published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which found yogic breathing reduces levels of proinflammatory biomarkers in saliva.¹⁷ Controlled breathing triggers your relaxation response, activating your parasympathetic nervous system, which in turn may slow down your heart rate and digestion while helping you feel calm.

By evoking your body’s built-in relaxation response you can change the expression of your genes for the better, including in areas related to energy metabolism, mitochondrial function, insulin secretion, the inflammatory response and stress-related pathways.¹⁸

Slow breathing also reduces blood pressure and enhances baroreflex sensitivity, a mechanism to control blood pressure via heart rate, in people with high blood pressure.¹⁹ The finding was so strong that researchers suggested slow breathing “appear[s] potentially beneficial in the management of hypertension.”²⁰

Which Breathing Techniques Are Best?

It’s possible to incorporate a variety of beneficial breathing techniques into your day to propel yourself toward optimal health — healthy blood pressure levels included. One of the most basic breathing techniques is to make sure you’re always breathing through your nose. Mouth breathing tends to promote hyperventilation, which decreases tissue oxygenation.

Mouth breathing also results in diminished levels of CO2 in your body and a decreased ability to filter toxic pollutants from the air. Mouth breathing can also elevate your heart rate and blood pressure, sometimes resulting in fatigue and dizziness.²¹

The Buteyko Breathing Method is one way to reverse health problems associated with improper breathing, the most common of which include over-breathing and mouth breathing. When you stop mouth breathing and learn to bring your breathing volume toward normal, you have better oxygenation of your tissues and organs. The Buteyko Breathing Method allows you to retain and gently accumulate CO2, which calms breathing and reduces anxiety:

1. Take a small breath into your nose, followed by a small breath out
2. Hold your nose for five seconds in order to hold your breath, and then release your nose to resume breathing
3. Breathe normally for 10 seconds
4. Repeat the sequence

Box breathing is another form of breath control that triggers the parasympathetic nervous system to help manage stress. This technique, also called square breathing or four-square breathing, is used by Navy SEALS to help reduce stress in high-pressure situations.

It involves nose breathing to slow over-breathing and raise CO2 levels to balance oxygenation. To begin practicing box breathing, get in a quiet place where you can concentrate and maintain good posture. Work up to using the technique for five-minute increments:²²

• Step 1 — Begin by exhaling the air out of your lungs to a slow count of four. Some recommend exhaling through your mouth, others through your nose.
• Step 2 — Hold your breath for a slow count of four.
• Step 3 — Inhale slowly to a slow count of four through your nose, keeping your back straight and breathing through your abdomen so your shoulders do not rise.
• Step 4 — Hold your breath for a slow count of four and return to step 1.

You can also experiment with other forms of controlled breathing to see if it makes a difference for you. Here are several examples of yogic breathing compiled by the Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine:²³

Lowering Blood Pressure With Herbs and Magnesium

Breathing techniques are important but they shouldn’t be considered a panacea. Optimizing your blood pressure requires a comprehensive approach for best results. For instance, imbalanced gut microbes, known as gut dysbiosis, play a role in high blood pressure.²⁴ A strong link between sleep quality and a type of high blood pressure known as resistant hypertension, which does not respond to typical drug-based treatments, has also been found.²⁵

Getting a good night’s sleep, eating right, exercising, addressing stress and avoiding environmental toxins like air pollution are all important for healthy blood pressure. Eating a diet rich in magnesium could also reduce the risk of high blood pressure,²⁶ as can herbs and spices.

In a controlled feeding study of people with known risk factors for heart disease, eating 6.5 grams of 24 herbs and spices — such as basil, thyme, cinnamon and turmeric²⁷ — each day lowered systolic and diastolic blood pressure.²⁸ Study author Penny Kris-Etherton said in a news release:²⁹

“I think it’s really significant that participants consumed an average American diet throughout the study and we still found these results. We didn’t decrease sodium, we didn’t increase fruits and vegetables, we just added herbs and spices. It begs the next question that if we did alter the diet … how much better would the results be?”

As we’ve seen time and again, whether you’re interested in lowering your blood pressure or simply keeping it in a healthy range, small daily habits — like engaging in breathing exercises and eating herbs and spices — add up to big changes for your health.

[ad_2]

Source link

[ad_1]

Even as more damning data are coming to light, Pfizer and Moderna are both seeking emergency use authorization (EUA) for their bivalent COVID boosters for children. Moderna is seeking authorization for children ages 6 through 17, while Pfizer’s shot is for children aged 5 through 11.¹

According to Reuters,² “the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention … expects COVID-19 vaccine boosters targeting circulating variants of the virus to be available for children aged 5-11 years by mid-October.”

Moderna’s new bivalent COVID booster, mRNA-1273.222, sold under the brand name “Spikevax bivalent Original/Omicron,” was authorized for adults over the age of 18 at the end of August 2022.³

In the U.S., the adult dose contains 25 micrograms of mRNA against the original Wuhan strain and 25 mcg of mRNA targeting Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5.⁴ In the U.K., Moderna’s bivalent booster (mRNA-1273.214⁵) contains mRNA against the original Wuhan strain and BA.1,⁶ an earlier Omicron strain that is no longer in circulation.^7,8

Pfizer’s bivalent booster also contain mRNA against the Wuhan strain, BA.4 and BA.5. The two bivalent boosters are only be available to those who have already received the primary two-dose series and/or a monovalent booster at least two months ago.⁹

It’s probably safe to assume the same rule will apply to children. As of late September 2022,¹⁰ 38% of American children aged 5 to 11 had received one initial dose and 31% have received two doses. In the 12- to 17-year-old age group, 67% have had one dose and 57% two doses.¹¹ Those with two doses are likely the only ones who will be eligible for the bivalent booster, if authorized.

Bivalent Boosters Have Only Been Tested on Mice

For decades, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has had additional safeguards in place for children who participate in medical research.¹² With the advent of COVID shots, all of that has been tossed out the window, as children are now being used as medical guinea pigs without any safeguards whatsoever.

It’s really important to realize that these bivalent boosters have been reformulated with new, untested mRNA, yet they’ve only been tested on mice. Despite that, the FDA is now considering giving them to young children.

The effectiveness of Pfizer’s booster is based on antibody levels in eight mice,¹³ which cannot tell you anything about the level of protection you might receive. Moderna’s booster is also based on antibody levels in mice, although the exact number is unknown.

When it comes to safety, there’s not even mouse data. The safety is assumed based on the original shots, even though the safety data on those is shocking beyond belief. In the short-term, the original COVID shots have between them resulted in 1,417,671 adverse event reports (logged with the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System or VAERS as of September 16, 2022¹⁴).

That includes 177,973 hospitalizations, 58,024 permanent disabilities, 34,107 life threatening events and 31,071 deaths. For children under the age of 18 alone, there are 55,733 reports of injuries and deaths.

If that’s not cause for alarm, I don’t know what is. It’s certainly not “strong evidence” for safety! What’s more, due to widespread underreporting, you have to multiply those already staggering numbers by underreporting factor of 41 (or more) to get an idea of the true impact.

And, if you still believe the pediatric trials were exhaustive, understand that the monovalent Pfizer booster authorized for children aged 5 to 11, back in May 2022, was based on the antibody levels of just 67 children.¹⁵ This is so far outside the norm of what’s historically been required for a drug trial, it’s just ridiculous.

1 in 800 Absolute Risk of Serious Side Effects

While VAERS data paint a clear picture of what’s at stake for parents who opt to inject their children with this genetically engineered bioweapon, we now also have other data showing just how bad of an idea that is.

A recent study^16,17 in the journal Vaccine — coauthored by some of the most trusted medical scientists in the world, including Peter Doshi, an associate professor of pharmaceutical services research and a senior editor at The BMJ — looked at data from the FDA, Health Canada and the Pfizer and Moderna trials to assess the risks of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID shots.

They concluded the absolute risk of a serious adverse event from the mRNA shots was 1 in 800, which massively exceeds the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization found in randomized controlled trials.

The risk COVID infection poses to children is even more infinitesimal — especially Omicron infection, which presents as a mild cold in most people — making a 1 in 800 risk of a serious side effect unacceptable beyond description.

Statistics show the rate of COVID-19 associated hospitalization among children aged 5 to 11 is 0.0008%.¹⁸ In real-world terms, that’s so close to zero you cannot lower it any further. Additionally, as reported by Clark County Today,¹⁹ “Pfizer trial data²⁰ [show] the chance of death in children from the shot is 107 times higher than death from COVID-19.”

Other Data That Confirm Lack of Safety

Other data are also reviewed in a recent paper^21,22 by cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra, who initially recommended the shots but has since changed his mind about their safety. For example, Israeli data show post-jab myocarditis is occurring at a rate of 1 in 6,000. Data from male children and teens in Hong Kong found myocarditis at a rate of 1 in 2,700.

As noted by the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation in the video above, myocarditis — one of the recognized effects of the COVID jab — “has a mortality rate of 25% to 56% within three to 10 years, owing to progressive heart failure and sudden cardiac death.”

Norwegian data show the rate of serious adverse events post-jab is 1 in 1,000 after two doses of Pfizer, and the British Yellow Card system shows 1 in 120 people who have received at least one mRNA injection suffer an adverse event “that is beyond mild.” These are simply extraordinary risk ratios, and there’s no telling what the long-term effects might be, say 10 or 20 years from now.

Trial Showed COVID Jab Increases Infection Risk in Babies

According to CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, “rigorous scientific review” has proven the COVID shots to be safe and effective in infants and young children.²³ However, as detailed by diagnostic pathologist Dr. Clare Craig²⁴ (video above), Pfizer twisted its clinical data for young children to achieve a desired result.

Craig points out that of the 4,526 children, aged 6 months to 4 years, who participated in Pfizer’s trial, 3,000 didn’t make it to the end of the trial. Why did two-thirds of the children drop out? Oftentimes, this happens when side effects are too severe for the participant to continue. Here, we don’t know why two-thirds of the participants were eliminated, and “on that basis alone, this trial should be deemed null and void,” Craig says. Moreover:

Why Are They Targeting Children Who Don’t Need These Shots?

Ever since the COVID shots were first authorized for young children,²⁶ the question of why has been raised. Certainly, it’s not because children are in grave danger of dying from COVID.

The most likely explanation for the FDA’s and CDC’s irrational behavior is that they’re helping the drug makers to get the mRNA shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule, as that is the fastest and easiest route to get permanent liability shielding.

Once the vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, the vaccine makers are permanently shielded from liability for injuries and deaths that occur in any age group, including adults. You can learn more about this indemnification process in “The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids.”

So, the end goal is likely to get permanent immunity against liability for injury and death from the COVID shots in all age groups, and to get there, they first need the EUA to cover all children. And, since the FDA is now authorizing reformulated mRNA shots without additional testing, using the flu vaccine model, it seems they want to make sure they have annually updated boosters included in the EUA for children as well.

UK Bans COVID Jab for Under-12

Meanwhile, the U.K. recently rescinded the COVID jab for children under the age of 12, unless they’re in a high-risk medical category. As reported by The Guardian September 6, 2022:²⁷

“The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) said children who had not turned 5 by the end of last month would not be offered a vaccination, in line with advice published by the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) in February 2022. UKHSA said the offer of COVID jabs to healthy 5- to 11-year-olds was always meant to be temporary.”

Similarly, as of September 1, 2022, Denmark no longer offers the COVID jab to children between the ages of 5 and 17, citing the low risk posed by COVID infection.²⁸ Children with only one dose will not be required to get a second, and no boosters will be offered to this age group.

Sweden opted not to recommend the shot for children between 5 and 11 from the start, as the Swedish Health Agency felt the benefits did not outweigh the risks,²⁹ so boosters for kids are unlikely to be an issue there either.

In the U.S., Florida has gone on record rejecting all COVID shots for children under 5.³⁰ Parents who want to get their toddlers jabbed have the freedom to do so, but it’s not recommended by the state.

Protect Your Children From Medical Experimentation

If you’re still unsure whether the COVID shot is the “right” choice for your child, please read through Dr. Byram Bridle’s “COVID-19 Vaccines and Children: A Scientist’s Guide for Parents,”³¹ published by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance. It goes through how the shots work, what the known side effects are, results from the clinical trial, the effects of the spike protein and much more.

Side effects from the new bivalent boosters are assumed to be about the same as for the original shots,³² but there’s no guarantee of that. They could be milder, or they could be worse.

In my view, the chances of them being worse is higher, for the simple reason that they’re delivering more than one type of mRNA. Will the BA.4/BA.5 mRNA have different effects? Will they cause cross-reactions? Who knows? There’s no data. At bare minimum, if the adverse effects of the original shots are an indication, there’s every reason to suspect the bivalent boosters will be just as dangerous.

[ad_2]

Source link

[ad_1]

function pixelForFacebook(){var e,t,i,n,r,c;e=window,t=document,i=”script”,e.fbq||(n=e.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)},e._fbq||(e._fbq=n),(n.push=n).loaded=!0,n.version=”2.0″,n.queue=[],(r=t.createElement(i)).async=!0,r.src=”https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js”,(c=t.getElementsByTagName(i)[0]).parentNode.insertBefore(r,c)),fbq(“init”,”428750600651790″),fbq(“track”,”PageView”),fbq(“track”,”Topic_id”,{topicid:window.s_topic}),fbq(“track”,”Audience”,{audience:getAudience()})}function pixelForTwitter(){var e,t,i,n,r,c;e=window,t=document,i=”script”,e.twq||((n=e.twq=function(){n.exe?n.exe.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)}).version=”1.1″,n.queue=[],(r=t.createElement(i)).async=!0,r.src=”https://static.ads-twitter.com/uwt.js”,(c=t.getElementsByTagName(i)[0]).parentNode.insertBefore(r,c)),twq(“init”,”nxo3v”),twq(“track”,”PageView”)}function pixelForPinterest(){!function(e){if(!window.pintrk){window.pintrk=function(){window.pintrk.queue.push(Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments))};var t=window.pintrk;t.queue=[],t.version=”3.0″;var i=document.createElement(“script”);i.async=!0,i.src=”https://s.pinimg.com/ct/core.js”;var n=document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0];n.parentNode.insertBefore(i,n)}}(),pintrk(“load”,”2618142259440″),pintrk(“page”),pintrk(“track”,”pagevisit”)}function pixelForReddit(){!function(e,t){if(!e.rdt){var i=e.rdt=function(){i.sendEvent?i.sendEvent.apply(i,arguments):i.callQueue.push(arguments)};i.callQueue=[];var n=t.createElement(“script”);n.src=”https://www.redditstatic.com/ads/pixel.js”,n.async=!0;var r=t.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0];r.parentNode.insertBefore(n,r)}}(window,document),rdt(“init”,”t2_109a14pl”),rdt(“track”,”PageVisit”)}function getAudience(){if(webmd.cookie.get(“cmt”))return[“campaigns”].reduce(function(e,t){return e[t]=JSON.parse(webmd.cookie.get(“cmt”))[t],e},{})}!function(){var e;window.s_topic&&(e=s_topic.match(/^7\d\d\d/gi)),window.s_topic&&!e&&-1===[“1634″,”1663″,”1664″,”1669″,”1695″,”1700″,”1703″,”1705″,”1707″,”1709″,”1711″,”1719″,”1756″,”1760″,”1761″,”1762″,”1783″,”1814″,”1818″,”1819″,”1835″,”1840″,”2730″,”2756″,”2857″,”2950″,”2952″,”2953″,”3079″,”3236″,”3539″,”3540″,”3541″,”3552″,”3571″,”3607″,”3608″,”3623″,”3631″,”3637″,”3644″,”3838″,”3927″,”3928″,”3930″,”3937″,”3939″,”3950″,”3951″,”3954″,”3958″,”3962″,”3963″,”3965″,”3966″,”3971″,”3989″,”4010″,”4048″,”4049″,”4050″,”4052″,”4058″,”4099″,”4119″,”4121″,”4140″,”4203″,”4222″,”4227″,”4228″,”4236″,”4242″,”4251″,”4254″,”4257″,”5555″,”6041″,”18091″,”18092″,”18093″,”18094”].indexOf(window.s_topic)&&(pixelForFacebook(),pixelForTwitter(),pixelForPinterest(),pixelForReddit())}()

[ad_2]

Source link

[ad_1]

If you’ve become disillusioned with the medical profession over the past three years, you’re not alone. Many have come to distrust doctors, largely thanks to widespread mistreatment of COVID in hospitals, and doctors’ failure to provide sufficient information about the COVID jabs to make informed consent. Doctors’ enforcing the use of masks, even though they ought to know they don’t work against respiratory viruses, hasn’t helped either.

In a recent interview with Steve Kirsch, Dr. Paul Marik, a pulmonary and critical care specialist and founding member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), discussed why doctors have been so reluctant to speak out against the clearly dangerous COVID shots. As noted by Kirsch:¹

“My blue pilled friends who believe the vaccines are safe have told me they would reconsider their position if just a single one of their own doctors came out against the vaccine. One of them said even if a ‘TV doctor’ (such as Sanjay Gupta) said it was unsafe, they would reconsider their position.

I told them that doctors are afraid to speak out because they will lose their ability to practice medicine if they challenge the mainstream narrative.

My friends find that too hard to believe. They asked me incredulously, ‘Why would the medical community silence doctors who are trying to save lives?’ They didn’t believe my answer. So, I wanted to interview a doctor who is very highly respected and who is not an ‘anti-vaxxer’ to explain it to them.”

Doctors Who Share Their Concerns Are Punished

Like many other doctors, Marik took the COVID shots when they first came out, as was expected of him. It wasn’t until he started reviewing the data for himself, well after the fact, that he realized just how bad they are.

When asked whether he might have misjudged the data, Marik replies, “No, the evidence is very clear.” Yet despite crystal-clear data, when Marik started speaking out against the shots, the medical community retaliated. Marik also suffered retaliation when trying to treat patients with FDA-approved, off-patent, off-label drugs shown to be very effective against COVID.

The hospital pharmacy refused to fill his prescriptions and he was ordered to not prescribe them to anyone. In short, he was ordered to simply watch his patients die, even though he knew he could help them.

The only drug he was allowed to prescribe was remdesivir, which is known to be toxic and often lethal. Remdesivir was developed as an antiviral drug and tested during the Ebola breakout in 2014. The drug was found to have a very high death rate and was not pursued further.

In the early months of 2020, the drug was entered into COVID trials.² Those trials were also beyond disappointing.^3,4,5 Not only was the drug ineffective against the infection but it also had significant and life-threatening side effects, including kidney failure and liver damage.⁶

But despite its clear dangers and lack of effectiveness, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration still authorized remdesivir for emergency use against COVID in May 2020,⁷ and then gave it full approval in October 2020.⁸

How Hospitals Get Rid of ‘Troublesome’ Doctors

When Marik refused to follow the remdesivir protocol, he was subjected to “sham review,” an unofficial but well-known process in which a “troublesome” doctor is accused of wrongdoing and basically railroaded out of practice.

In the end, he was fired, even though he’s never had a single patient complaint in his 30-year career as a critical care specialist. But they didn’t stop there. The hospital administration also reported him to the National Practitioner Databank, and once you’ve been reported as a bad actor to the NPD, it’s virtually impossible to clear your name. Your career is over.

They also reported him to the Board of Medicine, which concocted another set of bogus charges against him. They accused him of prescribing ivermectin to fictional patients whom they falsely claimed were injured by the drug.

“The truth is I was never actually able to prescribe ivermectin,” Marik says. “The patients they claimed I treated were nonexistent patients, so that tells you how far the Virginia Board of Medicine will go … This is the problem if you try to speak out. The [hospital administration] went out of their way to destroy my career because I wanted to treat my patients.”

According to Marik, some of his colleagues who have gone against the narrative have even been physically threatened, and had the lives of their families threatened unless they stop talking. “So, this is serious,” Marik says. The fact of the matter is that doctors who argue against the Big Pharma narrative are a threat to trillion-dollar revenues. Compared to such sums, the value of a doctor’s life is nil.

Enormous Financial Incentives to Kill COVID Patients

Marik points out there were, and still are, enormous financial incentives for hospitals to not provide proper care to COVID patients. Those financial incentives also helped drive up the COVID death count early on in the pandemic. As explained by Marik, every COVID patient has what amounts to a $400,000 to $500,000 bounty on their head, as hospitals receive bonus payments for:^9,10

• Admission of a “COVID patient,” COVID testing and COVID diagnoses.
• Use of remdesivir — According to Marik, the U.S. government pays hospitals a 20% upcharge on the entire hospital bill when remdesivir is used.^11,12,13
• Use of mechanical ventilation, which Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services whistleblowers claim kill 84.9% of COVID patients within as few as 96 hours,¹⁴ typically due to barotrauma¹⁵ (trauma to the lungs from the elevated pressure).
• COVID deaths — In August 2020, former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Robert Redfield, agreed hospitals had a financial incentive to overcount COVID deaths.¹⁶

According to Marik, whether the patient lives or dies is irrelevant. In fact, if they die, there’s additional monies to be had. The hospitals basically see COVID patients as a cash cow, which is why they don’t tolerate doctors who use early treatment. As shocking as this is to some, it’s not the first time this has happened. Doctors were also paid to prescribe opioids, which contributed to the lethal opioid epidemic.

COVID Jab Injured Patients Desperate for Help

Just as Marik balked at health authorities’ recommendation to not offer early treatment — something completely unheard of until the advent of COVID — he also balked at the idea that patients were faking COVID jab injuries.

After the rollout of the shots, the FLCCC started getting calls from people who were desperate for help, as they suffered serious health problems shortly after their shots. Almost universally, their doctors had told them the shot couldn’t possibly be at fault.

Marik was not so sure, and once he began to really investigate the matter, he realized the data overwhelmingly showed there were serious problems. Marik is now so certain the shots are dangerous, he says he wouldn’t recommend it to a single living soul on the planet, and the FLCCC is now one of the few groups treating COVID jab injuries as well as COVID infection and long-COVID.

‘Unlearning Everything I Learned’

Marik’s professional experiences over the past three years have clearly resulted in a massive awakening to the fact that things have not been as they appeared. He says that in the past six months, he’s come to realize that he was essentially brainwashed by Big Pharma throughout medical school, and that much of what he learned was simply wrong.

He also realized you cannot trust medical journals. They too have been corrupted by Big Pharma. So, now, he’s in the process of unlearning the lies he was taught, and he’s starting anew, looking at health and disease with fresh eyes.

California Bill Seeks to Muzzle Doctors

The harassment and intimidation doctors have suffered under COVID is now cemented into law in California.¹⁷ California Assembly Bill 2098¹⁸ designates “the dissemination or promotion of misinformation or disinformation related to … COVID-19 as unprofessional conduct” warranting “disciplinary action” that could result in the loss of their medical license.¹⁹

The bill was approved by the California Legislature September 26, 2022,²⁰ and Gov. Gavin Newsome signed it October 1, 2022.^21,22

“Misinformation” is defined as anything that is “contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” Misinformation or disinformation related to SARS-CoV-2 includes “false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”

Basically, what all this means is that the state will dictate what misinformation is and isn’t, because rarely ever is there scientific consensus on anything. Even after decades of investigation, questions frequently linger, and new discoveries that upend old dogmas can come about at any time.

As noted by The Daily Signal,²³ “Who decides what is ‘scientific consensus?’ Presumably … it’s precisely those agencies and government actors who, ironically, have been wrong time and again throughout the pandemic.” For examples, see their video below.

Science only moves forward when there is free exchange of ideas. By preventing doctors from sharing information and knowledge as they see fit with their patients, California bureaucrats are not only violating the U.S. Constitution and destroying the medical profession as we know it, they’re also pushing medical science back into the Dark Ages.

The Hunt for Truth-Tellers

I’ve written several articles over the past couple of years detailing the brutal and unethical treatment of medical professionals who have dared speak out against any part of the irrational COVID narrative.

Dr. Meryl Nass, for example, was stripped of her medical license and ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation — all for the “crime” of successfully saving the lives of COVID patients using hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

I’ve also covered how Drs. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins colluded to destroy the reputations of the authors of The Great Barrington Declaration, which called for focused protection of the most vulnerable instead of universal lockdowns.

The three authors included Harvard professor of medicine Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., Oxford professor Sunetra Gupta, Ph.D., and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School.

One of the tactics Fauci used against them was to claim scientific consensus — that most all scientists agreed with lockdowns, masking, social distancing and so on — even though there were just as many, if not more, who disagreed. At the time, more than 46,400 medical practitioners and 15,700 scientists had signed the Declaration.

As noted by Bhattacharya in an interview with Jimmy Dore (see hyperlink above), Fauci and Collins had nothing in terms of actual science. They could not defend lockdowns or anything else based on science alone. So, they turned to propaganda, PR and smear tactics.

Dr. Peter McCullough is another FLCCC member with top-notch medical credentials who is being persecuted by the medical establishment for his outspokenness about early treatment and the dangers of the COVID shots. He’s now written a book, “The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex,” detailing his experiences and the crimes perpetrated against patients, doctors and others in the COVID era.

Dr. Ryan Cole, a clinical pathologist, is yet another example. While he’s been able to be more outspoken than most, thanks to running a private lab, several credentialing organizations have taken action against him in a clear effort to shut him up.

He’s also lost about half of his business, as two insurance companies canceled him for “unprofessional behavior,” i.e., for sharing and discussing the health effects of the COVID jabs, and one of his best friends, with whom he’s worked for 12 years, canceled their business relationship as he didn’t want Cole’s outspokenness to affect his business.

“All because of the defamation by the media, so to tell the truth in this day and age is a dangerous thing,” he told me during an interview earlier this year.

Medicine Has Gone Off the Rails

For the past 25 years, and likely far longer, allopathic medicine has been a leading cause of death in the United States. As detailed in “Are Medical Errors Still the Third Leading Cause of Death?” in 1998, researchers concluded that properly prescribed and correctly taken pharmaceutical drugs were the fourth leading cause of death.^24,25

Two years later, in 2000, an article in JAMA written by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield detailed how physicians were the third leading cause of death in the U.S. One of Starfield’s points of contention with the medical system was the lack of systematic recording and studying of adverse events — a shortcoming that has been taken to absurd levels during the COVID era.

A 2003 article titled “Death by Medicine,”²⁶ written by Dr. Carolyn Dean, Gary Null, Ph.D., Dr. Martin Feldman, Dr. Debora Rasio and Dorothy Smith, Ph.D., described how the modern conventional American medical system had by then bumbled its way into becoming the No. 1 leading cause of death and injury in the United States, claiming the lives of nearly 784,000 people annually.

These iatrogenic deaths (meaning deaths resulting from the activity of physicians) include everything from adverse drug reactions and avoidable medical errors, to hospital-acquired infections, surgeries gone bad and deaths from unnecessary medical procedures.

During COVID, all of the shortcomings of medicine have been amplified to the point that many now refer to hospitals as “killing fields” — places where greed rules and patients are mistreated, tortured and killed for profit.

So far, the COVID death toll in the U.S. is well over 1 million,²⁷ and it’s not inconceivable that a vast majority of those were killed by the “standard of care” treatment given (i.e., remdesivir and ventilation, and the withholding of food and fluids).

Corruption at every level has also been laid bare for everyone willing to see it. For example, in September 2021, we revealed how the American Medical Association instructed doctors to intentionally deceive their patients about COVID data and the safety of the jabs.

In December that year, we also showed how the AMA encouraged lawlessness by telling private companies to ignore a court’s permanent injunction against vaccine mandates and implement mandates anyway.

Facing a Painful Reality

If there’s a silver lining to any of this, it’s that people are starting to realize just how far off the rails the medical system has gone, and that we need to make radical changes.

Even doctors like Marik are waking up to realize everything they thought they knew about medicine was actually Big Pharma propaganda, and that profits, not care, is the guiding light of most hospitals.

Many, like Marik, are shocked to realize they are being penalized for trying to improve care and save lives at low cost. I recently interviewed critical care physician Dr. Pierre Kory, another member of the FLCCC, who admitted he was woefully naïve when he first started speaking out about ivermectin back in 2020.

He thought the FLCCC would be hailed as heroes. Instead, they were vilified, maligned, persecuted and fired, and continue to be persecuted to this day, as they’re now also treating COVID jab injuries, which aren’t supposed to exist.

Kory has now written a book, “War on Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the COVID Pandemic,” which will be available after November 15, 2022,²⁸ detailing the playbook used to suppress ivermectin and other effective COVID treatments. My interview with him, in which we discuss these tactics, will air sometime in mid-November.

In closing, if you or someone you know still cannot believe that a doctor would ever withhold information or straight out lie to you, listen to Kirsch’s interview with Marik. Listen to Nass’s story. Read Kory’s book. Look at the legislation being pushed through in California.

Imagine being a doctor with hundreds of thousands of dollars in educational loans, and being told that if you share information that steers a patient away from “standard of care” — whatever that might be — you could lose your medical license. You could lose your career.

It takes a brave heart to stand up to that kind of pressure, which is why there are so few of them out there talking about early treatment and the dangers of remdesivir, ventilation and the COVID jabs. Those who cherish their health will do well to listen to those who are actually putting everything on the line to share the truth.

[ad_2]

Source link

[ad_1]

Historically, experts believe that food cultivation has been widely established for roughly 7,000 years.¹ While many of today’s farmers have embraced the agribusiness evolution that took over U.S. farmland, there are some, like Amos Miller and his 4,000 customers, who believe the old ways are still the best ways. Unfortunately, as reported in this short video from Rebel News,² the U.S. government does not agree.

In the last 100 years, there have been significant changes in the way farming is carried out. Most significant was the development of genetically modified organisms and chemical pesticides. In 1982 the FDA³ approved the first GMO product, which was developed to treat diabetes: human insulin. The first GMO foods available in the U.S. were alfalfa and sugar beets in 2005.

By 2015 the FDA had approved an application for genetically engineered salmon. Further bioengineered foods and plants include apples, pink pineapples and, in 2020, the GalSafe pig, which is a genetically modified pig that eliminates detectable amounts of alpha-gal,⁴ which is a sugar on the surface of pig cells that triggers a rare allergy.

As some applauded these scientific advancements, others began asking hard questions about how modifying genetic information and the application of large amounts of pesticides and herbicides will impact animal and human health. Miller⁵ chose to use farming practices that have successfully provided healthy food for thousands of years.⁶

Armed Federal Agents Threaten Traditional Farmer

The current story began in 2015 when Amish organic farmer Amos Miller found he had come under the microscope of federal officials from the USDA. The Food Safety Network⁷ has repeatedly headlined Miller’s plight. In fact, FSN is so enamored with the story that Miller has his own blog tag and pages of content covering the federal government’s issues with a farm that produces organic products, free of pesticides, herbicides and GMO products.

Miller was taken to court by the U.S. Justice Department at the behest of the USDA, according to David Gumpert.⁸ Miller became aware the USDA had issues with him in November 2015⁹ when he was attending a Weston A. Price Foundation conference and had stored some of his raw milk products in the hotel coolers.

Five months later, in an unrelated incident, the CDC claimed they conclusively linked an “outbreak” of two cases of listeriosis to products from Miller’s Organic Farm. By 2016, the court allowed armed law enforcement officers to accompany the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) investigators to the home and farm of known Amish pacifist Miller.

Gumpert¹⁰ reported that during these inspections, the USDA demanded the member’s food purchase records back to 2012.¹¹ However, Miller refused and cited contractual requirements for keeping this information private.

Gumpert also noted that while Miller had assumed the investigation began from the CDC report of listeriosis, it was the National Organic Program within the USDA that launched an investigation of the Miller North Carolina food club in March 2015, long before the CDC reportedly linked the listeria “outbreak” to Miller’s farm.

Fast forward seven years to 2022, when Miller has found himself consistently under the USDA microscope for nearly seven years. In the most recent foray reported in Rebel News,¹² armed federal employees again paid a visit to the farm located in the village of Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania.

Why Is the USDA Focused on Miller?

The government is again trying to issue hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, which would essentially put the farm out of business. Rebel News¹³ calls this recent court-ordered armed threat “an attack on Amish religious freedom just 150 miles from Washington, D.C.”

Yet, the USDA’s potential motivation for wanting to shut down Miller’s farm doesn’t stop there. Not only does he not use pesticides, herbicides and GMO seeds, he also doesn’t rely on gasoline or fertilizer. In other words, as Rebel News¹⁴ points out, his bottom line is not affected by the war between Ukraine and Russia, which has not been the experience of others who don’t farm like Miller.

Federal agencies have resorted to using force and steep fines to make Amos Miller compliant. However, while the USDA calls Miller’s on-farm slaughtered meat a crime, Miller has been unable to comply with the rules since the area slaughterhouses are maxed out and cannot fit his livestock into their schedule.¹⁵

Miller has helped organize private food clubs where individuals can purchase dairy, eggs and meat from traditional farmers, and the DOJ seems intent on stamping them out. As Gumpert¹⁶ pointed out in 2021, there has not been an official decision about the right to purchase directly from farmers, a principle on which Miller stands.

Today, the farm has roughly 4,000 private food club members who pay a premium to get food from an independent farmer who doesn’t process meat and dairy at USDA facilities.

USDA Defends and Protects Agribusiness

Government agencies and big businesses have a long history of working together. You only have to look at the revolving door between the CDC, FDA and Big Pharma,^17,18,19,20 to understand this lucrative intimate relationship has a significant influence on policy development and chemical approval.

Another example is Biden’s choice for the head of the USDA, Tom Vilsack, who served in the position for eight years during the Obama presidency. The Center for Food Safety²¹ listed seven strong reasons against his nomination for secretary of agriculture, most of which were related to his ties to agribusiness.

Vilsack is known as “Mr. Monsanto,”²² which is likely related to his approval of pesticide-promoting GMO seeds and his approval of the herbicide dicamba developed by Monsanto, despite warnings from nonprofit organizations, farmers and scientists.

In May 2022, Agri Pulse reported that Vilsack confirmed Roundup “is critical for maintaining U.S. crop production and addressing climate change.”²³ Agri Pulse reported that Vilsak said “Losing glyphosate ‘would obviously impact and affect production, and I think impact and affect our ability to deal with climate.’”²⁴

He believes Roundup “is critical to no-till farming, which increases soil carbon and protects water quality.”²⁵ In other words, he believes dumping glyphosate on plants is essential for protecting water quality.

‘Experts’ Pushing Fake Junk Food for Billions in Profit

Ultraprocessed junk food peddlers are on the opposite side of the food coin. NOVA (a name, not an acronym) is a food classification system, designed by the Center for Epidemiological Studies in Health and Nutrition, that categorizes foods according to the extent they are processed.²⁶

Studies assessing the impact of ultraprocessed foods on human health regularly use this system. Ultraprocessed foods are defined as industrial formulations with five or more ingredients that can include sugars, fats, salt, stabilizers and preservatives.

They include ingredients that are found only in ultraprocessed foods and are not commonly used in culinary preparations. The purpose is to “imitate sensory qualities”²⁷ that either enhance flavors or disguise undesirable taste in the final product.

Multiple studies have demonstrated that the amount of ultraprocessed food consumed in the U.S. is high. One 2016 study²⁸ found 57.9% of calories study subjects consumed were from ultraprocessed foods. Another 2018 study²⁹ found that 58.5% of calories consumed from 2007 to 2012 came from ultraprocessed foods. An 18-year study³⁰ published in 2021 found the average consumption of ultraprocessed foods rose from 53.5% of the diet in 2002 to 57% in 2018.

Despite mounting scientific evidence against it,³¹ organizations like the American Heart Association promote a plant-based diet including “convenient meatless foods you like, such as veggie burgers and vegetarian microwavable meals, on hand for a quick, meatless lunch.”³²

Unfortunately, many of the options included in this plant-based diet do not come from the whole food produce section of the grocery store, but rather from fake food that carries many patents and is worth billions to the food industry. In 2021,³³ experts estimated the market would exceed $162 billion by 2031 and in April 2022, Plant Based News³⁴ announced that plant-based food sales had grown three times faster than total food sales, rising 54% since 2018.

While plant-based foods are touted as sustainable, better for the environment and healthier than organically produced meat and dairy, these foods also fit the classification of ultraprocessed food. The rise of ultraprocessed food as a dietary staple also threatens overall food security since many rely on processed fare from the grocery store.

CAFO Pollution Destroys Communities and Consumer Health

There is a strong argument to be made against concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that have expanded over the last several decades. Unfortunately, these have become the predominant method of raising livestock. According to Sentient Media,³⁵ these highly industrialized livestock productions “supply an estimated 72% of the world’s poultry and 55% of the world’s pork.”

For example, Jeff Hansen’s hog farm in Iowa produced over 5 million pigs in 2020 through his CAFO operation. Vox³⁶ tells Hansen’s story of how he turned farming into a numbers game and then transformed the American heartland. This is not a rags-to-riches story people in Iowa are championing — unless of course you’re being paid to.

The environmental hazards that result from CAFO farms like Hansen’s are the result of the manure and urine buildup that must go somewhere. An excess amount of nutrients in waste lagoons³⁷ leads to algae overgrowth in waterways, ultimately depleting oxygen in the water, killing fish and other marine life, and making the water unfit for use.

The industry claims manure from CAFOs can be used as fertilizer on the surrounding farmlands,³⁸ often used to grow grain to feed the pigs. But this sends a steady stream of nitrogen and phosphorus into surface and groundwater and potentially spreads disease-causing organisms from the feces of animals that are fed antibiotics to keep them in confined spaces.³⁹

Studies⁴⁰ have demonstrated that MRSA is aerosolized outside and downwind of a pig CAFO, which bodes danger for those who are living near fields where the waste is being sprayed as fertilizer.

When it’s not in your community, it may be easy to overlook the human and environmental impact. However, people living in the immediate vicinity recognize many of the health effects that were documented in one study⁴¹ of North Carolina communities near CAFOs.

The researchers found that people who lived closer to hog CAFOs had a higher all-cause and infant mortality rate, higher hospital admissions, higher number of low-birth-weight infants and a greater number of people who died from kidney disease, septicemia, tuberculosis and anemia.

Regenerative Farming Best Choice for Environment and Consumer

The answer to eliminating CAFOs and protecting the environment is not a plant-based, ultraprocessed diet. Neither are CAFOs the answer to protecting your health against ultraprocessed, plant-based junk food. There is a better solution and Amos Miller is using it. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists:⁴²

“CAFOs are not the inevitable result of market forces. Instead, these unhealthy operations are largely the result of misguided public policy that can and should be changed.”

The Western Journal describes Miller as “an Amish farmer who runs a holistically managed small farm in Bird-In-Hand, Pennsylvania, grows and prepares food in tune with nature, the way he believes God intended.”⁴³

Yet, the federal government does not appear to agree with the 4,000 customers throughout the U.S. who want his meat, eggs and dairy products. As the Western Journal⁴⁴ reports, the CDC’s finding in 2016 was from a 2014 outbreak of listeria. It isn’t not clear why it took the CDC two years to find the source, but what is clear is there have been no other complaints against the farm.

The Western Journal describes several of the regenerative farming practices Miller uses on his farm, “Miller practices rotational grazing on organic pastures, with the chickens following behind to eat bugs from the droppings. Whey-fed pigs then trample the fertilizer back into the earth.”⁴⁵

Despite claims of sustainability by Impossible, makers of the Impossible Burger, a careful review of its 2019 Impact Report⁴⁶ and other data^47,48,49 reveal this soy-based “meat” actually causes greater environmental harm than organic grass fed beef production, which has net negative emissions after all relevant factors are taken into account.⁵⁰

A Carbon Footprint Evaluation report⁵¹ for White Oak Pastures — an organic, grass fed livestock operation — shows that when you include enteric emissions, manure emissions, soil carbon capture, vegetation carbon, miscellaneous farm activities, slaughter and transport, the total net carbon emissions, this type of beef production has a negative 3.5 kilos of carbon emissions per kilo of fresh meat.

This means an integrated, holistic system of regenerative farming is six times more carbon efficient than the average CAFO.⁵² The same cannot be said for GE soy. Data show GE soybean and corn farms are a primary source of water^53,54 and air pollution,⁵⁵ and are primary destroyers of grasslands and forests.^56,57

Regenerative grazing is actually a key activity required for the optimal sequestering of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into our rangelands and pasturelands, while GE soy production is associated with resistant superweeds,⁵⁸ super pests and uncontrollable cross contamination.

Taken together, these data prove that if sustainability and environmental protection are in fact priorities, then regenerative farming practices such as those used on the Miller farm are the way to go, not fake meat and junk food manufacturing.

[ad_2]

Source link

[ad_1]

A landmark study came out in July 2022, showing that as of 2018, only 6.8% of U.S. adults had optimal cardiometabolic health.¹ What this means is that more than 93% of U.S. adults are metabolically unfit, and the actual percentage is probably over 95%, as we don’t have the 2022 data yet — but do know that cardiometabolic health in the U.S. is “poor and worsening.”²

This health crisis in the U.S. formed the foundation of my recent discussion with Polly Tommey, director of programming for Children’s Health Defense (CHD) TV, as part of their “Good Morning CHD” daily news show.³ Before I got into how to radically improve your health if you fall into that metabolically unfit category, I shared two essential compounds that I believe everyone should keep in their medicine cabinet.

Keep These on Hand: Methylene Blue and Melatonin

Methylene blue is the parent molecule for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, off-patent drugs commonly used to treat not only malaria but also COVID-19. Methylene blue is actually the oldest drug in the world. It was discovered in 1876 and used as a textile dye for blue jeans, but it has many important medicinal benefits.

It is a highly effective agent against urinary tract infections (UTIs), as it is excreted by your kidneys into your bladder where it reaches very high concentrations and becomes a potent oxidant stress that kills virtually any pathogen in the bladder — without disrupting the microbiome the way antibiotics do.

Methylene blue is also the only known antidote for cyanide poisoning, but the reason why you absolutely should have it in your medicine cabinet has to do with cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks and strokes.

When you have a heart attack or most strokes, it is due to a blood clot that results in loss of blood flow to the heart or brain. If the amount of tissue is significant it will result in death. Reestablishment of blood flow is essential to salvage these tissues. However, reestablishing blood flow, or reperfusion, itself paradoxically causes further damage, threatening function and viability of the heart or brain.

Reperfusion injury is also called ischemia-reperfusion injury or reoxygenation injury. The absence of oxygen and nutrients from blood during the ischemic period creates a condition in which the reestablishment of circulation results in inflammation and oxidative damage through causing oxidative stress rather than restoring normal function.

If you take methylene blue, you can significantly decrease the tissue damage that occurs. However, dosage is important, as you only need a small amount and you don’t want to overdose on it. I recommend using a microspoon for measuring the proper amount, and I discussed dosing suggestions in my interview with Francisco Gonzalez-Lima, Ph.D., who is an expert on methylene blue.

Low doses, 0.5 milligram (mg) to 1 mg per kilo of bodyweight, are recommended for nonacute, longer-term treatments, including the prevention and treatment of dementia, post-stroke and other brain injuries, cognitive enhancement, and the general optimization of health if you’re already healthy.

The second compound that I recommend keeping on hand is melatonin — in a 10 mg sublingual dose. It’s a powerful antioxidant and will limit the reperfusion injury if taken right away after a heart attack or stroke. It’s important that the methylene blue is also administered quickly, ideally within minutes, of the heart attack or stroke.

The longer you wait after the injury the less likely it will provide benefit, which is why it’s essential to keep these items on hand, in your emergency medicine kit.⁴

Which Type of Methylene Blue Is Best?

There’s industrial grade methylene blue, which you don’t want to get because the manufacturing process typically results in heavy metal contamination. There’s also pharmaceutical grade, but it’s difficult to find or expensive in a powder form. Then there is chemical, or sometimes referred to as lab-grade which, depending on the company, can have very low heavy metals.

You can purchase methylene blue that’s already dissolved in water, but that’s not as good as buying the powder itself and putting it into water. Remember, you’ll need a microspoon for precise measurements.

Time-Restricted Eating Is the Secret

Time-restricted eating (TRE) involves limiting your eating window to a set number of hours during the day. I recommend getting down to at least a six- to eight-hour eating window — and ensuring that you stop eating at least three hours before bed.

Most people reading this can benefit from embracing TRE, with the exceptions being if you’re underweight or pregnant. When you’re metabolically unfit, your body primarily relies on glucose, or sugar, as fuel, instead of using fat as a primary fuel.

Even though the fat is there in abundance, your body doesn’t have the metabolic capacity to access it. For most people, surplus fuel stored in your body is stored in the form of fat. However, no one has more than about two days’ worth of glucose in the form of glycogen, stored in their tissues in their liver and muscles. This is why, when you first start fasting, and you’re unable to access your fat stores, you’ll quickly exhaust your glycogen stores and can experience low blood sugar.

Your body has the ability to make glucose in your liver (gluconeogenesis), but that process takes a while to ramp up and, as a result, most people get relatively hypoglycemic when they first start fasting. You may experience dizziness and fatigue as a result, which are signs that you’re not metabolically flexible. If you were, your body would have more than enough capacity to produce all the fuel you need to keep your brain happy and healthy.⁵

In the interview, I also pointed out that if you’re obese, you can typically safely go on three-, five- or even seven-day water fasts. Many experts are predicting upcoming food shortages and economic collapse come fall, and I wanted to reassure people that most who fall in this category could probably not eat for months, some people for up to a year, if they’re grossly overweight, and they would be significantly healthier for it.⁶

Again, fasting isn’t recommended for people who are underweight, pregnant or breastfeeding. You also need to use caution if you’re taking certain medications, such as those for blood pressure or blood sugar.⁷ Interestingly, when you’re metabolically inflexible and unable to use fat for fuel, your body generates a molecule called acetyl-CoA when it’s breaking down fats — and that happens to be one of the cofactors for your body making melatonin.

So when you’re metabolically inflexible, your body produces far less melatonin — a potent anticancer agent — in the mitochondria where you need it, because that’s where almost all the damage that causes cancer is caused — due to oxidative stress from the process of generating energy within the mitochondria.⁸

What to Avoid Eating to Protect Your Health

TRE is so powerful that rat studies suggest changing the eating window leads to beneficial effects on health,⁹ regardless of what’s eaten during that time. That being said, your results are going to be best if you’re eating healthy food. With respect to food, the most important change to make is cutting out industrially processed seed oils, which are misleadingly labeled as vegetable oils.

Examples of seed oils high in omega-6 PUFAs include soybean, cottonseed, sunflower, rapeseed (canola), corn and safflower.¹⁰ Omega-6 is considered to be proinflammatory because of the most common variety, linoleic acid (LA), which will radically increase oxidative stress and cause mitochondrial dysfunction.¹¹

In order to avoid LA, you’ll need to avoid eating processed foods and focus on real food instead. If you eat real food and use TRE, your body will become healthier because it’s designed to do this if you provide it with what it needs. If you don’t follow these ancestral guidelines to good health, it predisposes you to disease.

Now, if you eat real food, use TRE and get about one hour of daily sun exposure, that’s going to reduce your risk of 90% to 95% of chronic diseases.¹² If you want to get more advanced, you can add in sauna usage, which helps you eliminate toxins and activates beneficial heat shock proteins that refold your proteins to prevent diseases like dementia.

The wavelengths from a near infrared sauna, which heats your body the most effectively, actually penetrate your skin about 3 to 4 inches and get into your mitochondria, causing your mitochondria to make melatonin. About 95% of the melatonin in your body is made in the mitochondria, and near infrared saunas are the only type that have this added benefit of also increasing melatonin.¹³

Fine-Tuning Your Healthy Lifestyle

As you focus on eating real food and restricting your eating window, it is important to avoid making the mistake of going no-carb or low-carb, as your body needs carbohydrates. While you may initially improve if you cut out carbs, over time it will raise your cortisol levels and can actually lead to insulin resistance and hormonal imbalance.

Foods like watermelon, apples and blueberries can help you add nutrient-rich carbohydrates to your diet. Many people also wonder about coffee, which can be consumed outside of your eating window because it has almost no calories. The coffee should be organic, black and mycotoxin-free.

As for alcohol, it will break your fast if you consume it outside of your eating window. Small amounts may be OK to consume inside of your eating window, but it may impair your sleep if you consume it too close to bedtime, and be aware that wine is a source of the toxic chemical glyphosate. Ideally, I believe alcohol is better off avoided.

Finally, one additional compound that should be added to your emergency medical kit is hydrogen peroxide and a nebulizer. Like methylene blue and melatonin, nebulized hydrogen peroxide is something you’ll want to have on hand for immediate use when you need it. I use nebulized hydrogen peroxide most mornings, but if you start feeling sick, you can use it every few hours, or more, to ward off illness.

If you get these basics down — time-restricted eating, avoiding processed foods and LA, and getting daily sun exposure — you can significantly reduce your risk of becoming chronically ill, and even join the 6.8% of Americans who have been able to maintain good cardiometabolic health.

[ad_2]

Source link