AHA Renders Itself Obsolete With Long-Refuted Dietary Advice

This article was previously published July 5, 2017, and has been updated with new information.

For well over half-century, a majority of health care officials and media have warned that saturated fats are bad for your health and lead to obesity, high cholesterol and heart disease. The American Heart Association (AHA) began encouraging Americans to limit dietary fat in general and saturated fats in particular as far back as 1961.

Like its previously revised version, the current version of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s food pyramid, called “MyPlate,”1 more or less eliminates fats altogether, with the exception of a small amount of low-fat or no-fat dairy. According to MyPlate, the food groups are fruits, vegetables, grains, protein and dairy — not the three biological building blocks known as carbohydrates (fruits, vegetables, grains), protein and fats.

All the while, studies have repeatedly refuted the wisdom of these low- to no-fat recommendations. Even so, the AHA has spent the past decade issuing warnings reminiscent of the 1960s all over again.

If you’ve followed the news, you’ve seen bold headlines declaring coconut oil dangerous, and that you should switch from butter to margarine to protect your heart health! How is this even possible? It’s akin to the flat Earth theory that inexplicably gained traction despite clear and indisputable proof that we indeed live on a planetary sphere.

Many have expressed confusion and bewilderment in response to the AHA’s margarine push, and no wonder. Let’s not forget that creating doubt is a core strategy used by industry to delay change. This margarine-promotion also happens to conveniently sync up with news about a vaccine to lower cholesterol2,3 — a strategy that would be unnecessary if people were to just eat healthy saturated fats like coconut oil and butter, and eliminate processed foods and sugar.

The vaccine first made news in 2015,4 but nearly seven years later, in October 2021, researchers were lamenting that the vaccine was still in trials, and that although significant reductions in LDL were observed in mouse studies, there were still concerns about the cost, limitations of shelf-life and safety that were holding it back.5

AHA Sends Out Warning to Cardiologists Around the World

According to the AHA,6 saturated fats such as butter and coconut oil should be avoided to cut your risk of heart disease. Replacing these fats with polyunsaturated fats such as margarine and vegetable oil might cut heart disease risk by as much as 30%, about the same as statins, the AHA claims.

This “Presidential Advisory” was sent out to cardiologists around the world, not just to those in the U.S. Overall, the AHA recommends limiting your daily saturated fat intake to 5 to 6% of daily calories or less.7 According to The Daily Mail:8

“The scientists analyzed all available evidence on the subject and found saturated fat — such as that found in butter, whole milk, cream, palm oil, coconut oil, beef and pork — was linked to an increased risk of heart disease.

Replacing this with polyunsaturated fat — found in spreads and vegetable oils — or monounsaturated oils found in olive oil, avocados and nuts — cuts the risk of heart problems. The study … bolsters NHS advice that saturated fat should be lowered in the diet.

Lead author professor Frank Sacks, of Harvard School of Public Health, said: ‘We want to set the record straight on why well-conducted scientific research overwhelmingly supports limiting saturated fat in the diet to prevent diseases of the heart and blood vessels. Saturated fat increases LDL — bad cholesterol — which is a major cause of artery-clogging plaque and cardiovascular disease’ …

The authors, however, warned that not all margarines and spreads are healthy. They found that some forms of margarine which use ‘trans fats’ — a type of fat which improves shelf life — actually raise the risk of heart disease.”

Victoria Taylor, senior dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, also made sure to note that “lifestyle change should go hand in hand with taking any medication prescribed by your doctor; it shouldn’t be seen as one or the other.” In other words, don’t think you can avoid statins simply by eating right.

Then, referencing coconut oil specifically, the AHA added: “Because coconut oil increases LDL cholesterol, a cause of CVD [cardiovascular disease], and has no known offsetting favorable effects, we advise against the use of coconut oil.”9 USA Today announced that advisory with a June 16, 2017, nonsensical headline, “Coconut Oil Is About as Healthy as Beef Fat or Butter.”10

Why, yes, it is! But what they were trying to claim was that all of these are unhealthy, which is altogether backward and upside-down. It didn’t take long for USA Today to realize its faus pax, though, so it changed the headline June 21, 2017, to “Coconut Oil Isn’t Healthy. It’s Never Been Healthy.”11

While the newspaper noted the “correction” on its webpage, all references to the original headline have been scrubbed from the internet archive, Wayback.12 So much for transparency in newspaper reporting.

On What Evidence Does AHA Base Their Recommendation?

How did the AHA come to the conclusion that they were right about saturated fat 60 years ago and have been right all along? In short, by cherry-picking the data that supported their outdated view. As noted by American science writer Gary Taubes in his extensive rebuttal to the AHA’s advisory:13

“The history of science is littered with failed hypotheses based on selective interpretation of the evidence … Today’s Presidential Advisory … may be the most egregious example of Bing Crosby epidemiology [‘accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative’] that I’ve ever seen … [T]hey methodically eliminate the negative and accentuate the positive until they can make the case that they are surely, clearly and unequivocally right …

[T] he AHA concludes that only four clinical trials have ever been done with sufficiently reliable methodology to allow them to assess the value of replacing SFAs with PUFAs (in practice replacing animal fats [with] vegetable oils) and concludes that this replacement will reduce heart attacks by 30 percent …

These four trials are the ones that are left after the AHA experts have systematically picked through the others and found reasons to reject all that didn’t find such a large positive effect, including a significant number that happened to suggest the opposite …

They do this for every trial but the four, including among the rejections the largest trials ever done: the Minnesota Coronary Survey, the Sydney Heart Study and, most notably, the Women’s Health Initiative, which was the single largest and most expensive clinical trial ever done. All of these resulted in evidence that refuted the hypothesis. All are rejected from the analysis.”

Taubes, an investigative science and health journalist who has written several books on obesity and diet, points out that this advisory document actually reveals the AHA’s longstanding prejudice and the method by which it reaches its conclusions.

In 2013, the AHA released a report14 claiming “the strongest possible evidence” supported the recommendation to replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs). This, despite the fact that several meta-analyses, produced by independent researchers, concluded the evidence for restricting saturated fats was weak or lacking.

The advisory document reveals how the AHA could conclude they had the “strongest possible evidence.” Then, as now, they methodically came up with justifications to simply exclude the contrary evidence. All that was left — then and now — were a small number of studies that support their preconceived view of what they think the truth should be.

AHA’s Referenced Studies Are Based on Outdated Science

Would it surprise you to find out that the four studies that made the cut all date from the 1960s and early 1970s? It makes sense, doesn’t it, since those are the eras when the low-fat myth was born and grew to take hold. The problem is nutritional science has made significant strides since then.

As noted by Taubes, one of the studies included was the Oslo Diet-Heart Study,15 published in 1970, in which 412 patients who’d had a heart attack or were at high risk of heart disease were randomized into two groups: One group got a low-saturated fat, high-PUFA diet along with ongoing, long-term “instruction and supervision” while the other group ate whatever they wanted and received no nutritional counseling whatsoever.

“This is technically called performance bias and it’s the equivalent of doing an unblinded drug trial without a placebo. It is literally an uncontrolled trial, despite the randomization. (… [A]ll the physicians involved also knew whether their patients were assigned to the intervention group or the control, which makes investigator bias all that much more likely.)

We would never accept such a trial as a valid test of a drug. Why do it for diet? Well, maybe because it can be used to support our preconceptions,” Taubes writes.

Taubes goes on to state that he was so curious about this Oslo study he bought a monograph published by the original author. In it, the author describes in more detail how he went about conducting his trial. Interestingly, this monograph reveals that the sugar consumption in the treatment group was only about 50 grams a day — an amount Taubes estimates may be about half the per capita consumption in Norway at that time, based on extrapolated data.16

“In this trial, the variable that’s supposed to be different is the [saturated fat]/PUFA ratio, but the performance bias introduces another one. One group gets continuous counseling to eat healthy, one group doesn’t. Now how can that continuous counseling influence health status?

One way is that apparently, the group that got it decided to eat a hell of lot less sugar. This unintended consequence now gives another possible explanation for why these folks had so many fewer heart attacks. I don’t know if this is true. The point is neither did Leren.

And neither do our AHA authorities,” Taubes writes. “All of the four studies used to support the 30 percent number had significant flaws, often this very same performance bias. Reason to reject them.”

Dangerous Advice

Dr. Cate Shanahan,17 a family physician and author of “Deep Nutrition: Why Your Genes Need Traditional Food,” emailed me an even stronger rebuttal, saying, “This message from the AHA is not only false, it is dangerous,” noting that the AHA is actually making false claims since none of the four studies they included in their analysis involved coconut oil.

As an explanatory side note, most of the early studies on coconut oil that found less than favorable results used partially hydrogenated coconut oil, not unrefined virgin coconut oil.18 As always, the devil’s in the details, and hydrogenated oil is not the same as unrefined oil, even when you’re talking about something as healthy as coconut. This little detail is what led to the undeserved vilification of coconut oil in the first place. That said, let’s look at what else Shanahan has to say on the matter:

“Most doctors don’t notice that the medical leadership is making unfounded claims, and the reason they don’t notice is because … articles asserting the existence of human clinical trial evidence against coconut as well as all other foods high in saturated fat, conflate the sources of saturated fat with the saturated fat itself.

Saturated fat does not actually exist in the food chain; what they’re talking about are saturated fatty acids, the components of triglyceride fat, the substance chefs call simply ‘fat.’ We often say things like ‘coconut oil is a saturated fat’ and ‘butter is a saturated fat.’ But it would be more correct to say ‘coconut oil is high in saturated fatty acids.’

Coconut oil, butter, lard, tallow and every other animal fat also contain monounsaturated and even some polyunsaturated fatty acids in addition to saturated fatty acids … The idea is foods contain blends of fatty acids in varying proportion.”

Put another way, most foods contain a blend of fatty acids, not just one. Margarine and shortening also contain saturated fatty acids, yet the AHA makes no mention of this. The harder the margarine, the more saturated fat it tends to contain, in some cases more than butter or lard.

“So, when people eat margarine and shortening, in addition to toxic trans fatty acids they’re also eating saturated fatty acids. And that means that when a study says it’s swapping out saturated fat for vegetable oils, that does not equate to swapping out butter and lard. It could very well be the case that margarine and shortenings were among the foods that got eliminated,” Shanahan says.

“And because most doctors don’t realize that margarine and shortenings contain saturated fatty acids, they also don’t consider it particularly important to wonder whether or not studies like the four core citations mentioned in the Advisory are actually confounded by the fact that the baseline, high-saturated fat diet included a significant amount of margarines and shortenings that contain toxic trans fat.

Because if they did, then that means whatever health benefits were observed in the studies may have nothing to do with the reductions in saturated fat. It’s cutting back on trans fat that makes the difference to health.”

Non-Saturated Fat Recommendations Have Been Followed With Disastrous Results

Since the 1950s, when vegetable oils began being promoted over saturated fats like butter, Americans have dutifully followed this advice, dramatically increasing consumption of vegetable oil. Soy oil, for example, rose by 600% (10,000% from 1900) while butter, tallow and lard consumption halved.

We’ve also dramatically increased sugar consumption, with more than half of Americans consuming over 17 teaspoons a sugar a day in 2021.19 That’s down from the 25 teaspoons a day they were consuming in 2014,20 but it’s still more than the maximum 12 teaspoons recommended by the CDC.

Alas, rather than becoming healthier than ever, Americans have only gotten fatter and sicker. Heart disease rates have not improved even though people have been eating what the AHA suggests is a heart-healthy diet. Common sense tells us if the AHA’s advice hasn’t worked in the last 65 years, it’s not likely to start working now.

As noted by Shanahan, technology that allows us to study molecular reactions is relatively recent, and certainly was not available back in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Modern research is just now starting to reveal what actually happens at the molecular level when you consume vegetable oil and margarine, and it’s not good.

For example, Dr. Sanjoy Ghosh,21 a biologist at the University of British Columbia, has shown your mitochondria cannot easily use polyunsaturated fats for fuel due to the fats’ unique molecular structure.

Other researchers have shown the PUFA linoleic acid can cause cell death in addition to hindering mitochondrial function.22 PUFAs are also not readily stored in subcutaneous fat. Instead, these tend to get deposited in your liver, where they contribute to fatty liver disease, and in your arteries, where they contribute to atherosclerosis.

According to Frances Sladek,23 Ph.D., a toxicologist and professor of cell biology at UC Riverside, PUFAs behave like a toxin that builds up in tissues because your body cannot easily rid itself of it. When vegetable oils like sunflower oil and corn oil are heated, cancer-causing chemicals like aldehydes are also produced.24

Not surprisingly, fried foods are linked to an increased risk of death. In fact, eating fried potatoes more than twice a week was found to double a person’s risk of death compared to never eating fried potatoes.25 Animal and human research has also found vegetable oils promote:

  • Obesity and fatty liver26
  • Lethargy and prediabetic symptoms27
  • Chronic pain/idiopathic pain syndromes (meaning pain with no discernible cause)28
  • Migraines29
  • Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis30

Biochemistry Versus Statistics

According to Shanahan, the idea that PUFAs are healthier than saturated fats falls flat when you enter the field of biochemistry, because it’s “biochemically implausible.” In other words, the molecular structure of PUFA is such that it’s prone to react with oxygen, and these reactions disrupt cellular activity and cause inflammation.31 Oxidative stress and inflammation, in turn, are hallmarks not only of heart disease and heart attacks but of most chronic diseases.32

“Meanwhile, the folks at the AHA claim saturated fat is pro-inflammatory and causes arterial plaque and heart attacks — but there is no biochemically plausible explanation for their argument. Saturated fat is very stable, and will not react with oxygen the way PUFA fat does, not until the fundamental laws of the universe are altered,” Shanahan writes.

“Our bodies do need some PUFA fat, but we need it to come from food like walnuts and salmon or gently processed (as in cold pressed, unrefined) oils like flax and artisanal grapeseed, not from vegetable oils because these are refined, bleached and deodorized, and the PUFA fats are molecularly mangled into toxins our body cannot use.”

The Cholesterol Argument

Researchers have also laid waste to the notion that having high cholesterol is a primary contributor to heart disease in the first place. This is the basic premise upon which the AHA builds its conclusion that saturated fats are bad for you. The idea is that saturated fats raise your cholesterol level, thus raising your risk for heart disease. But again, they use too broad a brush and ignore the details. For example:

A recent study33 published in The BMJ reanalyzed data from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (MCE) that took place between 1968 and 1973, after gaining access to previously unpublished data. This was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial to test whether replacing saturated fat with vegetable oil (high in linoleic acid) would lower cholesterol levels, thus reducing heart disease and related deaths.

Interestingly, while the treatment group did significantly lower their cholesterol, no mortality benefit could be found. In fact, for each 30 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) reduction in serum cholesterol, the risk of death increased by 22%. Swapping saturated fat for vegetable oil also had no effect on atherosclerosis rates or heart attacks. As noted by the authors:

“Available evidence … shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings … add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils …”

The AHA also does not take LDL particle number into consideration. There are large, fluffy LDL particles and small, dense ones. We didn’t have this information in the 1960s, but we sure have it now.

This is yet another crucial detail that makes all the difference in the world, as large LDL particles have been shown to be harmless and do not raise your risk for heart disease. And guess what? Sugar promotes harmful small, dense LDLs while saturated fats found in butter and coconut oil promotes harmless large, fluffy LDLs.34

Is Coconut Oil Healthy or Not?

The short answer is yes, coconut oil is healthy. It’s been a dietary staple for millennia, providing you with high-quality fat that is important for optimal health. It supports thyroid function, normalizes insulin and leptin function, boosts metabolism and provides excellent and readily available fuel for your body in lieu of carbohydrates (which you need to avoid if you want to lose weight).

A really important benefit of coconut oil is related to the fact that the ketones your liver creates from it are the preferred fuel for your body, especially your heart and brain, and may be key for the prevention of heart disease and Alzheimer’s. It truly is a healthy staple that belongs in everyone’s kitchen.

Coconut oil contains medium chain triglycerides (MCTs), and their smaller particle size helps them penetrate your cell membranes more easily. However, MCT oil has a far higher concentration of these shorter chain fats that are more efficiently converted to ketones; C8 or caprylic acid has the best ability to convert to ketones.

MCTs do not require special enzymes and they can be utilized more effectively by your body, thus putting less strain on your digestive system. Normally, a fat taken into your body must be emulsified with bile from your gallbladder before it can be broken down and properly absorbed. Long chain fats therefore frequently end up being stored in your fat cells.

However, your body treats MCTs differently. MCTs bypass the bile and fat storage process and go directly to your liver, where they are converted into ketones. Your liver quickly releases the ketones into your bloodstream where they are transported around your body to be used as fuel. By being immediately converted into energy rather than being stored as fat, MCTs stimulate your body’s metabolism and help promote weight loss.

Coconut Oil Promotes Thyroid Health

Part of coconut oil’s health benefits also relate to its beneficial impact on your thyroid. Unlike many other oils, coconut oil does not interfere with T4 to T3 conversion, and T4 must be converted to T3 in order to create the enzymes needed to convert fats to energy.

Part of what makes processed vegetable oils so damaging to the thyroid is that they oxidize quickly and become rancid, which prevents the fatty acids from being deposited into your cells, thereby impairing the conversion of T4 to T3. This is symptomatic of hypothyroidism. Coconut oil is a saturated fat and therefore very stable and not susceptible to oxidation.

The fact that coconut oil doesn’t go rancid helps boost your thyroid function. Eliminating processed vegetable oils from your diet and replacing them with coconut oil can, over time, help rebuild cell membranes in your liver (where much of the thyroid hormone conversion occurs) and increase enzyme production. This will assist in promoting the conversion of T4 to T3 hormones.

The most common fat in coconut oil is lauric acid, often considered a “miracle” fat because of its unique health-promoting properties. Your body converts lauric acid into monolaurin, which has antiviral, antibacterial and antiprotozoal properties.

Thyroid problems can often be traced back to chronic inflammation, which the lauric acid in coconut oil can help suppress. To obtain the full range of coconut oil’s health and weight loss benefits, I typically recommend 2 to 3 1/2 tablespoons per day for adults.

That said, there is at least one instance where coconut oil is contraindicated due to its lauric acid content. In his book, “The Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in ‘Healthy’ Foods That Cause Disease and Weight Gain,” Dr. Steven Gundry explains how coconut oil may be problematic if you have leaky gut, which is almost universal in individuals who are not paying attention to their lectin intake.

As it turns out, lipopolysaccharide (LPS), an endotoxin, attaches to lauric acid, facilitating its transport past your gut lining into your blood stream. Interestingly, MCT oil does not do this. So, if you have leaky gut, or unless you’re healthy and eating a lectin-free diet, it may be best to avoid coconut oil and use MCT oil instead. Caprylic acid would be best, but neither of these will allow LPS to piggyback into your blood stream. You can learn more about lectins in my interview with Gundry.

Who Pays the AHA?

Science has revealed the low-fat diet to be corporate-promoted misinformation, yet the AHA keeps insisting it’s the heart-healthy choice. Why? As noted by cardiologist Dr. Barbara Roberts in an article in The Daily Beast in 2014,35 “The quick answer: money, honey.” Roberts points out that one of the reasons the AHA clings to “recommendations that fly in the face of scientific evidence” is because of its ties to Big Food.

One of its primary revenue streams is its Heart Check Food Certification Program, which is updated monthly.36 Foods bearing this certification mark are supposed to make it easier for consumers to select products to include in a heart-healthy diet. Companies pay about $700,000 annually for the right to use this mark on their packaging.37

As of May 2022, the AHA endorsed hundreds of foods as heart-healthy, including breads, cereals, pastas and pasta sauces, potatoes, egg substitutes, dried and canned fruits and processed meats.38

In other words, a whole bunch of stuff you really shouldn’t eat if you care about your health in general and your heart in particular is on the list. Processed meats, for example, have been deemed so hazardous there’s no safe limit.39 The AHA also has endorsed Subway sandwiches40 and Cheerios41 in the past and accepts hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from a long list of drug companies.42 As noted by Roberts:43

“Even more problematic are the foods containing added sugar … The AHA recommends that women consume less than 6 teaspoons (100 calories) of sugar a day and less than 9 teaspoons (150 calories) for men.

Yet there are items that get the nod of approval from the Heart Check program despite being near or at the sugar limit, like Bruce’s Yams Candied Sweet Potatoes … Indeed, until 2010, the Heart Check imprimatur was stamped on a drink called Chocolate Moose Attack, which contained more sugar per ounce than regular Pepsi. And until [2014], Heart Check approved many foods with trans fats …”

AHA Was Wrong in the 1960s and Is Still Wrong

Heart disease is primarily caused by chronic inflammation, which is caused by excessive amounts of omega-6 (unbalanced omega-6 to omega-3), dangerous trans fats, processed vegetable oils and excessive sugar in the diet. Saturated fats, on the other hand, have been repeatedly exonerated, with studies showing they do not contribute to heart disease and are in fact a very important source of fuel for your body.

Granted, it’s tough to admit you’ve been wrong for 65-plus years. Such an admission can mar an organization’s reputation. But in trying to turn back the clock to 1960 and promote margarine and vegetable oils over butter and coconut oil, the AHA is proving itself obsolete.

This recommendation is, in my view, professionally irresponsible. It’s completely irrational in the face of modern nutritional science. With it, the AHA has painted itself into a corner from which it cannot extract itself without turning the entire organization upside-down. As noted by Dave Asprey, founder of Bulletproof.com:44

“The AHA campaign is backfiring because of the millions of people who already know that adding undamaged saturated fats into their diets makes them feel better. They can feel the difference in their energy, see it in the mirror, and measure it in their blood work …

These anti-coconut oil AHA guidelines are an orchestrated PR campaign aimed at changing what we eat to match what is in the interests of the AHA’s corporate sponsors, regardless of what recent research suggests.

As the U.S. population gets more educated about the benefits of saturated fats and the harm posed by processed seed and vegetable oils, processed food manufacturers are looking for ways to trick us into eating the cheap, high profit, damaging ‘food’ they create and sell.

That appears to be why they sponsor the [AHA]. These new recommendations are from an industry special interest group that promotes low-fat, high-sugar diets that kill people and has the audacity to label them as ‘heart healthy.’ In fact, the AHA executive leading the charge against coconut oil is the same guy that used to run marketing for Kentucky Fried Chicken and other fast-food chains.”

The War Against the Unvaxxed Will Not Be Forgotten

Fomenting hatred is a tool of tyrants, and over the past two years, political leaders, agency heads, academics, medical professionals and media personalities alike have publicly encouraged hatred and violence and wished painful death upon anyone who didn’t want to be part of the medical experiment that is the COVID jabs.

In an eloquent Medium post, journalist Susan Dunham summarizes the lessons (hopefully) learned from hating and attacking the unvaccinated:1

“The mandates have let up, and both sides stumble back into something that looks like the old normal — except that there is a fresh and present injury done to the people we tried to break. And no one wants to talk about it.

Only weeks ago, it was the admitted goal of our own leaders to make life unlivable for the unvaccinated. And as a deputized collective, we force-multiplied that pain, taking the fight into our families, friendships, and workplaces. Today, we face the hard truth that none of it was justified — and, in doing that, uncover a precious lesson.

It was a quick slide from righteousness to cruelty, and however much we might blame our leaders for the push, we’re accountable for stepping into the trap despite better judgement.

We knew that waning immunity put vast numbers of the fully vaccinated on par with the shrinking minority of unvaccinated, yet we marked them for special persecution. We said they hadn’t ‘done the right thing’ by turning their bodies over to state care — even though we knew that principled opposition to such a thing is priceless in any circumstance …

And so it was by the willful ignorance of science, civics, and politics that we squeezed the unvaccinated to the degree that we did … [W]e cannot hold our heads high, as if believing we had logic, love, or truth on our side while we viciously wished death upon the unvaccinated. The best we can do is sit in the awareness of our rabid inhumanity for having cast so many aside …

[B]etting against them has been a scathing embarrassment for many of us who’ve now learned that the mandates only had the power we gave them. It was not through quiet compliance that we avoided endless domination by pharmaceutical companies and medical checkpoints at every doorway.

It was thanks to the people we tried to tear down … We took the bait by hating them, but their perseverance bought us the time to see we were wrong. It seems right now like the mandates will return, but this time there’s hope that more of us will see them for what they are: a rising authoritarianism that has no concern for our wellbeing.”

Forgive and Forget?

Dunham addresses the situation from the point of those who fell for the hypnotic command to despise anyone — friends and family included — who refused to buy the official narrative about the COVID shots. Most of you, however, have likely been on the receiving end of those attacks.

How are you choosing to address it? What have you learned? I suspect many of you are indeed willing to forgive, but few will ever forget those betrayals. But as noted by Dunham, no one really wants to talk about what was done.

Everyone’s just going along as if it never happened. As if our leaders didn’t actually call for our deaths. As if our president didn’t warn us his patience with us was “wearing thin”2 — a threat that implied bad things would happen once patience ran dry. As if news anchors like Don Lemon didn’t actually say we deserved to starve and shouldn’t be allowed to enter a grocery store.3,4 But they did say those things, and family and friends did reject us as a result.

Ignorance Still Remains

Remarkably, even now, with everything we know for sure about the jabs, the war against the unvaccinated continues in many areas, and while compassion is slowly making a comeback, ignorance of the basics still abounds. As noted in a January 21, 2022, MSN article:5

“There seems to be a war on the unvaccinated individuals because of the recent spike in COVID-19 cases due to the more transmissible Omicron variant … Starting last year, the Austrian government imposed restrictions solely on the country’s unvaccinated population, as many people wondered why those who got vaccinated should also face the same restrictions as those who opted against it …

I am all for encouraging people to get vaccinated; I had my jabs and my booster immediately when they became available in my community … But I wonder: Just how necessary is this war on the unvaccinated?

What if a person decided to opt-out against the vaccine because they had preexisting medical conditions, simply feared for their life, or lacked the knowledge about it because the government was too busy forcing and scaring people instead of genuinely informing them?”

Sadly, the author of that MSN piece seems convinced that if only the reluctant were to be given the science, the data, they would understand why the shots are so necessary, when the reality is that the science and the data have been the basis for our refusal from the start. Until or unless the experimental jab pushers acknowledge reality, we will never be able to see eye to eye.

The MSN author also believes that lack of financial incentive is behind some of the vaccine hesitancy:6

“If a person is given the choice between going to work or to the vaccination center, they would simply choose the option where there is money. That is just the reality. If they can go to the vaccination center and can still be promised to get their day’s pay, why wouldn’t they want to get vaccinated, right?”

This naiveté ignores the reality that countless individuals have sacrificed their careers by refusing the jab. For most of us, it was never about a lack of financial incentives. It was about the very real dangers the jabs pose — dangers that “the powers that be” have yet to fully acknowledge.

First, They Came for the Unvaxxed. They’ll Come for You Next

From the start, I and many others warned that the demonization of the unvaccinated was an extremely dangerous war tactic. In an August 2021 Townhall article, Wayne Allyn Root wrote:7

“It’s time for alarm bells. It’s time for me to play the part of Paul Revere: ‘The communist tyrants and dictators are coming!’ … They’re coming first for unvaccinated Americans. This is 1938. I’m a Jew. I now understand just a little of what it felt like to be a Jew in 1938 … the pre-Holocaust … This is only the beginning. It gets much worse from here.

First, ‘the papers.’ Vaccine mandates and vaccine passports are just like 1938, when the Gestapo demanded papers from every German. Republicans asked for ‘papers’ from migrants who had broken into our country … Republicans asked for ‘papers’ once every two years for federal elections, to prove you have a right to vote.

Democrats said, ‘No, that’s racism.’ Now Democrats want American citizens, not illegal aliens, not criminals, but patriots born in this country, to produce papers 24/7 …

Weren’t Jews injected with experimental drugs by the depraved Nazi government? Wasn’t that a key part of the Nuremberg trials? That no government could ever again inject experimental shots into the bodies of unwilling citizens? Isn’t that a basic human right? … [F]orcibly injecting Americans who don’t want it. That’s 1938.”

Root goes on to detail the fate of Jews during those pre-Holocaust years. They were locked in their homes. They were barred from work. Their businesses were deemed “nonessential.” They couldn’t travel. They had to wear a conspicuous yellow star on their clothing so they could be easily identified and targeted for public displays of hatred. Jewish books were burned — that was the 1938 version of online censorship and deplatforming.

“First, they came for the unvaccinated. Trust me: Next, they’re coming for you,” Root said. And, indeed, in recent weeks, we’ve seen the stage being set for another fabricated hate-fest. This time, the gay community is the designated enemy and target.

Same-sex relations has been identified as the primary source of a global monkeypox outbreak. Almost every article discussing the outbreaks mentions it. That’s how it begins. I’ll be very surprised if the gay community won’t be targeted for exclusion, derision and attack in coming weeks and months.

Will enough people have learned the lesson of humility that Dunham highlights? Have enough cognitively recognized the error of their ways, or will they fall into the trap yet again? Only time will tell. At the end of February 2021, Nick Cohen with The Guardian warned that “It is only a matter of time before we turn on the unvaccinated.”8

By the end of April 2021, USA Today columnist Michael J. Stern was calling for the public shunning of the vaccine hesitant, calling them “petri dishes” of lethal disease,9 and by July of that year, CNN anchor Don Lemon was calling for brutal anything-goes restrictions against the unvaccinated to force them into compliance10 — even if the restrictions were indistinguishable from a death sentence.

With COVID, it took barely two months for society to go from “we’re all in this together,” to declaring half the population subhuman. Let’s see how long it takes before the media start calling for the forced segregation of gays to protect us from monkeypox. I hope it doesn’t happen, but judging by the effectiveness of the brainwashing, causing people buying into clearly absurd narratives, the risk is certainly there.

Teachable Moments

As recently as mid-January 2022, LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzik “doubled down on the notion, people should mock the unvaccinated who have died from the coronavirus,” Fox News reported.11 Hiltzik told CNN:

“So many of them have actually promoted reckless, dangerous policies and… they took innocent people along with them. Every one of these deaths is a teachable moment and, unfortunately, we haven’t been learning from the lesson that we should be hearing from them.”

Clearly, Hiltzik has not yet experienced the moment of clarity described by Dunham. Instead, he insists that “Mocking anti-vaxxers is ghoulish … but necessary.” His LA Times column12 bearing the same headline displays a picture of a smiling Kelly Ernby, wearing a cross around her neck. Ernby, an Orange County GOP member, died of COVID complications in January 2022 after opposing COVID jab mandates.

“How should we react to the deaths of the unvaccinated?” Hiltzik wrote.13 “On the one hand, a hallmark of civilized thought is the sense that every life is precious.

On the other, those who have deliberately flouted sober medical advice by refusing a vaccine known to reduce the risk of serious disease from the virus, including the risk to others, and end up in the hospital or the grave can be viewed as receiving their just deserts.”

His targeting of Ernby, a Republican, and clearly a Christian to boot, smacks of political vengeance as much as it does misplaced moral superiority. According to Hiltzik, being civil toward the unvaccinated who die erases the harm done to others, and that harm should not be erased but rather underscored.

Ironically, in the end, he’s really condemning himself to the fate he wishes on others because, eventually, the truth will become common knowledge and everyone will recognize the fatal harm inflicted by pushing the use of this experimental gene transfer technology. Mockery probably won’t be the extent to the punishment dished out once that critical mass awakening happens.

In Some, the Hypnotic Trance Is Still Deep

Some, like Dunham, recognize the fallacy in their thinking and call for change. Others, like Hiltzik, have been so deeply brainwashed by the fearporn, they really cannot connect the dots and see that a “vaccine” that doesn’t prevent infection or spread can never protect others.

Hence, those who get the jab are no more considerate to others than those who don’t. Both pose the same risk to others. And, if both pose the same risk, why target one for derision and not the other? It’s beyond irrational, but such is the mind of those under the hypnotic spell of mass formation. They’re incapacitated in the worst of ways, unable to see reality.

Scottish journalist Andrew Neil is another one seemingly caught in the myopic focus of mass formation. In December 2021, he riled against Britain’s “five million vaccine refuseniks,” saying “They put us all at risk of more restrictions.”14

He went on to describe how quick and easy it was to pull out his vaccine passport at a restaurant. Seconds, really. “A very minor inconvenience,” he said, adding “There was a sense of safety in knowing that all the other diners had proved themselves to be fully vaccinated, or had very recently tested negative, or had contracted the virus and recovered.”

He felt safe, having undergone this completely useless ritual, despite recognizing that the shot is “not foolproof,” and that “People who have been vaccinated can still contract and pass on the virus.” That’s the power of hypnosis. Even when seeing the dots, he couldn’t connect them to draw a rational conclusion.

New Norm: Fighting ‘Misinformation’ With Misinformation

The propaganda and false information we’ve been bombarded with over the past two and a half years is truly unprecedented. Now, barely a day goes by that isn’t near-identical to the storyline in Orwell’s dystopian novel, “1984.” One of the latest examples of the media’s hypocrisy and false narratives is The Associated Press’ “Conspiracy Theorists Flock to Bird Flu, Hatch Lies” article,15 published May 17, 2022. The AP specifically targets me, stating:16

“While the details may vary, the conspiracy theories about avian flu all speak to a distrust of authority and institutions, and a suspicion that millions of doctors, scientists, veterinarians, journalists and elected officials around the world can no longer be trusted.

‘Americans clearly understand that the federal government and major media have lied to them repeatedly, and are completely corrupted by the pharmaceutical companies,’ said Dr. Joseph Mercola, an osteopath whose discredited claims about vaccines, masks and the coronavirus made him a prominent source of COVID-19 misinformation.

Mercola’s interest in the bird flu dates back years A 2009 book for sale on his website, which Mercola uses to sell unproven natural health remedies, is titled ‘The Great Bird Flu Hoax.’”

The hyperlinked “fact check” provided to prove I’ve published “discredited claims about vaccines” is a rebuttal to my statement that “People may be more susceptible to serious COVID-19 illness after they have been vaccinated.”

The fact check claims that “Research has shown that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been proven to be 95% effective in preventing COVID-19 illness,” and that “Experts say there is ‘abundant’ evidence that people who get shots will not become more sick should they later get the virus.”

First of all, no expert sources are actually referenced, so what “abundant evidence” proves you won’t be more susceptible to severe infection post-jab is anyone’s guess. Secondly, and more importantly, everyone now knows the shots are nowhere near 95% effective. Even mainstream media and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have admitted the effectiveness was exaggerated and rapidly dwindles.

Truth May Be Slow, but It Will Win

At best, Moderna’s shot was 94.5% effective against symptomatic Delta infection FOR TWO WEEKS, before dropping off.17 Pfizer’s effectiveness against Delta was lower to start and fell more precipitously. Against Omicron, the Pfizer jab is 65.5% protective between weeks 2 and 4 after the second dose, and only 8.8% effective at week 25. Moderna’s shot starts out at 75.1% at weeks 2 to 4, and then falls off to 14.9% at week 25.

Yet the AP has no qualms about referring back to what is now well-recognized misinformation to “prove” that I’ve been discredited and that they are “correct.” In reality, the fact check they link to only proves they’re using misinformation to combat truth.

That’s bad enough, but these fabrications are then used to brainwash the public into hating the truth-tellers and anyone who so much as points out discrepancies in the narrative. It’s a dangerous path, and we’re still on it.

Similarly, when the facts finally overwhelm authorities who have been spreading unscientific propaganda, the canned response is that “science is evolving and we’re following the science.” In reality, however, they were proven wrong, but they refuse to admit it. So, they “blame” it on “evolving science,” without ever explaining how “misinformation spreaders” had these supposedly brand-new data months — or years — ago.

While the war we’re currently in uses information instead of conventional munitions, lives are still at stake. People are losing their lives because lies about health are often lethal. In the end, I believe the truth will win, because the lies currently told are simply too destructive.

Can Ginseng Help Curb Diabetes?

Diabetes has become a “formidable challenge for public health,” with 463 million adults affected with Type 2 diabetes worldwide. This number is expected to jump to 700 million by 2045 and doesn’t account for the many others who have prediabetes, which increases the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.1

If left unmanaged, diabetes can lead to serious complications that can damage the eyes, kidneys and nerves, while increasing the risk of heart disease, stroke and limb amputations.2 Inactivity and poor diet are fueling the diabetes crisis, causing people to develop the condition at younger ages.

Diets focused on ultraprocessed foods and fast foods are the root of the problem, as they’re loaded with seed oils — misleadingly known as “vegetable oils” — that contain toxic oxidized omega-6 linoleic acid (LA) that accelerate metabolic dysfunction.3 Changes to diet and lifestyle are essential for Type 2 diabetes management and can even lead to the reversal of the condition.

However, conventional medicine is focused on drug treatment of diabetes, which provides no cure and may cause toxicities. Traditional herbal medicine, specifically ginseng, presents a welcome alternative, which provides powerful antidiabetic effects.

Ginseng Contains Hundreds of Beneficial Ginsenosides

Ginseng has a long history of medicinal use,4 including in China, where it was used to cure Xiaoke disease — now known to be diabetes — during the Song Dynasty circa 1078 A.D. Both Asian ginseng (Panax ginseng) and American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) have promising antidiabetic effects and contain health-boosting compounds such as saponins, polysaccharides, polyacetylenes, phenols and alkaloids.

Close to 200 ginseng ginsenosides, also known as saponins or triterpenoids, have been found in ginseng plants and are thought to be responsible for some of the herb’s antidiabetic properties. These include regulation of insulin secretion and glucose uptake along with protection against oxidative stress and anti-inflammatory properties.

Ginseng berry, which contains even more ginsenosides than ginseng root, may be particularly beneficial. In a study of diabetic mice, those treated with 150 milligrams (mg per kilogram (kg) of body weight of ginseng berry extract for 12 days had significantly decreased fasting blood glucose.

The same dose of ginseng root extract did not lead to the same reductions by day 12, leading researchers to suggest “ginseng berry extract exhibited more potent anti-hyperglycemic effects compared to ginseng root extract administrated at the same concentrations.”5

In a trial involving humans with prediabetes, ginseng berry extract did not show antihyperglycemic effects, however, which the researchers suggested could mean that the compound works best against Type 2 diabetes, not prediabetes.6

Ginseng’s Antidiabetic Effects May Support Type 2 Diabetes

In a review on ginseng’s antidiabetic effects published in the journal Molecules, researchers from New Zealand found evidence for the anti-diabetes effects of ginseng extracts and ginsenosides.7

Among the studies reviewed was a meta-analysis of 16 randomized, controlled clinical trials that found ginseng significantly reduced fasting blood glucose compared to the control, and another meta-analysis of eight trials that found ginseng supplementation led to greater reductions in fasting glucose and postprandial insulin compared to the control.8

A product known as ginsam — an enriched ginsenoside — also led to benefits in a trial of 36 patients with diabetes. Compared to the placebo group, those taking ginsam had significantly reduced HbA1c levels and fasting blood glucose.9 Fermented red ginseng also showed benefits and significantly increased postprandial insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes after four weeks. It also lowered their postprandial glucose by 17.2% compared to baseline values.10

Trials involving American ginseng were also promising. Among 24 adults with well-controlled Type 2 diabetes, those who received 3 grams a day of American ginseng extract for eight weeks along with their usual treatment had significantly reduced HbA1c levels, fasting blood glucose and systolic blood pressure compared to those who received a placebo, and no adverse effects were found to liver or kidney function.11

Taken together, the researchers concluded that ginseng appears to be a powerful natural option for Type 2 diabetes, although larger, and longer, studies are needed:12

“These studies suggest that American ginseng extract is effective and safe as an additional treatment in the management of type 2 diabetes … Together, these human studies show that both Asian ginseng and American ginseng do indeed decrease blood glucose in type 2 diabetics.

At the same time, it should be noted that this efficacy was observed in several limited ginsenosides (6-7 ginsenosides analyzed), small sample sizes (23-94 subjects), and short-term studies (4-12 weeks). Larger scale clinical trials are needed to completely illuminate the long-term benefits of this herbal supplement in the management of type 2 diabetes.”

How Ginseng May Fight Diabetes

Ginseng has multiple mechanisms by which it influences diabetes, including the modulation of blood glucose levels by improving the function of pancreatic beta cells, which produce, store and release insulin. In addition, it also enhances insulin sensitivity, while ginseng berry extract increases the proliferation of beta cells and insulin secretion, which improves glycemic control.13

Ginseng also up-regulates the expression of glucose transporters, which enhances glucose uptake, while suppressing oxidative stress and modulating inflammation to help prevent the development of insulin resistance. There are some conflicting studies, however, which suggest that the size of ginsenosides may make a difference in their antidiabetic effects.

Specifically, the ginsenosides Rb1, Re or Rg1 are among the most widely studied, but due to their large molecule structure, they have poor bioavailability. Smaller molecule ginsenosides Rg3 and Rh1 may, in fact, be the ones that provide the most therapeutic effects. The fermentation process produces small ginsenosides, which explains why fermented ginseng has increased bioavailability, including absorption and bioactivity. According to the New Zealand researchers:14

“It seems that the large molecule ginsenosides (Rb1, Rc, Re) may be a form of storage for saponins in ginseng plants rather than the active form in vivo. The related but smaller molecule ginsenosides (Rg3, Rh1) may be the ingredient that exerts therapeutic effects.”

What Else Is Ginseng Good For?

The ginsenosides in ginseng have a wide range of physiological activity, including effects on the nervous system, cardiovascular system and immune system. Ginseng polysaccharides also have multiple biological activities and may help regulate the immune system while providing anticancer, antidepressant and antioxidative effects.

Ginseng may be beneficial for age-related neurological disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease, and even protects against radiation-induced skin damage15 and has anti-obesity potential.16 Like many herbs, ginseng may act as an overall health tonic, with antimicrobial, anticancer and neuroprotective effects. Another review, focused on American ginseng (AG), also touted its health potential, stating:17

“AG presents a high potential to induce beneficial health effects in humans and should be further explored to formulate precise nutritional recommendations, as well as to assess its value in prevention and therapy of some disorders, including cancer.”

Together, the many complex active ingredients in ginseng may have the following effects:18

Antitumor

Antiaging

Anti-ischaemic brain injury

Immunomodulation

Central nervous system regulation

Inhibition of liver injury

Improvement of myocardial ischaemic injury

Antileukemia

Regulation of growth and metabolism

Bacteriostasis

Diabetes Can Be Reversible With the Right Strategy

Ginseng should be just one part of a comprehensive plan to support your health, particularly if you’re dealing with a complex disorder like diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is a manageable — and often reversible — condition, provided you make positive lifestyle changes and get proper medical care and advice.

As it stands, diabetes treatment costs top $230 billion a year in the U.S., yet the diabetes mortality rate is 42% higher than it is in 10 other industrialized countries,19 which provides a testament to the sad state of diabetes care. Fasting, or time restricted eating (TRE), should be an essential part of diabetes treatment, but it’s something that’s rarely mentioned in conventional circles.

TRE is a simple powerful intervention that mimics the eating habits of our ancestors and restores your body to a more natural state that allows a whole host of metabolic benefits to occur.20 TRE involves limiting your eating window to six to eight hours per day instead of the more than 12-hour window most use.

TRE promotes insulin sensitivity and improves blood sugar management by increasing insulin-mediated glucose uptake rates,21 which is important for resolving Type 2 diabetes. In another study, when 15 men at risk of Type 2 diabetes restricted their eating to even a nine-hour window, they lowered their mean fasting glucose, regardless of when the “eating window” commenced.22

In addition, as mentioned, there’s virtually nothing more destructive to your body than the linoleic acid in seed oils in producing chronic diseases like diabetes.23 Linoleic acid is found in virtually every processed food, including restaurant foods, sauces and salad dressings, and is hidden in “healthy” foods like chicken and pork. In addition to embracing TRE, reducing LA is essential for diabetes prevention and management.

Ideally, consider cutting linoleic acid down to 2 or 3 grams per day, which is close to what our ancestors used to get before all of these chronic health conditions, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer, became widespread.

If you’re not sure how much you’re eating, enter your food intake into Cronometer — a free online nutrition tracker — and it will provide you with your total linoleic acid intake. The key to accurate entry is to carefully weigh your food with a digital kitchen scale so you can enter the weight of your food to the nearest gram.

Chronometer will tell you how much omega-6 you’re getting from your food down to the 10th of a gram, and you can assume 90% of that is linoleic acid. Anything over 10 grams is likely to cause problems, so you’ll want to avoid high-LA foods. This means eliminating all of the following oils:

Soy

Corn

Canola

Safflower

Sunflower

Peanut

Other high-LA foods include chips fried in vegetable oil, commercial salad dressings and sauces, virtually all processed foods and any fried fast food, such as french fries. Remember, targeted nutrition using beneficial herbs like ginseng can be highly supportive of optimal health, but you’ll also want to address the underlying dietary and lifestyle issues that are at the root of the problem.

Medical tyrant Anthony Fauci tells Americans to expect YEARLY COVID boosters

(NaturalNews)

(Natural News) Americans should expect to get Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine boosters annually, according to White House Chief Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci.”We know that immunity wanes over time,” the infectious disease expert said in an interview with New York City channel PIX 11. “Depending upon what this virus does, there … [Read More…]

Woke mainstream media suddenly drops monkeypox scare stories to avoid offending gays

(NaturalNews)

(Natural News) It wasn’t that long ago that the mainstream media was filled with stories about a scary new virus that was poised to become the new COVID-19. Cases of monkeypox, they said, were suddenly spiking, and the small possibility of spreading it through respiratory droplets had mask and vaccine makers seeing dollar signs.WHO … [Read More…]

Big Pharma firms paid doctors to push OPIOIDS to patients, documents show

(NaturalNews)

(Natural News) A recently released trove of documents revealed that companies manufacturing opioids paid doctors to push these addictive drugs to patients. The Big Pharma firms incentivizing doctors for pushing the dangerous medicine had been concurrently happening with efforts to deflect media scrutiny on opioids.The public release of … [Read More…]

Increased demand and inflated oil prices cause airfares to surge by nearly 50%

(NaturalNews)

(Natural News) As more Americans take to the skies for the summer travel season, they are forced to deal with airfares that are surging due to demand, elevated operational costs and inflating oil prices.Airfares at America’s three largest domestic carriers – American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines – are up by nearly 50 … [Read More…]