Connect with us

Health

Doctors Explain How Hiking Actually Changes Our Brains

Published

on

Photo Credit: Collective Evolution
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

While it may seem obvious that a good hike through a forest or up a mountain can cleanse your mind, body, and soul, science is now discovering that hiking can actually change your brain… for the better!

Hiking in Nature Can Stop Negative, Obsessive Thoughts

Aside from the almost instant feeling of calm and contentment that accompanies time outdoors, hiking in nature can reduce rumination. Many of us often find ourselves consumed by negative thoughts, which takes us out of the enjoyment of the moment at best and leads us down a path to depression and anxiety at worst. But a recent study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that spending time in nature decreases these obsessive, negative thoughts by a significant margin.

To conduct this study, researchers compared the reported rumination of participants who hiked through either an urban or a natural environment. They found that those who walked for 90 minutes in a natural environment reported lower levels of rumination and they also had reduced neural activity in the subgenual prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain related to mental illness. Those who walked through the urban environment, however, did not report decreased rumination.

The researchers noted that increased urbanization closely correlates with increased instances of depression and other mental illness. Taking the time to regularly remove ourselves from urban settings and spend more time in nature can greatly benefit our psychological (and physical) well-being.

Hiking While Disconnected From Technology Boosts Creative Problem Solving

study conducted by psychologists Ruth Ann Atchley and David L. Strayer found that creative problem solving can be drastically improved by both disconnecting from technology and reconnecting with nature. Participants in this study went backpacking through nature for about four days, during which time they were not allowed to use any technology whatsoever. They were asked to perform tasks requiring creative thinking and complex problem solving, and researchers found that performance on problem solving tasks improved by 50% for those who took part in this tech-free hiking excursion.

They also noted that both technology and urban noise are incredibly disruptive, constantly demanding our attention and preventing us from focusing, all of which can be taxing to our cognitive functions. A nice long hike, sans technology, can reduce mental fatigue, soothe the mind, and boost creative thinking.

Hiking Outdoors Can Improve ADHD in Children

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is becoming more and more common among children. Children who have ADHD have a difficult time with impulse control and staying focused, get distracted easily, and exhibit excessive hyperactivity.

While raising children who have ADHD can be difficult for parents, the usual solution — opting for prescription medication — may be doing more harm than good, particularly when natural solutions can work just as well.

study conducted by Frances E Kup, PhD, and Andrea Faber Taylor, PhD, found that exposing children with ADHD to “green outdoor activities” reduces symptoms significantly. The results of this study suggest nature exposure can benefit anyone who has a difficult time paying attention and/or exhibits impulsive behaviour.

Hiking In Nature Is Great Exercise and Therefore Boosts Brainpower

We already know that exercise is fantastic for our overall well-being. Hiking is an excellent way to burn between 400–700 calories per hour, depending on your size and the hike difficulty, and it is easier on the joints than other activities like running. It has also been proven that people who exercise outside are more likely to keep at it and stick to their programs, making hiking an excellent choice for those wishing to become more active on a regular basis.

Researchers from the University of British Columbia found that aerobic exercise increases hippocampal volume — the part of the brain associated with spatial and episodic memory — in women over the age of 70. Such exercise not only reduces memory loss, but helps prevent it as well. Researchers also found that it can lower stress and anxiety, boost self-esteem, and release endorphins. Many people take medication to solve each and every one of these issues, but the solution to these ills may be a lot simpler than you think!

How Can You Begin Hiking?

Luckily, hiking is one of the easiest and least expensive sports to get involved in, and it can have great benefits for the whole family, including grandma! Start out small and test your abilities. Do what works for you; if that means just walking through trails in a park, that’s fine. Any exercise outdoors is better than none. You can easily find maps of trails around your home online, and there are plenty of smartphone apps to map them out, too. I recommend turning off your signal and your phone while hiking though, so you can reap the most benefits of the hike (though it may be wise to at least carry it with you in case of emergency).

Make sure you have some good sturdy hiking shoes, a hat, and a water bottle, and be sure to layer your clothing so you can take things on or off easily as you warm up and cool down. You may want to consider using trekking poles as well, which can increase your speed and take some of the pressure off your knees. Now, can you just do one thing for me?

Go take a hike!

Much Love

This article (Doctors Explain How Hiking Actually Changes Our Brains) was originally created for Collective Evolution and is published here under Creative Commons.

Share This Story
Continue Reading

Awareness

New Study Shows How Eating A Western Diet Impairs Brain Function And Leads To Overeating

Published

on

New Study Shows How Eating A Western Diet Impairs Brain Function And Leads To Overeating
Photo Credit: Pexels

Elias Marat, The Mind Unleashed

Could it be that our Western-style diet laden with saturated fats, added sugars, and processed grains could actually impair our brain functions while weighing us down with a tendency to continuously over-indulge?

According to researchers, this is very much the case. Gluttonous diets in the West could transform otherwise healthy and slim young people into mildly scatter-brained overeaters.

The new study, published in the journal Royal Society Open Science, is among the first studies looking into how the Western diet impairs memory and appetite control in humans.

The results of the research are shocking and show how high-fat, high-sugar diets caused volunteers to perform worse on memory tests while nursing a continuous craving for junk food even after they had finished a meal. In fact, the desire for junk food only grew after they had eaten the meal.

The research suggests that self-control in regards to food consumption is harder for those who cling to a Euro-American or Western diet, with the array of foods involved in the diet causing havoc for the hippocampus—the part of the brain which regulates memory and appetite control.

Richard Stevenson, study co-author and psychology professor Macquarie University in Sydney, told the Guardian:

“After a week on a Western-style diet, palatable food such as snacks and chocolate becomes more desirable when you are full.

This will make it harder to resist, leading you to eat more, which in turn generates more damage to the hippocampus and a vicious cycle of overeating.”

To investigate the Western diet’s impact on humans, researchers recruited 110 participants aged 20-23 who were generally lean and healthy and stuck to a good diet. The group was split into one control group that ate their normal diet for a week, while the other team was assigned a calorie-heavy western-style diet filled to the brim with fast food and Belgian waffles.

At the beginning and end of the week both groups ate a breakfast in the lab that was bookended by word memory tests and rating how much they enjoy sugary foods like Froot Loops and Coco Pops, as well as how much they want to continue eating them.

Prof. Stevenson noted that their findings suggest the disruption of the hippocampus by the foods. He added:

“The more desirable people find the palatable food when full, following the Western-style diet, the more impaired they were on the test of hippocampal function.” 

Continuing, Stevenson explained that when the hippocampus isn’t functioning to its full capacity, memories flood the brain which makes food more appealing than it should be—even when our bellies are full. The findings echo earlier research done on animals which showed junk food’s ability to impair the hippocampus.

While there is no concrete reason as to why this is the case, the hippocampus is known to block out or blur our memories and daydreams about tasty food when we are full.

Scientists now fear that the subtle impairments caused by our sugary, processed diets could lead to long-term effects including increased tendencies toward obesity and diabetes, both of which have been linked to dementia and cognitive decline.

Stevenson feels that in light of the findings, governments are likely to find themselves in a position to control the unrestricted consumption of junk food as a simple matter of public safety—not unlike government attempts to restrict the smoking of tobacco.

Stevenson added:

“Demonstrating that processed foods can lead to subtle cognitive impairments that affect appetite and serve to promote overeating in otherwise healthy young people should be a worrying finding for everyone.”

By Elias Marat | Creative Commons | TheMindUnleashed.com

Share This Story
Continue Reading

Awareness

Yale Study Reveals 1 In 3 Drugs Have Safety Issues Even After FDA Approval

Published

on

Yale Study Reveals 1 in 3 Drugs Have Safety Issues Even After FDA Approval
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

In 2014, Harvard University stated that prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death, yet pharmaceutical companies continue to hide behind their profits and promote their products as safe. Doctors and even their patients are willing to turn a blind eye to many of the adverse side effects of drugs, opting for the “bandaid” effect they provide instead of seeking alternative treatments and preventative methods.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and conducted by a team of researchers from Yale University studied the effectiveness of the FDA’s drug approval process. The team discovered that nearly one in three drugs that the FDA tests and approves ends up having safety issues.

Research Finds Serious Issues With FDA Drug Approval Process

In order to establish whether or not pharmaceutical drugs are safe for consumers, the FDA implements drug testing and clinical trials. These trials typically test fewer than 1,000 patients over a short timeframe, usually around six months or less. The Yale researchers suggested that safety issues could only truly be detected if more patients were studied over a longer period of time, speaking to the ineffectiveness of the FDA’s testing.

To identify how to effectively determine any safety issues with pharmaceutical drugs, the Yale researchers studied data on new drugs approved between 2001 and 2010, with follow up through 2017. Their findings proved that approximately 32% of new drugs approved by the FDA had notable safety issues.

A shocking 71 of the 222 drugs approved within this timeframe were withdrawn, had a “black box” warning regarding the side effects, or required a safety announcement to the public about newfound risks. This begs the question: Why are these drugs being approved in the first place if they warrant so many safety concerns?

“That is very rarely a drug withdrawal, but more commonly a black box warning, or drug safety communication issued by the FDA to let physicians and patients know that new safety information has been determined,” explained Associate Professor of Medicine and Public Health Dr. Joseph Ross, who led the research team.

The researchers also specified characteristics of pharmaceuticals that were more likely to pose a higher risk of safety issues to patients, including biologic therapies and drugs that were approved through the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. The accelerated approval process often uses surrogate endpoints, which means that the researchers measured a factor other than survival, such as tumour size, to figure out whether the drugs should be approved.

This [finding on surrogate endpoints] has the greatest relationship to policy today,” Ross further elaborated. “In the 21st Century Cures Act, there’s a push to have the FDA move to further support the use of surrogate markers … [but] they’re more likely to have concerns in the post-market setting.”

While the administration pushes for less regulation and faster approvals, those decisions have consequences,” Ross stated. The Yale team’s previous studies exposed that the FDA approval process for drugs is much faster than that of other government organizations in Europe, which is interesting given the nature of the business in both countries. Prices of drugs are far higher in America than they are abroad, and Americans take a lot more drugs, meaning U.S. pharmaceutical companies make a lot more money.

The timing of this study is interesting too, as the FDA has been facing increased pressure lately to quicken the drug approval process. “It shows that there is the potential for compromising patient safety when drug evaluation is persistently sped up,” said Ross. “At the very least, the study should inform ongoing debate about premarket drug evaluation,” the researchers concluded.

Dr. Caleb Alexander, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, weighed in on the study, commending the researchers for their work. “It’s important to keep in mind that the post-approval safety issues cover the spectrum from relatively minor to serious,” Alexander said.

“A good next step would be to dig into the extremely serious safety problems, determine whether the FDA could have flagged them sooner and how they might have been missed,” he continued.

“All too often, patients and clinicians mistakenly view FDA approval as (an) indication that a product is fully safe and effective,” Alexander explained. “Nothing could be further from the truth. We learn tremendous amounts about a product only once it’s on the market and only after use among a broad population.”

Dr. Alexander makes a great point: Just because a drug is approved by the FDA, doesn’t mean it’s safe. In an ideal world, FDA approval would mean that the drug is entirely safe to use, but the reality is that the testing is not extensive enough to even determine the safety of the drug, let alone guarantee it.

Far too often, people place their doctors and health care practitioners on pedestals and fail to conduct their own research. Though I am not qualified to professionally advise anyone on their health, I certainly do not trust everything that my doctor recommends, which is largely because no doctor knows everything there is to know about health. It’s up to you to figure out your own health, not your doctor.

Though doctors can provide wonderful advice and can help immensely when diagnosing and treating illnesses, they can also drastically hinder your health. However, that’s not necessarily their fault, it’s often yours. The onus is on you to conduct your own research, get multiple professional opinions if need be, and ensure you are making informed decisions.

Further Proof of Misconduct at the FDA

In journalism, embargo refers to a “back-room deal” in which journalists and their sources agree not to publish an article prior to a specific date or time. The FDA goes one step further by implementing a “closely held embargo,” which gifts the organization complete control over all new FDA information privy to exposure for the American public.

The FDA’s use of the “close embargo” reveals that the institution likely wants to prevent reporters from leaking information. The biggest concern seems to be that, when officials begin giving the go-ahead for this special access, it makes it much easier for the agency to prevent stories they don’t like from being exposed.

The FDA hinders the public’s right to know about scientific fraud and misconduct as well. In an article for SlateCharles Seife wrote:

“For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a pattern of burying the details of misconduct. As a result, nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretences. The FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public, but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a dangerous drug couldn’t get forthright answers. For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public.”

To be clear, 128,000 people die every year in the U.S. from drugs prescribed to them, which is being done under the approval of the FDA and doctors. The reality is, drug companies make a lot of money from selling prescriptions, and so do those involved with them, including doctors.

At the end of the day, the medical industry is a booming business, one that thrives off sick people. These companies actually benefit when their drugs cause adverse effects, because they then have additional reasons to sell you even more drugs. The system is designed to help you in one way, and then disadvantage you in another. In essence, they want you healthy, but not too healthy, and until we educate ourselves and take control of our health, we will continue to perpetuate this cycle.

This article (Yale Study Reveals 1 in 3 Drugs Have Safety Issues Even After FDA Approval) was originally created for Collective Evolution and is published here under Creative Commons.

Share This Story
Continue Reading

Health

How Aluminium Damages Your Brain

Published

on

How Aluminium Damages Your Brain
Photo Credit: Getty

Dr. MercolaGuest Writer

For years, I’ve warned that aluminium is a serious neurotoxic hazard involved in rising rates of autism and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). I’ve also warned that vaccines are a significant source of such exposure, and may be one of the worst, since by injecting it, the aluminium bypasses your body’s natural filtering and detoxification systems.

My comments above were one of the reasons the self-appointed global arbiter of fake news, NewsGuard, refused to give us “green” status as a site that follows “basic standards of accuracy and accountability.” In other words, our reporting of aluminium hazards was deemed “fake news.”

Not only were my earlier reports based on published science, but now we have yet another study, published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, strongly linking aluminium exposure to AD. As reported by SciTech Daily:

“Researchers found significant amounts of aluminium content in brain tissue from donors with familial AD. The study also found a high degree of co-location with the amyloid-beta protein, which leads to early onset of the disease. 

‘This is the second study confirming significantly high brain accumulation in familial Alzheimer’s disease, but it is the first to demonstrate an unequivocal association between the location of aluminium and amyloid-beta in the disease. 

It shows that aluminium and amyloid-beta are intimately woven in the neuropathology,’ explained lead investigator Christopher Exley, PhD, Birchall Centre, Lennard-Jones Laboratories, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.”

The Association Between Aluminium and Amyloid-Beta

To gain a better understanding of the link between aluminium exposure and beta-amyloid generation, the researchers examined the brain tissue of donors diagnosed with familial Alzheimer’s disease who also had a specific gene mutation known to increase levels of amyloid-beta, leading to early onset and more aggressive disease.

Aluminium levels were compared to controls with no neurological disease diagnosis. They found striking differences between these two groups. Donors with the genetic mutation had universally high aluminium content.

While all samples had some level of aluminium, 42% of the samples from those with familial Alzheimer’s had “pathologically significant” aluminium levels, and the aluminium was primarily co-located with amyloid beta plaques. As reported by SciTech Daily:

“The results strongly suggest that genetic predispositions known to increase amyloid-beta in brain tissue also predispose individuals to accumulate and retain aluminium in brain tissue … 

‘One could envisage increased amyloid-beta in brain tissue as a response to high levels of aluminium content, or that aluminium fosters the accumulation of amyloid-beta,’ said Dr. Exley. 

‘Either way, the new research confirms my resolve that within the normal lifespan of humans, there would not be any AD if there were no aluminium in the brain tissue. No aluminium, no AD.’”

Aluminium Adjuvants Have Never Been Tested for Safety

Exley’s conclusion deserves repeating: “No aluminium, no AD.” Without aluminium, Alzheimer’s doesn’t develop. That’s not fake news. This research provides conclusive evidence for concern, which means it would be foolish in the extreme to pretend that injecting infants and young children with aluminium-containing vaccines is harmless.

As revealed in my 2015 interview with Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, featured in “How Vaccine Adjuvants Affect Your Brain,” when aluminium was first approved for use in vaccines, some 95 years ago, it was approved based on its efficacy. It was never actually tested for safety.

Even the total allowable limit was based on efficacy data, not safety data. They simply assumed it was safe. As noted by Tomljenovic in that interview:

“A document4 from 2002 from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) … discussing the assessment of vaccine ingredients … and testing specifically in animal models … stated that the routine toxicity studies in animals with vaccine ingredients have not been conducted because it was assumed that these ingredients are safe. 

When I read that I was kind of pulling my hairs out (thinking) ‘So, this is your indisputable evidence of safety?’ These documents never made it to mainstream media. It’s just a lie perpetuated over and over again; that we’ve been using these things for over nine decades and it’s been proven safe. No, it’s been ASSUMED safe.”

Industry Propaganda and Political Interference

The propaganda responsible for hiding the dangers of aluminium was addressed in a 2014 review article in the journal Frontiers of Neurology. In it, Exley (who also co-authored the featured Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease study above) wrote:

“The aluminium industry is a pillar of the developed and developing world and irrespective of the tyranny of human exposure to aluminium it cannot be challenged without significant consequences for businesses, economies, and governments … 

There has been and there continues to be systematic attempts by the aluminium industry to suppress research on aluminium and human health. 

While independent research in this field is prevented the questions concerning human toxicity remain unanswered. Lack of required research does not equate to lack of biological effect or safety … 

Herein, I will make the case that it is inevitable both today and in the future that an individual’s exposure to aluminium is impacting upon their health and is already contributing to, if not causing, chronic diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease.”

Exley points out that one of the most significant factors driving complacency about aluminium exposure is the aluminium industry’s insistence that, since it’s everywhere and found in virtually everybody, it must be harmless if not essential — we just haven’t figured out how it benefits us yet. However, no beneficial role of aluminium has ever been elucidated, and its presence is in no way evidence of benefit.

Why Aluminium Toxicity Flies Under the Radar

Exley also notes that aluminium is rarely acutely toxic, which adds to the complacency problem. Problems only arise once a certain threshold is reached, and even then, its role in disease is rarely if ever investigated.

Yet another factor that helps hide the influence of aluminium in disease is the fact that it acts on many different pathways and acts as a substitute for essential minerals, so aluminium toxicity doesn’t have one specific hallmark.

“The potential for aluminium to interact with and to influence so many biochemical pathways means that the symptoms of its toxicity could be deficiency or sufficiency, agonistic or protagonistic, and any combination of these and other physiology-based events,” Exley writes, adding: 

“For aluminium to play a significant role in any disease-related event some degree of toxicity threshold must have been achieved. Essentially, the rate of delivery of Al3+(aq) to target ligands must be sufficient to overcome the inherent robustness of systems that are under attack. 

In achieving this threshold either aluminium must accumulate over time within a particular compartment or possibly the administration of a single dose of aluminium could achieve such a threshold instantaneously. 

The latter is probably more unusual in human being’s everyday exposure to aluminium except, for example, where aluminium is administered as an adjuvant in vaccination and allergy immunotherapy.”

Importantly, aluminium has the ability to cross the blood-brain-barrier, so any aluminium in the blood can be transported into the brain. “Indeed, aluminium is known to increase the leakiness of epithelial and endothelial barriers and in doing so could concomitantly increase the passage of aluminium from the blood to the brain,” Exley writes.

Biological Effects of Aluminium

Exley also points out aluminium can damage your brain function by:

  • Adversely influencing neuronal function and survival
  • Potentiating damaging redox activity
  • Disrupting intracellular calcium signalling that systematically wears down cellular defences
  • Worsening the adverse effects of other heavy metals
  • Influencing gene expression

A 2010 paper also pointed out that aluminium salts “can increase levels of glial activation, inflammatory cytokines and amyloid precursor protein within the brain,” and that “Both normal brain aging and to a greater extent, Alzheimer’s disease are associated with elevated basal levels of markers for inflammation.”

Similarly, a 2018 paper in the Journal of Research in Medical Sciences cites research showing aluminium affects:

Axonal transport Neurotransmitter synthesis
Synaptic transmission Phosphorylation or de-phosphorylation of proteins
Protein degradation Gene expression
Peroxidation Inflammatory responses

When it comes to altering gene expression, aluminium has been shown to do this via many different routes and mechanisms, including by:

Binding to histone-DNA complex Inducing conformational changes of chromatin
Inducing topological changes of DNA Decreasing expression of neurofilament
Decreasing expression of tubulin Altering expression of neurofilament genes
Altering expression of amyloid precursor protein Altering expression of neuron-specific enolase
Decreasing expression of transferrin receptor Altering expression of RNA polymerase I
Altering expression of oxidative stress marker genes such as SOD1 and glutathione reductase Altering expression of beta-APP secretase

Importantly, as noted in the Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, aluminium has been shown to “cause mitochondrial dysfunction and depletion of adenine-triphosphate (ATP),” which sets the stage for virtually any chronic disease, not just neurodegenerative diseases.

Vaccine Schedule Overexposes Infants to Aluminium

In December 2019, The Highwire reported the findings of a study published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, which found the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention’s childhood vaccine schedule — when adjusted for bodyweight — exposes children to a level of aluminium that is 15.9 times higher than the recommended “safe” level.

The researchers point out that previous efforts to assess the aluminium burden created by vaccines were based on “whole-body clearance rates estimated from a study involving a single human subject.”

What’s more, they used an aluminium citrate solution that is not used in vaccines, which may affect the excretion rate. Importantly, infants also have immature renal function, which will inhibit their ability to filter and excrete toxins in the first place.

Other studies have used orally ingested aluminium to assess and defend safety limits for aluminium in vaccines. This is clearly an unwise comparison, as only 0.1% of orally ingested aluminium is absorbed and made bioavailable from the gastrointestinal tract.

In the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology study, the researchers used several different models in an effort to estimate the expected acute and long-term whole-body accumulation of aluminium in children following one of the three possible vaccine schedules:

  1. The CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule as of 2019
  2. The CDC’s vaccine schedule modified to use low dose aluminium DTaP and aluminium-free Hib vaccines
  3. Dr. Paul Thomas’ “vaccine-friendly plan,” which recommends giving only one aluminium-containing vaccine per visit (max two) and delaying certain vaccinations

The CDC’s standard schedule resulted in the greatest expected aluminium burden in all model assumptions, while Thomas’ schedule resulted in the lowest. According to the authors:

“Medically, proper organ, cellular and body aluminium detoxification appears to be of ever-increasing importance: Aluminium has been found in the brains of patients with Parkinson’s Disease, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, and autism. 

Evidence is growing that a host of chronic illnesses of unknown cause that are difficult to diagnose such as PANDAS/PANS, chronic fatigue syndrome may at least in part be due to vaccine aluminium intolerance. 

Aluminium compounds occur naturally in the environment and in food, but very little ingested aluminium is absorbed through the intestines. Total aluminium exposure is affected by the aluminium amount in individual vaccines and the timing of repeated vaccinations in the first two years of life. 

Dórea and Marques compared the expected levels of aluminium uptake into the body from intravenous and oral intake and concluded that human infants have higher exposure to aluminium from vaccination than from food, water, and formula. 

Our calculations confirm that for the CDC schedule, infants up to six months of life receive most of their metabolically available aluminium from vaccines. 

It should be expected that most aluminium retained in the body of infants comes from vaccinations combined with the levels of exposure from other exposures to manifest health risks from total exposure, making the timing and total aluminium content of different vaccine schedules an important consideration.”

CDC Vaccine Schedule Exceeds Aluminium Limit for Adults

As noted in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology study, the “safety” limit for aluminium is not weight dependent. The maximum safe limit is based on an adult, and the same limit is transposed to infants weighing a fraction of that.

Importantly, this study found that when multiple aluminium-containing vaccines are given together, as per the CDC schedule, the total aluminium dose ends up exceeding even the assumed safety limit for an adult.

“Adjusting the safe dose limit based on a child’s weight at these ages therefore results in doses that far exceed the estimated safe limit of acute toxicity,” the authors warn, adding that “on all days of injection the safe limit for a child is exceeded for all three schedules; this points to acute toxicity … 

The CDC schedule has the largest violation at 15.9 times the recommended safe level. This occurs at 2 months, when four recommended vaccinations containing aluminium are simultaneously administered. 

In addition, modelling the time to clear aluminium from the body using Priest’s equation estimates that for this schedule a child will be over the safe level of aluminium in the body for 149 days from birth to 7 months, constituting about 70 % of days in this period. This points to chronic toxicity … 

The modified CDC schedule assumes the same vaccinations at the same times as the CDC schedule, but like the Vaccine Friendly Plan it assumes a lower dose aluminium DTap vaccine, and also combines the ActHib (containing no Al) with low aluminium DTap or PVC13 so that the aluminium adjuvant in the aluminium containing vaccine (ACV) activates an immune response for the ActHib vaccine. 

This drops the maximum level of exposure to about 60 % of the original CDC plan with (from 15.9 to 9.3) and drops days above the estimated safe limit in the first 7 months from 70 % of days to 26 % and in the first 2 years from 24 % of days to 8 %. 

The Vaccine Friendly Plan schedule skips some vaccinations in the first two years (like HepB) and avoids giving more than two vaccinations containing aluminium together. 

The VFP thus further limits maximum exposure to approximately 25 % of the original CDC schedule (from 15.9 to 4.2) and drops days above the estimate limit in the first seven months from 70 % of days to 5 % and in the first two years from 24 % of days to 2 %.”

Aluminium Is a Proven Neurotoxin

The health hazards of aluminium are also addressed in a 2017 scientific review published in the German journal, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, which also reviews the threshold values associated with various types of exposure.

“Aluminium’s neurotoxic effects in humans and its embryotoxic effects in animal models have been proven,” the paper states, adding that while the acute toxicity of ingested aluminium is low, long-term exposure and build up is associated with neurotoxic effects, resulting in disorientation, memory impairment and dementia. As noted in this paper:

“In addition to inducing oxidative stress and binding to negatively charged membrane structures in neurons, aluminium is able to modify hippocampal calcium signal pathways that are crucial to neuronal plasticity and, hence, to memory. Cholinergic neurons are particularly susceptible to aluminium neurotoxicity, which affect synthesis of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine.”

Aluminium as a risk factor for neurological disorders is also detailed in a 2018 paper in the Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. Here, the authors again note that “it is widely accepted that (aluminium) is a recognized neurotoxin, which could cause neurodegeneration.” They also point out that aluminium “affects more than 200 important biological reactions and causes negative effects on [the] central nervous system.”

Aluminium Detected in Organs a Year After Vaccination

A 2013 study shed important light on the vaccine adjuvant alum, a “nanocrystalline compound” that has been shown to spontaneously form “micron/submicron-sized agglomerates.” According to this paper:

“Alum is occasionally detected within monocyte-lineage cells long after immunization in presumably susceptible individuals with systemic/neurologic manifestations or autoimmune (inflammatory) syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) … 

Intramuscular injection of alum-containing vaccine was associated with the appearance of aluminium deposits in distant organs, such as spleen and brain where they were still detected one year after injection … 

Particles linearly accumulated in the brain up to the six-month endpoint; they were first found in perivascular CD11b+ cells and then in microglia and other neural cells … Cerebral translocation was not observed after direct intravenous injection, but significantly increased in mice with chronically altered blood-brain-barrier … 

Continuously escalating doses of this poorly biodegradable adjuvant in the population may become insidiously unsafe, especially in the case of overimmunization or immature/altered blood brain barrier or high constitutive CCL-2 production.”

Clearly, Alzheimer’s and autism are not caused by a single factor. Your diet and lifestyle play significant roles, as do other toxic exposures. Still, aluminium appears to be a significant concern that cannot be overlooked, especially where vaccines are concerned. Can we really justify loading infants up with aluminium at doses that are toxic even to an adult?

To learn more about the factors that raise your risk for Alzheimer’s and recommended prevention strategies, see “How Excess Iron Raises Your Risk for Alzheimer’s,” “Trans Fats Linked to Increased Risk for Alzheimer’s,” and “Lifestyle Factors Linked to Alzheimer’s.”

Share This Story
Continue Reading

Health

Study: Baking Soda Can Remove Large Amounts Of Pesticide Residue From Fruits & Vegetables

Published

on

Study: Baking Soda Can Remove Large Amounts of Pesticide Residue From Fruits & Vegetables
Photo Credit: Pexels

By now, many of us are aware of the importance of eating organic produce and other foods. Although we may often try our best, sometimes the organic option can cost an arm and a leg so we opt for conventionally grown foods from time to time. Perhaps we even follow the advice given by the Environmental Working Group’s “Clean Fifteen” and “Dirty Dozen” program. While this is a great way to reduce your exposure to chemically laden pesticides known to have many detrimental side effects, not to mention the fact that they are essentially a straight up poison, designed specifically to kill, pests, and another simple option also exists. The use of baking soda to wash produce effectively removes up to 96% of pesticides from fruit and vegetables.

The Research

Scientists from the University of Massachusetts published a study in the journal, Agricultural and Food Chemistry on the effects of baking soda on gala apples. The apples used in the study were sprayed with two types of pesticides: phosmet, a known insecticide and thiabendazole, which is a fungicide. After the pesticides were given time to penetrate into the apple peels, the apples were rinsed with three different liquid solutions: tap water, a ratio of 1% baking soda to 99% water and a commonly used bleaching solution.

Lead author, Dr Lili He from the University of Massachusetts said, “Pesticide residues may remain on agricultural produce, where they contribute to the total dietary intake of pesticides. Concerns about potential hazards of pesticides to food safety and human health have increased, and therefore, it is desirable to reduce these residues.”

Results Of The Study

After 12 minutes of gentle scrubbing the baking soda solution was able to remove 80% of the thiabendazole and 15 minutes to remove 96% of the phosmet. A type of electromagnetic mapping technology was used to determine the percentage of pesticide residue on the surface and inside the apples.

While this is just one study, there has been plenty of research conducted on the use of baking soda to remove pesticides from fruits and vegetables. So, while organic is usually best, this method can be used safely and effectively to wash your produce and reduce your exposure to harmful, often carcinogenic, chemical pesticides.

According to Dr. He, ‘The use of pesticides in agriculture has led to an increase in farm productivity. However, pesticide residues may remain on agricultural produce, where they contribute to the total dietary intake of pesticides. Concerns about potential hazards of pesticides to food safety and human health have increased, and therefore, it is desirable to reduce these residues.’ The results showed that the baking solution was most effective in removing thiabendazole and phosmet on and in apples. The standard post-harvest washing method with bleach solution and a two-minute wash did not effectively remove these pesticides.’

As the Legendary Jane Goodall once said, “How could we have ever believed that it was a good idea to grow our food with poisons?”

Rising Concerns Over Commonly Used Pesticide, Glyphosate

Something has recently come to my attention and sort of shocked me I do my best to avoid genetically modified foods, (GMO’s) whether or not ingesting GMO’s themselves are safe or not, personally I avoid them because I know if something is genetically modified, then it also means that product has been sprayed relentlessly with pesticides, and often glyphosate is one of these pesticides. But, glyphosate is actually commonly used on hundreds of different crops regardless of if they are genetically modified or not. To read more about the potential dangers of glyphosate, click here.

Try This Solution For Yourself

Baking soda is not only a great staple to have for so many different uses, you can read more about some of those uses here, but it is also extremely cost effective as well and readily available at pretty much any grocery store. To use the baking soda method, simply follow the instructions below,

  • Add a few teaspoons of baking soda to a bowl of water
  • Add the produce to be washed to the bowl
  • Soak produce for 15 minutes
  • Rinse well with cold water
  • Enjoy.

Sometimes a little awareness goes a long way, don’t forget, knowledge is power!

This article (Study: Baking Soda Can Remove Large Amounts of Pesticide Residue From Fruits & Vegetables) was originally created for Collective Evolution and is published here under Creative Commons.

Share This Story
Continue Reading

Our Facebook Page

Trending Now

STAY AWARE

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

You have Successfully Subscribed!