Search Results

https://greenmedinfo.com/content/science-behind-olive-oils-top-10-health-benefits For millennia, the olive tree has been revered as a symbol of wisdom, peace, and longevity. Modern science now reveals that its precious oil may hold the key to unlocking vibrant health and preventing chronic disease. Dive in to discover the evidence-based secrets of this liquid gold Olive oil, the liquid gold of the Mediterranean, has been prized for its culinary and medicinal properties for thousands of years. Recent scientific research has begun to unravel the complex mechanisms behind its remarkable health effects. This comprehensive guide delves into the top 10 science-backed benefits of olive oil consumption, exploring the intricate ways in which its bioactive compounds interact with the body. We'll also examine the crucial differences between high-quality, organic, cold-pressed, extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) and refined, chemically processed varieties. GreenMedInfo, a leading open-access database for natural medicine, has compiled an extensive body of research on olive oil's therapeutic potential. Their database reveals that olive oil may have beneficial effects in over 180 health conditions and exerts 69 distinct pharmacological actions.21 This underscores the incredible versatility and potency of this ancient healing food. Cardiovascular Protection Numerous studies have highlighted olive oil's cardioprotective properties. A meta-analysis of cohort studies found that higher olive oil intake was associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular events and mortality.1 EVOO's high content of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) and polyphenols is thought to underlie these effects. MUFAs help maintain healthy cholesterol levels, while polyphenols like hydroxytyrosol and oleuropein possess potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities that protect against atherosclerosis.2 Stroke Prevention A study published in Neurology revealed that older individuals who regularly used olive oil for both cooking and as a dressing had a 41% lower risk of stroke compared to non-users.3 While the exact mechanisms require further elucidation, researchers speculate that olive oil's anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects may play a role in reducing stroke risk.4 Blood Pressure Regulation EVOO's rich polyphenol content has been shown to help lower blood pressure. A randomized controlled trial found that consuming polyphenol-rich olive oil significantly reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure compared to low-polyphenol olive oil.5 Polyphenols may exert these effects by increasing the bioavailability of nitric oxide, a vasodilator that helps relax blood vessels.6 Antidiabetic Effects Growing evidence suggests that olive oil may help prevent and manage type 2 diabetes. A systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that olive oil consumption was associated with a 16% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes.7 EVOO's beneficial effects on glucose metabolism are attributed to its MUFAs and polyphenols, which improve insulin sensitivity and reduce inflammation.8 Neuroprotection Olive oil's neuroprotective properties have garnered increasing attention in recent years. Animal studies have demonstrated that EVOO can mitigate age-related cognitive decline and reduce the risk of Alzheimer's disease.9 These effects are linked to its high content of oleocanthal, a phenolic compound that exhibits anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activities in the brain.10 Anticancer Potential Numerous in vitro and animal studies have highlighted olive oil's potential anticancer effects. For instance, the phenolic compound oleocanthal has been shown to induce rapid death in various cancer cell lines while leaving healthy cells unharmed.11 Other olive oil polyphenols, such as hydroxytyrosol and oleuropein, have demonstrated antiproliferative and proapoptotic activities against breast, colon, and prostate cancer cells.12 Anti-inflammatory Effects EVOO's potent anti-inflammatory properties are well-documented. Its polyphenols, particularly oleocanthal, inhibit the activity of cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes, which are involved in the production of pro-inflammatory compounds.13 Regular consumption of EVOO has been associated with reduced levels of inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein and interleukin-6.14 Digestive Health Olive oil may benefit digestive health by reducing inflammation and oxidative stress in the gut. A study in patients with ulcerative colitis found that a diet rich in olive oil was associated with improvements in disease activity and quality of life.15 EVOO's polyphenols, such as hydroxytyrosol, have also been shown to exert protective effects against gastric ulcers in animal models.16 Bone Health Emerging research suggests that olive oil may help maintain bone health. Animal studies have demonstrated that EVOO consumption can increase bone formation and mineralization while reducing bone resorption.17 These effects are attributed to olive oil's high content of MUFAs and polyphenols, which modulate inflammation and oxidative stress in bone tissue.18 Skin Health Topical application and dietary consumption of olive oil may benefit skin health. EVOO's polyphenols, particularly hydroxytyrosol, have been shown to protect against UV-induced skin damage and photoaging.19 Olive oil's MUFAs also contribute to skin hydration and elasticity, while its vitamin E content aids in wound healing and scar prevention.20 Choosing the Healthiest Olive Oil To maximize the health benefits of olive oil, it's crucial to select high-quality, organic, cold-pressed, extra virgin varieties. EVOO is obtained from the first pressing of olives and undergoes minimal processing, preserving its delicate polyphenols and nutrients. In contrast, refined olive oils are treated with chemicals and heat, which can degrade beneficial compounds. When shopping for olive oil, look for bottles labeled "extra virgin" from reputable brands, and opt for dark glass containers to protect against light-induced oxidation. The scientific evidence supporting olive oil's multifaceted health benefits is compelling. From cardiovascular protection to neuroprotection, anticancer potential to digestive health, EVOO's complex array of bioactive compounds works synergistically to promote optimal well-being. By incorporating high-quality, organic, cold-pressed, extra virgin olive oil into your diet, you can harness the power of this ancient elixir to enhance your health and longevity. As research continues to unravel the intricacies of olive oil's therapeutic potential, one thing remains clear: this liquid gold is a true gift from nature, offering a delicious and evidence-based path to lifelong vitality. References 1. Martínez-González MA, Dominguez LJ, Delgado-Rodríguez M. Olive oil consumption and risk of CHD and/or stroke: a meta-analysis of case-control, cohort and intervention studies. Br J Nutr. 2014;112(2):248-259. doi:10.1017/S0007114514000713 2. Yubero-Serrano EM, Lopez-Moreno J, Gomez-Delgado F, Lopez-Miranda J. Extra virgin olive oil: More than a healthy fat. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019;72(Suppl 1):8-17. doi:10.1038/s41430-018-0304-x 3. Samieri C, Féart C, Proust-Lima C, et al. Olive oil consumption, plasma oleic acid, and stroke incidence: the Three-City Study. Neurology. 2011;77(5):418-425. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e318220abeb 4. Tsivgoulis G, Psaltopoulou T, Wadley VG, et al. Adherence to a Mediterranean diet and prediction of incident stroke. Stroke. 2015;46(3):780-785. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.007894 5. Moreno-Luna R, Muñoz-Hernandez R, Miranda ML, et al. Olive oil polyphenols decrease blood pressure and improve endothelial function in young women with mild hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2012;25(12):1299-1304. doi:10.1038/ajh.2012.128 6. Medina-Remón A, Tresserra-Rimbau A, Pons A, et al. Effects of total dietary polyphenols on plasma nitric oxide and blood pressure in a high cardiovascular risk cohort. The PREDIMED randomized trial. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;25(1):60-67. doi:10.1016/j.numecd.2014.09.001 7. Schwingshackl L, Lampousi AM, Portillo MP, et al. Olive oil in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies and intervention trials. Nutr Diabetes. 2017;7(4):e262. Published 2017 Apr 10. doi:10.1038/nutd.2017.12 8. Salas-Salvadó J, Bulló M, Estruch R, et al. Prevention of diabetes with Mediterranean diets: a subgroup analysis of a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(1):1-10. doi:10.7326/M13-1725 9. Abuznait AH, Qosa H, Busnena BA, El Sayed KA, Kaddoumi A. Olive-oil-derived oleocanthal enhances β-amyloid clearance as a potential neuroprotective mechanism against Alzheimer's disease: in vitro and in vivo studies. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2013;4(6):973-982. doi:10.1021/cn400024q 10. Batarseh YS, Kaddoumi A. Oleocanthal-rich extra-virgin olive oil enhances donepezil effect by reducing amyloid-β load and related toxicity in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. J Nutr Biochem. 2018;55:113-123. doi:10.1016/j.jnutbio.2017.12.006 11. LeGendre O, Breslin PA, Foster DA. (-)-Oleocanthal rapidly and selectively induces cancer cell death via lysosomal membrane permeabilization. Mol Cell Oncol. 2015;2(4):e1006077. Published 2015 Sep 30. doi:10.1080/23723556.2015.1006077 12. Menendez JA, Joven J, Aragonès G, et al. Xenohormetic and anti-aging activity of secoiridoid polyphenols present in extra virgin olive oil: a new family of gerosuppressant agents. Cell Cycle. 2013;12(4):555-578. doi:10.4161/cc.23756 13. Beauchamp GK, Keast RS, Morel D, et al. Phytochemistry: ibuprofen-like activity in extra-virgin olive oil. Nature. 2005;437(7055):45-46. doi:10.1038/437045a 14. Schwingshackl L, Christoph M, Hoffmann G. Effects of Olive Oil on Markers of Inflammation and Endothelial Function-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients. 2015;7(9):7651-7675. Published 2015 Sep 11. doi:10.3390/nu7095356 15. Sánchez-Fidalgo S, Sánchez de Ibargüen L, Cárdeno A, Alarcón de la Lastra C. Influence of extra virgin olive oil diet enriched with hydroxytyrosol in a chronic DSS colitis model. Eur J Nutr. 2012;51(4):497-506. doi:10.1007/s00394-011-0235-y 16. Manna C, Migliardi V, Golino P, et al. Oleuropein prevents oxidative myocardial injury induced by ischemia and reperfusion. J Nutr Biochem. 2004;15(8):461-466. doi:10.1016/j.jnutbio.2003.12.010 17. García-Martínez O, Rivas A, Ramos-Torrecillas J, De Luna-Bertos E, Ruiz C. The effect of olive oil on osteoporosis prevention. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2014;65(7):834-840. doi:10.3109/09637486.2014.931361 18. Liu H, Huang H, Li B, et al. Olive oil in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis after artificial menopause. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:2087-2095. Published 2014 Dec 3. doi:10.2147/CIA.S72006 19. Rahmani AH, Albutti AS, Aly SM. Therapeutics role of olive fruits/oil in the prevention of diseases via modulation of anti-oxidant, anti-tumour and genetic activity. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014;7(4):799-808. 20. Lin TK, Zhong L, Santiago JL. Anti-Inflammatory and Skin Barrier Repair Effects of Topical Application of Some Plant Oils. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;19(1):70. Published 2017 Dec 27. doi:10.3390/ijms19010070 21. GreenMedInfo. Olive Oil. GreenMedInfo.com. https://greenmedinfo.com/substance/olive-oil. Accessed April 15, 2024.

“And that’s part of Bill Gates’s plan.” “When I was a kid, a typical pediatrician would see one case of diabetes in his entire career, juvenile diabetes. Today, one out of every three kids who walks through his door is either prediabetic or diabetic.” “Something’s wrong,” Kennedy says. “It’s high fructose corn syrup, and it’s glyphosate and neonicotinoids and atrazine and all the other crap that is in our food. We’re not feeding people; we’re poisoning them.”

https://greenmedinfo.com/content/fake-meat-genuine-risks-unveiling-dark-side-plant-based-meat-substitutes In a world where plant-based meat alternatives are touted as the healthy, eco-friendly solution to our dietary woes, a groundbreaking new study exposes the dark underbelly of these ultra-processed impostors. As the fake meat industry churns out lab-grown "frankenfoods" with unknown long-term consequences, consumers are left to wonder: is the plant-based promise too good to be true? As plant-based meat alternatives like the Impossible Burger and Beyond Meat gain popularity, a landmark new study challenges assumptions about their health benefits compared to traditional animal meats. The randomized controlled trial, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is the first to directly compare the cardiometabolic impacts of plant-based meat analogues and animal-based meats in an Asian population.1 While plant-based diets are associated with lower cardiovascular risk,2 the researchers emphasize that modern meat alternatives are a far cry from whole food plant proteins. Products like the Impossible Burger rely on novel ingredients such as genetically engineered soy leghemoglobin to mimic the taste and texture of meat.3 However, the long-term safety and health consequences of these highly processed imitation meats remain largely unknown. In this 8-week study, 89 participants substituted their usual protein sources with either plant-based meat alternatives or equivalent servings of animal meats. Macronutrients were matched based on product labels, but lab analysis revealed that the plant-based options were significantly lower in protein and higher in carbohydrates and sodium than expected. The results were striking. While LDL-cholesterol, the primary outcome, did not differ between groups, continuous glucose monitoring showed that glycemic control was significantly worse when consuming the plant-based meats. Time spent in the optimal glucose range was lower, and a marker of diabetes risk called GRADE was higher, in the plant-based meat group. Nighttime blood pressure also increased with plant-based compared to animal meat consumption. These findings contradict the metabolic benefits typically seen with whole food plant-based diets.4 The authors suggest that the high carbohydrate and sodium content of meat alternatives may be to blame for the adverse glycemic and blood pressure effects observed. The study adds to growing concerns about the "health halo" surrounding ultra-processed vegan foods. The Impossible Burger, for instance, uses a genetically modified soy protein called leghemoglobin that has never been part of the human diet. Despite objections from food safety groups, it was approved based on limited industry-funded safety tests.5 What's more, the Impossible Burger has been found to contain residues of glyphosate,6 a probable human carcinogen.7 "The problem with GMO engineering of food is not simply the presence or absence of allergenic proteins, nor agrochemicals, as many on both sides of the debate argue; rather, since food is a kind of gene-regulatory information, it can have far greater affect on our health and disease risk than could ever be expected when we focus on it simply as a source of calories and biological building blocks," writes Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo.com.8 Ultimately, this study challenges the notion that plant-based meat alternatives can be unquestioningly recommended as healthy substitutes for animal products. While minimally processed plant proteins remain an important part of a balanced diet, these ultra-processed analogs may have unintended metabolic consequences, especially for those with or at risk for diabetes and hypertension. As the authors conclude, "the nutritional quality and health effects of plant-based meat analogues cannot simply be extrapolated from traditional plant-based diets. Minimally processed whole plant foods remain the most reliable foundation of a health-promoting plant-based diet."1 In an era of skyrocketing chronic disease, this study serves as an important reminder to think critically about novel food products, even those that may appear to be healthier choices. While reducing industrial meat consumption remains an important goal, swapping factory-farmed meats for lab-grown "frankenfoods" is unlikely to produce the desired health outcomes. Instead, a balanced diet centered on minimally processed whole plant foods may be the most reliable path to cardiometabolic well-being. References 1. Toh, Darel Wee Kiat, Amanda Simin Fu, Kervyn Ajay Mehta, Nicole Yi Lin Lam, Sumanto Haldar, and Christiani Jeyakumar Henry. "Plant-Based Meat Analogues (PBMAs) and Their Effects on Cardiometabolic Health: An 8-Week Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing PBMAs with Their Corresponding Animal-Based Foods." Journal Pre-proof. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.04.006. 2. Satija, Ambika, and Frank B. Hu. "Plant-Based Diets and Cardiovascular Health." Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine 28, no. 7 (2018): 437-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcm.2018.02.004. 3. Lamb, Catherine. "The Impossible Burger: Inside the Strange Science of the Fake Meat That 'Bleeds.'" WIRED, September 20, 2017. https://www.wired.com/story/the-impossible-burger/. 4. McMacken, Michelle, and Sapana Shah. "A Plant-Based Diet for the Prevention and Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes." Journal of Geriatric Cardiology 14, no. 5 (2017): 342-54. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466941/. 5. Honeycutt, Zen. "Impossible Burger Attacks Moms for Publishing Pesticide Results." Moms Across America, May 19, 2019. https://www.momsacrossamerica.com/impossible_burger_attacks_moms. 6. "GMO Impossible Burger Positive for Carcinogenic Glyphosate." Moms Across America, May 16, 2019. https://www.momsacrossamerica.com/gmo_impossible_burger_positive_for_carcinogenic_glyphosate. 7. "IARC Monograph on Glyphosate." IARC. https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/. 8. Ji, Sayer. "Vegan GMO Burger That 'Bleeds' Hits Hundreds of Fast Food Locations Including 'Organic' Ones." GreenMedInfo, October 24, 2022. https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/vegan-gmo-burger-bleeds-hits-hundreds-fast-food-locations-including-organic-ones.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/04/23/benefits-of-co2.aspx? Understanding this made me realize the importance of being a good 'carb burner' - it's absolutely essential for energy metabolism and the key to how oxygen gets into your cells. Overlook it at your own risk. Why You Want More Carbon Dioxide STORY AT-A-GLANCE CO2 plays a critical role in oxygen transport within the body; higher CO2 levels enable hemoglobin to release more oxygen to cells, a process explained by the Bohr and Haldane effects CO2 supports vital physiological functions such as improving vasodilation, gut health, and the functionality of Vitamin K, which includes enhancing blood clotting and bone mineralization Proper carbohydrate oxidation produces 50% more CO2 compared to fat oxidation, enhancing the delivery of oxygen to cells and boosting energy production Increasing your CO2 levels can elevate your metabolic rate, as CO2 helps deliver oxygen more efficiently, allowing cells to produce significantly more energy from glucose Proper carbohydrate metabolism and controlled breathing (preferably nasal) will help you maintain optimal CO2 levels ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Understanding the importance of CO2 to human physiology was one of the things that made me realize that being a good carb burner is necessary to achieve optimal health. CO2 is health supporting. And the proper oxidation of carbohydrates produces 50% more carbon dioxide than fat oxidation (in other words, you produce 50% more CO2 when you properly burn carbs). Many understand how important oxygen is — we have to breathe, right? Oxygen is vital for energy metabolism. It is the final electron acceptor in the electron transport chain. And when O2 isn’t available in the cell, our cells then use the inefficient glycolytic pathway (fermentation) for energy production more than necessary. What is not commonly understood is HOW oxygen gets to our cells, and that process relies on CO2! CO2 is often labeled a “byproduct” of energy metabolism, but it is not given the credit it deserves. More CO2 means more oxygen is delivered to our cells, improving our energy production. It is a feedforward cycle since we are able to produce more energy and thus more CO2. This is because the delivery of O2 requires an exchange of gases (CO2 and O2) at the cellular level. Hemoglobin, a protein in our blood responsible for carrying CO2 and oxygen, releases the oxygen bound to it in the presence of higher CO2 concentrations. And releases CO2 in the presence of higher O2 concentrations. The relationship between O2 and CO2 in the body is explained by the Bohr and Haldane effect:1 Bohr — High concentration of CO2 in the cells causes a low pH (acidic environment), causing hemoglobin to unload more O2 in the cells and take up CO2 Haldane — High concentration of O2 in the lungs means hemoglobin will unload CO2 and take up oxygen The higher the concentration of CO2, the more effectively oxygen can be utilized and the better we will make energy. But improving oxygen delivery is just one benefit of CO2. Here are eight more. Eight Benefits of CO2 1.CO2 increases the metabolic rate — Since CO2 promotes delivery of O to cells, we can produce more energy per molecule of glucose (~36 ATP relative to 2 ATP) using full oxidative phosphorylation (proper carb burning). “The presence of carbon dioxide is an indicator of proper mitochondrial respiratory functioning.” ~ Ray Peat, Ph.D. 2.CO2 improves function of Vitamin K since CO2 concentrations determine the rate of Vit K dependent carboxylation reactions2 — CO2 activates the Vit K dependent proteins & thus assists fat soluble vitamins in fulfilling their physiological functions. “The greater the supply of carbon dioxide, the better vitamin K can do its job.” ~ Chris Masterjohn, Ph.D. “[V]itamin K uses [CO2] to activate proteins that protect our heart valves and blood vessels from calcification.” ~ Chris Masterjohn, Ph.D. CO2 is thus important for the following Vit K functions: blood clotting, preventing soft tissue calcification, mineralizing bones and teeth, utilizing energy, and hormonal health. 3.CO2 improves vasodilation by relaxing smooth muscles around blood vessels3,4 — A vasodilator is a substance that causes smooth muscle to relax thus dilating the tubular passages it lines. 4.CO2 improves gut health — You want HIGH CO2 levels in your gut, and many people, unfortunately, have LOW CO2 levels and HIGH O2 levels (not what we want!) The colonic microflora is extremely complex. And while it is near impossible to define what the ideal microbiome should look like (resident microbes are highly diverse, vary between individuals, and change with diet), recent evidence supports that colonic bacteria should be dominated by obligate anaerobic bacteria (meaning they cannot survive in high oxygen environments) that are able to benefit us by breaking down non-usable fibers.5 Balanced gut microbiomes are characterized by the dominance of obligate organisms, while an expansion of facultative organisms (bacteria that can survive in high O2 environments) is a common marker of gut dysbiosis. Thus, the inside of the colon should be a low oxygen and high CO2 environment to ensure we have dominance of obligate anaerobes that can breakdown complex carbs and provide our cells with short chain fatty acids, and lower levels of facultative organisms since these facultative anaerobic bacteria do not specialize in consuming fiber and might even interfere with host nutrition. Image from Current Opinion in Microbiology October 2017; 39: 1-6 So, maintaining a low oxygen and high CO2 environment helps keep the microbiome in check. The internal environment of our body impacts how our body functions. 5.CO2 improves calcium utilization6 — When CO2 exits the cell, it brings with it free water and calcium,7 lowering cellular bulk water. It is toxic to have persistent intracellular calcium, and you want as little free water as possible inside cells. In fact, some machines use the intracellular water level when looking for cancer.8 “The carbon dioxide can be changed into carbonic acid, by chemically combining with water. Carbonic acid is hydrophilic, and so it quickly leaves the cell, taking with it some of the oppositely charged ions, such as calcium and sodium.”9 6.CO2 protects the cell and mitochondria structure from damage, acting like an antioxidant and cell stabilizer — Since it improves oxygen delivery, it reduces free radical damage.10,11,12,13,14 It also protects against hypoxia and the negative effects of intracellular calcium and inflammation.15,16,17,18,19,20 Abundant CO2 inside and outside the cell protects lipids and proteins susceptible to oxidation.21,22 In fact, CO2 is part of our antioxidant defense system.23 “The suppression of mitochondrial respiration increases the production of toxic free radicals, and the decreased carbon dioxide makes the proteins more susceptible to attack by free radicals.” ~ Ray Peat, Ph.D. “The failure to oxidize glucose to CO2 is oxidative stress.” ~ Ray Peat, Ph.D. 7.CO2 prevents accumulation of lactic acid in the cell, which we see in cancer, diabetes, and other chronic conditions24,25,26,27 — Lactic acid is a byproduct of inefficient carb metabolism that suppresses efficient oxidation of glucose and burdens the liver’s energy supply. Elevated lactic acid levels have a hypoxic effect and signals to the cell that it is under stress. “The presence of lactic acid, which indicates stress or defective respiration, interferes with energy metabolism in ways that tend to be self-promoting. Harry Rubin’s experiments demonstrated that cells become cancerous before genetic changes appear. The mere presence of lactic acid can make cells more susceptible to the transformation into cancer cells. (Mothersill, et al., 1983.) Diabetics typically have elevated lactate, which shows that glucose doesn’t have a problem getting into their cells, just getting oxidized.” ~ Ray Peat, Ph.D. More CO2 improves oxidation and thus prevents accumulation of lactic acid since full oxidative phosphorylation (proper carb metabolism) can occur. “Lactic acid and carbon dioxide have opposing effects.” ~ Ray Peat, Ph.D. 8.CO2 improves longevity — The higher you live in altitude (and thus the higher CO2 levels), the lower the cancer, heart disease and overall better health.28 Moreover, maximum lifespan of mammals is positively correlated with blood CO2.29 “People who live at very high altitudes live significantly longer; they have a lower incidence of cancer (Weinberg, et al., 1987) and heart disease (Mortimer, et al., 1977), and other degenerative conditions, than people who live near sea level.” ~ Ray Peat, Ph.D. How Do We Achieve Higher CO2 Levels? How we eat and breathe impacts how much CO2 we have in our body. You can increase the endogenous production (with proper carb burning), or reduce the outflow (with proper breathing). CO2 is formed intracellularly during energy metabolism inside the mitochondria. Since carbs are richer in oxygen than fat, they consume less water in their metabolism and release 50% more CO230 (if we use them properly). The more carbs we efficiently burn for energy, the more CO2 we make. “Higher CO2 has benefits, and a higher ratio of carbohydrates to fat being oxidized for fuel yields greater CO2.”31 The body’s primary source of CO2 is cellular metabolism — so properly burning carbs is the primary source of CO2. In fact, the Keto diet significantly reduces carbon dioxide stores.32 Even Dr. Lustig admits that ketosis reduces the amount of CO2 produced by the body in relation to the amount of oxygen it consumes.33 How we breathe also impacts the CO2 levels inside of our body, as we blow off a ton of CO2 with mouth breathing! Mouth breathing is, in a sense, self-suffocation and hyperventilation when taken to the extreme because we’re driving down CO2 levels to the point that we decrease oxygen availability to the cells. Overtime this can lead to degeneration, and a lot of mouth breathing is a sign of a stressed and lowered metabolism. Nose breathing is a MUST, and utilizing mouth tape can help reduce levels of mouth breathing while sleeping. For extra CO2 work, try nose bag breathing with a brown paper bag to increase CO2 levels. This is very powerful to do before bed! In summary, there are a number of health advantages of having elevated cellular CO2 levels. Proper breathing is very important for blood CO2 levels, but it does not change cellular CO2 levels — what you eat does! And being a good carb burner is one of the best ways to achieve elevated levels.

Countless warnings about the shots have been labeled “conspiracy theories” only to be later confirmed. The latest example comes from a comprehensive review by an international consortium of scientists who raised concerns that a specific vaccine ingredient, N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ), may play a role in immune suppression and cancer proliferation. The review stresses that incorporating N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ) in mRNA vaccines significantly compromises critical immune responses, severely hindering the body’s initial interferon signaling. Interferon is vital for the immune system’s ability to fend off infections and combat diseases like cancer. The researchers wrote: “Based on this compelling evidence, we suggest that future clinical trials for cancers or infectious diseases should not use mRNA vaccines with a 100 % m1Ψ (N1-methyl-pseudouridine) modification, but rather ones with the lower percentage of m1Ψ modification to avoid immune suppression.” Given the extensive “immune suppression” observed, it’s not a stretch to say the COVID shots are largely responsible for the alarming rise in cancer cases among young people. However, corporate media outlets like The Wall Street Journal continue to run cover for Big Pharma. One of their recent headlines reads: “Cancer Is Striking More Young People, and Doctors Are Alarmed and Baffled.” They might be “baffled,” but we aren’t.

https://expose-news.com/2024/04/20/germ-warfare-the-internecine-battle-over-germ-theory-is-ratcheting-up/ “The existence of viruses as causative, contagious agents of disease has been debated since Louis Pasteur and Antoine Béchamp in the 1860’s. Fast forward to the present time and we find that no virus taken from a human has ever been isolated. In fact, no one has ever seen a virus of any kind. They are all imaginary. Today, all are created in silicone” asserts Kyle Young. Yet, the virus, no virus dichotomy has continued and those most concerned about the no virus view according to Kyle, “seems to be those who have awakened enough to understand the problems associated with the current jab /lockdown /mask/ closure/ mandate agenda, but have not yet awakened to the fact that all of this has occurred because of an unfounded fear of viruses (germs)” (source). ‘I’ve read the original paper from the institute in Wuhan that purports to describe the covid-19 virus. It’s a reductionist nightmare involving chemicals, non human cells and computer generated gobbledygook.’ he says, continuing “The idea of whole systems biology is lost on virologists. ‘Their income depends on perpetuating the virus myth. Indeed, the entire pharmaceutical vaccine industry depends on perpetuating this myth.” Kyle Young recognises that it is more than a myth. It’s also a fear tactic. and as long as people can be convinced that viruses exist, whether natural or man made, there will be huge profits to be made by generating fear to get people to line up for more harmful vaccines, vaccines which make more people sick.” “Millions of sick people is exactly what the medical industrial complex needs to feed the machine. If viruses do not exist, how can they be manipulated? How can they be engineered in a lab?” While it is a given now among the self professed awake that we are being lied to, they are not prepared to entertain the idea that the Pasteurian theory has been one of those lies and would rather continue to push the global cult’s cash cow. but just as Kyle Young says “unlike many in the pro-virus camp, no one in the no-virus camp is protecting a position that makes them money.” He names three most prominent people in the no-virus camp Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Stefan Lanka PhD. and “other notables” are; Marc McDonald MD, Peggy Hall, Mark and Samantha Bailey MD’s, Sally Fallon, Alphonse Faggiolo, Barre Lando MD, Kelly Brogan MD, Veda Austin, Tony Roman, Sayer Ji, to name but a few. “These people have given up so much to speak the truth, which is one of the ways we know they’re on the right path.” he says. Kyle Young explains why he is so passionate about this topic in the article below which was originally published in his Substack The Secular Heretic. Germ Warfare. Written by Kyle Young As regular readers know, over the past 1.75 years I’ve written a number of articles questioning the official narrative about germ theory. This is not another one. Today we’ll be considering those who don’t question it and asking why not. But first, I hope you will allow me to give a brief explanation of why I’m so passionate about this topic. Somewhere in the first decade or so of my 35 year long history of dealing with gut issues I began to realize that most of what I had been told all my life about health, previous to that point, was bull hooey. Early in that unlearning/relearning process I became aware of the debate between Luis Pasteur and Antoine Béchamp that took place in the mid 1800’s, a debate about what was more important, the terrain or germs. The modern allopathic, ‘germ theory’ based medical system misdiagnosed my illness as giardia and treated me for that, when all along I was suffering from IBS. The result was that they nearly succeeded in putting me in an early grave. Once I began to read and understand more about the terrain, transitioning to terrain theory seemed right as rain. Because of my gut issues it was easy for me to understand how I had not provided a very good habitat (terrain) for my gut microbiome for much of my early life and that I needed to work on that. Although efforts to improve my terrain have paid off in spades, it’s a very complex subject and I’m still learning more all the time (source). The Current Issue But to get to the heart of how I came to my current position and how and when the recent debate over germ theory began, we need to fast forward to the Health and Freedom Summit in June of 2020 in Tucson, Arizona, right when much of the world was gripped by the covid fear porn being spread by mass media. Dr. Tom Cowan gave a presentation at that Summit in which he questioned the science behind germ theory. A video of that presentation was posted on youtube where it promptly went viral, which set the current debate in motion. That video was also one of the first (if not the first) videos questioning the official narrative about covid and viruses, that was censored (taken down) by Google/Youtube. They were too late. The seed had been planted and was already beginning to germinate. There are millions of people like myself who have suffered severe consequences from the allopathic, anti-life, antibiotic mind set of the medical-industrial-complex and many of them immediately resonated with Dr. Cowans presentation. For me, his presentation clarified my understanding of why germ theory is off-base and how this was used to take most of my life savings and put me at deaths door (source) Full disclosure: Because of our common interest in the work of Rudolf Seiner, about 6 years ago Dr. Cowan and I began emailing each other after an interview he did with Dr. Mercola. Long story short, that led to me supplying him with moringa from Mexico and local cholla buds for his plant powder business. I then had no contact with him for about 5 years until we did this interview in October of 2021. We have not communicated since then, although I would like to interview him again. Dr. Cowan’s 6/20 presentation led to a number of collaborations with other like minded doctors, many of whom have also decided to overcome their fear of being publicly chastised in favor of speaking out about the problems with germ theory and modern, allopathic medicine. Of course, neither Dr. Cowan nor any of those other doctors came to this position on their own. Since Béchamp/Pasteur’s time there have been numerous doctors who have questioned germ theory. Many more doctors were outraged when the Rockefeller funded Flexner Report and subsequent Rockefeller funded debunking of naturopathic and homeopathic medicine was used to elevate their preferred and highly profitable petrochemical based drugs and antibiotics. In more recent decades we have books like Say Goodbye to Germ Theory, The Contagion Myth, Invisible Rainbow, and a number of others that all question germ theory. The reality is, the scientific debate over the existence and causative effects of germs has been ongoing since the mid 1800’s. It remains an unsettled theory (source) The Proclamation Several weeks ago Dr. Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman and 18 of their colleagues wrote and signed a proclamation about germ theory. You can read the full document here. This document has been successful in generating waves of both approval and consternation. It’s interesting to note that the most concerned are not the deep state officials running the big plandemic magic show. The most concerned seems to be those who have awakened enough to understand the problems associated with the current jab/lockdown/mask/closure/mandate agenda, but have not yet awakened to the fact that all of this has occurred because of an unfounded fear of viruses (germs). In this previous piece I talked about the two camps that are at odds in this debate. On the side questioning the current ‘official’ virus narrative are all the above signatories of the proclamation, as well as many others. On the side that backs the ‘official’ virus narrative, but takes a less favorable approach to the rest of the covid agenda, you have Steve Kirsch, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (who has said he supports vaccines in general), Robert Malone and a number of other prominent outspoken critics of the covid plandemic who are, confusingly, supportive of vaccines in general (both Kirsch and Malone took the covid jabs) (source) Kirsch As far as this last group is concerned, when it comes to defending germ theory and attempting to debunk the Dr. Cowans of the world, Steve Kirsch has been one of the most outspoken critics, having written numerous articles on the topic in recent months. His most recent one, published on 8/1, was also his most scathing. In that piece, Kirsch spends a lot of capitol supporting the “100 years of scientific research” into viruses and their causative nature. Lest we forget, this is the very time period when medicine was being rewritten and revamped, all courtesy of the Rockefeller Foundation. I would suggest that to get up to speed with how we came to have our current medical system, Kirsch watch this documentary. He has also failed to consider that this scientific debate is far from settled, that it has been ongoing since the mid 1800’s. Furthermore, his defense of “the science” is unrelenting – so much so that it reminds me of something Dr. Anthony Fauci said about science. “Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science. … So if you are trying to, you know, get at me as a public health official and scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you’re attacking science … You have to be asleep not to see that.” — National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, “Meet the Press,” June 9, 2021 Here is what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said about Fauci’s statement. “It is troubling enough that Dr. Anthony Fauci, our country’s leading public health technocrat and the fiat leader of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — the world’s principal funder of scientific research — would make such a narcissistic and scientifically absurd statement.” At this point a question comes begging: What science are we talking about? As we all know, science is malleable, or at least it’s supposed to be. In the ideal world science is an ongoing work in progress that evolves with increased knowledge and understanding. Its foundation is the idea that all theories are to be questioned until proven. Unfortunately, it no longer works that way. Today science is a commodity bought and traded like stocks, wheat and pork bellies. That this is antithetical to our Constitutional right to freedom and liberty has been made very clear by the death and destruction that has occurred due to the war against humanity under the guise of the medical-science-driven covid pandemic. All of this was foreseen and predicted in 1962 by one of our greatest presidents (and fellow Kansan), Dwight D. Eisenhower. “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. … We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. …” “In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. … The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded. … “We must … be alert to the … danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” It would seem that the covid plandemic has brought about the very captivity that Eisenhower warned about. More to the point at hand, this is the very science that Steve Kirsch wants us to believe – science instigated and paid for under government contracts generated by deep-state bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci who oversaw research projects run by people like Robert Malone. In an open and free society, we would be giving equal consideration to independent, non-governmental, non-corporate funded research done by groups of folks similar to those who signed the Proclamation. Given the fact that Eisenhower’s warnings have come to pass, and given the current shambles that have come about due to the covid plandemic, it seems the time has come to disband all of those unconstitutional, government agencies. Gut the beast! Jon Rappaport, who predates me as a debunker of germ theory, has also weighed in on this debate, rightly pointing out the procedural flaws used in the studies Kirsch points to. I have to say, it seems Dr. Cowan has a better handle on the fact that science is not always an etched-in-stone truth. Unlike Kirsch, rather than constantly pointing to ‘the science’, he often repeats the need to ‘question the science’ and highlights numerous reasons why. This is the truly scientific approach. Science is an ongoing work in progress that evolves with increased knowledge and understanding. Its hallmark is the idea that all theories are to be questioned. As the doctors who signed the proclamation make clear, germ ‘theory’ has not yet been proven (source). Why Sit on the Fence? We know that Kirsch and Malone are aligned because of an interview they did together with Bret Weinstein, which I posted here on 6/27/21. That video also went viral and elevated both Kirsch and Malone to their current careers as ‘authorities’ questioning the covid narrative. Malone has made clear that he still has business interests connected to the virus industry. I can’t speak for Kirsch in that regard. Speaking of investments, Kirsch has put a million dollars on the table for anyone who can beat him in a debate about this topic. He claims that because neither Dr. Cowan or any of the others have taken up his offer that that proves he is right and they are wrong. This is fallacious because it’s circular reasoning. Proving a premise is right by using the premise to prove it’s right is not science. In this video of Dr. Cowan talking about the Proclamation with several of the signatories, he mentions in passing that he was bushwhacked in a recent debate by someone who he was not told was going to be part of the debate, showing up in the debate. I would also be gun-shy about public debates after such a thing. Apart from that, it’s easy to foresee that Kirsch would present a lot of peer reviewed articles from medical journals to make his case. The problem with this approach is that it falls very nicely into the established framework created by those deep state powers that Eisenhower warned us about. It also ignores the corruption that exists within the world of medical journals, again, due to that corrupt, deep state, power structure. Sadly, there is little to no profit to be made using terrain theory, so it doesn’t get funded. Because of this corrupt power structure, the amount of peer reviewed articles on terrain theory are slim to none, so Kirsch’s opponent would automatically be at a disadvantage. I have to think Kirsch knows this. And then there is the money issue. Using money to justify an argument is a ponzi scheme as old as the hills. Those who choose to use it need to examine their morals, especially as they pertain to scientific debate. Are Kirsch, Malone and their ilk concerned that if we take viruses out of the picture that the entire allopathic, antibiotic, vaccine, medical industrial complex will collapse? It becomes apparent that the only reason to continue to embrace germ theory and suppress other ideas is to maintain the status quo on behalf of those who are, in some fashion, profiting the from germ-theory-driven, deep state, medical industrial complex. Eisenhower was right. The influence of money and power has completely skewed how we perceive medicine… to our detriment. We also need to consider the face saving angle. If the terrain theory were to gain some approval, those who have put all their chips on the germ theory hand will have to eat cake. Because Kirsch is so confident in his version of “the science”, he has said that the article I referenced will be his last on the topic. Wow. That’s akin to the Vatican saying Copernicus is wrong, that the sun rotates around the earth and that’s the end of it. No more discussion needed. Copernicus was thrown in the dungeon for presenting a scientific theory that everyone now agrees is fact. The problem then was religious control – by the Church. The problem now is religious control – by the religion of “the science”. Fauci preaches it, Malone preaches it, Kirsch preaches it. Go against the official religion and like Copernicus, you get shamed, censored, banned, blacklisted, shut down, or… murdered (Dr. Kary Mullis? and others). My position is, we are just scratching the surface of what there is to learn and I’m looking forward to learning more. I’ll be writing more about this as the power base of money, influence and power becomes eroded, as opinions shift – and they will – and as knowledge and understanding changes. Do I see an end to this process? No. If history has taught us anything it’s that knowledge and understanding is never stagnant, it’s always in flux. Unlike Kirsch, I’ll likely be writing about this until I become fodder for earthworms (source) Kyle Young Interviews Dr Tom Cowan. “A mind bending discussion” Kyle interviewed Dr Tom Cowan which he published in 2021 and introduced the video which can be seen below by saying: “Some might think of Dr. Cowan as someone who functions outside the box. Although he certainly does that, I think his true gift is the ability to use truth, science, facts and practicality to break through the shield wall that’s been funded over the past 75 years by the pharmaceutical cartels to keep doctors cloistered within the official narrative. “ This works due to the negative consequences venturing outside the cloister has on their careers. I think this interview provides a good example of how passionate Dr. Cowan is about getting to the truth – which means he’s not afraid to consider questions and look deeply into topics that others fear to consider. “Perhaps if more doctors today had Dr. Cowans’ curiosity and integrity we wouldn’t be in the midst of this manufactured crises.“ Source: Kyle Young – Germ Warfare https://secularheretic.substack.com/p/germ-warfare Kyle Young – Interview With Dr. Tom Cowan https://secularheretic.substack.com/p/interview-with-dr-tom-cowan Kyle Young – Interview With Dr. Tom Cowan – Rumble https://rumble.com/vnd26k-red-pill-interview-dr.-tom-cowan.html Kyle Young – The Secular Heretic – https://secularheretic.substack.com/

https://expose-news.com/2024/04/21/prescription-drugs-are-the-leading-cause-of-death-according-to-peter-gotzsche-co-founder-of-the-cochrane-collaboration/ Peter Gotzsche was named Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen in 2010 and was the co founder of the Cochrane Collaboration which was for a long time considered to be the world’s preeminent independent medical research organisation Source. In the position that he has been in and the knowledge he would have accumulated, when Gotzsche writes an article with the title ‘Prescription Drugs Are the Leading Cause of Death‘ and ‘psychiatric drugs are the third leading cause of death,’ we should all heed his warning that most drug deaths are preventable and most people that have died a prescribed drug death didn’t need them in the first place. Gøtzsche who has been known to be an outspoken critic of the corruption of science by pharmaceutical companies for years has published more than 97 papers in the “big five” medical journals (JAMA, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine) and authored books on medical issues including Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime. Source ‘We could easily get our drug pandemic under control,’ says Peter who says that this is the tragedy, ‘but when our politicians act, they usually make matters worse’ due to being so heavily lobbied by the drug industry which has made drug regulation ‘much more permissive than it was in the past.’ Read more about the subject from Dr Peter Gotzsche who authored the article below which was originally published by The Brownstone Institute. Prescription Drugs Are the Leading Cause of Death. And psychiatric drugs are the third leading cause of death. BY PETER C. GØTZSCHE  The Brownstone Institute Overtreatment with drugs kills many people, and the death rate is increasing. It is therefore strange that we have allowed this long-lasting drug pandemic to continue, and even more so because most of the drug deaths are easily preventable. In 2013, I estimated that our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer,1 and in 2015, that psychiatric drugs alone are also the third leading cause of death.2 However, in the US, it is commonly stated that our drugs are “only” the fourth leading cause of death.3,4 This estimate was derived from a 1998 meta-analysis of 39 US studies where monitors recorded all adverse drug reactions that occurred while the patients were in hospital, or which were the reason for hospital admission.5 This methodology clearly underestimates drug deaths. Most people who are killed by their drugs die outside hospitals, and the time people spent in hospitals was only 11 days on average in the meta-analysis.5 Moreover, the meta-analysis only included patients who died from drugs that were properly prescribed, not those who died as a result of errors in drug administration, noncompliance, overdose, or drug abuse, and not deaths where the adverse drug reaction was only possible.5 Many people die because of errors, e.g. simultaneous use of contraindicated drugs, and many possible drug deaths are real. Moreover, most of the included studies are very old, the median publication year being 1973, and drug deaths have increased dramatically over the last 50 years. As an example, 37,309 drug deaths were reported to the FDA in 2006 and 123,927 ten years later, which is 3.3 times as many.6 In hospital records and coroners’ reports, deaths linked to prescription drugs are often considered to be from natural or unknown causes. This misconception is particularly common for deaths caused by psychiatric drugs.2,7 Even when young patients with schizophrenia suddenly drop dead, it is called a natural death. But it is not natural to die young and it is well known that neuroleptics can cause lethal heart arrhythmias. Many people die from the drugs they take without raising any suspicion that it could be an adverse drug effect. Depression drugs kill many people, mainly among the elderly, because they can cause orthostatic hypotension, sedation, confusion, and dizziness. The drugs double the risk of falls and hip fractures in a dose-dependent manner,8,9 and within one year after a hip fracture, about one-fifth of the patients will have died. As elderly people often fall anyway, it is not possible to know if such deaths are drug deaths. Another example of unrecognised drug deaths is provided by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). They have killed hundreds of thousands of people,1 mainly through heart attacks and bleeding stomach ulcers, but these deaths are unlikely to be coded as adverse drug reactions, as such deaths also occur in patients who do not take the drugs. The 1998 US meta-analysis estimated that 106,000 patients die every year in hospital because of adverse drug effects (a 0.32% death rate).5 A carefully done Norwegian study examined 732 deaths that occurred in a two-year period ending in 1995 at a department of internal medicine, and it found that there were 9.5 drug deaths per 1,000 patients (a 1% death rate).10 This is a much more reliable estimate, as drug deaths have increased markedly. If we apply this estimate to the US, we get 315,000 annual drug deaths in hospitals. A review of four newer studies, from 2008 to 2011, estimated that there were over 400,000 drug deaths in US hospitals.11 Drug usage is now so common that newborns in 2019 could be expected to take prescription drugs for roughly half their lives in the US.12 Moreover, polypharmacy has been increasing.12 How Many People Are Killed by Psychiatric Drugs? If we want to estimate the death toll of psychiatric drugs, the most reliable evidence we have are the placebo-controlled randomised trials. But we need to consider their limitations. First, they usually run for only a few weeks even though most patients take the drugs for many years.13,14 Second, polypharmacy is common in psychiatry, and this increases the risk of dying. As an example, the Danish Board of Health has warned that adding a benzodiazepine to a neuroleptic increases mortality by 50-65%.15 Third, half of all deaths are missing in published trial reports.16 For dementia, published data show that for every 100 people treated with a newer neuroleptic for ten weeks, one patient is killed.17 This is an extremely high death rate for a drug, but FDA data on the same trials show it is twice as high, namely two patients killed per 100 after ten weeks.18 And if we extend the observation period, the death toll becomes even higher. A Finnish study of 70,718 community-dwellers newly diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease reported that neuroleptics kill 4-5 people per 100 annually compared to patients who were not treated.19 Fourth, the design of psychiatric drug trials is biased. In almost all cases, patients were already in treatment before they entered the trial,2,7 and some of those randomised to placebo will therefore experience withdrawal effects that will increase their risk of dying, e.g. because of akathisia. It is not possible to use the placebo-controlled trials in schizophrenia to estimate the effect of neuroleptics on mortality because of the drug withdrawal design. The suicide rate in these unethical trials was 2-5 times higher than the norm.20,21 One in every 145 patients who entered the trials of risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, and sertindole died, but none of these deaths were mentioned in the scientific literature, and the FDA didn’trequire them to be mentioned. Fifth, events after the trial is stopped are ignored. In Pfizer’s trials of sertraline in adults, the risk ratio for suicides and suicide attempts was 0.52 when the follow-up was only 24 hours, but 1.47 when the follow-up was 30 days, i.e. an increase in suicidal events.22 And when researchers reanalysed the FDA trial data on depression drugs and included harms occurring during followup, they found that the drugs double the number of suicides in adults compared to placebo.23,24 In 2013, I estimated that, in people aged 65 and above, neuroleptics, benzodiazepines, or similar, and depression drugs kill 209,000 people annually in the United States.2 I used rather conservative estimates, however, and usage data from Denmark, which are far lower than those in the US. I have therefore updated the analysis based on US usage data, again focusing on older age groups. For neuroleptics, I used the estimate of 2% mortality from the FDA data.18 For benzodiazepines and similar drugs, a matched cohort study showed that the drugs doubled the death rate, although the average age of the patients was only 55.25 The excess death rate was about 1% per year. In another large, matched cohort study, the appendix to the study report shows that hypnotics quadrupled the death rate (hazard ratio 4.5).26 These authors estimated that sleeping pills kill between 320,000 and 507,000 Americans every year.26 A reasonable estimate of the annual death rate would therefore be 2%. For SSRIs, a UK cohort study of 60,746 depressed patients older than 65 showed that they led to falls and that the drugs kill 3.6% of patients treated for one year.27 The study was done very well, e.g. the patients were their own control in one of the analyses, which is a good way to remove the effect of confounders. But the death rate is surprisingly high. Another cohort study, of 136,293 American postmenopausal women (age 50-79) participating in the Women’s Health Initiative study, found that depression drugs were associated with a 32% increase in all-cause mortality after adjustment for confounding factors, which corresponded to 0.5% of women killed by SSRIs when treated for one year.28 The death rate was very likely underestimated. The authors warned that their results should be interpreted with great caution, as the way exposure to antidepressant drugs was ascertained carried a high risk of misclassification, which would make it more difficult to find an increase in mortality. Further, the patients were much younger than in the UK study, and the death rate increased markedly with age and was 1.4% for those aged 70-79. Finally, the exposed and unexposed women were different for many important risk factors for early death, whereas the people in the UK cohort were their own control. For these reasons, I decided to use the average of the two estimates, a 2% annual death rate. These are my results for the US for these three drug groups for people at least 65 years of age (58.2 million; usage is in outpatients only):29-32 A limitation in these estimates is that you can only die once, and many people receive polypharmacy. It is not clear how we should adjust for this. In the UK cohort study of depressed patients, 9% also took neuroleptics, and 24% took hypnotics/anxiolytics.27 On the other hand, the data on death rates come from studies where many patients were also on several psychiatric drugs in the comparison group, so this is not likely to be a major limitation considering also that polypharmacy increases mortality beyond what the individual drugs cause. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention list these four top causes of death:33 Heart disease: 695,547 Cancer: 605,213 Covid-19: 416,893 Accidents: 224,935 Covid-19 deaths are rapidly declining, and many such deaths are not caused by the virus but merely occurred in people who tested positive for it because the WHO advised that all deaths in people who tested positive should be called Covid deaths. Young people have a much smaller death risk than the elderly, as they rarely fall and break their hip, which is why I have focused on the elderly. I have tried to be conservative. My estimate misses many drug deaths in those younger than 65 years; it only included three classes of psychiatric drugs; and it did not include hospital deaths. I therefore do not doubt that psychiatric drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer. Other Drug Groups and Hospital Deaths Analgesics are also major killers. In the US, about 70,000 people were killed in 2021 by an overdose of a synthetic opioid.34 The usage of NSAIDs is also high. In the US, 26% of adults use them regularly, 16% of which get them without a prescription35 (mostly ibuprofen and diclofenac).36 As there seems to be no major differences between the drugs in their capacity to cause thromboses,37 we may use data for rofecoxib. Merck and Pfizer underreported thrombotic events in their trials of rofecoxib and celecoxib, respectively, to such an extent that it constituted fraud,1 but in one trial, of colorectal adenomas, Merck assessed thrombotic events. There were 1.5 more cases of myocardial infarction, sudden cardiac death or stroke on rofecoxib than on placebo per 100 patients treated.38 About 10% of the thromboses are fatal, but heart attacks are rare in young people. Restricting the analysis to those aged at least 65, we get 87,300 annual deaths. It has been estimated that 3,700 deaths occur each year in the UK due to peptic ulcer complications in NSAID users,39 corresponding to about 20,000 deaths each year in the US. Thus, the total estimate of NSAID deaths is about 107,000. If we add the estimates above, 315,000 hospital deaths, 390,000 psychiatric drug deaths, 70,000 synthetic opioid deaths, and 107,000 NSAID deaths, we get 882,000 drug deaths in the United States annually. Many commonly used drugs other than those mentioned above can cause dizziness and falls, e.g. anticholinergic drugs against urinary incontinence and dementia drugs, which are used by 1% and 0.5% of the Danish population, respectively, even though they do not have any clinically relevant effects.1,2 It is difficult to know what the exact death toll of our drugs is, but there can be no doubt that they are the leading cause of death. And the death toll would be much higher if we included people below 65 years of age. Moreover, from the official number of deaths from heart disease, we would need to subtract those caused by NSAIDs, and from accidents, deaths by falls caused by psychiatric drugs and many other drugs. If such a hugely lethal pandemic had been caused by a microorganism, we would have done everything we could to get it under control. The tragedy is that we could easily get our drug pandemic under control, but when our politicians act, they usually make matters worse. They have been so heavily lobbied by the drug industry that drug regulation has become much more permissive than it was in the past.40 Most of the drug deaths are preventable,41 above all because most of the patients who died didn’t need the drug that killed them. In placebo-controlled trials, the effect of neuroleptics and depression drugs has been considerably below the least clinically relevant effect, also for very severe depression.2,7 And, despite their name, non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs, NSAIDs do not have anti-inflammatory effects,1,42 and systematic reviews have shown that their analgesic effect is similar to that of paracetamol (acetaminophen). Yet, most patients with pain are recommended to take both paracetamol and an NSAID over the counter. This will not increase the effect, only the risk of dying. Most tragically, leading psychiatrists all over the world do not realise how ineffective and dangerous their drugs are. A US psychiatrist, Roy Perlis, professor at Harvard, argued in April 2024 that depression pills should be sold over the counter because they are “safe and effective.”43 They are highly unsafe and ineffective. Perlis also claimed that depression drugs do not increase the risk of suicide in people older than 25, which is also wrong. They double suicides in adults.23,24 Perlis wrote, “Some still question the biological basis of this disorder, despite the identification of more than 100 genes that increase depression risk and neuroimaging studies showing differences in the brains of people with depression.” Both of these claims are plain wrong. Genetic association studies have come up empty-handed and so have brain imaging studies, which are generally highly flawed.44 People are depressed because they live depressing lives, not because of some brain disorder. References 1 Gøtzsche PC. Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Health Care. London: Radcliffe Publishing; 2013. 2 Gøtzsche PC. Deadly Psychiatry and Organised Denial. Copenhagen: People’s Press; 2015. 3 Schroeder MO. Death by Prescription: By one estimate, taking prescribed medications is the fourth leading cause of death among Americans. US News 2016; Sept 27. 4 Light DW, Lexchin J, Darrow JJ. Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and effective drugs. J Law Med Ethics 2013;41:590-600. 5 Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200–5. 6 FAERS Reporting by Patient Outcomes by Year. FDA 2015;Nov 10. 7 Gøtzsche PC. Mental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal From Psychiatric Drugs. Ann Arbor: L H Press; 2022. 8 Hubbard R, Farrington P, Smith C, et al. Exposure to tricyclic and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants and the risk of hip fracture. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:77-84. 9 Thapa PB, Gideon P, Cost TW, et al. Antidepressants and the risk of falls among nursing home residents. N Engl J Med 1998;339:875-82. 10 Ebbesen J, Buajordet I, Erikssen J, et al. Drug-related deaths in a department of internal medicine. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:2317–23. 11 James JTA. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf 2013;9:122-8. 12 Ho JY. Life Course Patterns of Prescription Drug Use in the United States. Demography 2023;60:1549-79. 13 Gøtzsche PC. Long-term use of antipsychotics and antidepressants is not evidence-based. Int J Risk Saf Med 2020;31:37-42. 14 Gøtzsche PC. Long-Term Use of Benzodiazepines, Stimulants and Lithium is Not Evidence-Based. Clin Neuropsychiatry 2020;17:281-3. 15 Forbruget af antipsykotika blandt 18-64 årige patienter, med skizofreni, mani eller bipolar affektiv sindslidelse. København: Sundhedsstyrelsen; 2006. 16 Hughes S, Cohen D, Jaggi R. Differences in reporting serious adverse events in industry sponsored clinical trial registries and journal articles on antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2014;4:e005535. 17 Schneider LS, Dagerman KS, Insel P. Risk of death with atypical antipsychotic drug treatment for dementia: meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. JAMA 2005;294:1934–43. 18 FDA package insert for Risperdal (risperidone). Accessed 30 May 2022. 19 Koponen M, Taipale H, Lavikainen P, et al. Risk of Mortality Associated with Antipsychotic Monotherapy and Polypharmacy Among Community-Dwelling Persons with Alzheimer’s Disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2017;56:107-18. 20 Whitaker R. Lure of Riches Fuels Testing. Boston Globe 1998; Nov 17. 21 Whitaker R. Mad in America: Bad science, Bad medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill. Cambridge: Perseus Books Group; 2002:page 269. 22 Vanderburg DG, Batzar E, Fogel I, et al. A pooled analysis of suicidality in double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of sertraline in adults. J Clin Psychiatry 2009;70:674-83. 23 Hengartner MP, Plöderl M. Newer-Generation Antidepressants and Suicide Risk in Randomized Controlled Trials: a Re-Analysis of the FDA Database. Psychother Psychosom 2019;88:247-8. 24 Hengartner MP, Plöderl M. Reply to the Letter to the Editor: “Newer-Generation Antidepressants and Suicide Risk: Thoughts on Hengartner and Plöderl’s ReAnalysis.” Psychother Psychosom 2019;88:373-4. 25 Weich S, Pearce HL, Croft P, et al. Effect of anxiolytic and hypnotic drug prescriptions on mortality hazards: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2014;348:g1996. 26 Kripke DF, Langer RD, Kline LE. Hypnotics’ association with mortality or cancer: a matched cohort study. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000850. 27 Coupland C, Dhiman P, Morriss R, et al. Antidepressant use and risk of adverse outcomes in older people: population based cohort study. BMJ 2011;343:d4551. 28 Smoller JW, Allison M, Cochrane BB, et al. Antidepressant use and risk of incident cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among postmenopausal women in the Women’s Health Initiative study. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2128-39. 29 O’Neill A. Age distribution in the United States from 2012 to 2022. Statista 2024;Jan 25. 30 Olfson M, King M, Schoenbaum M. Antipsychotic Treatment of Adults in the United States. Psychiatrist.com 2015;Oct 21. 31 Maust DT, Lin LA, Blow FC. Benzodiazepine Use and Misuse Among Adults in the United States. Psychiatr Serv 2019;70:97-106. 32 Brody DJ, Gu Q. Antidepressant Use Among Adults: United States, 2015-2018. CDC 2020; Sept. 33 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Leading Causes of Death. 2024; Jan 17. 34 Drug Overdose Deaths. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2023; Aug 22. 35 Davis JS, Lee HY, Kim J, et al. Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in US adults: changes over time and by demographic. Open Heart 2017;4:e000550. 36 Conaghan PG. A turbulent decade for NSAIDs: update on current concepts of classification, epidemiology, comparative efficacy, and toxicity. Rheumatol Int 2012;32:1491-502. 37 Bally M, Dendukuri N, Rich B, et al. Risk of acute myocardial infarction with NSAIDs in real world use: bayesian meta-analysis of individual patient data. BMJ 2017;357:j1909. 38 Bresalier RS, Sandler RS, Quan H, et al. Cardiovascular Events Associated with Rofecoxib in a Colorectal Adenoma Chemoprevention Trial. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1092-102. 39 Blower AL, Brooks A, Fenn GC, et al. Emergency admissions for upper gastrointestinal disease and their relation to NSAID use. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1997;11:283–91. 40 Davis C, Lexchin J, Jefferson T, Gøtzsche P, McKee M. “Adaptive pathways” to drug authorisation: adapting to industry? BMJ 2016;354:i4437. 41 van der Hooft CS, Sturkenboom MC, van Grootheest K, et al. Adverse drug reaction-related hospitalisations: a nationwide study in The Netherlands. Drug Saf 2006;29:161-8. 42 Gøtzsche PC. Big marketing hoax: Non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are not anti-inflammatory. Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom 2022;Nov 10. 43 Perlis R. The time has come for over-the-counter antidepressants. Stat News 2024;April 8. 44 Gøtzsche PC. Critical Psychiatry Textbook. Copenhagen: Institute for Scientific Freedom; 2022. Freely available. Source: Written by PETER C. GØTZSCHE author at  The Brownstone Institute Brownstone Institute – Author Peter Gotzsche – https://brownstone.org/author/peter-c-gotzsche Brownstone Institute  – https://brownstone.org/