This week we talk about the Ebola vaccine that the FDA has just approved which has all the signs of, like the polio vaccine before it, causing more Ebola cases than it prevents. We also discuss the outbreak of whooping cough in a Texas school that had a 100% vaccination rate. Can we say vaccine failure?
Then we move on to the latest research that found women who take oral contraceptives have a smaller hypothalamus than women who don't and finish off with a discussion on a study that found millennials are getting sicker earlier than previous generations.
Join us for the Objective:Health take on the state of health as we move into 2020.
And check us out on Brighteon!
For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:
♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth
And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here.
Running Time: 00:57:28
Download: MP3 — 52.1 MB
Here's the transcript of the show:
Elliot: Hello everybody and welcome to this week's edition of Objective: Health. First of all I want to wish everyone a Happy New Year. It's going to be an interesting one. So happy 2020. A new decade. We'll see what we've got in store for these next 10 years. It's likely going to be interesting.
I'd like to introduce my co-hosts today, Erica, Doug and Tiff.
[Hellos]
My name is Elliot and in today's show we're going to be going through some of the weird and crazy things that have been happening over the past month or so. This week's show is just a roundup of many of the news items that have caught our attention and that we feel would be useful to discuss. So we're going to be talking about several different things. We're going to be looking at vaccines and a new vaccine which has just come out. We're going to be looking at some of the abhorrent behaviours of the FDA as well as ADHD, whether that's a real thing, whether that's been overblown and a couple of other things today.
So to start things off, should we talk about the new Ebola vaccine that's come out?
Doug: Yeah, I think that's a good place to start.
Elliot: It's been approved. So Christmas eve a new article came out titled, The FDA Approves Merck's New Live Ebola Vaccine Which Says That It Can Shed and Cause Immunosuppression. So essentially, Merck, a big pharmaceutical company, has come out with a new vaccine which is said to protect against the deadly Ebola virus. Now some of you may remember Ebola. There was a massive scare about it a couple of years ago now. It's definitely not something that you'd want to catch, for sure. It can be fatal. But whether this vaccine is going to be of any use or not is a good question.
On December 20, 2019 it was Merck that announced it received FDA approval for the new Ebola vaccine and the Ebola vaccine contains a live form of the virus, the Zaire Ebola virus. So what do we think?
Tiffany: It's going to be a disaster!
Doug: Yeah, I think it will, just the fact that they've admitted that it sheds. Apparently it says right in the package insert, "Transmission of vaccine virus is a theoretical possibility. Vaccine virus RNA has been detected in blood, saliva or urine for up to 14 days after vaccination. The duration of shedding is not known, however samples taken at 28 days after vaccination tested negative. Vaccine virus RNA has been detected in food from skin vesicles that appeared after vaccination."
So in other words, you get the vaccination and then you are contagious with Ebola for at least 14 days.
Tiffany: Yeah, not just in your blood, saliva and urine, but apparently there's a chance that you're going to get some skin vesicles too after you get vaccinated. That sounds fantastic! {laughter}
Doug: Yeah man. Honestly, it's crazy.
Tiffany: This vaccine I think has been used in trials since 2015 in Africa, possibly the DRC, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. So they've been testing this since 2015. I guess the biggest one that got all the news - I think that was back in 2014 - where they had some foreign people who were in Africa and they brought them to the US and treated them at hospitals near the CDC in Atlanta. So there was a whole big hubbub about that with all the news stories that came out, but apparently this vaccine has been in trials since around that time, or a little after. There have been smaller outbreaks that didn't receive very much news coverage, but I don't think it has ever been eradicated.
Elliot: One of the scariest things about this vaccine is that apparently in the clinical studies when they were measuring the white blood cell count, in the subjects who had had the vaccine, one of the adverse effects was that they found that the lymphocytes count in the blood, which are a certain type of immune cell, had decreased in 85% of subjects. Another type of immune cell called the neutrophil was lower in 43% of subjects.
So the author of the article which is reporting on this said, "Considering the fact that Ebola virus infection causes the death of lymphocytes and neutrophils, the vaccine appears to induce the very same type of immunosuppressive effects that are associated with morbidity and mortality from the disease it's attempting to prevent." So essentially this idea that perhaps if someone becomes an active carrier of the live virus, let's say, one of the ways that the virus is affecting the human body and potentially killing someone is by destroying the count of white blood cells including lymphocytes and neutrophils. So they're saying that this is having a very similar effect to if you were to get the virus itself!
Doug: Yeah. It's insane. The other negative thing about it is that apparently once someone has had the vaccine, it becomes very difficult to tell in testing, whether they have the wild type of Ebola infection or a vaccine strain Ebola infection. It's just going to screw up the numbers. They're not going to have a clear picture of what's really going on with the disease because everybody's who's had the vaccine looks the same as everybody who has the actual disease.
You know, the whole thing with this reminds me of our last show before the break for the holidays where we talked about that New York Times article that was talking about polio and that now more polio cases are caused by the vaccine than by the wild virus. Interestingly, because this story reminded me of that, I went back to the New York Times to look at that article and it appears to be scrubbed. I could not find it on the New York Times site. I tried searching the title, searching for keywords, all those sorts of things. The original link is dead. Fortunately you can still find it up on SOTT because we archive things there. But I thought that that was very interesting, that the New York Times publishes something about more polio cases being caused by the vaccine than by the wild virus and that just disappears.
Tiffany: Well speaking of polio vaccines, I think that they were contaminated with a simian virus that's been linked to cancer and this same cell line is being used in this current new Ebola vaccine.
Doug: Oh my god!
Tiffany: So it's going to be a disaster in a couple of different ways. Say if you caught wild Ebola for some reason - again, I think they're downplaying the fact that in a lot of these areas where Ebola is breaking out, they're very poor, poor nutrition, poor sanitation. So that always plays a big part in any kind of disease outbreak. But say you were to catch the wild Ebola virus, you have maybe a 50% chance of dying from that. I think the death rate is 40-50% if you were to catch the wild virus. But if you were to take the vaccine, not only could you still get the virus, you could probably have a worse course of the illness. People who have been vaccinated against chickenpox as a child and maybe in their 20s might catch chickenpox even though they're vaccinated, it's much, much worse than if they would have gotten it when they were younger.
So you can apply that to Ebola perhaps. Then you can spread it to other people which would cause a spread of Ebola. And then, if you have managed to survive all of that, you have the chance of coming down with some kind of autoimmune or cancer-type disease later in life.
Elliot: Yeah.
Erica: Maybe that's the intention.
Tiffany: Well of course. I think I read in another article that they have maybe 200,000 doses at the ready for use and they're going to start vaccinating the people who had contact with people who came down with Ebola, the healthcare workers, their relatives, and they'll just go in a ring formation and vaccinate people. But I think it's going to cause the spread of the virus. I don't know if this is something that they're gearing up for but it always seems to be, like with polio again, the wild type virus, once sanitation and clean water were implemented, the polio cases went down and then the vaccine was introduced and the polio cases went back up. So it wouldn't be a shock if we saw something like that with Ebola. I'm expecting it actually.
Doug: It wouldn't surprise me at all either.
Erica: Another concerning thing and again, this is another one of those FDA fast-tracked approvals, ten years ago only 10% of drugs were approved in such a speedy way but now over 60% of new drugs are fast-tracked. We mentioned this, like you were saying Doug, in the previous vaccine show about Gardasil, Gardasil was another fast track FDA-approved vaccine. So they haven't taken the time to study all the side effects. It's just, "Let's just get this to market and then we'll use humans as guinea pigs to see what happens."
Tiffany: Mm-hm. Well they'll study the side effects for a couple of weeks or so, just a short time after they start doing the trials on the vaccines or any kind of drugs, but they don't go back years later and do a test or any kind of study comparing people who are vaccinated to unvaccinated people or people who came down with the Ebola wild type versus people who were vaccinated. None of that is going to be done, that's for sure.
Erica: And this is becoming the new normal, to just push these things to market and see what happens.
Tiffany: Well I could see why they would do it in the case of a pandemic or an epidemic. If you believe in the whole science behind vaccination, then yes, it would kind of make sense that they would want to fast track something that's killing a lot of people.
Doug: But they exploit that, I think.
Tiffany: Yeah.
Doug: Especially when you've got something like Ebola which is so scary because it's this thing where if you catch it you start bleeding out of every orifice and through the skin. It's a horrible, horrible sounding thing. So I think they really exploit the fact that this disease is spreading in certain countries and that there have been certain contained instances in the west. They exploit that and ramp up the fear and then push through this vaccine that, given what's mentioned in this article, it seems far from ready, quite frankly. It doesn't seem like this is actually ready to be out there and be used.
But they push it through based on fear. I really hope that it's not going to be some horrific disaster where suddenly the disease just explodes.
Elliot: Yeah. Oftentimes with these vaccines there's not enough groundwork done, there's not enough background checks, there are no long-term studies which are performed and the ones that are performed are usually shams. So if the past is anything to go by, these big companies do all that they can to push something through, to push these vaccines and new drugs through as fast as possible. It's not even like pharmaceutical drugs where you have to have multiple rounds of testing. A lot of the time with the vaccines they just fast track it and the human body has a lot more defense against an oral medication than it does a vaccine.
Tiffany: Well I think part of the reason that they fast track vaccines is because the people at the top of the pharmaceutical industry know vaccines are bullshit. {laughter} They know that no matter how much testing they do, all the results are going to be unfavourable if you really look at the data that they come up with in their studies. So what's the point of taking it slow? They're all crap and they're all going to cause damage. They want to make as much money as they can in as short an amount of time as they can.
Doug: Yeah, it's true. They just get it out there as quickly as possible, make as much money as possible, make as much money off of it as they can and then when disaster strikes, they pay their pittance when they're sued, which is already worked into their costs, probably...
Tiffany: Yeah.
Doug: ...and then, go for the next epidemic. What's the next one?
Tiffany: Yeah.
Elliot: Talking about vaccines, kind of on the topic of what we've just been talking about, there was an event that occurred at a Texas school not long ago, involving a different vaccine. This one was for whooping cough. The actual disease is called pertussis, if that's how you pronounce it, and this was very interesting actually. It's quite funny to watch because what they found was that you had an outbreak of whooping cough. You had a bunch of children who came down with this illness and yet, interestingly, when you look at the statement made by the school which was sent to the parents, it confirms that every single one of the students at the school were 100% vaccinated. {laughter}
So they had received the vaccine against the disease and they still got the disease. That's a problem right? That kind of highlights maybe the vaccine doesn't work as well as they say it does.
Tiffany: And maybe herd immunity is a bunch of crap! {laughter}
Doug: It really makes you think, is the vaccine actually doing anything? Anything at all? You vaccinate 100% of the students against whooping cough and then there's a whooping cough outbreak?! How does that happen exactly if the vaccines are as effective as we're always told they are through the media?
Elliot: Well interestingly enough, it says here that studies show that by five years after the completion of the series of these vaccines, some children were up to 15 times more likely to acquire pertussis (being whooping cough) compared to the first year after the series. So basically after five years, whether the vaccine does work or not, after five years, the efficacy goes down greatly. So the entire notion that a vaccine provides long-term immunity doesn't seem to be supported in this case. It's kind of ironic because when you read the nonsense that they spout about herd immunity and about the potential dangers, the troubles that the parents have to go through because they're bombarded with this idea that unvaccinated children pose a real, genuine threat to the vaccinated community because the unvaccinated child can harbour this disease. But what this is showing is that that whole idea is a bunch of nonsense. It doesn't matter if you're vaccinated or not.
Doug: I was just wondering because, like you were just saying, the studies show that five years after completion, children were up to 15 times more likely to acquire pertussis compared to the first year after the series. I would be interested to see them compare - which you never see in studies by the way - compare unvaccinated children to the vaccinated ones and see what the actual comparison would be on that front. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it turned out that unvaccinated children were actually more protected against the wild virus than the vaccinated ones.
Elliot: I don't think there's ever been a study like that. There may have been one a year or two ago...
Doug: Out of Japan maybe? I seem to remember it being out of Japan.
Elliot: Yeah. There was one last year. I'm pretty sure Dr. Stephanie Seneff was talking about it. She was saying there was one study because I don't think it's ever been done in the US. We know why. I'm pretty sure it was showing that kids who didn't receive vaccines not only were less likely to develop the actual illness that they were vaccinated against, but also they had much better health outcomes in terms of allergies, chronic immune function and many different outcomes. I'm pretty sure that they fared well on most of them when compared to the vaccinated children. And I'm also pretty sure that the rates of autism and other neuropsychiatric issues were lower. But don't quote me on that. I just vaguely remember reading that study. So yeah, not looking good.
Tiffany: Well considering that this pretty much shows that 100% vaccination in a school population offers no protection against a disease, I don't think that this is really going to stop the true believers in vaccination. I think when we see this, 100% is high but with a lot of their measles outbreaks and that, the vast majority of the kids in the school were vaccinated. But the true believers of vaccination are probably just going to say - and which they have said before - we just need more and better vaccines, not that vaccines themselves are crap. We just need more vaccines, more research, better vaccines and they'll double down on the whole vaccination philosophy.
Doug: It wouldn't surprise me.
Tiffany: Yeah.
Elliot: So overall it's not impressive. {laughter} It's unfortunate that they don't tell you that about the vaccines having so many potential risks in terms of how they can turn beautiful, young, flourishing child into a cabbage, because that does happen, with all due respect to the parents of these children, it can literally disable kids. That's what it does in thousands of cases. So they don't tell you about the risks and then they also don't tell you that the effectiveness of many of these things is completely overblown and potentially making things worse than they were in the first place.
Doug: Yeah.
Elliot: So just like we always talk about on this show, it's another scam, another scam.
Doug: More or less.
Elliot: More or less. What else have we got in this week's roundup? Moving on, let's talk about the FDA. We were just talking about how the FDA approved this sham vaccine which is potentially going to be spreading Ebola, a nasty virus, but let's look at what else the FDA is doing. Are they doing good stuff? What good stuff are they doing? {laughter}
Tiffany: The FDA in all of their wisdom.
Elliot: Yeah, Food and Drug Administration Agency. They do lots of good stuff. So what good stuff are they doing this week?
Erica: Well this week, more in November, they decided that they are going to go against homeopathy, yet again. So they announced new guidance that could lead to the end of homeopathy in America in less than three months. GreenMedInfo carried this article but they were talking about how under the new guidance, all homeopathic medicines will be considered illegal and this is because the draft guidance declares all homeopathic medicines to be new drugs which have not undergone the agency's pre-market approval process known as the new drug application.
So homeopathic medicines can't be patented and therefore cannot justify the enormous expenditures that this new drug approval application entails and so the FDA insists that they should be put through this process and they will be starting to ban these types of medicines in the US. It's just ridiculous. They've been going after homeopathy for over 30 years it seems, just to try and discredit it and make it seem like it's junk science or doesn't really work. One of the things in the US that you can do is contact the FDA and give your feedback, share information with others. But it looks like it's not only happening in the US. It's also happening in the UK.
There was an article carried on SOTT about how the NHS blacklists homeopathy because of the mistaken belief that it doesn't work and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence said multiple reviews have shown no evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy.
Doug: Which is untrue.
Erica: Yeah. As we've shared many times on this show, it sounds like big pharma is really trying to eliminate this type of alternative medicine. I've used homeopathics for years. It's non-toxic. You can't really overdose on homeopathy.
Doug: I think the main reason they go after homeopathy - and this story could have come from last year or the year before. The FDA has done this multiple times. I had déjà vu while reading this article because I had read one on Mercola last year and the year before that it might have been Mercola again. I don't know. But so many times they do this draft legislation that essentially is calling for defining homeopathic medicines as unregulated medicines and therefore illegal. So far it hasn't actually gone through but the threat is there and is renewed over and over and over again.
What I was going to say before is that I think the reason is because it's actually quite effective and if it got a good strong foothold in the west, like it does, say in India, pharmaceuticals would have a real problem on their hands because who's going to pay thousands of dollars for their bullshit medications when a $10 medication could do better than it does?
Erica: Some believe it's just a thorn in the side of big pharma because it's safe and inexpensive. And it can't be patented. So we see this again. It's kind of like the vaccine thing, as you were saying Doug, it does feel like you're in a déjà vu. We've been doing this show for five years and it feels like every year it's like, "Wait! Didn't we just cover that?!" {laughter}
Doug: Exactly.
Erica: How does it keep coming back. I think it's because people are turning away from big pharma, drugs, and they're realizing that there are other options out there and it's probably why Dr. Google is cracking down on searches. "Oh, we've got to control the narrative here. We can't make people access information that could really take out our bottom line."
Doug: Yeah.
Tiffany: I think that the people who are really firm believers and have used homeopathy for a long time, maybe if they've been following the stories, hopefully they've been stocking up. Maybe there's going to still be some underground practitioners or some people who are so powerful you can't touch them. I've read that the queen of England takes homeopathic remedies and she's pretty old. I'm sure she eats the best food in the world too. But still, I think the people who are really clued in on it will probably find ways to get around it, even if they have to make their own remedies.
Doug: Or get them smuggled in from India.
Tiffany: Yeah.
Doug: Because I don't think it's going anywhere in India.
Tiffany: Do homeopathic tourism, things like that.
Doug: Yeah, yeah. Totally.
Elliot: How many people does homeopathy kill per year? {laughter}
Doug: It's got to be at least zero. Maybe at most, zero.
Elliot: How many cases of autism are caused by homeopathy?
Doug: If I had to guess I'd say zero.
Elliot: How many adverse drug reactions? How many people drop dead from taking homeopathic arnica tincture? It's just an upside down crazy abomination and I think it says more - it's interesting because in these times the FDA shows their true colours. They show where their allegiances are and it's not with the health of the people, for sure. They're gaslighting the population as a whole because homeopathy is accepted and utilized, although not by everyone, by a large portion of the population in general. There are commonly understood benefits which go way beyond modern medicine!
I can kind of equate it to a mass gaslighting, where they're essentially telling people, "No. we don't care what you think works. We'll tell you what works. And then in fact, if you don't believe us, we'll outlaw it!" So you can get locked up for taking some homeopathic arnica. {laughter}
Doug: And the stupid thing is that they can't have it both ways. One of their arguments is that 'We have to ban it because it doesn't do anything. It's a placebo and if people take that then they won't seek out actual treatment that will help them and it will hurt them.' So that's nanny state tactics. You can't do this because it will hurt you. And then on the other hand they will say something like, 'No, these are medicines, so you can't take them because they're unlicensed medicines.' Well which is it?! Is it fake? Does it do nothing? Or is it a medicine? You can't have it both ways.
It either does nothing, which is what the materialists will tell you because they cannot possibly fit into their brain that it might have a mechanism of action that doesn't involve physical molecules doing things, that there might actually be an information level. Or on the other hand, they're dangerous. It's ridiculous.
Erica: Well they're dangerous because they don't have any side effects. {laughter}
Doug: Yeah, that's dangerous.
Tiffany: Well that's why more and more as time goes by, you try to say, 'Well not everything is a conspiracy. They're not all liars.'
Erica: Yes they are!
Tiffany: 'There are some people who really believe in what they're doing.' But as time passes, I feel that everything is a conspiracy because they know exactly what to ban and what not to ban in all cases. They never make a mistake and let something good pass!
Doug: I think that that's true. At the same time though, I do think that there are a lot of people out there who have a philosophical objection to homeopathy, like I was saying, materialists. They cannot get their head around the idea that there might be something going on that involves information or fields, in physics and things like that, that it's actually operating on those sorts of levels. They're strictly materialists and they cannot accept something that isn't a nuts and bolts interpretation of things.
They actually think they're doing the right thing by trying to get through to the brainwashed masses that this thing that saved their life didn't actually save their life, that it was just a placebo. But at the same time, I think if you go high enough up the ladder, there are a number of people there who are like, "Yeah, we know it works but we've got to push this aside because it's going to run us out of business if people figure this out."
Elliot: Well talking about the sham that is the pharmaceutical industry {laughter} we were talking briefly before about how many of the drugs which big pharma push onto people as though they are the one and only solution for their health problems, have awful side effects. Well, this is also the case with a very, very, very common pharmaceutical taken by quite a large percentage of women, and that is the oral contraceptive pill.
Just after Christmas there was an article on quite a well-known website called Medical News Today. It's a relatively mainstream website, if I remember correctly. They were talking about a study that came out not long ago, talking about how birth control pills or oral contraceptive pills, the previous research looking at the effect it had on hormones was only looking at the effect it had on hormones. Now there has been a lot of other research over the past couple of decades demonstrating potentially causal, if not merely just associative links, with a variety of different adverse health outcomes, one of those being breast cancer. That is a very common one, but also cancer of multiple organs. There are neuropsychiatric associations. There are depletions of certain vitamins.
But I've never personally come across this side effect before and it was quite unexpected from the researchers who were doing this study. They did a study looking at certain parts of the brain and comparing them between women who did take the oral contraceptive pill and women who didn't take the oral contraceptive pill and what they found - and they weren't looking for this - but what they found was a dramatic difference in size of the part of the brain called the hypothalamus. So it turns out that the women who took the oral contraceptive pill actually have significantly smaller hypothalamic volume.
Now the hypothalamus is a very special part of the brain. You can think of it as a relay or control center and it has a regulatory or modulatory effect on several different functions involving hormonal balance, energy metabolism. It's involved in the pathways which are said to be related to emotions, to fear, anger, all of these different kinds of things. And what they found was that these women, after taking the oral contraceptive pill - I don't know if they know the mechanism - but they found that it actually reduces the size of this part of the brain! That's pretty interesting, isn't it?
Doug: Yeah it is. You know, it's funny. I always remember, long before I got into holistic health and that sort of thing, it was well known within my circle of friends at the time who were not particularly anti-mainstream kind of thing, they were pretty normal people, but it was common knowledge that the pill made women crazy.
Tiffany: Yeah. {laughter}
Doug: It was not a good idea to do it. You can try it, but everybody knows that it actually makes women crazy. It was known at that time that that's what would happen if women did the oral contraceptive for long enough, I guess. Different people would experiment with it and be like, "Oh no, it turns out you're right. I went crazy on it." So this kind of thing doesn't really surprise me in the least, that it's actually having this kind of negative effect on the brain.
Erica: From my experience with it, because I was on it many years ago, it just tricks your body into thinking you're in a constant state of pregnancy, so that would explain why you have those hormonal ups and downs and then weight gain and weird eating habits, sleep habits and whatnot. But what's really concerning about this article is that they're not only prescribing the pill now for birth control, but they're also prescribing it for a wide range of other conditions. I guess maybe you know Tiff, about the off-label prescribing. They're giving it to women for irregular menstruation, acne, polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis and cramps and they even said that they're giving it to women that want to delay or eliminate menstruation, which is just insane on so many levels.
Tiffany: Well a lot of women do that. Say they have a vacation or something coming up and they don't want to get their period while they're on vacation. They will not take any of the dummy pills. They just continue to take the active pills in the birth control pack. So that's really nothing new, but the fact that doctors are sanctioning this, saying that it's okay, that you should interfere with your natural cycle by taking birth control pills to prevent having your period, that is something new for me.
Erica: Then also there's a whole generation of women who are not being able to get pregnant after taking the pill for extended periods of time too.
Elliot: Yeah, you'd be amazed. I've heard some real horror stories. Young women who have particularly heavy menses when they first come onto their period, or they get acne, or they might be developing some of the symptoms related to polycystic ovarian syndrome, stick them on the pill. They stay on the pill for 20 years and then they want to get pregnant. Then they come off the pill and they wonder why they can't get pregnant. Some women have never had a period! They've never had a period! Because they were stuck on the pill and their body has never gone through a proper cycle!
Now it takes some real time and some real fixing to reverse the damage that that does because you're having so many unseen effects. It really is criminal to prescribe this stuff, getting young children on it for acne, for instance. That is just...
Doug: That is unbelievable!
Elliot: You would be amazed. It's so common. It's normal practice these days! Again, unfortunately they don't tell the teenagers that it's going to increase their likelihood of getting ovarian cancer by the time they're 25, five out of 50 times. They don't tell them that do they?
Erica: That smaller hypothalamus too is connected to that. We'll see where this research goes.
Doug: Pretty depressing. Pretty much.
Tiffany: Whenever we do one of these news shows, it's always, always, always bad news. {laughter}
Doug: Yeah, it's true.
Tiffany: There's never any good news.
Doug: And here we thought 2020 was going to be different.
Elliot: Is there any wonder why millennials who've had these drugs and chemicals and all of this stuff foisted upon them most of their life, is it any wonder why millennials are seeing their health decline faster than ever before? So for the first time what we see is that millennials, which I think means any individual born between the years of 1981 and 1996, this is the typical kind of age range for millennials, as this recent study showed if the forecasting is correct, the way that things are going, the millennials in comparison to the previous generation, called Gen-Xs, it says that millennial treatment costs are projected to be as much as 33% higher than Gen-Xs experienced at a comparable age.
So essentially what we're seeing is that millennials are developing health problems which you would usually see much later on, say 10-20 years down the line. So we're seeing cardiovascular disease appear. If you listen to many of the doctors, you'll actually see that you're having type II diabetics being diagnosed at 15 years old. This used to be referred to as senile diabetes, you develop it when you're in your 70s whereas now you've got 12-year-olds, 15-year-olds being diagnosed with this. You're having people develop dementia at 40 years of age.
So we're having many of these kinds of diseases which were typically associated with older onset or much older ages, they're seeing that people much younger are developing these. Is it any wonder when the Gen-Xs may have been given four or five vaccines when they were babies or when they were in their toddler years whereas we look at the millennials, and it's even worse for the later generation, but the millennials, we were the ones who were really hit with increasing vaccines, more chemicals, glyphosate, more processed foods, more WiFi for instance. I know that when I was below the age of 10 years old I think we had WiFi or we were getting to that. So essentially the millennials have taken a bit of a harder hit I think.
Tiffany: And I think you have to factor in the whole vegan craze that's been going around for the last few years. The poor nutrition, not just if you're eating junk food which is bad enough, but people will think they're eating healthy because they're eating a plant-based diet. That just adds to it.
Doug: It kind of pissed me off because in this article the only reason that they give for why this might be happening is that millennials don't go to the doctor as often {laughter} as other generations do, or they don't have a relationship with their doctor. They feel a little bit more isolated. They don't trust their doctor as much so they don't go. And I thought what a bunch of baloney. That's just ridiculous. I don't think it has anything to do with that. In fact that would probably mean that they would not be getting these diseases as often because they're avoiding iatrogenic causes. But I think for sure, like Elliot was saying, the GMOs, the pesticides, the herbicides, the WiFi, the cell phones and just the poor nutrition.
It always reminds me of that experiment that Pottinger did with the cats where he was feeding them crappy food and he was looking at different generations. When feeding them crappy food, by the third generation I think it was, the cats were no longer able to reproduce because the nutrition had just degraded them so much to the point where they were no longer able to reproduce. Well how many generations now have we been having this processed crap where people have never seen a vegetable? Or meat for that matter? Actually that's a better example.
Anyway, it seems like this generation, the millennials, might be that tipping point where the health just completely collapses because their parents and their parents before them were eating garbage. Or the diets have gotten progressively worse as the ages have gone on.
Erica: And also that cascade effect of not having normal childhood struggles of dealing with schoolyard bullies because everything has become so regulated nanny state and not being able to go outside; the psychological aspects of that too, WiFi, social media, being completely isolated and almost learning life lessons virtually instead of in real time.
Doug: The antibacterial soaps. {laughter} Killing off the microbiome.
Erica: Too many clean kids that are in sterile environments that have no real concept of what the world outside of their domain is even like. I know mental health is failing as well, not just for millennials, but each generation after that.
Elliot: I don't think we're going to need a study to tell us that actually what we refer to as I-Gen, which are the very young 'uns born after say 2000 or something, they're in for a rocky road, pretty sure. I'm sometimes amazed looking at the food that these kids eat. I wonder how they're even still alive. It's just pure, empty trash. It's amazing. It really is amazing. And then they're glued to their iPhone and iPad. Little babies for god's sake! Two year olds have iPads on their face all the time! Because the parents are too phone-eyed to actually be a parent. Just give them a phone. And they've got this WiFi stuff zinging their brain 10 hours a day! There's no hope for a child like that. I would love to think that the human body can adapt, but I really just think that the health of the next generation in the western world is spiralling down and there's not much you can do about it.
Tiffany: If you go out and look at the average person now, pretty much I'd say the majority of the people are fat, whether they're adults or children. Even if you didn't know what was going on with them internally, you just look at them, people just look awful, quite frankly. And it's not just because they're fat. Their skin is bad. Everybody just seems like they're just busted and broken down. I don't know, maybe it's just where I live, {laughter} but people just really look unhealthy regardless of whether they're pre-diabetic yet or anything like that.
Erica: Also that zombie-eyed, not aware of your surroundings, tuned out, attention deficit. Even adults have an attention span that is shocking, to say the least. It's the culminating of, like you're saying Tiff, just this culture of...
Tiffany: Just vapid consumer culture, dumbed-down educational system and the really bad health system. I think we're just screwed.
Elliot: Oftentimes when I walk past McDonalds and take a peep into the people who are sitting in McDonalds, I often think these guys are genetically modified people. {laughter}
Doug: It's true.
Elliot: No offence, but they look like zombies, often grey and slightly yellow and don't really know what they're doing. It's not very nice to look at. Maybe I was just normalized to it when I was a child but it seems like it is getting progressively worse, even in the UK. We don't have the obesity crisis to quite the extent the United States does, but...
Doug: Close.
Elliot: It's getting there. It is indeed getting there. And then you go onto the European mainland, you go through somewhere like Bosnia or Serbia and you take a look at the people and they look pretty damn healthy. They're all very slim, very attractive, beautiful skin, lovely hair. Just as a population you think it's not just down to genetics. It's the countries who've adopted the United States' dietary guidelines and then allowed the big, massive food producers, the fast junk food companies, to infiltrate into their culture, into their supermarkets and things and sell this junk to the people. You see that in places like Indonesia where their previous health was quite good and then all of a sudden when they adopt these horrible junk foods, the incidents of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity just skyrockets.
Erica: But America's the greatest nation in the world! {laughter}
Doug: Well that's true.
Erica: Because of the things we're exporting. {laughter}
Elliot: Anything else come to mind from what we've been talking about? Anything else anyone wanted to cover? We've gone through quite a bit. There were a couple of other things.
Doug: We're already getting on.
Tiffany: Do we want to save the bad news for next time? {laughter}
Elliot: Yeah....
Doug: We're coming up on worse news? {laughter}
Elliot: The worst news?
Doug: No. It's all the same level news. It's all bad.
Elliot: Okay, I'm feeling quite thoroughly depressed right now, that's probably enough for my mental health this week.
Erica: I do think it's important to know these things because it helps you navigate in your world. "Oh maybe it's this. Maybe it's that. Am I crazy? No, I'm just seeing things as they are." All the different things in this show that we've talked about, it's kind of this culminating effect that you're seeing around you and it really can't be denied anymore.
Doug: Yeah.
Erica: Or maybe it's just because we've been doing this for five years and we keep having these déjà vu moments, "My gosh, this is coming back again. Why won't this thing die?"
Elliot: Sometimes you've got to laugh or you'll cry. If it can give you a bit of comedic value every week, just skimming through the news and wondering how far it can go and sit back and watch the show I guess.
Erica: I think it's important, being able to share these things with people, even on a small level. If somebody asks you, "What do you think of homeopathy?" or whatever the topic is, you can say, "Well, there's three sides to every story, right? There's the truth somewhere in the middle and there's this side and that side." I've noticed just in situations work-wise that people are much more open to the possibility that things aren't what the news or the media is feeding them, that there's something else going on and they're interested. They're curious I should say. And I think you can introduce topics without sounding like Tiffany was saying earlier, like a conspiracy theorist.
A great thing is that everyone is getting the flu right now and they've all got their flu vaccines and you're like, "Well, maybe next year try not to get that."
Tiffany: No one ever seems to notice! Every year I see people all around me getting the flu vaccine. Oh man! "I got the flu but I just got the flu vaccine a few weeks ago!" Like, hello! You said the same thing last year. You don't remember?
Erica: Yeah. So maybe in 2020 the time is right for just broaching the subject a little bit now that they've gotten the flu five years in a row after getting the flu vaccine. {laughter} But as always, I'm an optimist.
Tiffany: I'm not. I'm a pessimist.
Doug: Me too.
Erica: I know, I know I'm the solo one here. Somebody's got to hold up the optimism flag.
Elliot: On that positive note, has anyone got any comments or anything that we want to say?
Doug: Any answers?
Erica: We all have plenty of comments but we'll save it for another show.
Elliot: Okay then. That looks like it is the end of this week's show. Thanks to our audience. Thanks to my co-hosts, Erica, Doug and Tiff. Thank you to myself. My name's Elliot. {laughter} Tune in for next week's show, not sure what the topic is yet but we will be doing one, same time next week. If you like this show and you found it helpful, maybe share it on Facebook, share it on social media. You can like and subscribe to our page. We're also on Facebook as Objective Health where we post articles and things. Thanks for listening and see you next time.
Good-byes.
[Link] - Teen Health Source - Birth Control on your own terms
Can I get birth control without anyone finding out? Yes. You do not need permission from a parent or guardian to get birth control. In fact, it is unethical and illegal for clinic workers or health care providers to tell your parents/guardians you were even at the clinic. The agreement to keep your visit private is called a confidentiality agreement.
Do I have to be a certain age to get birth control? There is no age limit for accessing any form of birth control including condoms .You need to have started your period to safely use hormonal methods.
Consider the prevalence and scope of sexual education given to children and teens in the public education system nowadays, as a parent I would be greatly disturbed to think a teen daughter could access such a drug without knowledge or parental consent.