Iron and Vegetable Oil Are a Deadly Combo

The evidence continues to accumulate that avoiding toxic industrially processed seed oils, often referred to as “vegetable oils,” is essential to protecting your health, and recent research adds dietary iron to the increased health risks as well, particularly for those with Type 2 diabetes.1

Examples of seed oils high in omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) include soybean, cottonseed, sunflower, rapeseed (canola), corn and safflower.2 Omega-6 is considered to be proinflammatory because of the most common variety, linoleic acid, which will radically increase oxidative free radicals and cause mitochondrial dysfunction.3

But all seed oils have linoleic acid, even “healthy” ones like avocado and olive oil, both of which have the majority of commercially available products adulterated with other seed oils that have even higher levels of linoleic acid. So, only purchase trusted and tested brands and once you have them put the oil in the fridge. The linoleic acid will remain liquid. Simply pour that oil in the trash and your olive or avocado oil will be healthier.

The intake of omega-6 seed oils may also promote inflammation through arachidonic acid by increasing the production proinflammatory compounds. Further, as researchers noted in the journal Nutrients, “In addition, a few studies suggested that omega-6 PUFA is related to chronic inflammatory diseases such as obesity, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.”4

Iron, meanwhile, while necessary for oxygen delivery, mitochondrial electron transport, DNA synthesis and more, can generate oxidative stress that leads to tissue damage, and previous research has found dietary iron intake may be associated with the risk of diabetes. Now, researchers have demonstrated a connection between the intake of iron and PUFAs with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in people with Type 2 diabetes.5

Link Found Between PUFAs, Iron Intake and DPN

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy is a form of nerve damage that may occur in people with diabetes. The damage occurs, most often, in your legs and feet and is a significant cause of falls and fractures in this population. In addition to long-term diabetes, other risk factors for DPN include insulin resistance, high blood pressure, obesity and high blood sugar, and oxidative stress is believed to be a key contributing factor.6

For the featured study, Korean researchers looked into the association of iron intake and the ratio between iron intake and PUFA intake (iron/PUFA) with DPN in 147 people with Type 2 diabetes. Both high dietary iron intake and an elevated iron/PUFA ratio were associated with DPN, suggesting “the importance of the dietary pattern of iron and PUFA intake in individuals with type 2 diabetes.”7

Iron overload has previously been found to make oxidative stress injury in neurons worse in the presence of high sugar concentrations, and the researchers suggested that insulin resistance and pancreatic beta cell dysfunction, which are caused by oxidative stress, could be behind the association between iron and DPN.8

The study had limitations, however, particularly in regard to PUFAs, as it did not interpret the study results in relation to omega-6 and omega-3 separately. Omega-3s have an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory role that’s been linked to many health benefits.

Most people get far too much omega-6 and too little omega-3, thus ending up with a lopsided ratio, and this ratio is what impacts health. Ideally, this ratio would be close to 1-to-1. The key, however, is not to necessarily increase omega-3, but to decrease omega-6 to improve the ratio. The featured study evaluated PUFA intake of omega-6 and omega-3 together, but noted that it was the ratio of iron/omega-6 that showed a significant association with DPN:9

“Considering the PUFA-related antioxidant effect observed in an iron-related, pro-oxidant environment, we calculated the iron/PUFA ratio and found that a higher iron/PUFA ratio was associated with a higher OR (odds ratio) of DPN. This finding suggests that the ratio of iron to PUFA might be an important marker of DPN and can be used as an indicator to screen for or prevent DPN in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

In addition, even though the ratio iron/omega-6 PUFA, rather than the ratio iron/omega-3 PUFA, showed a statistically significant association with DPN after adjusting for confounders, we need to be cautious in interpreting these data. A relatively small amount of omega-3 PUFA compared with omega-6 PUFA might bring about these non-significant results.”

The Importance of Carnosine, Especially if You’re Vegan

One way to help stop the oxidative damage caused by iron intake in the presence of too many omega-6s is to take carnosine or its primary precursor, beta-alanine. Carnosine is a dipeptide composed of two amino acids: beta-alanine and histidine. It’s a potent antioxidant, the highest concentrations of which are found in your muscles and brain.

If you’re a vegetarian or vegan, you will have lower levels of carnosine in your muscles. This is one reason why many strict vegans who do not properly compensate for this and other nutritional deficiencies tend to have trouble building muscle. Carnosine itself is not very useful as a supplement as it is rapidly broken down into its constituent amino acids by certain enzymes. Your body then reformulates those amino acids back to carnosine in your muscles.

A more efficient alternative is to supplement with beta-alanine, which appears to be the rate limiting amino acid in the formation of carnosine. Eating beef is known to efficiently raise carnosine levels in your muscle,10 which is why if you’re a vegetarian or vegan this supplement may be particularly important.

Chronic Disease Rooted in Long-Term Consumption of Seed Oils

Many chronic diseases appear to be the result of a catastrophic cascade of health declines triggered by the long-term consumption of seed oils (omega-6). For instance, Dr. Chris Knobbe, an ophthalmologist and the founder and president of the Cure AMD Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to the prevention of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), believes age-related macular degeneration (AMD) should be called diet-related macular degeneration instead.

Knobbe has studied the toxic aldehydes that result from omega-6 fats. When you consume an omega-6 fat, it first reacts with a hydroxyl radical or peroxide radical, producing a lipid hydroperoxide.

This lipid hydroperoxide then rapidly degenerates into toxic aldehydes, of which there are hundreds, which in turn lead to cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, mutagenicity carcinogenicity and more, along with being obesogenic, at very low doses. Knobbe explained the complex process in his presentation at the ALLDOCS annual 2020 meeting:11

“Here’s what excess omega-6 does in a westernized diet: induces nutrient deficiencies, causes a catastrophic lipid peroxidation cascade, is what this does … This damages … a phospholipid called cardio lipid in the mitochondrial membranes. And this leads to electron transport chain failure … which causes mitochondrial failure and dysfunction.

And this leads first to reactive oxygen species, which feeds back into this peroxidation cascade. So, you’re filling up your fat cells and your mitochondrial membranes with omega-6, and these are going to peroxidize because of the fact that they are polyunsaturated.

All right, next thing that happens, insulin resistance, which leads to metabolic syndrome, Type 2 diabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. When the mitochondria fail you get reduced fatty acid, beta oxidation, meaning you can’t burn these fats properly for fuel.

So now you’re … carb dependent and you’re heading for obesity. So, you’re feeling tired. You’re gaining weight. Your mitochondria are failing to burn fat for fuel … this is a powerful mechanism for obesity.

So, the energy failure at the cellular level leads to nuclear mitochondrial DNA mutations, and this leads to cancers. Three weeks on a high-PUFA diet causes heart failure in rats — three weeks. And this also leads to apoptosis and necrosis. And of course, that’s how you get disorders like AMD, Alzheimer’s.”

The Problem With Linoleic Acid

At the root of the harmful biochemical reactions triggered by seed oils is linoleic acid, which is an 18-carbon omega-6 fat. As mentioned, linoleic acid is the primary fatty acid found in PUFAs and accounts for about 80% of the fatty acid composition of vegetable oils. Omega-6 fats must be balanced with omega-3 fats in order not to be harmful, but this isn’t the case for most Americans.

To make matters even worse, most of the omega-6 people eat has been damaged and oxidized through processing. “Most of this linoleic acid, when it oxidizes, it develops lipid hydroperoxides and then these rapidly degenerate into … oxidized linoleic acid metabolites,” says Knobbe.12

OXLAMs (oxidized linoleic acid metabolites) create a perfect storm, as they are cytotoxic, genotoxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, atherogenic and thrombogenic, according to Knobbe. Their atherosclerosis and thrombogenic actions are especially concerning because they can produce strokes and clots, however metabolic dysfunction can also occur.

During the lipid peroxidation cascade caused by the excess consumption of omega-6 seed oils, PUFAs accumulate in your cell membranes, leading to a peroxidation reaction. As mentioned, because there are so many reactive oxygen species it leads to the development of insulin resistance at the cellular level.

Dr. Paul Saladino, a physician journalist, in a podcast, also explained that linoleic acid “breaks the sensitivity for insulin at the level of your fat cells,”13 essentially making them more insulin sensitive — and, since your fat cells control the insulin sensitivity of the rest of your body by releasing free fatty acids, you end up with insulin resistance.

Unfortunately, even eating conventionally raised chicken, which is fed corn, is problematic, as the meat becomes high in omega-6 linoleic acid.14 As Saladino points out, eating a lot of chicken adds to your vegetable oil consumption and further skews your omega-6 to omega-3 ratio.

Avoiding Processed Seed Oils Will Protect Your Health

To protect your health, it is vital that you reduce your intake of industrially processed seed oils as much as you can. This means eliminating all of the following oils:







Even too much organic, biodynamic olive oil can shift your ratio in the wrong direction, as olive oil is also a source of omega-6 linoleic acid, so be sure you use the trick I described above to lower the LA content of olive oil. It’s also important to avoid nearly all processed foods and fast foods, as virtually all of them contain these toxic oils. The easiest way to do this is to prepare the majority of your food at home so you know what you are eating.

If you want to know how much linoleic acid you’re eating, simply go to and enter your food, making sure that it is accurately weighed. For optimal health, try to get your intake under 10 grams per day.

Early Health Screening Not Beneficial for Women in Their 40s

In a study published in The Lancet Oncology, scientists analyzed the effectiveness of breast cancer screening in Great Britain.1 The researchers concluded that mammograms beginning at age 40 or 41, as opposed to the recommended age 50 by the NHS, were associated with a relative reduction in breast cancer mortality.

They noted that a 2010 study2 found that early screening in ages 40 or 41 to 48 resulted in an 18.1% false positive rate which resulted in cytology and surgical and nonsurgical biopsies in women who ended up not actually having cancer. Even so, they still reported that their own study showed a statistical reduction of mortality in the first 10 years.

Other experts found the data from this study showed no statistical differences, and even the study’s researchers noted, “the absolute reduction remained constant.”3 They also admitted that “after more than 10 years of follow-up, no significant reduction was observed” and that “overall, there was no significant difference” in breast cancer deaths — just as their critics said.

According to the American Cancer Society, 73% of women over 45 had a screening mammogram within the past two years.4 In the U.S., these percentages add up to an overwhelming number of women. There were 61.91 million women from age 40 to 70 in July 2019.

Assuming a woman stops having mammograms at age 70, there may have been 45.19 million women who have had a mammogram in the past two years.5 When you consider the average cost of a mammogram is $100,6 the total revenue generated may be close to $4.5 billion. Although your out-of-pocket expense may not be $100 per test, someone is paying the charges.

This may be one explanation for why women continue to get recommendations for screening mammograms, despite a lack of evidence these tests can reduce mortality and mounting evidence they may in fact cause harm.

No Answers From New Study About Early Mammograms

The UK Age trial was designed to compare annual mammograms in women who begin getting the test at age 40 to those beginning them at age 50, against cancer mortality. The first results of the trial were published in The Lancet in 2015 after 17 years of follow-up.7

The study enrolled 160,921 women from October 1990 to September 1997. Of these women 53,883 joined the intervention group in which they received a mammogram nearly every year until age 48. Another 106,953 women were in a control group who received usual medical care, in which they did not receive their first mammogram until at least age 50.

The results published after a median follow-up of 17 years were similar to those published five years later in the final results.8 While the participants were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group, the researchers chose to include 33.5% in the intervention group and 66.5% in the control group.

From the start of the study until February 28, 2017, the women were followed for a median of 22.8 years. During this time, the researchers believe their statistics showed a reduction in breast cancer mortality at 10 years of follow-up but no significant reduction after age 50.

Yet, not every expert interpreted the results the same. One paper, titled “Breast Cancer: Study Claiming That Screening Women in Their 40s Saves Lives ‘Found the Opposite,’ Say Critics,” was published behind a paywall in the BMJ.9 A second opinion was published in The Lancet, in which the author said:10 

“No difference in mortality from breast cancer was found between the group that began yearly mammography screening at age 39-41 years until they entered the National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Programme at age 50-52 years, and a group that did not begin mammography screening until they entered the NHS Breast Screening Programme.

… overall there was no mortality reduction in the intervention group compared to the control group by the end of follow-up.

One surprising aspect of the report by Duffy and colleagues is the conclusion that no overdiagnosis of breast cancer occurred in either group beyond that which would occur when screening those aged 50 years and older. Because overdiagnosis appears to increase with age, it is possible that overdiagnosis occurred in both groups after the age of 50 years, but could not be detected because of the design of the trial.”

Data Show Screening Asymptomatic Women Isn’t Saving Lives

The third response to this research paper, also published in the BMJ, was written by Hazel Thornton, honorary visiting fellow, department of health sciences at the University of Leicester. In it, she also finds the statistics do not support the conclusion reached and reports on her testimony before the House of Commons Health Committee on breast cancer services as a witness.11

She was asked why she thought the NHS Breast Screening Programme was “a costly trawl of an asymptomatic public group … creating huge costly psychological and physical morbidity”? To which part of her answer was that it:

“… focuses on the women who benefit, in other words, the one life that is saved, and it overlooks the hundreds of women that go through the process and in some cases suffer psychological harm for that one. It is unbalanced and disproportionate and should be reviewed, in my opinion, at the moment.”

There are critics who claim arguments like Thornton’s overestimate the potential harm associated with overscreening for breast cancer.12 Yet their arguments have no answer for the numerous studies that demonstrate overscreening and overdiagnosis of breast cancer is a significant emotional and financial issue.13

In 2014, the BMJ published a 25-year follow up from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study in which the researchers found 22% of the screening-detected invasive breast cancers were overdiagnosed and they concluded:14

“Annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual care when adjuvant therapy for breast cancer is freely available.”

In a Cochrane review of the literature to analyze the efficacy of screening mammograms, researchers found eight trials that met the criteria, which included 600,000 women from ages 39 to 74.15 After an analysis of the data they discovered — as Thornton testified — for every 2,000 women screened over 10 years, one avoids dying of breast cancer, and 10 will be treated unnecessarily.

Additionally, over 200 women will undergo psychological distress and uncertainty for years after receiving false-positive findings. A cohort study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine engaged participants in Denmark from 1980 to 2010.16

They also found screening did not lower the incidence of advanced tumors and concluded it was likely ”that 1 in every 3 invasive tumors and cases of DCIS [ductal carcinoma in situ] diagnosed in women offered screening represent overdiagnosis (incidence increase of 48.3%).”17

Overdiagnosis, Overtreatment and Overexposure

In 2012, The New England Journal of Medicine published a research paper by two scientists who examined over 30 years of data trends looking at the incidence of early- and late-stage breast cancer in women 40 years and older.18 What they found caused some controversy, which led one of the authors to produce this short video explaining the results.

The expectation that doctors would find a greater number of early-stage cancers should have been accompanied by a comparable reduction in the number of women who presented with advanced cancer. This was not the case, suggesting there is a substantial number of women who are overdiagnosed, and “… that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.”19

In this video, the presenter makes the point that nearly “half of screen-detected breast cancer now represent overdiagnosis.” The harm from overdiagnosis does not stop with the psychological distress it causes a woman and her family. It also leads to overtreatment, and treatment often begins with a biopsy.

The most common type of biopsy for breast cancer is a needle biopsy. The doctor has a choice between a fine needle aspiration (FNA) or a core needle biopsy of the breast tissue. According to the American Cancer Society, a core needle biopsy is the preferred type when breast cancer is suspected since it removes more tissue than an FNA without needing surgery.20 

However, research published in their journal in 2017 concluded that core needle biopsies increase the risk of distant metastasis five to 15 years after breast cancer had been diagnosed.21 This happened at higher rates than in women undergoing an FNA. A second study published earlier concluded both types of biopsies put a woman at risk for metastasis, concluding:22

“Manipulation of an intact tumor by FNA or large-gauge needle core biopsy is associated with an increase in the incidence of SN [sentinel node] metastases, perhaps due in part to the mechanical disruption of the tumor by the needle.”

False-positive mammograms cost the U.S. $4 billion23 each year when treatment has started after a misdiagnosis,24 including chemotherapy and mastectomies, only to find the tumor is benign.25 This places an extraordinary emotional, mental and financial burden on the woman and her family.

The mammogram itself does not come without risk. Mammograms use ionizing radiation in relatively high doses, which contributes to the development of breast cancer. In a 2016 study, the authors write, “… ionizing radiation as used in low-dose X-ray mammography may be associated with a risk of radiation-induced carcinogenesis.”26

According to one study, annual screening using digital or screen-film mammography on women aged 40 to 80 years is associated with a lifetime risk of increased induced cancer and a fatal breast cancer rate of 20 to 25 cases per 100,000 mammograms.27 In other words, for every 100,000 women who get an annual mammogram, there will be 20 to 25 cases of fatal cancer in their lifetimes as a result.

You Have Choices

Although mammography is most often recommended, women have choices for diagnostic tests that do not use radiation. Women should be provided with information to make informed decisions and be allowed to use their choice. Other potentially safer options include self and clinical breast exams, thermography, ultrasound and MRI.

Thermography and ultrasound use no radiation and can detect abnormalities that mammograms may miss, especially in women who have dense breast tissue. While effective, these tests can be difficult to access in the U.S. since the billion-dollar mammography industry prevents their widespread use.

It’s also important to understand that screening does not prevent breast cancer. Instead, prevention involves healthy lifestyle choices, avoiding toxins and paying attention to certain nutritional factors. Vitamin D is a vital nutritional factor that can radically reduce your risk of breast cancer.

It’s crucial you know your vitamin D level, which is vital to several health conditions, and optimize it to protect your health. Conventional medicine may have led women to believe that simply getting an annual test will protect them from breast cancer. However, leading a healthy lifestyle and getting informed of your screening options can help you avoid this potentially deadly pitfall.

Lockdown fallout: Nearly one-third of NY, NJ small businesses reportedly closed in 2020

At the on-set of the Wuhan virus, bureaucrats mandated lockdowns – except for “essential” businesses. That typically meant the big box stores: Home Depot, Lowes, Wal-Mart, etc.

The businesses that are “essential” for many trying to make a living were shutdown: The mom-and-pops, small businesses, restaurants and many locally-owned service provider companies.

As we enter month nine of the Wuhan virus, more lockdowns are expected. Again, big box retail that is deemed “essential” will not face any lockdowns.

The results are devastating for the lives of so many small business owners.

According to the NY Postnearly one-third of small businesses in New York and New Jersey remain closed since January amid the coronavirus pandemic.

From the NY Post story: In the Empire State, 27.8 percent of small businesses have not reopened their doors, while Jersey has lost 31.2 percent as of Nov. 16, according to, a Harvard-run database that keeps tabs on the economic impact of the virus.

More than half of small businesses in both states were forced to shut their doors in the spring at the height of the pandemic, with both hitting highs in mid-April — 52.5 percent of New York businesses and 53.9 percent in the Garden States, the stats show.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said Sunday that a new lockdown is “on the table” again, which could spell more bad news for business owners.

And New Jersey isn’t the only state suffering — the national average is 29.8 percent, The Hill reported.”

You have to wonder why the bureaucrats were/are so quick to shutdown American small businesses for a virus that has a 99%+ survivability rate (vulnerable demographics excluded). Especially when many of the bureaucrats violated their OWN Wuhan virus mandates and allowed the BLM/Antifa protests to continue throughout this pandemic.


Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!



Mexico Senate Votes in Landslide To Legalize World’s Largest Cannabis Market

By Elias Marat,

Mexico is hurtling toward legalizing cannabis for a variety of uses, opening up the Latin American country to becoming the largest legal marijuana market in the world.

Just days prior to the Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S., Mexico’s Senate approved a bill that would put an end to prohibition measures in a landslide vote of 82 to 18, with seven abstentions.

Lawmakers in the ruling Morena party have been working hard to seal the approval of the landmark cannabis legalization bill before the current congressional session draws to a close in December. Morena, alongside its allies, holds majorities in both chambers of Congress.

The bill is designed to “improve living conditions” and “contribute to the reduction of crime linked to drug trafficking,” according to its text.

The move would amount to a huge U-turn after decades of anti-drug policies led to the explosive growth of transnational cartels – and ferocious local cartel wars – in Mexico. In recent years, violence related to drug cartels has claimed upwards of 10,000 lives.

Advocates of legalization in Mexico have long argued that legalizing the plant would allow the country to advance alternative drug policies, halt the criminalization of drug users and refocus its security efforts to better address public health.

The demands of advocates came significantly closer to being realized in 2018, when the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that recreational marijuana should be permitted. One year prior, legislators voted to legalize the plant for medical purposes.

While Mexico has a long and storied history of cannabis usage, the consumption of the plant is still not as culturally accepted on a widespread level as in the United States. However, the creation of legal commercial markets for the sale and purchase of the plan will likely displace the large systems of illicit cultivation in the country.

Socially conservative Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, popularly known by his initials AMLO, has largely shied away from vocally supporting the legalization of the plant. However, Lopez Obrador has long endorsed the need to radically reform the country’s laws to put an end to rampant drug violence in Mexico, where drug cartels still hold sway over the illicit trade of narcotics.

But while the president hasn’t been an outspoken champion of legalization efforts, members of his center-left party such as Senate leader Ricardo Monreal and senior cabinet members like Interior Minister Olga Sanchez have been clear in their calls to open the doors to legalizing and regulating the recreational usage of cannabis.

Under the proposed measures, Mexico would place strict controls on ownership and the supply chain used for domestic production and international commerce of cannabis. The trade surrounding the industry would also have to comply with various forms of financial source verification, ensuring that the business doesn’t fall into the hands of criminal syndicates, writes Forbes.

Under the bill, adults over 18 will be allowed to cultivate and possess up to 28 grams of cannabis for personal use. Possession of up to 200 grams would also be decriminalized.

Individuals would be allowed to grow up to 20 plants provided their annual yield isn’t in excess of 480 grams. Medical patients would be able to grow over 20 plants, if necessary. Public consumption of cannabis would also be allowed in all spaces besides those marked as “100 percent smoke-free.”

Cannabis sales would also be subject to a 12 percent tax, with revenue going toward drug abuse programs. The new laws and regulations would be enforced and overseen by the Mexican Institute of Regulation and Control of Cannabis.

Advocates have also expressed caution about moving forward while taking into account social equity concerns and safeguards to prevent transnational corporations from monopolizing the massive, burgeoning weed market in the North American country.

The success of these efforts would make Mexico the largest country in the world, by population, to legalize cannabis. With a population exceeding 125 million people, Mexico would quickly become the largest consumer market for cannabis products, marking a huge step forward in bringing the international cannabis marketplace out of the shadows.


Source: The Mind Unleashed

Trump calls on Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp to invoke emergency powers to scrutinize signature matching on absentee ballots

(Natural News) In the Georgia recount, Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger decided that signature matching on ballots was unnecessary, which resulted in the same fraudulent results as the first time the ballots were counted. Because of this, President Donald Trump is now calling on Gov. Brian Kemp to invoke his emergency powers and force…

Groups call for Trump to declare martial law, seize all vote servers, initiate mass arrests

 Situation Update – Dec. 1st – ROGUE government must be ABOLISHED by the people

Yet another cybersecurity expert confirms in sworn declaration that Dominion voting machines are fraudulent

Situation Update – Dec. 1st – ROGUE government must be ABOLISHED by the people