|(Natural News) The clown show known as the Democratic debates featured an extensive lineup of pandering fools, as you probably well know, that promised everything from free health care for illegal aliens to free abortions for transgender men who think they’re women. One of the clowns, Cory Booker, even laughably promised to take on Big…|
|(Natural News) What do you do when you’re the world’s most powerful Internet and technology company and someone just exposed you for nefarious, and possibly illegal, behavior? You do what tyrants, thugs, dictators, and authoritarians have done for centuries: You get rid of the evidence. In the 21st century, that can be accomplished by simply…|
Sepsis is a medical emergency that may become fatal or leave an individual with a significant disability. Data from the CDC1 show that every year at least 1.7 million adults in the U.S. develop sepsis and 1 of every 3 who die in the hospital has sepsis.
While these numbers are shocking, a review of the literature2 shows the incidence of sepsis has grown over the last three decades at a rate faster than population growth.
The percentage of severe sepsis cases has also increased from 25% in 1993 to 44% in 2003, indicating that not only is the incidence of sepsis rising, but also the number of severe cases.3 Sepsis develops as an overwhelming immune response to an infection.4
The Sepsis Alliance calls this one of the most common misconceptions about the condition, as sepsis is not an infection but rather the body’s response to an infection.5 The second most common misconception is sepsis begins in the hospital. However, sepsis is more likely to start in the community from an infection caused by bacteria or a virus, parasite or fungus.
The immune response triggered by an infection may lead to leaky blood vessels, blood clots, poor blood flow, and in severe cases organ failure.6 When blood pressure drops in combination with a weakened heart it leads to septic shock.
The underlying trigger, an infection, often starts in the community. This may explain why it is often misdiagnosed in the beginning, which increases the potential risk for disability and death.7
Missed diagnosis leads to death and disability
A missed diagnosis may sometimes mean the difference between life and death. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine found that 74.1% of all serious harms from mistaken diagnoses occurred due to a vascular event, infection or cancer.8
The findings came from an analysis of 11,592 claims of missed diagnosis from 55,377 cases. They were pulled from an extensive medical malpractice claims database. The researchers identified diseases accounting for the majority of morbidity and mortality using the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO)’s Comparative Benchmarking System, which represents 28.7% of all U.S. malpractice claims.9
They pulled data from events that happened between 2006 and 2015 and found that the average age of individuals who had a missed diagnosis was 49 years. More than half (51.7%) were female, including 53% who died. The most frequent conditions found in the categories were stroke, sepsis and lung cancer.
The financial cost of the severe cases was $1.8 billion in malpractice awards over 10 years.10 Data from malpractice cases showed that missed and delayed diagnoses that cause death or disability are most often associated with cancer, vascular issues and infections.11 Dr. David Newman-Toker, director of the Armstrong Institute Center for Diagnostic Excellence at Johns Hopkins University, commented on the results:12
“We know that diagnostic errors happen across all areas of medicine. There are over 10 thousand diseases, each of which can manifest with a variety of symptoms, so it can be daunting to think about how to even begin tackling diagnostic problems.
Our findings suggest that the most serious harms can be attributed to a surprisingly small number of conditions. It still won’t be an easy or quick fix, but that gives us both a place to start and real hope that the problem is fixable.”
According to the press release, the researchers believe their data confirm13 “inaccurate or delayed diagnosis remains the most common, most catastrophic and most costly of medical errors.” The authors noted it will take a systemwide effort, including research and quality improvement, to focus on interventions to reduce errors.14
Recognize the symptoms of sepsis
Sepsis affects both genders across all age groups and socioeconomic categories. If you have an infection that progresses to sepsis, this may increase your risk of death. Researchers have found the death rate of those with sepsis is 10% compared to the 1% of hospitalized patients who don’t develop sepsis.15
In this study,16 researchers found most of the patients in two groups already had sepsis when they were admitted to the hospital; the Sepsis Alliance reports this is common.17 Those who had less severe symptoms when they showed up were in the majority of those who died. This may be related to a delay in diagnosis in those who present with less severe symptoms.
It’s important to recognize the signs and symptoms of sepsis so you can see your doctor right away and ask about it. One of the reasons sepsis may be misdiagnosed is it often looks like something else. Many of the symptoms may be confused with a bad cold or the flu.
However, the symptoms tend to develop more quickly than you would expect. The Sepsis Alliance recommends using the acronym TIME to remember some of the more common symptoms:18
T — Temperature higher or lower than normal?
I — Have you now or recently had any signs of an infection?
M — Are there any changes in mental status? For example, do you feel confused or are you extra sleepy?
E — Are you experiencing any extreme pain or illness; do you have the feeling that you may die?
While sepsis may be triggered by a virus, parasite or fungus, most cases are triggered by bacteria, and your doctor may not be able to pinpoint the source of the infection.19 Sepsis often produces:20,21,22
A high fever with chills and shivering
Rapid breathing (tachypnea)
Rapid heartbeat (tachycardia)
Unusual level of sweating (diaphoresis)
Confusion or disorientation
Diarrhea, nausea or vomiting
Difficulty breathing, shortness of breath
Severe muscle pain
Low urine output
Cold and clammy skin
New York regulated care slightly reduces number of deaths
Your physicians and health care staff are humans, capable of making mistakes and misdiagnosis. After the study was published, Newman-Toker commented:23
“For many patients, misdiagnosis causes severe harm and expense, and in the worst cases, death. This study shows us where to focus to start making a difference for patients. It tells us that tackling diagnosis in these three specific disease areas could have a major impact on reducing misdiagnosis-related harms.”
Researchers from the second study call for more standardization of treatment to reduce hospital mortality, writing:24
“Performance improvement efforts in the treatment of sepsis have primarily focused on standardizing care for the most severely ill patients, whereas interventions for treating other patients with sepsis are less well defined. Given their prevalence, improving standardized care for patients with less severe sepsis could drive future reductions in hospital mortality.”
New York state was the first to begin a sepsis regulation program, mandating implementation of specific protocols if sepsis was suspected.25,26 Lead author Dr. Jeremy Kahn of the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Medicine commented on the idea of standardizing care:27
“Rarely in the U.S. do we force hospitals to implement specific clinical protocols. Typically, quality improvement is achieved through financial incentives and public reporting. For the first time, state officials are enshrining in regulations that hospitals must follow certain evidence-based protocols when it comes to sepsis. And our study finds that, at least in New York, it seemed to work.”
After evaluation of more than 1 million sepsis admissions in 509 hospitals in New York and comparing those against four control states that were not using standardized sepsis regulations, the team found the number who died in hospital in New York was slightly lower.28
After accounting for confounding factors, New York state’s death rate from sepsis was 3.2% lower than would have been expected, compared to results the control states experienced over the same years.
What you need to know before you go to the hospital
While any reduction in deaths from sepsis is a step in the right direction, the standardized care enacted in New York in 2013 included only lactate measurements and antibiotic and vasopressor treatments done within the first three and six hours of admission, including:29
|Within the first three hours||Within the first six hours|
blood cultures before antibiotics
30 mL/kg fluid bolus for patients with hypotension or lactate>4 meq/L
vasopressors for hypotension refractory to fluids
re-measurement of lactate
This treatment protocol completely overlooks the rising number of antibiotic-resistant infections and the sepsis protocol developed by Dr. Paul Marik, chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Sentara Norfolk General Hospital in East Virginia.30
Although Marik’s protocol was published after New York enacted the standardized treatment protocol, it doesn’t appear it will be integrated right away. Marik’s protocol relies on the synergistic effect of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and thiamine (HAT) for the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock.31
In his initial retrospective study of patients treated in his hospital, they found that those treated with the protocol suffered an 8.5% mortality rate as compared to 40.4% in the control group.32 The overall reduction in numbers of individuals who succumbed to sepsis is vastly different than those reported in the New York study where hospitals experienced a 3.2% overall reduction.33
Researchers evaluating the same protocol in patients presenting with septic shock after cardiac surgery found the combination reduced the need for vasopressors in adult surgical patients.34 A review of clinical studies found patients who were treated with the protocol demonstrated beneficial effects without safety concerns.35
In a follow-up paper,36 Marik recommended daily measurements of procalcitonin (PCT) as an essential component of the strategy. During the pilot study his team noted an 86% decrease in procalcitonin compared to a 34% decrease in controls. He believes with the HAT protocol, people were more likely to survive because of reduced inflammatory responses and fewer instances of organ failure.
He also found the decline in PCT37 was not found with single use of vitamin C. Marik reported treating more than 1,200 patients with the protocol and noted PCT decline was reproducible with just a few exceptions. If PCT baseline levels failed to fall by 50% in the first 24 hours they realized the wrong antibiotic was given or there was inadequate source control.
Marik wrote that this finding may improve patient outcomes by allowing for an early change in antibiotics or a more aggressive source control,38 or actions that are taken to control the infection.39
Partial protocol not effective
Administering one or two of the three factors in the protocol and expecting positive results is like giving half a dose of antibiotics and expecting it to work. It is important to note that Marik uses the protocol as an adjunct, or addition to, antibiotic therapy and not as the only treatment.40
The protocol was designed so that all three work together. However, some critics argue that the treatment has41 “yet to be proven safe and effective in randomized clinical trials,” which they believe42 “exemplifies the phenomenon some called ‘science by press release.'”
One such critic is Dr. Steven Simpson, chief medical officer at Sepsis Alliance.43 He points out the FDA has only approved one drug, Xigris, to treat sepsis that was passed largely on the basis of one phase-3 trial that stopped early when the researchers believed the results were positive.44
However, 10 years later the drug company pulled Xigris from the market as it failed to show any survival benefit in a placebo control trial involving 1,697 patients.45 Dr. H. Bryant Nguyen, director of the ICU at Loma Linda was involved in a retrospective study comparing the outcomes in patients who had and had not received the HAT protocol.46
The letter in JAMA reports this study showed no significant differences in the primary or secondary clinical outcomes, mortality or hospital length of stay. Nguyen commented to JAMA he was completely astonished some already considered HAT a standard of care despite what JAMA called a “dearth of evidence.”47
With Nguyen’s study, it is important to note that patients were included in the HAT experimental group if they received at least one dose of the protocol.48 In other words, the researchers were evaluating results based on patients who may have received just one dose. That is like evaluating the effectiveness of an antibiotic after having received one dose.
In another recent study,49 scientists evaluated how well vitamin C and thiamine work to help people with sepsis. They found it did not improve survival, and this is most likely because the protocol is based on administration of all three compounds.
Synergistic effect of hydrocortisone and vitamins C and B1
Despite critiques of low-cost, easily accessible treatments for sepsis, there is ample evidence the treatment is safe and effective.50,51,52,53,54,55
While each part of the protocol is safe on an individual basis, they must be administered together to work effectively. Marik explains56 the combination targets multiple areas of the body’s response to an infection and helps restore the dysregulated immune response.
This then helps prevent organ failure and death. He goes on to discuss the excess production of reactive oxygen species underlies many of the damaging processes in sepsis.57 His team found the optimal dose of vitamin C was about 6 grams per day.
Corticosteroids help suppress the overactive immune responses in sepsis, but past studies Marik cited showed that while they have a biological effect when administered alone, the effect on patient outcomes is limited. The use of steroids is for the synergistic effect with vitamin C and thiamine.58
Thiamine deficiency has been found to be common among those suffering from sepsis,59,60,61 which leads to a reduction in activity of enzymes dependent on thiamine. This may trigger a sequence of metabolic events that compromises ATP production and energy. Marik finds:62
“Thiamine may act synergistically with glucocorticoids and vitamin C to limit mitochondrial oxidative injury and restore mitochondrial function and energy production. The anti-inflammatory properties of these agents likely restore the activity of the PDC, thereby improving ATP production. However, the interaction between thiamine and ascorbic acid is complex, and likely dependent on the clinical context and ascorbic acid dosing.”
Currently, a large ongoing trial is underway to test this treatment protocol. Researchers are using a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, adaptive sample size trial enrolling those with sepsis who have respiratory and/or circulatory compromise.63
Watch for post-sepsis syndrome
While some will recover fully from sepsis, for many the problems do not end at discharge from the hospital. Survivors may suffer physical, psychological and/or neurological consequences for the rest of their lives. The combination of symptoms is called post-sepsis syndrome and usually lasts between six and 18 months. Symptoms of post-sepsis syndrome may include:64,65
Lethargy (excessive tiredness)
Changes in peripheral sensation
Repeated infections at the original site or a new infection
Shortness of breath
Joint and muscle pains
Dry flaking skin and nails
Changes in vision
Reduced kidney function
Post-traumatic stress disorder
Short-term memory loss
Currently, there is no specific treatment for post-sepsis syndrome, but many get better over time. The U.K. Sepsis Trust66 recommends managing individual symptoms and supporting optimal health as you’re recovering. They encourage survivors to talk with friends and family and not to suffer with their symptoms in silence, as this helps to get through the difficult time.
Not all medical professionals are aware of post-sepsis syndrome, so it may be helpful to talk about your symptoms and ask for a referral to someone who may help manage your mental, physical and emotional challenges. Some survivors find their immune system is not as effective as long as a year following their recovery, resulting in one infection after another, including coughs and colds.
Cancer is a disease of uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells, also called a malignant growth or tumor. In 1971,1 President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, signing the National Cancer Act. His goal was to make a national commitment to find a cure, after which Fort Detrick was converted to a cancer research center and renamed the Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center.
Since then a number of chemotherapeutic and surgical treatments have been developed in an effort to treat cancer.2 In 1991, mortality rates from cancer began to decline, falling 0.5% per year from 1990 to 1995.3
In 1998, a major clinical trial reported neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer allowed women with large tumors to undergo a lumpectomy instead of a full mastectomy.4 The goal was to shrink the tumor using chemotherapy, so a smaller portion of the breast could be surgically removed.
Chemotherapy has been one of the primary treatments used in cancer. The objective has been to destroy the cancer cells so that it does not come back. However, chemo — technically a poison — travels throughout your entire body and affects every single cell, unlike radiation or surgical treatments which target precise locations.5
Short term benefit may lead to long term problems
As mentioned, the initial intention of using chemotherapy before surgical excision of breast cancer tumors was to improve the ability of the surgeon to remove the tumor and spare as much breast tissue as possible. But follow-up research to the original study in 1998 has found that although this treatment increases the number of times breast-conserving therapy may be used, it also increases the number of local recurrences of breast cancer in those same women.6
The authors of the research in The Lancet7 suggest downsizing tumor size using neoadjuvant chemotherapy should also include strategies to mitigate the increased local recurrence. However, other scientists8 suggest neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer tumors should be abandoned.
Dr. Jayant S Vaidya, consulting surgeon at several hospitals in London, including the University College London Hospitals,9 discussed some key points about the treatment in The BMJ, including the increased pathological response that doesn’t translate into a survival benefit and the reliance on the immediate and dramatic responses seen with newer drugs that may not ultimately benefit patients.10
He was interviewed in a podcast with BMJ Talk Medicine, during which he discussed the original reasons for using neoadjuvant therapy and his analysis of recent research that doesn’t support the use. At 7:33 in the podcast,11 Vaidya discussed how neoadjuvant therapy makes surgery less precise and more difficult for the surgeon to excise the tumor.
While the drugs reduce the size of the tumor, it leaves behind cancer cells in the surrounding tissue and essentially “melts” the tumor margin the surgeon uses to excise the tumor, he said. Additionally, researchers have found breast cancer disseminates using a system they call tumor microenvironment of metastasis (TMEM).12
Scientist have used TMEM to clinically validate markers predictive of metastasis in breast cancer patients. In one study,13 data demonstrated chemotherapy increases the activity of TMEM sites and promotes distant metastasis of breast cancer cells.
Unfortunately, in those who underwent neoadjuvant treatment, expression of TMEM increased, suggesting despite reducing the size of the original tumor, its use increased the risk of metastatic disease.14
Chemo-treated breast cancer grow vesicles promoting spread
Following these studies, an international team of researchers from Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland15 set out to understand how neoadjuvant chemotherapy may result in a higher risk of developing metastatic disease.
Using an experimental model,16 the researchers found two of the more commonly used medications, doxorubicin and paclitaxel,17 induced the release of small vesicles, which contained a protein (Annexin-A6) not released in the vesicles from untreated tumors.
These were then found circulating in the blood and, when reaching a lung tissue, would release their content stimulating cells to release a different protein, attracting monocytes from the immune system. Past studies had demonstrated this may facilitate the growth of cancer cells in lung tissue, the initial step in metastasis.18
The researchers found genetic inactivation of annexin-A6 in the cancer or host cells19 or blocking the monocytes20 could prevent the experimental breast cancers from lung metastasis.
Cancer rates and incidence
Cancer has a significant impact on societies across the world. According to the National Cancer Institute, the most common cancers in order of number diagnosed are breast cancer, lung and bronchus cancer, prostate cancer, colon and rectal cancer and melanoma of the skin.21
The latest information from the CDC from 2016 reports 436 new cases of cancer for every 100,000 men and women and 156 deaths for every 100,000 men and women.22
In the U.S., the CDC data visualization map demonstrates a significant difference between the number of people diagnosed with cancer on the West Coast compared to those on the East Coast of the U.S. Rates on the West Coast are as low as 359.4 per 100,000 while on the East Coast they range up to 509.7 per 100,000.23
Approximately 38.4% of men and women will be diagnosed with some type of cancer during their lifetime.24 In 2017, the economic burden for care was $147.3 billion, an increase from $137.4 billion in 2010.25
Mitochondria play a crucial role in development of cancer
Simply put, mitochondria are the powerhouses of your cells, producing 90% of the energy generated inside your body.26 Every muscle contraction, biochemical reaction and cellular regeneration requires energy to be completed. When these little powerhouses become dysfunctional it affects your overall health.
Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D., professor of biology at Boston College,27 is a leading expert and researcher in the field of cancer metabolism and nutritional ketosis. His work looks at the mechanism of cancer and the influence mitochondria have on the development and treatment of the disease.
Initially, it was Otto Warburg, Ph.D., a German physiologist, who proposed a difference in cancer cell energy production and metabolism, for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1931.28 He hypothesized cancer growth occurred through an anaerobic breakdown of sugar, called fermentation. This is vastly different from the conversion of sugar to energy in normal cells through glycolysis.
In his work, Seyfried explains how fermentation in the mitochondria of cancer cells uses glucose and glutamine for fermentable fuels as they are unable to use ketones. For further discussion see my past article, “Why Glucose and Glutamine Restrictions Are Essential in the Treatment of Cancer.”
Cancer is frequently a metabolic and not genetic condition
A traditionally held view is cancer is a genetic disease,29 but what Warburg discovered is cancer is really caused by a defect in the cellular energy metabolism of the cell, primarily related to the function of the mitochondria.
In my view, this information is a game changer as it relates to cancer and nearly every other disease, since at the core of most serious health conditions you find mitochondrial dysfunction.
Nuclear transfer experiments involve transplanting the nuclei of one cell into the cytoplasm (the material within a cell, excluding the cell nucleus) of another including the mitochondria. In studying the effect of mitochondrial function in cancer, researchers have transplanted the nuclei of a tumor cell into the cytoplasm of a healthy cell.30
The hypothesis is if cancer is nuclear-gene driven and the phenotype of cancer is dysregulated cell growth, meaning if genetic mutations are responsible for the observable characteristics of the disease, then those abnormal genes should be expressed in the new cytoplasm. But that’s not what happened.31
However, what was observed was when the nuclei of cancer cells were transferred into a healthy cytoplasm, the new cytoplasm did not form cancer. It remained healthy and normal. Seyfried writes:32
“Cybrids contain a single nucleus with a mixture of cytoplasm from two different cells. Cybrids with normal mitochondria showed enhanced mitochondrial function including increased ATP synthesis, oxygen consumption and respiratory chain activities despite the presence of the cancerous nuclear genome.
A remarkable finding was that even though genes that encode most mitochondrial proteins are located in the nucleus, introduction of mitochondria derived from the non-cancerous cell to a cancer nuclear environment resulted in suppression of oncogenic pathways and the tumorigenic phenotype.”
Additional evidence produced by Benny Kaipparettu, Ph.D., and colleagues at Baylor University33 showed transplanted normal mitochondria (with their nuclei intact) into cancer cell cytoplasm caused the cells to stop growing abnormally. In essence, this downregulated the oncogenes alleged to be driving the tumor and made the cells grow normally again.
On the other hand, when they took the mitochondria from a tumor cell and moved them into a very slow-growing type of cancer cells, the cancer cells began growing rapidly. As noted by Seyfried,34 “Low dose radiation can cause nuclear mutations but not cancer, whereas high dose radiation damages both the nucleus and mitochondria and can cause cancer.” He goes on to say:35
“In other words, nuclear mutations alone are insufficient for producing tumors, whereas the tumorigenic phenotype can be produced in some cells without nuclear mutations. These findings seriously question the foundation of the somatic mutation theory of cancer.”
Key principles in cancer treatment and prevention
Even though China has a larger population, their cancer rate is higher than the U.S.36 In this informative interview with Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D., who in my view is one of the most prominent and knowledgeable cancer biologists in the world, we discuss the role mitochondria and metabolism play in the development of cancer.
As Seyfried discusses, under an electron microscope mitochondrial structure and number are abnormal, leading to abnormal function. These changes mean cancer mitochondria are only able to use glucose and/or glutamine in a fermentation process to produce enough energy to survive.
The respiratory process used in normal cells using glucose to produce energy is not available to the cancer cells because of the structural abnormality in the mitochondria. This information means targeting glucose and glutamine in the treatment of cancer all but eliminates their source of energy and starves the cells, so they can’t survive.
By bringing the body into ketosis, the cancer cells are unable to use ketones in fermentation and therefore have no mechanism to make energy. Conversely, there is new information demonstrating that cancer is not a genetic disease. As Seyfried describes in the video:
“The nuclear transfer experiments are showing that it cannot be a genetic disease. There has been no scientific argument that I have seen, a rational argument, to discredit the multitude of evidence showing that the mutations are not the drivers but the effects. As a matter of fact, there’s new information now where people are finding so-called genetic drivers of cancer expressed and present in normal cells.”
He goes on to say:
“And now we’re finding many cancers that have no mutations … yet they’re fermenting and they’re growing out of control. So, there’s a number of new observations that are coming out that challenge this concept that cancer is a genetic disease. So, then, once you realize that it’s not a genetic disease, then you have to seriously question the majority of therapies that are being used to try to manage the disease.”
Seyfried believes that cancer is not a genetic disease, mutations are a downstream phenomenon and — most importantly — that we could drop the death rate by 50% in 10 years. This could be accomplished if cancer were treated as a mitochondrial metabolic disease targeting fermentable fuels, rather than using toxic therapies focused on downstream effects.
Most of the current toxic therapies, such as chemotherapy and radiation, are focused on stopping replication of the cells, but by removing the cancer cells’ fuel source, they will also die without the negative, and sometimes devastating, effects of therapy.
Guidelines to reduce your potential risk
Seyfried’s landmark theory of cancer metabolism is available as a free PDF37 and many of his theories of energy production in cancer metabolism are found in his most recent paper,38 “Mitochondrial Substrate-Level Phosphorylation as Energy Source for Glioblastoma: Review and Hypothesis.”
Very simply put, by removing the energy source for the cancer cells, you cause the cells to die. To reduce your risk consider using a cyclical ketosis dietary plan as it improves your metabolic flexibility and reduces your cells’ dependence on glucose, the primary fuel for cancer cells.
Additionally, you may reduce your risk by ditching processed foods of all kinds, eating only whole, organic fruits and vegetables and grass fed, pasture-raised meats and poultry, maintaining optimal levels of vitamin D, reducing your exposure to toxins, drinking pure water, exercising regularly and getting at least eight hours of quality sleep each night.
|(Natural News) Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is creeping its way into America’s criminal justice system, as yet another questionable judge has ruled against the president and in favor of the pharmaceutical industry as it pertains to drug price transparency. According to reports, United States District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta of Washington, D.C., recently decided…|
|(Natural News) In 2002’s Steven Spielberg movie, Minority Report, a futuristic crime-fighting unit uses “foreknowledge” to track down and arrest murderers before they even commit a crime. Things go horribly wrong when the lead character, played by Tom Cruise, finds himself accused of a future murder and has to fight to clear his name. Fast…|
by Jon Rappoport
July 24, 2019
(To join our email list, click here.)
A few days ago, I woke up with the very clear thought—as if it had been planted in my head—that everything I experience is a product of my own imagination.
This, I have since learned, is a teaching of the ancient Hermetic School of Philosophy.
At any rate, I decided to carry out an experiment. I imagined a second moon floating above Earth, to see if I could make it so real to me I would actually see it clearly, on consecutive nights.
Of course, as you know, last night a second moon did, in fact, appear in the sky. People all over the world saw it. I assure you, this was not my intent. I was merely trying to clarify an issue for myself.
I considered making a confession to the authorities—but why bother when I would be viewed as a crackpot? It occurred to me I could announce I had made the new moon and would, at an appointed time, unmake it. But suppose I failed? Regardless, securing the attention of a large number of people, when you are unknown, is quite difficult, no matter what your subject is. (I do not favor running naked into the street and launching a speech.)
This morning, as I approached my mother’s room in the nursing home for my weekly visit, I decided I would experience her as having recovered from her illness. When I entered the room, she was standing by the window singing one of the old songs from my childhood. When she turned to me, her eyes were clear and she was smiling. She said, “I’m ready to go home.”
Was I deluding myself? Was she in the grip of my own projection? I called for a nurse. She walked into the room and looked at my mother, who was supposed to be in a wheelchair. The nurse started to scream, and stopped herself. My mother hadn’t stood on her own in ten years.
A doctor told me she would have to undergo a series of tests. I took the opportunity to come back to my apartment and think things over.
If I do have formidable powers, I should consider options. Wouldn’t you? Would you take, for instance, a daring course and put an end to war and disease? If I can accomplish such a feat, I believe I would. Damn the consequences. I would leave others to sort them out.
I am strangely calm. It is as if I have been pointing toward this moment all my life.
I no longer feel I have needs. Somehow, those chains have been removed.
Once upon a time, I was walking on uncertain ground. But not now.
Others would surely say I have reached too high, and I am about to take a fall. I search for a cautionary note in my mind, but I don’t find it. My mind is quiet. It has no advice for me.
This new state of affairs seems quite natural.
An hour ago, I tried a third experiment. My beloved terrier, Jack, who died after a long illness when I was in school, is now back lying on my couch. He’s looking at me. I go over and pet him and he licks my hand. He yawns, stretches out his front legs, jumps off the couch and trots across the living room to a small table, where I’ve kept a framed photo of us sitting in a field near my school. He looks up at the photo and barks. He turns to me and sits.
Why wouldn’t things be this way? Why would they be any other way?
I’m not looking for a response from you, dear reader. Suppose you, too, have these powers? I have the clear sense you would use them for good.
Suppose what I’m reporting here is the superior reality, and the end of things we don’t want to end is the illusion?
Perhaps I should have started with a smaller example of manifestation, to make it easier for you—but that is not the way it happened to me. That is not the way I chose to change What Is.
What Is, is a brief flicker across a wide ocean. The ocean is all possibility. That’s what I see now.
Am I offending your sense of propriety? If so, I apologize. This is not my intent.
I see us as errant knights. Errant in the sense that we are departing from a prescribed course. We cross a threshold, and then the fabric of events alters. The “news” is different. Solid becomes liquid, liquid becomes vapor, and vapor becomes open space. The space is waiting for us to do something. The space has no plan. It is calm. The challenges we assumed were there are missing. Those challenges were the last meal we consumed on the last day of old time. Now we walk and look up at the night sky. We are satiated and satisfied. Now we can do something different.
We feel an anticipation of dimensions.
You manifest what you will, and so will I, and in the process, you and I will use our powers for good.
That is a very pleasant, even ecstatic prospect to contemplate.
A few weeks ago, I had my first inkling of the change, when I was invited to speak at the funeral service of a cousin. As I stood there in the church looking out at the mourners, I wondered what they would do if, out of the blue, James strolled in the door and danced up the aisle.
I couldn’t help wondering how the family and friends would feel if they saw him in that church, in the flesh. A few of them, I was sure, injected with shocks of lightning, interrupted from their proper grieving, would express outrage. How dare James return!
There is a way events are programmed to proceed, and people prepare their responses. They are tuned like instruments.
Given the choice, would you prefer to surrender to the occasion of a fallen friend, or suddenly find him back in your midst?
Suppose the friend, in some form, is always with you? Is that too hard to believe?
—I can tell you this. I was less alive when I began writing these words than I am now.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Are humans supposed to eat meat and consume animal products? If you look into it, you may be surprised. Take milk, for example. The majority of people on the planet are lactose intolerant for a reason. In some parts of the world, lactose intolerance is 90 to 100 percent.(source) Humans are the only species to drink milk after weaning and the only species to drink the milk of another animal. Have we been fooled by big food marketing? Why are global food guides changing to a more plant-based foundation? It’s because things are changing.
The reason why I have a hard time believing that humans are meant to consume meat and animal products is because there’s so much science proving this. Meat eating of all kinds is linked to a variety of diseases. Some of the latest information to emerge in this area compares protein from meat and protein from plant-based sources, suggesting that plant-based protein is much healthier.
A recent study conducted by researchers in California and France found that meat protein is associated with a very sharp increased risk of heart disease, while protein from nuts and seeds is actually beneficial for the human heart.
The study is titled “Patterns of plant and animal protein intake are strongly associated with cardiovascular mortality: The Adventist Health Study-2 cohort,” It was a joint project between researchers from Loma Linda University School of Public Health in California and AgroParisTech and the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique in Paris, France.
It was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology. The researchers found that people who ate large amounts of meat protein, which is a daily norm for many people, represented a portion of the human population that would experience a 60 percent increase in cardiovascular disease (CVD), while people who consumed large amounts of protein from nuts and seeds actually experienced a 40 percent reduction in CVD.
81,000 participants were analyzed for this study. According to Gary Fraser, MB, ChB, PhD, from Loma Linda University, and François Mariotti, PhD, from AgroParisTech and the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, who served as the co-principal investigators:
“Dietary fats are part of the story in affecting risk of cardiovascular disease, proteins may also have important and largely overlooked independent effects on risk.”
The authors emphasized that they, as well as their colleagues, have long suspected that the protein from nuts and seeds in the diet protects against heart and vascular disease, while protein from meat, especially red meats, increases your risk.
Fraser said the study leaves other questions open for further investigation, such as the particular amino acids in meat proteins that contribute to CVD. Another is whether proteins from particular sources affect cardiac risk factors such as blood lipids, blood pressure and overweight, which are associated with CVD.
While underconsumption of protein is harmful to the body, overconsumption comes with risks as well. In the United States, the average omnivore gets more than 1.5 times the optimal amount of protein, and most of that protein is from animal sources. This is bad news because excess protein is often stored as fat. This stored animal protein contributes to weight gain, heart disease, diabetes, inflammation, and cancer.
The study concluded that:
Associations between the ‘Meat’ and ‘Nuts & Seeds’ protein factors and cardiovascular outcomes were strong and could not be ascribed to other associated nutrients considered to be important for cardiovascular health. Healthy diets can be advocated based on protein sources, preferring low contributions of protein from meat and higher intakes of plant protein from nuts and seeds.
On the other hand, the protein contained in whole plant foods is connected to disease prevention. According to Dr. Michelle McMacken:
The protein found in whole plant foods protects us from many chronic diseases. There is no need to track protein intake or use protein supplements with plant-based diets; if you are meeting your daily calorie needs, you will get plenty of protein. The longest-lived people on Earth, those living in the “Blue Zones,” get about 10% of their calories from protein, compared with the U.S. average of 15-20%.
Multiple studies have shown the difference between animal protein and plant protein. Another great example comes from Colin Campbell, a Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University, whose experiments on laboratory rats showed cancer cell growth can be turned on or off by simply varying the amount of animal protein included in their diet. This was an enormous discovery, with implications to the diets of millions of people. His results, from what’s known as the “China Study,” have proven to be replicable.
A study conducted in 2016 by researchers at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital followed more than 130,000 people for 36 years, monitoring illnesses, lifestyles, diets and mortality rates.
They found that substituting between 15g and 19g of animal protein, the equivalent of a single sausage, for legumes, pulses, nuts and other planet protein, significantly decreased the risk of early death. Replacing eggs with plant-based protein also lead to a 19 percent reduction in mortality risk.
Researchers found that a 10 percent higher intake of meat was associated with a two percent higher mortality rate and an eight percent higher chance of cardiovascular death.
So Why Do We Eat Meat?
Again, I ask, what makes us believe we need to eat meat? Many people like to point to those who roamed the Earth before use, like Neanderthals. I found those arguments to be very weak, and they always fail to acknowledge Neanderthal groups that were completely vegan, and how animal protein wasn’t really important. They may also not even be related to us, but that’s a separate topic.
The evidence is mounting. It seems to be quite clear that our bodies suffer from meat eating and benefit from a whole foods, plant-based diet. This is why I am so confused.
“When you actually look at the way our digestive systems are constructed, we have the anatomy and the physiology of a strict plant eater or herbivore. We don’t have any adaptations in our digestive system or in our physiology that is adapted to eating or consuming animal flesh. And that’s why we can’t consume animal flesh without the aid of technology. But when you look at the jaw structure, jaw mechanics, our esophagus, our stomach and the length of our intestines, it’s clear that we have the anatomy of a committed herbivore.”
The quote above comes from Dr. Milton Mills, an internal medicine physician who, in the video linked within this article, explains that human beings aren’t really built to digest meat, or at the very least, they have a choice. More and more research is pointing towards the benefits of consuming a plant-based diet.
One thing is quite clear, and that’s the fact that a plant-based diet has great benefits for our health and impacts our biology in a very positive way, while meat eating and consuming animal products does the exact opposite. This is not really a matter to debate, we instead need to question what we are doing on this planet and how we are treating other animals as well. They are being tortured and it’s extremely heart-breaking. It’s very cruel and very bad for our planet to consume meat. All signs point to the fact that it’s not natural at all.