Health & Fitness

A May 2021 project report by the U.K. Ministry of Defense, created in partnership with the German Bundeswehr Office for Defense Planning, offers shocking highlights of the dystopian cybernetics future that global technocrats are pushing mankind toward.

The report, “Human Augmentation — The Dawn of a New Paradigm, a Strategic Implications Project,”¹ reviews the scientific goals of the U.K. and German defense ministries, and they are precisely what the title suggests. Human augmentation is stressed as being a key area to focus on in order to win future wars.

But human augmentation will not be restricted to the military ranks. It’s really a way to further separate classes of humans, with the rich and powerful elite being augmented “super-humans.” It’s worth noting that anything released to the public is a decade or more behind current capabilities, so everything in this report can be considered dated news, even though it reads like pure science fiction.

“... the field of human augmentation has the potential to transform society, security and defense over the next 30 years,” the report states. “We must begin to understand the implications of these changes and shape them to our advantage now, before they are thrust upon us.

Technology in warfare has traditionally centered on increasingly sophisticated platforms that people move and fight from, or artefacts that they wear or wield to fight with. Advances in the life sciences and converging developments in related fields are, however, beginning to blur the line between technology and the human ...

Many technologies that have the potential to deliver strategic advantage out to 2050 already exist and further advances will undoubtedly occur ... Our potential adversaries will not be governed by the same ethical and legal considerations that we are, and they are already developing human augmentation capabilities.

Our key challenge will be establishing advantage in this field without compromising the values and freedoms that underpin our way of life ...

When we think of human augmentation it is easy to imagine science fiction inspired suits or wonder drugs that produce super soldiers, but we are on the cusp of realizing the benefits in a range of roles now. Human augmentation will help to understand, optimize and enhance performance leading to incremental, as well as radical, improvements.”

Changing What It Means To Be Human

As noted in the report, “Human augmentation has the potential to ... change the meaning of what it means to be a human.” This is precisely what Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), has stated is the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution.²

WEF has been at the center of global affairs for more than 40 years, and if you take the time to dive into WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution material, you realize that it’s all about transhumanism. It’s about the merger of man and machine. This is a dystopian future WEF and its global allies are actively trying to implement, whether humanity at large agrees with it or not.

Schwab dreams of a world in which humans are connected to the cloud, able to access the internet through their own brains. This, of course, also means that your brain would be accessible to people who might like to tinker with your thoughts, emotions, beliefs and behavior, be they the technocratic elite themselves or random hackers. As noted by history professor Yuval Noah Harari in late 2019, “humans are now hackable animals.”³ As noted in the featured report:⁴

“Human augmentation will become increasingly relevant, partly because it can directly enhance human capability and behavior and partly because it is the binding agent between people and machines.

Future wars will be won, not by those with the most advanced technology, but by those who can most effectively integrate the unique capabilities of both people and machines. The importance of human-machine teaming is widely acknowledged but it has been viewed from a techno-centric perspective.

Human augmentation is the missing part of this puzzle. Thinking of the person as a platform and understanding our people at an individual level is fundamental to successful human augmentation.”

Key words I’d like to draw your attention to is the affirmation that human augmentation can “directly enhance behavior.” Now, if you can enhance behavior, that means you can change someone’s behavior. And if you can change a person’s behavior in a positive way, you can also control it to the person’s own detriment.

Theoretically, absolutely anyone, any random civilian with a brain-to-cloud connection and the needed biological augmentation (such as strength or speed) could be given wireless instructions to carry out an assassination, for example, and pull it off flawlessly, even without prior training.

Alternatively, their physical body could temporarily be taken over by a remote operator with the prerequisite skills. Proof of concept already exists, and is reviewed by Dr. Charles Morgan, professor in the department of national security at the University of New Haven, in the lecture below. Using the internet and brain implants, thoughts can be transferred from one person to another. The sender can also directly influence the physical movements of the receiver.

The Human Platform

On page 12 of the report, the concept of the human body as a platform is described, and how various parts of the human platform can be augmented. For example:

• Physical performance such as strength, dexterity, speed and endurance can be enhanced, as well as physical senses. One example given is gene editing for enhanced sight
• Psychological performance such as cognition, emotion and motivation can be influenced to activate and direct desired behavior. Examples of cognitive augmentation include improving memory, attention, alertness, creativity, understanding, decision-making, intelligence and vigilance
• Social performance — “the ability to perceive oneself as part of a group and the readiness to act as part of the team” — can be influenced. Communication skills, collaboration and trust are also included here

They list several different ways to influence the physical, psychological and social performance of the “human platform,” including genetics (germ line and somatic modification), the gut microbiome, synthetic biology, invasive (internal) and noninvasive (external) brain interfaces, passive and powered exoskeletons, herbs, drugs and nano technology, neurostimulation, augmented reality technologies such as external holograms or glasses with built-in artificial intelligence, and sensory augmentation technologies such as external sensors or implants. As noted in the report:

“The senses can be extended by translating frequencies beyond the normal human range into frequencies that can been seen, heard or otherwise detected. This could allow the user to ‘see’ through walls, sense vibrations and detect airborne chemicals and changes to magnetic fields.

More invasive options to enhance existing senses have also been demonstrated, for example, coating retinal cells with nanoparticles to enable vision in the infrared spectrum.”

They also point out that, from a defense perspective, methods to de-augment an augmented opponent will be needed. Can you even imagine the battlefield of the future, where soldiers are barraged from both sides with conflicting inputs?

As for ethics, the paper stresses that “we cannot wait for the ethics of human augmentation to be decided for us.” There may even be “moral obligations” to augment people, they say, such as when it would “promote well-being” or protect a population from a “novel threat.”

Interestingly, the paper notes that “It could be argued that treatments involving novel vaccination processes and gene and cell therapies are examples of human augmentation already in the pipeline.” This appears to be a direct reference to mRNA and vector DNA COVID jabs. If so, it’s an open admission that they are a human augmentation strategy in progress.

The Challenge of Unintended Consequences

Of course, there can be any number of side effects and unintended outcomes when you start augmenting an aspect of the human body or mind. As explained in the featured report:

“The relationship between augmentation inputs and outputs is not as simple as it might appear. An augmentation might be used to enhance a person’s endurance but could unintentionally harm their ability to think clearly and decisively in a timely fashion.

In a warfighting context, an augmentation could make a commander more intelligent, but less able to lead due to their reduced ability to socially interact or because they increasingly make unethical decisions. Even a relatively uncontentious enhancement such as an exoskeleton may improve physical performance for specific tasks, but inadvertently result in a loss of balance or reduced coordination when not being worn.

The notion of enhancement is clouded further by the intricacies of the human nervous system where a modifier in one area could have an unintended effect elsewhere. Variation between people makes designing enhancements even more challenging.”

Still, none of that is cause to reconsider or slow down the march toward transhumanism, according to the authors. We just need to understand the human body better, and for that, we need to collect and analyze more data on human performance, behavior, genetics and epigenetics. As noted by the authors:

“Devices that track movement, heart rate, oxygenation levels and location are already commonplace and will become increasingly accurate and sophisticated, making it possible to gather an increasingly wide array of performance data in real time. We can also analyze data in ways that were impossible even five years ago.

Artificial intelligence can analyze massive sets of information almost instantaneously and turn it into products that can inform decision-making. This marriage of data collection and analytics is the foundation of future human augmentation.”

Lab-Grown Designer Babies

As mentioned, by the time a technological advancement is admitted publicly, the research is already a decade or more down the road. Consider, then, the February 1, 2022, article in Futurism,⁵ which announced that Chinese scientists have developed an artificial intelligence nanny robot to care for fetuses grown inside an artificial womb. According to Futurism:⁶

“The system could theoretically allow parents to grow a baby in a lab, thereby eliminating the need for a human to carry a child. The researchers go so far as to say that this system would be safer than traditional childbearing.”

As of now, the AI robot is only in charge of lab-raised animal embryos, as “experimentation on human embryos is still forbidden under international law.” However, that could change at any time. In May 2021, the International Society for Stem Cell Research went ahead and relaxed the rules⁷ on human embryonic experimentation.⁸

Up until then, the rule had been that no human embryo could be grown in a lab environment beyond 14 days. Human embryos may now be grown beyond 14 days if certain conditions are met. In some countries, laws would still need to be changed to go beyond 14 days, but regardless, there’s no doubt that as transhumanism gets underway in earnest, ethical considerations about growing babies in laboratories will be tossed out.

Combine the announcement of an AI robot nanny to care for lab-grown embryos with the 2018 announcement that Chinese scientists were creating CRISPR gene-edited babies. As reported by Technology Review, November 25, 2018,⁹ “A daring effort is underway to create the first children whose DNA has been tailored using gene editing.”

The embryos were genetically edited to disable a gene called CCR5, to make the babies “resistant to HIV, smallpox and cholera.” The embryos were then implanted into a human mother using in vitro fertilization. At the time, the lead scientist refused to answer whether the undertaking had resulted in a live birth, but shortly thereafter it was confirmed that one trial participant had indeed given birth to gene-edited twins in November 2018.¹⁰

In June 2019, Nature magazine published an article¹¹ questioning whether the CRISPR babies might inadvertently have been given a shorter life span, as research had recently discovered that people with two disabled copies of the CCR5 gene were 21% more likely to die before the age of 76 than those with one functioning copy of that gene. The babies might also be more susceptible to influenza and autoimmune conditions, thanks to this genetic tinkering.

Should We Breed Chimeras to Satisfy Need for Organs?

Ethical considerations about animal-human hybrids (chimeras) will probably also fall by the wayside once transhumanism becomes normalized. Already, human-monkey hybrid embryos have been grown by a team of Chinese and American scientists.¹²

The hybrid embryos are part of an effort to find new ways to produce organs for transplant patients. The idea is to raise monkeys with human-compatible organs that can then be harvested as needed. Here, the embryos were grown in test tubes for as long as 20 days — and this was done before the ISSCR officially agreed to relaxing the 14-day rule.

The question is, if this kind of research ends up being successful, and the creation of animals with human organs is actually feasible, at what point does the chimera become a human?

How do we know that what looks like a monkey doesn’t have a human brain, with the intelligence that goes with it? Taking it a step further, even, what’s to prevent scientists from growing human organ donors? Human clones, even? It’s a slippery slope, for sure.

Privacy in the Age of Transhumanism

Perhaps one of the greatest concerns I (and many others) have is that not only are we moving toward a merger of man and machine, but at the same time we’re also increasingly outsourcing human morality to machines. I cannot imagine the end result being anything but devastating. How did that happen? Timandra Harkness, a BBC Radio presenter and author of “Big Data: Does Size Matter?” writes:¹³

“As the recent pandemic years have shown, the desire to be free from scrutiny unless there’s a good reason to be scrutinized is widely seen as, at best, eccentric and, at worst, automatic grounds for suspicion.

We simply can’t articulate why a private life is valuable. We have no sense of ourselves as autonomous beings, persons who need a space in which to reflect, to share thoughts with a few others, before venturing into public space with words and actions that we feel ready to defend ...

Part of the appeal of technologies like AI is the fantasy that a machine can take the role of wise parent, immune to the emotion and unpredictability of mere humans. But this tells us less about the real capabilities of AI, and more about our disillusionment with ourselves.

The urge to fix COVID, or other social problems, with technology springs from this lack of trust in other people. So does the cavalier disregard for privacy as an expression of moral autonomy.

Technology ethics can’t save us, any more than technology can. Even during a pandemic, how we regard one another is the fundamental question at the root of ethics. So we do need to treat technology as just a tool, after all. Otherwise we risk being made its instruments in a world without morals.”

from Articles https://ift.tt/xAs3HG1
via IFTTT

This article was previously published August 1, 2018, and has been updated with new information.

According to the American Cancer Society (ACS),¹ liver cancer affects an estimated 41,260 Americans each year, and prevalence is rising.² Between 2000 and 2016, the annual death toll from liver cancer rose by 43% for men and 40% for women,³ killing more than 11,000 people in 2016.⁴

In January 2022, the ACS estimates that 30,520 people will die from liver cancer in this year alone, adding, “Liver cancer incidence rates have more than tripled since 1980, while the death rates have more than doubled during this time.”

The five-year survival rate for localized liver cancer is 34 percent,⁵ while regional cancer that has spread to other organs and distant liver cancer have survival rates of just 12 percent and 3 percent respectively.

Globally, the liver cancer hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer death⁶ due to the high prevalence and difficulty of treatment. Researchers warn that by 2030, the global rate of liver cancer will double, affecting upward of 1.2 million.⁷

Other liver-related diseases such as cirrhosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)⁸ are also becoming more prevalent. Between 2001 and 2013, the number of diagnosed cirrhosis cases nearly doubled,⁹ and deaths from cirrhosis increased by 65 percent between 1999 and 2016.¹⁰ The greatest increase (10.5 percent) was among those between the ages of 25 and 34, where alcoholic cirrhosis has become rampant.^11,12

As a precursor for cancer, cirrhosis causes more than 1 million deaths a year worldwide,¹³ with the incidence of NASH more than doubling from 1990 to 2017.

Excess Alcohol Consumption Drives Risk of Liver Damage

According to researchers, the rise in cirrhosis mortality is entirely driven by excess alcohol consumption by young adults. While, historically, alcohol-related liver cirrhosis has been regarded as a condition that develops after two or three decades of heavy drinking, these newer statistics reveal it doesn't have to take that long at all, as it's now occurring in (and killing) 20- and 30-year-olds.

In the 25 to 34 age group, death from alcohol-related liver disease nearly tripled between 1999 and 2016. This increase parallels statistics¹⁴ showing a rise in binge drinking between 2002 and 2012. It also correlates with the global financial crisis in 2008, after which more people began dying from cirrhosis. Researchers believe financial worries and unemployment may be significant contributing factors, causing more people to drink more heavily.

Cirrhosis (irreversible scarring of your liver) can also be caused by obesity, NAFLD and hepatitis, and can in turn lead to fatal liver failure and/or liver cancer. Men are particularly at risk, in large part because they're five times more likely to develop NAFLD than women.

Lifestyle factors such as diet, exercise, weight, smoking and alcohol consumption also play important roles in exacerbating (as well as reducing) your chances of developing some form of liver disease.

People at increased risk also include those who have an autoimmune disease, chronic liver inflammation and those whose livers have been damaged due to bouts of hepatitis B or C. The good news is that alcohol-related liver cirrhosis can be reversed if caught early enough — and provided you quit drinking.

Excess Sugar Consumption Drives Rising NAFLD Rates

While alcohol-related cirrhosis is driving up mortality rates, rising prevalence of NAFLD is contributing to the overall burden of liver-related diseases. In the case of NAFLD, the fatty liver occurs in the absence of significant alcohol consumption, and is driven instead by excess sugar, which is why this condition is now found even in young children.

NAFLD often has no symptoms, although it may cause fatigue, jaundice, swelling in the legs and abdomen, mental confusion and more. If left untreated, it can cause your liver to swell, called nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and can lead to liver cancer or liver failure. As with alcohol-related cirrhosis, however, NAFLD can be reversed in its early stages by healthy eating and exercising.

Most importantly, you need to eliminate processed fructose and other added sugars from your diet. Fructose actually affects your liver in ways that are very similar to alcohol. Unlike glucose, which can be used by virtually every cell in your body, fructose can only be metabolized by your liver, as your liver is the only organ that has the transporter for it.

Since all fructose gets shuttled to your liver, if you consume high amounts of it, fructose ends up taxing and damaging your liver in the same way alcohol and other toxins do. The way your liver metabolizes fructose is also very similar to that of alcohol,¹⁵ as both serve as substrates for converting carbohydrates into fat, which promotes insulin resistance, dyslipidemia (abnormal fat levels in the bloodstream) and fatty liver.

Fructose also undergoes the Maillard reaction with proteins, leading to the formation of superoxide free radicals that can result in liver inflammation similar to acetaldehyde, an intermediary metabolite of ethanol. According to Dr. Robert Lustig, a neuroendocrinologist in the division of endocrinology at the University of California, fructose is a "chronic, dose-dependent liver toxin."

Excess Glucose Converts to Fructose and Decimates Your NAD+

A few years ago I read an excellent review¹⁶ on NAD that helped me understand the basic biochemistry far better, and it makes perfect sense. I learned that excess fructose in processed foods isn’t the only problem, as excess glucose is ultimately converted to fructose by your body in an effort to metabolize glucose for energy. Let me explain it to you.

When your body is exposed to chronic glucose excess, the first enzyme in breaking down glucose is hexokinase, and this enzyme becomes saturated and can't break down any more glucose. Once this occurs, glucose will then be metabolized through the polyol pathway, in which glucose is metabolized to sorbitol by aldose reductase, and sorbitol is subsequently metabolized to fructose by sorbitol dehydrogenase (see figure below).

It is estimated when you are healthy, only about 3% of glucose goes through the pathway below, but at least 30 percent of glucose flows through this pathway in chronic hyperglycemia,¹⁷ creating a vicious cycle of excess fructose.

This metabolic catastrophe is the net redox result of the trading of one molecule of NADPH for one molecule of NADH. This is precisely what you don't want to happen, as NADPH is used as a reductive reservoir for your antioxidants and is necessary to make your steroid hormones and fats. When you have low levels you are in deep trouble.

Complicating it further, you increase NADH and worsen your NAD+/NADH ratio. As fuel supply outstrips metabolic demand, mitochondrial and cytoplasmic NAD/NADH ratios fall. The ensuing mitochondrial membrane hyperpolarization perpetuates electron leakage and excessive oxidative stress.

Fortunately, the good news is that there is a simple inexpensive solution that should radically improve this metabolic catastrophe. The first, of course, is to clean up your diet as we have previously discussed many times, so your body can burn fat for fuel. But you can also take NAD precursors like simple nontimed-release niacin.

That should help increase the NAD+/NADH ratio and NADPH levels. As noted in one recent paper,¹⁸ "Oral administration of nicotinamide riboside, a natural NAD+ precursor, completely corrected these NAFLD phenotypes induced by NAD+ deficiency."

I would start non-timed release niacin at 25 to 50 milligrams a few times a day, as any dose higher will likely cause a harmless but relatively annoying flushing sensation. It would also be helpful to reduce your exposure to electromagnetic fields, as that also consumes NAD+ through PARP hyperactivation and will worsen the metabolic condition.

Low-Level Chemical Exposures Linked to Liver Damage

While there's no data on this, it's possible that alcohol-induced cirrhosis is now occurring sooner as a result of liver damage caused by chemical exposures. Researchers have shown that even small amounts of chemicals from food, pharmaceuticals and personal care products can in fact cause liver damage.

One such experiment¹⁹ was designed to evaluate the effects of chemical combinations at low doses from environmental sources such as food, pharmaceuticals and personal care products.²⁰

Using four groups of Sprague-Dawley rats, the researchers administered a mix of chemicals found in everyday products in their drinking water at varying doses for a period of six months. The control group received chemical-free water.

Of the three treatment groups, the low-dose group received 25% of the European Union (EU) acceptable daily intake for the chemicals in question, the medium-dose group received exactly the acceptable daily intake defined by the EU, while the high-dose group received five times the acceptable daily intake.²¹

After six months, body weight and biochemistry markers were evaluated, revealing the animals’ weight increased more than 10% in all male groups, compared to controls.²² Modest increases were found in females given medium and high doses of the chemicals.

They also discovered adverse liver effects — especially at the low-dose level and primarily in the males. Overall, the results suggest exposure to low doses may induce liver damage as a result of the combination of different toxic mechanisms, and support previous research showing that chemical cocktails, even at low levels,²³ can damage liver function²⁴ and trigger cancer.²⁵

Roundup Damages Liver at Ultralow Doses

Roundup, the most heavily-used weed killer in the world, has also been linked to liver damage. Disturbingly, urine levels of glyphosate have skyrocketed in the past couple of decades, suggesting widespread, chronic exposure, most likely from food. Between 1993 and 2016, levels of the chemical in human urine increased 1,200 percent.²⁶ Food testing also reveals that many foods sold in the U.S. are contaminated with glyphosate.²⁷

This is of significant concern, as research suggests Roundup can cause significant liver damage even at ultralow doses. The study,²⁸ published in the journal Scientific Reports, looked at the effects of glyphosate exposures of 4 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day, which is 75,000 and 437,500 times below EU and U.S. permitted levels, respectively.

After a two-year period, female rats showed signs of liver damage, specifically NAFLD and progression to nonalcoholic steatohepatosis (NASH). Study author Michael Antoniou, Ph.D., told Sustainable Pulse:²⁹

"The findings of our study are very worrying as they demonstrate for the first time a causative link between an environmentally relevant level of Roundup consumption over the long-term and a serious disease — namely nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Our results also suggest that regulators should reconsider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides."

Milk Thistle Helps Prevent Liver Damage

Milk thistle is an herb that has been used for thousands of years to support liver, kidney and gallbladder health. In modern times, silymarin has been used to treat alcoholic liver disease, acute and chronic viral hepatitis and toxin-induced liver diseases.

The active ingredient, a flavonoid called silymarin, is thought to be responsible for the beneficial effects attributed to milk thistle, including liver protection, antioxidant, antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. In your liver, silymarin works as an antifibrotic, thereby preventing tissue scarring, and blocks toxins by inhibiting the binding of toxins to liver cell membrane receptors. Silymarin also protects your liver and promotes healthy liver function by:

• Suppressing cellular inflammation³⁰
• Inhibiting the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), a pathway that, when overactivated, increases your risk of cancer³¹
• Activating AMPK (activated AMP-activated protein kinase),³² an enzyme inside your cells. AMPK is sometimes referred to as a "metabolic master switch," as it plays an important role in regulating metabolism and energy homeostasis.³³ AMPK produces many of the same benefits as you would get from exercise and weight loss, both of which benefit your liver health
• Reducing liver injury caused by a number of drugs and environmental toxins, including acetaminophen, chemotherapy, psychotropic drugs and alcohol
• Increasing glutathione, a powerful antioxidant that plays a role in the detoxification of heavy metals and other harmful substances

N-acetylcysteine Supplement Supports Your Liver Health

Another powerful liver protectant is N-acetylcysteine (NAC), a precursor needed for glutathione biosynthesis. In fact, research suggests NAC may be a better alternative for supporting liver health in those with hepatitis C and other chronic liver diseases than the antioxidant resveratrol.³⁴

Alcohol and acetaminophen are two common compounds metabolized through the liver that are associated with liver damage. NAC supplementation has been effective in minimizing damage associated with alcohol consumption when taken prior to alcohol ingestion.³⁵

NAC is also used as an antidote for acetaminophen toxicity, which causes liver damage by depleting glutathione.³⁶ Research published in Hepatitis Monthly³⁷ has also shown NAC supplementation helps improve liver function in patients with NASH.

Folate Deficiency Worsens Severity of NASH

Increasing your intake of folate can also help protect your liver function. In a study³⁸ involving 83 patients with NASH, researchers found levels of folate and vitamin B12 were inversely related to the development of fibrosis or the formation of scar tissue. Past research has identified an association between low levels of vitamins and chronic liver disease, but this is the first to find an association between folate and vitamin B12 level to NASH severity.

Studies have also shown folate deficiency can increase your risk for liver cancer.^39,40 In one, which involved hepatitis B-positive patients (who are at higher risk for liver damage), higher folate levels were associated with a 67 percent lower risk of liver cancer.⁴¹

According to the authors, increased folate in humans appear to be inversely associated with the development of liver damage and hepatocarcinoma, and that folate can offer the liver some degree of protection against damage. Folate may also mitigate against pesticide-related damage, including autism.

Your body stores approximately 10 to 30 milligrams of folate at a time, nearly 50 percent of which is in your liver. Folate is the natural form of vitamin B9 found in foods and once referred to as folacin. The word was derived from the Latin "folium," meaning leaf. Green leafy vegetables such as spinach are abundant sources of folate, as are asparagus, broccoli, Brussels sprouts and spinach.⁴² Broccoli is perhaps ideal, as research⁴³ has confirmed it helps protect against NAFLD.

Avoid folic acid supplements however. While readily absorbed, this synthetic form is not converted in the intestines like folate is. Instead, it is converted in your liver. This means folic acid can reach saturation quicker, which may result in overexposure if you're taking supplements.

Coffee May Cut Risk of Liver Cancer

Last but not least, if you're a coffee drinker, you may be relieved to find out that coffee appears to have a protective effect against HCC, a serious form of liver cancer and the third-most prevalent cause of death from cancer in the world. Drinking a single cup of coffee every day cuts your risk of HCC by one-fifth.^44,45

If you drink more than that in a day, your risk for liver cancer is even lower. Two cups of coffee a day cut the risk by 35%, and five cups cut the risk in half. That said, excessive coffee consumption can have certain adverse effects. As noted by lead author Dr. Oliver Kennedy from the U.K.'s University of Southampton:⁴⁶

"We're not suggesting that everyone should start drinking five cups of coffee a day though. There needs to be more investigation into the potential harms of high coffee-caffeine intake, and there is evidence it should be avoided in certain groups, such as pregnant women."

To optimize your health benefits from coffee, make sure it's organic, and drink it black, without milk or sugar. A far better alternative would be "bulletproof coffee," where you add butter or MCT oil to the coffee instead of sweeteners.

from Articles https://ift.tt/AIxBbNc
via IFTTT

At nearly no other time in history has there been this level of fear generated across the world as experienced thus far in 2020 and 2021. The depth and breadth of the strategies used to stoke those fears has been overwhelming.

Emergency use authorizations for drugs that have not proven to be effective in trials,^1,2 public mask mandates for which there is no scientific evidence^3,4,5 and the suppression and censorship of health information has boosted public fear over a viral illness with a survival rate of over 99%.⁶

Unfortunately, many of the early effective treatment strategies that can be used at home have also fallen victim to censorship. Ivermectin is one of those strategies. In a computational analysis of the Omicron variant against several therapeutic agents, data show that ivermectin had the best results.⁷

Yet, as you look objectively at what's been happening across the world, the fear being generated is not one-sided. The suppression of information by corporations, government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry is one indication of their concern and how far they're willing to go to ensure the level of fear remains high enough to manipulate behavior.

Consider the statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2019, 4.6% of the U.S. population was diagnosed with heart disease.⁸ The population at the end of 2019 was 328,239,523.⁹ This means there were 15,099,018 people with heart disease in the U.S. in 2019. There were 696,962 people who died that year from heart disease,¹⁰ which is a death rate of 4.6%.

This is 20 times greater than the death rate from COVID-19. Yet these same agencies were not lobbying for mandates against soda or sugar-laden foods; they weren’t banning smoking and they weren’t mandating exercise — all heart disease risk factors.¹¹

The censorship and suppression of information has hobbled early treatment of COVID-19 in many western nations. Through 2020, public health experts^12,13 and the mainstream media^14,15 warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Both are on the World Health Organization's list of essential drugs,¹⁶ but the benefits have been ignored by public health officials and buried by the media.

Newest Ivermectin Study Showed Best Results Against COVID

This study on Cornell University's preprint website has not yet been peer-reviewed. Researchers used a computational analysis to look at the Omicron variant, which has demonstrated a lower clinical presentation and lower hospital admission rates.¹⁷

After having retrieved the complete genome sequence and collecting 30 variants from the database, the researchers analyzed 10 drugs against the virus, including:

Nirmatrelvir	Ritonvir
Ivermectin	Lopinavir
Boceprevir	MPro 13b
MPro N3	GC-373
GC376	PF-00835231

The researchers found that each of the drugs had some degree of effectiveness against the virus and most were currently in clinical trials. They used molecular docking to find that the mutations in the Omicron variant didn't significantly affect the interaction between the drugs and the main protease.

An analysis of all 10 drugs found that ivermectin was the most effective drug candidate against the Omicron variant. The testing included Nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid), which is the new protease inhibitor for which the FDA provided an emergency use authorization against COVID in December 2021.¹⁸

In other words, Pfizer released a new drug which cost the U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion or $529 per course of treatment¹⁹ and which received an EUA despite the availability of a similar drug that has proven to be more effective and is cheaper, priced between $48²⁰ and $95²¹ for 20 pills depending on your location.

How Ivermectin Works

Ivermectin is best known for its antiparasitic properties.²² Yet, the drug also has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. Studies have shown that ivermectin helps to lower the viral load by inhibiting replication.²³ A single dose of ivermectin can kill 99.8% of the virus within 48 hours.²⁴

A meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics²⁵ showed the drug reduced infection by an average of 86% when used preventively. An observational study²⁶ in Bangladesh evaluated the effectiveness of ivermectin as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 in health care workers.

The data showed four of the 58 volunteers who took 12 mg of ivermectin once a month for four months developed mild COVID symptoms as compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who declined the medication.

Ivermectin has also been shown to speed recovery, in part by inhibiting inflammation and protecting against organ damage.²⁷ This pathway also lowers the risk of hospitalization and death. Meta analyses have shown an average reduction in mortality that ranges from 75%²⁸ to 83%.^29,30

Additionally, the drug also prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure.³¹ Added together, these benefits make it clear that ivermectin could all but eliminate this pandemic.

Early Intervention Lowers Long COVID and Hospitalization

Some people who have had COVID-19 seem to be unable to fully recover and complain of lingering symptoms of chronic fatigue. Others struggle with mental health problems. One study,^32,33 in November 2020, found 18.1% of people who had COVID-19 received their first psychiatric diagnosis in the 14 to 90 days after recovery. Most commonly diagnosed conditions were anxiety disorders, insomnia and dementia.

These symptoms have come to be called long COVID, long-haul COVID, post-COVID syndrome, chronic COVID or long-haul syndrome. They all refer to symptoms that persist for four more weeks after an initial COVID-19 infection. According to Dr. Peter McCullough, board-certified internist and cardiologist, 50% of those who have been sick enough to be hospitalized will have symptoms of long COVID:³⁴

“So, the sicker someone is, and the longer the duration of COVID, the more likely they are to have long COVID syndrome. That’s the reason why we like early treatment. We shorten the duration of symptoms and there’s less of a chance for long COVID syndrome.”

Some of the common symptoms of long COVID include shortness of breath, joint pain, memory, concentration or sleeping problems, muscle pain or headache and loss of smell or taste. According to McCullough, a paper presented by Dr. Bruce Patterson at the International COVID Summit in Rome, September 11 to 14,³⁵ 2021:³⁶

“... showed that in individuals who’ve had significant COVID illness, 15 months later the s1 segment of the spike protein is recoverable from human monocytes. That means the body literally has been sprayed with the virus and it spends 15 months, in a sense, trying to clean out the spike protein from our tissues. No wonder people have long COVID syndrome.”

It should come as no surprise that studies have also confirmed that early intervention improves mortality³⁷ and reduces hospitalizations.³⁸ Perhaps one of the greatest crimes in this whole pandemic is the refusal by reigning health authorities to issue early treatment guidance.

Instead, they've done everything possible to suppress remedies shown to work. Patients were simply told to stay home and do nothing. Once the infection had worsened to the point of near-death, patients were told to go to the hospital, where most were routinely placed on mechanical ventilation — a practice that was quickly discovered to be lethal.

However, as the featured study³⁹ and others have demonstrated,⁴⁰ ivermectin is one of the successful treatment protocols that can be used against SARS-CoV-2.

Africa Has Lowest Case and Death Rate, Likely From Ivermectin

Across the world, countries have taken different approaches to address the spread of the virus.⁴¹ The steps taken in Africa varied depending on the country, yet the infection and death rates were relatively stable and low across the continent.⁴²

In the last year there have been reports of small areas in the world where the number of infections, deaths or case-fatality rates have been significantly lower than the rest of the world. For example, India's Uttar Pradesh State⁴³ reported a recovery rate of 98.6% and no further infections.

However, the entire continent of Africa appears to have sidestepped the massive number of infections and deaths predicted for these poorly funded countries with overcrowded cities. Early estimations were that millions would die, but that scenario has not materialized. The World Health Organization has called Africa “one of the least affected regions in the world.”⁴⁴

There are several factors that may influence the infection rate in Africa. A study from Japan demonstrates that after just 12 days that doctors were allowed to legally prescribe Ivermectin to their patients, the cases dropped dramatically.⁴⁵

The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association⁴⁶ had noticed the low number of infections and deaths in Africa, where many use ivermectin prophylactically and as the core strategy to treat onchocerciasis,⁴⁷ a parasitic disease also known as river blindness. More than 99% of people infected with river blindness live in 31 African countries.

In addition to ivermectin use in Africa, other medications are also commonly available, such as hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which have long been used in the treatment and prevention of malaria,⁴⁸ also endemic in Africa.⁴⁹ In America, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has published successful results using hydroxychloroquine and zinc against COVID-19.^50,51,52

Finally, Artemisia annua, also known as sweet wormwood, is an herb used in combination therapies to treat malaria.⁵³ It was used in traditional Chinese medicine for more than 2,000 years to treat fever. Today artemisinin, a metabolite of Artemisia, is the current therapeutic option for malaria. The plant has also been studied since the 2003 SARS outbreak for the treatment of coronaviruses, with good results.^54,55

In other words, whether by design or default, the medications that have proven to be successful against the virus are commonly used in Africa for other health conditions. While Pfizer tests the short- and long-term effects of a genetic experiment on Israel’s population,⁵⁶ it appears one continent has demonstrated administration of a 30-year-old, inexpensive drug with a known safety profile could reduce the cases, severity and mortality from this infection.

The question that must be asked and answered to get to the bottom of this plandemic is what is blinding mainstream media, government agencies, public health experts, medical associations, doctors, nurses, and your next-door neighbor from recognizing and speaking out in support of science?

from Articles https://ift.tt/w4e69o2
via IFTTT

Bile duct cancer, also known as cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), is a rare cancer often diagnosed only at an advanced stage. A comprehensive analysis of diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic aspects of over 2,200 patients in Europe now provides a valuable knowledge base for raising awareness and managing CCA to improve outcomes.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/7bxKD9U

Ryan Smith is the founder of TruDiagnostic, a commercial testing system that tests your biological age, as opposed to your chronological age. It's can be a profoundly useful tool, because you need an objective barometer to tell you whether or not the things you're doing to improve your health are actually having the desired impact.

TruDiagnostic was founded in March 2020, right as the COVID pandemic hit, and the first commercial testing began in July that year. Since then, the company has launched more than 30 ongoing clinical trials, looking at a variety of interventions. They're also looking at how COVID-19 affects health metrics and longevity.

"We've built out new algorithms, new ways to read these DNA methylation markers that we measure for other functional health benefits," Smith says. "DNA methylation is a really robust platform. But it's also very new. We even have ways to look at how much arsenic or heavy metals you've been exposed to over your entire life, how many plastics you've been exposed to.

If there's one thing to take away from this talk, I think it's that this epigenetic platform will change every area of medicine as a diagnostic, which is changeable, but also can tell us a lot about different areas of medicine and really fit a need that we don't have in a lot of diagnostics.

So, I'm very excited about the field, but particularly aging — how to quantify that process, and then hopefully how to reverse it so that we can have really good results on increasing people's health span and life span, making them not only live longer, but live a high-quality life as well."

What Is DNA Methylation?

The idea of epigenetic methylation is rooted in the concept that every cell in your body has the exact same DNA, but express that DNA in very different ways. The cells of your skin do not express the same genes as your heart cells, for example.

We now know that the expression of genes is regulated, in part, epigenetically. As your cells differentiate into different types of tissues, they change their epigenetic expression to regulate what genes are turned on and turned off.

"I liken it to a light bulb. You can have an engineer look at a light bulb and tell you exactly what it's made for and how to turn it on, but if you don't know if it's on or off, then you're missing a big point of why it was created. It's the same with our cells.

This idea of measuring how things were turned on or turned off in our DNA expression has been known for a long time, but only recently scaled to a platform where we can actually investigate this on a large scale. So, what we measure is DNA methylation."

DNA methylation is the silencing of gene transcription. Your genes have promoter sites at the beginning of the DNA strand, and methylation is measured at those sites. The level of methylation at the promoter site correlates to the degree of expression of that particular gene.

"The converse process is a process called acetylation, which is a charged molecule which can open up those proteins to allow your genes to be transcribed [i.e., the turning on of the gene]. We measure specifically just that negative regulatory process, the DNA methylation," Smith explains.

What's being measured is not your ability to methylate or not methylate. Rather, it measures the actual expression of your DNA. And, contrary to conventional genetic testing like 23andMe, which is done once, DNA methylation can be measured multiple times as the actual expression of your DNA is alterable and changes over time.

"Due to advances with big data analysis and artificial intelligence, what we're able to do is take large scales of that data, so we can look at over 900,000 locations in your genome to see what the percentage of methylation is. Then we can correlate it to several different things."

DNA Methylation and Aging

Biological aging was one of the first things to be looked at using this platform because there was such a high correlation between DNA methylation and aging. Publications on this go back to 2009. In 2013, Dr. Steven Horvath created a chronological age-trained methylation clock, which, with just a couple nanograms of DNA, could help determine how old, chronologically, an individual was. Ryan states:

"It elucidated this idea that aging, the aging process, can actually be quantified very, very accurately, but also might even be responsible for a lot of the health considerations we see with age.

It's important to note that aging is the No. 1 risk factor for all chronic disease and death. If there's one thing you could do in a lifestyle capacity to prevent the development of age-related diseases, it is to essentially not age.

So that's a goal, but it's also a very difficult one to measure and do, because chronological age has been our only measurement for this for some time. We all know people in their 70s who look like they're in the 50s. We all know people in their 50s who look like they're in their 70s. So, chronological age has never been the best measurement. This molecular measurement can give us a much better idea of how we're aging."

The field of epigenetics is still in its infancy, and there are many fascinating areas of study underway. For example, there are already products on the market that are able to help diagnose up to 50 types of cancer from a single blood test.

Researchers are also looking senolytic clocks, which can be useful in the treatment of COVID, as they can tell you the overall burden of senescence in your body, and whether you might benefit from senolytic products.

How TruDiagnostic Compares to Other Companies

When asked how TruDiagnostic compares to other companies working with similar platforms, Smith replies:

"There are three things I like to draw attention to whenever I get asked that question. The first is the breadth of the measurement. With new clocks and new analyses coming out every day, one of the important things is making sure that you're measuring a lot of data, because as these new clocks or new algorithms come out, you want to be able to update them to make them even more accurate and more insightful.

So, one of the core tenets of what we wanted to do was to measure a lot of DNA. We measure over 900,000 locations. That is generally out of 26 million, approximately. So, it's still a very small amount of the total, but it's significantly more than any of our competitors, which might be measuring at most a 100,000.

So, we definitely like to scale because this is going to be a forward compatible platform. The human genome was only recently finished in terms of sequencing and the same will happen with epigenetic methylation, where, as we learn how to use this information, we'll be able to interpret it different ways.

We release new reports every three to four weeks with additional insights that are published in the literature. That way, we can keep everyone informed and up to date ... We want to provide any of our customers who do our test with the continuing updates.

Generally, even if someone did a test when we first started, they'll probably be getting updates for the next decade as we continue to see how this information and the ability to interpret it progresses ...

The next part of it is the algorithms piece, particularly the interpretation of that data. We only use published algorithms.

That is one of the things that we are very adamant about because otherwise, if you don't know how these measurements are related to health outcomes or related to different therapies, it's like taking the word of a fortune teller ... Publication is one of the main ways to have that scientifically valid and reliable measurement.

[Lastly], the important thing when you're taking these DNA methylation samples is the tissue that you're taking. We only use blood, the reason being is that most of these algorithms have been created off of blood samples. One of the interesting things about epigenetics is that every cell type is different.

If we were to measure your brain with the same algorithm we [used to] measure your blood, we would get much lower ages than we would on your blood. If we tested your breast tissue, for instance, we get much higher ages than if we tested your blood. So, the tissue type is very important, which is why we only use blood. Although it's not as easy to collect, it is definitely more scientifically reliable.

So, as you're evaluating which epigenetic companies to use, those would be my three criteria. Figure out the algorithms that they're using and reporting, make sure they're published, make sure they're measuring a good number of locations in case you want to know anything about that sample in the future.

Then lastly, make sure that they're using a collection method that has been validated in the literature, which mainly at this point is either blood or skin."

DNA Methylation Versus Telomere Length

One technique used to assess biological aging in the past has been to measure telomere length. Both Smith and I agree that epigenetic clocks are far superior for this purpose.

Telomeres are the sequences at the end of your DNA. Every time your cell undergoes a replication, you lose a little bit of that telomere, making it shorter and shorter over time. Eventually, you can start losing actual DNA. As the telomere shortens, the cell can start experiencing problems.

"Telomeres for many years have been thought of as the gold standard for aging because it's a process which highly correlates to how old someone is because they're going to have more replications and more cellular turnover as they get older," Smith says.

However, in head-to-head comparisons, DNA methylation is significantly more correlated to the aging process than telomeres. More importantly, it's also more predictive of health outcomes.

"So, if we're really trying to predict the results, the disease and health span-related things which are associated with aging, DNA methylation is a much better way of doing that," Smith says. "That said, telomere length is still one of those things that is a biomarker of aging. It is a separate process.

If you were to make sure that the telomere length never decreased in a cell, you'd still see methylation-related biological aging. If you made sure that the methylation age was reset, you would still see telomere length aging. So, there's two separate processes.

In a recent review, they actually looked at twins and tried to ascribe how much of the difference in their aging process was affected by these different markers. They said right around 2% of the variance in phenotypic aging was due to telomere length, whereas right around 35% of that was based on these epigenetic methylation clocks.

So, while they both might be important, we definitely would think that the DNA methylation clocks are significantly better. But with that being said, we also can estimate your telomere length via DNA methylation and that's one of the reports that we do."

DNA Methylation and COVID Outcomes

During the course of the COVID pandemic, Smith has been collaborating with Cornell University's immunology department, looking at DNA methylation and COVID outcomes. They were in the fortunate situation of being able to compare pre-COVID measurements with post-COVID measurements from patients who were getting routinely tested before the pandemic broke out, and then went on to develop COVID-19.

"We saw some really interesting things as it related to COVID-19 and aging," Smith says. The first thing they noticed was telomere length shortening. Several studies have now demonstrated that telomere length decreases with COVID exposure.

"I can't really speculate on the mechanism for that yet, but we definitely know that several studies with different measurements of telomere length have all concluded the same thing," Smith says. However, they also found a curious difference in biological aging as it related to chronological age. He explains:

"In our cohort, which is still relatively small, only 22 people, we saw that people who were over 50 tended to have advanced ageing as a result of COVID-19 exposure, where they were aging even with mild and moderate disease. However, people under 50 had a different response. People under 50 actually showed an anti-aging effect, where they actually got a little bit younger."

The Promise of Very Small Embryonic-Like Stem Cells

Among the more exciting antiaging therapies now available is very small embryonic-like stem cells (Vsels). Vsels are so small, they're easily transported through the lung capillary, so if you were to get an IV injection of them, they can spread to the rest of your body without being broken down or distorted.

Now, your body has mechanisms to replenish Vsels. It's one of the strategies your body uses to stay healthy. Vsels are extracted from your peripheral blood, unlike regular stem cells, assuming that they're autologous, which means they're from your own body. They're not taken from your bone marrow or your fat tissue, which are the two most common sources for stem cells.

Importantly, Vsels are pluripotential, meaning they can differentiate into almost any tissue in your body, whereas mesenchymal stem cells don't have as much differentiation capacity. This, I believe, make Vsels an ideal antiaging therapy.

Other Antiaging Strategies Showing Great Promise

Senolytics are also showing promise. A senescent cell is an elderly or aging cell that has lost the ability to reproduce. It just hangs around, not reproducing and not being cleared out. As a result, it starts creating inflammatory byproducts.

Senolytics selectively identify these senescent cells and destroy them. That's what senolytic therapy means. "Seno" meaning it's the senescent cell and "lytic" means that lyses, i.e., destroys, it.

Another interesting technique is called plasma exchange apheresis. This arose from studies in which the vascular systems of old and young mice were interconnected so that the mice started sharing blood with each other. Curiously, the older mice experienced a rejuvenating effect, and the younger mice experienced more rapid aging.

This led researchers to theorize that there might be something in our blood that influences aging and phenotypical health process. One evolution of this hypothesis is taking your own plasma out of your body, filtering it, putting in one or more new ingredients and then reinfusing it.

Lifestyle Strategies Help Lower Your Biological Age

In closing, here's a list of low-risk strategies that can go a long way toward lowering your biological age:

More Information

If you're interested in exploring DNA methylation testing for yourself, all of the tests are available for purchase direct to consumer. The TruAge Complete Collection will give you the metrics discussed in this interview — everything from telomere length to immune cell subsets, your intrinsic age, your immune age, and your instantaneous rate of aging.

from Articles https://ift.tt/Tz1slaj
via IFTTT

In this interview, repeat guest Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a board-certified family physician and author of the book, “The Clot Thickens: The Enduring Mystery of Heart Disease,” reviews the underlying mechanisms for heart disease, which for the last century has been the leading cause of death in the U.S.

Of all the books he’s written, this is my favorite, as it goes into great detail, giving you the biological understanding of the process of atherosclerosis leading to heart attacks and strokes. He also has solid strategies for lowering your cardiovascular disease risk.

Incidentally, once you understand the disease process, then you can also understand how both COVID-19 and the COVID jab can contribute to heart disease. When asked why he’s taken such an interest in heart disease, Kendrick replies:

“When I was training as a student in medicine, Scotland had the highest rate of heart disease in the world. Early on the answer for why was, ‘Oh, well, it's because we have such terrible diet, and we eat rubbish food like deep fried Mars bars.’

So, you eat too much saturated fat, the saturated fat gets turned into cholesterol in your bloodstream, and then it’s absorbed into arteries and forms narrowings and thickenings, which all sounds plausible if you don't think about it too hard.

But I also happen to go to France quite a lot, and what I noticed about France was, they eat a lot of saturated fat. They eat more, in fact, than anyone else in Europe, and certainly more than Scotland. So, [this saturated fat] hypothesis certainly didn't work for the French. They have the highest saturated fat intake in Europe and lowest rate of heart disease, and this has been the case for decades.

If you took all the risk factors for France and Scotland [such as smoking, high blood pressure and diabetes], then the French had slightly [higher risk], according to conventional thinking. But, in fact, they had one-fifth [the rate among age-matched men].

So, I thought, this is interesting. It doesn't make much sense according to what we're told. Then while I was in medical school, a tutor in cardiology said ... LDL cannot cross the endothelium. At the time, I didn't know what LDL was, nor did I know what the endothelium was, but it sounded important.

She had been looking at heart disease as a different process for decades ... So, I think that's really where I got started. Once you start questioning what the problem is, you end up questioning more and more and you start thinking, gosh, this is just nonsense, isn't it? This whole hypothesis is just nonsense. So, I started picking it apart.”

The Thrombogenic Hypothesis

“The Clot Thickens” is Kendrick’s effort to explain an alternative hypothesis for what actually causes heart disease. If it’s not saturated fat and cholesterol, what is it? In 1852, a Viennese researcher, Karl von Rokitansky, developed what he called the encrustation hypothesis of heart disease.

Today, this hypothesis has been renamed the thrombogenic hypothesis. ‘Thrombo’ stands for thrombosis, i.e., blood clots, and ‘genesis’ means the cause of, or the start of. So, the thrombogenic hypothesis is that blood clots are the basic pathology that causes all heart disease.

In a nutshell, when a blood clot forms on your artery wall, which can happen for a number of reasons, it will typically be covered over and dissolved. A problem arises, however, if the blood clot is not fully eliminated and another blood clot forms in the same ‘vulnerable’ area. This then becomes what’s conventionally referred to as atherosclerotic plaque.

“The atherosclerotic plaque is basically a buildup of blood clot, repair, blood clot, repair, blood clot, repair,” Kendrick explains. “If the blood clotting process is faster than the repair process, you have a plaque that gradually grows and eventually thickens the artery wall until it narrows sufficiently that the final blood clot, on top of the existing plaque, is the thing that can cause a heart attack or stroke ...

If you cut through the plaque and look at it, it almost looks like tree rings. You can see there's been a clot, repair, clot, repair, clot, repair, clock, repair over the years.

It’s widely accepted that a blood clot forming on an existing plaque will cause the plaque to grow in size. You can find 10,000 papers saying that this is the case. What the mainstream won't accept is that a blood clot on a healthy artery wall can initiate the whole process.

So, to an extent, all I'm saying to people is, well, we know blood clots cause the final event. We know blood clots cause plaques to grow. Why won't you accept that blood clots are the thing that starts it in the first place? Because then we have one process all the way through, and it makes sense, because it fits with what you can see.”

As noted by Kendrick, the conventional view is that low-density lipoprotein or LDL gets into the artery wall where it initiates plaque formation. It then, inexplicably, stops initiating plaque, and the plaque continues to grow through the addition of repeated clots.

However, Kendrick says, once you start drilling down into the cholesterol, aka LDL hypothesis, the whole thing starts to fall apart. LDL simply cannot explain the disease progression. Yet despite the many holes in the theory, the idea that LDL causes heart disease is touted as an absolute, indisputable fact.

What’s the Mechanism?

In order to justify a hypothesis, you need to have a mechanism of action. Once you understand the mechanism of the actual disease process, then you can put the puzzle pieces together. Kendrick begins his explanation:

“Your blood vessels are lined with endothelial cells, a bit like tiles on a wall. Endothelial cells are also covered themselves in a thing called glycocalyx. If you try to pick up a fish, it'll slip through your fingers; it's very slippery. The reason it's slippery is because it’s covered in glycocalyx and the glycocalyx is incredibly slippery. It's nature's Teflon.

So basically, in our case, the glycocalyx [is inside] our blood vessels, to allow the blood to travel through without it sticking, without damage occurring. So, you have this kind of damage-repellent layer on top of your endothelial cells.

Now, if that layer is damaged, and then the endothelial cell itself underneath is damaged, then the body will say, ‘Oh, we've got damage to a blood vessel, we must have a blood clot there because we could bleed out.’ So, a blood clot forms on the area of damage, and immediately stops [the bleeding].”

The blood clot doesn’t just keep on growing and growing. If it did, you’d die anytime you had a blood clot. Instead, when a clot forms, other processes step in to prevent it getting too big, which is why every blood clot doesn’t cause a stroke or heart attack. Once the clot has stabilized, and has been shaved down, the area is covered over by endothelial progenitor cells, made in the bone marrow, that float around in your blood stream.

When a progenitor cell finds an area that has been damaged, it attaches itself to that area, along with others, forming a new endothelial layer. The remaining blood clot is now lying ‘within’ the artery wall itself. So, basically, it’s the repair process that can lead to plaque buildup within the artery wall. In time, if damage outstrips repair, this can narrow the artery and reduce blood flow.

What Damages Endothelial Cells?

The question is, what can damage the endothelium in the first place? Here, Kendrick uses the SARS-CoV-2 mechanism as an example:

“The COVID virus enters endothelial cells through the ACE2 receptor. It prefers endothelial cells because they've got ACE2 receptors on them. It gets into the endothelial cell and starts replicating, then bursts out, damaging the cell. Bingo, you’ve got an area of damage.

Of course, added to this, when cells have viruses within them, they send out distress signals to the immune system saying, ‘I've been infected, come and kill me,’ and so the immune system starts to have a go at the endothelial cells. This is why you can get a problem, because the endothelial cells are being damaged and stripped off.

Blood clotting occurs at the points of damage and hey, presto, you're having clotting, you're having strokes, you're having heart attacks, which is the thing that people at first couldn't understand [about COVID-19]. Yet it's very clear that what's happening is you've got damage to the endothelial cells.

Obviously, you and I both know that if you get a [COVID jab], the cells are triggered to produce the spike protein, and these cells are sending out distress messages saying, ‘I’m infected.’ You have to be very careful if you want to stick something into cells that then says to the immune system, ‘Please come and destroy me,’ because that's what the immune system is going to do.

But moving on from that, what other thing can cause endothelial damage? The answer is things like smoking. Smoke particles get out of your lungs, they go into your blood vessels and they cause damage ... You smoke one cigarette and a whole bunch of microparticles appear in your bloodstream, which means endothelial cells are dying.

Luckily as endothelial cells die, another message is sent to the bone marrow saying, we need more endothelial cells and it stimulates endothelial progenitor cell production. These endothelial progenitor cells rush around covering over the areas of damage.

Some smokers have enough repair going on and when you're younger, it's okay. As you get older and your repair systems begin to fail a bit, cigarette smoking becomes more and more of a problem.”

Other things that can cause endothelial damage include:

Repairing the Glycocalyx

As explained by Kendrick, the glycocalyx layer resembles a lawn, with slippery filaments that stick up. Within this glycocalyx layer you have nitric oxide synthase (NOS), which produces nitric oxide (NO), and you have NO itself, as well as a number of other anticoagulant proteins. The glycocalyx is actually a potent anticoagulant layer, so it stops blood clots forming. If glycocalyx is damaged, your risk of blood clotting increases.

“It’s a very complicated layer,” Kendrick says. “It's like a jungle full of things that say, ‘Don't stick to this, stay away from this.’” Within it, you also have albumin, protein complex produced by the liver. Albumin contains the proteins that help maintain and repair the glycocalyx. A fact that most doctors are unaware of is that, if you have a low albumin level, you're significantly more likely to die of heart disease.

The good news is that while the glycocalyx layer can be rapidly destroyed, it can also be rapidly repaired. (Experiments have shown that in an area where the glycocalyx has been completely stripped off, it can be completely repaired in a single second.) Supplements like chondroitin sulfate and methylsulfonylmethane (MSM) can be helpful in this regard.

“If you try and explain that through the LDL mechanism, it just doesn't work,” Kendrick says. “They have discovered that if you give chondroitin sulfate as a supplement — which normally is for arthritis and stuff like that — it reduces the risk of heart disease quite considerably. How do you explain that? Well, you can explain that because you're protecting your glycocalyx.

These are the sort of things that make no sense if you like looking at the conventional ideas of heart disease, but are immediately and easily explained if you say, ‘We have to keep our glycocalyx healthy and we have to keep our endothelial cells underneath them healthy.

Otherwise they will be damaged and stripped off, and then we will get a blood clot, and if we keep getting blood clots at that point, we will end up with a plaque and eventually one of the blood clots on that plaque will kill you from a heart attack or a stroke.”

Blood Flow Restriction Training

A lifestyle strategy that can help repair endothelial damage is blood flow restriction (BFR) training. In response to BFR, your body produces vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which acts as “fertilizer” for the endothelium. You can learn the ins and outs of BFR in my free BFR report. VEGF also induces the synthesis of nitric oxide (NO), a potent vasodilator, and it stimulates endothelial progenitor cells.

“NO protects the endothelium. It is anticoagulant — the most potent anticoagulant we have in the body. It’s really the magic molecule for cardiovascular health,” Kendrick says.

“At one time NO was known as Endothelial Derived Relaxation Factor (EDRF) NO was something no one believed could possibly exist in the human body. NO is actually a free radical. Everyone says free radicals are terribly damaging and unhealthy.

To that I reply, ‘Well, you may wish to know that the chemical that is the single most important protective chemical in the body for the cardiovascular system is an incredibly free radical called nitric oxide.”

Some anticancer drugs are designed to block VEGF, as the tumor needs angiogenesis — which is the creation of new blood vessels that are required to provide sufficient ‘nutrients’ Without these new blood vessels, the tumor dies off. Unfortunately, if you block VEGF, you also block NO, which then raises your risk for heart disease.

“These drugs were almost removed from the market,” Kendrick says, “because despite their anticancer activity, they were procardiovascular disease to quite a scary degree.

[That’s why], if you are given bevacizumab or Avastin as an anticancer drug, they now give you angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors), which are blood pressure lowering tablets, and ACE inhibitors have a specific impact on bradykinin, which increases NO synthesis.”

Strategies to Lower Your Thrombotic Risk

In his book, “The Clot Thickens: The Enduring Mystery of Heart Disease,” Kendrick reviews many different strategies that can lower your disease risk. Here’s a short-list of examples covered in far greater depth in the book, as well as some of my own recommendations that I bring up in the interview:

Avoid unnecessary use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen, aspirin and naproxen — While they effectively inhibit inflammation, they can cause platelet aggregation by blocking COX-2. In other words, they activate your blood clotting system, making blood clots more likely.

Get plenty of sensible sun exposure — Sun exposure triggers NO that helps dilate your blood vessels, lowering your blood pressure. NO also protects your endothelium, and increases mitochondrial melatonin to improve cellular energy production.

Avoid seed oils and processed foods — Seed oils are a primary source of the omega-6 fat called linoleic acid (LA), which I believe may be far more harmful than sugar. Excessive intake is associated with most all chronic diseases, including high blood pressure, obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes. LA gets embedded in your cell membranes, causing oxidative stress, and can remain there for up to seven years. Oxidative linoleic acid metabolites (OXLAMs) are what’s causing the primary damage, including endothelial damage.

Lower your insulin and blood sugar levels — Simple strategies to accomplish this include time-restricted eating, eating a diet high in healthy fats and low in refined carbohydrates, significantly restricting your LA intake and getting regular exercise.

Address chronic stress, which raises both blood sugar and blood pressure, promotes blood clotting and impairs your repair systems. Cortisol, a key stress hormone, reduces endothelial cell production.

Quit smoking.

from Articles https://ift.tt/cflnINS
via IFTTT

This article was previously published September 4, 2018, and has been updated with new information.

Glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup are the most heavily used agricultural chemicals of all time, with 1.76 million tons being applied to U.S. fields alone between 1974 — when glyphosate was first approved — and 2014.¹

By the end of 2021, glyphosate usage had expanded so much that worldwide glyphosate sales were forecasted to reach $4.95 billion by 2025.² Paradoxically, in early 2022 some farmers are looking to develop alternative, non-herbicide weed-control measures due to an expanded market and pandemic- and hurricane-related supply problems that have caused supply shortages and driven up the cost of glyphosate.³

Since the popularity of this herbicide was built on reckless deceit,⁴ and there's really no telling how many people around the world have paid for Monsanto's lies with their lives, it seems rather karmic that the COVID-19 pandemic, of all things, is what's driving farmers to farm more organically.

In August 2018, a jury ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to Dewayne Johnson,^5,6,7,8 who developed a lethal form of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma following heavy exposure to Roundup during his work as a groundskeeper. The evidence brought forth in court was extensive and extraordinarily damning, clearly showing Monsanto — now owned by Bayer — acted with malice.

The jury decided Monsanto knew Roundup was toxic and caused cancer, yet hid that fact from regulators and the public, fabricating evidence to the contrary and suppressing research showing harm. A California appeals court later reduced the award to $20.5 million⁹ and in 2021 Bayer decided not to take that court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, letting the final award stand¹⁰ You can review key documents from this case on the U.S. Right to Know website.^11,12

You can also read "Spinning Science & Silencing Scientists: A Case Study in How the Chemical Industry Attempts to Influence Science,"¹³ a report prepared for U.S. House members of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, which details some of the most important pieces of evidence.

'Nothing Short of a Cover-Up'

In a 2018 Highwire interview,¹⁴ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Brent Wisner, lawyers for some of these cases, said other disease categories could eventually be added to the growing mountain of lawsuits against Monsanto, as evidence suggested glyphosate and/or Roundup may also be linked to liver cancer, brain tumors and health problems associated with endocrine disruption.

"We've got hundreds of documents, far more damning than these, showing absolutely definitive misconduct" of Monsanto hiding Roundup's risk to the public, Wisner told Bigtree. Since then, more than 5,000 additional plaintiffs quickly lined up for their own day in court,¹⁵ all alleging Roundup exposure caused their Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The cases soon began plodding through the courts, with another plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman, winning an $80 million judgment.¹⁶ Hardeman filed his case in 2016; his ruling came in 2019. When Bayer-Monsanto appealed the verdict, a federal court ruled against them, awarding Hardeman a little over $25 million after reducing the first jury's punitive damages from $75 million to $20 million.¹⁷

With more than 25,000 cases pending by November 2021,¹⁸ Bayer asked the SCOTUS to review Hardeman's case.¹⁹ Rather than just agreeing to hear the case, in December 2021, the SCOTUS deferred, and asked President Biden's administration to help them decide whether they should hear it. Ironically, Monsanto-Bayer is still maintaining their product is safe, and their attitude drew the ire of environmental journalist Dave Dickey, who wrote in a February 2022 commentary:²⁰

"In March 2015 U.S District Judge for the Northern District of California allowed public release of internal Monsanto documents showing how Monsanto influenced EPA to reclassify glyphosate from a Class C carcinogen to a Class E category which paved the way for glyphosate Roundup production.

It was nothing short of a cover-up that put greed ahead of public safety. And now ironically we learn the cover-up may have included Monsanto's own investors … [who] are saying the German agri-giant played fast and loose with the facts, misleading them on 1) the safety of glyphosate and Roundup; 2) Bayer's efforts at due diligence; and 3) the legal risks in the acquisition of Monsanto …

Given all we already know Roundup and glyphosate should have not been unleashed on the world. But how companies like Monsanto are willing to go to almost any length – including duping its own investors — is a new low."

On its website, Bayer has now posted a five-point plan to end the litigation,²¹ claiming the SCOTUS has "strong legal arguments" to rule in the company's favor. And again, Monsanto-Bayer steadfastly insists not only that "glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely and are not carcinogenic," but that "a cancer warning would be false and misleading and misbrand the product."

Glyphosate Found in Common Breakfast Foods and Snacks

Unfortunately, by 2018 the same chemical shown to cause Johnson's lethal disease was also showing up in the food supply at potentially unsafe levels. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) commissioned independent laboratory tests to determine how much glyphosate is lurking in the U.S. food supply.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been testing foods for glyphosate, and tests reportedly revealed "a fair amount" of residues, their findings have not yet been made public.²²

In fact, the USDA doesn't even test for glyphosate in some of the foods most known for glyphosate contamination, such as oats and chickpeas.²³ But EWG's testing in 2018 revealed 43 out of 45 food products made with conventionally grown oats tested positive for glyphosate, 31 of which had glyphosate levels higher than EWG scientists believe would be protective of children's health.

Examples of foods with detectable levels of glyphosate included Quaker Dinosaur Eggs instant oatmeal, Cheerios cereal, Nature Valley granola bars, Quaker steel cut oats and Back to Nature Classic Granola.

Further, of 16 organic oat foods tested, five contained glyphosate, although at levels below EWG's health benchmark of 160 parts per billion (ppb). In 2016, tests²⁴ conducted by the nonprofit organizations Food Democracy Now! and The Detox Project also found glyphosate residues in a variety of foods including Doritos, Oreos and Stacy's Pita Chips.

Glyphosate has even been detected in PediaSure Enteral Formula nutritional drink, which is given to infants and children via feeding tubes. Thirty percent of the samples tested contained levels of glyphosate over 75 ppb — far higher levels than have been found to destroy gut bacteria in chickens (0.1 ppb).²⁵

Children Likely Ingest Unsafe Levels of Glyphosate From Food

Exposure to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicide formulations, even at low levels, has been linked to a variety of health risks. For instance, one study found that daily exposure to ultra-low levels of glyphosate for two years led to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in rats,²⁶ while the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen" in 2015.

As of July 2017, California's Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) also listed glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer under Proposition 65, which requires consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels. According to EWG:²⁷

"OEHHA has proposed a so-called No Significant Risk Level for glyphosate of 1.1 milligrams per day for an average adult of about 154 pounds. That level of exposure is more than 60 times lower than the safety level set by the Environmental Protection Agency."

Exposure to glyphosate at OEHHA's risk level would present an increased lifetime risk of cancer of 1 in 100,000 for an adult, but EWG points out that an additional tenfold margin of safety may be necessary to protect those most vulnerable, like children and fetuses. Using this methodology, virtually all of the foods tested by EWG could be damaging to human health:²⁸

"With this additional children's health safety factor, EWG calculated that a 1-in-a-million cancer risk would be posed by ingestion of 0.01 milligrams of glyphosate per day. To reach this maximum dose, one would only have to eat a single 60-gram serving of food with a glyphosate level of 160 parts per billion, or ppb.

The majority of samples of conventional oat products from EWG's study exceeded 160ppb, meaning that a single serving of those products would exceed EWG's health benchmark …

The EPA has calculated that 1- to 2-year-old children are likely to have the highest [glyphosate] exposure, at a level twice greater than California's No Significant Risk Level and 230 times EWG's health benchmark."

Why so Much Glyphosate in the Food Supply?

Most of the more than 280 million pounds of glyphosate sprayed on American crop fields each year²⁹ are used on genetically engineered (GE) crops³⁰ like Roundup-ready corn and soybeans, which are designed to withstand the chemical's otherwise lethal effects.

However, while choosing non-GMO foods would appear to be a good way to reduce your exposure to glyphosate, some grains, even if they're not GE, can be heavily contaminated with glyphosate. The reason for this is because the chemical is also used as a desiccant and/or preharvest treatment to speed ripening.

Essentially, by spraying glyphosate on the grain right before harvest, it dries (desiccates) the grain, making it easier to harvest. Desiccation is also used to improve profits, as farmers are penalized when the grain contains moisture. The greater the moisture content of the grain at sale, the lower the price they get.

While GMOs have been considered the most heavily contaminated, since the glyphosate is inside each cell of the GE plant, the preharvest application of glyphosate on non-GMO grains appears to be the primary reason for why glyphosate is now found in virtually all foods tested.

It's also found in air,³¹ rain, groundwater and soils,³² municipal water supplies,³³ and urine.³⁴ An independent study even found it in vaccines, including pneumococcal, Tdap, hepatitis B (which is injected on the day of birth), influenza and MMR.³⁵

The MMR vaccine had the highest amounts at 2.671 ppb. Yet, when the investigating group, Moms Across America, asked the CDC and FDA to check into their findings with their own tests, they received a response with 50% of the pages redacted or blank.³⁶

GMO and Non-GMO Grains Heavily Contaminated With Glyphosate

According to a 2017 study³⁷ by University of California San Diego School of Medicine researchers, "The herbicide Roundup is sprayed onto genetically modified crops and applied as a desiccant to most small nongenetically modified grains."

So, whether we're talking about Roundup Ready GE crops or conventional, non-GE grains, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, "is found in these crops at harvest." In a statement, a spokesperson for Quaker acknowledged that glyphosate is commonly used preharvest:³⁸

"Glyphosate is commonly used by farmers across the industry who apply it preharvest. Once the oats are transported to us, we put them through our rigorous process that thoroughly cleanses them (dehulled, cleaned, roasted and flaked).

Any levels of glyphosate that may remain are significantly below any limits and well within compliance of the safety standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Commission as safe for human consumption."

However, EWG's testing revealed one sample of Quaker oats with 1,300 ppb of glyphosate, and another with 1,100 ppb. Along with wheat and oats, other crops that are commonly desiccated with glyphosate include:

Lentils	Peas	Non-GE soybeans
Non-GE corn	Flax	Rye and buckwheat
Triticale	Canola	Millet
Sugar beets	Potatoes	Sunflowers

Why Do Farmers Use Glyphosate Preharvest?

Considering the toxicity of glyphosate and Roundup, using either as a desiccant is an unconscionable choice. As noted in a recent Producer article:³⁹

"Cereals Canada and other industry groups have warned farmers that glyphosate is under increased scrutiny. Therefore, when producers use glyphosate as a harvest aid, they must carefully adhere to label guidelines to prevent unacceptably high residue levels in the grain.

When agronomists are asked about using glyphosate as a desiccant, the standard response is: 'glyphosate is not a desiccant,' which is tactful way of saying, 'if a producer plans to desiccate, he should use an actual desiccant.'"

The Monsanto pamphlet "Preharvest Staging Guide"⁴⁰ notes Roundup formulation "should not be used as a desiccant," as Roundup brand herbicides "work slower than a desiccant." Real Agriculture has also noted that "glyphosate is not a desiccant," doing "very little to increase dry-down rates."⁴¹ Yet, some farmers continue to use it to help speed up their wheat, barley and oats harvests, even though it's not registered as a desiccant.⁴²

Overall, the application of glyphosate "will only speed up harvest by a few days," Real Agriculture states. Still, applying glyphosate preharvest is a common practice to enhance ripening and some may use it as a desiccant anyway.⁴³ Improper timing may also contribute to contamination.

As explained by Michigan State University Extension in "Preharvest Options for Soybeans,"⁴⁴ it's important to make sure that all pods have lost all green color before using Roundup for desiccating. Additionally, the "Preharvest applications of glyphosate are not recommended for soybeans grown for seed regardless of trait, and these applications will not control glyphosate-resistant weeds."

General Mills Sued Over Glyphosate Residues

Farmers and food manufacturers better start reconsidering their use of glyphosate during preharvest, though, or prepare to face legal consequences. Just six days after Johnson's win against Monsanto, a class-action lawsuit was filed against General Mills in Florida. According to Food Navigator-USA:⁴⁵

"Plaintiff Mounira Doss argued that General Mills had a duty to disclose the presence of glyphosate in Cheerios cereal products, but failed to do so.

At 470 to 530 parts per billion, the levels of glyphosate Doss alleges were in Cheerios products tested by the Environmental Working Group in August 2018 are well below permitted EPA thresholds for glyphosate in grains (set at … 30,000 ppb in grains, cereal group 15).

However, Doss argues that 'Scientific evidence shows that even ultra-low levels of glyphosate may be harmful to human health,' and notes that glyphosate recently joined the Prop 65 list of chemicals 'known to cause cancer …' and was found by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to be 'probably carcinogenic to humans.'"

Are Other Desiccants Safe?

Aside from the off-label use of glyphosate, two commonly used registered desiccants are paraquat and diquat. The question is, are they any safer than glyphosate? Food is not tested for these or other desiccants, and neither has received much media coverage.

However, Politico⁴⁶ pointed out that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has expressed concerns over diquat, made by Syngenta. According to Politico, "the Swiss agrichemical giant has avoided an EU ban on the product after mounting a campaign to undermine the watchdog's findings."

Sound familiar? They've clearly taken a page right out of Monsanto's playbook. Documents released by EFSA to Politico "show the [European] Commission twice withdrew a proposal to remove … diquat from the market after the company questioned the methodology behind EFSA's science."

According to EFSA,⁴⁷ diquat poses severe risks to agricultural workers. The chemical has the ability to disrupt the human hormonal system, and in some cases "exposure to the product … exceeded acceptable levels by several thousand percent."⁴⁸ It's also been found to disrupt the reproductive cycles of both mammals and birds.

In the U.S., the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has linked at least five deaths to the chemical, along with thousands of illnesses. British research⁴⁹ has also found diquat is more likely to cause Parkinson's than paraquat — a chemical that's already been banned in the EU for its link to Parkinson's.

Overall, desiccants are not necessarily a required part of farming. The harvest can dry naturally, but it takes longer, and therefore costs more. However, the question we really need to ask ourselves is: at what price speed and profit? Is it really worth poisoning the food just to speed up ripening and drying?

Bayer Hurt by yet Another Monsanto Mistake

In the week following Johnson's verdict, Bayer stock fell by 18%, evaporating about $14 billion of the company's market value (a loss equivalent to 21% of Monsanto's total acquisition value).⁵⁰ But Roundup toxicity wasn't the only cause for the stock tumble.

Traders also cited mounting lawsuits over dicamba-related crop damage as a driving factor.⁵¹ For the third year in a row, huge swaths of land have been destroyed by chemical burns from this toxic weed killer.

As feared by many critics, any crop that is not genetically engineered (GE) to be resistant to dicamba is severely damaged by even small amounts of the herbicide — be it food crops, gardens or trees; even other GE crops resistant to herbicides other than dicamba shrivel and die in its presence.

Monsanto promised its XtendiMax with VaporGrip formula would be less volatile and less prone to drift than older versions, but this appears to be yet another Monsanto fantasy. In 2017, 3.6 million acres of non-GE soybeans — a total of 4 percent of all soy grown in the U.S. — were destroyed by dicamba drift, according to Reuters.⁵²

As of July 2018, an estimated 1 million acres of nondicamba-resistant crops had been destroyed.⁵³ By 2021, thousands of farmers had reported their crops damaged by dicamba drift as far away as a mile and a half from the dicamba-sprayed fields.⁵⁴ Homeowners have also reported destruction of trees and private gardens.

Dicamba-resistant soy was supposed to replace the failed Roundup Ready line of soy but, according to Reuters,⁵⁵ the EPA "is now weighing such complaints as part of a high-stakes decision on the herbicide's future."

Without the XtendiMax formula, the dicamba-resistant soy is unlikely to stand a chance, seeing how older dicamba formulations are strictly regulated and are not permitted during growing season due to their volatility (high drift potential).

In June 2020 an appeals court revoked the EPA's 2018 extended approval of dicamba, stating that despite the fact that farmers who had pre-purchased the product could suffer some financial losses, the EPA had not provided sufficient evidence to support the approval.⁵⁶

"In response, EPA approved new dicamba licenses with some additional control measures that it asserted met the court's concerns," Ohio State News reported. "Now the Biden administration is weighing how to address dicamba – and none too soon:"⁵⁷

"Farmers reportedly are seeing weeds that have developed resistance to dicamba and other herbicides recommended for use with a new generation of genetically engineered seeds. According to weed specialists, this is happening precisely because farmers are using such large quantities of these chemicals during the growing season."

Either way, it's worth nothing that both Roundup and dicamba have been linked to Non-Hodgkin lymphoma,⁵⁸ so whether we're growing Roundup Ready or dicamba-resistant crops, both pose serious health risks.

It remains to be seen whether EPA will continue to extend its approval for XtendiMax, take it off the market or implement stricter limits on its use. Either of the latter two options would be another deep blow for Bayer, which now owns Monsanto's portfolio of toxic flops and failures.

Monsanto-Bayer, as you'd expect, says it's confident EPA will extend its approval, but also urged seed sellers "to contact [EPA] to express support for the product," Reuters reports — a behind-the-scenes action that suggests they may not be quite as confident as they claim.

Where to Find Safer Food

There's little doubt that the presence of herbicides and pesticides in food pose a health risk, especially to young children. To minimize the risks to your family, consider buying organic produce and certified grass fed animal products. As the saying goes, "money talks," and to create change, we have to vote for the agricultural system we want with our pocketbooks.

While many grocery stores now carry organic foods, it's preferable to source yours from local growers whenever possible, as much of the organic food sold in grocery stores is imported. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh foods:

Demeter USA — Demeter-USA.org provides a directory of certified Biodynamic farms and brands. This directory can also be found on BiodynamicFood.org.

American Grassfed Association — The goal of the American Grassfed Association is to promote the grass fed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education. Their website also allows you to search for AGA-approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100% forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; born and raised on American family farms.

EatWild.com — EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce raw dairy products as well as grass fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass fed products.

Weston A. Price Foundation — Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.

Grassfed Exchange — The Grassfed Exchange has a listing of producers selling organic and grass fed meats across the U.S.

Local Harvest — This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass fed meats and many other goodies.

Farmers Markets — A national listing of farmers markets.

Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food From Healthy Animals — The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the United States and Canada.

Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) — CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.

The Cornucopia Institute — The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO "organic" production from authentic organic practices.

RealMilk.com — If you're still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund59 also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.60 California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.

from Articles https://ift.tt/qwage0B
via IFTTT