Febrile infectious childhood diseases (FICDs) are associated with a lower cancer risk in adulthood.
A Swiss study found that adults are significantly protected against non-breast cancers — genital, prostate, gastrointestinal, skin, lung, ear-nose-throat, and others — if they contracted measles (odds ratio, OR = 0.45), rubella (OR = 0.38) or chickenpox (OR = 0.62) earlier in life:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9824838/
Chicken pox and reduced rates of brain cancer in adulthood:
https://www.bcm.edu/news/cancer/chicken-pox-may-reduce-risk-of-brain-cancer
Mumps and reduced rates of ovarian cancer:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10552-010-9546-1
Measles and reduced risk of lymphomas
https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/dis/
And on the contrary….both the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) and chicken pox vaccine contain human DNA which has been linked to childhood cancers like leukemia and lymphoma, autoimmune diseases and gender identify confusion….
https://www.facebook.com/marcellaterry/posts/10214742184256064
Fascism was a very bad idea. It turned the 20th century into a holocaust. Fascism, essentially, means telling other people what to think and do, by naked force if necessary. Medical fascism has surfaced in the constraints to compel parents to have their children vaccinated. Differing opinions are branded as madness, delusion and/or criminality. NO-ONE MAY HOLD A CONTRARY VIEW TO THE CONSENSUS. Absolutely no dissent is tolerated. One of Hitler’s slogans was, “If you are not with us, you are against us.” That position is logical nonsense but it silenced a lot of critics. We are starting to get the same intolerance in relation to food and diets. Vegan fascism is emerging. Apparently, if you don’t care to follow their path, you are dumb, lunatic or cruel. Not only must you eat the way they do, but you must do so for the RIGHT reasons! Sounds silly? I have very good friends who are vegans, but not from issues of animal cruelty, just health reasons. They feel much better eating vegan. Recently this couple went on a vegan cruise and were astonished to find themselves ostracized, because they explained to fellow cruisers they were vegans because they were “plantarians” (plant eaters by choice), not because they were animal lovers or activists. That wasn’t enough for the thought police mob. Being vegan wasn’t enough. It was implied they must be cruel, evil people if they were not doing it because they were concerned about animal welfare! Ugh! Vivien pointed out for me that there are now bands of vegans roaming the streets, carrying placards and bursting in on diners in restaurants, screaming abuse, chanting slogans about animal cruelty and showing horrific pictures purportedly of farming practices they object to.1 It’s all dogma, of course, just like Nazism was all dogma. Dangerous dogma. I’m worried that we are not too far from the era when animal “activists” will actually hurt or kill humans who don’t share their concerns. The Planetary Diet I don’t know how many of you saw the recent brouhaha about another stream of food fascism. Someone has proposed that we must all eat responsibly, to “save the planet”. I’ve heard of lots of daft reasons to justify different diets: but politics instead of health? The UK Guardian picked up on this story and I got it via MedScape, the doctors’ online newspaper. We must all, we are told, cut our intake of red meat and sugar consumption by half, while vegetables, fruit, pulses and nuts must double. North Americans need to eat 84% less red meat but six times more beans and lentils. For Europeans, eating 77% less red meat and 15 times more nuts and seeds meets the guidelines.2 The image above is it is as a graphic. It translates to eating just 7g of pork a day, 7g of beef or lamb and 28g of fish – the equivalent of a quarter of a rasher of bacon, a 16th of a burger and two-thirds of a fish finger. There is no concept of food allergies or intolerance in this “scientifically studied” diet, even though we already know that grains are very bad for the brain and carbs are very bad for metabolic health and diabetes! Beans and lentils too can be pretty toxic, unless cooked really well, which ruins their nutritional worth. It even recommends 31 grams daily of sugar, which is nothing short of criminal. Of course you can’t expect much integrity from a bunch of frauds who got paid serious money to “find” and recommend what the person who funded the study wanted to be “found”. But the diet is a “win-win”, according to the scientists paid to come up with this plan. It would save at least 11 million people a year from deaths caused by unhealthy food, while preventing the collapse of the natural world that humanity depends upon. Just plain opinions, plucked from the air by “scientists” does not make it science. As usual The Guardian newspaper (only one step up from communist “Daily Worker”) got it all wrong. This EAT-Lancet diet they said was created by an “international commission”, making it sound very official. You’ll laugh (or spit) when I tell you WHO actually commissioned it… Norwegian model turned doctor, wife-of-a-billionaire, Gunhild Stordalen funded this vaunted study. She thinks she’s going to save the planet by reducing red meat consumption globally. This hypocrite wants to tell people what they must eat, to avert planetary disaster, yet she jets around the world in her $25 million Bombardier Challenger 350 private plane, releasing pollution and a massive carbon footprint wherever she goes. Stordalen has rightly been accused of hypocrisy after flaunting her wealth on her Instagram channel, showing herself and her husband Petter jetting off to Cuba, Spain, Antibes and Mexico. Aircraft fuel consumption and emissions are far more damaging to the environment than the farting of livestock, which is what the scientists were most concerned about, apparently. Mike Carrato (@MikeCarrato) did the Googling for me and found that a cross country round trip private flight releases about 42 tons of carbon. Another Google estimate was that each cow emits about 6 tons a year. So Stordalen consumes about 7 cows PER TRIP! That’s also her projected beef quota for 20 people for A WHOLE YEAR, every trip. Christopher Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, told the UK Daily Mirror: ‘The hypocrisy of this is breathtaking. This is a campaign telling ordinary people they should be eating less than half a rasher of bacon per day for the sake of the environment, while the patron is flying people around the world in private jets creating one enormous carbon footprint. This is a classic case of do as I say not as I do. Militant environmentalists can’t resist the chance to tell people how to live their lives and demonise everyday items of food.3 Nutritional Science There is something fundamentally bad about nutritional science. It is heavily perverted and corrupted by those on an agenda, causing a great deal of confusion over WHAT to eat. Take the 2013 PREDIMED study (Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases with a Mediterranean Diet), billed as one of the most important recent diet studies published.4 It found what we all know: the Mediterranean Diet is good. Eating like the Spanish, Italians, and Greeks do—dousing food in olive oil and loading up on fish, nuts, and fresh produce—cuts cardiovascular disease risk by a third. As Stanford University health researcher (and a famous critic of lousy nutrition science) John Ioannidis put it, as a study: “It was the best. The best of the best.” Not anymore. In June 2018, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine issued a rare retraction. Apparently the process of randomization was not done correctly. Far from being scientifically excellent, PREDIMED now appears to be quite flawed. NEJM republished a new version of PREDIMED, based on a reanalysis of the data that accounted for the missteps.5 It did not change the finding that the Mediterranean Diet was remarkably healthful. But it was a warning to those who want to trust institutional science. Beware! To date, PREDIMED remains the largest dietary intervention trial to assess the effects of the Mediterranean diet on cardiovascular disease prevention. It is far more telling and prescriptive than the deceptive one from Ms. Stordalen (sorry, Dr. Stordalen). Basically, Stordalen has commissioned and launched a scam. Walter Willett is the principal nutritionist on the EAT-Lancet report. The other nutritionists on the paper have published almost nothing on the subject of diet and disease, and nothing that contradicts Willett’s views. Thus, on the subject of diet and health, the report presents only one viewpoint. This report cannot be considered a balanced paper. Nor can Willett be taken seriously as an objective, unbiased scientist. Look at these conflicts of interest, found by Nina Techolz @BigFatSurprise and reported on her Twitter Channel.6 In fact we cannot take any of these so-called “experts” seriously because, according to The Sun reporter Nick McDermott, none of them ate the recommended diet!7 Let me finish by saying I have no issue with someone being a vegan. But I DESPISE self-righteous fools trying to take over other people’s thoughts and lives. It’s fascism, by any other name. To freedom! Prof. Keith Scott-MumbyThe Official Alternative Doctor References: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6301237/Vegan-protesters-kicked-steakhouse-storming-restaurant.html https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/16/new-plant-focused-diet-would-transform-planets-future-say-scientists https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/16/new-plant-focused-diet-would-transform-planets-future-say-scientists Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvadó J, Covas MI, Corella D, Arós F, Gómez-Gracia E, Ruiz-Gutiérrez V, Fiol M, Lapetra J, Lamuela-Raventos RM. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013 Apr 4;368(14):1279-90. Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvadó J, Covas MI, Corella D, Arós F, Gómez-Gracia E, Ruiz-Gutiérrez V, Fiol M, Lapetra J, Lamuela-Raventos RM. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts. New England Journal of Medicine. 2018 Jun 13. https://isupportgary.com/uploads/articles/397606854-Walter-Willett-Potential-Conflicts-of-Interest.pdf https://isupportgary.com/articles/is-the-eat-lancet-vegan-rule-book-hijacking-health
Maybe higher as they undoubtedly don’t count vaccine deaths in their tally!
More rules won’t stop greedy people from doing bad things! Only consumers eating healthier, exercising more, stressing less therefore staying away from allopathic practitioners in droves and opting instead for chiropractic, homeopathic or naturopathic care will resolve the present situation.
If you’re experiencing deteriorating vision as you age and don’t want to believe that it’s an unavoidable reality, the results of a recent study on macular degeneration will give you good reasons to get wide-eyed: coconut oil can now add “retina protection” to its long list of health benefits http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/coconut-oil-protects-against-macular-degeneration
The truth can be denied. It can be railed against. It can be discredited. It can be slandered. Its source can be villified. But the one thing about the truth, it cannot be disproven.
When the US Supreme Court states that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and the vaccine injury compensation tribunal has paid out 4 billion dollars in damages for vaccine induced death and disablement one cannot say that vaccinnes are safe.
When vaccinated children regularly shed and contract the disease against which they have been vaccinated one cannot honestly claim they are effective.
If they are neither safe nor effective and we have a raging epidemic of childhood chronic disease, when countries with higher vaccination rates have higher infant mortality rates and when unvaccinated kids are proven by survey to be healthier than vaccinated kids we are forced to confront the fact that despite their stated intentions and our hopeful administration of them, they are doing more harm than good.
A report published Wednesday by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) has warned about “the presence of different hazardous chemicals in disposable diapers that can migrate into the urine and come into prolonged contact with babies’ skin.” The list of chemicals is as long as it is disturbing. In total, ANSES identified some 60 chemicals, including glyphosate, the active chemical in Monsanto’s infamous herbicide Roundup. Some of the pesticides in the report have been banned in the European Union for over fifteen years, such as lindane, quintozene and hexachlorobenzene. Many fragrances, such as benzyl alcohol or butylphenyl were found. PCBs, dioxins, volatile organic compounds (naphthalene, styrene, toluene, dichlorobenzenes, etc.) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are usually found in cigarette smoke or diesel engines were also discovered. Since some of these chemicals have demonstrated carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) effects and are considered to be endocrine disruptors, the risks related to their exposure are not limited to the simple skin irritations observed by the vast majority of parents on their babies’ bottoms. https://sustainablepulse.com/2019/01/23/french-safety-agency-discovers-60-toxic-chemicals-including-glyphosate-in-baby-diapers/
