VIDEO of 7-5-21… “S[l]edding, Variants, Magnetism and More With Dr’s Tenpenny, Northrup & Malthouse”

That’s not really “sledding”, but one gets the idea. Very much information here, and how to deal with “things” as people “sled” their spiked hair (and/or proteins).

Also here’s a link to a David Wolfe article about courses of action one may take regarding all this. I’ll post the text below the video (Mahalo to KF of Kona for sending that one).


https://rumble.com/embed/vgu5xj/?pub=cc2wt
https://rumble.com/vjgc2t-shedding-variants-magnetism-and-more-with-drs-tenpenny-northrup-and-malthou.html

“Join us at this roundtable discussion as we learn more about:
– The difference between shedding vs transmission
– Patient reports on patient symptoms after being in contact with recently vaccinated individuals.
– Recommendations from the Pfizer reports and clinical observations on how long to potentially “distance” oneself from those recently vaccinated.
– What’s going on with “magnetism” and vaccination?
– What is the transhuman agenda?”

Follow Your Oath:
Website: https://follow-your-oath.earth/

Telegram: https://t.me/FollowYourOath
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/groups/3000841930164332?group_view_referrer=search
Dr.Sherri Tenpenny
https://www.drtenpenny.com/
Dr.Christiane Northrup
https://www.drnorthrup.com/
Dr.Stephen Malthouse
https://www.canadahealthalliance.org/

David Wolf article:
This is the updated Nutrition protocol to protect those who’ve been injected with the spike protein and mRNA and the same protocol is useful to protect those concerned with the spike protein shedding coming off those who’ve been injected. So if you know someone who has been injected and requires help, please provide them with this Nutrition protocol:

•Coated Silver (1-6 drops per day, depending on degree of exposure) (Coated silver blocks the sulfur-bearing protein on the spikes from entering the cell. Sulfur-rich amino acids on the spike protein interact with silver causing them to fold incorrectly).
• Zinc (30-80mg per day depending on immunological pressure)
• Vitamin D3* (10,000 IU’s per day)
• Lypospheric Vitamin C (30ml, twice daily)*
• Quercetin (500-1000 mg, twice daily)*
• Iodine* (dosage depends on brand, more is not better. Iodine is a product you have to start with small dosages and build up over time.
• PQQ* (20-40 mg per day)

Shikimate Main Sources:
• Pine Needle Tea for shikimic acid or shikimate (from green edible pine needles) There are toxic pine needles, be careful! When drinking pine needle tea, drink the oil/resin that accumulates too! Shikimate, shikimic acid and their derivatives possess: cancer fighting, antiviral, antimicrobial, anticoagulant and antithrombotic properties.
• Fennel and/or Star Anise Tea: These are also an excellent source of shikimate or shikimic acid (which is known to neutralize the spike protein)

• C60 (1-3 droppersfull per day): One of the issues we are seeing with those who have been injected is disturbances in their energetic field (magnetism) and hot spots of inflammation. C60 is a rich-source of electrons and acts like a fire extinguisher to inflammation and simultaneously (because it bio-distributes throughout the body) drives a normalization of electron flow throughout the body. In this category, we offer two products, the traditional C60 product* is made by yours truly and the C60 SuperConcentrate* is made by a carbon scientist friend of mine and contains a higher concentration of electrons.

• Charcoal (2-4 capsules a day): Charcoal is the pre-eminent detoxifier and when taken on an empty stomach, works its way down into the intestines and activates a blood purification process known as “interstitial dialysis”. Our Kohlbitr* product is the premier activated coconut charcoal in the world and we also now offer the more gentle birch charcoal.*

•Citrus fruit (especially blood oranges, due to their high hesperidin content — hesperidin is a chalcone like quercetin that deactivates spike protein)
Peppermint (very high in hesperidin)

• Superherbs to help disable spike protein:
Schizandra Berry* (high in shikimate)
Triphala formulations: In Sanskrit, the word Triphala means “three fruits”: a combination of Indian gooseberry (Emblica officinalis), black myrobalan (Terminalia chebula) and belleric myrobalan (Terminalia belerica). The terminalia fruits are rich in shikimate.
St. John’s Wort (shikimate is found throughout the entire plant and in the flowers)
Comfrey Leaf (rich in shikimate)
Feverfew (leaves and flowers are rich in shikimate)
Gingko Biloba Leaf (rich in shikimate)
GiantHyssop or Horsemint (Agastache urtifolia) (rich in shikimate)
LiquidAmbar (Sweet Gum tree) A tea of the spiky seed pods is rich in shikimate.

•Foods: Carrots and Carrot Juice (rich in Shikimate)
Dandelion Leaf (Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) efficiently blocks the interaction between ACE2 cell surface receptor and spike protein D614, mutants D614G, N501Y, K417N and E484K in vitro)

Graphene face masks dangerous; and we’re living in a graphene world

by Jon Rappoport

July 12, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Graphenea.com [1]: “Graphene — What Is It? …Graphene is the thinnest compound known to man at one atom thick, the lightest material known… the strongest compound [ever] discovered… the best conductor of heat at room temperature [2]… the best conductor of electricity known… potentially an eco-friendly, sustainable solution for an almost limitless number of applications. Since the discovery…of graphene, applications within different scientific disciplines have exploded, with huge gains being made particularly in high-frequency electronics, bio, chemical and magnetic sensors, ultra-wide bandwidth photodetectors, and energy storage and generation.”

On May 28 [3], I wrote and posted an article about toxic graphene-containing face masks. Since then, the subject of graphene has blown up across the Internet.

There are now claims that COVID test swabs and even vaccines contain the substance.

A group of Spanish researchers report they’ve analyzed a vial of COVID vaccine and found it’s virtually nothing but graphene oxide—98-99% [4].

I’m reserving my opinion about that. If true, it would mean the vaccine criminals were asking for their crime to be discovered. They weren’t trying to hide the graphene in the vaccine; they were parading it for anyone to see.

I hope another independent research group analyzes another vial of COVID vaccine and reports their findings.

Meanwhile, we are suddenly living in a graphene world. The substance is everywhere. This reminds me of the massive introduction of GMO farming in the 1990s. The strategy is familiar in industry: flood the market with a new “miracle” product; when doubters start reporting on serious health risks and damage, claim they’re crazy [5], while preparing to combat law suits that will drag on for decades. [5a]

Actually, that’s been the strategy of the COVID vaccine makers; except in their case, they’re legally exempt from liability. [6]

On the subject of graphene, here is a link to a stunning July 8 press release [7] from Innerva-Bioelectronics.

I strongly recommend reading the whole release. The first paragraph:

“INBRAIN Neuroelectronics, a company at the intersection of medtech, deeptech and digital health dedicated to developing the world’s first GRAPHENE-BASED INTELLIGENT NEUROELECTRIC SYSTEM, today announced a collaboration with Merck, a leading science and technology company. The aim of the collaboration is to co-develop the next generation of graphene bioelectronic vagus nerve therapies targeting severe chronic diseases in Merck’s therapeutic areas through INNERVIA Bioelectronics, a subsidiary of INBRAIN Neuroelectronics.” (emphasis is mine)

They’re not just talking about “vagus nerve therapies.” This enterprise is an attempt to create a whole new frontier for global medical experimentation and treatment, in order to “cure diseases that are presently incurable.” At the center is graphene.

The phrase “intelligent neuroelectric system” suggests the corporations are planning to superimpose their own automatic nerve inputs and responses, in the body, on top of the body’s natural nervous system. To put it another way, they want to replace “deficiencies and errors” in the natural nervous system with their own catalog of preferred stimuli and responses. If the extreme dangers of this reprogramming aren’t obvious to you, think it through. Take a prime natural physical system that is already automatic and sideline it in favor of a new ironclad automatic system. And you have a running start on an AI Pavlovian human.

“Doctor, we rang the bell and the patient drooled. It’s marvelous.”

Graphene toxicity requires a great deal of attention from independent investigators. Among the many topics needing clarification—the different forms of graphene, their relative toxicities, and their relative tendencies to detach from synthetic materials and enter the body.


Here is my original May 28 graphene article about masks (with new edits):

Millions of face masks officially declared dangerous

As my readers know, for the past year I’ve been demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been proven to exist. [8] Therefore, face masks are nothing more (or less) than a mind-control ritual. [9] [9a]

However, much has been written about the harm the masks cause.

And now we have an official declaration. On April 2, 2021, Health Canada issued an advisory, warning people not to “use face masks labelled to contain graphene or biomass graphene.”

Andrew Maynard covers this issue in a medium.com article, “Manufacturers have been using nanotechnology-derived graphene in face masks—now there are safety concerns.” [10]

Those concerns? Masks could create lung problems.

Of course, since COVID-19 is claimed to be a lung disease, you can see where that leads: the remedy turns out to cause what it’s supposed to prevent. I could write a book detailing how many times this “coincidence” pops up in the field of medicine.

Maynard’s article traces the safety concerns to a Chinese mask manufacturer, Shandong, but points out that millions of graphene-containing masks are in use around the world, produced by a whole host of companies.

Yesterday, I saw a mask sold to a customer. It was sealed in a plain plastic bag. No manufacturer’s name, no list of materials in the mask, nothing but a bar code. Does the mask contain graphene? No way to know.

So far, it’s not clear whether the nanoparticles of graphene in the masks also contain highly destructive metals.

The mainstream literature on graphene is ambiguous and far from reassuring: ‘yes, it’s probably toxic to the lungs; perhaps not seriously so; perhaps only temporarily; there are more questions than answers.’

Why have these masks been certified anywhere in the world for public use? Why haven’t the CDC and the WHO made definitive statements about safety concerns? Why didn’t public health agencies, long ago, run/demand definitive tests to see whether, and to what extent, the nanoparticles of graphene detach themselves from various types of masks and enter the body?

At materialstoday.com, we have, “Is graphene safe?” [11]

“But, it is the very nature of graphene that might be cause for concern: thin and lightweight, yet tough and intractable particles are notoriously worrisome in terms of the detrimental effects they can have on our health, particularly when breathed in…”

“Ken Donaldson is a respiratory toxicologist at the University of Edinburgh and he and his colleagues are among the first to raise the warning flag on graphene, at least for nanoscopic platelets of the material. It is not too great a leap of the imagination to imagine how such tiny flakes of carbon might be transported deep within the lungs similar to asbestos fibres and coal dust. Once lodged within, there is no likely mechanism for the removal or break down of such inert particles and they might reside on these sensitive tissues triggering a chronic inflammatory response or interfering with the normal cellular functions.”

Does this make any sane person feel safe about wearing a mask containing graphene particles?

“We have a new idea and a new product. It’s designed to force you to breathe in nanoparticles of graphene. Who knows what’ll happen? Try it and see.”

Yes, try it. And if you then develop a lung infection, since that is called a cardinal pandemic symptom, you could hit the jackpot and earn a diagnosis of COVID-19.

At which point the fun really begins, as you try to explain to your doctor that the cause isn’t a virus, but rather nanoparticles of graphene in your mask. If you play your cards right, you could end up in the psych ward with other “conspiracy theorists.”

“Can you believe it, nurse? I had this guy a few hours ago coughing and dripping mucus all over the place. Inflamed lungs. Classic COVID case. But he tells me he’s breathing in NANOPARTICLES. I gave him a sedative and sent him to the Crazy Pen. Where do these people get these stories? Have you ever heard of graphene? That’s what they put in pencils, right?”

“I don’t know, Doc. My cousin thinks she’s breathing in these nanos, too. I told her she needs a Thorazine drip.”

The masks are COVID-diagnosis promoters. Step one: breathe in nanoparticles of graphene. Step two: therefore develop a so-called major COVID symptom—lung infection. Step three: test false-positive on the PCR test (happens millions of times, as I’ve documented). And boom, you’re a COVID case.

In keeping with local laws, I’ve applied for a license to own a mask as a weapon. If I gain approval, I plan to seal it in a glass box and mount it on the wall next to my grenade launcher and Civil War cannonball.


SOURCES:

[1] https://www.graphenea.com/pages/graphene

[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2015/10/12/if-this-were-a-presidential-campaign-speech/

[3] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/05/28/millions-of-face-masks-officially-declared-dangerous/

[4] https://www.bitchute.com/video/Nkzc4w4lbgz3/

[5] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2014/07/22/monsantofda-2-crime-families-trillion-dollar-hustle/

[5a] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2018/08/13/monsanto-loses-lawsuit-and-289-million/

[6] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/09/21/exposed-new-federal-court-to-handle-expected-covid-vaccine-injury-claims/

[7] https://www.inbrain-neuroelectronics.com/innervia.html

[8] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/05/20/the-pandemic-virus-that-doesnt-exist/

[9] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/04/17/a-message-to-the-pod-people-wearing-masks/

[9a] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/04/28/a-message-about-suicide-to-the-pod-people-wearing-masks/

[10] https://medium.com/edge-of-innovation/how-safe-are-graphene-based-face-masks-b88740547e8c

[11] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369702112701013


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

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.

Lake County, Illinois tells Biden Brownshirts to ignore no trespassing when pushing door-to-door covid vaccines

(Natural News) Chicagoland’s Lake County has created a new “Community Health Ambassador Outreach Door Knocking Project to Increase COVID Vaccine Acceptance” manifesto that instructs Joe Biden’s vaccine brownshirts about how to break the law in order to convince the “hesitant” to get injected for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19). Since China Joe fell way short of…

Vaccine mandates in healthcare industry are growing, and they are expected to accelerate once FDA grants full approval

(Natural News) A growing number of companies in the healthcare industry are instituting Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine mandates. Many more are expected to mandate the experimental vaccines once they are given full approval. Public health experts estimate that the Food and Drug Administration will give at least one of the coronavirus vaccines in circulation in the United States…

Eric Clapton warns fans about covid vaccine dangers

(Natural News) Music legend Eric Clapton is speaking out about the horrors he is now having to endure thanks to his Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccination.” In the following interview, Clapton reveals how the injection severely damaged his body, possibly forever. He explains how he is unsure what will happen with his upcoming fall tour if…

Weekly Health Quiz: Gene Therapy, COVID and Wikipedia

1 Which of the following has resulted in the greatest number of severe injuries and deaths over the past three decades?

  • MMR vaccine
  • COVID-19 gene therapy injections

    The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years. The COVID shots are also five times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate. Learn more.

  • Diabecon (an herbal antidiabetic)
  • Seasonal influenza vaccine

2 June 16, 2021, the Wikipedia page for mRNA vaccines was updated in which of the following ways?

  • Information about hazards were deleted
  • An FDA warning that children should not receive the COVID jabs was wiped
  • The name of the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, Dr. Robert Malone, was erased from the history section

    June 11, 2021, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, Dr. Robert Malone, spoke out on the DarkHorse podcast about the potential dangers of COVID-19 gene therapy injections. The podcast was quickly erased from YouTube. Five days later, his scientific contributions were scrubbed from Wikipedia’s mRNA vaccine page. Learn more.

  • Details on how to file an adverse events report were scrubbed

3 Which of the following science journals has promoted the natural origin theory for SARS-CoV-2, and protected the theory by refusing to publish counter arguments and/or publishing scientific statements by individuals with serious conflicts of interest?

  • Science Magazine
  • Bulletin of the Chemical Society
  • Helvetica Chimica Acta
  • The Lancet

    The Lancet and Nature have promoted the natural origin theory for SARS-CoV-2, and protected the theory by refusing to publish counter arguments and/or publishing scientific statements by individuals with serious conflicts of interest. Learn more.

4 It’s becoming increasingly clear that use of vitamin D in patients with COVID-19:

  • Significantly reduces ICU admission and death

    Again, vitamin D was a clear winner, with use in COVID-19 patients significantly associated with reduced ICU admission and mortality, along with a reduced risk of adverse outcomes, particularly when given after COVID-19 diagnosis. Learn more.

  • Is too expensive to justify on a large scale
  • Leads to longer hospital stays
  • Is not feasible due to vitamin D’s scarcity

5 Moderna and NIAID’s transfer of information related to their mRNA coronavirus vaccines to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in December 2019 is alarming because:

  • The researchers didn’t send them to more universities
  • It occurred before there was a known COVID-19 pandemic

    Baric, who signed the material transfer agreement to investigate the mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate before there was a known COVID-19 pandemic, pioneered techniques for genetically manipulating coronaviruses, according to Peter Gøtzsche with the Institute for Scientific Freedom, and these became a major focus for WIV. Learn more.

  • The information should have remained confidential
  • The vaccine candidates weren’t effective

6 Which of the following is the gold standard of scientific evidence for or against a given medical product?

  • Randomized controlled trials
  • Cohort studies
  • Meta-analyses

    Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials are the gold standard of scientific evidence. The reason for this is because any given trial can be skewed by any number of protocol factors. When you do a meta-analysis of several trials, even if those trials are small, you have the best chance of detecting signals of danger or benefit because it corrects for flaws in the various protocols. Learn more.

  • Case-control studies

7 Which of the following is the most important when you develop symptoms of COVID-19?

  • Get an mRNA COVID injection
  • Get a viral vector DNA COVID shot
  • Stay home and get plenty of bedrest
  • Start treatment at home

    Early treatment is key for positive COVID outcomes, so start treatment at home, and do it early. An estimated 85% of COVID deaths could have been prevented had early treatment protocols been widely implemented rather than censored. Learn more.

Sugary Drinks Linked to Tumor Growths in the Colon

Excluding non-melanoma skin cancers, colon and rectal cancers are the third most common types of cancer diagnosed each year in the U.S.1 Scientists have identified several modifiable factors that increase your risk of colorectal cancer, and the most current link is sugar-sweetened drinks, which are very popular in the West.2

Colon and rectal cancers are the third leading cause of death from cancer in men and women, or the second leading cause if you combine the two.3 The American Cancer Society (ACS) estimates there will be 149,500 new cases of colorectal cancer diagnosed in 2021. Experts expect 52,982 to die in 2021 from colorectal cancer.

Although colorectal cancer numbers have been dropping in older adults for the past couple decades because of increased testing and lifestyle changes, scientists believe that this downward trend is masking a rising number of younger adults who are being diagnosed with it.4

In a paper published by the ACS in 2017,5 researchers looked at incident patterns from 1974 to 2013. They wrote that “nearly one-third of rectal cancer patients are younger than age 55 years,”6 which fueled headlines and recommendations that younger people should consider colon cancer screening.

However, it’s not clear whether increasing the number of screenings could reduce the number of people who are diagnosed, as it’s a mistake to equate screening with prevention. This is especially true since the ramifications of poor diet and sedentary behavior are catching up at an increasingly younger ages.

So, instead of signaling a need for more testing, the rising number of young adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer should be a wake-up call to reassess your lifestyle. In fact, data from the featured study demonstrate the impact one dietary choice can have on your risk of colorectal cancer.7

Sugary Drinks Increase Risk of Colon Cancer in Young Adults

In this study, a team of researchers from Washington University School of Medicine,8 used data from the national Nurses’ Health Study II to evaluate the relationship between sugar-sweetened beverages and the increasing number of individuals younger than 55 diagnosed with colorectal cancer.9

There were 95,464 women aged 25 to 42 who reported their beverage intake from 1991 to 2015.10 They also examined data from a subset of 41,272 nurses who used a validated high school food frequency questionnaire to report their beverage intake when they were aged 13 to 18.

During the 24-year prospective study, the researchers documented 109 early-onset colorectal cancers in the group. After analyzing the data, they found that individuals who drank two or more 8-ounce servings11 each week of a sugar-sweetened beverage more than doubled their risk of diagnosis as compared to people who drank less than one sugar-sweetened beverage each week.12

The results also appeared to show that the earlier individuals began drinking sugar-sweetened drinks, the higher the risk of early-onset colorectal cancer. In adults, with every additional 8-ounce beverage they drank each week, it increased their risk 16%. However, in the adolescent group, for every additional sugar-sweetened drink each week, their risk of developing the cancer before age 50 rose by 32%.13

The data also showed that when individuals replaced one sugar-sweetened drink with coffee, tea or artificially sweetened beverages, their risk reduced from 17% to 36%. However, as I discuss below, there are additional and dangerous health risks outside of colorectal cancer that are associated with artificial sweeteners.

Caroline H. Johnson is an epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health whose interest lies in the environmental risks associated with colorectal cancer. She was not involved in the study but spoke to a reporter from The New York Times about the results, saying,14 “I was really interested to see that the study was on women. The focus has mostly been on males. It will be interesting to see if it’s confirmed in men.”

Interestingly, the researchers did not find an association between drinking fruit juices and early-onset colorectal cancer. During the analysis, the scientists controlled for a variety of external factors that also affect risk, including hormonal use during menopause, smoking, alcohol, race and physical activity.15

One of the researchers commented that while weight gain is a known risk, their analysis controlled for obesity, suggesting the statistical association they found is outside the independent risk of obesity. Senior author Yin Cao, associate professor of surgery and medicine, commented on the results:16

“Despite the small number of cases, there is still a strong signal to suggest that sugar intake, especially in early life, is playing a role down the road in increasing adulthood colorectal cancer risk before age 50.

This study, combined with our past work linking obesity and metabolic conditions to a higher risk of early-onset colorectal cancer, suggests that metabolic problems, such as insulin resistance, may play an important role in the development of this cancer in younger adults.”

Artificial Sweeteners Also Carry Significant Risks

Although the featured study did not look for a link between artificial sweeteners and colorectal cancer, past research has confirmed that artificial sweeteners have a significantly negative effect on your health.

For example, one French study17 found people who drank just 6.26 ounces or more each day of sugar-sweetened soda had a higher risk of cardiovascular events over 6.6 years of follow-up18 — but people who drank 5.97 ounces of artificially sweetened beverages experienced a similar increase in cardiovascular disease.

Additionally, these sugar substitutes have a variety of metabolic effects, including a negative impact on your gut microbiome. One recent molecular research study19 from Angelia Ruskin University20 discovered that popular artificial sweeteners, including sucralose (Splenda), aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal and Sugar Twin) and saccharin (Sweet’n Low, Necta Sweet and Sweet Twin) have a pathogenic effect on two types of gut bacteria.

When E. coli and E. faecalis become pathogenic, they kill Caco-2 cells that line the wall of the intestines. Data from the study showed a concentration from two cans of diet soft drinks significantly increased the ability of E coli and E. faecalis to adhere to the Caco-2 cells and increase the development of bacterial biofilms.21

One animal study22 published in the journal Molecules analyzed six artificial sweeteners including saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-K. The data showed they all caused DNA damage in, and interfered with, the normal and healthy activity of gut bacteria.

Another study23 showed a link between artificially sweetened soft drinks and death from circulatory diseases and an association between sugar-sweetened soft drinks and death from digestive diseases.24 And, a study published in April 202125 confirmed earlier rodent studies that showed “aspartame is a chemical carcinogen” that can increase the risk of cancer in offspring that are exposed to it in utero.

This suggests that policies aimed at cutting or reducing sugar consumption may have disastrous consequences when manufacturers reformulate their products using artificial sweeteners.

Vitamin D Deficiency in Older Adults Linked With Colon Cancer

New evidence published in BMC Public Health26 revealed an aged dependent inverse link between exposure to ultraviolet B (UVB) light and the incidence of colorectal cancer. The data were gathered over 186 countries using UVB estimates and the incident rates of colorectal cancer.

The researchers made the association between UVB light and the manufacturer of vitamin D in the body since vitamin D has limited dietary sources. Inadequate vitamin D status has been identified as a risk factor in the development of colorectal cancer and has a potential protective action.

Past research demonstrates that taking at least 1,000 international units of vitamin D each day can reduce the risk of colorectal cancer by up to 50%.27 While analyzing the data, the researchers accounted for factors that may affect the results, such as smoking, skin pigmentation and age.28

The authors suggested that lower UVB exposure may lower an individual’s levels of vitamin D. Since deficiency has been associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer in the past, the researchers used UVB data to estimate vitamin D levels. Lack of exposure to UVB was correlated with higher rates of colorectal cancer in all age groups living in all countries that were included in the study.

However, the association between lower exposure and higher risk of cancer was more significant in those over age 45. Raphael Cuomo, Ph.D., is a public health scientist from the University of California, San Diego, and co-author of the current study. He commented in a press release:29

“Differences in UVB light accounted for a large amount of the variation we saw in colorectal cancer rates, especially for people over age 45. Although this is still preliminary evidence, it may be that older individuals, in particular, may reduce their risk of colorectal cancer by correcting deficiencies in vitamin D.”

Risks Associated With Screening Tests

The risk of colorectal cancer must be balanced against the risk of the testing procedures. Depending on the data source, the risk of death from a colonoscopy may be 1 out of every 16,318 procedures30 to 1 out of every 1,000 procedures.31 As of 2018, there were nearly 19 million colonoscopies being performed each year in the U.S.32

This means if you use the lower comparison of 1 in every 1,000, as many as 19,000 Americans may die as the result of a routine screening test. According to on paper, serious complications, injury or death from a colonoscopy is 0.5%, or about 95,000 per year.33

An alternate method of testing for colorectal cancer, virtual colonoscopy, appears to have minimal risk. However, the X-ray exposure from a virtual colonoscopy raises your lifetime risk of all forms of cancer by 20%.34 As noted by GutSense.org:35

“Virtual colonoscopies are now recommended every five years. By age 70 one’s risk of developing any other form of cancer grows to 100 percent. Killing you with another form of cancer before the colon gets affected is one hell of [a] way to ‘prevent’ colon cancer.”

Aside from the chance of death, other risks of colonoscopy include:36

  • Perforation of the colon, which occurs at a rate of 0.9 out of every 1,000 procedures.37 Research38 shows the risk of death after a perforation was 51.9 per 1,000 colonoscopy perforations and 64.5 per 1000 sigmoidoscopy perforations.
  • Dysbiosis and other gut imbalances, caused by the process of flushing out your intestinal tract before the procedure with harsh laxatives.39
  • Complications from the anesthesia.40 In addition to the expected complications from anesthesia, during a colonoscopy anesthesia increased the risk of complications by 13% within 30 days after the procedure and specifically was associated with an increased risk of perforation.
  • Infections caused by poorly disinfected scopes.41

Tips to Prevent Colorectal Cancer

Data show there are non-modifiable and modifiable risk factors for colorectal cancer.42 Some of the non-modifiable risk factors include race, sex, age, inflammatory bowel disease and abdominal radiation. Modifiable risk factors are those over which you have control and may reduce your risk of colorectal cancer.

These include obesity, physical activity, diet, smoking, alcohol and certain medications. People with diabetes and insulin resistance also have an increased risk related to the metabolic shift that promotes carcinogenic activity.43

Below are several diet and fitness suggestions that may significantly lower your risk of colorectal cancer, regardless of your age:

Eat more vegetables — Vegetables contain an array of antioxidants and other disease-fighting compounds that are very difficult to get anywhere else, such as magnesium. Results from one meta-analysis indicated that higher intakes of magnesium resulted in a lower risk of colorectal cancer.44

Eat more fiber — For optimal health, I recommend getting about 50 grams of fiber per 1,000 calories. If you follow the tip above and eat more vegetables, you’ll naturally be eating more fiber from the best possible source.

Optimize your vitamin D level Vitamin D deficiency is a risk factor for colorectal cancer. Sensible ultraviolet exposure, ideally from the sun, and/or vitamin D3 supplementation can get your vitamin D levels into the optimal range of 45 to 60 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). You’ll need to monitor your level to be sure you stay within this target range.

Lower your protein intake and avoid processed meats entirely — Most Americans eat far more protein than they need, thereby raising their risk for cancer. A more ideal protein intake is likely around one-half gram of protein per pound of lean body mass. Avoid processed meats of all kinds.

Get regular exercise — There’s convincing evidence that regular exercise can significantly reduce your risk of colon cancer.45 For instance, one study46 showed physically active men and women have about a 30% to 40% reduction in the risk of developing colon cancer compared with inactive persons.

Maintain a healthy weight and control belly fat — Several studies have linked obesity to an increased risk for about a dozen different cancers, including colon cancer. Losing excess belly fat is particularly important, as belly fat is linked to an increased risk of colon cancer regardless of your body weight.47

Limit alcohol and quit smoking — Both excessive alcohol intake and smoking are associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer.

Eat more garlic — Research has shown those who consume high amounts of raw garlic have a lower risk of stomach and colorectal cancers.48

Drink soursop tea — Drinking tea made from soursop leaves may help reduce the risk of colon cancer. A PLOS One study49 notes that the leaves contain a compound named “annomuricin E,” which has apoptosis-inducing effects against colon cancer cell lines.