Search Results

https://expose-news.com/2024/07/16/more-co2-is-good-for-the-world/ Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton University William Happer discussed common misconceptions in climate science, especially the negative reputation given to CO2, on Sky News Australia last year. “More CO2 is good for the world, it’s not bad for the world.  And so, it’s absurd to be trying to reduce CO2,” he said. Why is CO2 good for the world? “If you look at the geological history … we’re in a CO2 famine now compared to what’s normal for plants. And just about any plant if you give it more CO2, and a lot more, it will do better … most greenhouses double or triple the amount of CO2 … because the plants grow so much better – the quality of the flowers and the fruits are so much better,” Prof. Happer said. He further explained that since the Cambrian explosion of life “CO2 levels have gone way down.” The Cambrian explosion refers to the rapid and sudden emergence of complex life forms on Earth, approximately 541 million to 530 million years ago.  It laid the foundation for the incredible diversity of life on Earth, with many modern animal groups emerging during this period. The high levels of carbon dioxide during the Cambrian period may have played a crucial role in the evolution of life on Earth. Studies suggest that carbon dioxide concentrations during the Cambrian period were much higher than they are today. One study found that CO2 levels were 1,000 parts per million (“ppm”) and R.A. Eggleton’s book ‘ A Short History of Climate Change ’ stated that CO2 levels may have been as high as 4,000 ppm during the Cambrian period, compared to the current level of around 400 ppm. “[CO2 levels have] typically been three, four, five times than they are now.  And plants are adapted to much higher levels and so they’re harmed in a number of ways by the low levels [of CO2] now,” Prof. Happer explained. One of the harms to plants with low CO2 levels is photorespiration .  Photorespiration is an important aspect of plant metabolism and plays a fundamental role in plant growth and development.   When CO2 is low, “the enzyme [plants] use is poisoned by oxygen if there’s not enough CO2, so plants have to devote a lot of their resources to detoxifying this oxygen poisoning [instead of to growth],” he explained.  “If you double CO2 [the plants] don’t have to work as hard to protect themselves from oxygen.  That’s the main reason greenhouses work better is that you get rid of the oxygen poisoning – the photorespiration,” he said. “It’s unbelievable that they’ve managed to turn this beneficial gas, a part of life, into a threat,” he added.  He continued: “They talk about carbon pollution. I can’t imagine what they’re talking about. We’re made of carbon, and we breathe out two pounds of CO2 a day, each of us – that’s 8 billion people. “Many of them say, well, people are the real problem, it’s not the CO2, we’ve got too many people, and really we can’t have more than a billion people in the world.”

SECRET SERVICE BEHIND ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT - CONFIRMED ...according to the Real Chief of police: The troops on the ground of the secret service are ok. It is the top that are in the deep state. It was confirmed this morning that they had seen this sniper long before the shots were fired. The head of the service would not give permission to take him out until he had finished his mission. As soon as the shots were fired the order was given to take him out. The deep state set this up through the corrupt secret service. Trump had better get rid of the secret service. They intend on killing him sooner or later. Even though it was not Trump, the double is still in danger. There is a lot of speculation that the double used a blood packet to bloody himself. We slowed the video down. It is above. When Trumps double reached for his ear and brought his hand down, I could see no blood on his hand. He did not have blood anywhere until he came up, which would have given him time to smash a blood packet. It is also speculated that there were event actors just like Ashlee Babbitt of Jan 6th. Was the former Fire Chief an event actor. I could not confirm any of that. There is a go fund me page up that had raised over 1 million dollars the first day.. It may be way over that now. I still believe it was a scripted movie scene with actors but could not confirm it. Many truthers are coming out to say the same thing.... go to https://buymeacoffee.com/truther/secret-service-behind-assassination-attempt-confirmed

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/07/15/plastic-nanoparticles-in-mens-testicles.aspx The average person eats about 5 grams of this per week (about the size of one credit card) and now scientists have found it inside men's testicles. Is this why men's sperm count has been cut in half over recent decades, and is the future of the human race at risk? Microscopic Menace — Scientists Discover Plastic Nanoparticles in Men's Testicles STORY AT-A-GLANCE Scientists discovered microplastics in men’s testicles, raising concerns about their potential impact on reproductive health Researchers were surprised to find microplastics in the testicles, given the tight blood-tissue barrier in the male reproductive system, known as the blood-testis barrier The study found microplastics in all the testes examined, with polyethylene (PE) being the most common type of plastic A 2023 study similarly found microplastics in the male reproductive system, including the testis and semen Plastics are loaded with chemicals that are xenoestrogens that can mimic the effects of estrogen in your body; much of their danger is related to their stimulation of estrogen receptors ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The average person eats about 5 grams of plastic per week — about the amount found in one credit card. 1 So it’s no wonder that tiny pieces of plastic are turning up throughout the human body, including in places you might not expect. Following research that found plastic particles in the human bloodstream, 2 and another study that found them in the human heart, 3 scientists have now discovered microplastics in men’s testicles. 4 The study’s lead author, Dr. John Yu, a toxicologist in the College of Nursing at the University of New Mexico, wasn’t expecting microplastics to have infiltrated the testicles, given the tight blood-tissue barrier in the male reproductive system, known as the blood-testis barrier. As noted in Pharmacological Reviews, “The blood-testis barrier (BTB) is one of the tightest blood-tissue barriers in the mammalian body.” 5 The presence of microplastics in the testes suggests that microplastics can bypass or penetrate the BTB, raising concerns about their ability to infiltrate other protected and sensitive tissues in the body, as well as their potential impact on reproductive health. Microplastics Found in Human and Dog Testicles For the study, researchers from the University of New Mexico measured 12 types of microplastics in 47 canine and 23 human testes. 6 Microplastics are small plastic particles that are less than 5 millimeters in size. They may be intentionally manufactured for use in products like cosmetics, personal care items (such as exfoliating beads in face scrubs) and industrial applications. They also include microfibers shed from synthetic clothing during washing. Microplastics also include small plastic fragments that result from the breakdown of larger plastic items, such as bottles, bags and other plastic debris. This breakdown can occur due to environmental exposure, such as sunlight (photodegradation), ocean waves and weathering. The study involved both human and dog testicles, as dogs share many physiological and anatomical similarities with humans, making them a valuable model for studying human diseases and conditions. Further, because dogs share the same living environment as humans, they are exposed to similar pollutants, chemicals and other potential hazards. As such, they’re often considered sentinel animals, 7 meaning they can serve as early warning indicators of potential health risks and environmental hazards that might also affect humans. The study found microplastics in all the canine and human testes examined, with significant differences between individuals. On average, total microplastic levels were 122.63 µg (micrograms) per gram (g) in dogs and 328.44 µg/g in humans. 8 Both humans and canines had similar proportions of the main types of microplastics, with polyethylene (PE) being the most common. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) was also detected and linked with lower sperm count in dog testicles. Higher levels of PVC were also associated with decreased weight of the testicles, as was polyethylene terephthalate (PET). 9 A 2023 study similarly found microplastics in the male reproductive system, including the testis and semen. 10 Are Microplastics Involved in Male Infertility? It’s estimated that 11 million tons of plastic waste enter the world’s oceans annually — an amount that could nearly triple by 2040. 11 What’s the end result of a plastic world? An impending fertility crisis is upon us. Men experienced a 50% to 60% decline in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011, according to a 2017 study published in Human Reproduction Update. 12 An update to the study, which includes data from 53 countries and an additional seven years 13 — 2011 to 2018 — found sperm concentration declined “appreciably” by 51.6% from 1973 to 2018. The percent decline per year doubled, increasing from 1.16% after 1972 to 2.64% after 2000. 14 Total sperm count also declined at an alarming level — 62.3% from 1973 to 2018. A class of plastic chemicals called phthalates, which are so ubiquitous that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated “phthalate exposure is widespread in the U.S. population,” 15 may be particularly to blame. An estimated 8.4 million metric tons of plasticizers, including phthalates, are used worldwide each year, 16 with phthalate production amounting to about 4.9 million metric tons annually. 17 Microplastics often contain phthalates, which can leach out of the material 18 causing endocrine-disrupting effects. Exposure to Plastic Chemicals in Utero May Affect Male Fertility as an Adult Women’s exposure to phthalates during pregnancy is linked to male babies’ anogenital distance (AGD) — the distance from the anus to the base of the penis — with higher exposure associated with shortened AGD. 19 Later in life, shorter AGD is linked with a smaller penis 20 and poorer semen quality, such that AGD at birth may be predictive of adult reproductive function. 21 Phthalate syndrome refers to a number of disturbances to male reproductive development that have been observed after exposure to phthalates in utero. 22 In studies on rats, it’s been found that when a rat that’s been gestating in a mother rat fed phthalates during the sensitive periods of reproduction, his genitals end up smaller and less developed, his testicles might not be fully descended, his penis may be smaller, and the whole size of the genital area is smaller. 23,24 What’s more, phthalates represent only one class of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. There are many more, including bisphenol-A (BPA), flame retardants, pesticides and per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFAS) chemicals. 25 Since microplastics often contain harmful endocrine-disrupting chemicals, this is one way they may affect fertility. It’s also likely that they affect fertility via other mechanisms as well, including inflammation, oxidative stress and even direct disruption of reproductive functions if they accumulate in the testes and other sensitive areas. An evidence review conducted for California State Legislature in 2023 revealed, in fact, that “exposure to microplastics is suspected to adversely impact sperm quality and testicular health in humans based on … high quality of the body of evidence.” 26 Plastic’s Estrogenic Effects Plastics are xenoestrogens that can mimic the effects of estrogen in the body. 27 Much of their danger is related to their stimulation of estrogen receptors. Phthalates, for instance, have estrogenic properties, and some endocrine-disrupting chemicals are also considered estrogenic carcinogens. This is because the abnormal stimulation of estrogen receptors promotes cell proliferation and potentially contributes to the development and progression of estrogen-sensitive cancers, such as breast cancer 28 and endometrial cancer. 29 Due to their estrogenic effects, plastics exposure contributes to estrogen dominance, which may affect men’s reproductive health. Exposure to certain endocrine disruptors is associated with reduced semen quality and impaired fertility in men, 30 for instance, while endocrine disruptors — particularly xenoestrogens — are also “etiologic factors in the global decrease of sperm counts and other problems of the male reproductive tract.” 31 Progesterone Can Help Lower Your Estrogen Burden Before you consider using progesterone it is important to understand that it is not a magic bullet and you get the most benefit by implementing a Bioenergetic diet approach that allows you to effectively burn glucose as your primary fuel with backing up electrons in your mitochondria that reduces your energy production. My new book coming out shortly about Cellular Health covers this process in great detail. Once you have dialed in your diet, an effective strategy that can help counteract estrogen excess is to take transmucosal progesterone (not oral or transdermal), which is a natural estrogen antagonist. Progesterone is one of only four hormones I believe many adults can benefit from. (The other three are thyroid hormone T3, DHEA and pregnenolone.) I do not recommend transdermal progesterone, as your skin expresses high levels of 5-alpha reductase enzyme, which causes a significant portion of the progesterone you're taking to be irreversibly converted primarily into allopregnanolone and cannot be converted back into progesterone. Ideal Way to Administer Progesterone Please note that when progesterone is used transmucosally on your gums as I advise, the FDA believes that somehow converts it into a drug and prohibits any company from advising that on its label. However, please understand that it is perfectly legal for any physician to recommend an off-label indication for a drug to their patient. In this case progesterone is a natural hormone and not a drug and is very safe even in high doses. This is unlike synthetic progesterone called progestins that are used by drug companies, but frequently, and incorrectly, referred. Dr. Ray Peat has done the seminal work in progesterone and probably was the world's greatest expert on progesterone. He wrote his Ph.D. on estrogen in 1982 and spent most of his professional career documenting the need to counteract the dangers of excess estrogen with low LA diets and transmucosal progesterone supplementation. He determined that most solvents do not dissolve progesterone well and discovered that vitamin E is the best solvent to optimally provide progesterone in your tissue. Vitamin E also protects you against damage from LA. You just need to be very careful about which vitamin E you use as most supplemental vitamin E on the market is worse than worthless and will cause you harm not benefit. It is imperative to avoid using any synthetic vitamin E (alpha tocopherol acetate — the acetate indicates that it's synthetic). Natural vitamin E will be labeled "d alpha tocopherol." This is the pure D isomer, which is what your body can use. There are also other vitamin E isomers, and you want the complete spectrum of tocopherols and tocotrienols, specifically the beta, gamma, and delta types, in the effective D isomer. There are also other vitamin E isomers, and you want the complete spectrum of tocopherols and tocotrienols, specifically the beta, gamma, and delta types, in the effective D isomer. As an example of an ideal vitamin E you can look at the label on our vitamin E in our store. You can use any brand that has a similar label. You can purchase pharmaceutical grade bioidentical progesterone as Progesterone Powder, Bioidentical Micronized Powder, 10 Grams for about $40 on many online stores like Amazon. That is nearly a year's supply, depending on the dose you choose. However, you will need to purchase some small stainless steel measuring spoons as you will need a 1/64 tsp which is 25 mg and a 1/32 tsp which is 50 mg. A normal dose is typically 25-50 mg and is taken 30 minutes before bed as it has an anti-cortisol function and will increase GABA levels for a good night's sleep. Unfortunately, this vendor frequently runs out of product, and if that’s the case, then you can use Simply Progesterone by Health Natura . It’s premixed with vitamin E and MCT oil. If you are a menstruating woman, you should take the progesterone during the luteal phase or the last half of your cycle, which can be determined by starting 10 days after the first day of your period and stopping the progesterone when your period starts. If you are a male or non-menstruating woman you can take the progesterone every day for four to six months and then cycle off for one week. The best time of day to take progesterone is 30 minutes before bed as it has an anti-cortisol function and will increase GABA levels for a good night's sleep. This is what I have personally doing for over a year with very good results. I am a physician so do not have any problems doing this. If you aren't a physician you should consult one before using this therapy, as transmucosal progesterone therapy requires a doctor's prescription. Additional Strategies to Decrease Your Estrogen Load Considering that estrogenic microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment, including in food and drinking water, taking steps to avoid them is important both for reproductive and overall health — and may help lower your estrogen burden. You can help reduce your exposure by becoming conscious of the plastic you’re using daily — and cut back where you can. Some steps are easy, like swapping plastic bags, bottles, straws, utensils and food containers for more durable, reusable options. You’ll also want to choose fresh foods as much as possible. Avoid fast foods and ultraprocessed foods, and choose those with minimal natural packaging or glass packaging instead. You should also filter your drinking water and be mindful of the materials you use in your home. Avoid flooring, shower curtains and furniture made with phthalates, and vacuum often to pick up household dust, which is often contaminated. Some additional commonsense strategies that can help you limit your exposure and lower your estrogen load include: Avoid synthetic estrogens — Minimize exposure to synthetic estrogens, such as those found in hormone replacement therapy and oral contraceptives. Consult with a qualified health care professional about alternative treatments and/or contraceptive methods with lower estrogen content. Avoid linoleic acid (LA) — Omega-6 PUFA like LA functions very similarly to estrogen as they both increase your risk for cancer and decrease metabolic function by suppressing your thyroid. Best to read my comprehensive LA article for more details. Choose natural products — Opt for natural and organic personal care products, including makeup, skin care, and hair care items, to reduce exposure to synthetic chemicals like parabens and phthalates, which have estrogenic properties. Limit pesticide exposure — Choose organic produce whenever possible to reduce exposure to pesticides, many of which have estrogenic effects. Washing fruits and vegetables thoroughly can also help remove pesticide residues. Rethink your household products — Many household cleaning products, laundry detergents and air fresheners contain chemicals with estrogenic properties. Swap them out for natural, nontoxic alternatives or make your own cleaning solutions using vinegar, baking soda and essential oils instead. Avoid plastic containers — Minimize the use of plastic containers and food packaging, which can leach estrogenic compounds into food and beverages. Instead, opt for glass or stainless steel containers for food storage and water bottles. Maintain a healthy weight — Aim for a healthy weight and body composition through a balanced diet and regular exercise. Excess body fat, particularly around the thighs, hips, and buttocks, can contribute to higher estrogen levels. Support liver health — Support liver function, as your liver plays a crucial role in metabolizing and eliminating excess estrogen from your body. Eat a nutrient-rich diet, limit alcohol consumption and consider incorporating liver-supporting herbs and supplements, such as milk thistle or dandelion root. Promote hormonal balance — Explore natural approaches to promote hormonal balance, such as consuming foods rich in cruciferous vegetables (such as broccoli, cauliflower and kale) and flaxseeds, which contain compounds that help support estrogen metabolism and detoxification. Reduce stress — Manage stress through relaxation techniques like meditation, deep breathing exercises, yoga or spending time in nature. Chronic stress can disrupt hormone balance, including estrogen levels, so prioritizing stress reduction is essential.

In this video I discuss plans in the very near future to introduce widespread mRNA shots for livestock animals, and the potential ramifications of this when it inevitably enters into the food supply.

https://expose-news.com/2024/07/14/global-overpopulation-is-an-ancient-myth/ The concept of overpopulation dates back to ancient times, with figures like Plato and Aristotle advocating for strict population control measures. In more recent centuries, Thomas Malthus proposed drastic measures to limit population size, and Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and his cousin Francis Galton’s eugenics ideas further fuelled the debate over population control.  However, it was the Malthusian idea that population growth must be curtailed that persisted.  The Malthusian view of overpopulation as a threat to humanity has been disproved by modern research and economic theory.  It’s time to move past the fear of overpopulation and embrace the potential of a growing global population as a force for positive change. Overpopulation: An Ancient Myth Refuted By Aiden Grogan as published by the American Institute of Economic Research Prince Philip once  said , “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.” The late Duke of Edinburgh passed away in 2021, but the hysterical sentiment he expressed about overpopulation lives on.   A  YouGov  poll  found that overpopulation concerns are widespread among adults across the planet, with nearly half of sampled Americans believing that the world’s population is too high. This view is shared by 76 per cent of Hungarians and 69 per cent of Indians, according to the poll.   Overpopulation and ecological disasters have been the themes of numerous blockbuster movies, including  ZPD  (1972),  Soylent Green  (1973),  Idiocracy  (2006), and  Elysium  (2013). Corporate news outlets have repeatedly promoted the apocalyptic idea to the public, with headlines such as ‘ Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them ’ ( NBC News ). The progressive magazine  Fast Company  released a  video  titled ‘ Why having kids is the worst thing you can do for the planet ’.   The theory of overpopulation, and the collectivist idea that human reproduction must be limited, even by force, is nothing new. It first appeared in the ancient Mesopotamian ‘ Atrahasis ‘  epic, where the gods control the human population by infertility, infanticide and appointing a priest class to limit childbirth.   Plato and Aristotle both endorsed a form of proto-eugenics and population control. In ‘ The Republic ‘, Socrates and Glaucon conclude that an owner controlling the breeding of his dogs and birds to prevent their degeneration should also apply to the human species. The guardians would be tasked with deciding who is allowed to reproduce and who should be prohibited from having offspring. In ‘ Politics ‘, Aristotle advocated for state-mandated abortions of children with deformities or in cases where couples are having too many children and contributing to overpopulation.   The decline of Greek civilisation in the second century BC was not a consequence of an excess number of births, but precisely the opposite. Polybius  attributed  the downfall of Greece in his time to a decay of population which emptied out the cities and resulted in a failure of productiveness. It was not warfare and pestilence which reduced the birth rate, but decadence. The idle men of Greece, according to Polybius, were more interested in money and pleasure than marriage and child-rearing.   Two millennia later, English economist Thomas Malthus resurrected the old Mesopotamian myth with his 1798 ‘ An Essay on the Principle of Population ‘. Malthus claimed that population growth increases geometrically while food production increases only arithmetically, which he believed would lead to widespread famine if the rapid propagation of humanity were not obstructed.   He identified two checks, one natural and one human-induced, which could keep population growth limited:  preventive checks , such as delayed marriage or sexual abstinence, that stabilise the birth rate and evade the natural calamities of  positive checks –  famines, pestilences, earthquakes, floods, etc. – which represent nature’s striking back against the pressures of unhindered population growth.  Malthus preferred the former, but if unsuccessful, supported appalling and brutal depopulation measures. He suggested policies to “make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.” He also recommended banning “specific remedies for ravaging diseases.”  In 1859, Charles Darwin’s ‘ On  the Origin of Species ‘  argued that species evolved gradually from a common ancestor. His follow-up ‘ The Descent of Man ‘ posited that humans descended from their ape-like past through a process of sexual selection that favoured the stronger, more intelligent genes. Darwin said that his evolutionary theory “is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”  Darwin’s cousin,  Francis Galton , used Darwin’s theory of evolution to develop eugenics – a pseudo-scientific theory that the human race could be improved through controlled breeding.    Subsidised by some of the largest philanthropic organisations in the United States, including the  Rockefeller Foundation  and the  Carnegie Institution , eugenics was embraced by many leaders of the American progressive movement, who favoured involuntary sterilisation and immigration restriction.   Margaret Sanger, the founder of the American Birth Control League – later to be renamed Planned Parenthood –  denigrated charity  and referred to the poor as “human waste.” She and her companions considered several  names  for their movement, such as “neo-Malthusianism,” “population control,” and “race control,” before finally settling on “birth control.”  The eugenicists’ fervent collectivism and disregard for America’s founding principles affirming the inherent dignity and rights of every individual were best expressed through Madison Grant’s  The Passing of the Great Race , in which he wrote:   Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilisation of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community. The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race. Eugenics laws were  implemented  across the United States beginning with Indiana in 1907. By the Second World War, around 60,000 Americans had undergone sterilisation.   In Britain, eugenics was enthusiastically championed by socialists such as John Maynard Keynes, George Bernard Shaw, and  HG Wells . Keynes  wrote  an outline for a book called ‘ Prolegomena to a New Socialism’ , in which he listed “eugenics, population” as “chief preoccupations of the state.”  Eugenics – at least under that official title – began to fade after the harsh realities of the Holocaust were unveiled, but the Malthusian presuppositions which undergirded their movement never vanished.   Stanford biologist Paul R. Ehrlich’s 1968 book ‘ The Population Bomb ’ re-invigorated the Malthusian craze for a new generation, predicting imminent worldwide famines and other catastrophes due to overpopulation. In the prologue, he wrote: “We can no longer afford merely to treat the symptom of the cancer of population growth; the cancer itself must be cut out. Population control is the only answer.”   That same year, a group of European scientists concerned about the future of the planet founded a non-governmental organisation called the  Club of Rome . Their first major publication, ‘ Limits to Growth’  (1972), attacked the pursuit of material gain and continuous economic expansion. Two of the Club of Rome’s most prominent members openly declared in their 1991 book ‘ The First Global Revolution ’   that humanity is the real enemy:   In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill…All these dangers are caused by  human  intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.  At the time of the publication of Ehrlich’s doomsday book   and the Club of Rome’s founding, the  world’s population  stood at 3.6 billion, and nearly half of people worldwide were  living in poverty . Over the next five decades, the global population more than doubled to 7.7 billion, yet fewer than 9 per cent of people remain in poverty today, and famines have  virtually disappeared .    Ehrlich’s hypothesis was rejected by economist Julian Simon in his 1981 book ‘ The Ultimate Resource ’, in which he argued that a rising number of “skilled, spirited and hopeful people” results in more ingenuity, less scarcity and lower costs in the long run. In other words, the larger the human population, the greater the collective brain power our species may wield to innovate, overcome problems and benefit everyone through increased abundance. The ultimate resource, according to Simon, is people.  Recent  research  from Gale L. Pooley and Marian L. Tupy has vindicated Simon’s optimistic view. For every one per cent increase in population, commodity prices tend to fall by around one per cent. In the years 1980-2017, the planet’s resources became 380 per cent more abundant.  These findings decimate the Malthusian outlook and render advocacy of population control not only ill-informed and inexcusable but frankly anti-human. The ecological cataclysms predicted by Ehrlich and the Club of Rome haven’t come true. Nature hasn’t struck back against a rapidly increasing population in any manner anticipated by Malthus.   As former US Department of Energy Undersecretary for Science Steven E. Koonin pointed out in his 2021 book ‘ Unsettled ’, UN and US government climate data show the following: humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century, Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago, and the net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.  Pooley and Tupy, however, caution that population growth alone is not enough to generate what they term “superabundance,” as they titled their recent  book . The innovation required to sustain an ever-increasing world population demands economic and personal freedom. Collectivism and central planning will only restrict the human ingenuity, ideas and enterprises that will pave the way toward a brighter, more prosperous future.  It is certainly time to lay to rest Malthusian theory and the overpopulation hysteria it has aroused. We must avoid the cynical outlook on humanity which regards us as net destroyers, a viral pathogen ravaging the earth, and instead opt for the more positive – and true – vision of human beings and human destiny. We are net creators.   About the Author Aidan Grogan is the donor communications manager at the American Institute for Economic Research. He earned a BS in journalism from Illinois State University and an MA in English from Liberty University. He is currently pursuing a PhD in history at Liberty.  Based in Chicago, Illinois, Aidan has been active in the liberty movement for several years, serving as chapter president of Young Americans for Liberty at Illinois State from 2019-2020. Prior to joining AIER, he was the development writer at the Illinois Policy Institute.

https://expose-news.com/2024/07/14/clean-water-saved-the-world-not-vaccination/ Vaccination didn’t save the world from diseases.  The real heroes, the technology that changed the course of history and public health, are: clean water, sewage treatment for municipalities and electricity to support refrigeration. Clean Water Saved the World Not Vaccination By Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Just prior to the turn of the century, sporadic attempts were made to improve sanitation. Cities began to pave roads, institute garbage collection, and construct garbage dumps. The early water treatment plants had systems that were inadequately designed and often became clogged with human excrement and animal debris from the street. It’s difficult to imagine the state of filth that Americans had become accustomed to living in the early 1900s. The 1912 annual report from the New York City Health Department included, “… the removal of 20,000 dead horses, mules, donkeys and cattle from the streets in addition to nearly half a million smaller animals such as pigs, hogs, calves, and sheep, which amounted to disposal of more than  5 million pounds  of spoiled poultry, fish, pork and beef which eventually ended up in the municipal water supplies.” It’s no wonder that the report also highlighted the sheer volume of complaints – over 343,000 in total – about the foul smell due to poor ventilation and unlicenced manure dumps.  (source: pg. 11). In 1872, the introduction of water filtration in the US was a significant step towards improving public health. Initially aimed at addressing discolouration and removing bad taste and foul odour, filtration soon proved to be a game-changer. It not only eliminated turbidity, foul colour and nearly 99% of the swarming bacteria but also set a new standard for the “quality” of treated water. However, when outbreaks continued to occur, chemists experimented with several disinfecting methods, including boiling, ultraviolet rays, ozone, copper, silver and chlorine. However, cost considerations and ease of use produced a clear winner:  chlorine. First used in the paper and textile industries,  calcium hypochlorite , a stable, white solid that contains 65% available chlorine and dissolves easily in water, was cheap, readily available and easy to use on a large scale. It was already being used to clean the water in the Chicago Stockyards. Jersey City, New Jersey, was the first urban city to use chlorine to clean up its water. In 1899, the city contracted to build a dam, a reservoir and a pipeline to deliver water to the city from the Rockaway River, 23 miles away. When it was completed, city officials were not pleased with the outcome. At certain times of the year, sewage water polluted the reservoir and the city water. A lawsuit was filed on the grounds that the water was not “pure and wholesome” as was required by the contract. The construction company was forced to remove the sources of contamination and build a new watershed area. Once completed, the City filed another lawsuit, baulking at the steep price tag, equivalent to more than $175 million in today’s dollars. Bacteriological techniques had advanced in the time it took to construct the new dam. Engineer George Warren Fuller was retained to build a chlorine feed system to deliver millions of gallons of decontaminated water per day to the city. From the first day of implementation, it has continued to feed various forms of chlorine into the water supply. 26 September 2016, marked the 108th year of continuous use of chlorine in the water supply. Following the successful implementation of chlorination in Jersey City, many other cities quickly adopted this method with impressive results.  In 1900, waterborne diseases accounted for nearly one-fourth of all reported deaths in major cities. By 1936, with the widespread introduction of clean water technologies to municipal water, overall mortality was reduced from infectious causes by about 43%.  In 1941, it was estimated that 85% of US drinking water was chlorinated. Clean water technologies, sand filtration combined with chlorination, reduced typhoid fever mortality by more than 90% by 1956. The cornerstone of this revelation and review comes from a paper by Cutler and Miller from Harvard University,  published in 2004 : “Our results also suggest that clean water was responsible for a 74% decline in infant mortality and nearly 62% decline in child mortality. The magnitude of these effects is striking.  Clean water also appears to have led to the near eradication of typhoid fever [and other] scourges such as pneumonia, tuberculosis, meningitis, diphtheria, and croup.   Clean water technologies are likely the most important public health intervention of the 20th Century . ” The massive number of immigrants who came to the US in the late 1800s brought with them pathogens associated with poor hygiene. Four vaccines – against typhoid fever, cholera, rabies, and plague – had been developed late in the 1800s, but none were widely used, nor were they very effective. Few treatments existed for infection. Penicillin, the first antibiotic, was not discovered until 1929 and not put into widespread use until the early 1940s. The only routinely given vaccination was smallpox. By 1868, more than 95% of Chicago’s inhabitants had been inoculated with the smallpox vaccine.  After the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, vaccination was required to receive relief supplies. Despite a near-100% vaccination rate, the city was hit with a devastating smallpox epidemic in 1872. More than 2,000 persons contracted smallpox and more than 25% of those infected died. The fatality among children under five was the highest ever recorded. Vaccinating the entire city did not create herd immunity, and it did not protect the population from contracting smallpox. Despite these – and many other failures – vaccination is continually promoted as one of the “greatest medical achievements of modern civilisation.” The  real heroes , the technology that changed the course of history and public health, are rarely mentioned:  clean water, sewage treatment for municipalities and electricity to support refrigeration . In the 21st century, more than half of the world’s population, more than 3 billion people, live in small cities or rural towns. Most of the poor have no access to clean drinking water or reliable sanitation. In fact, the majority of people worldwide still practice open defecation. Coupled with inadequate nutrition and no refrigeration to protect food from flies, maggots and other pathogens, health issues and infections continue to be a major problem and primary cause of death in Third World nations. As far back as 2005, the World Bank, in conjunction with the World Sanitation Program ( WSP.org ), found a 47% reduction in diarrhoea and death by dehydration among children in remote villages. Rotary International, the WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, WEF, and the Gates Foundation have poured tens of billions  of dollars into vaccinating malnourished children who lack sanitation, water, refrigeration and education. Instead of pushing money into polio, measles and rotavirus vaccines, think of the global problems that would have been solved if those same dollars had been allocated to the most important health intervention in the world’s history:  clean water .  Notes: Information on chlorine in the water supply was taken from several sources: Documentary  History of American Water-works “The Chlorine Revolution: Water Disinfection and the Fight to Save Lives.” Michael J. McGuire. American Water Works Association. 2014. Summary Report: Drinking Water and Health. National Academy of Sciences. 1977. pg. 68-72. “The Role of Public Health Improvements in Health Advances: The 20th Century United States,” by David Cutler and Grant Miller. Harvard University. February, 2004. PMID:  15782893,  DOI:  10.1353/dem.2005.0002 “Medicine in Chicago 1850–1950: A Chapter in the Social and Scientific Development of a City, American History Research Center,” Thomas Neville Bonner. Madison, Wisconsin, 1957, p. 182. About the Author Dr. Sherri Tenpenny , of several businesses, including the nationally recognised Tenpenny Integrative Medical Centre and the Tenpenny Health Restoration Centre . She is trained in Emergency Medicine, Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine and Integrative Medicine. Dr. Tenpenny has been a guest on hundreds of radio and national television programmes. She has written several books and has contributed chapters to several more. Her magazine articles have been published in at least 14 languages. She publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘ Dr. Tenpenny’s Eye on the Evidence ’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE .

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/07/13/ozempic-obesity-drug.aspx It's not approved for use in any European country, yet doctors dole it out like candy in the US. Poised to become the most successful drug in history - despite a myriad of disastrous side effects - it's being peddled to 80% of the American public. Here's why you should avoid it like the plague. Big Pharma Is Fooling You Again, and You Don't Even Know It STORY AT-A-GLANCE America faces a severe health crisis, with 80% of adults overweight or obese and over 50% pre-diabetic. This epidemic of metabolic dysfunction has occurred in just one generation Mitochondrial dysfunction plays a crucial role in chronic diseases. When these cellular powerhouses falter, it triggers a cascade of health problems throughout the body The pharmaceutical industry heavily influences medical education, research, and media coverage. Conflicts of interest are rampant, with drug companies funding studies and paying doctors directly Current healthcare systems profit from keeping people sick. Treating symptoms separately with multiple medications, rather than addressing root causes, perpetuates chronic conditions and dependency on drugs Solutions involve addressing root causes of metabolic dysfunction through lifestyle changes, reforming agricultural subsidies, stricter conflict of interest rules, and reshaping medical education to emphasize nutrition and preventive care ____________________________________________________________________________________________ A survey 1 recently conducted by KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), a reputable health policy research organization, found that approximately 12% (or 1 in 8) of U.S. adults have used a GLP-1 drug like Ozempic, Wegovy, or similar medications at some point in their lives. About 6% of adults (more than 15 million individuals) are currently prescribed these medications. Most adults (61%) who have used these drugs did so to manage chronic conditions like diabetes or heart disease. 38% of users reported taking these drugs specifically for weight loss. Usage varies by age group, with adults aged 50-64 being the most likely to have tried these medications. These startling statistics are expanded upon in this interview with Tucker Carlson and Calley Means, the brother of Standford trained physician Casey Means whom I recently interviewed . Prepare yourself for a journey that will challenge everything you thought you knew about America's health crisis. The conversation opens with a stark reality check: the United States is facing an unprecedented decline in health, with implications that reach far beyond individual well-being to threaten the very fabric of society. The interview paints a grim picture of the current state of American health. A staggering 42.4% of American adults are now obese and another 30.7% are overweight. 2 That means 73.1% of adults are either overweight or obese. But this isn't just about carrying a few extra pounds — it's a visible symptom of a much deeper, more insidious problem plaguing your nation: widespread metabolic dysfunction. As you delve deeper into the conversation, you'll discover that this epidemic of poor health has happened with alarming speed. In just one generation, the percentage of overweight or obese Americans has skyrocketed. Even more shocking, approximately 48% of American adults now have pre-diabetes (estimated 52% of men and 44% of women) when using a fasting blood sugar of 100 mg/dL or higher as the threshold. 3 This more stringent criterion provides a more accurate picture of the metabolic health crisis facing the nation. The crisis isn't limited to adults either; an estimated 24% of adolescents aged 12 to 18 are pre-diabetic. 4 Thirty percent of American adults 5 and 18.5% of adolescents and young adults 6 (ages 12 to 24) also have fatty liver disease, a condition once seen only in elderly alcoholics. The economic impact of this health crisis is staggering. Healthcare costs are spiraling out of control, with billions spent annually on treating preventable conditions. On an individual level, the cost of managing chronic health conditions can run into thousands of dollars per year. And these costs have only increased with the introduction of newer medications. How Dysfunctional Powerhouses Drive America's Health Epidemic But here's where things get interesting and concerning. A key player in this health drama that you might not have considered before, your mitochondria. These tiny powerhouses within your cells are responsible for producing adenosine 5′-triphosphate (ATP), the energy currency that powers almost all cellular processes. When these mitochondria malfunction, it sets off a cascade of problems throughout your body. Chronic health conditions put enormous stress on your cells. Initially, your mitochondria try to keep up by increasing ATP production. But over time, this production starts to falter, signaling mitochondrial dysfunction. The consequences of this energy deficit are far-reaching. With less ATP available, all energy-dependent processes in your cells begin to suffer. The delicate balance of ions inside and outside your cells is disrupted, enzymatic reactions slow down, and your body's basic functions are compromised. Your cells, desperate for energy, begin to rely more heavily on glycolysis, a less efficient form of energy production that occurs in the cell's cytoplasm rather than in the mitochondria. This shift towards glycolysis and increased lactate production is reminiscent of the Warburg effect seen in rapidly growing tumors. It's a sign that your cells are under severe metabolic stress. As if this weren't concerning enough, dysfunctional mitochondria become a major source of reactive oxygen species (ROS). These highly reactive molecules wreak havoc in your cells, oxidizing critical proteins and damaging cellular structures. This oxidative stress has wide-ranging effects, altering gene transcription, damaging DNA, and triggering local inflammation. But the damage doesn't stop at the cellular level. Mitochondrial dysfunction triggers the release of inflammatory cytokines, activates fibroblasts, and promotes tissue remodeling throughout your body. This structural remodeling further enhances the likelihood of chronic diseases developing and persisting. You might be wondering how this ties into the broader health crisis facing America. The interview draws clear connections between mitochondrial dysfunction and a host of health issues plaguing the nation, from obesity and diabetes to heart disease and even mental health disorders by pointing fingers at the systems and institutions that have allowed this health crisis to develop. The corruption in the food industry and government agencies has heavily contributed to this problem. For instance, did you know that more money from agriculture subsidies in America today goes to cigarettes than to vegetables? Or that 90% of subsidies go to highly processed food? The U.S. government, through the food stamp program, is essentially paying people to drink soda. More than $10 billion per year go from the federal treasury to soda companies through this program. Even more shockingly, you'll learn that until recently, civil rights groups were paid to argue that removing soda from food stamp eligibility was racist. How Drug Companies Exploit Obesity and Fuel America's Health Crisis But perhaps the most disturbing revelation is about the pharmaceutical industry's role in this health crisis. Drug companies are profiting from the very conditions they claim to treat. The push for drugs like Ozempic, which is being touted as a miracle cure for obesity is a classic example as it is being promoted for obesity but rather than cure obesity it forces you to manage it for life, at a cost of $20,000 per patient per year. The math is staggering. With 73.1% of American adults overweight or obese, the potential market for this drug is enormous. Wall Street is already anticipating massive profits, with food stocks going down and pharma stocks going up. The interview suggests that this drug is on track to become the most successful in American history, potentially funneling trillions of dollars from government funding into pharmaceutical companies. But it's not just about the money. There are very serious and dangerous side effects of drugs like Ozempic, including gastrointestinal issues, stomach paralysis, and even increased risk of depression and suicide, and 30% of people stop taking the drug within three months, even when it's fully paid for by insurance. This is a deeply entrenched problem in the American healthcare system. There are massive conflicts of interest that permeate medical research, with pharmaceutical companies funding the very studies that are supposed to evaluate their products. The interview reveals that the largest spender on TV news ads is the pharmaceutical industry, and that drug companies are among the largest funders of foundational obesity research. Even more disturbing, drug makers spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year in direct cash payments to doctors. These "consulting fees" create a clear conflict of interest, as these same doctors are the ones prescribing the medications. The GLP-1 Paradox Ozempic does indeed provide a hormone that your body desperately needs, GLP-1 is a hormone that is primarily produced by specialized cells in your colon called enteroendocrine L cells. These cells are scattered throughout your intestines, but they're most concentrated in your colon. But unlike Ozempic that gives you continuous GLP-1, these L cells produce GLP-1 7 in response to the nutrients you eat, especially carbohydrates and fats. GLP-1 plays a crucial role in regulating your blood sugar. It stimulates insulin secretion, inhibits glucagon release, and slows down how quickly your stomach empties. 8 , 9 The effects of these gut hormones on your appetite and food intake are profound. GLP-1, whether naturally released or administered as a medication, has been consistently shown to reduce food intake in both animals and humans. This is why GLP-1 receptor agonists are now used as treatments for obesity and Type 2 diabetes. The effects of GIP on appetite are less clear and somewhat controversial, with some studies suggesting it might increase food intake. However, recent research has shown promise in combining GLP-1 and GIP agonists for even greater weight loss and metabolic benefits. 10 The mechanisms by which these hormones influence your eating behavior are complex. They involve both direct effects on your digestive system — slowing down stomach emptying and intestinal movement — and interactions with your nervous system. GLP-1, for example, can activate nerve endings in your intestine that send signals to your brain, influencing areas involved in appetite control and food reward. It can also act directly on your brain after crossing the blood-brain barrier. This intricate system of nutrient sensing and hormone release in your gut plays a crucial role in regulating your appetite, metabolism, and overall health, underscoring the truth in the old saying that you are what you eat. Ozempic is mimicking a natural process in your body, but at what cost? They're not addressing the root cause of why your L cells might not be producing enough GLP-1 in the first place. Instead, they're creating a dependency on an external source of this hormone. And let's not forget the price tag — $20,000 per year for something your body should be producing naturally if given the right conditions. It's another example of how the pharmaceutical industry is profiting from our metabolic dysfunction rather than helping us address the underlying issues. What you should be asking is: why aren't your L cells functioning properly? What in your diet and lifestyle is disrupting this natural process? But of course, there's no profit in teaching you how to eat and live in a way that supports your natural GLP-1 production. It's much more lucrative to sell you a synthetic version for the rest of your life. This is just another piece of the puzzle in understanding how deeply flawed our approach to health has become. We're not treating the cause; we're managing symptoms at an exorbitant cost, both financially and in terms of our long-term health. How Drug Companies Shape Medical Education, News and Public Policy Then there is the pharmaceutical industry's influence on medical education and practice. Most of the continuing medical education is funded by drug companies, creating a bias in the information doctors receive. Calley Means reveals that when he worked in the pharmaceutical industry, it was an open secret that the primary purpose of drug ads on TV wasn't to convince consumers to ask for specific medications, but to subvert the news business itself. This revelation might leave you reeling. The idea that pharmaceutical companies are buying airtime not just to advertise their products, but to influence the very content of the news you watch, is deeply disturbing. It explains why you rarely see investigative reporting on issues related to drug safety or effectiveness. But the influence doesn't stop there. Pharmaceutical companies have infiltrated medical research at every level. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), which you might have thought was an independent government agency, is deeply entangled with the pharmaceutical industry. Most NIH grants go to research that has conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical drugs. This system of conflicted research extends to universities as well. Food industry spending on foundational nutrition research is 11 times greater than that of the NIH. This means that much of what you think you know about nutrition is likely influenced by companies that profit from selling processed foods. Then there is the revolving door between government regulatory agencies and the industries they're supposed to oversee. You'll learn how officials from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies often leave their government positions to take high-paying jobs in the pharmaceutical industry, and vice versa. This creates a system where regulators are incentivized to make decisions that benefit their future employers rather than public health. There is also a connection between the pharmaceutical industry’s influence on civil rights organizations. Some of the largest civil rights groups in the country, including the NAACP, have received funding from pharmaceutical companies and have subsequently lobbied for policies that benefit these companies. For example, the NAACP has argued that not supporting government funding for obesity drugs like Ozempic is a form of systemic racism. This revelation might leave you feeling betrayed. The idea that organizations you've trusted to fight for social justice are being used as mouthpieces for pharmaceutical companies is deeply unsettling. It's a stark reminder of how pervasive the influence of these companies has become. Then the conversation shifts to the state of mental health in America, and the picture it paints is grim; 17.7% of women in the United States are on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), 11 medications used to treat depression and anxiety. Even more alarmingly, SSRI prescription rates are skyrocketing among teens, with many high schools treating these powerful drugs as a first-line defense against mental health issues. How America's Healthcare System Profits From Illness and Overmedication But the problems don't stop there, about 20% of high school seniors are on drugs like Adderall, 12 which he describes as "essentially methamphetamines." You'll learn that these drugs were originally developed by Nazi Germany as a tool to make soldiers more aggressive, and now they're being widely prescribed to American children. Then we have the number one cause of death, heart disease and the widespread use of statin drugs. Nearly 50% of American men over 40 are on statins, medications designed to lower cholesterol. This approach is fundamentally flawed. Heart disease isn't a statin deficiency, and prescribing these drugs creates a moral hazard by giving people the false impression that they can eat whatever they want if they take their medication. Next up is diabetes or metabolic dysfunction, which is the root cause of many other health problems. You'll learn that almost 100% of people with Alzheimer's have pre-diabetes or diabetes, leading some researchers to call Alzheimer's "Type 3 diabetes." The cost of managing diabetes in the United States is staggering — more than the entire defense budget. But perhaps the most chilling revelation is yet to come. The current healthcare system is designed to profit from keeping people sick. Hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance providers all make more money when people are sick for longer periods of time. This perverse incentive structure, he argues, is at the heart of America's health crisis. To illustrate this point, Calley shares a personal story about his mother. At age 71, she was told by her doctor that she was healthy, despite being on seven lifetime medications. These included statins for high cholesterol, metformin for high blood sugar, and medications for high blood pressure. He argues that this approach of treating each symptom as a separate condition, rather than addressing the underlying metabolic dysfunction, is fundamentally flawed and serves only to keep people dependent on medications. Calley argues for a radical rethinking of how we approach health in America. He suggests that instead of relying on medications to manage symptoms, we should focus on addressing the root causes of metabolic dysfunction. This approach, he believes could dramatically improve health outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. He points out that many chronic conditions, including obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, can be reversed through lifestyle changes, particularly improvements in diet and exercise. Tackling Systemic Issues and Empowering Change However, implementing these changes on a societal level would require overcoming significant obstacles. Calley outlines several policy changes that could make a difference: Banning pharmaceutical advertising on television news. This would reduce the industry's influence over media coverage of health issues. Changing food stamp policies to restrict the purchase of sugary drinks and processed foods. This could help reduce the government's indirect subsidization of unhealthy eating habits. Redirecting agricultural subsidies away from processed foods and towards healthier options like vegetables and fruits. Implementing stricter conflict of interest rules for medical researchers and doctors. This could help ensure that medical advice and research are not unduly influenced by pharmaceutical company interests. Reforming medical education to place a greater emphasis on nutrition and lifestyle interventions rather than just pharmacological treatments. But there is a solution if you think critically about the health advice you receive and the systems that produce it. Calley urges you to consider your own health from a broader perspective, understanding that many of the chronic conditions plaguing modern society are interconnected and often stem from the same root causes. He acknowledges that these changes would face significant opposition from powerful industries. However, he argues that the stakes are too high to maintain the status quo. The current trajectory of American health, he warns, is unsustainable and threatens not just individual well-being but the economic and social fabric of the nation. While the systems influencing health in America are complex and often opaque, individual choices still matter. The interview has armed you with knowledge about the true state of health in America and the forces shaping it. Now, it's up to you to use this information to make more informed decisions about your own health and to advocate for broader societal changes. My New Book Cellular Health, Has the Answers for You In the face of the alarming revelations about mitochondrial dysfunction and its far-reaching effects on your health, it's clear that a new approach is needed. This is where my new book, “Cellular Health: The Unified Theory of Health for Ultimate Longevity and Joy” becomes your perfect antidote. This comprehensive guide will provide you with all the specific steps you need to climb out of this metabolic mess and reclaim your health and vitality. I am excited that you will soon be able to read through “Cellular Health” and be able to dive deep into the core issues of mitochondrial dysfunction. My book explains in accessible terms how these cellular powerhouses work and what happens when they fail. You’ll gain a clear understanding of the role mitochondria play in energy production and how their impairment sets off a chain reaction of health problems. One of the key elements of the book is its detailed nutritional strategies designed to support mitochondrial health. You will learn about the foods and supplements that can enhance mitochondrial function, reduce oxidative stress, and restore cellular energy balance. These dietary guidelines are backed by the latest research and provide practical, easy-to-follow advice tailored for your needs. Beyond nutrition, “Cellular Health” offers a comprehensive approach to lifestyle modifications that promote cellular health. You will discover tailored exercise regimens that stimulate mitochondrial biogenesis and improve metabolic flexibility. The book also provides techniques to enhance your sleep quality, ensuring that your mitochondria get the rest they need to function optimally. Additionally, you will find methods to reduce chronic stress, a major contributor to mitochondrial damage. The book also provides effective detoxification protocols to help you eliminate environmental toxins that impair mitochondrial function. These protocols are designed to be safe and gradual, supporting your body's natural detox pathways. By following these protocols, you can help your body to better cope with the toxins it encounters daily. “Cellular Health” compiles cutting-edge research on how to combat the effects of environmental toxins, poor diet, and sedentary lifestyle choices. As you read, you will find actionable steps and evidence-based recommendations that can make a real difference in your health journey. The goal is not just to inform but to empower you. “Cellular Health” equips you with the knowledge and tools you need to truly take control of your health. By understanding the underlying mechanisms of disease and health, you can make informed decisions and take proactive steps toward a healthier, more vibrant life. Ultimately, “Cellular Health” is about more than just overcoming the mitochondrial crisis. It’s about achieving ultimate longevity and joy by nurturing your body at the cellular level. The unified theory presented in the book integrates all aspects of health into a cohesive plan that is both practical and transformative. By helping you understand how to listen to your body so you can follow your unique guidance you can begin to reverse the damage, restore your mitochondrial function, and pave the way for a healthier, longer, and more joyful life. This book is your comprehensive roadmap to overcoming the current health crisis and achieving optimal well-being. It should be out later this summer, as the final draft is currently with the editors.