This story is about a very brave researcher at Columbia University who co-authored a paper on risks associated with COVID vaccination (“vaccine-induced fatality rate”), in October 2021.
The researcher’s name is Spiro Pantazatos, Ph.D. He is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Neurobiology (Psychiatry) at Columbia University. He is also Research Scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. The title of his paper (a preprint) is “COVID vaccination and age-stratified all-cause mortality risk”:
“Accurate estimates of COVID vaccine-induced severe adverse event and death rates are critical for risk-benefit ratio analyses of vaccination and boosters against SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in different age groups. However, existing surveillance studies are not designed to reliably estimate life-threatening event or vaccine-induced fatality rates (VFR).
Here, regional variation in vaccination rates was used to predict all-cause mortality and non-COVID deaths in subsequent time periods using two independent, publicly available datasets from the US and Europe (month-and week-level resolutions, respectively).”
Currently Dr. Pantazatos is trying to fund a home for this paper but all journals where he submitted it have declined so far.
Dr. Pantazatos was interviewed for the “Perspectives on the Pandemic” series, and in my opinion, the interview came out stunning (with a disclaimer that the topic is gruesome, so it’s a stunning interview about a horrible thing). Dr. Pantazatos’ presentation is so graceful and even-headed that it could be “the” video to send to your friends who have been calling you crazy all this time!
Dr. Pantazatos’ Initial COVID Position Was 100% “Mainstream”
Early in the pandemic, Dr. Pantazatos was very moved by the vivid images that the media was feeding us — and, as a result, he became terrified of the virus. His initial plan was to lockdown inside his house until the vaccines came out.
What Compelled Him to Get More Skeptical
But then he started looking at data presented by scientists like John Ioannidis, for example, and he quickly realized that the situation was different from the one painted by the media.
Then Dr. Pantazatos’ co-author on this paper, Herve Seligmann, came up with an analysis of European data showing a consistent trend where a vaccination campaign seemed to be accompanied by an increase in all-cause mortality during the month following the vaccination campaign.
Dr. Pantazatos didn’t like that conclusion very much as it implied the unthinkable, and so he decided to do his own analysis based on the U.S. data (vaccinations and all-cause mortality), published by the CDC. And when he did his analysis using the U.S. data, it showed the same trend. His analysis of the CDC data showed that following a vaccination campaign in a given locality, there was an increase in all-cause mortality during the following month, followed by a decrease.
In Dr. Pantazatos’ opinion, the risk associated with COVID injections is comparable to the risk associated with getting COVID — if the risk associated with COVID is assessed at the high, early-in-the-pandemic level. And given that the two risks are comparable, and the injection risks seem to increase with each subsequent does — and the pharma companies are pushing for boosters from here into the horizon — he believes that we really need to discuss the VFR.
Why Rejection From the Journals Then?
Interestingly, Dr. Pantazatos mentioned in the interview that even before 2020, he was well aware of the fact that the process of getting scientific works published in prestigious journals was tainted. He referred to the 2005 article in “PLOS Medicine” called, “Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies” that talked about how exactly the journals are incentivized by pharma companies.
Furthermore, scientists themselves have developed a habit of trading total integrity of research for the prestige and benefits of having their works published — and so even before 2020, it was not uncommon for researchers to “massage” the angle etc. in order to fit in. From myself, I would like to add the following quote from the Lancet:
“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness,” wrote Richard Horton, the Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet in 2015.
Dr. Pantazatos is not shy at all about sharing his analysis, and he is also tremendously graceful and humble when presenting it. Personally, I am very impressed by Dr. Pantazatos’ scientific integrity and his ability to actually “follow the science” — as well as by the grace with which he presents this rather ugly topic.
He believes the issue is important, and speaking out is crucial. His message for other scientists is to find their voice and stop being silent.
This article was previously published May 8, 2019, and has been updated with new information.
Are artificial sweeteners such as Splenda still part of your daily diet? If so, I would strongly recommend reconsidering. It's important to realize that while artificial sweeteners have no (or very few) calories, they are still metabolically active,1 and not in a beneficial way.
For example, research2,3 published in the online version of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health August 21, 2018, shows sucralose — sold under brand names such as Splenda, Splenda Zero, Zero-Cal, Sukrana, Apriva, SucraPlus, Candys, Cukren and Nevella — is metabolized and accumulates in fat cells.
Remarkably, artificial sweeteners have become so ubiquitous, research4 published in the April 2019 issue of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety refers to them as an "emerging" environmental contaminant, noting they have "high water persistence."
According to this paper, artificial sweeteners are chemically stable in the environment and water supplies appear to be at greatest risk for contamination. The researchers looked at 24 environmental studies assessing the presence of artificial sweeteners in the environment from 38 locations around the world, including Europe, Canada, the U.S. and Asia.
"Overall, the quantitative findings suggested that the occurrence of non-nutritive artificial sweeteners is present in surface water, tap water, groundwater, seawater, lakes and atmosphere," the paper states. What the ultimate ramifications for wildlife, especially marine life, and human health might be are still anyone's guess.
Artificial Sweeteners Promote Obesity, Diabetes and More
As explained in the 2016 paper,5 "Metabolic Effects of Non-Nutritive Sweeteners," many studies have linked artificial sweeteners to an increased risk for obesity, insulin resistance, Type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. This is in stark contrast to what you're told by industry, which continues to promote artificial sweeteners as a way to lower your risk of those conditions.
The paper presents several mechanisms by which artificial sweeteners promote metabolic dysfunction:
1. They interfere with learned responses that contribute to glucose control and energy homeostasis — Studies have demonstrated that when sweet taste and caloric intake are mismatched, your body loses its ability to properly regulate your blood sugar.
2. They interact with sweet-taste receptors expressed in digestive system that play a role in glucose absorption and trigger insulin secretion, thereby inducing both glucose intolerance and insulin resistance, which raises your risk of obesity. Sweet taste without calories also increases appetite6 and subjective hunger ratings.7
3. They destroy your gut microbiota — A 2008 study8 revealed sucralose (Splenda) reduced gut bacteria by as much as 49.8%, preferentially targeting bacteria known to have important human health benefits. Consuming as few as seven little Splenda packets may be enough to have a detrimental effect on your gut microbiome.
More recent research,9 published in the journal Molecules in October 2018, confirmed and expanded these findings, showing that all currently approved artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, saccharin, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-k) disrupt the gut microbiome — in part by damaging the bacteria's DNA, and in part by interfering with their normal activities.
Another 201810 found Splenda consumption may exacerbate gut inflammation and intensify symptoms in people with Crohn's disease by promoting harmful gut bacteria. These results echoed those published in 2014,11 where they found Splenda may exacerbate symptoms of Crohn's disease by augmenting "inflammatory activity at the biochemical level" and altering microbial-host interactions within the intestinal mucosa.
Similarly, research12 published in 2017 implicated sucralose in chronic liver inflammation by altering "the developmental dynamics of the gut microbiome."
Why You Should Never Cook With Splenda
Splenda (sucralose) is frequently recommended for cooking and baking,13 and is often used in processed foods in which high heat was involved. This, despite the fact that scientists have warned about the dangers of heating sucralose for years.
In the 2013 paper,14 "Sucralose, a Synthetic Organochloride Sweetener: Overview of Biological Issues," the authors state that "Cooking with sucralose at high temperatures … generates chloropropanols, a potentially toxic class of compounds." This paper also warns the acceptable daily intake set for sucralose may in fact be hundreds of times too high to ensure safety.
The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) recently issued a report15 on the available data on sucralose, confirming that cooking with sucralose is likely a terrible idea, as chlorinated compounds are formed at high temperatures. As reported by MedicalXpress:16
"When sucralose (E 955) is heated to temperatures higher than 120 degrees C a gradual — and with further continuously increasing temperature — decomposition and dechlorination of the sweetener occurs.
Temperatures of between 120 degrees C [248 degrees Fahrenheit] and 150 degrees C [302 degrees F] are possible during industrial manufacturing and processing of foods, and are also reached in private households during cooking and baking of foods containing sucralose.
This may lead to the formation of chlorinated organic compounds with a health-damaging potential, such as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD), dibenzofurans (PCDF) and chloropropanols."
Chloropropanols, while still poorly understood, are believed to have adverse effects on your kidneys and may have carcinogenic effects.17 One good reason to be suspicious of chloropropanols is because they're part of a class of toxins known as dioxins, and dioxins are known to cause cancer and endocrine disruption.
The fact that sucralose creates toxic dioxins when heated is also a concern for those who use vaping liquid containing this artificial sweetener. A 2017 study18 found sucralose contributes sweet taste only when used in a cartridge system, and chemical analysis showed the use of a cartridge system also raised the concentration of sucralose in the aerosol.
I find it interesting that these studies are now confirming what I suspected and published in my book, published over 10 years ago — "Sweet Deception" — which was an expose on Splenda.
Sucralose Shown to Have Carcinogenic Potential
Research19 published in 2016 in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health tested the carcinogenic potential of sucralose by adding it to mouse feed, at various concentrations, starting at 12 days of gestation and continuing throughout their natural life span.
Results showed male mice experienced a significant dose-related increase in malignant tumors and hematopoietic neoplasias (cancer of the blood, bone marrow and the lymphatic system). The dosages tested were 0, 500, 2,000, 8,000 and 16,000 parts per million (ppm). The worst results occurred in males given 2,000 ppm and 16,000 ppm. According to the authors:
"These findings do not support previous data that sucralose is biologically inert. More studies are necessary to show the safety of sucralose, including new and more adequate carcinogenic bioassay on rats. Considering that millions of people are likely exposed, follow-up studies are urgent."
Pregnant Women Beware
More recent research,20 published in 2018, revealed the artificial sweeteners sucralose and acesulfame-potassium transfer into breast milk — a crucial fact that pregnant women need to be mindful of, considering the harmful effects of these compounds. To determine whether the sweeteners could transfer into breast milk, the researchers enrolled 34 women who were exclusively breastfeeding.
Each of the women drank 12 ounces of Diet Rite Cola, which contains 68 milligrams (mg) of sucralose and 41 mg of acesulfame-potassium, before breakfast. Habitual use of artificial sweeteners was also assessed via a diet questionnaire. Breast milk samples were collected before ingestion and every hour thereafter for six hours. As reported by the authors:
"Owing to one mother having extremely high concentrations, peak sucralose and acesulfame-potassium concentrations following ingestion of diet soda ranged from 4.0 to 7387.9 ng/mL and 299.0 to 4764.2 ng/mL, respectively."
This is believed to be the first time researchers have demonstrated that infants are in fact exposed to artificial sweeteners even when exclusively breastfed (if the mother consumes them). An accompanying commentary21 by pediatric experts notes:
"NNS [non-nutritive sweeteners] were present in the breast milk of all subjects in physiologically significant amounts, and … at concentrations well above the taste thresholds. Why is this important?
NNS or non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NCAS) are ubiquitous in the modern diet … Despite the approval by the FDA and European Food Safety Authority, concerns, admittedly largely unproven, persist about their safety … The concerns about NNS are three-fold.
First, that they may adversely alter taste preferences. Second, that the ultimate effect may be contrary to what is intended and their ingestion may increase food consumption. Third, that they may adversely alter the gut bacterial microbiome and its metabolites.
All of these concerns are magnified with early exposure in life. The evidence to support these concerns is either inductive or based on experimental models and emerging human data."
'Diet' Beverages Linked to Risk of Stroke and Heart Attack
Another 2018 study22 by the American Heart Association (AHA) found that, compared to drinking none or just one "diet" drink per week, women over 50 who drank two or more artificially sweetened beverages per day had a:23
31% increased risk for ischemic stroke
29% increased risk of coronary heart disease
23% increased risk of all types of stroke
16% increased risk of early death
The risk is particularly high for women with no previous history of heart disease, those who are obese and/or African-American women. The study included more than 81,714 women from the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study, a longitudinal study of the health of 93,676 postmenopausal women between the ages of 50 and 79. The mean follow-up time was close to 11.9 years. According to the authors:
"In women with no prior history of cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus, high consumption of ASB [artificially-sweetened beverages] was associated with more than a twofold increased risk of small artery occlusion ischemic stroke … High consumption of ASBs was associated with significantly increased risk of ischemic stroke in women with body mass index ≥30 …"
In an accompanying editorial,24 "Artificial Sweeteners, Real Risks," Hannah Gardener, assistant scientist in the department of neurology at the University of Miami, and Dr. Michell Elkind at Columbia University, suggest drinking pure water instead of no-calories sweetened beverages, as it is by far the safest and healthiest low-calorie drink there is.
If you want some flavor, just squeeze a little bit of fresh lemon or lime into mineral water. In instances where your cooking, baking or beverage needs a little sweetener, be mindful of your choice.
Sucralose Linked to Liver, Kidney and Thymus Damage
Other recent research25 published in the journal Morphologie found sucralose caused "definite changes" in the liver of treated rats, "indicating toxic effects on regular ingestion." The researchers warn these findings suggest sucralose should be "taken with caution to avoid hepatic damage."
In other words, regularly using Splenda could damage your liver. Here, adult rats were given a much higher (yet nonlethal) oral dose of sucralose — 3 grams (3,000 mg) per kilo body mass per day for 30 days, after which the animals' livers were dissected and compared to the livers of unexposed controls. According to the authors:
"Experimental rats showed features of patchy degeneration of hepatocytes along with Kupffer cells hyperplasia, lymphocytic infiltration, sinusoidal dilatation and fibrosis indicating a definite hepatic damage on regular ingestion of sucralose. Sinusoidal width was also found to be increased in experimental animals as compared to controls."
Studies have also linked sucralose consumption to liver and kidney enlargement26,27 and kidney calcification.28,29 Another organ affected by sucralose is your thymus, with studies linking sucralose consumption to shrinkage of the thymus (up to 40%30,31) and an increase in leukocyte populations (immune system cells) in the thymus and lymph nodes.32
Sucralose Safety Has Been Repeatedly Questioned
As of April 12, 2022, there are 21,800 references to sucralose in the scientific search engine Google Scholar, so there's no shortage of studies to review if you're curious. Here's a small sampling of papers raising questions about the safety of this artificial sweetener.
Artificial Sweetener Such as Sucralose May Promote Inflammation in Human Subcutaneous Fat-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells, 201733— Research presented at GW Annual Research Days in 2017 shows sucralose consumption caused an increase in superoxide accumulation and cellular inflammation.
The sweetener also Increased expression of a specific sweet taste receptor. According to the researchers, "upregulation of adipogenic genes … cultured in near physiological concentrations of sucralose, indicate possible causality between increased fat deposition and sweetener use."
The Non-Caloric Sweeteners Aspartame, Sucralose and Stevia sp. Induce Specific but Differential Responses to Compartmentalized Adipose Tissue Accumulation, 201734— In this study, consumption of sucralose resulted in weight gain and elevated blood glucose and body fat accumulation.
Sucralose Activates an ERK1/2–Ribosomal Protein S6 Signaling Axis, 201635— Sucralose was found to stimulate insulin secretion much like glucose, but through completely different and poorly understood pathways. According to the authors, these findings "will have implications for diabetes."
Changes in the Expression of Cell Surface Markers in Spleen Leukocytes in a Murine Model of Frequent Sucralose Intake, 201636— This study found frequent sucralose intake may affect your immune function. According to the authors:
"Our results show a decrease in the frequency of B lymphocyte population and T lymphocytes in comparison to the control group. In B and T lymphocytes the analysis of co-stimulatory molecules show a lower frequency compared to the control group. The immune response depends on the differentiation and activation of cellular populations.
We hypothesized that chronic ingestion of commercial sucralose might be affecting the immune response by modifying the frequencies of cellular populations, as well as the expression of co-stimulatory and inhibitory molecules … by decreasing the ability of co-stimulation between B an T lymphocytes, with a probable effect on the immune response.
It is necessary to further determine if sucralose intake affects the efficiency of the immune response."
Popular Sweetener Sucralose as a Migraine Trigger, 200637— As noted by the authors, "This observation of a potential causal relationship between sucralose and migraines may be important for physicians to remember this can be a possible trigger during dietary history taking.
Identifying further triggers for migraine headaches, in this case sucralose, may help alleviate some of the cost burden (through expensive medical therapy or missed work opportunity) as well as provide relief to migraineurs."
Healthier Sugar Substitutes
Two of the best sugar substitutes are Stevia and Lo Han Kuo (also spelled Luo Han Guo). Stevia, a highly sweet herb derived from the leaf of the South American stevia plant, is sold as a supplement. It's completely safe in its natural form and can be used to sweeten most dishes and drinks.
Lo Han Kuo is similar to Stevia, but is my personal favorite. I use the Lakanto brand vanilla flavor which is a real treat for me. The Lo Han fruit has been used as a sweetener for centuries, and is about 200 times sweeter than sugar.
A third alternative is to use pure glucose, also known as dextrose. Dextrose is only 70% as sweet as sucrose, so you'll end up using a bit more of it for the same amount of sweetness, making it slightly more expensive than regular sugar. But, it is safer than regular sugar, which is 50% fructose.
So, dextrose is well worth it for your health as it does not contain any fructose whatsoever. Contrary to fructose, glucose can be used directly by every cell in your body and as such is a far safer sugar alternative.
In the video above, finance expert Mark Moss, coauthor of “The UNcommunist Manifesto” and founder of Market Disruptors, interviews me about simple strategies with big payoffs, in terms of health, which I believe is the greatest asset of all. Without health, you won’t be able to protect your freedom or enjoy your wealth.
I will be speaking at Mark Moss’ Market Disruptors Live event in Dallas, Texas, May 6 through May 8, 2022. The conference will cover topics like how to increase your wealth using little-known alternative asset classes, how the central banks’ plans will affect you, and how to increase personal freedom by bulletproofing your assets so you won’t get caught up in The Great Reset.
So, if you want to connect with me in person, this would be a great opportunity as I will be there for the entire event.
The Oil Industry Vanquished True Medicine a Century Ago
In the beginning of the interview, I touch on how the medical industry was vanquished 112 years ago by John D. Rockefeller, who became the world’s first billionaire after founding Standard Oil in 1870.
John’s father was William Avery Rockefeller, an authentic “snake oil salesman” who conned people into buying his useless “Rock Oil” tonic for cancer — a mixture of laxative and petroleum. Avery once admitted he would cheat his children every chance he got, in order to “make ‘em sharp.”1
John D. learned the lessons of duplicity and fraud well, and by the time he was 40, he controlled 90% of the global oil refineries. Within another few years (early 1880s), he also controlled 90% of the marketing of oil, and one-third of all oil wells.
Together with General Motors, Rockefeller secretly bought up and dismantled the public transportation system in the U.S., to promote the need for a family car. They also replaced electric streetcars with gas-guzzling busses to expand their petroleum business.
In 1902, Rockefeller funded the establishment of the General Education Board, through which he intended to control public education. Other oil-backed schemes to mold and reshape the American education system followed, including a scheme to alter the teaching of American history to promote a view of collectivism, as well as a program culminating in the transformation of the practice of medicine.
Naturopathic-based herbal medicine was the norm at that time, and Rockefeller set out to shift the medical industry toward using oil-derived pharmaceuticals. To this end, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research was established in 1901, headed up by Simon Flexner.
Simon’s brother, Abraham, was contracted to write a report on the state of the American medical education system, and his study, The Flexner Report,2 published in 1910, paved the way for Rockefeller to completely overhaul the American medical system.
Naturopathic and homeopathic medicine — anything that couldn’t be patented — was abolished. Natural remedies and known cures were dismissed as quackery. The only medicines deemed reputable were patentable synthetic drugs, invented in the oil cartel’s own research centers.
The Rockefeller Legacy of Monopolized Control
Around the same time, the oil cartel also found a way to take over and control the U.S. financial system, through the creation of the Federal Reserve, established in 1913. The Rockefeller’s have been powerbrokers in the banking industry ever since. In the 1950s, James Stillman Rockefeller, the grandson of John D.’s brother, became the head of National City Bank, while David Rockefeller, John D.’s grandson, took over Chase Manhattan Bank.
They also sought to consolidate control over the global food supply, using philanthropy as their cover for the takeover. The Rockefeller Foundation funded the Green Revolution that led to the introduction of petroleum-based agricultural chemicals, which quickly transformed agriculture, both in the U.S. and abroad.
President Johnson’s “Food for Peace” program actually mandated the use of petroleum-dependent technologies and chemicals by aid recipients, and countries that could not afford it were granted loans from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The Rockefeller Foundation also funded the “gene revolution” that brought us patentable genetically modified seeds.
Today, The Rockefeller Foundation is part of The Great Reset cast, which seeks to gain total control over every person in the world — financially, medically, physically and psychologically.
The Path of Health
I, like many other physicians, were thoroughly brainwashed in medical school. I bought the Rockefeller-invented paradigm hook, line and sinker, and ran a conventional medical practice, prescribing drugs and vaccines, for about five years.
I eventually woke up, realizing these “remedies” did nothing to address the root cause of any disease, and started educating myself about nutrition and foundational health practices, which have been my focus ever since. It’s a never-ending journey of learning, and I’ve experimented a lot through the years. Oftentimes, the devil’s in the details when it comes to various strategies.
For example, as I mention in the interview, I focused my exercise almost exclusively on cardio during my youth and became a decent marathon runner. Today, I realize that was a big mistake, as you can get most of your cardio requirement through strength training, if done properly.
Building muscle is by far one of the most important things you can do to improve and safeguard your health. While there’s certainly benefit to cardiovascular exercise — mitochondrial biogenesis, for example — resistance training is far more foundational to your long-term health, because skeletal muscle is the organ of longevity.
The greater your muscle mass, the higher your survivability against all diseases, including cancer. It really optimizes you for longevity. Why? Because you need protein reserves to survive serious disease, and most of your protein is stored in muscle. If you have very little muscle, you're going to pass away prematurely because you have no amino acid reserves.
Your muscle is also a primary regulator of your metabolism. It’s a primary site for glucose disposal because of the GLUT4 insulin receptors embedded in the muscle cell membranes. These receptors lower your glucose levels after a meal and decrease your risk for diabetes. It also interfaces with your immune system and helps optimize it.
It is never too late to start resistance training. You can build muscle mass after 60, which is about when I started, and last week, as you can see in the video below, I set a new personal record in the leg press for 600 pounds, which I believe is better than the 400-pound deadlift I did last year.
However, as I note in the interview, our ancestors didn’t need a gym because they were engaged in heavy manual labor on a near-daily basis. That is certainly not something I do and I suspect few of you engage in, hence the need to substitute in regular exercise/work to stay healthy.
Our ancestors were using and strengthening their muscles well into old age. They worked on farms and in factories, they walked and bicycled distances most won’t even consider nowadays. The only reason most people today need to schedule in exercise is because they’re not doing manual labor; worse, they’re barely moving at all.
How to Optimize Your Exercise Benefits
If you really want to optimize your exercise, implement time-restricted eating (TRE) and exercise while fasting. TRE involves eating all your meals and snacks within a six- to eight-hour window each day, making sure your last meal is at least three hours before bedtime, and then fasting for the remaining 16 to 18 hours. In this scenario, you’d exercise sometime in the morning, and then break your fast afterward.
TRE will also make you metabolically flexible, so that you can burn both fat and carbs. If you’re constantly hungry, chances are you’re metabolically inflexible and cannot efficiently burn fat. Your body is basically just screaming for another quick energy fix, because carbs burn fast and when they’re gone, you need more. Once your body can efficiently burn fat, hunger usually just disappears.
The Benefits of Near-Infrared
Directly post-exercise is also an ideal time to do sauna therapy. I advise caution when using cryotherapy together with exercise, because if you jump into an ice bath after strenuous exercise, you’ll actually abort the production of inflammatory reactors of the exercise, and those inflammatory reactors are what trigger the benefits from the exercise.
Sauna therapy has many important health benefits. For example, it can ease pain, kill disease-causing viruses, improve cardiovascular health and facilitate detoxification of heavy metals and other toxins.
My preference is near-infrared saunas rather than far-infrared, as it penetrates deeper and therefore can release toxins more efficiently. Even more importantly, 95% of melatonin is produced in your mitochondria in response to near-infrared light. The melatonin released by your pineal gland account for just 5% of the melatonin in your body.
Mitochondria are tiny organelles found in most of your cells responsible for cellular energy production, and mitochondrial dysfunction is a root cause of most chronic disease. Melatonin, meanwhile, is a very powerful antioxidant that reduces oxidative stress. By mopping up free radicals, melatonin reduces damage to the mitochondria and helps them work optimally.
Melatonin also helps increase glutathione, which is a major detoxification agent. Importantly, NONE of the oral melatonin you take will ever make its way into the mitochondria. Oral melatonin can help regulate sleep, when taken at the appropriate time (in the evening, shortly before bed), but it will not do anything for your mitochondria.
The only thing that will trigger that is near-infrared light. Of course, the best source of near-infrared light is natural sunshine, which brings us to another foundational health habit: sun exposure.
The Importance of Sun Exposure
While melatonin production is triggered by the near-infrared light in sunlight, ultraviolet B (UVB) rays trigger the production of vitamin D in your skin. Ideally, you would not take any oral vitamin D at all, getting you needs fulfilled from sensible sun exposure.
This is entirely possible if you live close enough to the equator. I’ve lived in Florida for nearly 12 years now and have not needed to supplement with oral vitamin D since I moved here from Chicago.
Sun exposure also activates vitamin A (retinol), forming active metabolites called retinoids. (Beta carotene, which many mistakenly believe is vitamin A, is a precursor to vitamin A.) Vitamin A is just as important as vitamin D for health, especially immune health, but it has to be the active form.
The Danger of High Iron
Another crucially important health strategy is to make sure you don’t have high iron. Most men and postmenopausal women have high iron, largely thanks to so many processed foods being “fortified” with dangerous forms of iron like iron fillings, and the fact that there’s no pathway of elimination other than blood loss.
Stored iron is incredibly damaging to all of your internal systems as it promotes oxidative stress. It’s also one of the most common causes of fatigue because of how it impairs the mitochondrial production of energy.
I first became aware of the danger of excess iron over 30 years ago when I diagnosed my dad with hemochromatosis. His ferritin level was close to 1,000. He had beta thalassemia, which predisposed him to iron accumulation. I inherited that from my father and my ferritin was also in the 100s in the 1980s.
I mentioned that mitochondria produce cellular energy, but they’re also crucial recycling centers. Iron has a terminal destination in the mitochondria and must be recycled. However, for that to occur, you must have enough copper, and most people don’t. As a result, the iron gets “stuck” and cannot be recycled.
So, a low ferritin level is not necessarily a sign that you need iron. You may already have too much stored, seeing how the average person accumulates about 1 milligram of iron a day, but it’s not being recycled due to a copper deficiency. This is why many get into a vicious cycle. They’re told they have low iron and need iron supplementation, but the problem is really a copper deficiency. So, they keep loading in iron, and their health suffers as a result.
The good news is that high iron is easy to address. All you need to do is donate blood. If donating a full pint (half a liter) of blood three to four times a year is problematic, you can remove blood in smaller amounts once a month on the schedule listed below. If you have congestive heart failure or severe COPD, you should discuss this with your doctor, but otherwise this is a fairly appropriate recommendation for most.
Men
Postmenopausal Women
Premenopausal Women
150 ml
100 ml
50 ml
A Recipe for Disaster
I now believe high iron may be the No. 1 most harmful health mistake, closely followed by seed oil consumption. Combined, they’re a recipe for disaster. The primary problem with seed oils is that they’re loaded with linoleic acid (an omega-6 fat), which acts as a metabolic poison when consumed in excess.3 This is the topic of my next book, “The LA Diet,” which should be out later this year.
Seed oils, courtesy of the LA, are incredibly proinflammatory4 and drive oxidation in your body. This oxidation, in turn, triggers mitochondrial dysfunction that then drives the disease process.5,6,7,8,9,10,11 Anything over 10 to 15 grams a day is likely to cause problems in the long run, and the average American is eating 80 grams a day.
A main problem is that your body breaks down LA into harmful sub-components called advanced lipid oxidation end products (ALEs) and oxidized LA metabolites (OXLAMs), which can cause significant damage at the cellular level. For example, an ALE called 4HNE is a mutagen known to cause DNA damage, and OXLAMs are cytotoxic, genotoxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, thrombogenic, atherogenic and obesogenic.12
LA breaks down into 4HNE faster when the oil it is contained in is heated,13 which is why cardiologists recommend avoiding fried foods. In addition to all of that, most seed oils are made from genetically engineered crops, making them a significant source of toxic glyphosate.
As explained in the interview, seed oils can also make sun exposure more dangerous. The LA gets incorporated into your cellular membranes (where they can remain for up to seven years), and if you have high levels of LA in your cells, you’re going to be more prone to both sunburn and skin cancer. So, how do you cut seed oils out of your diet? Top culprits to minimize or eliminate include:
Vegetable oils or seed oils used in cooking
Processed foods, especially sauces, dressings and other condiments
All restaurant foods (not just fast food), as most will cook the food in seed oil, not butter or lard
Conventionally raised chicken and pork (both are high in LA due to being fed omega-6 grains14)
Most seeds and nuts (most, with the exception of macadamia nuts are loaded with LA)
Bread and other grain products
Take-Home Summary
So, in summary, a handful of strategies that can go a long way toward improving and safeguarding your health, giving you lots of bang for your buck (figuratively speaking, as they’re all free!) are, in no particular order:
Avoiding seed oils
TRE
Donating blood to lower your stored iron
Strength training to build muscle, and exercising in a fasted state
Getting regular sun exposure on large portions of your body
Federal funding for biomedical research has a 'ripple effect' of stimulating new studies even beyond the original purposes of a grant and may provide unexpected benefits, a new study suggests.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/ik9pltY
For years, the brain has been thought of as a biological computer that processes information through traditional circuits, whereby data zips straight from one cell to another. While that model is still accurate, a new study shows that there's also a second, very different way that the brain parses information: through the interactions of waves of neural activity. The findings help researchers better understand how the brain processes information.
from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/08LBq2M
