Does Skin Pigment Act Like A Natural Solar-Panel?

While ubiquitous in nature, melanin, which provides the coloring found in hair, skin, eyes, feathers, scales, etc., is an especially important substance as far as the human condition is concerned. After all, melanin’s role in determining skin color makes it the primary physiological basis for racial differentiation among humans. Entire civilizations, no doubt, have risen and fallen due to their conceptions (and misconceptions) about this pigment’s effects on human behavior, to the point that the very notion of humanness itself has been called into question depending on how little or how much melanin a body possessed.

It is for this reason that melanin’s lesser known, functional properties should be considered more closely. In fact, being more pigmented, i.e. darker skinned, or put oppositely, being less de-pigmented, may confer a unique set of health benefits which over the course of human history have been repressed or intentionally misrepresented in order to fuel the sociopolitical construct of race.

In biological science melanin is known to possess a diverse set of roles and functions in a wide range of organisms. These include:

• Protection against biochemical attack: e.g. the smokeshield-like ink of the octopus, and the melanin-based protective colorings of bacteria and fungi which are capable of encapsulating and oxidizing invading organisms in a process known as melanization.


• Mitigating chemical stresses associated with exposure to heavy metals and oxidizing agents.


• Acting as a natural sunscreen: shielding light-sensitive tissue from the potentially damaging effects of ultraviolet light.

Melanin is capable of transforming ultraviolet light energy into heat in a process known as “ultrafast internal conversion”; more than 99.9% of the absorbed UV radiation is transformed from potentially genotoxic (DNA-damaging) ultraviolet light into harmless heat.

If melanin can convert light into heat, could it not also transform UV radiation into other biologically/metabolically useful forms of energy? This may no seem so far fetched when one considers that even gamma radiation, which is highly toxic to most forms of life, is a source of sustenance for certain types of fungi and bacteria.

Single-celled fungi, for instance, have been observed thriving within the collapsed nuclear reactor at Chernobyl, Ukraine, using gamma radiation as a source of energy. Albino fungi, without melanin, were studied to be incapable of using gamma radiation in this way, proving that gamma rays initiate a yet-unknown process of energy production within melanin. There is also the curious discovery of bacteria living within vats of radioactive waste.

Given these examples, it is no surprise that vertebrate animals may be capable of converting light directly into metabolic energy through the help of melanin. In a review on the topic published in 2008 in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, titled “Melanin directly converts light for vertebrate metabolic use: heuristic thoughts on birds, Icarus and dark human skin,” Geoffrey Goodman and Dani Bercovich offer a thought-provoking reflection on the topic. Their abstract is well worth reading:

Pigments serve many visually obvious animal functions (e.g. hair, skin, eyes, feathers, scales). One is ‘melanin’, unusual in an absorption across the UV-visual spectrum which is controversial. Any polymer or macro-structure of melanin monomers is ‘melanin’. Its roles derive from complex structural and physical-chemical properties e.g. semiconductor, stable radical, conductor, free radical scavenger, charge-transfer. Clinicians and researchers are well acquainted with melanin in skin and ocular pathologies and now increasingly are with internal, melanized, pathology-associated sites not obviously subject to light radiation (e.g. brain, cochlea). At both types of sites some findings puzzle: positive and negative neuromelanin effects in Parkinsons; unexpected melanocyte action in the cochlea, in deafness; melanin reduces DNA damage, but can promote melanoma; in melanotic cells, mitochondrial number was 83% less, respiration down 30%, but development similar to normal amelanotic cells. A little known, avian anatomical conundrum may help resolve melanin paradoxes. One of many unique adaptations to flight, the pecten, strange intra-ocular organ with unresolved function(s), is much enlarged and heavily melanized in birds fighting gravity, hypoxia, thirst and hunger during long-distance, frequently sub-zero, non-stop migration. The pecten may help cope with energy and nutrient needs under extreme conditions, by a marginal but critical, melanin-initiated conversion of light to metabolic energy, coupled to local metabolite recycling. Similarly in Central Africa, reduction in body hair and melanin increase may also have lead to ‘photomelanometabolism’ which, though small scale/ unit body area, in total may have enabled a sharply increased development of the energy-hungry cortex and enhanced human survival generally. Animal inability to utilize light energy directly has been traditionally assumed. Melanin and the pecten may have unexpected lessons also for human physiology and medicine.

If the authors are correct, a longstanding assumption that animals are incapable of utilizing light energy directly is thrown out the window. In other words, melanized tissue within our body may be capable of “ingesting” sunlight, and not unlike plants, using the “harvested” light in biologically useful ways.

Should it be any surprise, really, that our skin was designed to benefit from being bathed in sunlight? We already know that sunlight exposure can reduce the risk of over 30 diseases, and that its primary metabolite in our skin, vitamin D, may reduce the risk of over 150 additional conditions. Our biological connection to, and dependence on, the sun, is so profound that the very variation in human skin color from African, melanin-saturated dark skin, to the relatively melanin de-pigmented, Caucasian lighter-skin, is a byproduct of the offspring of our last common ancestor from Africa (as determined by mitochondrial DNA) migrating towards sunlight-impoverished higher latitudes, which began approximately 60,000 years ago.

In order to compensate for the lower availability of sunlight, the body rapidly adjusted, essentially requiring the removal of the natural “sunscreen” melanin from the skin, which interferes with vitamin D production; vitamin D, of course, is involved in the regulation of over 2,000 genes, and therefore is more like a hormone, without which our entire genetic infrastructure becomes destabilized.

While a life-saving adaptation, the loss of melanin likely has adverse health effects, which include losing the ability to convert sunlight into metabolic energy, increased prevalence of Parkinson’s disease (which involves de-melanization of the substantia nigra and disproportionately affects those of Caucasian descent), and others effects which have yet been investigated in any detail.

For now, it is important to point out that within the span of only 60,000 years (a nanosecond in biological time), many of the skin “color” differences among the world’s human inhabitants reflect how heavily genetically-conserved was the ability of the human body to produce vitamin D. Furthermore, the trade-off involved in maintaining the ability create enough vitamin D within a sunlight-deprived clime by sacrificing melanin may have had adverse health effects that are only now being investigated.

For those who are not naturally gifted with large quantities of melanin, tanning is an attractive prospect. However, it is important to differentiate between UVA light-induced tanning and UVB light-induced tanning. Although visually there is little, if any discernable difference, UVA light results from the photoxidation of existing melanin and its precursors, whereas UVB stimulates melanocytes to up-regulate melanin synthesis and increases pigmentation coverage.¹

Because UVA light does not provide any additional photoprotection and is far more toxic to cellular DNA, it is important to maximize exposure to the UVB wavelengths which predominate around solar noon (approximately 12 o’ clock), tapering off in intensity several hours before and after. It is within this window of time that vitamin D production also happens to be at its greatest, as UVB radiation is responsible for stimulating its synthesis as well.

References

1 The deceptive nature of UVA tanning versus the modest protective effects of UVB tanning on human skin.Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2011 Feb ;24(1):136-47. Epub 2010 Oct 6. PMID: 20979596

© April 26, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Does Skin Pigment Act Like A Natural Solar-Panel? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Does Skin Pigment Act Like A Natural Solar-Panel?

While ubiquitous in nature, melanin, which provides the coloring found in hair, skin, eyes, feathers, scales, etc., is an especially important substance as far as the human condition is concerned. After all, melanin’s role in determining skin color makes it the primary physiological basis for racial differentiation among humans. Entire civilizations, no doubt, have risen and fallen due to their conceptions (and misconceptions) about this pigment’s effects on human behavior, to the point that the very notion of humanness itself has been called into question depending on how little or how much melanin a body possessed.

It is for this reason that melanin’s lesser known, functional properties should be considered more closely. In fact, being more pigmented, i.e. darker skinned, or put oppositely, being less de-pigmented, may confer a unique set of health benefits which over the course of human history have been repressed or intentionally misrepresented in order to fuel the sociopolitical construct of race.

In biological science melanin is known to possess a diverse set of roles and functions in a wide range of organisms. These include:

• Protection against biochemical attack: e.g. the smokeshield-like ink of the octopus, and the melanin-based protective colorings of bacteria and fungi which are capable of encapsulating and oxidizing invading organisms in a process known as melanization.


• Mitigating chemical stresses associated with exposure to heavy metals and oxidizing agents.


• Acting as a natural sunscreen: shielding light-sensitive tissue from the potentially damaging effects of ultraviolet light.

Melanin is capable of transforming ultraviolet light energy into heat in a process known as “ultrafast internal conversion”; more than 99.9% of the absorbed UV radiation is transformed from potentially genotoxic (DNA-damaging) ultraviolet light into harmless heat.

If melanin can convert light into heat, could it not also transform UV radiation into other biologically/metabolically useful forms of energy? This may no seem so far fetched when one considers that even gamma radiation, which is highly toxic to most forms of life, is a source of sustenance for certain types of fungi and bacteria.

Single-celled fungi, for instance, have been observed thriving within the collapsed nuclear reactor at Chernobyl, Ukraine, using gamma radiation as a source of energy. Albino fungi, without melanin, were studied to be incapable of using gamma radiation in this way, proving that gamma rays initiate a yet-unknown process of energy production within melanin. There is also the curious discovery of bacteria living within vats of radioactive waste.

Given these examples, it is no surprise that vertebrate animals may be capable of converting light directly into metabolic energy through the help of melanin. In a review on the topic published in 2008 in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, titled “Melanin directly converts light for vertebrate metabolic use: heuristic thoughts on birds, Icarus and dark human skin,” Geoffrey Goodman and Dani Bercovich offer a thought-provoking reflection on the topic. Their abstract is well worth reading:

Pigments serve many visually obvious animal functions (e.g. hair, skin, eyes, feathers, scales). One is ‘melanin’, unusual in an absorption across the UV-visual spectrum which is controversial. Any polymer or macro-structure of melanin monomers is ‘melanin’. Its roles derive from complex structural and physical-chemical properties e.g. semiconductor, stable radical, conductor, free radical scavenger, charge-transfer. Clinicians and researchers are well acquainted with melanin in skin and ocular pathologies and now increasingly are with internal, melanized, pathology-associated sites not obviously subject to light radiation (e.g. brain, cochlea). At both types of sites some findings puzzle: positive and negative neuromelanin effects in Parkinsons; unexpected melanocyte action in the cochlea, in deafness; melanin reduces DNA damage, but can promote melanoma; in melanotic cells, mitochondrial number was 83% less, respiration down 30%, but development similar to normal amelanotic cells. A little known, avian anatomical conundrum may help resolve melanin paradoxes. One of many unique adaptations to flight, the pecten, strange intra-ocular organ with unresolved function(s), is much enlarged and heavily melanized in birds fighting gravity, hypoxia, thirst and hunger during long-distance, frequently sub-zero, non-stop migration. The pecten may help cope with energy and nutrient needs under extreme conditions, by a marginal but critical, melanin-initiated conversion of light to metabolic energy, coupled to local metabolite recycling. Similarly in Central Africa, reduction in body hair and melanin increase may also have lead to ‘photomelanometabolism’ which, though small scale/ unit body area, in total may have enabled a sharply increased development of the energy-hungry cortex and enhanced human survival generally. Animal inability to utilize light energy directly has been traditionally assumed. Melanin and the pecten may have unexpected lessons also for human physiology and medicine.

If the authors are correct, a longstanding assumption that animals are incapable of utilizing light energy directly is thrown out the window. In other words, melanized tissue within our body may be capable of “ingesting” sunlight, and not unlike plants, using the “harvested” light in biologically useful ways.

Should it be any surprise, really, that our skin was designed to benefit from being bathed in sunlight? We already know that sunlight exposure can reduce the risk of over 30 diseases, and that its primary metabolite in our skin, vitamin D, may reduce the risk of over 150 additional conditions. Our biological connection to, and dependence on, the sun, is so profound that the very variation in human skin color from African, melanin-saturated dark skin, to the relatively melanin de-pigmented, Caucasian lighter-skin, is a byproduct of the offspring of our last common ancestor from Africa (as determined by mitochondrial DNA) migrating towards sunlight-impoverished higher latitudes, which began approximately 60,000 years ago.

In order to compensate for the lower availability of sunlight, the body rapidly adjusted, essentially requiring the removal of the natural “sunscreen” melanin from the skin, which interferes with vitamin D production; vitamin D, of course, is involved in the regulation of over 2,000 genes, and therefore is more like a hormone, without which our entire genetic infrastructure becomes destabilized.

While a life-saving adaptation, the loss of melanin likely has adverse health effects, which include losing the ability to convert sunlight into metabolic energy, increased prevalence of Parkinson’s disease (which involves de-melanization of the substantia nigra and disproportionately affects those of Caucasian descent), and others effects which have yet been investigated in any detail.

For now, it is important to point out that within the span of only 60,000 years (a nanosecond in biological time), many of the skin “color” differences among the world’s human inhabitants reflect how heavily genetically-conserved was the ability of the human body to produce vitamin D. Furthermore, the trade-off involved in maintaining the ability create enough vitamin D within a sunlight-deprived clime by sacrificing melanin may have had adverse health effects that are only now being investigated.

For those who are not naturally gifted with large quantities of melanin, tanning is an attractive prospect. However, it is important to differentiate between UVA light-induced tanning and UVB light-induced tanning. Although visually there is little, if any discernable difference, UVA light results from the photoxidation of existing melanin and its precursors, whereas UVB stimulates melanocytes to up-regulate melanin synthesis and increases pigmentation coverage.¹

Because UVA light does not provide any additional photoprotection and is far more toxic to cellular DNA, it is important to maximize exposure to the UVB wavelengths which predominate around solar noon (approximately 12 o’ clock), tapering off in intensity several hours before and after. It is within this window of time that vitamin D production also happens to be at its greatest, as UVB radiation is responsible for stimulating its synthesis as well.

References

1 The deceptive nature of UVA tanning versus the modest protective effects of UVB tanning on human skin.Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2011 Feb ;24(1):136-47. Epub 2010 Oct 6. PMID: 20979596

© April 26, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Does Skin Pigment Act Like A Natural Solar-Panel? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Implanted: The Myth Of The Cancer-Free Breast Implant

While global media attention presently fixates on the increased risk for rupture within silicone-filled breast implants manufactured by the French company PIP, other less well known, but nonetheless serious health risks associated with implanting silicone-based capsules into the breast are not even being discussed.

According to conventional sources like Mayo Clinic, saline and silicone breast implants pose similar risks, including

• Breast pain


• Potentially permanent changes in nipple or breast sensation


• Infection


• Scar tissue that distorts the shape of the breast implant


• Implant leakage or rupture


• Need for additional breast surgery

Mayo Clinic, however, neglects to mention some of the more serious and common health risks associated with breast augmentation, which include autoimmune diseases, cancer, and psychological disorders.

Regardless of whether saline or silicone filled, all breast implants on the global market today are composed of a silicone elastomer “capsule,” which is the encasing membrane of the implant. The materials used to create the capsule are biologically alien to the body, are often coated in highly controversial nanoparticle silica, and result in rejection by the immune system in up to 11.4% of all cases.

This is known as “capsular contracture,” which is commonly defined as an “abnormal” immune response to foreign materials in the body, and is a reaction serious enough to require surgical intervention in the majority of cases. Capsular contracture may also indicate the commonality of low-grade bacterial infections that opportunistically emerge from the implant procedure or the implants themselves.

There are also less acute autoimmune conditions that have been linked to breast implants, which include fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and rheumatoid arthritis. These are harder to define, treat and link directly to breast implants, but the research supporting a causal connection is accumulating on the topic.

Another serious and commonly over-looked “side effect” of breast implantation is the increased risk of cancer, including brain cancer, bronchial cancer, skin cancer (non-melanoma), lung cancer, cervical cancer and vulvar cancer. There is also a distinctive implant-associated cancer called ‘primary anaplastic large cell lymphoma,’² which can be deadly and is increasingly being reported in case studies. These cancer findings are not surprising considering that animal experiments dating back to the mid-twentieth century demonstrated that foreign body implantation of many materials, including silicone, can induce sarcomas.¹

Unfortunately, these very real causal connections between breast implants and cancer have been obfuscated in favor of the industry wide promotion of the concept that breast implants ‘reduce the risk of breast cancer,’ which while finding support in several studies,* has also been disproven in others.

In fact, Susan G. Komen, the self-avowed expert on breast cancer risk, heavily reinforces the public perception that breast augmentations and/or reconstructions are categorically safe when it comes to cancer risk by focusing on the positive implant-breast cancer research, to the exclusion of breast implant associated cancers at all other sites, which are known to be significantly elevated.

Sadly, Susan G. Komen’s irresponsible focus on the lack of harm associated with breast implants may boil down to the fact that it is far harder to sell women on the decision to treat potentially benign x-ray mammography detected cancers such as DCIS/LCIS on the aggressive and invasive standard of care, which includes mastectomy, lumpectomy, radiation, chemotherapy and follow-up hormone suppressive therapies such as Arimidex and Tamoxifen — the two blockbuster drugs produced by the founding sponsor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, AstraZeneca.

There is another serious problem with breast augmentation, which is the psychological problems associated with their use. A study published in the journal Current Psychiatry Report in 2010, which looked at five large epidemiologic mortality studies found that women with cosmetic breast implants suicide mortality doubled. The study also looked at the preimplant psychiatric disorders which more commonly afflict women who choose cosmetic breast implants, which included: “eating disorders,” “body image dissatisfaction,” and “depression.”

Ultimately, it would behoove those who would undergo breast implantation surgery to consider the unintended, adverse health consequences — some of which are life-threatening — that are not being accurately communicated to them through both profit and non-profit health organizations.

*If in fact breast implant is associated with a lower incidence of breast cancer, it is probably due the traits of women who tend to choose breast implants, e.g. lower body mass index, lower fat content in breast, than the surgery or implant itself.

¹Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Dec;120(7 Suppl 1):70S-80S. Breast implants and breast cancer: a review of incidence, detection, mortality, and survival. Deapen D.

²Hum Pathol. 2009 Nov;40(11):1564-70. Epub 2009 Jun 21. Do biomaterials cause implant-associated mesenchymal tumors of the breast? Analysis of 8 new cases and review of the literature. Balzer BL, Weiss SW.

© April 24, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Implanted: The Myth Of The Cancer-Free Breast Implant appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

The Flame Of Cell Life-Death In The Miracle Of Regeneration

Every moment your body is undergoing an active process of regeneration, based as it is on the ceaseless flux of cell life and death — not unlike the dissipative structure of a flame.

Consider the fact that every three days the enterocytes lining the villus of your intestines are completely replaced, and that within 7-10 years, almost every atom and molecule within your body has been excreted, breathed out, or sloughed off, only to be replaced by new ones from the food you ate, the water you drank and the air you breathed in, in the interim.

Truth be told, beneath even the appearance of our solid physio-chemical form, are waves of energy, patterns of vibration (not unlike sound), condensed forms of light, vast voids of inter-atomic space, and subtending that reality from ‘below,’ an infinite field of possibility, described with awe and elegance by quantum physicists and mystics, alike, albeit with different languages.

Underscoring this amazing interplay of being and non-being, without which life would not be possible, cancer cells are only deadly because they are no longer capable of dying in a well-timed and orderly fashion — a process of programmed cell death (self-disassembly) known as apoptosis, and shared only by cells healthy enough to die.

The intentional and relatively traceless self-disassembly of the cell, which is associated with apoptosis, exemplifies how the individual cell makes itself holy — which is the etymology of the word sacrifice (‘to make holy’) — by giving itself (one) up selflessly to the whole (many). The word holy, of course, shares etymological kinship with the words ‘health’ and ‘whole,’ forming a trinity of meanings which have long ago been forgotten or removed from popular consciousness.

In other words, in order to be whole, healthy and holy, the body and soul can not be treated as separate processes or substances. In cancer, the individual cell breaks its sacred bond with the whole community of cells, i.e. the rest of the body, and proliferates wildly, selfishly on its own; cloning itself tirelessly, in a sort of narcissism which runs against the cellular diversity and cooperative interdependence necessary for their to be ONE, whole functioning healthy being on the macroscopic level.

This “selfish” behavior is to be expected of a cell that has been starved of basic essential nutrients, exposed to a continuous onslaught of synthetic chemicals and manmade electromagnetic fields, given semi-synthetic ‘nutrients’ and ‘vitamins’ which no longer share resemblance with anything found in food, and enveloped in an electromagnetically-mediated cocoon of negative emotions, throughout the duration of its life cycle. These cells, like the example of children who suffer profound depravations and abuse earlier in life, learn to grow up with ‘body armor,’ express ‘acting out behavior,’ ‘selfishness,’ and otherwise unhealthy and antisocial characteristics that could be described in an oncologist’s histopathological report as the cellular phenotype of cancer.

The ability to survive the constant onslaught of life-denying chemicals and energies has resulted in the down-regulation of genes associated with apoptosis, and the up-regulation of those associated with the tireless metabolic activity and proliferation of cancer. This has lead to the cellular equivalent of the desire for immortality, which is highly unsustainable, and like a virus too deadly to escape the fate of its host, eventually brings down itself in the process, as well.

Even non-cancerous senescent cells, which accumulate with age and which no longer undergo the cell divisions associated with both healthy and cancerous tissue, may interfere with healthy life processes because they don’t die as rapidly, subsequently crowding out the living, continually regenerating cell lines that are healthy enough to die and be reborn again.  Cell death, therefore, and the healthy cell turnover that dying makes possible, is a fundamental prerequisite for the continuance of healthy cell life — and the tissue, organ and bodily systems made of these cells. by not dying.

And both cancer and senescent cells, which stand in the way of cellular regeneration, can be induced to make way for new healthy cells through the induction of programmed cell death (apoptosis). GreenMedInfo.com has over 345 natural substances with apoptotic properties. The body’s ability to countermand cancerous processes, and even to regress tumors and active cancers, is only now beginning to come to mainstream light. For instance, a groundbreaking study published this month in The Lancet Oncology shows for the first time that many screen-detected “invasive” breast tumors spontaneously regress when undiagnosed and untreated. What this means is that, given a chance, the body will utilize internal immune resources to thwart cancer.

Regenerative processes, however, begin to decline with age, and are further interfered with by chemical exposures, nutrient deficiencies and incompatibilities, as well as acute and chronic stress. Ultimately, the degree and pace to which this happens depends largely on the physical and energetic properties of the food consumed, water ingested and air breathed in, and what lifestyle and spiritual choices we make in our daily lives.

Certain foods, spices and nutrients, as well as therapeutic actions (listening to music), have been studied to significantly enhance the regenerative process in the body. Here are a few more cases…

There are neuritogenic substances which are capable of stimulating neural growth factor, an important inducer of neurological repair.  There are substances that stimulate the regeneration of beta cells, the insulin-producing cells that are damaged in type 1 diabetics.  There are substances that can regenerate serious spinal chord damage, such as resveratrol. And you even have substances known as neocardiogenic that are capable of stimulating regeneration of the cardiac muscle.

There is also the commonly over-looked dimension of how much sunlight exposure is occurring on a daily basis, and whether or not it is occurring closer to the UVB-saturated solar noon (12 pm). Research clearly indicates that the skin has properties not unlike solar panels, capable of storing light energy in molecular bonds, specifically within the cholesterol sulfate and vitamin D sulfate molecules produced in the skin.

Melanin, also, is believed to convert sunlight into metabolic energy within vertebrate animals — a property that has been sacrificed in lighter skin humans in order to accommodate the lower levels of sunlight availability experienced by their ancestors living at higher latitudes. Sunlight may be a key and irreplaceable ingredient in the regenerative processes our body depends on, and may not be substitutable with supplemental vitamin D3.

© April 23, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post The Flame Of Cell Life-Death In The Miracle Of Regeneration appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

5 Ways to Improve Urban Living and Reduce Premature Death

(The Real Agenda News) Science proves it: Living in large cities results in less healthy life.

Urban life is harmful to health, so how can we transfer this public health emergency to the citizenship and the decision-making process?

More than 100,000 scientific articles talk about air pollution and health, according to Pubmed, the largest database of biomedical publications.

The scientific evidence is clear: current urban life has serious negative impacts on our health. But the simple fact of living in a city should not imply these risks, especially because they are perfectly avoidable.

We have a double challenge ahead: to make this information understandable to public opinion, that is, for people on the street who are not scientists, and as the ultimate goal, to transfer it to political decision-making.

The company ISGlobal developed the interactive digital report The Cities We Want, which aims to summarize and adapt scientific information on urban life and health so that it is understandable to a general public. 

Scientists and communicators have started working together to explain with simple words, videos and illustrations, the keys to build healthier and more sustainable cities.

During the preparation of the report, one of the key messages that we have heard the most from scientists is that it is a global public health emergency that can be addressed from today, because there are many measures available to design healthy cities. That is, the situation is very serious but there are solutions.

The cities we want are cities designed for people: spaces with good air quality, low noise levels and no heat islands. Urban environments with more green spaces that promote healthy levels of physical activity.

So here are 5 measures that cities can apply to put health at the center of priorities:

1. Reducing Air pollution from motorized traffic

Cities were built mainly around cars generate pollution and promote unhealthy lifestyles. In some cities private vehicles occupy between 65% and 70% of the city’s space.

The World Health Organization proposes a series of comprehensive solutions to recover public space for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as to reduce levels of air pollution – a toxic air we breathe in 98% of cities in low-income countries, and in 56% of high-income countries.

2. Reducing noise caused by motorized traffic

Urban planning also plays an essential role in reducing noise levels. The populations most report noise pollution, create noise maps and carry out action plans to reduce noise in the most affected areas.

Some of the most frequent strategies are the use of sound-reducing pavement in the roadways, the limit of traffic volume, the reduction of speed limits or the promotion of silent zones and the creation of green spaces.

3. Increase Physical activity through active transport

Lack of physical activity is the fourth risk factor for global mortality and causes one in four cases of breast and colon cancers.

Active transport, or moving on foot or by bicycle on a daily basis is the most practical and sustainable way to increase physical activity. 

A good public transport network makes it easier for citizens to walk and reduce the use of private vehicles. In addition, the availability of green spaces is important to perform physical activity safely.

These measures are collected in a study published in The Lancet, which analyzes physical activity in 14 large cities.

4. Reduce the infrastructure for motorized vehicles and increase green spaces

In the cities, the temperatures are usually higher than in the areas that surround them and the night temperature can reach up to 10 degrees more than in the surrounding area. This effect is known as “heat island”.

Islands of heat and high temperatures increase mortality, especially cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

For this reason, it is necessary that the urban design incorporates as a priority the prevention of the increase in temperatures. 

The insulation of buildings can be improved to depend less on the use of air conditioning, to change urban materials for others that absorb less solar radiation, etc. 

There are several mitigation plans, such as this guide from the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

5. More natural spaces to increase access to nature

The city of the future must be a green city. Scientific studies associate green spaces – urban parks, gardens, tree-lined streets or forests, among others – to numerous health benefits, such as stress reduction, the fact of living longer or in a better state of general and mental health.

Nature must be part of the city. Beyond scattered points, the natural spaces must be a plot that communicates all the urban space and benefits all the citizens.

It is estimated that with better urban planning and transportation, cities could avoid 20% of premature deaths each year.

The post 5 Ways to Improve Urban Living and Reduce Premature Death appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

A DIRE WARNING: The Cancer Industry Owns The Media And Your Mind

A report claims that millions of lives have been saved in the past two decades due to ‘early detection’ of cancer and improved treatment, but is it true?

In what can only be described as a cancer industry propaganda push, mainstream news outlets are declaring triumphantly “More than 1.5 million cancer deaths averted in last two decades” (CBS),  “Cancer death tolls fall, millions saved” (ABC), and “A 22 Percent Drop in Cancer Mortality Saved 1.5 Million People.” (Science World Report).

Really? What is this based on?

These media flourishes are supposedly based on a report just published in the journal CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians titled, “Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014,” which analyzed cancer treatment data from 3 sources: the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), the SEER-Medicare linked database, and the SEER*Stat database.

However, if you actually take the time to read the research itself and read between the lines you will find it in no way justifies these optimistic characterizations; to the contrary, the national cancer outlook looks exceedingly bleak.

In the abstract summarization of the results, the first line reads:

“The number of cancer survivors continues to increase due to the aging and growth of the population and improvements in early detection and treatment.”

‘Early detection’ here refers to national screening programs such as x-ray mammography for breast cancer and PSA screening for prostate cancer, which we now know have not resulted in reduced mortality despite dramatically expanding ‘cancer diagnoses’ in the past few decades: a sure sign that the ‘cancers’ being diagnosed were never life-threatening and did not ‘save’ anyone from premature death; to the contrary, breast and prostate screenings have been the subject of great controversy because they have left behind millions of necessarily treated (read: harmed) individuals without resulting in any significant reductions in breast- and prostate-specific cancer mortality (prostate cancer mortality has actually increased!) — which is the only true measure of whether they are of benefit to the mostly asymptomatic populations being continually pressured through ‘awareness campaigns’ to undergo screening. An increasingly indubitable body of research shows that screening programs have dramatically increased the quantity of cancer diagnoses in healthy individuals, resulting in the illusion that they have been ‘saved’ through early detection, when in fact they have survived overdiagnosis and overtreatment and not cancer itself. This has falsely inflated the number of people ‘saved,’ which is reflected in the aforementioned outrageously distorted mainstream media headlines, while simultaneously obscuring the significant number of lives that have been lost due to the ineffectiveness of conventional treatment.

Consider that a ‘cancer survivor’ is anyone who was diagnosed with cancer who is still alive 5 years later.

Whether or not a newly identified prostate or breast cancer case was a victim of overdiagnosis is nowhere accounted for in these statistics. In other words, if a person who was identified through ‘early detection’ to have life-threatening cancer actually had a benign lesion, and then went on to be ‘treated’ anyway, they are not surviving cancer but rather the unnecessary surgery, chemotherapy and radiation they received. And yet they are lumped into the ‘survivor’ category nonetheless, even if they should be considered a victim of iatrogenesis and medical abuse.

Last year a study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine revealing that in the past three decades 1.3 million women in the U.S. were wrongly diagnosed with breast cancer when in fact they had a benign condition known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).  DCIS lesions rarely if ever progress to cause harm nor death, but this was not factored into the data analysis of the latest report in question.  The report stated that “14.5 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2014,” but it did not qualify the statement by acknowledging the great burden of cancer diagnoses that are now known to be intrinsically benign, e.g. ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) “breast cancers” and high-grade intraepithelial prostatic neoplasia (HGPIN) “prostate cancer” were identified in 2012 by a National Cancer Institute commissioned expert working group to be misclassified as “cancer” and which they recommended should be reclassified as benign lesions of epithelial origin, presumably better left untreated. This reclassification of certain ‘cancers’ to benign growths also encompasses so-called papillary carcinomas of the thyroid, a fundamentally harmless nodular growth the conventional medical establishment still calls thyroid cancer and treats aggressively.

What this essentially means is that instead of taking responsibility for the medical-induced harm (iatrogenesis) that breast, prostate and thyroid screening incurs, the conventional medical establishment counts these overdiagnosed cases as treatment successes (‘live saving’), despite the untold harm, physical and psychological, these diagnoses and subsequent unnecessary treatments exacted on their victims.  This unethical ‘oversight’ resulted in expanding the number of ‘cancer survivors’ far beyond those who were actually ‘saved from cancer.’

The report stated:

“The 3 most common prevalent cancers among males are prostate cancer(43%), colorectal cancer (9%), and melanoma (8%), and those among females are cancers of the breast (41%), uterine corpus (8%), and colon and rectum (8%).”

Considering that the primary cancers afflicting women (breast) and men (prostate) are the most overdiagnosed, the truth is that this report falsely represented the data, essentially covering up the medical tragedy, or worse, malfeasance that still goes on daily in thousands of hospitals around the world. After all, the profit generated by diagnosis and treatment of ‘cancer’ far exceeds most other disease diagnoses.

The report did acknowledge the extremely high survivorship rates of those diagnosed with so-called ‘early stage’ (aka localized) breast cancer:

“The 5-year relative survival rate for women diagnosed with localized breast cancer is 98.6%”

Why is that? One view is that localized (i.e. ductal carcinoma in situ) isn’t breast cancer at all, and therefore the relatively high 98.6% survivorship reflects the fact that these woman aren’t surviving cancer at all, rather, they survived an unnecessary treatment for an intrinsically benign condition. They are, in essence, surviving medical abuse motivated by shameless profiteering (e.g. breast cancer industry and cancer drug manufacturer funded pinkwashing campaigns to promote ‘early detection’ via mammography screening that result in converting healthy women into patients without proper biological justification).

The propaganda evidenced by this report, and the mainstream media amplifications of it, are extremely misleading. Trillions of dollars of liability rests on the shoulders of the conventional cancer industry for falsely diagnosing and (i.e. abusing) women and men with cancers they never had. Additionally, those who have fallen victim to unnecessary treatment often suffer from Stockholm syndrome, identifying with their aggressors, and then becoming willing brand ambassadors of ‘early detection’ via pinkwashing styled fund-raising campaigns (e.g. Susan G. Komen marches) to fear, for instance, other healthy, asymptomatic women into subjecting their breasts to highly carcinogenic x-ray wavelengths in the interest of ‘finding cancer early.’

In a world dominated by what can only be described as violent, almost pornographic marketing copy, e.g. Susan G. Komen sponsored PINK fracking drill bits, and KFC ‘Buckets for the Cure,’ it is the responsibility of all of us to take back control of our health and read behind the increasingly absurd mainstream news headlines. If you believe your breasts, prostate, thyroid, or whatever body part is increasingly targeted for cancer screening, are more than just an inevitable locus of carcinogensis, please join the growing movement to take back control of your health, starting with acknowledging that with clean food, water, and air, health is obtainable and your birthright.

Learn about authentic cancer solutions by watching the Functional Forum video (2 hour long) on ‘The Evolution of Oncology,’ featuring a panel discussion with our founder, Sayer Ji, at 48:00.

© April 21, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post A DIRE WARNING: The Cancer Industry Owns The Media And Your Mind appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

5 Reasons Why You Should Take Cold Showers

There’s nothing like a warm shower when we want to relax or even warm up on a cold winter day. The idea of subjecting ourselves to cold showers can actually seem crazy at times given how luxurious it has become to enjoy hot showers. But the truth is a cold shower can provide a lot of benefits that you may want to consider.

1. Improves Immunity & Circulation

Running cold water over your body at the end of a shower can improve circulation as blood is sent throughout your arteries to surround your organs. It can be viewed in the same way we run certain systems at high performance every so often to keep it maintained and well oiled. Increased blood flow can also help certain skin and heart issues as well as lower blood pressure, help clear blocked arteries and improve our immune system.

2. Improves Hair and Skin Condition

Hot water can dry out your skin and hair. Of course, it doesn’t help that there are high levels of chlorine coming out of our showers which has a drying-out effect on skin and hair as well. If you can run your shower colder or finish cold at the end, it’s a natural way to keep your skin and hair from drying out as cold water tightens cuticles and pores. This helps to prevent natural oils on the scalp and skin to be stripped away so easily. By keeping a proper oil balance you will have soft, shiny natural looking hair. This also helps to keep the skin and scalp cleaner as well.

3. Increase Alertness

Have you ever woken up early in the morning and felt tired hopping in the shower and as you feel the warm water running over your body you want to jump right back into bed? This is where cold showers can come in handy. As cold water hits your neck it causes you to do that almost slightly shocked deep breath. This increases oxygen intake and also gets the heart rate up which pumps blood through the body faster giving the body a nice natural surge of energy.

4. Eases Stress & Depression

Cold showers have also been shown to help decrease stress levels. One study found that exposure to cold helped decrease uric acid levels and increase glutathione, an antioxidant considered to be one of the most important for a healthy body.[1] The participants swam regularly in ice-cold water during the winter months and it was found that they adapted to repeated oxidative stress.

Another study found that cold hydrotherapy (i.e. cold showers) helped to improve moods and had an anti-depressive effect with no bad side effects or creation of dependency. Subjects were tested with one to two cold showers at 38 degrees Fahrenheit that were two to three minutes long. These were followed by a five-minute gradual adaptation to make the procedure less shocking.[2]

5. Speeds Up Muscle Soreness and Recovery

A study conducted in 2009 found that people who rested or immersed themselves in cold water after their exercise saw a decrease in onset muscle soreness caused by resistance training, cycling or running. It was found that a 24 minute bath in water with temperatures around 10 – 15 degrees celsius (50F – 59F) was most effective. Taking a cold shower after your workouts would still have a positive effect on muscle soreness as well. The longer you go the greater the benefit.[3]

How To

So how do you do it? Well you turn on the water cold and hop in.. sort of. There’s actually some differing ideas on exactly how to take a cold shower and one of the ways that I’ve used most is listed below from blog.iamgary.com.

1. Turn the water on, set to cold. Some people will tell you to start warm and decrease the temperature slowly each time you shower, then start a little colder each day. Yes, that method will eventually result in taking a cold shower but you’re going to miss out on the heart-pounding exhilaration that you only experience fully the first couple times you take a cold shower. It doesn’t have to be ice cold, just cold.


2. Feet first. Your feet will adjust to the temperature fastest so get them under the spray and work your lower body under the water as quickly as you can. By the time the water is splashing your stomach you’ll be looking for a distraction so…


3. Hands second. Get your hands and arms wet, then splash water over your torso. By now your legs and front should be thoroughly wet.


4. Head under! You’re going to be be breathing heavily and involuntarily so be careful not to inhale any water through your nose or mouth. You’re going to feel alright, like hey I can do this, but you’ve forgotten part of your body…


5. Back last. Millions of nerve fibres are routed through your spine so getting your back wet is the hardest part. You’re going to feel a lot of sensations, almost an electrical charge crackling up and down your back. Get this wet last then finish washing and scrubbing. Good job, you’ve taken a cold shower.

The post 5 Reasons Why You Should Take Cold Showers appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Roundup ‘Weedkiller’ Feeds Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Study Finds

The nightmarish toxicological profile of Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) continues to emerge within the peer-reviewed research, this time revealing its role in supporting the growth of a pathogenic bacteria of great medical significance.

A concerning new study published in the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology titled, “Influence of glyphosate in planktonic and biofilm growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa,” indicates that the world’s most widely used herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) may be contributing to the enhanced growth of the pathogenic bacteria P. aeruginosa in our environment.

The Brazilian team responsible for the study expressed concern over the “virtual nonexistence” of research evaluating glyphosate herbicide-pathogenic microbiota interactions, and conducted a series of microbial experiments to fill this data gap.  They noted:

“Glyphosate is probably the herbicide most discharged into the environment. Due to its extensive use in the protection of crops, it is inevitable that it will reach surface and deep waters (Pournaras et al., 2007), especially after rainfalls.”

P. aeruginosa is commonly found in watercourses and reservoirs in both oxygen (aerobic) and non-oxygen preferring forms (anaerobic), and can be a source of waterborne infection.

The results of the new study indicate that when exposed to varying concentrations of both glyphosate (a common contaminant found in GM agricultural runoff) and oxygen, both the aerobic the anaerobic and biofilm forming strains of this bacteria can thrive:

“Aerobic planktonic growth was superior to anaerobic one. This points to the possibility of P. aeruginosa, although a facultative organism (Davies et al., 1989; Yoon et al., 2002), has its growth significantly favored by the presence of molecular oxygen. Continuous bacterial exposure to low concentrations of glyphosate leads to increased rates of aerobic growth, which is somehow in agreement with previously published findings (Fitzgibbon and Braymer, 1988). By the contrary, in conditions of inaccessibility of molecular oxygen, the bacterium started to grow better in a concentration-dependent manner. It is possible that this phenomenon results from the use of the molecule as a source of phosphorus, as previously reported for the genus Pseudomonas (Peñaloza-Vazquez et al., 1995; Moore et al., 1983; Talbot et al., 1984). Glyphosate could also serve as a carbon source, which would be processed by both aerobic and anaerobic metabolisms (Rueppel et al., 1977), with increased rates in presence of oxygen. To support such theory, it has been found that different bacterial genera may promote catalysis of glyphosate using C-P lyases (van Eerd et al., 2003). Once broken up this connection, Pseudomonas spp. can produce glycine (Kishore and Jacob, 1987), which can also enhance growth.”

The researchers also focused on the ability of glyphosate to support the growth of so-called biofilms, a closely adhering colony of bacteria embedded in a self-produced matrix of a “slimy” extracellular polymeric substance (EPS), revealing:

“Our results revealed that the xenobiotic tends to favor the formation of biofilms of P. aeruginosa, especially those anaerobic and that such increase seems to be concentration-dependent.”

This finding has significant medical implications, as P. aeruginosa biofilm colonies are far more virulent and exhibit the kind of antibiotic resistance found in serious infections in humans, such as skin infections and pulmonary complications associated with fatal conditions such as cystic fibrosis.[1]

The study concluded:

“The results from this study point to the fact that the indiscriminate use of agricultural formulations containing glyphosate may result in an increase in growth rates of planktonic and biofilm phenotypes of P. aeruginosa in watercourses or reservoirs.”

As Roundup – now a ubiquitous agrochemical contaminant found in our rain, air and water — continues to accumulate in larger amounts in the environment, concern grows that it may be upsetting the natural microbial balance upon which our own microbial health depends on.

Previously, we have looked at the way that Roundup herbicide is altering the microbial biodiversity of our environment by destroying soil microbes that have indispensable importance in the production of food. Research also now exists showing this agrochemical can shift the gut bacteria of animals towards pathogenic strains of bacteria, including the deadly botulism-associated Clostridium botulinum strain.  Also, a new study raises concern that as a water pollutant glyphosate may be contributing to the decline of the coral reefs, underscoring how profoundly this environmental contaminant may be affecting the future health of our planet as a whole.

As the public continues to rally behind the non-GMO movement, expending the bulk of its political efforts on labeling GMO-containing foods, it is important to also focus on the clear and present danger of Roundup herbicide, which a growing number of groups support banning entirely. When we understand the true extent of harm represented by this agrochemical (and which research now links to over 50 adverse health effects), then the argument that GM foods and non-GM (e.g. organic) foods are ‘substantial equivalent‘ is immediately disproved.  GM foods are universally contaminated with glyphosate and AMPA (a glyphosate metabolite) residue and owing to the fact that infinitesimal (parts-per-trillion) concentrations of glyphosate may have endocrine disrupting/carcinogenic properties present regulations on glyphosate are not protecting the public or environment at large from its known risks. (Learn more by reading: ‘EPA to the Public: Let Them Eat Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Cake’).

To get more involved follow the Global GMO Free Coalition.

---

References

[1] Antibiotic Susceptibilities of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates Derived from Patients with Cystic Fibrosis under Aerobic, Anaerobic, and Biofilm Conditions J. Clin. Microbiol. October 2005 vol. 43 no. 10 5085-5090

© April 19, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Roundup ‘Weedkiller’ Feeds Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Study Finds appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda

By Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News | 

Cure disease or alter humans?

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.

---

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 29^th 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.

The post Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda

By Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News | 

Cure disease or alter humans?

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.

---

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 29^th 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.

The post Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.