EXCLUSIVE: Proof the BBC is trying to gaslight the UK

The BBC just published an article claiming that the record high excess deaths in the UK are due to limited access to healthcare.

This is false and I can prove it. The data doesn’t show that at all.

The UK data shows that by April 2022, in every age range, the vaccinated were dying at a higher rate than the unvaccinated. This is why the UK government stopped reporting these statistics because the numbers were showing that the shots were killing people:

These are the official UK numbers plotted out in a way that makes it very clear that the vaccinated are dying more often than the unvaxxed (line is above 1.0).

And we also have the Neil/Fenton analysis which shows that the only thing correlated to the excess deaths is the vaccine. Uh oh.

Hey, maybe the BBC can show us THEIR analysis that they used for their story? Or was it just a hand-waving argument? Can we see the data?

And we also have annotated death records worldwide where we can see that more than 15% of the deaths of the vaccinated are associated with the vaccine (symptoms started shortly after vaccine and/or consistent with vaccine injury). If anyone at the BCC wants to verify these records, I have the full contact information of the reporters.

All you really need to do is read the Notes field. Nobody died because they couldn’t get their statin prescription.

Finally, consider Table 2 of the Cleveland Clinic study. It shows that the more vaccines you get, the more likely you are to get COVID. This is because each dose of the vaccine reduces your overall immunity to everything, especially cancer.

That’s the opposite of what the government told you. They lied about that too.

Think about all the people you know who died in 2022. Collaborate with friends you trust. You’ll find that all the “unusual” deaths were among the vaccinated and associated with the vaccine. You will find a very high percentage of vaccine injured.

All five methods listed above come to the same answer: the BBC is gaslighting the UK.

I want to make it crystal clear that NOBODY in the UK is fooled by the BBC story.

To that end, I’m willing to wager up to $1M (minimum $50,000) that the most likely cause of all the excess deaths is the COVID vaccine.

Will anyone take my bet?

If not, I think I’ve made my point. The confidence in the BBC story is extremely low. Not even people who work at the BBC will take my bet. It’s really sad when the employees of the BBC recognize that the BBC is just a government propaganda operation.

The bottom line is this: the BBC is happy to sacrifice your life on these vaccines, but they are not going to risk losing their money on challenging me.

Their money is way more important than your life. And that’s just the way it is.

Al Gore Made $300 Million from Climate Alarmism

Al Gore, the former Vice President of the US, has become a prominent climate change campaigner. He is always at the forefront of efforts to warn us about the dangers of global warming. Check out his latest hysterical rant at the WEF’s annual gathering in Davos. He warns us about boiling oceans and other scary consequences of climate change.

In 2009, Al Gore famously predicted that the Arctic would disappear in five years.

Al also did surprisingly well for himself, according to this DailyMail article.

The article is very interesting and well-sourced.

At the time that he ran for the presidency [in year 2000], after serving as Bill Clinton’s loyal sub-ordinate for eight years, his net worth was a paltry $1.7 million, mainly through his family’s land holdings in Tennessee.

the former VP has been at the forefront of green technology investment that has seen his wealth balloon to an estimated $330 million.

Gore also nets at least $200,000 per public speaking engagement. Gore’s advice on ‘going green’ is also sought by the biggest businesses in the world for undisclosed sums. 

Why would a typical company pay Al Gore for “speaking engagements”? It is difficult to imagine that listening to a man whose climate predictions consistently were disproven over time would generate business advice that would increase a corporation’s bottom line.

How can we explain Al Gore receiving $200,000 per engagement?

There is a reason why companies give money to a man whipping climate fear and creating climate anxiety leading to a mental health pandemic. The reason is that large businesses are blackmailed by various “coalitions,” committees, and alliances. A business that refuses to pay money in support of fashionable causes, or allows free speech, like Twitter, is targeted for bad press, harassment, and boycotts:

Al Gore is also financially propped by Apple and Google, far more than any possible business value he could bring to them as an individual adviser:

At the time he signed on [sic] an advisor at Google in 2001, Gore was given stock options that were worth more than $30 million.

Gore has been a member of Apple’s board since 2003, and over that time, he has amassed more than 100,000 in shares and restricted stock in the company.

So when you see Al Gore advocating for his favorite causes, be aware that his advocacy worked out very well for him financially.

It is just a coincidence, right?

Al Gore made plenty of money peddling alarmism in various forums, via movies, newspaper interviews, etc.

I made much less money writing occasionally alarmist articles on Substack and having some paid subscribers among tens of thousands of total subscribers.

[I am thankful to the paying subscribers immensely. They get no specific benefit from supporting me and do so only because of the goodness of their hearts.]

That said, I ask myself: am I a grifter? Do I monetize (well-founded, in my opinion) fear? Are my publicly expressed concerns about declining birth rates, increased mortality, and the reckless use of billions of people as lab rats on the same moral plane as profiting from fake climate predictions? What if Al Gore also believes in his mission?

Can we say that Mr. A, making $XX.XX, from his substack, is a good guy, whereas Mr. B, making $XXXXXXXXX from his WEF-connected clients, is a bad guy? Where is the difference exactly?

My answer is that I cannot know this for sure; being a writer with paid subscribers colors my perceptions. We all invent self-serving explanations. My economics professor always said that people follow intentions.

Accusations from disinformation fighters are flying about “antivax disinformation grifters.” How can we know if someone is or is not a grifter? What does this word even mean?

These are complicated questions best left for another post. I know these questions are important when looking at anyone who publishes and receives income from publishing.

All I can do is write the best articles I can that would be true to the best of my knowledge. I also do not have corporate sponsors. Substack is something I do on the side, apart from my main job.

Additionally, I decided a while ago that I did not want to be a peddler of doom. So even though I describe bad things as they are happening, I also try to seek out good news and report on them.

Thanks for listening. Let us know what you think.

Share

Al Gore Selflessly Made $300 Million from Climate Alarmism

Al Gore, the former Vice President of the US, has become a prominent climate change campaigner. He is always at the forefront of efforts to warn us about the dangers of global warming. Check out his latest hysterical rant at the WEF’s annual gathering in Davos. He warns us about boiling oceans and other scary consequences of climate change.

In 2009, Al Gore famously predicted that the Arctic would disappear in five years.

Al also did surprisingly well for himself, according to this DailyMail article.

The article is very interesting and well-sourced.

At the time that he ran for the presidency [in year 2000], after serving as Bill Clinton’s loyal sub-ordinate for eight years, his net worth was a paltry $1.7 million, mainly through his family’s land holdings in Tennessee.

the former VP has been at the forefront of green technology investment that has seen his wealth balloon to an estimated $330 million.

Gore also nets at least $200,000 per public speaking engagement. Gore’s advice on ‘going green’ is also sought by the biggest businesses in the world for undisclosed sums. 

Why would a typical company pay Al Gore for “speaking engagements”? It is difficult to imagine that listening to a man whose climate predictions consistently were disproven over time would generate business advice that would increase a corporation’s bottom line.

How can we explain Al Gore receiving $200,000 per engagement?

There is a reason why companies give money to a man whipping climate fear and creating climate anxiety leading to a mental health pandemic. The reason is that large businesses are blackmailed by various “coalitions,” committees, and alliances. A business that refuses to pay money in support of fashionable causes, or allows free speech, like Twitter, is targeted for bad press, harassment, and boycotts:

Al Gore is also financially propped by Apple and Google, far more than any possible business value he could bring to them as an individual adviser:

At the time he signed on [sic] an advisor at Google in 2001, Gore was given stock options that were worth more than $30 million.

Gore has been a member of Apple’s board since 2003, and over that time, he has amassed more than 100,000 in shares and restricted stock in the company.

So when you see Al Gore advocating for his favorite causes, be aware that his advocacy worked out very well for him financially.

It is just a coincidence, right?

Al Gore made plenty of money peddling alarmism in various forums, via movies, newspaper interviews, etc.

I made much less money writing occasionally alarmist articles on Substack and having some paid subscribers among tens of thousands of total subscribers.

[I am thankful to the paying subscribers immensely. They get no specific benefit from supporting me and do so only because of the goodness of their hearts.]

That said, I ask myself: am I a grifter? Do I monetize (well-founded, in my opinion) fear? Are my publicly expressed concerns about declining birth rates, increased mortality, and the reckless use of billions of people as lab rats on the same moral plane as profiting from fake climate predictions? What if Al Gore also believes in his mission?

Can we say that Mr. A, making $XX.XX, from his substack, is a good guy, whereas Mr. B, making $XXXXXXXXX from his WEF-connected clients, is a bad guy? Where is the difference exactly?

My answer is that I cannot know this for sure; being a writer with paid subscribers colors my perceptions. We all invent self-serving explanations. My economics professor always said that people follow intentions.

Accusations from disinformation fighters are flying about “antivax disinformation grifters.” How can we know if someone is or is not a grifter? What does this word even mean?

These are complicated questions best left for another post. I know these questions are important when looking at anyone who publishes and receives income from publishing.

All I can do is write the best articles I can that would be true to the best of my knowledge. I also do not have corporate sponsors. Substack is something I do on the side, apart from my main job.

Additionally, I decided a while ago that I did not want to be a peddler of doom. So even though I describe bad things as they are happening, I also try to seek out good news and report on them.

Thanks for listening. Let us know what you think.

Share

Divide and Rule: The Plan to Make You Disposable

  • Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., details how the elite 1% intend to “divide and rule” in order to achieve their exploitative goals

  • The world’s top 1% — the ultra-wealthy elite — and the modern empires they control — Big Tech, Big Pharma and Big Ag — are responsible for destroying the planet and sending most of humanity into financial and health crises

  • We’re at an unprecedented point in history when the “civilizing mission for humanity” is technology — technology owned by the 1%

  • It’s an illusion that technology companies are “creating” these systems that will supposedly make our world a better place — they’re largely extracting, using data mining, including mining your mind

  • Divide and rule is a necessity for the 1% to continue to hold on to power as protests and unrest increase

  • Pay attention to the economic policies being pushed while people are divided — that’s really the agenda

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

The world’s top 0.001% — the ultra-wealthy elite — and the modern empires they control — Big Tech, Big Pharma and Big Ag — are not only responsible for destroying the planet and sending most of humanity into financial and health crises, they’re intent on attaining ultimate control. If and when that happens, 99% of people will become disposable.

Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., founder of Navdanya Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology in India, details how globalists are exploiting the masses in her book, “Oneness Vs. the 1%: Shattering Illusions, Seeding Freedom.” In the video above by After Skool, she expands on how the 0.001% intend to “divide and rule” in order to achieve their exploitative goals.

Shiva is trained as a physicist and initially planned to study atomic energy. But as she grasped the devastation it had caused worldwide, she gave up her idea of being a nuclear physicist and instead went looking for knowledge as a whole. She studied on her own, finding quantum theory,

which formed the basis of her life’s work:

“The way you design the world in your mind is the way you relate to it. When you design it as dead matter just to be exploited, you will exploit it. When you design it without any understanding of limits, you will violate the planetary limits.

When you design it with deep recognition of interconnectedness, you will nurture those relationships. And this basic recognition is what I drew from my learnings in quantum theory — that nonlocality, nonseparation, interconnectedness … is the nature of reality.”

However, she explains, within the paradigm of mechanistic thought, there’s a design that didn’t evolve. As such, mechanistic thought is based on the following assumptions:

  • We are separate from nature

  • Nature is constituted of discrete particles separate from each other, which can only relate through violence, force and action by contact

But in the quantum world, Shiva explains, “There is no separability. My thesis was on nonlocality in quantum theory. Everything is interconnected. There are no fixed essentialized qualities that have been built into the way people are looked at, nature is looked at. Potential is the defining quality in the quantum world, and because it’s about potential, it’s also about uncertainty.”

Shiva states that the mechanistic world is based on a false illusion of determinateness, or a quality of being highly predictable. “In the quantum world, we know we cannot get rid of uncertainty,” she says, citing the uncertainty principle created by German physicist Werner Heisenberg in 1927.

Referring to atoms and subatomic particles, the uncertainty principle maintains that the position and velocity of an object cannot be measured at the same time. “The very concepts of exact position and exact velocity together, in fact, have no meaning in nature,” Britannica notes.

Further, while in the mechanistic world things are either/or — “you can either be a wave or a particle,” Shiva says — “in the quantum world, you have potential to be both and they’re complementary.” She continues, “When you realize that the world is one interconnected whole you also realize that what appears different is actually different expressions of an interconnected reality.”

We’re at an unprecedented point in history when the “civilizing mission for humanity” is technology — technology owned by the 1%. It’s an illusion, however, that technology companies are “creating” or inventing these systems that will supposedly make our world a better place.

“They extract,” Shiva says, “They don’t create anything … software programmers create the platforms that they use. Even Bill Gates didn’t really write his basic program. It was two math professors in Dartmouth College.”

She uses Gates’ Ag One

as an example, which is basically the idea to make one type of agriculture for the whole world, which will be owned and controlled by Gates from the top down. It’s headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, where Monsanto, acquired by Bayer in 2018,

Bayer is also headquartered.

This includes digital farming, in which farmers are surveilled and mined for their agricultural data, which is then repackaged and sold back to them. There are parallels throughout society. Shiva explains:

“We watched what’s going on in India and we pieced it together. So basically he’s financing a lot of data mining from farmers, which will then be packaged as Big Data and sold back to farmers. This is exactly what happened in your 2016 elections. Facebook sold data to Cambridge Analytica.

So when you think of, ‘What are the kind of leaders that we have getting created?’ it’s very important to remember that in these 25 years of corporate deregulation of commerce you basically have a lot of money in the hands of very few people.

And they then are the ones investing in all the companies. The companies are not independent companies anymore. They’re basically billionaire money managed by the investment funds like Blackrock and Vanguard.”

Protests and unrest are increasing throughout the world as people grow tired of being controlled and downtrodden by the 1%. Demands for change are surging, so the 1% has rolled out a plan to overcome it — divide and rule.

Shiva believes the East India Company in 1857 set the historic precedence. A revolt occurred that year against oppressive company rule, and the company was taken over by the British state. Up until that point, Hindus and Muslims in India had stood together to defend their land, livelihoods and freedoms.

They identified primarily with their occupations and communities; religion was secondary. But when the crown took over, Shiva says, “They established a policy called divide and rule … it took from about 1857 to about 1920” to essentially divide the population against each other based on their religion. She explains:

“That partition is still being played out. It’s an incomplete project. So, divide and rule becomes a necessity for the 0.001% to continue to hold on to power. What are the economic policies being pushed while people are divided? Because that’s really the agenda.”

The refusal to cooperate with unjust law was termed a duty of truth by Gandhi. Shiva describes apartheid in 1906, when the British attempted to turn Indians in South Africa into second-class citizens. Indians had to register their race and carry identification. Police officers could enter homes and demand papers, and people were restricted from local trade and certain professions based on their race. “The people said we would rather die,” Shiva says.

Others inspired by Gandhi and the duty of truth include Martin Luther King. “But … when King started to take up economic justice and economic equality issues, that’s when he was assassinated,” Shiva says, “because … you can talk in very sweet ways about civil liberties but you don’t touch economic justice and the economy.”

The word economy comes from oeconomia, or the art of living. But when this got changed into the art of money-making, it brought on violence. “When you turn the art of living into the art of money-making, which Aristotle called chrematistics, then you have to practice violence against the Earth and violence against others — destroy their livelihoods, destroy their freedoms, take away their resources.”

With the convergence of Big Tech and artificial intelligence, Shiva fears mechanical work, from radiography to law, will be made redundant, and 99% of people will become disposable. The solution lies in activating our sense of oneness or interconnectedness with all life and sowing the seeds of what Shiva calls Earth democracy:

“You can either share this beautiful planet with love and abundance and sustainability, or say it’s all mine — every bit of land, every seed, every mind. Because what’s being mined is our mind now, and if we don’t defend the freedoms of all species and the freedoms of all human beings we could see, within 20 to 30 years, a level of disposability built into the structures that humanity will not be able to respond to.”

Currently, democracy has shifted to being “of the corporations by the corporations for the corporations.” Earth democracy calls for a restoration of democracy “of the people by the people for the people,” not only for humans but also for nature.

According to the ancient Vedas, the universe is divine, and everything therein — even the smallest grass — is an expression of the divine.

The universe exists for the well-being of all, but her gifts must be enjoyed without greed. Taking more than your share is theft, and will only backfire. The solution to true sustainability doesn’t lie with new technology but in relying on the natural “technology” that is the universe.

Shiva says:

“This is the time to make oneness and interconnectedness, as one humanity on one planet, the political project of our time. We have to remember we are one humanity. We are part of one Earth, and whatever we do we will not let this basic recognition divide us, either from the Earth or from each other … together we are strong.”

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

Is Censorship of Private Communications the “New Normal”?

By: Tessa Lena

  • Censorship of private communications is knocking on the door, and the first signs are here

  • Companies like Google are known for censoring incoming email and their cloud storage, too

  • New development: Outgoing private email not related to Google may have to pass the blackbox “spam” check before it can be sent

  • In a 2018 lawsuit, T-Mobile claimed their right to use “discretion” over certain types of SMS communication over their networks

  • In 2021, Biden allied groups, including the DNC, said that they “planned to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages”

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

In 1917, as a part of their successful military coup in Petrograd, the Bolsheviks famously made sure to, first and foremost, take control of the railway stations, the bridges, the postal office, the telephone service, and the telegraph. Taking over the communications was a critical piece of the coup.

As a Soviet kid learning history at school, I had that statement (“postal office, telephone, telegraph”) practically drilled into my head. It was supposed to demonstrate the genius strategic thinking of the Bolsheviks.

The point about taking over the communications came to my mind the other day when I was trying to send a private email, from my own domain, and it just wouldn’t even send because my server perceived it as “spam.” I had to make a few guesses and edit the text of the email in order for the server allow it to go through.

We already know that Google censors their incoming Gmail email as well as their Google Drive. And many of us have been dealing with our private emails from “politically incorrect” domains getting rejected by recipient servers, occasionally disappearing without trace, etc.

But the outgoing mail on my own domain (it’s a small hosting company, not any of those giants)? I thought it was crazy. It was a private email, not a newsletter, not a “BCC,” just a regular private email that I wrote in response to something a reader had sent. And it wasn’t rejected by the recipient — it was rejected by my own hosting company’s mail server! How crazy is that?

It wasn’t an isolated occasion, either. Recently, it started happening more often, sometimes, a couple of times a day. And I want to discuss it now, while censoring private communications still a nascent trend. It is important to be aware of this trend to and object to it in real time, or else we’ll end up living with it, which can barely be called “life.”

In my case, to figure out the issue, I wrote to my hosting company, and the explanation that I got from the technical team was that the server automatically assigns a “spam score” to each outgoing email — and if the score is high, the server won’t send it so as not to compromise the hosting company’s reputation and not to land them on the “spammer” list.

“These security rules are crucial to ensure that compromised email accounts from you or any of the other users sharing the mail server are not sending spam (or mail that is interpreted as spam by the recipients system) which will get the mail server on an RBL / Reputation list resulting in none of your email being accepted.”

“This means either there is an issue with the specific syntax or content of the email you are sending or there is something within your system environment (old software, excessive links in signature, virus, attachment mime type, link to phishing or malware site, connecting IP is on an RBL or Reputation list and any of these factors could increase the spam score of the email you are attempting to send causing it to be refused.”

“These systems are automated and work very reliably but there can always be an edge case where an email you think should go through will still trigger the filter due to the total score of the email.”

What a fascinating domino effect! And what a way to influence people’s thought! I, a sovereign citizen, had to paraphrase my private email (that, by the way, didn’t contain anything particularly outrageous in the first place but it shouldn’t even matter) in order for me to have the “privilege” of actually sending it.

Siri, what does this do to the neuronal pathways of the people who are forced to even privately talk in ways that please robots? And, Siri, do you know who controls the algorithm? And what will happen if the centrally managed “outgoing mail” algorithm starts banning certain medical information in private communications? Or flirting? Or swearing? Or any contrarian discussions about “climate”? Or anything else?

I remember how it started — or rather, continued — in the media back in the day, in addition to the separate topic of direct media influence by the alphabets, which is also a thing. When Google and Facebook became the dominant dispatchers of traffic and the self-appointed kings of “page views,” writing in a “SEO-friendly” manner became a must if you worked in journalism.

If you worked for a media outlet, you couldn’t just pour your heart out and write like a normal human being. You had write both for the people and for the robots. You had to write as if a robot has possessed you, or else your story would get no views. And it’s not such a hard skill to learn but after you do it for some time, it eats your soul.

To add insult to injury, both traffic kings, Google and Facebook, kept changing their algorithms randomly — and the journalists had to keep up in order to ensure that their companies stayed afloat, and they kept their jobs.

And yet, by the extra crazy “new normal” standards of 2022, “back in the day” wasn’t even a bad time! At least we could more or less say things we thought. No, not all things, of course — but most things. Wow, that says something about where we are right now.

A couple of years before COVID showed up, I wrote this innocent poem and also this, by today’s standards, very timid, warning against social media censorship. At the time, I was looking at the trends and worried that we would be rendered helpless by the algorithm, and driven increasingly crazy by irrational rules impacting our sanity and our ability to eat.

Back then, criticizing Big Tech was a lonely and unpopular affair — but booooy, did all the warming come true in the past three years — and more!

The healthy apologize to the sick,
The ones with a heart
Dance for the robots.
What is this?
Certainly, not the world I live in,
No.

In 2022, the news about social media censorship is no longer news. But how about the censorship of what we say to each privately, via traditionally “uncensored” media like text messages or email? Here is Wired article from 2018 that looks at a legal case in which T-Mobile claimed that they had the right to use discretion over a particular kind of text messages:

“T-Mobile told a federal judge Wednesday it may pick and choose which text messages to deliver on its network in a case weighing whether wireless carriers have the same “must carry” obligations as wire-line telephone providers.”

“The Bellevue, Washington-based wireless service is being sued by a texting service claiming T-Mobile stopped servicing its ‘short code’ clients after it signed up a California medical marijuana dispensary. In a court filing, T-Mobile said it had the right to pre-approve EZ Texting’s clientele, which it said the New York-based texting service failed to submit for approval.”

“T-Mobile, the company wrote in a filing (.pdf) in New York federal court, ‘has discretion to require pre-approval for any short-code marketing campaigns run on its network, and to enforce its guidelines by terminating programs for which a content provider failed to obtain the necessary approval.’”

“’Such approval is necessary, T-Mobile added, ‘to protect the carrier and its customers from potentially illegal, fraudulent, or offensive marketing campaigns conducted on its network.’ It’s the first federal case testing whether wireless providers may block text messages they don’t like.”

According to JUSTIA, the most recent update on the case is that “the plaintiff(s) and or their counsel(s), hereby give notice that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed.” Was the precedent set?

Most recently, in July 2021, Politico reported a call for censoring private text messages, causing an uproar:

“Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages [emphasis mine].

The goal is to ensure that people who may have difficulty getting a vaccination because of issues like transportation see those barriers lessened or removed entirely.”

“’We are steadfastly committed to keeping politics out of the effort to get every American vaccinated so that we can save lives and help our economy further recover,” White House spokesperson Kevin Munoz said. “When we see deliberate efforts to spread misinformation, we view that as an impediment to the country’s public health and will not shy away from calling that out.”

It seems it didn’t go very far, and a year after that outrageous claim, we can still text more or less freely (thank you, dear masters, you are very kind).

But I think that censoring our private communications is where it is going — and fast — unless we object to all censorship in real time, and keep objecting to it loud and clear, now and until it goes away. Life under the “new normal” isn’t fun.

To find more of Tessa Lena’s work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

Soybean Oil Linked to Genetic and Neurological Damage

  • Whether partially hydrogenated, organic or genetically modified to be low in linoleic acid, soybean oil can cause dysfunction at a cellular level

  • Recent research warns soybean oil can cause neurological and metabolic changes associated with autism, Alzheimer’s, anxiety, depression, obesity, insulin resistance, Type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease

  • The animal study compared the health effects of diets high in conventional soybean oil, GE soybean oil low in linoleic acid and coconut oil. Both types of soybean oil had pronounced effects on the brain

  • The soybean diets caused dysfunction in about 100 different genes in the hypothalamus, including one that is responsible for producing oxytocin, which has beneficial effects on your heart

  • Potential health hazards of soybean oil include the harmful health effects of unfermented soy, the potential hazards of GE soy, the harm associated with glyphosate-contaminated food, and high amounts of processed omega-6 skewing your omega-3 to omega-6 ratio

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

Far worse than the biologic damage caused by refined sugar is the molecular havoc caused by processed vegetable oils. Soybean oil in particular has a questionable safety profile for several reasons, and processed foods are positively loaded with it.

Whether partially hydrogenated, organic or genetically modified to be low in linoleic acid, soybean oil can cause dysfunction at a cellular level. Unfortunately, many health authorities have insisted omega-6-rich vegetable oils like soybean oil are healthier than saturated animal fats such as butter and lard, and this myth has been a tough one to dismantle, despite the evidence against it.

An estimated 94% of the soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered (GE) to tolerate herbicides,

primarily glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto/Bayer’s Roundup), which cannot be washed off. As a result, most soybean-based products are contaminated with glyphosate, which compounds their toxicity.

Most recently, research

published in the journal Endocrinology warns soybean oil — the most widely consumed cooking oil in America — can cause neurological and metabolic changes associated with:

  • Autism

  • Alzheimer’s disease

  • Anxiety

  • Depression

  • Obesity

  • Insulin resistance

  • Type 2 diabetes

  • Fatty liver disease

The study, done on mice, compared the health effects of diets high in conventional soybean oil, GE soybean oil low in linoleic acid and coconut oil. As reported by Neuroscience News:

“The same UCR research team found in 2015 that soybean oil induces obesity, diabetes, insulin resistance, and fatty liver in mice. Then in a 2017 study, the same group learned that if soybean oil is engineered to be low in linoleic acid, it induces less obesity and insulin resistance.

However, in the study released this month, researchers did not find any difference between the modified and unmodified soybean oil’s effects on the brain. Specifically, the scientists found pronounced effects of the oil on the hypothalamus, where a number of critical processes take place.”

Your hypothalamus

is a key regulator of homeostasis and metabolism in your body, and also plays a role in your stress response and hormone regulation.

According to the authors, the soybean diets (both conventional and GE), caused dysfunction in about 100 different genes in the hypothalamus, including one that is responsible for producing oxytocin, colloquially known as “the love hormone,” which has beneficial effects on your heart.

Other dysregulated genes included ones associated with “inflammation, neuroendocrine, neurochemical and insulin signaling.” The coconut oil diet had “negligible effect.”

The fact that GE soybean oil that is designed to be low in omega-6 linoleic acid had similar effects as conventional high-linolenic acid soybean oil effects suggests linoleic acid isn’t the problem, as previously suspected. The study also ruled out another suspected soybean chemical, stigmasterol, as coconut oil enriched in stigmasterol had no ill effects.

The team will continue their investigation in an effort to identify the real culprit behind these genetic effects. In the meantime, co-author Poonamjot Deol, an assistant project scientist at the University of California Riverside, urges people to “reduce consumption of soybean oil.”

The idea that unfermented soy in general and soybean oil in particular, are healthy is refuted by thousands of studies linking unfermented soy to a wide range of health problems. In her book, “The Whole Soy Story,” Dr. Kaayla Daniel details research implicating unfermented soy in the development of:

  • Malnutrition

  • Digestive distress

  • Immune system breakdown

  • Thyroid dysfunction

  • Cognitive decline

  • Reproductive disorders

  • Infertility

  • Cancer

  • Heart disease

  • Food allergies

Fermented organic soy, on the other hand, has a number of important health benefits, and are the only soy products I recommend eating. Healthy options include:

  • Tempeh — A fermented soybean cake with a firm texture and nutty, mushroom-like flavor.

  • Miso — A fermented soybean paste with a salty, buttery texture (commonly used in miso soup).

  • Natto — Fermented soybeans with a sticky texture and strong, cheese-like flavor.

  • Soy sauce — Traditionally made by fermenting soybeans, salt and enzymes; beware that many varieties on the market today are made artificially, using a chemical process.

While the featured Endocrinology study was unable to identify the exact soy compound responsible for the genetic damage, there are many plant chemicals found in soy that are capable of causing problems, including:

  • Phytoestrogens (isoflavones) genistein and daidzein, which mimic and sometimes block the hormone estrogen — Isoflavones resemblance to human estrogen is why some recommend using soy therapeutically to treat symptoms of menopause.

    However, most of us tend to be exposed to too many estrogen compounds and have a lower testosterone level than ideal, so I believe it’s important to limit your exposure to feminizing phytoestrogens.

    Even more importantly, there’s evidence

    isoflavones may disturb endocrine function, contribute to infertility and promote breast cancer, which is definitely a significant concern. As noted in a 2017 scientific review on dietary phytoestrogens:

    “Phytoestrogens are plant‐derived dietary compounds with structural similarity to 17‐β‐oestradiol (E2), the primary female sex hormone. This structural similarity to E2 enables phytoestrogens to cause (anti)oestrogenic effects by binding to the oestrogen receptors …

    Various beneficial health effects have been ascribed to phytoestrogens … In contrast to these beneficial health claims, the (anti)oestrogenic properties of phytoestrogens have also raised concerns since they might act as endocrine disruptors … [G]iven the data on potential adverse health effects, the current evidence on these beneficial health effects is not so obvious that they clearly outweigh the possible health risks.

    Furthermore, the data currently available are not sufficient to support a more refined (semi) quantitative risk-benefit analysis. This implies that a definite conclusion on possible beneficial health effects of phytoestrogens cannot be made.”

  • Phytates, which block your body’s uptake of minerals — Phytic acid binds to metal ions, preventing the absorption of certain minerals, including calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc

    — all of which are co-factors for optimal biochemistry in your body.

    This is particularly problematic for vegetarians, because eating meat reduces the mineral-blocking effects of these phytates. Sometimes phytic acid can be beneficial, especially in postmenopausal women and adult men, both of whom are prone to excessive iron, a potent oxidant capable of causing significant biological stress.

    However, phytic acid does not selectively inhibit iron absorption; it inhibits all minerals. This is very important to remember, as many already suffer from mineral deficiencies from inadequate diets.

    The soybean has one of the highest phytate levels of any grain or legume, and the phytates in soy are highly resistant to normal phytate-reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking. Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of soybeans.

  • Enzyme inhibitors, which hinder protein digestion.

  • Hemagglutinins,

    which cause red blood cells to clump together and inhibit oxygen takeup and growth.

  • Omega-6 fat (linolenic acid), which is pro-inflammatory — The massive overconsumption of highly refined vegetable oils such as soybean oil is largely due to the wrongful demonization of saturated fats. This has had the effect of turning the average American’s omega-3 to omega-6 ratio upside down, which is a major driver of chronic inflammation, which in turn is an underlying factor in virtually all chronic diseases.

  • “Antinutrients” such as saponins, soyatoxin, lectins and oxalates — While a small amount of antinutrients would not likely cause a problem, the amount of soy and soybean oil that many Americans are now eating is very high.

  • Goitrogens — Goitrogens,

    found in all unfermented soy whether it’s organic or not, are substances that block the synthesis of thyroid hormones and interfere with iodine metabolism, thereby interfering with your thyroid function.

If you need yet another reason to reconsider your consumption of soybean oil, consider this: In addition to having an unhealthier nutritional profile than organic soybeans, Roundup Ready GE soy has been shown to contain high amounts of glyphosate.

According to a 2014 study

published in Food Chemistry, which looked at the compositional differences between various types of soybeans, glyphosate readily accumulates in Roundup Ready soybeans, and GE soybeans contained a mean glyphosate residue level of 3.3 milligrams per kilo. The most contaminated samples contained as much as 8.8 mg of glyphosate per kilo.

Meanwhile, a 2010 study

in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology found malformations in frog and chicken embryos occurred at 2.03 mg of glyphosate per kilo. The malformations primarily affected the face, skull, brain and spinal cord. According to this study:

“Organic soybeans showed the healthiest nutritional profile with more sugars, such as glucose, fructose, sucrose and maltose, significantly more total protein, zinc and less fiber than both conventional and GM-soy.

Organic soybeans also contained less total saturated fat and total omega-6 fatty acids than both conventional and GM-soy. GM-soy contained high residues of glyphosate and AMPA … Conventional and organic soybean batches contained none of these agrochemicals.

Using 35 different nutritional and elemental variables to characterize each soy sample, we were able to discriminate GM, conventional and organic soybeans without exception, demonstrating ”substantial non-equivalence” in compositional characteristics for ‘ready-to-market’ soybeans.”

It’s important to realize that once applied to crops, glyphosate actually becomes integrated into the cells of the plant, so it cannot be washed off. And, while the chemical industry is still defending the safety of glyphosate, mounting research suggests it can harm health in a number of different ways.

Importantly, the chemical has been shown to decimate beneficial gut bacteria. Glyphosate has also been shown to cause DNA damage

and to act as an endocrine disruptor.

For an overview of how glyphosate’s impact affects your health, see “Roundup May Be Most Important Factor in Development of Chronic Disease.”

To recap, there are several potential health hazards of soybean oil to consider, either alone or in combination:

  1. The harmful health effects of unfermented soy

  2. The potential hazards of GE soy

  3. The harm associated with glyphosate contaminated food

  4. High amounts of processed omega-6 skewing your omega-3 to omega-6 ratio

If you want to avoid dangerous fats of all kinds, your best bet is to eliminate processed foods from your diet. My comprehensive nutrition plan offers helpful guidance for this process.

When cooking, coconut oil, butter, lard and ghee are healthy options. Also be sure to swap out margarines and vegetable oil spreads for organic butter, preferably made from raw grass fed milk. Butter is a healthy whole food that has received an unwarranted bad rap.

Other healthy fats to include in your diet are avocados, raw dairy products, olive oil, olives, organic pastured eggs and raw nuts. To further balance your omega-3 to omega-6 ratio you may also need a high-quality source of animal-based omega-3 fat, such as krill oil, if you’re not in the habit of eating small, fatty fish such as sardines, anchovies and mackerel, and/or wild caught Alaskan salmon.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.