[Crucified and Resurrected Saviors have been a part of various religions for thousands of years pre-dating Christianity. Manly P. Hall, acclaimed occultist, explains the significance of this tradition – TMR]
“Saviors unnumbered have died for the sins of man and by the hands of man, and through their deaths have interceded in heaven for the souls of their executioners. The martyrdom of the God-Man and the redemption of the world through His blood has been an essential tenet of many great religions. Nearly all these stories can be traced to sun worship, for the glorious orb of day is the Savior who dies annually for every creature within his universe, but year after year rises again victorious from the tomb of winter.
Without doubt the doctrine of the crucifixion is based upon the secret traditions of the Ancient Wisdom; it is a constant reminder that the divine nature of man is perpetually crucified upon the animal organism. Certain of the pagan Mysteries included in the ceremony of initiation the crucifixion of the candidate upon a cross, or the laying of his body upon a cruciform altar.
It has been claimed that Apollonius of Tyana ‘the Antichrist’ was initiated into the Arcanum of Egypt in the Great Pyramid, where he hung upon a cross until unconscious and was then laid in the tomb (the coffer) for three days. While his body was unconscious, his soul was thought to pass into the realms of the immortals ‘the place of death’ After it had vanquished death (by recognizing that life is eternal) it returned again to the body, which then rose from the coffer, after which he was hailed as a brother by the priests, who believed that he had returned from the land of the dead. This concept was, in substance, the teaching of the Mysteries.
The list of the deathless mortals who suffered for man that he might receive the boon of eternal life is an imposing one. Among those connected historically or allegorically with a crucifixion are Prometheus, Adonis, Apollo, Arys, Bacchus, Buddha, Christna, Horus, Indra, Ixion, Mithras, Osiris, Pythagoras, Quetzalcoatl, Semiramis, and Jupiter. According to the fragmentary accounts extant, all these heroes gave their lives to the service of humanity and, with one or two exceptions, died as martyrs for the cause of human progress.
In many mysterious ways the manner of their death has been designedly concealed, but it is possible that most of them were crucified upon a cross or tree. The first friend of man, the immortal Prometheus, was crucified on the pinnacle of Mount Caucasus, and a vulture was placed over his liver to torment him throughout eternity by clawing and rending his flesh with its talons. Prometheus disobeyed the edict of Zeus by bringing fire and immortality to man, so for man he suffered until the coming of Hercules released him from his ages of torment.”
Monsanto has managed to saturate the global environment with toxic chemicals and genetically modified seed. Glyphosate is the major component in its flagship product, Roundup, used both in residential gardens and on farms.
The chemical is so pervasive that tests by the Organic Consumers Association found 93 percent of Americans have glyphosate in their urine.1 By comparison, no glyphosate was detected in tap water, which means the chemical is being ingested through food products. It is in fact, the most heavily used weed killer in history.
While much media attention has been levied at glyphosate for the association with cancer, in lower doses the chemical is also a strong endocrine disrupter.2 The health costs associated with exposure to hormone disrupters in Europe are estimated to be over $188 billion annually.3
Corporate spokespeople continue to say glyphosate is safe for use around humans, but recent revelations are beginning to completely unravel the well-orchestrated platform Monsanto is using to deceive the public.4
Monsanto has a long history with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies that has assured its rise to a powerful industrial position.
Now, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is the first U.S. agency to declare that Roundup, and specifically the major active ingredient glyphosate, is in fact a probable human carcinogen.
California Takes a Stand Against Roundup
In 1986, voters in California approved an initiative to address growing concerns about exposure to toxic chemicals. Proposition 65 requires publication of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects. This list must be updated once a year and has grown to 800 chemical names since 1987.5
Businesses are also required to notify citizens of chemicals that may be in the products they purchase.
Following classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), in May 2015,6 the OEHHA added the chemical to the state Proposition 65 list.
The decision was finalized in early 2017, making California the first state to take this step to protect their citizens. According to Nathan Donley, senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity:7
“When it comes to Roundup, California has become a national leader in flagging the very real danger posed by this vastly over-used pesticide. The state based its decision on the findings of the world’s most reliable, transparent and science-based assessment of glyphosate.
It’s become painfully clear that we can no longer ignore the risk that this pesticide poses to people and wildlife.”
Following a report earlier this month demonstrating the EPA failed to follow its own guidelines when it found glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic,8 Monsanto filed an appeal to stay the effective date of the Proposition 65 decision.9
Inclusion on the list does not prevent sale of these chemicals in California, but rather requires the manufacturer to post a “clear and reasonable warning” that the chemical is known to cause cancer, which Monsanto asserts will damage its reputation and violate its First Amendment rights.10
Unfortunately, the situation between the EPA and Monsanto marks a dangerous circumstance where taxpayer money has been used to shield companies from liability, obstruct consumers’ ability to prove damages, and continue to pollute the environment and your health with toxic chemicals.
Europe’s Pesticide Regulations Triggered Backlash From Monsanto
In 2009, Europe introduced legislation to regulate pesticides that threatened the sales of products containing glyphosate.11
The new law uses a hazard-based approach that bans the use of chemicals if they have the potential to cause cancer or birth defects, instead of a risk-based approach where the chemical demonstrates risk to humans under specific dose scenarios.
This new regulation also mandates studies from peer-reviewed scientific literature be included in the approval application.
This created a problem for Monsanto, as industry studies concluded the chemical was safe, but independent studies came to a different conclusion, demonstrating harmful DNA damage in commercial applications.12
In response to new regulations in Europe and the change in IARC classification of glyphosate, Monsanto sponsored scientific reviews in peer-reviewed journals that concluded commercial formulations of glyphosate were not harmful.
The authors were members of the Glyphosate Expert Panel convened by commercial consultancy and commissioned by Monsanto. These scientific papers purposefully manipulated data and included irrelevant data that confused the picture.13
Twelve of the 16 members of the panel served as consultants or were employed by Monsanto. Others had different conflicts of interest. Only one member of the panel had no conflict of interest. Several other regulatory bodies have found glyphosate to be non-carcinogenic.
However, two assessments were founded on fundamental scientific weaknesses and the third had a severe lack of transparency and clarity.
One of the studies interchanged the concept of hazard and risk, apparently to divert attention from a hazard-based approach in the European law that would require a ban for glyphosate.14 Taken together, the whole of the evidence demonstrates carcinogenicity.
A report by Global 2000 Friends of the Earth Austria found attempts by agencies and individuals to defend the chemical against evidence showing it causes cancer and damages DNA are scientifically unsound, and are undermined by a serious conflict of interest from the individuals involved.15
Lawsuits May Expose Monsanto’s Prior Knowledge
This short news video discusses one of the lawsuits being brought against Monsanto by farmers for unlawful death following exposure to glyphosate.
The lawsuits allege farmers are developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from exposure, and, in the case of the McCalls in the video above, their Labrador retriever developed the same cancer at the young age of 6.
To date, there are over 700 individual cases being brought against Monsanto at the state and federal level.
In one of those cases in San Francisco, California, a judge unsealed documents that suggest employees of Monsanto ghost wrote studies attributed to academics — studies that were then used to determine glyphosate does not cause cancer.16
Documents indicate a senior officer at the EPA worked with Monsanto to suppress independent reviews of the ingredients. Insider information was shared with Monsanto to guide the message they published to the public.
The chair of the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee even promised to obstruct a Department of Health and Human Services review of glyphosate,17 and indeed that safety review never took place. One of the attorneys for the McCall family, environmental activist and author Robert F. Kennedy Jr., commented:18
“Mounting evidence suggests that Monsanto knew about the hazards posed by glyphosate exposure, but failed to disclose this information to the public. Any time a corporation markets a harmful product to consumers as safe for use, it must be held accountable for the damage caused by that product.
Glyphosate is the product of both modern chemistry and a profoundly corrupt corporate culture. It is sad for our country and our people that such a powerful economic leader can only be trusted to put private greed before public health.”
In 1987 11 million pounds of glyphosate were applied in the U.S, compared to the now nearly 300 million pounds applied each year.19 The increase follows on the heels of genetically modified seed designed to withstand heavy applications of the weed killer. Michigan State University produced a graphic representation of the seed and chemical companies’ size and company ownership that visually demonstrates the sheer size and reach of Monsanto.
Farmers Fight Monsanto’s Aggressive Tactics
Lawsuits are another effort on the part of Monsanto to minimize the dangers of Roundup. Using tactics that include fear and intimidation, Monsanto has worked hard to ensure every farmer uses its genetically altered seed and large amounts of its weed killer, thereby solidifying the company’s market share.20 In 2003, Monsanto sued Michael White, fourth generation organic farmer in Alabama, essentially electing him their “poster boy” to intimidate farmers.21
White’s case is not unique. Monsanto has sued hundreds of farmers for copyright infringement after genetically engineered (GE) seeds inadvertently cross contaminated adjacent non-GE fields. Even though most farmers do not want the cross contamination, nor are complicit in the contamination, Monsanto continues to bring lawsuits and has the means to win the majority of the cases.
White is one of the few farmers free to talk about his court case, as he settled with Monsanto after his case was cleared to go before a jury. White says that the court case destroyed his father’s life and he went to his grave in fear of the agrichemical company.22
Missouri farmers have now filed a large class action suit against Monsanto over illegal herbicide use that has caused phenomenal crop damage. The suit alleges the farmers who planted Monsanto GE seeds didn’t have access to appropriate weed killer for two growing seasons and thus resorted to using illegal chemicals that contaminated and destroyed their fields, and that of neighbors.23Attorney Bev Randles, representing Bader Farms against Monsanto, said in a statement:24
“Monsanto chose to sell these seeds before they could be safely cultivated. Monsanto’s own advertising repeatedly describes its Xtend seeds and its accompanying herbicide as a ‘system’ intended to be used together. But when Monsanto failed to get approval to sell the herbicide, it recklessly chose to go ahead and sell the seeds regardless.”
Glyphosate Associated With More Than Cancer
Glyphosate also causes significant soil damage by decimating microorganisms responsible for biodiversity and biomass of soil. It’s also toxic to soil fungi.25 Repeated, and sometimes even a single use of the chemical, has led to an increase in the severity or re-emergence of crop disease, as the chemical leads to the development of pathogenic levels of microbes that affect crop health.
Studies have also demonstrated a negative effect on populations of earthworms in the soil, necessary for the development of organic material essential to plant health. Each of these factors reduce the health of crop root systems and yield.
Chronic exposure over just two years to Roundup in rat populations led to liver and kidney damage at doses far below what are recommended for use around humans.26 In an effort to slow the rising number of patients diagnosed with chronic kidney disease in his country, one of the first acts of Sri Lanka’s newly elected president was to ban the importation and sale of glyphosate.27
A case study has also associated levels of glyphosate in children with symptom severity in autism and seizure disorder.28,29 Even at low doses, glyphosate has estrogenic effects30 and may disrupt the balance in your gut microbiome.31
Bayer Company Romancing Monsanto
American-based Monsanto is being courted by German company Bayer, with intentions for a merger. Fifty years ago these two companies were forced to separate to avoid violating antitrust laws in the U.S.32 In a much different political climate, this intended merger appears to have the approval of the new Trump administration.
In mid-January, before taking office, Trump met with the CEOs of both Monsanto and Bayer, who announced in a joint statement they had a “very productive meeting”33 with the incoming U.S. President about the potential $66 billion merger. The deal will likely be financially profitable for both companies at the expense of farmers and consumers.
As both corn and soybean commodity prices are at some of the lowest levels since 2012, rising seed and chemical prices could place many family farms in a precarious financial position. Clay Govier, a fifth-generation farmer in central Nebraska, has used Monsanto products for the past 12 years and expects both seed and chemical prices to increase if the merger is successful.34
The number of American farmers are also at the lowest levels, numbering less than 2 million — the lowest number since the 1800s. Billion-dollar mergers between farming suppliers and buyers are not only affecting the health of the environment and consumer, but also plunging the farmer deep into debt. The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently made dire predictions.
According to the USDA, income from farming in the U.S. for 2017 is projected to be negative $1,400, but Wall Street believes that number is closer to negative $6,000. In the face of rising costs and debt-burdened farmers, Monsanto shareholders are suing, claiming the CEO will benefit from the merger with Bayer to the tune of $18 million in cash and benefits despite a conflict of interest and withheld information from investors.35
How You Can Reduce Your Exposure to Toxic Pesticides and Herbicides
As it is impossible to rely on governmental agencies and regulatory commissions to protect your health and wellness, it is important to practice preventive strategies to reduce the toxic chemical pollution that assaults your body. The following suggestions will set you off on the right path.
Purchase organic produce and grass fed meat
Animal products like meat, butter, milk and eggs are the most important to buy organic and grass fed, since animal products tend to bio-accumulate toxins from their pesticide-laced feed, concentrating them to far higher concentrations than are typically present in vegetables.
Washing all produce before eating helps to reduce your exposure to bacteria and pesticides. Both may also be transferred to melons, oranges and other fruits you peel if the rind is not first washed.
While there are commercial preparations, the safest products are white vinegar37 with a splash of lemon.38 The acidity helps to kill the bacteria, and friction from a vegetable brush helps to reduce the number of chemicals clinging to the produce.
Dry your produce with a paper towel as an extra measure of removing pesticides so they don’t dry to the produce. Remove the exterior leaves of leafy vegetables.
Eat whole foods
Remember that processed foods are in fact processed with a variety of chemicals, and should therefore be avoided as much as possible. Children already diagnosed with ADHD, autism or seizure disorders in most cases have reduced symptoms when processed foods are completely eliminated.
Use natural cleaning products
I recommend you use only natural cleaning products in your home, especially if you have young children or are pregnant. Most health food stores and some grocery stores now carry natural products to clean your home. Most everything in your home can also be cleaned using white vinegar and baking soda.
Switching to natural brands of toiletries is also a good idea. You’d be surprised to find just how many well-known brands of baby products are loaded with harmful chemicals, including fragrances. The Skin Deep Cosmetics Database39 is an excellent source to determine which brands are the safest for your baby.
Use natural outdoor protection
Also avoid using insect repellants that contain DEET. It can be tempting to douse your child or yourself in order to avoid getting bitten, but please be mindful of what you’re putting on your skin. There are safe, effective and natural insect repellant alternatives.40 Use natural methods of controlling insects in your home and garden as well.
Leave your shoes at the door
Walking across lawns and treated gardens deposits pesticides and other toxic chemicals in your carpet and on your flooring. Pets and small children crawling across the floor have the greatest potential for absorbing these chemicals. However, when you eventually take your shoes off at the end of the day, you may also absorb chemicals through the bottoms of your bare feet.
Soda and other sweetened beverages have been identified as a major contributor to the obesity1,2 and diabetes epidemics around the world,3,4 and in light of the scientific evidence, many public health organizations have started recommending daily sugar limits.
At least 10 countries have implemented or are working toward implementing taxes on soda in an effort to reduce consumption and improve public health.
One 12-ounce can of regular soda contains on average between 8 and 10 teaspoons of sugar, far exceeding 100 percent of your recommended daily sugar allotment of 6 teaspoons (25 grams).
Considering sugar is as addictive as cocaine5 and has downright toxic effects on your body when consumed in excess,6 it’s no wonder obesity has become such a health crisis.
Previous research conservatively suggests sugary beverages alone are to blame for about 183,000 deaths worldwide each year, including 133,000 diabetes deaths and 44,000 heart disease deaths.7 What’s worse, the death rates associated with sweetened beverages were highest in those under the age of 45.
Reducing the number of sugary drinks you consume each day can go a long way toward reducing your risk for metabolic dysfunction, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, stroke and obesity.
Unfortunately, the continued profitability of the soda industry depends on public ignorance about the dangers associated with their products, and evidence reveals companies such as Coca-Cola are willing to go to great lengths to manipulate public health organizations and distort science to further their corporate agenda.
How Your Body Responds to Coca-Cola
Two years ago, former pharmacist Niraj Naik produced an infographic showing what happens in your body within the first hour of drinking a can of Coca-Cola. At the time, he told The Daily Mail:8
“When I worked as a community pharmacist I had some great success at helping people get off long term medication … Many of them [patients] would consume fizzy drinks on a daily basis. A few on several medications would consume two to three cans a day …
My first advice to them would be to do a simple swap, replacing fizzy drinks with water with fresh lemon or lime juice. In many cases just doing this would have a dramatic effect on their health.
So this indicated to me that fizzy drinks and sugar were big issues relating to blood pressure and metabolic diseases like diabetes and heart disease.”
According to Coca-Cola, soda is a perfectly acceptable rehydration choice, even before, during and after exercise,9 but based on its physiological effects, this is a hollow claim indeed. You simply cannot compare clean, pure water to soda when you’re thirsty.
Internal Documents Reveal Coca-Cola Works to Undermine Public Health Initiatives
The British Channel 4 documentary, “Secret of Coca-Cola,” featured above, reveals how Coca-Cola Co. is fighting the implementation of health and environmental policies that might impact the company’s bottom line.
Leaked internal documents and emails — which have become known as “The Coke Files” — shows the soda industry is in fact working against public health in a very coordinated and comprehensive fashion, using well-known tobacco-industry tactics such as:
•Message coordination and influencing media. As an example of how Coca-Cola deals with journalists who fail to follow corporate talking points, in a May 2016 email, Amanda Rosseter, the global group director of strategic communications at the Coca-Cola Co., wrote:10
“A reporter for Wired reached out to our media line late last night with a series of questions and an immediate deadline … The story, however, posted early this morning without waiting for our input.
The story … focuses on sugar, stevia and the Company’s attempts to offer options to consumers with a pessimistic tone … We will be reaching out to this reporter to better understand her decision not to include our perspective, and to build her brain around our strategy.”
•Developing close ties with influential scientists and experts who then speak on the company’s behalf while presenting themselves as “independent” experts.
As just one example, two years ago, Coca-Cola Company was outed for secretly funding and supporting the Global Energy Balance Network, a nonprofit front group that promoted exercise as the solution to obesity while significantly downplaying the role of diet and sugary beverages in the weight loss equation.11
•Debunking and manipulating science. Research has revealed simply funding a study will significantly influence the results.
As just one example, an investigation by Marion Nestle, Ph.D. and professor of nutrition, food studies and public health, found that out of 168 studies funded by the food industry, 156 of them favored the sponsor.12
•Astroturfing — The effort on the part of special interests to surreptitiously sway public opinion and make it appear as though it’s a grassroots effort for or against a particular agenda, when in reality such a groundswell of public opinion might not exist.
•Lobbying at every level of government.
Coca-Cola Fights Soda Tax by Influencing Local Politicians
Not surprisingly, since a soda tax would reduce sales — and significantly so if countries around the world adopt the tax strategy — Coca-Cola is fighting tooth and nail to prevent such measures.13,14
What’s disturbing is the level of political support Coca-Cola and other soda companies are receiving. In a June 2015 email, Lauren Craig, Coca-Cola’s senior manager of public affairs and communications for the greater Philadelphia area, revealed how she successfully sidelined a 2015 soda tax proposal by rubbing elbows with city officials:15
“Our coalition was actively engaged to prevent a beverage tax from being introduced. The coalition’s grassroots campaign included small business meetings with council members. Sources in City Hall indicated that council members were wary of a beverage industry campaign against a tax.
Our next steps include furthering relationships with newly elected city council officials to prevent discussion of beverage taxes in the future. We also have an engagement plan for Philadelphia Mayoral Democratic nominee, Jim Kenney.”
Last year, email evidence also showed Barbara Bowman, Ph.D., director of the Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, aided a Coca-Cola representative in efforts to influence World Health Organization officials to relax its sugar limits.
Soda Industry Has Troubling Ties to Public Health Community
Public health researchers have also warned that the beverage industry has created deep financial ties to the public health community over the past several years, and that this was strategically done to silence critics and gain allies in the fight against regulations.16,17,18,19
A recent study looking into the sponsorship activities of soda companies suggests the reason for soda companies’ philanthropic interest in health organizations has little to do with actually supporting measures that would improve public health, and everything to do with influencing such organizations to further the industry’s own agenda:20
“From 2011 to 2015, the Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo were found to sponsor a total of 96 national health organizations, including many medical and public health institutions whose specific missions include fighting the obesity epidemic. During the study period, these two soda companies lobbied against 29 public health bills intended to reduce soda consumption or improve nutrition …
These companies lobbied against public health intervention in 97 percent of cases, calling into question a sincere commitment to improving the public’s health. By accepting funding from these companies, health organizations are inadvertently participating in their marketing plans.”
According to study co-author Daniel Aaron, a student at Boston University’s medical school, there can be little doubt that Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo are purposely trying to undermine public health measures in order to protect profits.
We wanted to look at what these companies really stand for. And it looks like they are not helping public health at all — in fact they’re opposing it almost across the board …” Aaron told The New York Times.21
Many Health Organizations Compromise Public Health to Satisfy Sponsors
Indeed, the researchers discovered a number of instances where influential public health organizations either turned against a soda tax initiative or remained silent on the matter after receiving an industry donation. Here are just a few examples:
Save the Children, a nonprofit group that provides health education programs for children, had previously supported soda tax campaigns in several states but suddenly stopped in 2010 after receiving a $5 million grant from Pepsi.
In 2012, when New York proposed a ban on supersized sodas, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics cited “conflicting research” as the reason for not supporting the measure. That same year, the Academy had received $525,000 from Coca-Cola. The following year, Coke gave them another $350,000.
Dietitians listed as having received consulting fees from Coca-Cola also participated in a Twitter campaign aimed at defeating the proposed soda tax in Oakland, California.22
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the mission of which is to fight for equality for minorities, opposed soda tax initiatives even though black and Hispanic communities have disproportionally high rates of obesity and related health problems.
The Hispanic Federation has also chosen not to support soda tax initiatives. The reason for their lenience becomes clearer in light of the fact that both of these organizations have received large donations from Coca-Cola. NAACP received more than $1 million between 2010 and 2015, and the Hispanic Federation received $600,000 between 2012 and 2015.
Nigerian Court Rules Coca-Cola Drinks ‘Poisonous’
Meanwhile, in Nigeria, a Lagos High Court Judge has ruled two Coca-Cola products, Sprite and Fanta, potentially poisonous, as the benzoic acid and sunset yellow used in the products can pose a health risk when combined with ascorbic acid (vitamin C). (The former is known to turn into benzene, a carcinogen, when mixed with vitamin C.)23 According to CNN:24
“Justice Adedayo Oyebanji ordered the Nigerian Bottling Co. … to place written warnings on Fanta and Sprite bottles against drinking them with vitamin C, and awarded costs of  million naira ($6,350) against the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) for failing to ensure health standards.
‘It is manifest that NAFDAC has been grossly irresponsible in its regulatory duties to the consumers of Fanta and Sprite manufactured by Nigeria Bottling Company,’ the judge said. ‘NAFDAC has failed the citizens of this great nation by its certification as satisfactory for human consumption products … which become poisonous in the presence of ascorbic acid.'”
In response to the ruling, Nigeria’s Consumer Protection Council has initiated its own investigation. Director general Dupe Atoki said:
“[The council] is extremely concerned about the questions that have arisen from, and on account of this judgment. Fanta, Sprite and Coca-Cola have arguably and consistently been the most widely consumed beverages in Nigeria. The spectrum of consumption is also perhaps the widest, with consumption starting as early as age  and far into adult years.”
Closer to home, Coca-Cola is dealing with yet another scandal, as machines in a Coca-Cola plant in Northern Ireland somehow became clogged with human feces.25 Fortunately, it appears no contaminated cans were distributed or sold. The company has called in police to investigate how the bizarre contamination occurred.
Diet Soda Is Not the Answer
I firmly believe ditching soda and other sweetened beverages is one of the most important steps you can take to improve your weight and health, and this includes avoiding so-called “diet” drinks as well. Artificially sweetened beverages may in fact be worse for your health than regular soda.
Research has shown artificial sweeteners can stimulate your appetite, increase carb cravings, stimulate fat storage and promote weight gain. In fact, diet sodas may actually double your risk of obesity, while regular soda (at a rate of one can per day) is associated with a 60 percent increased risk of obesity.
In addition to that, aspartame is associated with a long list of other harmful effects, ranging from brain damage to pre-term delivery, while sucralose has been found to be particularly damaging to your intestines. A study26 published in 2008 found that sucralose:
Reduces good bacteria in your intestines by 50 percent
Increases the pH level in your intestines
Affects a glycoprotein in your body that can have crucial health effects, particularly if you’re on certain medications like chemotherapy, or treatments for AIDS and certain heart conditions
In response to this study, James Turner, chairman of the national consumer education group Citizens for Health, issued the following statement:27
“The report makes it clear that the artificial sweetener Splenda and its key component sucralose pose a threat to the people who consume the product. Hundreds of consumers have complained to us about side effects from using Splenda and this study … confirms that the chemicals in the little yellow package should carry a big red warning label.”
For Optimal Health, Drink More Clean Water
Unfortunately, many are still in the dark about these health risks. Having healthy gut flora is absolutely vital for your optimal health so, clearly, any product that can destroy up to halfof your healthy intestinal bacteria can pose a critical risk to your health.
Sugar also promotes unhealthy bacterial growth, and many are already deficient in healthy bacteria due to consuming too many highly processed foods. This is why I recommend eating fermented vegetables every day, or at the very least taking a high-quality probiotic.
Remember, pure water is a zero-calorie drink. You cannot find a beverage that contains fewer calories. If you think about it, why on earth would you choose artificially sweetened water over regular mineral water? If you want some flavor, just squeeze a little bit of fresh lemon or lime into mineral water as these citrus fruits have some of the lowest fructose levels of all fruits.
[EMP’s, H.A.A.R.P., various drugs, psyop techniques and a myriad of other government programs also effect brain waves in an attempt to mind control the public. The government has been attempting this for decades. TMR]
Study: manipulating the brain to create honest behavior
Do you care if your brain is controlled in a good cause?
by Jon Rappoport
April 11, 2017
Medicalxpress reports: “Researchers at the University of Zurich have identified the brain mechanism that governs decisions between honesty and self-interest. Using non-invasive brain stimulation, they could even increase honest behavior.”
In an experiment involving rolling dice, where cheating would increase volunteers’ earnings, “researchers applied transcranial direct current stimulation over a region in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (rDLPFC). This noninvasive brain stimulation method makes brain cells more sensitive i.e., they are more likely to be active. When the researchers applied this stimulation during the task, participants were less likely to cheat.”
That result was only obtained with people who weighed moral choices. For volunteers who were wholly committed to cheating, the brain-manipulation had no effect.
This experiment reveals where brain research is going. Change…
The Vaccine Reaction, published by the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), recently highlighted a really disturbing part of the 21st Century Cures Act that has largely escaped below the radar.
The 21st Century Cures Act, which was quickly pushed through Congress and became law back in December 2016, allows the waiving of the requirement of informed consent for participants in clinical trials if researchers believe an experimental medical device, drug or vaccine being tested poses no more than minimal risk to the patient’s health, or if the product being tested is deemed by researchers to be in the best interest of trial participants.
The Act also lowers FDA standards for the quality of evidence that drug companies have to provide to the FDA before drugs and vaccines are licensed and sold in the U.S.
In a nutshell, scientists testing pharmaceutical products like vaccines may now choose to experiment on human beings without obtaining informed consent first.
As noted in the featured video, this really boils down to slavery — you can be experimented on without fully understanding the potential risks of the product you are being given if you are a participant in a clinical trial, which means you do not have the opportunity to exercise informed consent and opt out.
21st Century Cures Act Waives Informed Consent for Low-Risk Medical Testing
Section 3024 of the 21st Century Cures Act refers to Informed Consent Waiver or Alteration for Clinical Investigations, amending some of the wording in section 520(g)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.
As noted in the video, subparagraph D in this section received a minor update by removing the words “the investigator,” but the remainder still stands.
Section 3024(a), which covers “medical devices,” basically states that informed consent is required when researchers are testing medical devises in clinical trials “except where, subject to such conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subject.”
Section 3024(b), which covers drugs, states informed consent is required “except where it is not feasible, it is contrary to the best interests of such human beings, or the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to such human beings and includes appropriate safeguards as prescribed to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of such human beings.”
How giving informed consent could ever be contrary to your best interest is a question worth pondering.
I cannot conceive of a situation where that could possibly be true but, apparently, people elected to govern on our behalf believe there are situations warranting suppression of the fact that you are participating in a scientific experiment that could harm you or your minor child.
Government Admits Vaccines Are ‘Unavoidably Unsafe’
Historically, vaccine trials have always been assumed to involve more than minimal risk. In fact, both the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court have concluded that government licensed vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.”1
This determination was one reason given by Congress for why vaccine manufacturers were given a civil liability shield from vaccine injury lawsuits in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
This “free pass” means that if a FDA licensed and state mandated vaccine ends up injuring or killing you or your child, the vaccine manufacturer or the doctor who administered the vaccine cannot be sued in civil court.
As a result of having zero liability for harm arising from the use of their products, drug companies are creating hundreds of new vaccines and plan to churn out and fast-track an ever-growing number of poorly tested vaccines with dubious benefits.
At the same time, there’s a concerted, nationwide lobbying effort by industry, medical trade groups and public health officials to eliminate the right of parents to make voluntary vaccine choices for their children by removing religious and conscience vaccine exemptions that have been included in state vaccine laws for the past half century.
To top it all off, the 21st Century Cures Act appears to provide a mile-wide loophole for pharmaceutical companies to test their products on human beings without informed consent and fast-track them to market using lowered licensing standards. I don’t know about you, but this strikes me as an absolute nightmare in the making.
While vaccine makers have been granted immunity against lawsuits for injuries and deaths caused by vaccines, children injured by vaccines are supposed to be able to receive swift and just compensation from the federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP), created by Congress in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
However, this program was gutted by the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice within years of the 1986 law’s enactment and has only gotten worse over the years, again protecting vaccine manufacturers’ interests more than anything else.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington DC handles contested vaccine injury and death cases in what has become known as “vaccine court.”2
VICP is a “no-fault” alternative to the traditional civil court lawsuit and was established in 1986 after a string of high-profile lawsuits by parents of vaccine injured children had hauled vaccine manufacturers into court to have their cases heard in front of juries.
At the time, parents were suing vaccine manufacturers after their children were brain injured or died following federally recommended and state mandated DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccines, or children were left paralyzed by live oral polio vaccinations (OPV).
Several DPT injury lawsuits against the vaccine makers in the 1970s and early 1980s resulted in multimillion-dollar jury verdicts.
At that point, vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop producing DPT, MMR and oral polio (the only childhood vaccines at the time) if civil litigation was allowed to continue.
Common sense would have dictated that such lawsuits were a sign that vaccine manufacturers needed to raise safety standards and produce less toxic vaccines.
Instead, Congress buckled to industry pressure and, declaring that the U.S. vaccine supply must be protected, passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, giving vaccine manufacturers the legal protection they demanded.
As a result, vaccine makers have no incentive to produce the safest vaccines possible, especially when many childhood vaccines are state mandated for school attendance and 2 out of 3 vaccine injured children are turned away from the VICP with no compensation.
Vaccine Court Is No Safeguard for Vaccine Injured Patients
Over the years, it has become quite clear that VICP doesn’t work as Congress intended or promised parents it would work. In a recent article published in The American Conservative, vaccine litigation lawyer Robert Moxley writes:3
“… [VICP] was modeled after workers’ compensation programs. It was to be a ‘no-fault’ program … As one of the earliest ‘vaccine attorneys’ … I know first-hand it didn’t work that way.
I practiced in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for more than 25 years after its inception in 1988, and have been personally involved in over 100 vaccine-injury cases. I represented an entire fragile population in omnibus proceedings … I have seen the injured and their families cruelly oppressed.
From the passing of the legislation in 1986, the process has been rigged … in favor of the vaccine-industrial complex. Policy makers nationwide are yearning, with financial support and lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry, for mandatory vaccination. Before further compulsory vaccination legislation passes … the failure of the VICP must be acknowledged and properly addressed.
The VICP creates a classic moral hazard, granting immunity from suit to the vaccine industry while providing insurance against any loss …The vaccine-industrial complex has become a thriving giant … Its lobbying money drives agency denial of the reality of vaccine injury, which in turn permeates policy decisions in a sinister fashion.”
VICP — A Bureaucratic Nightmare That Offers Little Protection
As noted by Moxley, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act states the entire compensation process should take 240 days at most, and since it’s a “no-fault” program, it was designed to compensate patients for “apparent” injuries, meaning injuries that “appear” to be related to a vaccine even if you cannot conclusively prove it.
Congress promised compensation would be awarded “quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity,” in order to instill public confidence in the childhood vaccination program. The reality is much different. In his article, Moxley highlights a number of serious problems with the VICP, including the following:
Lawyers are few, as the program prohibits private attorney’s fees; many who suffer a vaccine injury cannot even meet the filing deadline due to inability to retain legal counsel
The process is exceedingly slow, with the average case taking over five years to adjudicate — a far cry from the 240-day deadline originally set by Congress for all adjudication decisions; some cases remain pending a decade after they were filed
Decisions cannot be used as precedents for other cases
The Department of Health and Human Services has not publicized the program, which was and still is its statutory duty
VICP Protects Vaccine Makers’ Interests
Moreover, as noted by Moxley: “The ‘inquisitorial’ format, with none of the due process safeguards of the civil justice system, serves to protect the secrets of the vaccine industry. The record created in a proceeding is hidden from non-parties.”
Indeed, none of the information that would normally be disclosed during a court trial ever sees the light of day once brought before the VICP. Hence, safety concerns remain shrouded in secrecy.
“A state of symbiosis arose between the agency tribunal and the public health bureaucracy,” Moxley writes. “These sister agencies appeared to regard families of the injured as criminals, trying to steal the government’s money. The vaccine court quickly developed an institutional hostility toward doctors and scientists who dared to challenge the orthodoxy of vaccine medicine …
An unspoken premise is ever-present: [T]o acknowledge vaccine injury is to undermine public acceptance, and to threaten ‘herd immunity.’ The public health agenda is the tribunal agenda and the DOJ agenda as well …
The vaccine court is used by the vaccine program — ostensibly in service of the ‘public health’ — as a forum to prove that there is no such thing as a vaccine injury. ‘Confidence’ in the safety net has been subordinated to the promotion of false confidence in the vaccination effort itself.
The moral hazard of the vaccine program reflects failure of the traditional checks and balances … Most of all, the entire system embodies the way that the lack of accountability leads to increased risk. Today, the proponents of compulsory vaccination in state legislatures have the temerity to tell their colleagues that there is no such thing as a vaccine injury. This claim emboldens a potential assault on the American family, and against the right of medical choice and informed consent.
The ‘public health’ cannot be served to allow government officials to make the risk-benefit calculation for their most vulnerable constituents when those decisions are corrupted by the fiction that their decision has no potential for negative consequences.”
Who Pays for Vaccine Injuries?
VICP compensates vaccine victims from a federal trust fund that collects a 75-cent surcharge on every vaccine given. What this means is that not only are drug companies profiting from selling federally recommended and state mandated vaccines to government for administration in public health clinics and to private doctor’s offices, pharmacies and HMO providers, vaccine manufacturers are also held legally blameless for vaccine injuries and deaths — and they don’t have to pay a cent to those injured by their vaccines.
Adult patients and children being given vaccines take all the risk, and themselves pay for the damages awarded to those injured or killed by government licensed and mandated vaccines. Many Americans do not even realize this vaccine court exists because DHHS does not publicize the existence of a federal vaccine injury compensation program and few VICP claims are ever disclosed, let alone publicized. The desire for secrecy on the part of public health officials is understandable.
If Americans were routinely informed of the vaccine injury and death claims being processed through the VICP, concern about the safety of vaccines would undoubtedly rise exponentially. Even without publicity, VICP claims are rapidly rising. As noted by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson in December 2015:5
“Since January of 2014, the number of flu vaccine cases conceded by the government is more than double the previous eight years combined … Also on the rise is the number of vaccine injury cases the government has ‘conceded:’ up 55 percent in a little over one year.”
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act Should Be Repealed
Two years ago, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) called for the repeal of civil liability protection provided to drug companies under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act6 and a return to full product liability for vaccine manufacturers. At the time, NVIC co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher said:7
“The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is a failed experiment in tort reform and should be repealed so vaccine manufacturers are accountable and liable in a civil court of law for product safety. The federal vaccine injury compensation program Congress created under that law has become a drug company stockholder’s dream and a parent’s worst nightmare.”
Nothing has changed in the two years since. The VICP remains irreparably broken. A vast majority of the injury compensation claims paid out by the vaccine court today are not even for children suffering lifelong injuries or death from childhood vaccines that they are mandated to get to attend daycare or school — they’re for adults (often health care workers) suffering serious side effects from the influenza vaccine.
On March 31, 2017, vaccine safety and choice advocates, including the NVIC, Moms Across America, Organic Consumers Association, Focus for Health, Vaccine Injury Awareness League and other grassroots consumer groups, who are protesting the too-cozy relationship between the pharmaceutical and chemical industries and government, gathered for a “Revolution for Truth” rally8 in Washington D.C.
The groups are urging President Trump to examine the VICP’s many problems, and create an independent agency to monitor and evaluate vaccine safety.
Forced Vaccinations Are Unethical and Dangerous
Last year, Gretchen DuBeau, executive and legal director for Alliance for Natural Health USA, wrote:9
“When health officials assure us that almost all children should receive the full schedule of vaccinations, you would think that rigorous safety testing has repeatedly proven vaccines, their ingredients, and the CDC schedule to be completely safe. The sobering truth is, however, that this safety testing has been conspicuously lacking and in many cases simply has not been done.
Until these extremely serious safety concerns are adequately addressed, it is unethical — and very possibly dangerous — to force children to be vaccinated.
Take aluminum, for example, which has been added to vaccines since the 1930s to help jolt the body’s immune system into action. Aluminum is a well-documented neurotoxin linked with Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, asthma, hyperactivity and Down’s syndrome. Despite these dangers, adequate clinical research proving aluminum adjuvants to be safe has never been done.”
Indeed, it is the lack of evidence of safety that concerns most parents who decide to delay or forgo one or more vaccinations for their children. Most of these parents have children who had serious reactions to vaccination or know someone who became chronically ill after vaccination. That experience prompted them to do independent research and not just get their children vaccinated without fully understanding the risks.
But rather than conducting the necessary methodologically sound scientific research to settle these uncertainties, the vaccine industry has chosen to join with medical trade associations funded by pharmaceutical companies and public health agencies and simply push for forced vaccination laws that eliminate vaccine exemptions instead. And why not? Forced vaccination guarantees maximum profits since there are no repercussions should their vaccines turn out to do more harm than good.
Aside from the lack of long-term safety studies of vaccines that take into account real-world usage parameters such as giving multiple vaccinations on the same day, there’s yet another safety issue that is routinely swept under the rug — that of vaccine recalls. In fact, vaccines have the highest number of recalls of any drug!
According to a 2012 report by business intelligence experts GBI Research,10 vaccines “fail to meet safety standards.” Between 2007 and 2010, 14 recalls for vaccines were made, for reasons such as:
Serious adverse events
Quality defects (reduced levels of potency, presence of contaminants, such as glass particles)
Coincidence Claims Falter as Vaccine Damage Becomes Commonplace
As time goes on and vaccine injuries multiply, claims of “coincidence” are getting increasingly more preposterous and harder to swallow. Today, vaccine injuries are becoming like cancer — the prevalence is so high, most people know someone who has suffered a serious side effect from a vaccine. Statistics revealing compelling parallels between vaccination rates and disease rates add to the mounting skepticism.
As noted in a January 2017 report by WJTV12 News,11 Mississippi has one of the highest vaccination rates in the U.S. It also has one of the highest autism rates. Coincidence? No one knows, but in the absence of firm proof either way, many parents are renewing their call for the legal right to make voluntary decisions about which vaccines their child should receive and if or when they should be given.
The same scenario is playing out in other states across the nation. The numbers of children suffering with chronic illness and disability, including autism spectrum disorders, are increasing. The numbers of children and adults who have experienced serious vaccine reactions are also increasing. As a result, first-hand experience with vaccine reactions now include many physicians, celebrities and politicians, as well.
Academy award-winning actor Robert De Niro, for example, has recently gone on the public record questioning vaccine safety and the reported link between vaccines and autism.
He has a child who developed autism following vaccination. Rick Rollens, former Secretary of the California State Senate, as well as retired U.S. Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) are two examples of individuals who worked for government and publicly shared their personal experiences of family members who had serious vaccine reactions and developed autism.
President Trump has also made public statements in which he questioned the potential connection between vaccination and autism and the safety of one-size-fits-all vaccine policies.
All of them have been strongly criticized for attempting to open up discussions about vaccine risk issues, which just goes to show that no one is above ridicule should they dare to question the safety of vaccines. The trend cannot hold forever, though. At a certain point, the coincidence theory collapses, and that’s what we’re starting to see now.
Unfortunately, many people don’t wake up and get involved until it’s personal and, in recent years, we’ve seen a growing number of influential people describe their personal experiences with vaccine reactions. The question is, how bad does it have to get before public concerns about vaccine safety get a fair hearing?
If you’re looking for a way to decrease your risk of developing coronary heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes, new research has revealed profound results from starting a simple new habit: consuming an extra 100 milligrams (mg) of magnesium via your food on a daily basis.
Researchers at Zhejiang University and Zhengzhou University in China found that more than 1 million people across nine countries who consumed the most magnesium tested out with a 10 percent lower risk of coronary heart disease, a 12 percent lower stroke risk and a 26 percent lower risk of type 2 diabetes.
Regarding the new research, which was published in Biomed Central,1 lead study author Fudi Wang, Ph.D., explains:
“Low levels of magnesium in the body have been associated with a range of diseases, but no conclusive evidence has been put forward on the link between dietary magnesium and health risks.
Our meta-analysis provides the most up-to-date evidence supporting a link between the role of magnesium in food and reducing the risk of disease … Our findings will be important for informing the public and policy makers on dietary guidelines to reduce magnesium deficiency-related health risks.”2
Wang said in a Medical Xpress news release3 that although current guidelines recommend that men take about 300 mg of magnesium a day, and women 270 mg per day, deficiencies in this mineral are still common, affecting anywhere between 1.5 percent to 15 percent of the population.
The researchers hope this new information serves to not just encourage people to make sure they’re getting adequate magnesium, but to prompt policy makers to change dietary guidelines, which could diminish the number of magnesium deficiency-related diseases.
Heart Issues Linked to Low Magnesium, but Science Takes a ‘Wrong Turn’
In 2013, the upshot of a “groundbreaking” review covering what was known about cardiovascular disease from as early as 1937 found that low magnesium levels —not high cholesterol or consumption of too much saturated fat —are the leading cause of many aspects of heart disease.
The 10-year review, conducted by research scientist and author Andrea Rosanoff, Ph.D., was based on the earlier research of Dr. Mildred Seelig, who studied the relationship between magnesium and cardiovascular disease for more than 40 years. Seelig noted:
“These numerous studies have found low magnesium to be associated with all known cardiovascular risk factors, such as cholesterol and high blood pressure, arterial plaque build-up (atherogenesis), hardening of the arteries and the calcification of soft tissues.
This means we have been chasing our tails all of these years going after cholesterol and the high saturated-fat diet, when the true culprit was and still is low magnesium.”4
As early as 1957, Rosanoff says, it was very clear that low magnesium was “strongly, convincingly, a cause of atherogenesis and the calcification of soft tissues. But this research was widely and immediately ignored as cholesterol and the high saturated-fat diet became the culprits to fight.”
The “wrong turn” scientists took when the research was so clear, Rosanoff asserts, created a trajectory in the way heart disease and other cardiovascular issues have been dealt with across the board. This had resulted in entire populations failing to balance their magnesium intake with their calcium intake, and it’s getting worse.
Studies continue to show that when calcium and magnesium intake aren’t on an even keel, Rosanoff asserts, the risk of heart disease increases.
Evidence ‘Much Too Compelling to Ignore’
Medical and naturopathic doctor Carolyn Dean, a member of the Nutritional Magnesium Association’s Medical Advisory Board, asserts that it’s obvious that cholesterol isn’t the cause because statins have been the answer doctors have turned to for their patients for two decades, but heart disease is still the No. 1 killer in America.
Although there are many other medical conditions that can be attributed to low magnesium levels, Dean listed six of the most debilitating:
Hypertension (high blood pressure)
Type 2 diabetes
Problems optimizing cholesterol levels
Celebrity dietician Ashley Koff, also a member of Prevention magazine’s advisory board, noted that magnesium has rightfully received increased attention as a critical nutrient in relation to optimal health. Further, she believes that correcting levels of magnesium intake recommendations is one of the most critical health issues today.
“There are many challenges to achieving adequate intake of magnesium in the modern diet; thus I consider magnesium part of the essential nutrients to supplement daily and — in light of this review, specifically — crucial to preventing cardiovascular disease across patient populations.”5
In one study, scientists found in a March 2017 study that hypertension was inversely associated with magnesium in children living in higher altitude areas of Argentina.6
Another three-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study revealed that magnesium supplementation improved the metabolic status of obese and pre-diabetic patients with mild cases of chronic kidney disease.7
What Makes Magnesium Intake so Important?
Dr. Mehmet Oz, host of the nationally syndicated and Emmy Award-winning Dr. Oz Show, as well as vice-chair and professor of surgery at Columbia University, says magnesium is essential for helping regulate metabolism, and it helps lower blood pressure and dilate arteries.
Additionally, Oz asserts, arguably 3 of every 4 people in the U.S. fail to get the amount of magnesium they need, which means they’re magnesium deficient.
While the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends 400 mg to 500 mg of calcium, Dean advises a 1-to-1 balance with magnesium, with calcium consumed through your diet and adding vitamin D doses along with vitamin K2, “and all of these measures combined will protect your bones as well as your heart.”
Wang’s research analyzed data from 40 epidemiological studies from 1999 to 2016, looking at the associations between dietary magnesium and different diseases. All the studies used self-reporting food frequency questionnaires from 24-hour dietary recall to determine magnesium levels, and they varied widely.
Biological, lifestyle, gender and study location factors were also taken into account. Afterward, he explained, the researchers performed a dose-response analysis for the effect of each 100 mg-per-day increase of dietary magnesium.
The conclusion of the study reinforced the study conclusion that increased consumption of magnesium-rich foods could be beneficial for overall health. Wang’s press release noted:
“Magnesium is vital for human health and normal biological functions including glucose metabolism, protein production and synthesis of nucleic acids such as DNA. Diet is the main source of magnesium as the element can be found in foods such as spices, nuts, beans, cocoa … and green leafy vegetables.”
Magnesium-Rich Foods: How to Naturally Combat Heart-Related Disease
Magnesium is the fourth-most abundant mineral in your body, and more than 300 enzymes rely on it to carry out normal muscle and nerve function related to energy, relaxed blood vessels, good teeth and bone formation and the regulation of insulin and blood sugar levels.8
Magnesium helps your body detox from toxins and helps synthesize glutathione. It also plays a vital role in your body’s mitochondrial performance, and in improving your energy level. One very positive aspect of this mineral is that when your body has taken in the optimal amount, it simply flushes the rest away.
Dean, in her book “The Magnesium Miracle,” recommends taking 200 mg per day, but parsed out in two or three doses, as it can have a laxative effect. Other scientists recommend taking almost twice that amount, but age and sex are factors to consider. Foods containing magnesium include:
Fatty fish (wild-caught Alaskan salmon), seeds, including pumpkin seeds and sunflower seeds, nuts, including cashews, almonds and Brazil nuts, and herbs and spices, including chives, coriander, cumin, parsley, mustard seeds, fennel, basil and cloves, also contain high amounts of magnesium, so as you can see, it’s easy to include it in your diet.
Thousands of studies have been done on the health effects of vitamin D, and research shows it is involved in the biology of all cells and tissues in your body, including your immune cells. Your cells actually need the active form of vitamin D to gain access to the genetic blueprints stored inside.
This is one of the reasons why vitamin D has the ability to impact such a wide variety of health problems — from fetal development to cancer. Unfortunately, despite being easy and inexpensive to address, vitamin D deficiency is epidemic around the world.
It’s been estimated that as many as 90 percent of pregnant mothers and newborns in the sunny Mediterranean region are even deficient in vitamin D,1 thanks to chronic sun avoidance. A simple mathematical error may also deter many Americans and Canadians from optimizing their vitamin D.
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends a mere 600 IUs of vitamin D per day for adults. As pointed out in a 2014 paper,2 the IOM underestimates the need by a factor of 10 due to a mathematical error, which has never been corrected.
Grassroots Health has created a petition for the IOM and Health Canada to re-evaluate its vitamin D guidelines and correct this mathematical error.3 You can help further this important cause by signing the petition on ipetitions.com.
More recent research4 suggests it would require 9,600 IUs of vitamin D per day to get a majority (97.5 percent) of the population to reach 40 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL).
The American Medical Association uses of 20 ng/ml as sufficient, but research shows 40 ng/mL should be the cutoff point for sufficiency in order to prevent a wide range of diseases, including cancer.
Research Again Concludes Vitamin D Lowers Cancer Risk
A large number of studies have shown raising your vitamin D level can significantly reduce your risk of cancer.
Most recently, a randomized clinical trial5 by researchers at Creighton University, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), found vitamin D and calcium supplementation lowered participants’ overall cancer risk by 30 percent.6,7,8
The study, which included more than 2,300 postmenopausal women from Nebraska who were followed for four years, looked at the effects of vitamin D supplementation on all types of cancer.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 2,000 IUs of vitamin D3 in combination with 1,500 mg of calcium, or a placebo for the duration of the study. Blood testing revealed that 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels were significantly lower in those who did develop cancer.
Joan Lappe, Ph.D., professor of nursing and medicine at Creighton University and lead author of the study, said:
“The study provides evidence that higher concentrations of 25(OH)D in the blood, in the context of vitamin D3 and calcium supplementation, decrease risk of cancer … While people can make their own vitamin D3 when they are in the sun near mid-day, sunscreen blocks most vitamin D production.
Also, due to more time spent indoors, many individuals are lacking adequate levels of vitamin D compounds in their blood. The results of this study lend credence to a call for more attention to the importance of vitamin D in human health and specifically in preventing cancer.”
Vitamin D Status Is Strongly Correlated With Cancer Risk
Previous research has shown that once you reach a serum vitamin D level of 40 ng/mL, your risk for cancer diminishes by 67 percent, compared to having a level of 20 ng/ml or less.9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16
Most cancers, they found, occurred in people with a vitamin D blood level between 10 and 40 ng/mL. The optimal level for cancer protection was identified as being between 40 and 60 ng/mL.
Another study17 published in 2015 found women with vitamin D concentrations of at least 30 ng/mL had a 55 percent lower risk of colorectal cancer than those who had a blood level below 18 ng/mL.
Even earlier research,18 published in 2005, showed women with vitamin D levels above 60 ng/mL had an 83 percent lower risk of breast cancer than those with levels below 20 ng/mL!
The Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (formerly IOM) has also reported an association between vitamin D and overall mortality risk from all causes, including cancer.19,20
Vitamin D also increases your chances of surviving cancer if you do get it,21,22 and this includes melanoma.23,24
Access Sun Exposure as Much as Possible and Get Your Vitamin D Level Checked
The UVB in sunlight is what triggers your body to produce vitamin D. I firmly believe getting regular, sensible sun exposure is the ideal way to not only optimize your vitamin D level, but maximize your health as well, because sunlight also has many other important health functions. I’ll review some of these in another section below.
Many do not appreciate that red, near-, mid- and far-infrared have many important biological functions. One of them is to improve mitochondrial function, especially the 660 nm and 830 nm wavelengths, as cytochrome C oxidase in mitochondria use these wavelengths to produce ATP more efficiently.
Vitamin D3 supplements are a poor second resort, but if you’re unable to get sufficient sun exposure, then it’s better than nothing. As demonstrated in the featured study — which specifically looked at the effects of supplementation — they do have some benefit.
Also, while not addressed in this study, I strongly recommend taking your vitamin D3 with vitamin K2 and magnesium as well, since all three work in tandem.
A primary consideration when it comes to vitamin D is to get your level checked, ideally twice a year, in the middle of the summer and winter, when your level is at its highest and lowest.
What you’re aiming for is a level between 40 and 60 ng/mL year-round. Grassroots Health offers vitamin D testing at a great value through its D*Action study.
How to Minimize Your Risk of Skin Cancer From Sun Exposure
Many avoid sun exposure for fear of melanoma, an aggressive and potentially lethal form of skin cancer. However, it’s important to realize that melanoma occurs among those with minimal sun exposure as well.
An important risk factor for melanoma is overexposure to UV radiation. Baking in the sun for hours on end on a weekend here and there is not a wise choice.
To minimize your skin cancer risk, you want to avoid sunburn at all cost. If you’re going to the beach, bring long-sleeved cover-ups and a wide-brimmed hat, and cover up as soon as your skin starts to turn pink.
Following are some general guidelines for sensible sun exposure. If you pay close attention to these, you can determine, within reason, safe exposure durations.
Know your skin type based on the Fitzpatrick skin type classification system. The lighter your skin, the less exposure to UV light is necessary. The downside is that lighter skin is also the most vulnerable to damage from overexposure.
For very fair skinned individuals and those with photodermatitis, any sun exposure may be unwanted and they should carefully measure vitamin D levels while ensuring they have an adequate intake of vitamin D, vitamin K2, magnesium and calcium.
For most individuals, safe UV exposure is possible by knowing your skin type and the current strength of the sun’s rays. There are several apps and devices to help you optimize the benefits of sun exposure while mitigating the risks. Also, be extremely careful if you have not been in the sun for some time. Your first exposures of the year are the most sensitive, so be especially careful to limit your initial time in the sun.
Vitamin D Influences Your Health in Many Ways
The benefits of vitamin D are not restricted to cancer prevention. In fact, the list of health benefits of vitamin D is exceedingly long. As noted earlier, researchers have now realized that vitamin D affects virtually every cell and tissue in your body, so it might be easier to list what it will no taffect, rather than what it will impact.
Compelling evidence suggests that optimizing your vitamin D can reduce your risk of death from any cause,25 making it a foundational component of optimal health. Megadoses of vitamin D have also been shown to decrease the length of time critical care patients must remain hospitalized.26 Those who received 250,000 IUs for five days were released after an average of 25 days, compared to the average 36 days for those receiving placebo.
Patients who received 500,000 IUs of vitamin D for five days were released after an average of just 18 days, effectively cutting their hospital stay in half. The health care savings in this instance alone are tremendous. When you add in all possible diseases and ailments vitamin D can prevent and/or ameliorate, the savings could potentially tally into the trillions each year.
Certainly, for the average person, optimizing your vitamin D level is one of the least expensive preventive care strategies at your disposal. If you suffer from any of the following ailments and still haven’t checked your vitamin D level, now may be the time to go ahead and do so, as research27 into vitamin D has found it can help prevent and/or address:
Depression,32,33Seasonal Affective Disorder and psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia
Neurological disorders, including autism, dementia and Alzheimer’s34,35
Health Benefits of Sun Exposure Beyond Vitamin D
There’s overwhelming evidence to suggest the human body evolved to obtain health benefits from, and to thrive in, sunlight. As previously noted in The Daily Mail:36“Even taking the skin-cancer risk fully into account, [scientists] say that getting a good dose of sunshine is statistically going to make us live longer, healthier and happier lives.”
One significant mechanism by which sunlight helps optimize your health is by triggering the release of nitric oxide (NO) when sunlight strikes your skin.37
NO is a powerful blood pressure lowering compound that helps protect your cardiovascular system, cutting your risk for both heart attacks and stroke. According to one 2013 study,38 for every single skin cancer death, 60 to 100 people die from stroke or heart disease related to hypertension. So, your risk of dying from heart disease or stroke is on average 80 times greater than your risk of dying from skin cancer.
Importantly, while higher vitamin D levels correlate with lower rates of cardiovascular disease, oral vitamin D supplements do not appear to benefit blood pressure, and the fact that supplements do not increase NO may be the reason for this. According to researcher Dr. Richard Weller:
“We suspect that the benefits to heart health of sunlight will outweigh the risk of skin cancer. The work we have done provides a mechanism that might account for this, and also explains why dietary vitamin D supplements alone will not be able to compensate for lack of sunlight.”
To get a thorough understanding of how UV light affects your cardiovascular function, read Weller’s paper, “Sunlight Has Cardiovascular Benefits Independently of Vitamin D.”39 Research also shows that UV light:
Helps treat and prevent the spread of diseases like tuberculosis40
Helps anchor your circadian rhythm, helping you sleep better
Helps kill and prevent spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. UV light at 254 nanometers acts as a potent bactericidal, killing drug-resistant strains of S. aureus and E. faecalis in as little as 5 seconds41
Reduces your risk of myopia (short-sightedness). As reported by The Daily Mail:42 “[R]esearchers believe that the neurotransmitter dopamine is responsible.
It is known to inhibit the excessive eyeball growth that causes myopia. Sunshine causes the retina to release more dopamine”
Boosts men’s libido by increasing testosterone. Research reveals men’s’ testosterone levels rise and fall with the seasons. Researchers have also linked low vitamin D with an increased risk for erectile dysfunction45
Helps maintain vitamin D status in elderly people at a lower cost than that of using oral vitamin D supplementation.46
Not only could UV lamps help improve nursing home patients’ physical health, they could also help relieve symptoms of depression
Lowers all-cause mortality. In one study,47,48 women who avoided sun exposure had double the all-cause mortality rate of those who got regular sun exposure.
Another 54-month-long study,49 involving more than 422,800 healthy adults, found that those who were most deficient in vitamin D had an 88 percent increased mortality risk
Embrace Sensible Sun Exposure as a Health-Promoting Habit
Safe exposure to sunshine is possible by understanding your skin type, the UV strength at the time of exposure, and your duration of exposure. My advice has been clear: Always avoid sunburn. Once your skin develops the slightest tint of pink, cover up with clothing to avoid further exposure.
The most important part of the equation is to pay close attention to your vitamin D level. Ideally, get your vitamin D tested during the peak of summer and at the end of winter to help guide your UV exposure and vitamin D supplementation. The evidence is overwhelming: You really do need sensible sun exposure for optimal health.
Since few foods contain any significant amount of vitamin D, and your body certainly was not designed to get its vitamin D from supplements, which are a modern invention, the only rational conclusion is that sun exposure is the ideal way to raise your vitamin D level.
Research has shown just how beautifully your body has been designed to use the sun’s UV rays to promote health. It even has built-in “fail-safes” and self-regulatory processes to ensure you cannot produce too much vitamin D from sun exposure. Plus, the vitamin D produced by UVB rays actually helps counteract the skin damage caused by UVA. It’s an intricate dance that simply cannot be fully duplicated with a supplement.