(Natural Blaze) One of the world’s most common food ingredients is finally being outed as a big, fat fraud. We hope you are sitting down for this one!
This polyunsaturated oil is touted as healthy by the big food industries, fast food industries, the natural health communities (!), and even our regulatory agencies.
We’re talking about canola oil! One of the worst food creations in modern history if you can even call it a food product. A study came out showing that canola oil was like battery acid to the cardiovascular system – and no one listened. Cooked polyunsaturated oils were recently linked to cancer….nothing but crickets.
This oil is everywhere – in most restaurants, in pretty much all fast food items, every packaged snack you can think of, in everything you can store in a cabinet and worst of all – in nearly all natural health snack goods.
Canola oil was recently linked to declining memory, learning deficits and… obesity!
After the public health scare in the 1970s over animal fats, sales of vegetable oils of all types increased. It was the established wisdom that those oils high in polyunsaturated fatty acids were especially beneficial. However, more research into vegetable oils continues to surface showing their damaging effects on health. A new study published online in the journal Scientific Reports shows that consumption of canola oil in the diet with worsened memory, worsened learning ability and weight gain.
[…]
….In the journal Scientific Reports by researchers at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University (LKSOM) associates the consumption of canola oil in the diet with worsened memory, worsened learning ability and weight gain in mice which model Alzheimer’s disease. The study is the first to suggest that canola oil is more harmful than healthful for the brain.
Canola oil contains a long-chain fatty acid called erucic acid, which is especially irritating to mucous membranes; canola oil consumption has been correlated with development of fibrotic lesions of the heart, CNS degenerative disorders, lung cancer, and prostate cancer, anemia, and constipation.
Not only are canola, soybean and corn oil now coming from genetically modified crops, but their processing is beyond toxic to human metabolism.
Any health claims for the brain regarding canola oil appear to be patently false according to the lead study author, Domenico Pratico, MD, who also directs an Alzheimer’s center at LKSOM.
Pratico and Elisabetta Laurett originally used this same Alzheimer’s mouse model while investigating olive oil earlier this year. They actually found that “Alzheimer mice fed a diet enriched with extra-virgin olive oil had reduced levels of amyloid plaques and phosphorylated tau and experienced memory improvement.” They were actually checking to see if canola oil could do the same.
The researchers started by dividing the mice into two groups at six months of age, before the animals developed signs of Alzheimer’s disease. One group was fed a normal diet, while the other was fed a diet supplemented with the equivalent of about two tablespoons of canola oil daily.
The researchers then assessed the animals at 12 months. One of the first differences observed was in body weight — animals on the canola oil-enriched diet weighed significantly more than mice on the regular diet. Maze tests to assess working memory, short-term memory, and learning ability uncovered additional differences. Most significantly, mice that had consumed canola oil over a period of six months suffered impairments in working memory.
Examination of brain tissue from the two groups of mice revealed that canola oil-treated animals had greatly reduced levels of amyloid beta 1-40. Amyloid beta 1-40 is the more soluble form of the amyloid beta proteins. It generally is considered to serve a beneficial role in the brain and acts as a buffer for the more harmful insoluble form, amyloid beta 1-42.
As a result of decreased amyloid beta 1-40, animals on the canola oil diet further showed increased formation of amyloid plaques in the brain, with neurons engulfed in amyloid beta 1-42. The damage was accompanied by a significant decrease in the number of contacts between neurons, indicative of extensive synapse injury. Synapses, the areas where neurons come into contact with one another, play a central role in memory formation and retrieval.
“Amyloid beta 1-40 neutralizes the actions of amyloid 1-42, which means that a decrease in 1-40, like the one observed in our study, leaves 1-42 unchecked,” Dr. Pratico explained. “In our model, this change in ratio resulted in considerable neuronal damage, decreased neural contacts, and memory impairment.”
In other words, long-term consumption of canola oil – which is what most Americans are currently doing – is not beneficial to the brain at all.
“Even though canola oil is a vegetable oil, we need to be careful before we say that it is healthy,” Dr. Pratico said. “Based on the evidence from this study, canola oil should not be thought of as being equivalent to oils with proven health benefits.”
They want to conduct shorter duration studies to see when is the shortest amount of time for “exposure necessary to produce observable changes in the ratio of amyloid beta 1-42 to 1-40 in the brain and alter synapse connections.”
Pratico concludes:
We also want to know whether the negative effects of canola oil are specific for Alzheimer’s disease. There is a chance that the consumption of canola oil could also affect the onset and course of other neurodegenerative diseases or other forms of dementia.
There you have it – if you don’t want to chance it with your memory and Alzheimer’s, then drop that french fry and step away from the snack section at the health food store. At the very least, canola oil’s damaging health effects have already been established for the heart, inflammation and obesity.
(Natural Blaze) The laws of a country are, generally, designed to protect its citizens. How this ideal is interpreted is a topic of debate in various circles, but its goal is lofty, if not quite perfect. Of specific necessity are laws aimed at protecting children, including child abuse, welfare, and labor laws. Of zero necessity, in my view, is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act(NCVIA), which sounds like it has the best interests of this nation’s young citizens in mind, but actually serves a much different purpose.
Congress passed the NCVIA in 1986, and President Ronald Reagan signed it into law soon after. Taken at face value, the law has some admirable provisions: it established improved communication regarding vaccines across all Department of Health and Human Service agencies; required health care providers who administer vaccines to provide a vaccine information statement to the person getting the vaccine or his or her guardian; and established a committee from the Institute of Medicine to review the literature on vaccine reactions.
Dig a little deeper, however, and the NCVIA does less to protect patients than it does drug companies making vaccines. When Reagan signed the NCVIA, he also created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which allows anyone—children and adults—who have suffered an injury (or worse) following a vaccination to file a claim. To date, it has paid out nearly $4 billion in compensation since 1988, including the 2008 case of Hannah Poling, whose family received more than $1.5 million in a landmark court award for a vaccine-autism claim.
Lifting liability
While this might sound like a good thing, one must read between the lines. The NCVIA also sets limits on the liability of vaccine manufacturers. They don’t have to pay a dime, in most cases, if someone is injured as a result of a product they make. Is there any other industry afforded such immunity? The pharmaceutical industry makes billions of dollars annually producing, promoting, and injecting a product that is known to injure people in myriad ways, and bears zero responsibility when a child—or an adult—suffers as a result.
The system is broken, and it’s why the founders of the nonprofit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), which worked with Congress in the 1980s to get the NCVIA passed, began calling in 2015 for its repeal. In a press release, NVIC co-founder Barbara Loe Fisher noted that the federal vaccine injury compensation program has become “a drug company stockholder’s dream and a parent’s worst nightmare.” In the same document, co-founder Kathi Williams argues that the provisions that their organization helped secure in the law are not being enforced, and most children getting government-recommended vaccines are denied vaccine injury compensation.
That zero liability rests on the vaccine manufacturers is a travesty of epic proportions.
I echo their calls for repeal. Children are given between 53 and 56 vaccine doses containing 177 to 232 antigens between birth and age 18. Vaccine reactions range from a mild fever, muscle/joint pain, and injection site swelling to seizures, trouble breathing, vomiting, and permanent brain damage. Though considered “rare” by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, these more serious effects admittedly occur, and people suffer. That zero liability rests on the vaccine manufacturers is a travesty of epic proportions.
And yet, is anyone truly surprised? This is the same cast of characters that knowingly inserts neurotoxins such as mercury and aluminum into its products, and uses advertising and public awareness campaigns to further enrich themselves and ensure that vaccine injury stories are never shown to the public.
Vaccines and vaccine safety are emotionally charged issues. But setting aside the history of this controversy and its consequences, the passage of NCVIA raises an overarching issue that should concern consumers of any product, vaccine or otherwise.
Perhaps not surprisingly, vaccine safety deteriorated when consumers were no longer able to sue vaccine manufacturers.
Safety vs. profit
A 2017 study published in the Review of Industrial Organization looked at whether removing the right to sue—called “delitigation”—affects product safety, and highlighted specifically the effects of NCVIA on the vaccine industry. Perhaps not surprisingly, vaccine safety deteriorated when consumers were no longer able to sue vaccine manufacturers.
Author Gayle DeLong, PhD, an economist at Baruch College, attributes this decrease in safety to the expanded array of vaccines allowed by NCVIA, and argues that some vaccines likely never would have been developed at all if consumers had retained the right to sue. Losing the ability to sue companies for bad products results in the production of more bad products, or maybe not as many good ones, because the companies are inoculated from harm.
The VICP is a no-fault program designed specifically and intentionally to shield vaccine manufacturers, rather than protect the people harmed by vaccines. This system has lined the pockets of pharmaceutical companies for decades, while simultaneously giving them the green light to continue making unsafe vaccines that put people—particularly children—at risk for lifelong, serious health problems and even death.
Rewarding bad behavior
Rather than continue under an arrangement that essentially rewards bad behavior, NCVIA should be repealed and eventually replaced with more thoughtful legislation regarding vaccines. Given the sheer number of things with which we inject millions of children on a daily basis in this country, shouldn’t someone be held responsible when things go awry? The knee-jerk reaction of our government shouldn’t be to protect the entity that is hurting people. It should be to clearly and concisely articulate how vaccines can be made safer, and penalize those who don’t comply.
We all try to take personal responsibility in our lives, whether for our own actions or for those of our children. We try to teach them right from wrong, to admit when they’ve done something they shouldn’t have, and show them how to correct it. It’s unfortunate that the same standards that apply to seven-year-olds don’t apply to pharmaceutical companies.
(Dr. Mercola) As consumer food preferences are rapidly changing, with more people looking for and buying healthier foods, the food industry is struggling to come up with a coordinated response to win back consumer confidence and recoup sagging sales. As noted by Politico,1“As legacy brands lag, food companies have two options: Change to compete or buy up the new brands that are already growing rapidly.”
Nestlé’s recent departure from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the largest and most powerful lobbying group for the processed food industry, is just one piece of evidence signaling the development of a deep rift within the industry. According to the featured article, “Long the attack group for large companies like Kraft and General Mills on legislative and regulatory issues, GMA now has members like Nestlé opposing some of its positions.”2 Mars Inc. has also confirmed it will not renew its membership with GMA.3
Leaving the GMA is not the only way Nestlé is changing. The processed food giant recently purchased Atrium Innovations — the Canadian parent company of the organic supplement brand, Garden of Life — for $2.3 billion.4 Garden of Life is said to make up the largest chunk of Atrium’s annual sales. The irony of the buyout is pretty obvious. As noted by Reuters,5 “Nestlé [is] expanding its presence in consumer healthcare as it seeks to offset weakness in packaged foods.” Atrium will become part of the Nestlé Health Science division, which already sells nutritional products. The purchase reflects Nestlé’s new “strategic priority,” namely consumer health.
Other major players have also chosen to part ways with GMA, suggesting Big Food is in fact starting to pay attention to consumers’ demand for honesty and transparency. Three years ago, I wrote about how the GMA was suing states for the right to deceive you, and how it got caught laundering money during the Washington campaign to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The association was ultimately fined a record $18 million for its illegal side-stepping of the state’s campaign finance laws, but by then the damage was already done and Washington did not get the votes required to enact GMO labeling. (The GMA has contested the guilty verdict, so the legal wranglings are not yet over.)
Around that same time, I also dubbed GMA “the most evil corporation on the planet,” since it consists primarily of pesticide producers and junk food manufacturers who have gone to great lengths to violate some of your most basic rights, just to ensure that subsidized, genetically engineered (GE) and chemical-dependent, highly processed junk food remains the status quo.
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) also called for a boycott on every single product owned by GMA members, including organic and natural brands, to send a clear message to the industry that we will no longer tolerate being bamboozled by their deceptive and illegal strategies. Since then, some of the heavy-hitters have indeed left — or are considering leaving — the GMA. This suggests your participation in the GMA boycott has indeed been wildly successful. According to Politico:6
“… Campbell decided to stop fighting and instead embrace GMO labeling early last year, believing that consumers want more information about what’s in their food and where it comes from — not less. Other major food companies are also eyeing the door: Dean Foods, the largest dairy company in the country, has quietly decided to leave the association. Several others … are considering it …
‘Companies that get it have said, ‘Why are we paying GMA more than $1 million a year to lobby for things that our brands don’t support?” said Jeff Nedelman, founder of the public relations firm Strategic Communications that works with health and wellness brands, and a former VP of communications at GMA during the 1980s and ’90s.
‘To me, it looks like GMA is the dinosaur just waiting to die,’ Nedelman added … As more millennials become parents, food companies will have to adapt and change even more … as the majority of shoppers will be looking for brands and companies and products with aligned their values.”
Changing Consumer Tastes Have Thrown Food Industry Into Disarray
People are becoming increasingly cognizant of the connection between food and health, and are seeking out healthier fare. American consumers are also paying greater attention to labeling, favoring companies that provide clear disclosures. Organics, grass fed meats and products that do not contain artificial colors are all becoming increasingly popular.
Just a few years ago, the industry saw “real food” and organics as a niche market, and there were even attempts to squash it by labeling people who sought out such foods as wealthy food snobs. It’s now becoming clear that such derogatory labels don’t work (and don’t fit the majority of organic consumers). According to a recent market analysis, the top 20 food and beverage companies in the U.S. lost $18 billion of their market share between 2011 and 2017.7
In an effort to stop the bleeding and recapture sales, many started buying up popular organic brands. PepsiCo bought Naked Juice and Coca-Cola snapped up Honest Tea, while General Mills acquired Larabar and Kellogg’s bought Kashi. The question is whether these processed food giants really have the “heart,” not to mention financial incentive, to maintain the quality and purity consumers came to expect from organic brands.
The food industry is also at odds over the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) updated Nutrition Facts label,8 which will require manufacturers to list added sugars, both in grams and percentage of total daily calories. While Nestlé and Mars supported the change, others vehemently opposed it.
One of the main arguments against listing added sugars on the label is that it will confuse consumers, but in all reality, the only thing that will happen is that it will allow consumers to actually see and compare how much sugar is in their beloved staples, which just might trigger a switch to less health-harming foods.
Food companies have until January 2020 to comply with the label changes, but some have stated they will voluntarily update their labels well before that deadline, all in an effort to appease consumer demand for transparency.
Plant Based Foods Association — The New Kid on the Block
After leaving GMA, Campbell joined the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA), which presently claims to have 92 corporate members.9 The association’s stated mission is “To ensure a fair and competitive marketplace for businesses selling plant-based foods intended to replace animal products such as meats, dairy and eggs, by promoting policies and practices that improve conditions in the plant-based foods industry, and educating consumers about the benefits of plant-based foods.”10
While most people would certainly benefit from eating more plant foods, I can foresee the potential for trouble with such a narrow industry mission. Organic, grass fed animal foods have a unique and valuable place not only in the human diet but environmentally as well, as livestock is an important part of regenerative agriculture.
PBFA also represents manufacturers of meat substitutes, and while the industry claims getting rid of animal meat altogether is the answer to many of our health and environmental problems, the evidence suggests this simply isn’t true.
A healthy ecosystem needs grazing animals, and there’s very little if any evidence to support the idea that meat substitutes are in fact healthy. For example, the FDA has raised concerns about Impossible Burger’s meat substitute made from soy, wheat, coconut oil, potatoes and plant-based “heme” derived from genetically engineered (GE) yeast.
Safety concerns also surround Quorn, another meat substitute made from a fungus-based ferment. I find it difficult to understand how a manufactured food product that has been accused of causing death could ever be sold as a healthier option than grass fed beef raised on a regenerative farm.
Why Junk Food Is Still Advertised to Children
Over the years, it’s become increasingly clear that the processed food industry has little concern for public health. It’s really all about maintaining sales, even when this means twisting the facts to make a product appear healthy — logic and science be damned. As noted by Scientific American in 2013,11 Congress commissioned the Inter-agency Working Group (IWG) to develop standards for the advertising of food to children in 2009.
Its report, released in 2011, turned out to be a devastating blow to food companies, as foods marketed to children had to contain “at least 50 percent by weight one or more of the following: fruit; vegetable; whole grain; fat-free or low-fat milk or yogurt; fish; extra lean meat or poultry; eggs; nuts and seeds; or beans.” According to General Mills, the guidelines would bar 88 of the 100 most commonly consumed products in the U.S. from being advertised to children.12
Moreover, General Mills estimated that if all Americans ate a healthy diet, the food industry would lose $503 billion in annual sales.13 If you’ve been paying attention to what your children are told to eat while watching their favorite program, I’m sure you’ll agree none of the items conform to the guidelines suggested by the IWG. That’s because the industry fought the guidelines, and won.
Dietitians Lectured on Social Media Conduct
Food industry rifts have also become evident in the field of nutrition. The Washington Post recently ran a story about Rebecca Subbiah, a registered dietitian and organic farmer who recounts being harassed and shamed by other dietitians online.14 According to the article, Subbiah “unwittingly stepped into an online debate about industrial farming practices. She tweeted that she personally prefers organic foods because she believes they’re better for the environment.”
She describes the responses she received as “terrible” and “very toxic,” saying the name-calling and questioning of her intellect made her cry. According to The Washington Post, the conversation about organics has “grown so heated that the country’s certifying body for dietitians issued guidance to its members asking them to avoid ‘belittling’ or ‘humiliating’ colleagues in online discussions,” and to sign a public pledge of professional civility.
Six other dietitians interviewed for the article agree that harassment “has become common in the field,” and believe the “hostility reflects deepening ideological divides in both the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the professional group — and in nutrition, in general.” It’s quite sad when an organization has to actually instruct its members to remember to interact professionally when engaging in online discussions about nutrition.
It’s also a potent reminder to patients and clients — your dietitian may well be mired in outdated and unhealthy opinions cultivated by the processed food and chemical technology industries. This isn’t so surprising when you consider the fact that junk food companies have a hand in educating dietitians on what’s healthy and what’s not.
Dietitians Have Become an Increasingly Divided Lot
The American Dietetic Association’s (ADA) annual conference has long been monopolized by the likes of Coca-Cola, Mars, Kellogg’s and General Mills. Rarely if ever will you find organic food experts included in the speaker lineup at these events.
One cannot help but wonder if the harassment of dietitians who support and promote organics and a nonprocessed food diet doesn’t originate from junk food purveyors and pesticide companies in the GE seed business. After all, the industry has become expert at secretly employing professionals and academics who then spread the corporate gospel under the cloak of independent opinion and expertise.
Melinda Hemmelgarn, who was attacked on social media for months after giving a public talk about the “unintended consequences of GMOs,” told The Washington Post she believes online “incivility is just a symptom of the actual problem: deep divides between dietitians regarding the state of the modern food system.”
As noted in the article, dietitians historically did not get involved with issues such as the environmental impacts of food production, but in recent years, such topics have become increasingly important to consumers, and hence the industry of nutrition. The issue was further brought to the fore when, in 2015, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee specifically noted that eating more plant foods would be beneficial for the environment.
Don’t Let Your Diet be Dictated by Corporate Agendas
It’s really unfortunate that so many dietitians are still under the delusion that you can eat a processed food diet and regain or maintain good health, but such is the power of corporate brainwashing. For instance, many dieticians still believe artificial sweeteners are a sensible alternative to sugar, and that low-fat, low-calorie microwavable meals are a “healthy” dinner, when this could not be further from the truth.
Fortunately, at the forefront of any revolution is knowledge, and that is the stage many are at right now with regard to the food system. Finally, many are beginning to realize that the bulk of the packaged, processed foods found in supermarkets are not real “food” at all, but cheap concoctions of subsidized farm crops and chemicals manipulated to taste and look edible.
The easiest way to break free of this trap through your diet is by focusing on whole — ideally organic, or better yet, biodynamic — unadulterated foods, meaning foods that have not been processed or altered from their original state. I’ve compiled many tips on how to do this without breaking the bank in these past articles:
Coming Attraction: Fruit and Veggie Marketing Machine
Also remember that if a food is heavily advertised, there’s a good chance it is unhealthy. Real foods like grass fed beef, raw butter, organic cage-free eggs, organic vegetables and the like are not the subject of commercial jingles or billboards, but they are the types of foods that will support optimal health. You can find more examples of real, healthy, non-corporate food in my nutrition plan.
Fortunately, signs of change are evident here as well. In an effort to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables, Partnership for a Healthier America (PHA) has started a fruits and vegetable campaign15 (branded as FNV16) to improve public perception and acceptance of plant produce. The video above is a preview of FNV’s “fruit and veggie marketing machine” — ads that are as enticing as those produced by junk food manufacturers.
According to the PHA, the new campaign is already starting to change behavior. Toni Carey, senior manager, communications and marketing for PHA, told Forbes that “80 percent of people bought or consumed more fruits and veggies after seeing FNV advertising” and that “over 90 percent have a favorable impression of FNV and would engage with the brand in some way.”17
Where to Find Healthy Foods
While many grocery stores now carry organic foods, it’s preferable to source yours from local growers whenever possible, as much of the organic food sold in grocery stores is imported. If you live in the U.S., the following organizations can help you locate farm-fresh foods:
The goal of the American Grassfed Association is to promote the grass fed industry through government relations, research, concept marketing and public education.
Their website also allows you to search for AGA-approved producers certified according to strict standards that include being raised on a diet of 100 percent forage; raised on pasture and never confined to a feedlot; never treated with antibiotics or hormones; born and raised on American family farms.
EatWild.com provides lists of farmers known to produce raw dairy products as well as grass fed beef and other farm-fresh produce (although not all are certified organic). Here you can also find information about local farmers markets, as well as local stores and restaurants that sell grass fed products.
Weston A. Price has local chapters in most states, and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase organic foods, including grass fed raw dairy products like milk and butter.
This website will help you find farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass fed meats and many other goodies.
The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, hotels and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs and markets near you.
The Cornucopia Institute maintains web-based tools rating all certified organic brands of eggs, dairy products and other commodities, based on their ethical sourcing and authentic farming practices separating CAFO “organic” production from authentic organic practices.
If you’re still unsure of where to find raw milk, check out Raw-Milk-Facts.com and RealMilk.com. They can tell you what the status is for legality in your state, and provide a listing of raw dairy farms in your area. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund18 also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws.19 California residents can also find raw milk retailers using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com.
Biotech Companies Are Gaining Power by Taking Over the Government
There is no doubt in my mind that GMOs and the toxic chemicals used along with them pose a serious threat to the environment and our health, yet government agencies turn a blind eye and refuse to act — and the reason is very clear: They are furthering the interests of the biotech giants.
It is well known that there is a revolving door between government agencies and biotech companies such as Monsanto. Consider the hypocrisy of the FDA. On paper, the U.S. may have the strictest food safety laws in the world governing new food additives, but this agency has repeatedly allowed GMOs and their accompanying pesticides such as Roundup to evade these laws.
In fact, the only legal basis for allowing GE foods to be marketed in the U.S. is the FDA’s claim that these foods are inherently safe, a claim which is patently ridiculous. Documents released as a result of a lawsuit against the FDA reveal that the agency’s own scientists warned their superiors about the detrimental risks of GE foods. But their warnings fell on deaf ears.
The influence of the biotech giants is not limited to the U.S. In a June 2017 article, GMWatch revealed that 26 of the 34 members of the National Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology of Argentina (CONABIA) are either employed by chemical technology companies or have major conflicts of interest.
You may be aware that Argentina is one of the countries where single-crop fields of GE cotton, corn and soy dominate the countryside. Argentina is also a country facing severe environmental destruction. Argentinians are plagued with health issues, including degenerative diseases and physical deformities. It would appear that the rapid expansion of GE crops and the subsequent decline in national health indicators are intrinsically linked.
Don’t Be Duped by Industry Shills!
Biotech companies’ outrageous attempts to push for their corporate interests extend far beyond the halls of government. In a further effort to hoodwink the public, Monsanto and its cohorts are now zealously spoon-feeding scientists, academics and journalists with questionable studies that depict them in a positive light.
By hiring “third-party experts,” biotech companies are able to take information of dubious validity and present it as independent and authoritative. It’s a shameful practice that is far more common than anyone would like to think. One notorious example of this is Henry Miller, who was thoroughly outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California.
Miller, falsely posing as a Stanford professor, promoted GE foods during this campaign. In 2015, he published a paper in Forbes Magazine attacking the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, after it classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. After it was revealed that Miller’s work was in fact ghostwritten by Monsanto, Forbes not only fired him, but also removed all of his work from its site.
Industry front groups also abound. The Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council for Science and Health are both Monsanto-funded. Even WebMD, a website that is often presented as a trustworthy source of “independent and objective” health information, is acting as a lackey for Monsanto by using its influence to promote corporate-backed health strategies and products, displaying advertisements and advertorials on Biotech’s behalf, furthering the biotech industry’s agenda — all for the sake of profit.
Monsanto has adopted underhanded tactics to peddle its toxic products, but the company is unable to hide the truth: Genetic engineering will, in no way, shape or form, make the world a better place. It will not solve world hunger. It will not increase farmers’ livelihoods. And it will most certainly not do any good for your health — and may in fact prove to be detrimental.
There’s No Better Time to Act Than NOW — Here’s What You Can Do
So now the question is: Will you continue supporting the corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system that Monsanto and its industry shills and profit-hungry lackeys have painstakingly crafted? It is largely up to all of us, as consumers, to loosen and break Monsanto’s tight hold on our food supply. The good news is that the tide has been turned.
As consumers worldwide become increasingly aware of the problems linked to GE crops and the toxic chemicals and pesticides used on them, more and more people are proactively refusing to eat these foods. There’s also strong growth in the global organic and grass fed sectors. This just proves one thing: We can make a difference if we steadily work toward the same goal.
One of the best things you can do is to buy your foods from a local farmer who runs a small business and uses diverse methods that promote regenerative agriculture. You can also join a community supported agriculture (CSA) program, where you can buy a “share” of the vegetables produced by the farm, so that you get a regular supply of fresh food. I believe that joining a CSA is a powerful investment not only in your own health, but in that of your local community and economy as well.
In addition, you should also adopt preventive strategies that can help reduce the toxic chemical pollution that assaults your body. I recommend visiting these trustworthy sites for non-GMO food resources in your country:
Monsanto and its allies want you to think that they control everything, but they do not. It’s you, the masses, who hold the power in your hands. Let’s all work together to topple the biotech industry’s house of cards. Remember — it all starts with shopping smart and making the best food purchases for you and your family.
(Dr. Mercola) Many people experience temporary soreness in their shoulder after receiving a vaccination in the area, but for some the soreness turns into chronic pain and limited range of motion. Some people are so badly affected that they become unable to move their shoulder altogether, known as frozen shoulder, or suffer from nerve damage and rotator cuff tear. The condition, known as shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, or SIRVA, is on the rise, according to data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).1
In fact, the condition is occurring often enough that it was recently added to the federally operated vaccine injury compensation program’s (VICP) Vaccine Injury Table, which lists some, but not all, serious side effects that are known to be caused by vaccines.
In order to win federal compensation for a vaccine injury, a person must prove he or she developed certain clinical symptoms and health conditions listed on the Table within a certain timeframe of receiving a certain vaccine, and demonstrate that there is no more biologically plausible explanation for the vaccine-related injury or death.
In the case of SIRVA, 202 people were awarded compensation for SIRVA in 2016.2 According to Dr. H. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics at Floating Hospital for Children, Tufts Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts, “Many instances of SIRVA may be avoided by proper vaccination technique and positioning.”
A Vaccine Administered Too High Up on Your Shoulder May Lead to SIRVA
Many vaccine side effects are related to the ingredients in a vaccine. SIRVA is unique in that it’s primarily caused by how the contents of the vaccine are injected into the arm. A vaccine given in your shoulder is intended to go into your muscle. If it is not administered correctly and goes into the bursa, a fluid-filled sac that protects your shoulder tendons, trouble can result. Specifically, the vaccine may provoke your immune system to attack the bursa, sometimes leading to debilitating symptoms. As The Washington Post reported:3
“These injection-caused injuries often make simple tasks — such as lifting your arm to change a light bulb or reaching behind you to put your arm through the sleeve of a jacket — painful, even impossible. Some victims cannot use their shoulder at all and must find ways to compensate using the other one.”
The Washington Post interviewed Dr. G. Russell Huffman, an associate professor of orthopedic surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, who said when he first heard a patient complain of shoulder pain following an injury in 2009 or 2010, he “blew it off.” But then the complaints started to become more common.
“Since then, I’ve seen more than a dozen patients who have suffered shoulder injuries after vaccinations. Almost universally, when I ask where the shot went, they point really high up on the arm,” Huffman said.4 A patient, Barbara Steele, who spoke to Wired in 2015, similarly reported that doctors and nurses initially “kept brushing me off” after SIRVA from two vaccines left her unable to work.5
Yet, two case studies were published in 2007, highlighting vaccination-related shoulder dysfunction, including pain and weakness, that occurred following “influenza and pneumococcal vaccine injections provided high into the deltoid muscle.” The researchers concluded, quite clearly, that improperly administered vaccines appeared responsible for the symptoms:6
“Based on ultrasound measurements, we hypothesize that vaccine injected into the subdeltoid bursa caused a periarticular inflammatory response, subacromial bursitis, bicipital tendonitis and adhesive capsulitis … We conclude that the upper third of the deltoid muscle should not be used for vaccine injections, and the diagnosis of vaccination-related shoulder dysfunction should be considered in patients presenting with shoulder pain following a vaccination.”
Rapid Onset of Pain Is Common With SIRVA
In 2010, a series of 13 case studies were described in the journal Vaccine, which shed some light on the characteristics of the condition.7 In half of the cases, shoulder pain occurred immediately after vaccination, while 90 percent had pain within 24 hours. Close to half of the patients also said the vaccine was given “too high” in their arm.8 The symptoms, which included both pain and limited range of motion, continued for six months to several years.
“The proposed mechanism of injury is the unintentional injection of antigenic material into synovial tissues resulting in an immune-mediated inflammatory reaction,” the researchers noted.9 Again in 2012, a case report of a 22-year-old woman who developed left shoulder pain and severe restrictions in range of motion following a seasonal influenza vaccine was published.10
MRI and ultrasound imaging, conducted eight and 9.5 weeks after the vaccination, respectively, showed “contusions on the humerus, injury of the supraspinatus, and effusion in the subacromial bursa,” with researchers saying the case served as a catalyst for discussion regarding “the potential to prevent complications arising from vaccine overpenetration.”
SIRVA Occurs More Often in Adults Than Children and Most Often After Certain Vaccines
Children receive more vaccinations than adults, yet SIRVA occurs more often in adults than children. This may be because children receive vaccinations in their thigh more often than adults do and, according to Meissner, “the bunching of the subcutaneous and deltoid tissue prior to vaccination may increase the distance to the shoulder.” In addition, he noted that the subacromial bursa in children is still developing, and therefore smaller, which may be why it’s less likely to be “hit” during a vaccination.11
Also noteworthy, in adults SIRVA occurs most often after flu shots and other vaccines that a person has already received, which may pave the way for a heightened inflammatory response. Meissner said:12
“Most cases in adults occur after administration of a vaccine to which some immunity already exists because of previous immunization such as influenza or tetanus-containing vaccines. This may result in a greater inflammatory response following inadvertent injection into the skeletal structures of the shoulder.”
A 2017 systematic review of bursitis and other injuries of the shoulder following vaccination found 45 cases, all involving adults (and more than 70 percent female). In these cases, the dysfunction most often occurred following influenza and pneumococcal vaccines, respectively; followed by diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, diphtheria-tetanus toxoid (Tdap), human papillomavirus and hepatitis A vaccines.13
There’s even a case report, published in 2015, of a 26-year-old patient who was hospitalized with shoulder pain and impairment following a vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus and polio (dT-IPV). Bursitis was reported along with bone erosion, and MRI showed the vaccine was injected in contact with the bone, causing the erosion.14
Are Drug-Store Vaccines Responsible for Rising SIRVA Cases?
Improper technique appears to be the primary cause of SIRVA (inappropriate needle size could also be a contributor), which means that proper training among nurses, pharmacists and other health care practitioners should largely prevent it. However, many people now choose to get vaccines at workplace clinics or their local drugstore, grocery store or pharmacy, where standardized training may be non-existent.
Not only that, but if you’re sitting in the middle of a store, it’s unlikely that you’ll remove your entire arm from your sleeve to receive a shot. “You just pull your shirt down a little,” physician Marko Bodor, who published the first SIRVA case report in 2007, told Wired.15“That’s only going to expose the top part of your shoulder.” At this point, it’s unknown just how often SIRVA cases appear after pharmacy versus physician’s office vaccinations, but it’s a valid theory.
That being said, SIRVA cases have occurred following vaccination at doctors’ offices as well, and it’s been suggested that, in addition to poor injection technique, practitioners’ failing to take into account a person’s individual characteristics, such as sex, body weight and physical constitution, could also increase the risk of injury.16
As for treatment, options for SIRVA include physical therapy, pain medication and cortisone injections. Up to 30 percent of patients in the 2010 case studies also required surgery,17which may be done to remove inflamed tissue. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy is another emerging option.
As the “first responders” to any site of an injury, they form a clot to stop bleeding. The process involves the platelets opening up and spilling out the growth factors held inside, which act as signaling molecules, issuing the instructions needed to call forth resources, including stem cells, to repair the damaged tissue. Dr. John Ferrell, director of sports medicine at Regenerative Orthopedics and Sports Medicine in Washington, D.C., says PRP has worked in 80 percent of his patients.18
Side Effects Following Vaccination Are Real
Although SIRVA is still described as rare, it’s conditions like this that serve as an important reminder that every vaccine carries with it a risk of side effects, some of which you may not even be aware of.
For instance, in 2011, the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviewed more than 1,000 vaccine studies and found convincing evidence of 14 health outcomes — including seizures, inflammation of the brain and fainting — that can be caused by certain vaccines.19 IOM reported that “injection of any vaccine in general can lead to … symptoms of deltoid bursitis, or shoulder inflammation,” for instance.
They also noted that many people who experience an adverse reaction to vaccines have individual susceptibility that can make them at higher risk for experiencing acute and chronic health problems after vaccination due to biodiversity (genetic variations) within populations, age at the time of vaccination, immune deficiencies, coinciding infections/illnesses and other environmental exposures (such as toxins or traumas).
Further, for the majority of side effects and health conditions that have occurred in conjunction with vaccinations, IOM stated that there was inadequate evidence to determine whether the vaccine caused the problem. In other words, there is still so much medical science does not know about the risks of vaccination and who is at greater risk for suffering harm.
At the very basic level, if you choose to have a vaccine and it’s going in your shoulder, be sure to expose your entire arm to discourage the vaccine provider from giving you a “too high” injection that could lead to debilitating shoulder injury. However, before making a choice to get vaccinated, make sure you fully understand what the vaccine contains and how to identify and report a vaccine reaction.
Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions
With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it’s critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educating the leaders in your community.
THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.
National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.
It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations, and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.
Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your smart phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up-to-date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community.
Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips. So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.
Share Your Story With the Media and People You Know
If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury, or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.
I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination, will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.
We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination.
The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
I encourage you to visit the website of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:
NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries, and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers, and school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.
Vaccine Failure Wall: View or post descriptions about vaccines that have failed to work and protect the vaccinated from disease.
Connect With Your Doctor or Find a New One That Will Listen and Care
If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination. However, there is hope.
At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents.
It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.
So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect, and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.
(Dr. Mercola) Nearly 13,000 chemicals are used in cosmetics and personal care products, but only 10 percent have been tested for human safety. The average American woman uses 12 personal care products or cosmetics every day that contain approximately 168 different chemicals. While men use fewer products and are exposed to nearly half the number of chemicals than women, teens use more products and are exposed to even more chemicals.1
Your personal care products are applied on an active, living and complex organ system. Your skin is not just a covering for your body, but rather provides temperature regulation, protection, and can produce vitamin D when exposed to the sun. The nerve cells that are packed over the expanse of your body act as messengers to your brain and are a crucial part of your ability to interact with the world.
Your skin may also be used to deliver medications as whatever you put on your skin can be absorbed. For instance, nicotine patches or pain medication patches deliver drugs directly into your bloodstream as they pass through your skin. The same may happen with the personal care products you use. If the molecules are small enough to be absorbed, they migrate through the skin and directly into your blood.
Analysis of Popular Moisturizers Finds an 83 Percent Failure Rate
Many cosmetics and personal care products on the market advertise they are fragrance-free and hypoallergenic to increase their consumer base and include customers who are concerned about chemicals. Like many dermatologists, Dr. Steven Xu, a dermatologist at Northwestern University Hospital, was asked almost daily about the moisturizers or sunscreen that would work best for sensitive skin.2
One year ago, Xu led an analysis of popular sunscreen products and discovered nearly half failed to meet basic sun safety guidelines set by the American Academy of Dermatology.3 The guideline failure fell under the category of being water or sweat resistant.4 During the study, the researchers found consumers made their decision about sunscreen predominantly based on the bottle’s “cosmetic elegance,” which was defined as any feature linked to skin sensation on application, color or scent.5
Once completed, Xu and his colleagues began questioning if other products commonly applied daily, such as moisturizers, were accurate in their advertising. Specifically, Xu was interested if claims for fragrance-free or hypoallergenic were true since many of his patients needed products that wouldn’t exacerbate skin conditions. He said,6 “I found myself really struggling to provide evidence-based recommendations for my patients.”
Xu and his colleagues gathered 174 different moisturizers that were popular brands sold on Amazon and at Target and Walmart to analyze these claims. They found a surprising 45 percent of products advertised as fragrance-free actually contained a fragrance and over 80 percent of those advertised as hypoallergenic contained a potentially allergenic chemical.7 The researchers found the majority of best-selling moisturizers that were labeled fragrance-free or hypoallergenic had some form of potential skin allergen.
A similar study, performed by a team led by dermatologist Dr. Matthew Zirwas, analyzed 276 moisturizers and found 68 percent contained fragrances, 62 percent contained parabens, 24 percent had benzyl alcohol, and 20 percent contained propylene glycol and formaldehyde releasers.8 The researchers concluded:9
“Many ingredients of moisturizers have the potential to cause irritant and allergic contact dermatitis; therefore, it is necessary for clinicians to be aware of such potential allergens in order to manage and advise their patients accordingly.”
For some, a little irritation where moisturizer was applied is frustrating. However, for those who suffer from psoriasis, eczema or sensitive skin, the result can be damaging. One study found at least 33 percent of people who used cosmetics had at least one skin reaction.10 Those reactions may range from a simple, short-lived rash, to a full-blown systemic contact dermatitis affecting your face, neck and upper torso.
Irritant contact dermatitis affects the area where the product was applied and may result in a burning sensation, stinging or itching. The area may also turn red, and if you scratch the area, blisters may appear. The second type of reaction is an allergic contact dermatitis that involves a systemic immune reaction. Symptoms may include itching, swelling, redness or hives on any part of your body, but more frequently on your face, eyes, ears, lips and neck. In other words, in many of the areas you may have applied the moisturizer.
Those with skin conditions are faced with finding a moisturizer using trial and error. Unfortunately, the errors are costly since products that trigger reactions must be thrown out, and sometimes the reactions require medical treatment. Kathryn Walter, an eczema sufferer from Ann Arbor, Michigan, discussed her frustrations trying to find a moisturizer that would sooth her skin condition, without triggering a reaction. She says:
“I will start to itch and I have to get it off my body right away. My ankles and calves are all scratched up as we speak — and my hands. Because you can’t just go to a drugstore and open up all their tubes of cream to make sure they don’t aggravate your skin. Basically, it’s a big expense.”
Absorbing Chemicals Contributes to Poor Health
Since your skin absorbs chemicals from your personal care products directly into your bloodstream, it’s particularly important to reduce exposure. Women with higher levels of chemicals detected in their blood or urine are at higher risk for experiencing menopause two to four years earlier than women who have lower levels of chemicals in their body.11
The long-term health problems associated with early menopause, regardless of the cause, include an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, neurologic disease, psychiatric disease, osteoporosis and death.12 A meta-analysis of 32 studies, including over 300,000 women, reached a similar conclusion.13 Overall the group of women who entered menopause at 45 or earlier suffered a 50 percent greater risk of heart disease.
The age-related findings in the study showed a clear association between the time of menopause and the risk of heart disease. Women who entered menopause early had an increased risk of heart disease and premature death, while women who entered menopause between the ages of 50 and 54 had a lower risk of fatal heart disease — even lower than women younger than 50.
The study identified 15 chemicals associated with early menopause and declining ovarian function.14 Many of those have already been linked to other health risks, such as cancer, early puberty and metabolic syndrome.
For instance, phthalates, a plastic chemical commonly found in personal care products including lotions, perfumes and hairspray, has been linked in studies to asthma, attention deficit disorder, breast cancer, obesity15 and a reduction in your child’s cognitive ability,16,17 to name just a few damaging health conditions.
And phthalates are just one class of chemicals found in moisturizers and lotions that have allergic potential. Other chemicals frequently found include parabens, toluene, sodium lauryl sulfate and formaldehyde releasers, all of which have their own unique list of adverse health effects.
Who Regulates Product Ingredients?
Deceptive labeling on personal care products is likely the result of a lack of federal regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Unless the product contains a currently banned chemical, all cosmetics and personal care products are allowed on the market without prior approval from any governmental agency.18 The FDA makes the differentiation that they regulate the industry but do not approve products before they show up on your grocery store shelves.19
The FDA places the responsibility of ensuring the safety of personal care products squarely on the shoulders of the manufacturer,20which is a clear conflict of interest. The FDA defines cosmetics:21
“… by their intended use, as ‘articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body … for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance’ (FD&C Act, sec. 201(i)).
Among the products included in this definition are skin moisturizers, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup, cleansing shampoos, permanent waves, hair colors, and deodorants, as well as any substance intended for use as a component of a cosmetic product.”
Product ingredients are protected from disclosure by the FDA as it falls under proprietary information. The argument is the industry is highly competitive, and if an adversarial company were to be able to recreate a popular product, it could significantly impact the profitability of the first company.
The intent of the law was to protect the viability of a manufacturer while depending on the company to protect the health of the nation. Dr. Robert Califf, vice chancellor for Health Data Science at Duke University School of Medicine and former FDA commissioner, puts it succinctly:22
“The cosmetics industry is highly competitive, and if someone can easily copy someone else’s successful cosmetic, that would be a competitive disadvantage.”
What Can You Do To Help
However, with advancing technology and testing ability, Xu tested for chemicals included in products that were not on the labels. Most large companies have access to chemists with the same abilities, negating much of the argument for protecting propriety blends of chemicals. In April 2015, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA), introduced bill S.1014, the Personal Care Products Safety Act, with the intent to:23
“… require cosmetics companies to register their facilities with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and to submit to the FDA cosmetic ingredient statements that include the amounts of a cosmetic’s ingredients. Companies must pay a facility registration fee based on their annual gross sales of cosmetics. The collected fees can only be used for cosmetic safety activities.”
As you may have anticipated, this bill has a long road before it may pass. After being read by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, hearings were held in September 2016, after which no further action has been taken. You can write to your representative24 and your senator25 to let them know how important this issue is to your health and the health of your skin.
Your healthiest choice is to protect your skin from the inside out. Your skin reacts to variables inside and outside your body. For instance, if you work outside during the winter months, or are in health care and wash your hands frequently throughout the day, your skin may become dry and cracked. Exposure to these factors reduces the natural oils on your skin that protect against drying and cracking. Internal factors that affect the ability to stay supple and soft is whether your diet supplies the necessary nutrients.
One nutrient is essential omega-3 fats, as your body cannot manufacture them independently. A deficiency may present as cracked heels, thick patches of skin or eczema. These fats also have an anti-inflammatory effect and help soothe your complexion. In the past, I’ve shared some of the best types of fish to consume high in omega-3 fats, but the general guideline is the smaller and closer to the bottom of the food chain, the less contaminated with pollution they will be. These fish include sardines, anchovies and herring.
Another healthy option is wild-caught Alaskan salmon. If you’ve incorporated these fish in your diet but are still suffering from dry skin, an omega-3 supplement, such as krill oil, may be highly beneficial. Pure, virgin coconut oil is another all-natural moisturizer you can use topically on your skin and added to your cooking. When absorbed, it helps to reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles by keeping your connective tissue strong and supple.
When your outer skin layer lacks hydration, your skin can become cracked. While it’s not entirely clear whether drinking more water can counteract dry skin, it stands to reason that a hydrated body is conducive to hydrated skin. You should drink enough water so that your urine is a very pale yellow.
Perhaps the most important step you can take to improve the health of your skin is to avoid sugars, fructose, processed foods and grains. If you eliminate sugars, grains and fructose for just a few weeks you’ll likely notice a rapid improvement in your complexion and condition of your skin.
Your overall health and the quality of your skin is strongly associated with the health of your gut. Including fermented vegetables is an ideal way of promoting the growth of beneficial gut bacteria. Normalizing your gut microbiome may help fight against skin irritations and chronic skin conditions, such as psoriasis and eczema. If you don’t regularly eat fermented foods, then a high-quality probiotic supplement is definitely recommended.
