Worldwide, over 2 billion people are overweight or obese. Obesity figures have almost tripled since 1975. In children and adolescents, it's even worse, with a ten-fold increase in the same time-frame. What are we doing wrong here?

Perhaps we've been looking at the obesity epidemic the wrong way, scientists say. In a new study, they suggest - somewhat provocatively - that we've missed what obesity actually represents.

Obesity, the team claims, is essentially a form of premature ageing - something that endangers our health and shortens our lives in ways that are remarkably similar to the inevitable processes of getting older and succumbing to age‐related diseases.

A woman in Pittsburgh has become the first documented case in a living person of an unusual medical condition where alcohol naturally brews in the bladder from the fermentation of yeast.

The condition, which researchers propose to call either 'bladder fermentation syndrome' or 'urinary auto-brewery syndrome', is similar to another incredibly rare condition, auto-brewery syndrome, where simply ingesting carbohydrates can be enough to make you inebriated, even without consuming any alcohol via regular means.

In the new case, doctors became aware of what seems to be a related syndrome, after attending upon a 61-year-old patient who presented with liver damage and poorly controlled diabetes.

In this blog I am going to have a closer look at an issue that has niggled away at me for a long time. Placebos. In part I was stimulated to write on this following an article that Maryanne Demasi published on the CrossFit site 'Sometimes a placebo is not a placebo.' ¹

There are many, many different issues about placebos. Most of which people don't even consider. Such as, is there really such a thing as the placebo effect? And if there is, how come we haven't managed to sort out what it actually might be? I know most people reading this will retort. 'Of course, there's a placebo effect. It's a known thing.' Personally, I am not so sure. Like many known things it begins to fall apart under a bit of critical examination.

For example:

'Whether you know you're taking a placebo pill or not, it will still have a beneficial effect, new research has revealed. Scientists from Harvard University and the University of Basel prescribed a group of minor burn victims with a "treatment" cream, telling only some of them that it was a placebo. After the cream was applied, both groups reported benefits, despite the placebo cream containing no medicine.

The study goes against traditional medical thinking surrounding the placebo effect, which has always revolved around the idea that it was necessary to deceive patients in order for "sugar pills" to be clinically effective.' ²

In short, you get the placebo effect whether you know, or don't know, that you are receiving a placebo. Which kind of blows a major hole in rationale underpinning double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trials.

However, I am not exploring that particular rabbit hole today.

Today I am going to look at the question. What is in a placebo? You may well believe you know the answer to this. A placebo is an inert formulation containing no active ingredients.

This is a reasonable assumption to make as the medical definition of a placebo, as taken from the Merriam-Webster medical dictionary, is:

'1a: a usually pharmacologically inert preparation prescribed more for the mental relief of the patient than for its actual effect on a disorder

b: an inert or innocuous substance used especially in controlled experiments testing the efficacy of another substance (such as a drug)'

A few years ago, I was speaking to an investigative journalist from the Netherlands who was trying to get hold of the placebo tablets used in a particular clinical trial. He wanted to establish exactly what was in them, and if they were truly inert. No such luck, these placebos were very carefully guarded, as was any information about what they contained.

He gave up, but I did file his tale in my mind, recognising this was something that needed to be looked in greater detail at some point in the future. Can it be true that placebos are not actually inert?

Recently, Dr. Laura Blaisdell told Mainers during a radio interview that her 'No on 1' coalition includes a group of trusted, local physicians. These are the same people who stroll around the state capitol donning their lab coats. Their subliminal message of superiority is not missed on the discerning.

Blaisdell's mantra, "Trust us," implies no need to question, no need to be informed, no need to make your own decisions about your body or that of your child. She and her colleagues know all, so check your brain at the door. Why question?

As a member of the Legislature who engaged in the entire bill process, I asked lots of questions. According to the CDC's testimony, we don't have a problem. We are already at the desired threshold of 95% compliance. No need for this law. However, Big Pharma got its way — thanks to the likes of Blaisdell and her "trustworthy" coalition.

Summary: I talk to people who worry about the coronavirus epidemic and so read much about it - but know almost nothing, with facts lost amidst the rumors and misinformation. Here is a clear picture of what is known, so far. We learn more each day.

Important: the WHO has not yet declared COVID-19 (aka coronavirus) to be a pandemic - where the epidemic spreads rapidly across multiple regions simultaneously. The label "pandemic" describes a disease's extent and speed of spread, not its severity. See the WHO website for details (here and here). The COVID-19 epidemic now might be breaking containment to become a pandemic. This is where the preparation during the past two months will prove its worth - or not.

Something incredible is happening in America.

A grassroots movement which has patiently, but inexorably, developed for decades has burst through to the mainstream. Its growth can no longer be ignored by Big Pharma-controlled media, as concerned citizens now regularly crowd state capitols.

First, in late December and then again early January, the nation watched as New Jersey's state capitol was twice occupied by parents and families battling against a pair of aggressive, Constitution-cancelling pieces of legislation.

In recent years the ketogenic diet has been studied more and more, with scientists determining the beneficial aspects of the diet for a number of disease pictures. Among epilepsy, dementia, obesity, mood disorders and many more, one condition that seems to respond very well to the keto diet is Type II Diabetes. It responds so well that in fact, many doctors and scientists have declared it should be the first line of attack against the disease, with medications and other lifestyle changes playing second fiddle in more difficult cases.

But that doesn't mean it has anything like mainstream acceptance. Quite the opposite. Recently the Department of Veteran Affairs announced a partnership with Virta Health Corp., a company that has been using ketogenic interventions for Type II Diabetes to great success. This, of course, brought out the professional nay-sayers, claiming (without evidence) that the diet is dangerous, that simply by trying this intervention the VA is irresponsibly lending legitimacy to a fad diet that will ruin people's health.

On this episode of Objective:Health, we take a closer look at the keto diet and its promise for Type II Diabetes. Is there any legitimacy to the haters' complaints?


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: 00:22:58

Download: MP3 — 20.6 MB

In 2014, Harvard University stated that prescription drugs are the 4th leading cause of death, yet pharmaceutical companies continue to hide behind their profits and promote their products as safe. Doctors and even their patients are willing to turn a blind eye to many of the adverse side effects of drugs, opting for the "bandaid" effect they provide instead of seeking alternative treatments and preventative methods.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and conducted by a team of researchers from Yale University studied the effectiveness of the FDA's drug approval process. The team discovered that nearly one in three drugs that the FDA tests and approves ends up having safety issues.

So it turns out almond milk is actually really damaging the planet. It's putting tonnes of pressure on bees causing them to die and 130 pints of water are needed to produce just one glass of wholesome almond milk.

And now you thought ok well I'll change to oat milk and I'm still being really good to the planet because I eat tofu instead of chicken. Well turns out tofu is pretty bad too.

A new study by Dr. Graham McAuliffe has revealed tofu could be more harmful to the planet than chicken, beef and pork. Speaking at the National Farmers Union Dr. Graham McAuliffe of the Rothamsted Institute said after researching tofu, he'd concluded it potentially causes more environmental damage because of the production to make the processed protein source.

In 2017, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Hilal Elver, and UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics, Baskut Tuncak, produced a report that called for a comprehensive new global treaty to regulate and phase out the use of dangerous pesticides in farming and move towards sustainable agricultural practices.

In addition to the devastating impacts on human health, the two authors argued that the excessive use of pesticides contaminates soil and water sources, causing loss of biodiversity, the destruction of the natural enemies of pests and the reduction in the nutritional value of food. They drew attention to denials by the agroindustry of the hazards of certain pesticides and expressed concern about aggressive, unethical marketing tactics that remain unchallenged and the huge sums spent by the powerful chemical industry to influence policymakers and contest scientific evidence.

At the time, Elver said that agroecological approaches, which replace harmful chemicals, are capable of delivering sufficient yields to feed and nourish the entire world population, without undermining the rights of future generations to adequate food and health. The two authors added that it was time to overturn the myth that pesticides are necessary to feed the world and create a global process to transition toward safer and healthier food and agricultural production.