Fraudulent Climate Change diets - Apple a day does not keep the doctor away
The Climate Change Agenda is trying to foster people into climate change diets or a range or climate change related experimental food products. The Climate Change agenda also seems to want to link people to synthetic biology. The body does not really adapt well to synthetic biology (the experimental covid 19 injections have already shown us that).
Climate Change- & Depopulation milk (excuse the irony). They feed TOXIC chemicals to cows to stop them burping and farting. The example of the climate milk below from Norway shows it is harmful to the male reproductive system in rats, DAMAGING FERTILITY on the unborn child. This Klimamelk (Climate Change Milk) has a warning label for reproductive toxicity. Women considering becoming pregnant or who are pregnant should star away from this Klimamelk. Men who want to have children should stay away from this Klimamelk too. Everybody have to satrt to find the critical health related research on the Sustainability goals. Always be aware of climate labelling on food products.
Climate Change - a company called ArkeaBio is making a vaccine for cows and the goal is to stop the cows from farting and burping. Gates also funds a company called Apeel that is spraying fruits with a coating that contains traces of arsenic and lead. “The injection works such that the cow produces antibodies that targets microbes in the cows gut that are producing the methane. This doesn't sound very good.” (Peter Sweden). If they alter the gut of the cow what will be the consequences on the meat from their body in the long run? Altering the gut or microbiome can also create other diseases in the cows.
Climate Change paper straws instead of platsic straws. The paper straws contain forever chemicals (PFAS: poly and perfluoroalkyl substances) that are dangerous to the environment.
Doctors usually need to intruct people to not eat GMO foods. How about labgrown meat or mRNA injected meat? Since the Covid mRNA injections we have to think the problems they too create in the food supply. One can never be too careful if they try to create a narrative on why mRNA injected chickens, hogs, cows or other are to be understood in the name of climate change and other genetic manipulations. Genetic manipulation is a part of the technocracy and globalists goals of controlling everything on the planet.
The ideas of Sustainable Development (New World Order) link to Agenda 21 and is about controlling all land, water, species, energy, minerals, information, education, and food production and having people move into cities vacating all rural areas “for the common good”. To understand more of this read “Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21” by Rosa Koire.
Synthetic meat has been heavily promoted by Bill Gates and the globalist elites at the WEF as the solution to so-called climate change. However, this same food has been shown to cause cancer via the immortalized cell lines used to manufacture it.
Rediffusion: The One Health agenda related to the WHO Pandemic Treaty gives the WHO the means to declare climate change as a health threat. Climate change is a means of social control and social engineering. People need to understand it is a military operation. Jacob Nordangård has explained this backdrop in his reseach and book Rockefeller Controlling the Game.
In terms of human population the elites have different ideals for the human race. Either they want to allow a lager amount of smaller people or a lesser amount of taller people in the name of emissions and climate change. The WHO plant based diet ideas fit into this WEF narrative of making people smaller since plant based diets will alter the human race.
Unsettled Science - Eating ‘for the planet’ risks human health: "Ever since a “planetary diet” known as EAT-Lancet was published in 2019, nutritionists have been worried that our move towards more plant foods would involve a serious cost to human health. (The EAT-Lancet authors were organized by a foundation close to the World Economic Forum and, at the time, the United Nations, to fulfill sustainability goals.)
A principal concern with EAT-Lancet was that such a heavily plant-based diet would be deficient in essential nutrients, especially those in a “bio-available” form that humans can digest. The first person to sound the alarm, as far as we know, was the nutrition expert Zoe Harcombe, whose analysis of EAT-Lancet found that the diet would be deficient in vitamins B12, D, K and A (retinol, the form we can absorb) as well as the minerals sodium, potassium, calcium, iron and probably omega-3 fatty acids.
Now a comprehensive paper– a systematic review of the scientific literature–has largely confirmed Harcombe’s assessment.”
Unsettled Science - Vegan Food for NYC Prisoners; and Did Stone Age Humans Eat Less Meat Than We Thought?
Imagine you’re a reporter or a headline writer for mainstream media. Anthropologists report that some cavemen (and women) were eating a plant-rich diet a few thousand years earlier than has been commonly assumed. How do you make that news to your readers and maximize views?
Answer: Turn it into a referendum on the paleo diet. This is what happened with a report this week that a paleolithic hunter-gatherer tribe in what today is Morocco had a “substantial plant-based component” to its diet – perhaps 50% of all calories—thousands of years before the arrival of farming or agriculture.
Interest in the paleo diet informs not just the “paleo” brand, but our conception of what constitutes a natural, if not proper human diet: what we evolved to eat in an ideal world. But the anthropological knowledge of paleolithic eating has itself been evolving with the technologies available to study it. Early assumptions depended on examining remains in burial and camp sites–mostly animal bones, stone age knives and arrowheads. Anthropologists could study chemical isotopes in human remains – bones and teeth – but only the isotopes that could be analyzed. Together, these suggested that paleolithic humans lived on mostly, if not entirely meat.
Now an international team of researchers has analyzed a slew of new isotopes in the remains of humans from 13,000-15,000 years ago and concluded that they ate significantly more plant foods than previously assumed. Even the infants may have been weaned off their mother’s milk with plant foods, these researchers say. The fact that dental caries – tooth decay – was prevalent in this population suggests also “a reliance on highly cariogenic wild plant foods such as sweet acorns and pine nuts.” (The tooth decay also indicates that this population may not have been in optimal health, since declining dental health tends to be associated with other diet-related diseases and nutrient deficiencies, as the Cleveland dentist Weston Price famously observed in his 1939 book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.)
So does this evidence suggest “cavemen ate mostly vegan,[1] debunking paleo diet,” as the headline of The Independent suggested, or that we should “forget the paleo diet fad” as The Telegraph did? Not quite.
Humans of this era were hunters and gatherers and what they gathered, obviously, was mostly plants. The more plant-based food they could gather – as in this Mediterranean coastal region– the more they could eat. But they were gathering more, as the paper states, largely because of the “depletion of large game species,” specifically Barbary sheep in this area.
The new paper reinforces the idea that no single paleolithic diet can be defined. What paleolithic humans ate would have depended on location and climate and varied widely; the further north, and the harsher and longer the winters, the greater the subsistence on animals rather than plants.
The idea that people today should eat what humans evolved to eat makes logical sense. But one of the many critical questions in nutrition science is not whether we evolved eating both animals and plant foods, which is undisputed, but the health benefits and risks when we avoid one or the other.
Plant-based prisons, a recipe for violence?
This week, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a small grant to bring more plant-based foods to the city’s prison population, through a partnership with the non-profit Hot Bread Foods. The group will train chefs in several prisons to “focus on reimagining food” through new, “plant-centered culinary skills.” We can imagine that Sam Bankman-Fried, the vegan bitcoiner languishing in a Brooklyn jail following his fraud conviction, is among the few inmates psyched about this idea.
We’re also wondering if a plant-based shift is a smart move for prison populations, in which mental health issues and violence are significant problems.. For instance, a 2018 randomized, controlled clinical trial on 231 young adult inmates found that those who received a nutritional supplement for at least two weeks were 26.3% less likely to commit disciplinary offenses. This finding does not bode well for prisoners eating plant-based diets (as we’ve noted before), which have been found to be deficient in essential nutrients, including potassium, calcium, iron, and vitamins D, A, and B-12. Plant-based diets also tends to lead to lower blood cholesterol, which has been found in multiple studies to be associated with depression and violence–not qualities to boost in a prison population.
Ever since Mayor Adams reversed his own diabetes with a plant-based diet (and occasionally fish), he’s been on a campaign to shift the diets of New York City residents also to plant-based. He instated obligatory “Vegan Fridays” for children in public schools, vegan meals as the default option in all of the city’s 11 public hospitals, and “lifestyle medicine” training for New York doctors. This last effort is happening thanks to a $44 million grant from the American College of LIfestyle Medicine, a group closely tied to the Seventh Day Adventist Church, which has promoted a vegan diet globally as a matter of faith. Whether these plant-based programs result in better health has not been tested. This means that some of New York’s most vulnerable populations have unknowingly been enrolled in a city-wide experiment on how nutrient deprivation affects school performance, hospital stays and now, the mental health of prisoners.
Low carb diet successful against IBS - what will happen if labgrown meat is used in the name of climate change?
The independent Swedish Diet Fund (Kostfonden) recently published very promising information on a scientifically proven study that a low carb diet is helpful for patients with IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome). The american Alliance for Natural Health on the other hand are concerned of the shadowbanning of low carb diets on the internet and social media. They question if this is about driving an agenda towards lab grown meat due to the climate change agenda. Lab grown meat in low carb diets - have they been studied yet in terms of healthrisks and/or health benefits when it comes to recomending a low carb diet? As I understood the notice from the independent Swedish Kostfonden (Diet Fund) they do not take this into consideration. Today also due to the Covid-19 Pandemic livestock and animals in the food supply have been injected with mRNA injections. It has been shown in autopsies of livestock that died of the mRNA injections that the mRNA is in the meat (Farmer explained: 525 hogs injected with mRNA vaccine - after 3 weeks led to 25 died, 55 became anorexic near death, 25 became lame, 12 loss of condition, 25 had near death symptoms. mRNA in the meat of the animals.). There are also examples of chicken injected with mRNA that developed bloodclots and self-assembling nanotechnology is found in the blood clots in the exact same way Dr. Ana Micalcea has been analysing human blood, Self Assembly Nanotechnology Live Blood Darkfield Microscopy: A Review in Images. Eating synthetic biology needs to be taken into consideration in terms of diets given as recomendations in healthcare. The american lawyer Tom Renz has written a book on the risks of mRNA in the food supply, modRNA: Why It Matters & Other Essays. The notice from the independent swedish diet fund till be posted here and also think of what kind of information you find is missing. Please leave references or comments in the comment rows below.
Groundbreaking study: Low-carbohydrate diet has a surprisingly good effect against the stomach disease IBS
Diet fund : A low-carbohydrate diet is just as effective against stomach and intestinal problems in IBS as the already established low-FODMAP diet. Both diets are also more effective than an optimized drug treatment. This is shown by the results of the first study funded by the Food Foundation, which is now published in the well-reputed journal The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology .
It is with great pleasure that Kostfonden can now tell you that the results of the first study that we ever invested in has been published. It is one of the most well-done studies that have been carried out in the field of IBS and today the New York Times writes about it.
- It's been a gigantic job, so it's great fun now that it's finished, says Stine Størsrud, senior dietitian at Sahlgrenska University Hospital and one of the people responsible for the project.
In the study, the researchers included over 300 people with a diagnosis of IBS, which means that they have major problems with stomach pain, gas formation in the stomach, constipation and diarrhea. The people were randomly assigned to three different treatments: a low-FODMAP diet, a low-carbohydrate diet and an optimized drug treatment.
Two different dietary treatments were tested against drugs
The low-FODMAP diet has been shown in previous studies to be effective against IBS. The diet involves excluding so-called fermentable carbohydrates from the food, for example fructose, lactose and certain fibres. These carbohydrates are not absorbed in the small intestine, but go all the way down to the large intestine, where they can cause problems in IBS. Participants in this group were also given general IBS dietary advice, such as chewing food carefully, avoiding too much fat and eating regularly.
The group that ate a low-carbohydrate diet would instead minimize the amount of carbohydrates and eat more fat and protein. They did not receive general IBS dietary advice.
The drug group was helped to test different drugs that can reduce problems with diarrhea, constipation, pain and gas formation.
A strength of the study is that the participants in the diet groups had their food sent home for a month, which made it easier for them to follow the diet plan.
Dietary treatments were more effective than drugs
The low-carbohydrate diet led to 71 percent of the participants feeling better in their stomachs. The same figure for the low-FODMAP diet was 76 percent, but there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. In the drug group, 58 percent got better.
- We were surprised that the low-carbohydrate diet had such a good effect. We thought the low-FODMAP diet would be outstanding, but it wasn't. We also didn't think that the diet would be that much better than the drug treatment, says Stine Størsrud.
For many, the improvement was tangible. The results also show that the low-FODMAP diet seems to reduce problems with diarrhea more, while the low-carbohydrate diet better prevents constipation.
- There can be several explanations for that, but fat stimulates bowel movements and you can have a looser stool when the food goes through the system faster. When you eat less FODMAPs, you instead get less fiber and other carbohydrates that can bind fluid in the intestinal system. It can make the loose stools less loose.
The study leads to new questions
The fact that the two dietary treatments produced such a similar effect leads to new research questions. In recent years, many researchers have believed that fermentable carbohydrates, FODMAPs, are one of the main causes of IBS. Many with IBS have also been advised to avoid fat, as it stimulates bowel movements. In the current study, however, the group eating a low-carb diet experienced significant improvement, despite continuing to eat FODMAPs and increasing the amount of fat in their diet.
- One explanation for why the low-carbohydrate diet can work well is that you eat a smaller volume of food, which can reduce the load on the intestines. So one can ask whether energy-dense diet can help?
A common denominator between the two diets is also that the participants ate home-cooked food, which was rich in vegetables. The amount of junk food they ingested was small. In addition, both groups excluded wheat flour and sugary foods such as candy and soft drinks.
- In studies where they have looked at what characterizes the food that people with IBS eat, you can see that they eat more sugar, fat and fast food.
Researchers at Lund University have also conducted a study in which people with IBS had to reduce the amount of starch and sugar in their food, which led to a strong improvement in IBS symptoms.
Hope to identify problematic foods
In the study that is now being published, the participants thus had their food delivered to their home for a month. After that, the low-FODMAP group had to try reintroducing different forms of fermentable carbohydrates again, to see if they reacted more to certain foods than others. If participants in the low-carb group had an effect of the diet, they were advised to continue eating according to the diet plan. If they thought the diet was too strict, they had to modify the diet so that it became sustainable to eat it in the long run. At the same time, they were encouraged to explore how the stomach reacted when they reintroduced different foods. At the end of the study - after six months - the participants had begun to eat almost as much FODMAPs and carbohydrates as at the start of the study, but still over 40 percent felt much better in their stomachs.
- What we will look at now is what kind of food they had started eating, and what food they did not eat, says Stine Størsrud.
If many participants have excluded a food, there is reason to assume that it may be extra problematic in IBS.
A tool to manage IBS
The researchers are also analyzing in-depth interviews with the participants, to find out how they have experienced the dietary transition.
- Although these two diets solve the stomach problems for many, it is difficult to follow them. Cooking takes time; the rest of the family may not like the food and it's hard to always have to bring a lunch box to work.
However, many of the participants testify that they have received a new tool to deal with their problems.
- They have learned how to take command of their illness when they really need to. In between, they can be "sloppy", says Stine Størsrud.
She believes that the study means a lot to the participants. It has also received a lot of attention in the research world because it breaks new ground in the field of IBS:
- We have been able to present the results at several large conferences in the USA and Europe.
Kostfonden has supported the study with one million
We at Kostfonden want to send our warmest thanks to all of you who have supported us, so that we have been able to contribute to this study (If you want to support us, become a monthly donor now via this link ). In total, it has received one million swedish crowns from the Kostfonden.
- The study shows that the Nutrition Fund can fulfill the function we hoped for when we founded the fund. Our goal was to help finance ground-breaking studies that can develop our knowledge about how diet affects us. This study has certainly done that, says Ann Fernholm, who co-founded Kostfonden in 2014.
Working on carrying out the study in healthcare
The next step will now be to find tools to bring these dietary treatments into healthcare. In November last year, Kostfonden happily received a grant from Vinnova to, together with the researchers at Sahlgrenska, test treating IBS digitally. We have entered the recipes used in the study into the Diet Fund's digital platform for dietary treatments, Treat Lifestyle. There will also be information about IBS and support for implementing a dietary change. In February, the researchers at Sahlgrenska submitted an application for ethical permission for the study. The goal is for it to start in April. To be continued, then!
Feel free to help share and spread knowledge about the study. Up to 10 percent of the Swedish population have problems with IBS and many are psychologically affected by the severe stomach problems. Changing their diet can make a big difference for them!
An apple a day does not keep the doctor away!
"These findings are from a cross-sectional study of 8728 adults in JAMA Internal Medicine which examined the relationship between daily apple consumption and visits to a physician."
Added in: Veganism is controlled malnutrition and an anti-fertility anti-human death diet being pushed by the very same people who brought us the COVID vaccine, climate change narratives, ESG scores, and those at the WEF who would prefer for you to eat bugs instead of the foods you've been eating for thousands of years to grow yourself and your children into healthy people. Humans needs fat soluble vitamins for adequate fertility, and mothers especially need them for proper development of a fetus. Vitamins A, E, D, K2, minerals like zinc, bio-available calcium and iron, carnitine, carnosine, taurine, and so many other nutrients that can only be garnered in adequate quantities for OPTIMAL health and well being from animal foods. Meat. Eggs. Dairy. Seafood. Anyone who argues that we should be eating like primates like a gorilla, chimp, or bonobo, with a large proportion of our calories being from plant foods that are high in fiber and low in fat, don't understand the basics of gut physiology in human beings. A chimp or gorilla as an example, eat lots and lots of fiber from plant foods like fruits, and even recycle that fiber by eating their own shit. Why do they do that? Because they derive saturated fats from the fermentation of that fiber in their very large guts, and they don't get all the fermentation value in the first round. This fermentation process makes up 50-60%+ of their total calorie intake, as well as additional proteins and nutrients. Humans cannot make anywhere near the same quantities, with many people not being able to at all. Some papers show its between 0-4% total calories with maximal fiber intake, and others up to 8% maximum (it's contingent on many factors, like ancestry, microbiome health, genetics, etc - 99% of people are sub 5%). This means we have to garner our fats from animal foods that we hunt or raise, not fiber we ferment in our gut. Humans also have very acidic stomach acid at 1.1-1.5ph, which is significantly lower than gorillas, chimps, as well as other obligate carnivores like cats, dogs, etc, and even most facultative carnivorous scavengers like vultures or buzzards. That should tell you all you need to know on what we should be eating. The diet of a species should not be decided with contrived and manipulated epidemiology, or biased RCTs comparing standard american junk foods diets to plant based diets. Obviously plant based is better than SAD. It should be based on the hard science of gut physiology and ancestral history, like that shown in the book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Weston A Price. Every culture that had perfect health was hyper carnivorous, full stop. Based on our physiology and this ancestral wisdom with seasonal availability and cyclicality in mind..... We're a carnivorous species first and cyclical and opportunistic omnivores second. Plant foods are medicine and additional calories when available, but animal foods are the obligation and foundation of good health. If eating nose to tail, you get all the nutrients you could possibly need for optimal health. Meat and fat is life. Don't let anyone tell you different. Inversionism, that also has a clip from a recovered vegan and what happened to her and how hard it was in healthcare to understand what was happening to her.
Added in / From Alliance for Natural Health International - from their link you can download the ANH-Intl Special Report: Analysis of the EAT-Lancet report
“Has the EAT-Lancet Commission found a solution for people and planet? Our analysis aims to separate science from ideology. / EAT-Lancet is in the airwaves. Everyone we know seems to be talking about it. Everyone’s got a view – and so do we.
We’ve been digesting the 47-page report and analysing parts of it – and now release our 24-page Special Report.
We’re concerned about a lack of clarification over funding. We think it’s wrong to represent the ‘Planetary Health Diet’ as a plate of food and show one half by volume and the other half by energy contribution – just so it looks better?
We’ve run some different scenarios for flexitarian and vegan diets to see how much flexibility there is in the ‘Planetary Health Diet.’ A surprising amount as it happens – but is it enough for everyone?
And then – is the decision to propose halving meat consumption really the result of appraising hard, scientific facts? We don’t think the solutions being proposed are as simple as the Lancet authors make out.
We close off our analysis by offering some recommendations. And we hope you’ll engage in the conversation about all of this, as food, health and planet is central to our mission towards a natural, sustainable future.”