By Anna Von Reitz
Most people will be alarmed to hear rumors of an IMF take over of the Federal Reserve.
See this article and over 1300 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
By Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH and Lionel Milgrom, Ph.D., RHom, MARH
If the common physician, scientist and educated consumer were to believe Wikipedia, they would assume that there is absolutely no research that shows the efficacy of homeopathic medicines in the treatment of any ailment. Furthermore, they would conclude homeopathic medicines are so small in dose, there is literally “nothing” in a homeopathic medicine.
And, if you are this gullible and vulnerable to Big Pharma propaganda, then we’ve got an island to sell you for $24! According to The Washington Post, Wikipedia’s article on homeopathy and Jesus Christ are the two most controversial on that website in four leading languages (English, French, German and Spanish).
Research Shows Efficacy of Homeopathic Medicine
The fact of the matter is that research showing the efficacy of homeopathic medicines has been published in some of the world’s most respected medical journals. Here’s a roll call of just a few of them:
The Lancet;1 BMJ2,3(British Medical Journal); Chest (the publication of the American College of Chest Physicians);4 Pediatrics (publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics);5 Cancer(journal of the American Cancer Society);6 Journal of Clinical Oncology;7 Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal (publication of the European Society of Pediatric Infectious Diseases);8 European Journal of Pediatrics (publication of the Swiss Society of Pediatrics and the Belgium Society of Pediatrics).9
Would you be shocked to learn that Wikipedia doesn’t mention eight of the nine references here? Not only have individual studies found efficacy in homeopathic medicines, but various systematic reviews or meta-analyses have likewise concluded the effects of homeopathic medicines are different to those of a placebo. The newest review of homeopathic research published in Systematic Reviews10 confirmed a difference between the effects of homeopathic treatment and of placebo.
In reviewing the “highest quality studies,” the researchers found that patients given homeopathic treatment were almost twice as likely to experience a therapeutic benefit as those given a placebo.
Further, in reviewing a total of 22 clinical trials, patients given homeopathic remedies experienced greater than 50 percent likelihood to have benefited from the treatment than those given a placebo. Once again, Wikipedia doesn’t even mention this new review of clinical research in homeopathy.
This important review of clinical research also acknowledged that four of the five leading previous systematic reviews of homeopathic research found a benefit from homeopathic treatment over that of placebo:
“Five systematic reviews have examined the RCT research literature on homeopathy as a whole, including the broad spectrum of medical conditions that have been researched and by all forms of homeopathy: four of these ‘global’ systematic reviews reached the conclusion that, with important caveats, the homeopathic intervention probably differs from placebo.”
And if that wasn’t enough, the largest and most comprehensive review of basic science research (fundamental physiochemical research, botanical studies, animal studies and in vitro studies using human cells) and clinical research into homeopathy ever sponsored by a governmental agency was undertaken recently in Switzerland.11
This Swiss report affirmed that homeopathic high-potencies seem to induce regulatory effects and specific changes to cells and living organisms. It also reported that 20 of the 22 systematic reviews of clinical research testing homeopathic medicines detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy. Would it puzzle you that this important review of homeopathic research is not even mentioned or referenced by Wikipedia?
Homeopathic Conference at the Royal Society of Medicine
July 14, 2018, we attended a groundbreaking conference in London entitled “New Horizons in Water Science — ‘The Evidence for Homeopathy?'” in the hallowed halls of the U.K.’s Royal Society of Medicine.
Held at the behest of (Lord) Aaron Kenneth Ward-Atherton, who organized and chaired the event, Ward-Atherton not only is a practicing homeopath and integrated medical physician, but also has been a formal adviser on integrated medicine to a member of the U.K. government’s Department of Health and Social Care, and had ongoing support from various peers in the British House of Lords.
This conference will no doubt have sent shockwaves around the world, as delegates from over 20 countries listened in awe to two Nobel Laureates (Cambridge physicist Professor Emeritus Brian Josephson and AIDS virus discoverer, Dr. Luc Montagnier) and several world-class scientists of equal academic stature from the U.S., U.K., Israel and Russia.
And what they were saying was pure heresy to conventional medicine! As it turns out, research in water science seems to support the notion there is a significant difference between the biological and physical actions of homeopathic medicines and plain ordinary water.
We should point out that this special conference did not try to review the body of clinical research (above) that verifies the efficacy of homeopathic medicines, nor did it seek to describe all the basic science studies that show that homeopathic medicines have biological or physical effects.
Instead, this conference chose to focus on more fundamental questions: Does the process of remedy production in homeopathy (i.e., dilution and succession — vigorous shaking — of a medicinal substance in water/alcohol) have an effect on the water’s long-range structure that is different from simple pure water? And, second, are their sound and plausible explanations for how homeopathic medicines persist in water solutions despite multiple dilutions?
Because most physicians and scientists are completely unfamiliar with the fascinating and amazing qualities and abilities of water, their assertions on what is and isn’t possible with homeopathic medicines represent an embarrassingly uninformed viewpoint.
Such assertions are at best unscientific; at worst, they simply represent sheer ignorance. The best scientists are humble in their assertions due to the fact that they know their knowledge is always limited. The average physician or scientist, however, may tend to arrogance, particularly on those subjects which they actually know nothing about.
Biomolecules Communicate Over Distance
Brian Josephson Ph.D., of University of Cambridge, U.K., was the first speaker. He echoed remarks he had made in the magazine New Scientist, saying:
“Simple-minded analysis might suggest that water, being a fluid, it cannot have a structure of the kind that such a picture would demand. But cases such as that of liquid crystals, which while flowing like an ordinary fluid can maintain an ordered structure over macroscopic distances, show the limitations of such ways of thinking.
There have not, to the best of my knowledge, been any refutations of homeopathy that remain valid after this particular point is taken into account.”
Josephson powerfully critiqued generally accepted theories of how biomolecules react with their substrates. Conventionally, these are thought to “match” like a lock and a key, but only when they are in direct physical contact. Not so, says Josephson.
Like his famous predecessor, Jacques Benveniste (who Josephson hosted at Cambridge’s Cavendish Laboratory back in March 1999), he argues that they can “communicate” over some distance long before they come together, and that such interactions are best described by quantum theory and electromagnetic signaling.
Josephson also lambasted those scientists who demand that homeopathic medicines need to get “chemically analyzed.” He asserted that applying chemical analysis to homeopathic remedies will tell you no more about their properties than applying chemical analysis to a CD will tell you what music is on it. Chemical analysis is too limited a tool for either.
Further, Josephson went on to show some remarkably beautiful photos and videos that provide powerful evidence of how hypersensitive water is to sound. Using an impressive new technology called cymascopy (developed by acoustics engineer John Stuart Reid),12 Josephson was able to demonstrate the incredible influence sound has on water using this technology, producing stunning dynamic wave patterns in water that follow changes in a sound’s pitch.13
This video shows dramatically how the dynamic structure of water changes as music is played. And for this to occur, there has to be an ordering of molecules within the water to give it that dynamic structure, what is commonly referred to as a “memory.”
“Such is life,” Josephson concluded. “Order arises spontaneously. Creation of order (ordering) is a part of nature. Order includes disorder (fluctuations), so order requires order to be present. With crystals, the order is static; with life it is dynamic. There we have ordering within activity. Up until now, our present understanding of all this is qualitative and limited, but this must be the next step for science.”
Finally, Josephson wryly responded to the chronic ignorance of homeopathy by its skeptics saying, “The idea that water can have a memory can be readily refuted by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments.”
Physical Properties of Aqueous Systems
Next to speak was Vladimir Voeikov from the Lomonosov Moscow State University in Russia. A world expert on the chemical and physical properties of aqueous systems and their key role in the vital processes of living systems, Voeikov also took aim at critics who scoff at homeopathy’s plausibility.
He then launched into a description of the extensive and highly detailed work on the biological effects of ultrahigh dilutions (or UHDs) that has been ongoing in Russia since the 1980s.
One of the unfortunate side effects of the perennial distrust existing between Russia and the West has been access to research like this, mainly because it has appeared only in Russian (i.e., Cyrillic) journals. Consequently, Voeikov had a lot of ground to make up — which he did in no uncertain terms!
And, much to the audience’s surprise, it turns out that Benveniste (who in 1988 was so pilloried by scientists, skeptics and the journal Nature, his reputation was trashed and he lost his laboratories and his funding) was by no means the first to suggest that solutions diluted and strongly agitated to the point where there couldn’t possibly be any molecules of the original substance left could still exert biological effects.
Delving back into the literature, it had been announced around a century before Benveniste. In 1955, a review had already been published into the action of UHDs.
Drawing on his and his Russian colleagues’ work, Voeikov concluded that conventional ideas of how water dissolves substances is actually incorrect. Until now, when something dissolves in water, its particles were thought to be randomly distributed throughout the solvent. As the solution is continually diluted, these particles simply reduce in number until at a certain dilution (known as the Avogadro limit) they disappear completely.
Consequently, if a solution is diluted beyond this limit, as there are apparently no particles left, such UHDs cannot possibly exert any effects, let alone on biological systems. Therefore, homeopathy (which sometimes uses dilutions of substances way beyond the Avogadro limit) must be complete bunkum. So much for conventional thinking.
What Voeikov and his colleagues have shown time and again is that the process of homeopathic dilution and agitation, even down past the Avogadro limit (so that no particles are supposed to still be present), does NOT get rid of all the dissolved substance.
Instead, microscopically tiny “clumps” of the dissolved substance — known as nanoassociates — remain behind and these are biologically active. What’s more, various analytical techniques can be used to track these nanoassociates, and they affect water in many ways that make it different from pure water, e.g., electrical conductivity and surface tension. So, a solution diluted and agitated beyond the Avogadro limit is anything but pure water.
Nanoassociates Violate Conventional Laws of Behavior
If that wasn’t enough, Voeikov and his colleagues have shown that so-called ordinary solutions — the kind that we make up every day and that have not been sequentially diluted and agitated as homeopaths do — also contain nanoassociates, violating what has for years been understood as “laws of behavior” prescribed in standard textbooks on aqueous solutions.
So, not only are all those skeptics and naysayers going to have to get used to homeopathic dilutions and their effects being real, they will have to completely reassess their understanding of what happens when ANY substance is dissolved in water. Those whose solemn duty it is to rewrite textbooks are going to have a field day!
Barely able to catch our breath, we were then treated to one of the most inspirational talks of the whole conference, delivered by Jerry Pollack, Ph.D., professor of bioengineering at Seattle’s University of Washington. Pollack is probably best known for his 2014 book, “The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid, and Vapor,” in which he outlines in highly readable terms some of his and his team’s amazing discoveries about water.
Exclusion Zone Water May Have Significant Implications for Homeopathy
Chiefly, these concern what happens to water when it is in contact with a surface, e.g., a membrane. And for any doubting Thomas out there we should point out that Pollack’s amazing discoveries about water have been independently verified many times.
It turns out that the water molecules closest to the membrane surface form an almost crystalline alignment that has the effect of excluding any dissolved particles in the water. And these exclusion zones — or EZs, as they are called — have properties that are totally different from the bulk water, and whose consequences will have profound effects not only on our understanding of water, but how we use it.
For example, depending on the nature of the membrane surface, charge separation occurs between the EZ layer and the bulk water phase. Pollack showed us how this phenomenon could be used, not only to produce an incredibly simple battery powered only by radiant energy, but how it could be the basis of a water desalination system. At the moment, this last application would need to be scaled up before it could be of any practical use, but if it could, there must surely be a Nobel Prize in the offing.
In addition, bearing in mind that blood is mainly water being pumped through tubes of biological membranes, Pollack suggested that the same charge-separating mechanism that powered his radiant energy battery might also assist in pushing our blood through narrow vessels far removed from the pumping action of the heart. If so, such a discovery will have huge ramifications for our understanding of physiology.
It turns out that Pollack’s semi-crystalline EZs cannot only be separated, they are able to electromagnetically store information in their molecular structure. And, as the preparation of homeopathic remedies also involves water solutions in contact with surfaces, it is quite feasible his new EZ discoveries will have a huge impact on our understanding of water memory and homeopathy.
In fact, Pollack asserts that water has a HUGE capacity to store information. Further, he notes that homeopathic process of succussion (vigorous shaking of water in glass) creates increased avenues for EZ water that then creates increased water storage.
Classic Homeopathic Methods Optimize Storage of Information in Water
The founder of homeopathy, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), was both a physician and the author of a leading textbook for pharmacists of his day. His many experiments attempting to reduce the harmful side effects of medicinal substances, led him to a method of dilution and agitation which homeopaths use till this day.
Intriguingly, what the new science presented at this conference is telling us is that Hahnemann’s method seems to optimize storage of medicinal information within the very structure of water itself! Even after more than 200 years, Hahnemann’s discovery of homeopathy and his contributions to medicine and pharmacology are still being uncovered.
Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier was introduced to homeopathy and homeopathic research by Benveniste. In a remarkable interview published in Science magazine of December 24, 2010,14 Montagnier expressed support for the often maligned and misunderstood medical specialty of homeopathic medicine.
“What I can say now is that the high dilutions (used in homeopathy) are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.”
Montagnier concluded the interview when asked if he is concerned that he is drifting into pseudoscience. He replied adamantly: “No, because it’s not pseudoscience. It’s not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study.”
Montagnier’s study found that under the right conditions electromagnetic signals can be transmitted from test tubes containing a highly diluted DNA sample to a different test tube containing only water, and that when enzymes which copy DNA molecules are then added to this water, they behave as if DNA molecules are present, producing new DNA molecules.15
This “teleportation” effect of the DNA, from one test tube to another was found to occur only when the homeopathic procedure of sequential dilution, with vigorous shaking of the test tube, was utilized. Also, Montagnier cowrote with several highly-respected scientists another article that was published in a leading scientific journal.16 This article posits quantum effects beyond simple chemistry.
Montagnier’s studies found that highly diluted DNA from pathogenic bacterial and viral species is able to emit specific radio waves and that “these radio waves [are] associated with ‘nanostructures’ in the solution that might be able to recreate the pathogen.”
A writer for New Scientist magazine has asserted that, if its conclusions are true, “these would be the most significant experiments performed in the past 90 years, demanding reevaluation of the whole conceptual framework of modern chemistry.”17
While Montagnier’s work shows the influence of electromagnetic fields having a biological effect, other researchers at the conference found that nanodoses of the original homeopathic medicine persists in water solutions. Jayesh Bellare of the prestigious India Institute of Technology described his seminal research that was published in Langmuir, a highly-respected journal published by the American Chemistry Society.18
Bellare and his colleagues found that six different homeopathic medicines, all made from minerals (gold, silver, copper, tin, zinc and platinum), that were diluted 1-to-100, six times, 30 times and 200 times, were each found in nanodoses from one of three different types of spectroscopy.
Bellare and his team explained that homeopathic medicines are usually made in glass bottles, and the vigorous shaking of the water in these bottles releases nanosized fragments of silica from the glass walls, and the substance being made into a medicine is literally pushed into these floating silica “chips.”
Then, when 99 percent of the water is poured out, the silica chips cling to the glass walls. The scientists found each of the six minerals persisting in the water no matter how many times they diluted the medicine. When one considers that many of the most important hormones and cell-signaling agents of the body operate at nanodose levels, the nanodoses found in homeopathic medicines may explain how these medicines work.
Still further, the fact that nanodoses are much more able to cross the blood-brain-barrier as well as most cell membranes provides additional insight into how and why homeopathic nanodoses can elicit significant and powerful immune responses from the body.
Afterword: Stop Press!
The day after Ullman’s interview with Dr. Joseph Mercola, a very important study on homeopathy was published on the website of one of the world’s leading scientific journals, Nature.
Nature.com just published a collection of studies that tested different homeopathic potencies of Rhus toxicodendron (also known as Rhus tox and Toxicodendron pubescens), including 2X, 4X, 6X, 8X, 12X, 24X and 30X in the treatment of neuropathy in rats.19
Previous research had found that Rhus toxicodendron has significant anti-inflammatory, anti-arthritic and immunomodulatory activities. This new research evaluated antinociceptive (pain-reducing) efficacy of Rhus tox in the neuropathic pain and delineated its underlying mechanism. More specifically, this research found that this homeopathic medicine showed significant antioxidative and anti-inflammatory properties.
This study found that homeopathic doses of Rhus tox 24X and 30X had dramatic effects that equaled the results from a known conventional drug, Gabapentin, and did so in much safer doses. Conventional scientists have consistently asserted that these extremely small doses of homeopathic medicines could not have ANY effects, but this study, like an increasing number of other such studies, has proven conventional scientists are wrong.
The above described study didn’t investigate the influence of water in its study, but it did confirm that homeopathic nanodoses can have powerful biological and clinical effects.
This article is dedicated to Dr. Peter Fisher, the now-late physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. A graduate of University of Cambridge and a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and the Faculty of Homeopathy, he was a widely published expert in rheumatology and forms of complementary and alternative medicine.
Fisher chaired the World Health Organization’s working group on homeopathy and was a member of WHO’s Expert Advisory Panel on Traditional and Complementary Medicine. He served as clinical director for 18 years and director of research at the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine (formerly the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital) for 22 years.
He was also president of the Faculty of Homeopathy and editor-in-chief of the journal Homeopathy (the leading research journal in the field). Fisher was awarded the Polish Academy of Medicine’s Albert Schweitzer Gold Medal in 2007. Fisher also served as moderator for the second half of the homeopathic research conference discussed in this article.
Besides all of his academic achievements, Fisher had a wicked, dry, even very dry, British sense of humor. He was known to provide scathing critiques of the many uninformed and ill-informed skeptics of homeopathy whose criticisms of homeopathy simply proved their sheer ignorance of the subject. Sadly, August 15, 2018, Fisher was riding his bicycle in London on “drive your bike to work day,” and was hit by a truck and killed.
Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH, is a certified homeopath who has written 10 books on homeopathy and four chapters in medical textbooks, and who has published 40 books on homeopathy by his colleagues (co-published with North Atlantic Books). He directs Homeopathic Educational Services, a leading homeopathic resource center to help people access homeopathic books, medicines, software and e-courses (www.homeopathic.com).
He has also created a special e-course on “Learning to Use a Homeopathic Medicine Kit” (details at https://homeopathicfamilymedicine.com/). He also maintains a homeopathic practice where he “sees” most of his patients via Skype, various video apps, or the simple telephone.
Lionel R Milgrom, Ph.D. FRSC FRSA MARH RHom is a registered homeopath who has been a research chemist for 40 years (cofounder of a university anticancer biotech spin-out company) with many publications and a text book to his credit. He has been a practicing homeopath for 20 years.
His main research interest these days is in the understanding of homeopathy within both scientific and philosophical contexts, and has published extensively in these areas. He has also published the first volume of an e-book trilogy, “Homeopathy and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed.”
Your body requires a specific sodium-to-potassium ratio to normalize your blood pressure that does not rely on your total sodium intake. In other words, your body uses the sodium you eat to help maintain the balance, and excretes the sodium you don’t need. Research has demonstrated potassium helps to relax the walls of your arteries and lower your blood pressure.1
In one study,2 researchers found women without high blood pressure who consumed the most potassium had a 21 percent reduced risk of stroke and were also 12 percent less likely to die during the study than those who consumed the least.
Another study3 evaluating salt intake in older adults found an increase was not associated with higher mortality over 10 years, or an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease or heart failure.
However, as the bad reputation of salt is slowly reversing and more are turning to using a perceived healthier choice, sea salt, environmental damage has now reached your dinner table. In a study analyzing 39 salt brands from 21 countries, including the U.S. and China, researchers found more than 90 percent contain microplastics.
Sea Salt May Not Be Your Healthiest Salt Option
The extent to which plastic microparticles have spread throughout the world had been unclear. This new study4 evaluating salt brands sampled worldwide is the first on this scale to analyze the geographical spread of microplastic in sea salt and the correlation to where plastic pollution is found in the environment.5
Only three brands originating from Taiwan, China and France did not contain microplastic particles. While the density of microplastics found in the analyzed samples were dramatically different, data showed those from Asian brands continue to be especially high. The highest quantities were found in Indonesia, which ranks as suffering the second-worst level of plastic pollution in the world.6
The findings highlight concerns raised earlier7 when researchers found nearly 90 percent of popular bottled water brands contained microplastics. Mikyoung Kim, campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia said:8
“Recent studies have found plastics in seafood, wildlife, tap water and now in salt. It’s clear that there is no escape from this plastics crisis, especially as it continues to leak into our waterways and oceans. We need to stop plastic pollution at its source. For the health of people and our environment, it’s incredibly important that corporations reduce their reliance on throwaway plastics immediately.”
Researchers in the featured study estimate the average adult consumes nearly 2,000 microplastic beads each year from salt. A separate study9 planned to assess the risks microplastic have on the environment and concluded, despite a review of 320 existing studies, that there are major knowledge gaps in the scientific understanding of the impact of microplastics.
Historical References Demonstrate the Importance of Salt
Salt was one of the greatest treasures in the ancient world, often used as currency.10 In fact, the high value of salt prompted an ancient Roman proverb, which says people who do their job well are “well worth their salt,” or “worth their weight in salt.” Even after the Roman Empire domination ended, salt remained an important item in trade and ancient economies.
One of the most traveled salt routes was from Morocco across the Sahara Desert to Timbuktu. Ships carrying salt traveled from Egypt to Greece across the Mediterranean and the Aegean Sea. The great wealth of Venice was attributed to common salt and not exotic spices.11
Moving into the Middle Ages, the purity of salt moved toward the superstitious. If salt was spilled it was a premonition of doom. After spilling, the spiller had to cast a pinch of salt over his left shoulder as this was thought to be where evil spirits tended to congregate.12
As late as the 18th century, the rank of a guest at a banquet was gauged by where they were seated in relationship to the salt cellar at the table. Taxes on the mineral help dissolve the French governments as they were forced to buy all their salt from royal depots. The tax was so high it eventually helped spark the French Revolution.13
As late as the 1930s Mahatma Gandhi led a pilgrimage of followers to the seaside as a protest against high British taxes on salt in India.14 Throughout the past centuries salt has played a unique and powerful role in health, politics and commerce.
Low Salt Intake May Threaten Your Health
This long history of reliance on salt took a wrong turn when Western medicine began demonizing the mineral, relating it to high blood pressure. Historically, people consumed 10 times more than we do today, as it was the primary preservative before the invention of refrigerators.
The correlation with blood pressure was popularized by the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) study, during which lowering intake resulted in improvements in blood pressure. However, the diet not only lowers salt recommendations, but also advocates eating substantially less processed foods and sugars,15 which have a far greater impact on your blood pressure measurements.
According to James DiNicolantonio, Pharm.D., and author of “The Salt Fix: Why the Experts Got It All Wrong — and How Eating More Might Save Your Life,” your blood pressure may go down with a reduction in salt, but your ratio of total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein, a much better predictor of heart disease, worsens. Triglyceride levels and insulin resistance also increase.
This means that, overall, your heart disease risk increases rather than decreases, even though your blood pressure readings appear to be better. When your body does not have enough salt it starts pulling sodium from your bones, stripping magnesium and calcium to maintain a normal sodium level.16
This results in a reduction in sodium excretion in sweat, substituting magnesium and calcium instead. Low sodium also elevates aldosterone, a sodium-retaining hormone, which in turn reduces magnesium by shuttling it out through your urine. As a result, low sodium intake may damage your bone and heart health, as magnesium is a vital mineral for biological function.
Today, most processed foods are loaded with added sugar, processed salt and harmful industrially processed oils while containing virtually no healthy saturated fats or natural, unprocessed salt. So, while most sea salt may contain plastic microbeads, eliminating salt from your nutritional intake is not the answer.
How Salt Is Manufactured
Before discussing your best salt option, it’s helpful to understand the three basic methods used to process salt. Manufacturers may use solar evaporation, vacuum evaporation or rock salt mining.17
The solar method is the oldest means of producing salt. Practically, it may be used only in warm climates where the evaporation rate exceeds the precipitation rate for an extended period of time. Using solar evaporation, large quantities of natural salt water are transported to shallow ponds where the water is allowed to evaporate, leaving crystals of sodium and other natural minerals.18
Rock salt mining is the second oldest method of producing salt, accessing underground veins of salt. Large machines move through cave-like passageways. Salt appears in veins or may be found in domes. Most domes in North America are located between Alabama and Texas.
In some cases the salt is mined through hydraulic mining or solution mining during which water is pumped below the surface to dissolve salt deposits and then pumped out.19
The fluid is then added to commercial vacuum pans and undergoes vacuum evaporation, incorporating steam heat in a large commercial evaporator. This method yields fine-textured, high-purity salt.20
Salt Myths Impacting Your Long-Term Health
Studies have consistently failed to support the premise that high amounts of salt increase your thirst and contribute to high blood pressure and heart disease. Actually, the converse is true. Here’s a summary of findings that may surprise you:
- Studies suggest salt may have a surprising influence on your weight. In one study using Russian cosmonauts, data revealed eating more salt lowered thirst and increased hunger.21 Animal models support these results,22 showing a high-salt diet increases metabolism in the animals, forcing the animals to eat 25 percent more to maintain their weight.
- The correct potassium-to-sodium balance influences your risk for high blood pressure and heart disease far greater than high sodium alone.23 Processed foods are typically low in potassium and high in sodium.
- A low-salt diet may worsen heart disease and raise the risk of early death.24
- Nearly 71 percent of your salt intake comes from processed food.25 Eating a whole food diet eliminates your exposure to table salts and ensures a more appropriate sodium-to-potassium ratio.
- When processed food manufacturers lower salt content, many add monosodium glutamate (MSG) instead. This flavor enhancer is associated with headaches, obesity, eye damage, fatigue and depression.26 As it overexcites neurons, MSG may raise your risk of neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease.
The Problems With Ingesting Plastics
Unfortunately, very little of the earth has been left untouched by plastic pollution. There are nearly 700 marine species at risk for extinction as a result of microplastic pollution.27 Single-use plastics certainly contribute to this epidemic, and microplastics from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch have been found as far as the Arctic Ocean.28
A team of researchers from Heriot-Watt University29 placed petri dishes with sticky dust traps next to plates at dinner time and were able to capture up to 14 pieces of plastic at the end of each meal from household dust. According to this study, the average person swallows an estimated 68,415 plastic fibers each year just from the dust landing on their plates during meals.
Researchers at the State University of New York30 tested 259 bottles of 11 popular bottled water brands — including Aquafina, Nestle Pure Life, Evian, Dasani and San Pelligerino — finding, on average, 325 pieces of microplastic per liter.
Research31 published in Science of the Total Environment found that the annual release of plastics to the land is estimated to be four to 23 times greater than what is released in the oceans.
This data means you are likely consuming tens of thousands of plastic microparticles every year from salt, food, dust and water. The end result of this plastic exposure has yet to be scientifically analyzed and reported.
However, as most plastic particles contain known endocrine disrupting chemicals and other toxins, it only makes sense to reduce your exposure as much as possible. In response to these and other findings, the World Health Organization has vowed to launch a safety review to assess the potential short- and long-term health risks of consuming microplastic in water.32
What Is Your Best Salt Option?
Your body needs sodium and chloride ions in salt crystals, but is unable to produce either. This means you must get it from your food. However, all salt is not created equally. Refined table salt is nearly all sodium chloride with some additional man-made chemicals.
Unprocessed salt, such as my particular favorite, pink Himalayan salt, has a different balance of sodium and chloride with added natural minerals your body also requires,33 which contributes to the pink color of the salt. The crystals have matured untouched by pollutants over thousands of years.
Himalayan salt is mined from salt beds created long before plastic and other toxic chemicals were manufactured. When the ocean beds were lifted, as the Himalayan Mountains were formed, these salt beds rose from the sea and were later protected by lava and covered in snow and ice for thousands of years.
Compared to the salt mined from oceans laden with persistent organic pollutants and microparticles of plastic, Himalayan salt is by far your best option when you want to reduce your toxic load.
Himalayan salt also contains at least 80 naturally occurring trace elements in their natural mineral form, contributing to health benefits.34 What remains after typical salt is “chemically cleaned” is sodium chloride — an unnatural chemical form of salt requiring additional energy from your body to metabolize, creating a burden on your elimination system.35
This form of salt is in almost every preserved product that you eat. Therefore, when you add more typical table salt to your already salted food, your body receives more sodium chloride than it can easily use.
Reduce Your Toxic Load Making Simple Everyday Choices
You have an impact on your environment and your health with each choice you make. By making the commitment to reduce or eliminate your use of plastic containers and disposable products packaged in plastic, you make an impact on your health, reducing your exposure to bisphenol-A and other chemicals that leach into your food and water, and on your environment.
Glass is a healthy, reusable and recyclable option to use at home. If you are purchasing a product that isn’t whole food, seek out those packaged in glass and not plastic and commit to recycling that glass. You can discover more steps you may take at home to reduce your toxic load in my previous article, “7 Ways to Cancer-Proof Your Home.”
It may be surprising to learn the average American woman uses 12 personal care products each day, containing nearly 168 different chemicals.1 Although the European Union (EU) has been proactively regulating the number of chemicals their consumers are exposed to in cosmetics, the U.S. has not.
Following his study2 evaluating the number of personal care product adverse events reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr. Shuai Xu, dermatologist from McGaw Medical Center at Northwestern University, commented:3
“Here is a $400 billion industry with millions of products and multiple controversies, but we only had about 5,000 adverse events over the course of 12 years. That’s very, very underreported. [The EU] banned more than 1,000 chemicals. We’ve only banned 10. They’ve been very proactive about looking at chemical safety and putting the burden on manufacturers to prove their cosmetic products are safe.”
In the U.S., personal care products are allowed to reach store shelves without any prior authorization by any federal agency. Only after a product has demonstrated harm may the FDA take action. Compounding the situation, the FDA has made manufacturers responsible for ensuring the safety of the products they produce, and companies are not required to share those tests with any federal agency or the public.
Unfortunately, this has led to a plethora of dangerous chemicals in cosmetics and cleaning supplies marketed to the public. One compelling study4 published in Environmental Health Perspectives demonstrated that by reducing the use of cosmetics containing specific chemicals, participants could significantly reduce their exposure.
Changing Cosmetics May Reduce Exposure to Hormone Disrupting Chemicals
The researchers began with the premise that personal care products are a potential source of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals, such as parabens, triclosan, phthalates and phenols.5 They enrolled 100 young women in a youth-led, community-based research intervention study to determine if using products with lower levels of these chemicals could result in lower urinary concentrations.
The researchers measured urine samples for phthalate metabolites, parabens, triclosan and benzophenone-3 (BP-3) before and after intervention, using liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. They found more than 90 percent of the participants had detectable levels of phthalates, parabens and BP-3 prior to using the replacement products.6
The participants used alternative cosmetic products labeled paraben- and phthalate-free for three days. Afterward, urinary concentrations decreased by over 40 percent for parabens, over 27 percent for monoethyl phthalates and over 35 percent for triclosan.
However, increases of butyl and ethyl parabens were detected in nearly half the participants.7 The authors suggested these may have been contaminants in the cosmetics or unlabeled ingredients, which they were unable to ensure were paraben-free.
The study demonstrated even a short break from certain kinds of makeup, shampoos and lotions may lead to a significant drop in hormone-disrupting chemicals.8 While the study did not include males, it is important to note shaving creams and lotions, after shave and other personal care items used by men also contain these chemicals.
While the authors suggested potential contaminants existed within personal care products used in the study, the results may also suggest the potential manufacturers are using ingredients not included on the label and hidden under “trade secrets.”
Your Cosmetics May Contain Secret Toxins
Although this study evaluated the effect of reducing exposure to parabens, phthalates and BP-3, it’s important to remember your personal care products may contain a variety of chemicals and other toxins dangerous to your health.
In an Environmental Defense report,9 researchers shared results from testing 49 different makeup items, finding serious heavy metal contamination in nearly all the products. Contamination included lead, beryllium, thallium, cadmium and arsenic.
Although the FDA has set what they consider to be safe limits for many chemicals found within personal care products, the concern is not exposure to one product with one use. Instead, as demonstrated by the number of personal care products women use on a daily basis, cumulative exposure is likely overloading your body and contributing to a wide range of health problems.
A number of toxic chemicals are included under the general category of “fragrance.” These combinations are protected by a loophole in the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act,10 intended to ensure consumers have information to make informed choices. However, companies are not required to disclose “trade secrets,” under which fragrances and flavor ingredients fall.11
While the list of toxic chemicals commonly found in personal care products is long, a few dangerous chemicals to avoid on your product labels include:12
- Sodium lauryl sulfate — A surfactant found in nearly 90 percent of personal care and cleaning products
- Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives — Used to help prevent bacterial growth, but also a known human carcinogen
- Toluene — A petrochemical used as a solvent in nail polish, nail treatments and hair coloring products
Risks Associated With Paraben Esters Affect Men and Women
Since personal care products contain a diverse combination of chemicals and it is unethical to experiment on humans, it is nearly impossible to scientifically demonstrate a specific cause and effect in humans.13 For this reason, many experiments are done using animal models.
However, hormone disruptors, such as parabens, which affect how estrogen and other hormones are used in the body, effectively create an imbalance in the body’s hormonal system. Since your hormones are responsible for the management and regulation of nearly every system in your body, this effect can have far reaching consequences.
Parabens are man-made chemicals used as preservatives in personal care products, foods, pharmaceuticals and beverages. Oftentimes, manufacturers will use more than one paraben in a single product. This only increases your exposure and the cumulative effect they may have in your body. Common parabens you may find listed on your product labels include:14,15
Studies linking the action of parabens on the expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors and noncancerous cells16 found methylparaben increases breast cancer tumor proliferation17 and demonstrated human epidermal growth factor receptors enhance the ability of butylparaben to stimulate breast cancer proliferation.18
Methylparaben decreases the proliferation of keratinocytes and promotes skin aging.19 Parabens also have an adverse effect on the vitality of sperm and damage the late stage of spermatogenesis in an animal model.20
Lab tests done on 315 male patients21 in a fertility clinic found those exposed to parabens had lower testosterone levels and more sperm that are abnormally shaped and slow moving.
The study suggests these ingredients may contribute to a rising number of men experiencing infertility. Those who had a low concentration of parabens had a lower proportion of sperm with abnormal morphology, while those with higher levels had DNA damage in the sperm, lower motility and higher abnormal morphology.
Consider the Chemicals You May Inhale or Touch
Although these toxic chemicals are commonly found in personal care products, they are also found in conventional cleaning products, impacting your health and the environment. Making a simple switch to safer alternatives using ingredients you may already have at home will help to reduce your exposure and the damaging impact on the environment.
Dish soaps often contain phthalates, and triclosan is found in many detergents and over-the-counter antibacterial products. Speaking about perchlorethylen, Judith Schreiber, Ph.D., chief scientist of environmental protection for the New York Attorney General’s office,22 said it is a neurotoxin, increasing your risk for neurological effects, liver and kidney diseases and cancer.
This chemical is a component of spot removers, carpet cleaners and dry cleaning solutions. Another group of chemicals known as quaternary ammonium compounds (quats) are standard ingredients in many antibacterial solutions and are commonly found in fabric softeners.
Quaternium-15 is likely the most well-known of the quats and is a known formaldehyde-releasing chemical found in hair conditioners, hair styling products, shaving products and household cleaning products. Other quats include:23
Lauryl dimonium hydrolysed collagen
Diethyl ester dimethyl ammonium chloride
Dialkyl dimethyl ammonium methyl sulfate
Hydroxyethyl methyl ammonium methyl sulfate
Chemical DTDMAC (ditallow dimethyl ammonium chloride)
Quaternium-15,18, 26 and other numbers
Reduce Your Chemical Exposure Using Simple Solutions
It is critical to track adverse events as they relate to any chemical or product you use. Report any adverse reaction you or your family experiences to the FDA24 on their phone line (1-800-FDA-1088), online or their paper reporting form. The cosmetic industry is not interested in moving toward tighter regulations, which leaves you in charge of regulating what you and your family put on your skin.
Your skin is an excellent drug delivery system, so what goes on your body is as important as what goes in your mouth. It is important to remember that while you may wear gloves as you clean, not all the solution may be removed from the surface after you’re finished.
You likely have many of the ingredients you already need to effectively and efficiently clean your home. Discover some simple solutions in my previous article, “Keep a Clean House With Nontoxic Cleaners.”
Maintaining a healthy gut microbiome will also help to protect you from some of the toxins you ingest by filtering them — a protection you don’t get when they are absorbed through your skin.
Find recipes to make your own homemade bath and handwashing products that don’t contain additional by-products and preservatives. Coconut oil is a healthy skin moisturizer that has natural antibacterial properties.
The Environmental Working Group has an extensive database to help you find personal care products free of potentially dangerous chemicals.25 Products bearing the “USDA 100% Organic” seal are among your safest bets if you want to avoid potentially toxic ingredients. Be aware products labeled “all-natural” may still contain harmful chemicals, so it’s wise to check the full list of ingredients.
Mark Steele, a 5G campaigner, has been highlighting the dangers of a secret 5G rollout by Gateshead Council where residents are complaining of increased illness and Cancer in the affected area.
There’s enough evidence to conclude the new smart 5G arrays on the top of new LED lampposts emit Class 1 Radiation frequencies and should be treated as a danger to the Public.
Gateshead Council ignorantly rebutted clear evidence and created false allegations on social media posts and printed leaflets stating that Mark Steele is spreading Pseudo Science and that the arrays are not dangerous or 5G:
“Please be assured that there is no scientific basis or credible evidence for any of these scare stories about street lights causing cancer and other illnesses.”
|(Natural News) Drinking a glass of beetroot juice before exercise can give you a younger brain, surmises a team of researchers in a new study. The team says that older adults who drink this purple tonic before engaging in moderate exercise exhibit greater brain connectivity in the areas associated with motor function. The connectivity, authors…|
|(Natural News) The World Health Organization (WHO) says that an average person needs around 3,510 mg of the potassium every day, whereas the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) says that 4,700 mg is needed to experience optimum health. Regardless of the number, the typical American only consumes around 2,640 mg of potassium daily….|