Health & Fitness

By Dr. Mercola

One of the simplest and most enjoyable ways to up the health ante of your meals is by adding herbs and spices, and in the realm of spices, turmeric and its active ingredient curcumin may be king.

If you're a fan of curry, you're probably also a fan of turmeric, as this is the yellow-orange spice that makes the foundation of many curry dishes. It's a great addition to your diet, but to get the full benefits curcumin has to offer, look for a turmeric extract that contains 100 percent certified organic ingredients and at least 95 percent curcuminoids.

Research is emerging showing that this potent spice may play a beneficial role in preventing and treating numerous chronic diseases, and may offer promise in helping people deal with obesity and obesity-related metabolic diseases.

Does Curcumin Boost Weight Loss?

Research in the European Journal of Nutrition suggests that curcumin may be useful for the treatment and prevention of obesity-related chronic diseases, as the interactions of curcumin with several signal transduction pathways -- the process by which biological functions are recognized -- also reverse insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, and other inflammatory symptoms associated with obesity and metabolic disorders.

Curcumin is known for its potent anti-inflammatory properties, and chronic inflammation is the hallmark of most chronic disease, including diabetes, arthritis, and heart disease. But many people are not aware that obesity contributes to a state of low-grade, chronic inflammation in your body that can trigger metabolic disorders such as insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Curcumin appears to modulate several cellular transduction pathways that contribute to this damaging process.

As a result, researchers concluded:

"These findings might enable novel phytochemical treatment strategies as well as curcumin translation to the clinical practice for the treatment and prevention of obesity-related chronic diseases. Furthermore, the relatively low cost of curcumin, safety and proven efficacy make it advisable to include curcumin as part of a healthy diet."

Past research has revealed similar findings, including that curcumin reduces the formation of fat tissue by suppressing the blood vessels needed to form it. As the researchers stated:

"Our results clearly demonstrate that curcumin at cellular and whole organism levels displays remarkable potential health benefits for prevention of obesity and associated metabolic disorders."

Weight Loss is Just the Icing on the Cake

The benefits of curcumin go way beyond weight loss. The compound has been shown to influence more than 700 genes, and it can inhibit both the activity and the synthesis of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX2) and 5-lipooxygenase (5-LOX), as well as other enzymes that have been implicated in inflammation.

But that's not all. Curcumin currently has the most evidence-based literature supporting its use against cancer than any other nutrient. Interestingly this also includes the metabolite of curcumin and its derivatives, which are also anti-cancerous. Best of all, curcumin appears to be safe in the treatment of all cancers. Researchers have found that curcumin can affect more than 100 different pathways, once it gets into the cell.

More specifically, curcumin has been found to:

✓ Inhibit the proliferation of tumor cells	✓ Decrease inflammation
✓ Inhibit the transformation of cells from normal to tumor	✓ Inhibit the synthesis of a protein thought to be instrumental in tumor formation
✓ Help your body destroy mutated cancer cells so they cannot spread throughout your body	✓ Help prevent the development of additional blood supply necessary for cancer cell growth (angiogenesis)

However, much of curcumin's power seems to lie in its ability to modulate genetic activity and expression -- both by destroying cancer cells and by promoting healthy cell function. As such, evidence suggests curcumin may play a beneficial role in the following conditions:

✓ Cystic fibrosis	✓ Type 2 diabetes	✓ Inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn's disease
✓ Psoriasis	✓ Rheumatoid arthritis	✓ Cataracts
✓ Gallstones	✓ Muscle regeneration and regenerate brain cells after stroke	✓ Alzheimer's disease
✓ Reduce cholesterol levels	✓ Inhibit platelet aggregation	✓ Protect against liver damage
✓ Inhibit HIV replication	✓ Suppress tumor formation	✓ Suppress symptoms of multiple sclerosis

Tips for Using Curcumin Therapeutically

You can use turmeric in your cooking (choose a pure turmeric powder, rather than a curry powder, as at least one study has found that curry powders tend to contain very little curcumin), but you may also want to consider taking it in supplement form. For many this is a more convenient method to obtain the potential health benefits, especially if it is from a high-quality organic source, and also if you don't particularly enjoy the taste of curry.

Unfortunately, at the present time there really are no formulations available for the use against cancer, as relatively high doses are required and curcumin is not absorbed that well.

According to Dr. William LaValley, one of the leading medicine cancer physicians I personally know, typical anticancer doses are up to three grams of good bioavailable curcumin extract, three to four times daily. One work-around is to use the curcumin powder and make a microemulsion of it by combining a tablespoon of the powder and mixing it into 1-2 egg yolks and a teaspoon or two of melted coconut oil. Then use a high-speed hand blender to emulsify the powder.

Another strategy that can help increase absorption is to put one tablespoon of the curcumin powder into a quart of boiling water. It must be boiling when you add the powder as it will not work as well if you put it in room temperature water and heat the water and curcumin. After boiling it for ten minutes you will have created a 12 percent solution that you can drink once it has cooled down. It will have a woody taste.

The curcumin will gradually fall out of solution however. In about six hours it will be a 6 percent solution, so it's best to drink the water within four hours. Be aware that curcumin is a very potent yellow pigment and can permanently discolor surfaces if you aren't careful.

Be Sure Your Weight Loss Strategy is Comprehensive

It can't hurt to add curcumin to your comprehensive weight loss program, but it should not be your only strategy for weight loss if you're currently overweight or obese.

You can read an in-depth explanation of the common factors that contribute to weight loss here, but the key is the quality of your calories and exercise. Typically you will need to replace grains and sugars, including fructose, with high-quality protein and fats AND add in high-intensity exercise training like Peak Fitness. I realize that this might conflict with your previous understanding of a healthy diet, but that is clearly what the bulk of the science and anecdotal evidence supports.

For more comprehensive details, please see my nutrition plan, which is divided into beginner, intermediary and advanced, so that you can slowly work your way toward achieving your weight loss goals.

from Articles : Cholesterol, Aging https://ift.tt/3ddiWag
via IFTTT

Fibre-optics used to take the temperature of Greenland Ice Sheet

Scientists have used fibre-optic sensing to obtain the most detailed measurements of ice properties ever taken on the Greenland Ice Sheet. Their findings will be used to make more accurate models of the future movement of the world's second-largest ice sheet, as the effects of climate change continue to accelerate.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3ohSx06

People at high genetic risk for colorectal cancer benefit more from lifestyle changes

Epigenetic changes drive the fate of a B cell

B cells are the immune cells responsible for creating antibodies, and most produce antibodies in response to a pathogen or a vaccine. A small subset of B cells instead spontaneously make antibodies that perform vital housekeeping functions. Understanding how epigenetics spur these differences in such similar cells is an important fundamental question in immunology.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3eMtXRU

Virtual reality warps your sense of time

Psychology researchers found that playing games in virtual reality creates an effect called 'time compression,' where time goes by faster than you think. The research team compared time perception during gameplay using conventional monitors and virtual reality to determine that this effect is uniquely linked to the virtual reality format.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3tK5KzO

Our dreams' weirdness might be why we have them, argues new AI-inspired theory of dreaming

Why we dream is a divisive topic within the scientific community, and the neuroscience field is saturated with hypotheses. Inspired by techniques used to train deep neural networks, a neuroscience researcher argues for a new theory of dreams: the overfitted brain hypothesis. The hypothesis suggests that the strangeness of our dreams serves to help our brains better generalize our day-to-day experiences.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2RdcOYJ

NAC Banned From Amazon, FDA Says It's Medication

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has made the news, not because scientists discovered a new health benefit, but because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration decided after 57 years of over-the-counter sales the compound is now a medication that requires a physician’s prescription.

Like ibuprofen (Advil)¹ and acetaminophen (Tylenol),² NAC has been available both over the counter and in prescription form.³ Doctors prescribe ibuprofen, acetaminophen and NAC in the hospital for specific uses. Historically, people could purchase all three over the counter.

Recently, the FDA decided that, unlike ibuprofen and acetaminophen, NAC should be removed from public sale. NAC is an antioxidant compound made up of three amino acids — glutamic acid, glycine and cysteine.⁴

However, N-acetylcysteine is available only in supplement form and cannot be found as such in foods. But the precursors to NAC can be found in foods high in cysteine, including pork, beef, chicken, eggs, swiss cheese and sunflower seeds.⁵ NAC is valued as a precursor to glutathione, also called the “master antioxidant.”⁶

NAC is useful in the treatment of acetaminophen poisoning, helping to lower the risk of mortality and liver damage. Despite a long history of concurrent use as an over-the-counter supplement and prescription medication in the hospital, the FDA has not been interested in removing the status as a dietary supplement — not, that is, until recently when NAC showed promise in the fight against COVID-19.⁷

FDA Invokes a Legally Questionable Drug Exclusion Provision

The law defines dietary supplements specifically. In the U.S. code Title 21,⁸ the law uses specific definitions of what a dietary supplement is and is not. According to experts, the actions of the FDA in banning the sale of NAC and finding it a “medication” is illegal under the law.

Attorney Dan Soper⁹ writes that under Title 21 §321 paragraph (ff)(3)(b)¹⁰ the actions of the FDA do not meet the Drug Exclusion Provision. In the code, it defines what a dietary supplement is not. Specifically, it says that a dietary supplement (article) does not include:

An article approved as a new drug, certified as an antibiotic, or licensed as a biologic under specific sections of the title.
An article authorized for investigation as a new drug, antibiotic or biologic for which there have been substantial clinical trials and for which the existence of all of these investigations has been made public.

In addition, the article was not before approved, certified, licensed or authorized, marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food “unless the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, has issued a regulation, after notice and comment, finding that the article would be lawful under this chapter.”

According to Soper,¹¹ the exclusion provision has only been invoked a few times, specifically when used to keep red yeast rice, vitamin B6 and cannabidiol (CBD) from being sold as supplements. In each of these cases there was a potential pharmaceutical financial loss that triggered the assertion the supplement was illegal.

In the case of red yeast rice, it contains a naturally occurring substance that acts in a similar manner to Lovastatin, a statin medication.¹² In 2005, drug manufacturer Biostratum filed an investigational new drug (IND) application with the FDA to use vitamin B6 in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease.

Their argument was there was “no evidence that it was marketed as a dietary supplement or food prior to its IND and Phase II investigations.”¹³ In 2009 the FDA declared vitamin B6 was not a dietary supplement despite documentation that it had been sold as such before the IND application.

The FDA has also invoked the Drug Exclusion Provision against CBD, warning that it is not a legal dietary supplement since there was no meaningful evidence it was marketed as such before drug investigations were approved for Sativex and Epidiolex, which are drugs that contain CBD.

After the 2018 Farm Bill was signed legalizing hemp, then-FDA secretary Scott Gottlieb made the statement that it was illegal to introduce CBD into the food supply or market it as a supplement.¹⁴ Soper postulates¹⁵ that the use of the Drug Exclusion Provision against CBD may have opened the door for the FDA to use it against NAC.

Others Hold the FDA Is Using a ‘Legally Invalid’ Position

In 1994, Congress enacted the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA).¹⁶ This gave the FDA regulatory authority and enforcement tools to protect consumers. The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) supports enforcement of the law,¹⁷ but the recent FDA move against NAC appears to step well beyond the letter and intent of the Act.

December 4, 2020, the CRN wrote an open letter¹⁸ to Steve Tave, director of the FDA’s office of dietary supplement programs, and sent a copy to Douglas Stearn, deputy director for regulatory affairs. In the eight-page letter, the CRN outlined why they believe the position the FDA has taken is “legally invalid.”¹⁹

In December 2020, a journalist from Natural Products Insider²⁰ outlined the arguments CRN used in their letter to Tave, stating why the FDA’s actions were not legally defensible. The points the CRN made included:

• Through a Freedom of Information Act request, CRN learned the FDA's claim that NAC had been approved as a drug in 1963 was nothing more than a handwritten notation. The CRN notes this raises questions about the reliability of the record, true approval date and who made the notation.

• The 1963 handwritten notation was for an inhalation drug. However, the code clearly states the chemical cannot be called a dietary supplement if the "article" is the same as the drug. In this case, the FDA is asserting an inhaled drug is the same as an oral supplement. Steve Mister, president and CEO, and Megan Olsen, CRN associate general counsel, wrote:²¹

"Further, a dietary supplement, by definition, must be “a product that ... is intended for ingestion.” Because of this limitation, a dietary supplement would, by its very nature, differ significantly in the route of administration and dosage form from an inhaled drug.

Such significant differences, which will affect a substance’s impact on the human body, must preclude an inhaled ingredient from being considered the same “article” as an orally ingested ingredient."

• The CRN found records to suggest that NAC was not approved for drug use until 2016, "well after dietary supplement companies had been marketing NAC as a supplement."²²

• The FDA's interpretation of the law also conflicts with “the presumption against statutory retroactivity,” which Mister and Olsen go on to say, "Even if FDA records reliably demonstrated drug approval before 201(ff)(3)(B)(i) was enacted, it is a well-established canon of statutory interpretation that legislation shall not be read to have a retroactive effect on private rights unless Congress expresses a clear, unambiguous intent to the contrary."²³

The CRN also argues that the FDA failed to explain the policy change before sending warning letters to several NAC manufacturers in July 2020. Mister and Olsen wrote:²⁴

“In response to the extensive history of NAC being treated by FDA as a dietary supplement, manufacturers have invested substantial resources to develop hundreds of such products, and thousands of consumers have come to rely on such products to meet their daily nutritional needs.

Now, FDA has decided to not only change its decades-long policy, but to do so through the issuance of warning letters that fail to provide any reasonable explanation for this consequential policy shift.”

• Lastly, the CRN maintains the FDA cannot enforce the policy because they exhibited a lack of diligence, writing:²⁵

"First, FDA’s decades-long delay in bringing enforcement action against manufacturers of dietary supplements containing NAC indisputably resulted from a lack of diligence by FDA, rather than an unawareness that these products were on the market.

In fact, there is ample evidence that FDA has long been aware that these products are on the market, and that FDA has actively considered — and failed to object to — structure/function and qualified health claim petitions regarding products containing NAC. Thus, FDA’s long-delayed enforcement against these products resulted from the Agency’s own lack of diligence."

In an email to Natural Products Insider, Mister said:²⁶

“CRN is firmly committed to protecting our members’ interest in this matter to sell a lawful ingredient. FDA’s warning letters on NAC issued earlier this year are not final agency actions, but rather should be viewed as the opening salvo, inviting those with sound legal arguments to respond and present an opposing point of view, which we are doing.

CRN is optimistic that FDA will closely consider the legal argumentation we have laid out and evaluate its initial position regarding NAC in light of these arguments.”

Why Is the FDA Taking Aim at NAC?

Using the Drug Exclusion Provision on CBD may have opened the door for the FDA to make similar claims against NAC, but there is still the question of timing. Why has the FDA chosen to target NAC now? In the past the provision was used inappropriately in three instances to protect the finances of pharmaceutical companies, and it is likely the motivation to ban NAC as a supplement has the same roots.

As pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult succinctly explains in this MedCram video, NAC is a crucial chemical compound necessary to reduce the oxidative stress associated with severe COVID-19 infections and thus may significantly impact the sales of antiviral drugs. And, without severe disease, is there truly a need for a vaccine?

Nine months after the FDA issued warning letters with their position that NAC supplements could not legally be sold, Amazon began removing products containing the supplement.²⁷ In 2020, Amazon adopted polices to improve the quality of the supplements sold on their platform after knock-off dietary supplements were found²⁸ and NOW Health Group identified inferior quality supplements from third-party lab tests.²⁹

Amazon did not respond to Natural Products Insider³⁰ to explain why the products were being removed from the platform. One long-time public relations professional in the industry postulated it may have been a result of significant turnover in Amazon's regulatory staff that prompted the move if the new staff believed selling NAC made the company vulnerable.

More Health Benefits of N-acetylcysteine

NAC supplements are well absorbed and can effectively increase levels of glutathione in the body.³¹ Glutathione deficiency is a key contributor to oxidative stress.³² In turn, oxidative stress contributes to the pathogenesis of several diseases such as liver disease, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, cancer, heart attack and diabetes.

NAC contributes cysteine, which one study³³ found is inversely associated with the risk of stroke in women. Two papers^34,³⁵ concluded that NAC shows promise in the treatment of psychiatric conditions, including addiction, compulsive disorders, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The treatment may benefit those whose condition has not responded to drugs and medication.

One team of scientists³⁶ presented a review on different applications NAC may have in a variety of health conditions. This includes reducing insulin resistance and providing a therapeutic approach in the treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome.

Based on evidence, they hypothesized that NAC may reduce the number of premature births and recurrent pregnancy losses by exerting an anti-inflammatory effect in women who have bacterial vaginosis, a risk factor of preterm delivery and low birth weight.

They found there were positive influences that NAC exerted in patients who have ulcerative colitis, including decreasing oxidative stress, lowering cell apoptosis and improving recovery in the colon. Lab studies and animal models have demonstrated NAC can protect normal cells from radiation therapy and chemotherapy but does not protect cancer cells.

NAC has preventive effects against airway hyperresponsiveness in animal studies using acute exacerbation of asthma. In their review, they found NAC was “safe and well tolerated” without considerable side effects.³⁷

from Articles https://ift.tt/3tQn7iz
via IFTTT

Are We Being Set Up for Mass Depopulation?

How do you market and implement a financial system that nobody would want if they understood its full ramifications — a change so huge that it not only would mean the end of currency as we know it, but a total revision of sovereignty and individual rights?

In the interview above, which is part of the full-length documentary “Planet Lockdown,”¹ Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a life science researcher and former vice-president and chief scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer, shares his views on the COVID-19 pandemic, fast-tracked COVID-19 “vaccines,” the issue of mutated virus variants and the need for booster shots, and how this manufactured crisis is being used to strip us of our civil liberties.

Are You Putting the Pieces Together?

Yeadon has a degree in biochemistry and toxicology and a research-based Ph.D. in respiratory pharmacology. He’s spent 32 years of his career working for large pharmaceutical companies, and 10 years in the biotechnology sector.

“I'm in favor of all modes of new medical treatments, whether they're biologicals or vaccines, small molecules, creams, sprays, ointments, whatever, but I'm fervently against unsafe medicines or medicines used in an inappropriate context,” Yeadon says.

“Some of the things I'm going to say are not favorable to the current crop of gene-based vaccines and it's [because] they're being inappropriately used. I don't think they have a sufficient safety profile to be used as a sort of wide-spectrum public health prophylactic …

A few things have allowed me, I think, to spot what's going on in the world at the moment. One, I've loved biology since I was little. I've been continuing to learn and to apply biology broadly, whether it's pharmacology, biochemistry, molecular biology [or] toxicology. I've got a very broad grounding in all things to do with life science, in terms of health and disease.

[Secondly], one of my former supervisors said that I had a remarkable facility that stood out above the sort of ordinary things you'd have to do to be a vice president or a CEO. He said I was able to spot patterns in sparse data earlier than my peers. So, when there's not enough data for most people to judge what was going on, I would often be able to see it.

I could see a pattern forming when there wasn't quite enough information … On this occasion, it allowed me, quite quickly, to work out that what we were being told about this virus and what we needed to do in order to stay safe was simply not true.”

A Massive Fraud Has Been Perpetrated

Yeadon starts out by highlighting the “enormous changes” made in the U.K.’s attribution of causes of deaths. If you die within 28 days of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, you are counted as a COVID-19 death, regardless of other underlying conditions. The same thing was done in the U.S. As noted by Yeadon:

“We've never had anything as absurd as the rule that is now used. It's not just a matter of disagreeing professionally. It's just complete nonsense.”

The shutdown of businesses and forcing healthy people to self-isolate also makes no sense. Yeadon points out that only people who are ill, who have discernible symptoms of a respiratory infection, pose any health risk to others:

“To be a good, efficient source of infection, you have to have a lot of virus. And if you have a lot of viruses attacking you, you are fighting back. That process produces symptoms, inevitably, not just occasionally. It must always happen …

And those people are not people who are walking around in the community, because if you're full of virus and symptomatic, you are also ill, and ill people tend to stay at home or in bed.”

Asymptomatic spread, which has no sound basis, was used to justify lockdowns, which never had any basis in fact or science either. Lockdowns were implemented for entirely other reasons, namely to get you used to giving up your freedoms and your normal way of life, and to make you psychologically dependent on an outside source telling you when it’s OK to do what.

It’s obedience training and a tool to get the population of the world to go along with the intentional decimation of the global economy and old way of life, thereby justifying the Great Reset, which is about transferring global wealth and ownership rights to the technocratic elite, and giving them the power to control the world’s nations.

“Basically, everything your government has told you about this virus, everything you need to do to stay safe, is a lie,” Yeadon says. “Every part of it … None of the key themes that you hear talked about — from asymptomatic transmission to top-up vaccines [i.e., booster shots] — not one of those things is supported by the science.

Every piece is cleverly chosen adjacently to something that probably is true, but is itself a lie, and has led people to where we are right now. I don't normally use phrases like this, but I think we are standing at the very gates of hell … It’s all about control …

The reason I'm commenting is because I believe it's not just about my life. More importantly, [it’s the lives] of my children and grandchildren that are being stolen … by a systematic process of fear and control that's going to culminate in, I think, some very horrible times, and I'm desperate to wake you up …

We're probably quite used to politicians occasionally telling white lies, and we kind of let them, but when they lie to you about something technical, something that you can check, and they do it [with] many, many elements of the whole event, then please, you've got to believe me, [they’re] not telling the truth.

And if they're not telling the truth, that means there's something else. And I'm here to tell you that there is something very, very bad happening. If you don't pay attention, you will soon lose any chance to do anything about it.”

Science Has Been Turned on Its Head

Yeadon rightly notes that everything we’ve known about virology and infectious disease has been turned upside down during this pandemic. None of the standard responses known to protect people from infectious disease was followed. Normally, you quarantine the sick to contain the infection.

Locking down entire societies has never been done and has no foundation in science or the history of epidemic control. Similarly, mass testing people without symptoms is without precedence. It simply isn’t done, and for good reason. It’s a waste of resources because as Yeadon explained earlier, we know how viruses spread. This isn’t our first rodeo. We’ve dealt with infectious epidemics before.

We know how viruses work in the body. When you have an active infection, you develop symptoms as your body mounts its defense. Without symptoms, your viral load is too low to pose a threat, either to yourself or others. The myth about asymptomatic spread has been a fear tactic.

T-Cell Immunity Is Far More Important Than Antibodies

Yeadon goes on to review how we’ve been misled about immunity and how your body fights off viruses. You’ve probably heard that the thing that gives you immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies.

The entire vaccination campaign is built around the premise that by injecting a synthetic piece of viral RNA into your cells, your body will start producing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, in response to which your body will produce specific antibodies that recognize that protein. This is also known as humoral immunity.

However, while antibodies are important, especially in bacterial infections, antibodies are not the only part of your immunity. More importantly, immunity against viruses — opposed to bacteria — actually does not depend on antibodies. Yeadon explains:

“Viruses are really tiny, and their business is to get as quickly as they can inside your cells. So, they bind to a receptor on the surface and inject themselves into your cell. So, they’re inside. Antibodies are big molecules and they're generally outside your cells.

So just think about that for a moment. Antibodies and viruses are in separate compartments. The virus is inside the cell, the antibodies outside the cell. I'm not saying antibodies have no role, but they're really not very important. This has been proven. There are some people in whom a natural experiment has occurred.

They have a defect and they actually don't make antibodies, but they're able to fight off COVID-19, the virus SARS-CoV-2, quite well. The way they do that is, they have T-cell immunity, cellular immunity. [T-cells] are cells that are trained to detect virus-infected cells and to kill those cells. That's how you defend yourself against a virus.

So, all of these mentions of antibody levels, it's just bunk. It is not a good measure of whether or not you're immune. It does give evidence that you've been infected, but their persistence is not important as to whether you've got immunity …

We've known this for decades. We've known about T-cells for decades. They were clearly in my undergraduate textbooks. And we've known about their importance in defending you against respiratory viruses since probably the 1970s, certainly the 1980s. So, don't believe anything where people suggest to you that their role is uncertain. We've known for a very long time that they are absolutely central.”

Antibodies Are Not the Answer to Variants

The central role of T-cell immunity, or cellular immunity, becomes particularly pertinent when discussing the threat of variants, mutated forms of SARS-CoV-2. As mentioned, your immune system is a multifaceted system that allows your body to mount defenses against all sorts of threats. Parasites, fungi, bacteria and viruses are the main threat categories.

Each of these invades and threatens you in completely different ways, and your immune system has ways of dealing with all of them, using a variety of mechanisms.

“You've got four or five different arms of the immune system: innate immunity, mucosal, antibody, T-cells and compliment[ary systems],” Yeadon says.

“There are all of these different wonderful systems that have integrated, one with another, because it needs to defend you against all sorts of different threats in the environment. What I'm telling you is that the emphasis on antibodies in respect of respiratory viral infections is wrong, and you can establish that quite easily by doing some searching.”

In essence, what Yeadon is saying is that whether you’re going to be susceptible to variants has very little to do with whether or not you have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, because antibodies are not your primary defense against viruses. Your T-cells are the ones doing the heavy lifting.

What this means then, is that getting booster shots for different variants is not going to help you. It will not solve the problem, because these shots do not strengthen your T-cell immunity.

Carefully Rethink Need for Booster Shots

Of all the lies we’ve been told over the past year, the ones that worry and frighten Yeadon the most are the lies about virus variants and booster shots. In fact, he believes not buying into these lies may be key to your very survival, and here’s why:

“It's quite normal for RNA viruses like SARS-CoV-2, when it replicates, to make typographical errors. It’s got a very good error detection, error correction system so it doesn't make too many typos, but it does make some, and those are called ‘variants.’

It’s really important to know that if you find the variant that's most different from the sequence identified in Wuhan, that variance … is only 0.3% different from the original sequence.

I'll say it another way. If you find the most different variance, it's 99.7% identical to the original one, and I can assure you … that amount of difference is absolutely NOT possibly able to represent itself to you as a different virus.”

He explains how, earlier in the pandemic, scientists obtained blood from patients who had been sickened with the SARS virus 17 or 18 years ago. SARS-CoV-1, responsible for that SARS outbreak, is 80% similar to SARS-CoV-2.

They wanted to know if the immune systems of these patients would be able to recognize SARS-CoV-2. They did. They still had memory T-cells against SARS-CoV-1, and those cells also recognized SARS-CoV-2, despite being only 80% similar. Now, if a 20% difference was not enough to circumvent the immune system of these patients, why should you be concerned with a variant that is at most 0.3% different from the original SARS-CoV-2?

“When your government scientists tell you that a variant that's 0.3% different from SARS-CoV-2 could masquerade as a new virus and be a threat to your health, you should know, and I'm telling you, they are lying,” Yeadon says.

“If they're lying, and they are, why is the pharmaceutical industry making top-up [booster] vaccines? You should be terrified at this point, as I am, because there's absolutely no possible justification for their manufacture. And the world's medicines regulators have said, ‘Because they are quite similar to the original vaccines … we won't be asking them to do any clinical safety studies.’”

Are We Seeing a Mass Depopulation Agenda in Action?

Yeadon stresses that variants simply aren’t different enough to represent a threat, which is why you don’t now, and won’t in the future, need one or more booster shots. Yet they’re already being made, and regulators are giving them a free pass when it comes to safety and efficacy studies.

“I'm very frightened of that. There's no possible benign interpretation of this,” Yeadon says. “I believe they're going to be used to damage your health and possibly kill you. Seriously. I can see no sensible interpretation other than a serious attempt at mass depopulation.

This will provide the tools to do it, and plausible deniability. They'll create another story about some sort of biological threat and you'll line up and get your top-up vaccines, and a few months or a year or so later, you'll die of some peculiar inexplicable syndrome. And they won't be able to associate it with the vaccines.

That's my belief — that they're lying to you about variants so they can make damaging top-up vaccines that you don't need at all. I think they will be used for malign purposes … We know that the people [SARS-CoV-2] injures and kills are only people who are elderly and or ill, usually both, so we're talking about less than 0.1% [of the population] …

Given that this virus represents, at worst, a slightly bigger risk to the old and ill than influenza, and a smaller risk [than influenza] to almost everyone else … it was never necessary for us to have done anything. We didn't need to do anything. [We didn’t need] lockdowns, masks, mass testing, vaccines.

There are multiple therapeutic drugs that are at least as effective as the vaccines are. They're already available and cheap. Inhaled corticosteroids that are used in asthma reduced symptomatology by about 90%.

An off-patent drug called ivermectin, one of the most widely-used drugs in the world, is also able to reduce symptoms at any stage of the disease, including lethality by about 90%. So, you don't need vaccines and you don't need any of the measures that have been introduced at all.”

Key Safety Concerns of mRNA ‘Vaccines’

In December 2020, Yeadon filed a petition² calling on the European Medicine Agency to halt Phase 3 clinical trials of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine until they’ve been restructured to address critical safety concerns. Of course, those trials were not halted. The four key safety concerns Yeadon specified in his petition³ were:

1. The potential for formation of non-neutralizing antibodies that can trigger an exaggerated immune reaction (referred to as paradoxical immune enhancement or antibody-dependent immune amplification) when the individual is exposed to the real “wild” virus post-vaccination.

Antibody-dependent amplification has been repeatedly demonstrated in coronavirus vaccine trials on animals.⁴ While the animals initially tolerated the vaccine well and had robust immune responses, they later became severely ill or died when infected with the wild virus. Put plainly, the vaccine increased their susceptibility to the virus and made them more likely to die from the infection.

2. Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine contains polyethylene glycol (PEG), and studies have shown 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance. This suggests PEG may trigger fatal allergic reactions in many who receive the vaccine.

Indeed, within days of the vaccine’s release, reports started coming in of people having life-threatening anaphylactic reactions,⁵ leading to warnings that people with known allergies should not take the Pfizer vaccine.⁶ Since then, anaphylactic reactions have been reported by recipients of the Moderna mRNA vaccine as well.⁷

3. The mRNA vaccine triggers your body to produce antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and spike proteins in turn contain syncytin-homologous proteins that are essential for the formation of placenta. If a woman’s immune system starts reacting against syncytin-1, then there is the possibility she could become infertile.

This is an issue that none of the vaccine studies is looking at specifically. Mass vaccinating women of childbearing age against COVID-19 could potentially have the devastating consequence of causing mass infertility if the vaccine triggers an immune reaction against syncytin-1.

4. The studies are far too brief in duration to allow a realistic estimation of side effects. Depending on what those effects end up being, millions of people may be exposed to unacceptable risk in return for a very minor benefit.

Health Freedom Undermined in the Name of ‘Emergency’

Even more fundamental than any particular safety concern is the fact that a vaccination campaign of this magnitude, using an entirely novel technology, sets a most dangerous public health precedent. By drumming up unnecessary panic, many are now willing to forgo all manner of freedom in the name of responding to a global health emergency.

One of these core freedoms is your right to refuse an experimental medical procedure. This freedom was acknowledged in the Nuremberg Code of 1947⁸ and enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”⁹

Yet despite that, and despite the fact that clinical vaccine trials are still two years out from being completed, governments around the world are talking about making these vaccinations mandatory, or blackmailing people to take them against their will by encouraging private businesses to restrict access to vaccinated-only.

As noted by Yeadon and many others, the implementation of vaccine passports has nothing to do with protecting public health and everything to do with setting into place a surveillance, tracking and control mechanism that can easily be expanded into all other areas of life, thereby controlling your every move.

“[Vaccine passports] are not required at all,” Yeadon says. “What they provide, though, is complete control over your movements to whoever controls the database that your vaccination status is connected to. I hope you grasp this because this is not optional.

This is what's going to take over your life in a way that George Orwell in ‘1984’ didn't even dream of. Imagine you've been vaccinated and you've been awarded a vaccine passport on an app. It's going to be the world's first database that contains your name, a unique digital ID in the same format as absolutely everybody else on the planet on the same database.

It'll have like an editable health-related flag that will say [whether] you've been vaccinated. If you haven't been, the algorithm that rules that works out what you can do … That's what's going to control the rest of your lives until you die.”

Vaccine Passport Is a Ticket to Tyranny, or Worse

Indeed, I’ve written several articles detailing how the tracking of vaccination status will usher in a surveillance apparatus greater than anything we’ve ever experienced before.

The precedent being set up right now is one that, in the future, will grant health authorities the “right” to force any number of experimental drugs, vaccines and technologies upon us in the name of public health. If the right to refuse an experimental medical procedure is not upheld now, the entire population of the earth will be available for experimentation without recourse.

But that’s not all. This initial vaccine surveillance system will ultimately be tied into other digital systems, such as all other medical records, biometric ID and an all-digital banking system.

The implementation of a Google-based social credit system, similar to that implemented in China in 2018, is also highly likely. Under a social credit system, points are awarded or subtracted for certain types of behavior. When your score falls below a certain point, punishment is meted out in the form of travel restrictions or the inability to obtain a loan, for example.

“Don't allow their system to come into force,” Yeadon says. “It's going to be used to coerce you. I believe if you allow a vaccine passport to come into force, you'll be pinged one day and it'll advise you to go to the medical center to have your top-up vaccine.

If you choose not to get your vaccine, your passport validity will expire, which means you won't be able to enter a shop. You may not be able to use your bank card. All somebody needs to do is set a rule that says ‘After a given a date, before any bank card can be used, a vaccine passport has to be [validated] …

I'm absolutely terrified that the combination of vaccine passports and top-up vaccines is going to lead to mass depopulation, deliberate execution, potentially of billions of people.

You can stop it once you've heard what I'm saying. Even if you like the idea of vaccine passports, put the thing in place using written records or something … but do not allow it to be on an interoperable global fixed-format database, because that will be the end of human freedoms. And I just see no way of recovering from that.”

from Articles https://ift.tt/2QmC2TW
via IFTTT

Trust WHO? Clandestine Influences Revealed

The World Health Organization was created in 1948, founded by 61 member states and financed from their contributions. It appeared to be a promising start, intended to end human suffering and save lives but, according to Robert Parsons, a journalist based in Geneva, Switzerland, where the WHO headquarters are based, “it was infiltrated by industry from the very start.”

Parsons is just one expert interviewed in “TrustWHO,” a documentary film produced by Lilian Franck that delves into the corruption behind the preeminent organization that’s being trusted with public health. It started in the 1950s, a time when the scientific evidence on the harms of smoking was emerging, and has continued through nuclear disasters and at least two pandemics — swine flu in 2009 and COVID-19 in 2020.

Tobacco Industry Infiltrated WHO

It’s well known that the tobacco industry launched a public relations campaign to undermine the emerging science and keep cigarettes in a favorable light with the public.¹ In its first decades, WHO did little to oppose it. As late as 1994, tobacco heads testified before U.S. congress, saying nicotine is not addictive.

Gradually, tobacco companies were required to publish their internal documents, which revealed their strategies to combat WHO. Among them was the Boca Raton Action Plan, which was developed by Philip Morris executives.² In regard to WHO, it stated, “This organization has extraordinary influence on government and consumers and we must find a way to diffuse this …”³

WHO, put under pressure, released a report in 2000 stating that the tobacco industry worked for many years to subvert WHO efforts to control tobacco use, noting, “The attempted subversion has been elaborate, well financed, sophisticated and usually invisible.”⁴

WHO special envoy Thomas Zeltner was among those who investigated the tobacco industry, finding that it founded institutes and bought scientists to represent their position without disclosing their industry ties.

One prominent name in the scandal is Paul Dietrich, a U.S. lawyer with close ties to the tobacco industry. While claiming to be an independent expert, Dietrich advised the tobacco industry, spoke at conferences and wrote articles against WHO. While receiving a monthly retainer from British American Tobacco, he was appointed to the development committee of the Pan American Health Organization, which serves as the WHO's regional office for the Americas, a BMJ report noted.⁵

While serving in this role, he convinced the Pan American Health Organization to focus on vaccines and cholera instead of tobacco control.⁶ Frank Sullivan is another example. He worked as a tobacco company consultant and, while challenging data that tobacco smoke was harmful, was also advising WHO.⁷

In 2000, the documentary notes, Sullivan’s collaboration with the tobacco industry became public, but he still continued to advise WHO. Franck requested to see Sullivan’s conflict of interest forms, which should have been on file, but they were never provided.

WHO’s Swine Flu Pandemic Plan Influenced by Big Pharma

The pharmaceutical industry has a similar history with the WHO, which became a glaring conflict during the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic. Secret agreements were made between Germany, Great Britain, Italy and France with the pharmaceutical industry before the H1N1 pandemic began, which stated that they would purchase H1N1 flu vaccinations — but only if a pandemic level 6 was declared by WHO.

The documentary shows how, six weeks before the pandemic was declared, no one at WHO was worried about the virus, but the media was nonetheless exaggerating the dangers. Then, in the month leading up to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, WHO changed the official definition of pandemic, removing the severity and high mortality criteria and leaving the definition of a pandemic as "a worldwide epidemic of a disease."⁸

This switch in definition allowed WHO to declare swine flu a pandemic after only 144 people had died from the infection worldwide, and it's why COVID-19 is still promoted as a pandemic even though plenty of data suggest the lethality of COVID-19 is on par with the seasonal flu.⁹

Kracken interviewed Marie-Paule Kieny, a French virologist who at the time was WHO’s assistant director-general but is now leading the organization’s Health Systems and Innovation cluster,¹⁰ asking her why severity was deleted from the criteria to declare a pandemic. She said:

“There was a series of meetings between experts in order to arrive at objective criteria for declaring a pandemic. It’s always difficult to talk about the severity of a disease, especially at the beginning.

The severity depends on the state of health of those who are infected. So the experts thought it would be better to proceed from objective criteria. Objective criteria mean that it can be proven whether transfer within the community is taking place and in how many countries this happens.”

WHO Drug Industry Ties Influenced Decision-Making

Before working at WHO, Kieny worked at the French pharmaceutical company Transgene S.A., not unlike many of the scientists advising WHO officials, who also had conflicts of interest with the industry. Transparency was a major problem, even for those on the inside.

In the documentary, German Velasquez, former WHO director in the public health department, stated that he and most of his colleagues were excluded from a meeting between the director-general and prospective vaccine manufacturers:

“I was head of department in the WHO and one of the Director-General’s closest associates — an important member of staff in the organization … Even though I was a leading official at the WHO responsible for an important topic that was under discussions there, I wasn’t allowed to enter. That demonstrates that there wasn’t enough transparency about what was being negotiated.”

The lack of transparency was investigated by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, which concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that the seriousness of the pandemic was vastly overrated by WHO,” and that the drug industry had influenced the organization’s decision-making, “resulting in a distortion of public health priorities.”¹¹

The Council of Europe demanded changes, but even though the WHO was found to have had serious conflicts of interest with the drug industry, nothing has actually changed since then. WHO can operate in clandestine ways because there’s no accountability.

In another example of WHO acting as little more than a Big Pharma front group, in 2019 a report — “Corrupting Influence: Purdue & the WHO”¹² — produced by U.S. Reps. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., and Hal Rogers, R-Ky., concluded Purdue Pharma had influenced WHO’s opioid guidelines.¹³

WHO Works Closely With the Nuclear Industry

In 1959 WHO signed an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is “promoting peaceful use of atomic energy,” making it subordinate to the agency in relation to ionizing radiation. The grassroots organization IndependentWHO is calling on WHO to revise the agreement and protect people who are victims of radioactive contamination.¹⁴

WHO has downplayed the health effects caused by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, stating that only 50 deaths were directly caused by the incident and “a total of up to 4,000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure” from the disaster.¹⁵

Ian Fairlie, an independent radiation biologist, published “The Other Report on Chernobyl” (TORCH),¹⁶ and estimated that 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths could occur, in addition to other health effects like cataracts, cardiovascular diseases and heritable effects that could influence future generations.

Keith Baverstock, a former radiation adviser for WHO, published a study in 1992 that linked a rise in thyroid cancer in children to Chernobyl.¹⁷ WHO told him to withdraw the paper, and threatened that his career would be shortened if he didn’t.

WHO’s response to the Fukushima radiation disaster in 2011 was also criticized, with evidence of a high-level coverup.¹⁸ WHO once again downplayed the risks, stating “the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated.”¹⁹

WHO Is a Slave to Its Funders

When it was founded, WHO could decide how to distribute its contributions. Now, 70% of its budget is tied to specific projects, countries or regions, which are dictated by the funders. It’s not a coincidence, then, that Bill Gates said of WHO, “Our priorities, are your priorities,” as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation became the biggest funder of WHO when Donald Trump stopped the U.S. funding of WHO. (The Biden administration has since reinstated the funding.)

Whether he comes in first or second in funding, Gates’ priorities are the backbone of WHO. “Humankind has never had a more urgent task than creating broad immunity for coronavirus,” Gates wrote on his blog in April 2020. “Realistically, if we’re going to return to normal, we need to develop a safe, effective vaccine. We need to make billions of doses, we need to get them out to every part of the world, and we need all of this to happen as quickly as possible.”²⁰

Gates has even stated he “suspect[s] the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule”²¹ and has gone on record saying the U.S. needs disease surveillance and a national tracking system²² that could involve vaccine records embedded on our bodies (such as invisible ink quantum dot tattoos described in a Science Translational Medicine paper).^23,²⁴

WHO COVID-19 Investigation Is Corrupt

WHO’s investigation into COVID-19 origins is also blatantly corrupt, as China was allowed to hand pick the members of the WHO’s investigative team, which includes Peter Daszak, Ph.D., who has close professional ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

The inclusion of Dazsak on this team virtually guaranteed the dismissal of the lab-origin theory from the very start, and, wouldn’t you know, WHO has now officially cleared WIV and two other biosafety level 4 laboratories in Wuhan, China, of wrongdoing, saying these labs had nothing to do with the COVID-19 outbreak.²⁵

Molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., laboratory director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology and member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee of Rutgers University and the Working Group on Pathogen Security of the state of New Jersey, called out the members of the WHO-instigated investigative team as “participants in disinformation.”²⁶

An open letter signed by 26 scientists is now demanding a full and unrestricted forensic investigation into the origins of the pandemic.²⁷

In response to growing critique, and in a similar move as occurred with Big Tobacco, WHO has now entered damage control mode with Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, while 13 other world leaders have joined the U.S. government in expressing “frustration with the level of access China granted an international mission to Wuhan.”²⁸

Given the strong and ongoing evidence that WHO is heavily influenced, if not outright controlled, by Bill Gates and industry, WHO’s usefulness as a guardian of public health needs to be reevaluated.

Decentralized pandemic planning — moving from the global and federal levels to the state and local levels — makes sense, as both medicine and government work best when individualized and locally oriented. As it stands, however, the opposite global agenda is being applied.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3btBOSi
via IFTTT

These Herbs and Spices Can Help Deter Diabetes

Based on estimates from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in 2005, the total prevalence of diabetes was estimated at 20.8 million people, or 7% of the population.¹ This rose dramatically by 2018, when the American Diabetes Association² reported 34.2 million people in the U.S. had diabetes. This represented 10.5% of the total population.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention³ estimates 1 in every 3 people in the U.S. has prediabetes, which numbered 88 million people in 2019. Diabetes is a metabolic condition in which your body develops insulin resistance.

Risk factors associated with Type 2 diabetes that are not modifiable include your age and family history. However, there is also a list of risk factors over which you do have some control. Some include weight, nutritional intake, high blood pressure, history of gestational diabetes, inactivity and a history of heart disease or stroke.⁴

Unfortunately, Type 2 diabetes is an epidemic in the U.S. Coincidentally, it is also a comorbidity that can increase your risk of contracting and even dying from COVID-19.⁵ Both high blood pressure and Type 2 diabetes have been implicated as underlying factors that increase your risk of serious illness with COVID. Yet, both can often be reversed by making healthy diet choices and lifestyle changes.

The nutritional choices you make are not always about what you cut out of your diet. Sometimes it is about what you add. Consider these next five herbs and spices that can help lower your blood sugar, four of which add flavor and punch to food.⁶

Cinnamon: The Scent of Fall

The Farmer’s Almanac calls cinnamon the “star spice of the fall season.”⁷ This spice has been used for thousands of years in cooking, as a fragrance and in medicine. However, it's important to be aware that there are over 250 different species of cinnamon,⁸ and they're not all created equally.

Most of the cinnamon found in the grocery store is known as Chinese cinnamon or cassia cinnamon. It tends to be less expensive and contains higher levels of coumarin. This is a powerful anticoagulant with potential carcinogenic and toxic properties.⁹

On the other hand, Ceylon cinnamon is less common, slightly more expensive and, importantly, has lower levels of coumarin. It is native to Southern India and Sri Lanka and claimed to be a “richer spice.”¹⁰ Cassia cinnamon is a reddish-brown color while Ceylon cinnamon is tan. While they can be used interchangeably, when used in larger amounts it is safer to use Ceylon cinnamon.

A diet high in net carbohydrates can lead to blood sugar levels higher than normal. This can progress to a condition known as prediabetes and then to Type 2 diabetes. A systematic review of literature¹¹ evaluating the use of cinnamon in people with diabetes was unable to find sufficient evidence to support its use to lower fasting blood glucose levels or A1c.

However, the lead researcher of a study in the Journal of the Endocrine Society¹² believed the issue was likely an interference between cinnamon and the medications people take to control their diabetes.¹³ For this reason, his group chose to focus only on people with prediabetes who were not yet taking medication.

When cinnamon supplements were given to the intervention group, they experienced improved fasting glucose levels after receiving a 500 milligram (mg) supplement of cinnamon for 12 weeks.¹⁴ Another study¹⁵ engaged 109 participants with Type 2 diabetes to measure whether cinnamon supplements plus usual care could lower patients’ hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) better than usual care alone.

The results showed those taking cinnamon had lower HbA1c by 0.83% as compared to those who underwent usual care. The researchers concluded this was statistically significant and may be useful in helping to lower HbA1c, which is a measurement of long-term blood sugar control.

A 2021 paper published in Frontiers in Plant Science¹⁶ reviewed past clinical studies using Ceylon cinnamon. Although there are no specific studies evaluating the effect it may have on the cytokine storm common in severe COVID-19, they hypothesized that “the strong anti-inflammatory properties of Ceylon cinnamon may mitigate this complication.”¹⁷

Additionally, the writers cite past research that concluded, “Our results demonstrate no significant side effects and toxicity of CZ [Cinnamomum zeylanicum], including hepatotoxicity and anti-coagulation properties.”¹⁸

A Powerful Punch From Ginger

Ginger (Zingiber officinale) is a spice commonly used in Indian and Chinese cooking; historically, the root was also used as a tonic to treat common ailments.¹⁹ Ginger is a herbaceous perennial plant with a slight biting taste that is often ground to flavor sauces, curry and ginger ale.²⁰ The root can also be used to make tea.

The plant grows just over 2 feet high and produces a cone-like flower with yellow edges. However, it is the underground rhizome or stem that is prized for its medicinal and flavor properties. Several studies have demonstrated the effect ginger has on improving insulin sensitivity and reducing fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c.

In one study published in 2014,²¹ researchers enrolled 70 Type 2 diabetic patients who received either 1,600 mg of ginger or a placebo for 12 weeks. Those who received the ginger showed improved insulin sensitivity and improved some fractions of their lipid profile.

A second study in 2015²² demonstrated similar results with 41 Type 2 diabetic patients who received 2 grams of ginger powder supplement per day for 12 weeks. Those getting the ginger supplement significantly reduced their HbA1c and fasting blood sugars as well as other serum measurements.

An animal study²³ demonstrated ginger was effective in reducing blood sugar and reversing diabetic proteinuria. In women with gestational diabetes,²⁴ ginger tablets lowered fasting blood sugar but did not influence their serum blood sugar measured two hours after a meal.

Compounds found in ginger are effective in reducing the inflammatory response. Several studies²⁵ have demonstrated the antioxidant and immunomodulatory effects of ginger that may help prevent and treat several types of cancer.

These include breast, gastrointestinal²⁶ and ovarian cancers,²⁷ primarily by inducing apoptosis, inhibiting proliferation of cancer cells and sensitizing tumors to radiotherapy and chemotherapy.²⁸

However, the most common and well-established use of ginger is to alleviate symptoms of nausea and vomiting. Ginger root performed as well as other drugs prescribed for seasickness in one study,²⁹ and was more effective than a placebo in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in another.³⁰

Lower Your Blood Sugar and Boost Your Brain With Rosemary

Rosemary is a fragrant, aromatic herb that's easily grown in your backyard or as an indoor herb garden. It's long been used as a medicinal herb that helps improve digestion and increase circulation.³¹

Carnosic acid is a bioactive compound found in rosemary extract that demonstrated the ability to reduce the risk of obesity and metabolic syndrome in an animal study.³² Over 12 weeks, the mice fed a dietary supplement of rosemary extract showed a significant reduction in body weight, percent of fat and improved insulin levels, among other improved metabolic measurements.

In a human trial³³ using 48 adult men and women, participants were given 2 grams, 5 grams or 10 grams of rosemary leaf powder per day for four weeks. Blood samples were analyzed at the beginning and end of the study for glucose levels, lipid profile and antioxidants.

The researchers found there was a significant decrease in blood glucose levels in a dose-dependent manner, with the greatest significant difference in those given 10 grams of rosemary leaf powder per day. Total cholesterol and triglyceride levels also were lower.

An extensive review of the literature³⁴ also documented the effects rosemary has against obesity, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Another study³⁵ found supplementing with rosemary had a significant effect on HbA1c and fasting blood glucose in patients with and without Type 2 diabetes.

Interestingly, rosemary also significantly improved levels of vitamin B12 in both groups. A second exciting benefit from the herb is the effect it has on improving cognition, even at lesser amounts you might use while cooking.³⁶

Researchers from Iwate University in Japan found that carnosic acid activates a signaling pathway that protects brain cells from free radicals and is activated by the free radical damage, which means it is not active until it’s needed.^37,38

Maple Scented Fenugreek Reduces Blood Sugar

Fenugreek is a plant from the peanut family. The seeds and leaves are used in cooking to flavor foods, beverages and tobacco.³⁹ Several studies have evaluated the effects fenugreek seeds may have on fasting blood sugar. In one study,⁴⁰ researchers found it had a synergistic effect with the diet to lower fasting blood sugar and HbA1c.

When evaluated in patients who used an oral hypoglycemic agent or insulin with diet and exercise to control Type 2 diabetes, the researchers found adding 10 grams of seeds soaked in hot water each day had the effect of lowering fasting blood sugar and HbA1c.

However, this effect was not noticeable until the fifth month for fasting blood sugar and the sixth month for HbA1c. Past studies had suggested the high fiber content in fenugreek led to a reduction in blood sugar, but the delayed effect in this study suggested there may be another mechanism at work.

A small study⁴¹ with 18 participants using powdered fenugreek did not demonstrate a significant change in fasting blood sugar. However, those taking the seeds soaked in hot water showed a 25% reduction in fasting blood sugar and a 30% reduction in triglycerides.

Historically, fenugreek seeds have been used to stimulate lactation. In one study,⁴² mothers using fenugreek increased milk output pumped each day by 2.47 ounces. Dr. Jack Newman, Canadian pediatrician, first published a prescribed protocol for women who wanted to breastfeed their adopted children.⁴³

The Surprising Benefits of Cannabis

The surprise in this group of herbs that help manage your blood sugar is cannabis. I have written about the history of cannabis and several articles about the many benefits to your health from the phytochemicals found in cannabis. These benefits include the treatment of epilepsy, tumor growths, inflammatory bowel disease and how it may even affect those infected with COVID-19.

Another area where the phytochemicals in cannabis offer great hope is in the treatment of pain. Cannabinoids often work where pharmaceutical drugs have failed, including in the treatment of pain from cancer⁴⁴ and chronic nerve pain.⁴⁵ A report⁴⁶ released in 2010 on 14 clinical studies using marijuana in the treatment for pain revealed that it not only controlled pain but, in many cases, did it better than pharmaceutical alternatives.

The 2018 Farm Bill⁴⁷ included a section that legalized the production of hemp. This is also a source of cannabidiol (CBD) and a variety of other phytochemicals. The botanical name for hemp and marijuana is Cannabis sativa. The difference is in the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) that produces the psychoactive effects. Under the Farm Bill, hemp contains less than 0.3% THC.⁴⁸

Hemp and marijuana are known by the name cannabis. One published study⁴⁹ evaluated data from the NHANES from 4,657 adult men and women. Marijuana use was assessed, and fasting insulin and blood sugar was measured.

The researchers found of the 579 current users and 1,975 past users, current use lowered fasting insulin levels by 16% and insulin resistance by 17%. Additionally, there was a significant link between use and a smaller waist circumference.

There is growing interest on analyzing the effect of cannabis on diabetes. Research from the American Alliance for Medical Cannabis suggested it may help with stabilizing blood sugar, preventing nerve inflammation and lowering blood pressure.⁵⁰

One published study⁵¹ postulated that tetrahydrocannabivarin and cannabidiol, two non-psychoactive phytocannabinoids found in cannabis, may affect glucose metabolism in an animal model.

The results demonstrated that tetrahydrocannabivarin significantly reduced fasting plasma glucose and was well tolerated by the subjects. For more strategies to help manage your blood sugar, see these articles:

from Articles https://ift.tt/3hnda9I
via IFTTT