The Fourth Phase of Water – What You Don’t Know About Water, and Really Should
Story at-a-glance
Your body consists of over 99 percent water molecules, but the water in your cells is not regular water, but highly structured water with special properties
There is a fourth phase of water, not H2O but H3O2, and can be called living water. It’s more viscous, dense, and alkaline than regular water; has a negative charge, and can hold energy, much like a battery, and deliver energy too
The key ingredient to create this highly structured water is light, i.e. electromagnetic energy, whether in the form of visible light, or infrared wavelengths, which we’re surrounded by all the time
One reason why infrared saunas make you feel so good is because your body’s cells are deeply penetrated by infrared energy, which builds and stores structured water. The same goes for light therapy, spending time in the sun, and laser therapy
Besides optimizing your drinking water by vortexing, you can help support your body’s negative charge by connecting to the Earth, which also has a negative charge. This is the basis of the earthing or grounding technique
Water is clearly one of the most important factors for your health—especially when you consider that your body actually consists of over 99 percent water molecules! I sincerely believe water is a really underappreciated part of the equation of optimal health.
I’ve previously interviewed Dr. Gerald Pollack, who is one of the leading premier research scientists in the world when it comes to understanding the physics of water, and what it means to your health.
Besides being a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, he’s also the founder and editor-in-chief of a scientific journal called Water, and has published many peer-reviewed scientific papers on this topic. He’s even received prestigious awards from the National Institutes of Health.
His book, The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid, and Vapor, is a phenomenal read that is easy to understand even for the non-professional.
It clearly explains the theory of the fourth phase of water, which is nothing short of ground-breaking. The fourth phase of water is, in a nutshell, living water. It’s referred to as EZ water—EZ standing for “exclusion zone”—which has a negative charge. This water can hold energy, much like a battery, and can deliver energy too.
For years, Dr. Pollack had researched muscles and how they contract, and it struck him as odd that the most common ideas about muscle contraction do not involve water, despite the fact that muscle tissue consists of 99 percent water molecules.
How could it be that 99 percent of the molecules were ignored? How could it be that muscle contracts without involving the water in some way? These questions help catalyze his passionate investigation into water.
So You Think You Understand Water?
Gilbert Ling, who was a pioneer in this field, discovered that water in human cells is not ordinary water (H2O), but something far more structured and organized.
“I began to think about water in the context of biology: if water inside the cell was ordered and structured and not bulk water or ordinary water as most biochemists and cell biologists think, then it is really important,” Dr. Pollack says.
Dr. Pollack’s book also touches on some of the most basic features of water, many of which are really not understood. For example, how does evaporation take place? Why does a tea kettle whistle? Also, despite the fact that conventional science tells us freezing is supposed to occur at zero degrees Celsius, experiments show that it can freeze in many different temperatures down to minus 50 degrees Celsius.
There’s actually no one single freezing point for water! Other experiments show that the boiling point of 100 degrees Celsius (or 212 degrees Fahrenheit) does not always hold true either.
“There’s a famous website1 put together by a British scientist, Martin Chaplin. Martin lists numerous anomalies associated with water,” Dr. Pollack says. “In other words, things that shouldn’t be according to what we know about water…
The more anomalies we have, the more we begin to think that maybe there’s something fundamental about water that we really don’t know. That’s the core of what I’m trying to do. In our laboratory at the University of Washington, we’ve done many experiments over the last decade. These experiments have clearly shown the existence of this additional phase of water.”
The reason this fourth phase of water is called the exclusion zone or EZ is because the first thing Dr. Pollack’s team discovered is that it profoundly excludes things. Even small molecules are excluded from EZ water. Surprisingly, EZ water appears in great abundance, including inside most of your cells. Even your extracellular tissues are filled with this kind of water.
to read more, go to: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/18/exclusion-zone-water.aspx
Uncovered: Monsanto campaign to get Séralini study retracted
Documents released in US cancer litigation show Monsanto’s desperate attempts to suppress a study that showed adverse effects of Roundup herbicide – and that the editor of the journal that retracted the study had a contractual relationship with the company. Claire Robinson reports
Internal Monsanto documents released by attorneys leading US cancer litigation show that the company launched a concerted campaign to force the retraction of a study that revealed toxic effects of Roundup. The documents also show that the editor of the journal that first published the study entered into a contract with Monsanto in the period shortly before the retraction campaign began.
The study, led by Prof GE Séralini, showed that very low doses of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide had toxic effects on rats over a long-term period, including serious liver and kidney damage. Additional observations of increased tumour rates in treated rats would need to be confirmed in a larger-scale carcinogenicity study.
The newly released documents show that throughout the retraction campaign, Monsanto tried to cover its tracks to hide its involvement. Instead Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras admitted to orchestrating a “third party expert” campaign in which scientists who were apparently independent of Monsanto would bombard the editor-in-chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), A. Wallace Hayes, with letters demanding that he retract the study.
Use of “third party experts” is a classic public relations tactic perfected by the tobacco industry. It consists of putting industry-friendly messages into the mouths of supposedly “independent” experts, since no one would believe industry attempts to defend its own products. Back in 2012, GMWatch founder Jonathan Matthews exposed the industry links of the supposedly independent scientists who lobbied the journal editor to retract the Séralini paper. Now we have first-hand proof of Monsanto’s direct involvement.
In one document, Saltmiras reviews his own achievements within the company, boasting that he “Successfully facilitated numerous third party expert letters to the editor which were subsequently published, reflecting the numerous significant deficiencies, poor study design, biased reporting and selective statistics employed by Séralini. In addition, coauthored the Monsanto letter to the editor with [Monsanto employees] Dan Goldstein and Bruce Hammond.”
Saltmiras further writes of how “Throughout the late 2012 Séralini rat cancer publication and media campaign, I leveraged my relationship [with] the Editor i[n] Chief of the publishing journal… and was the single point of contact between Monsanto and the Journal.”
Another Monsanto employee, Eric Sachs, writes in an email about his efforts to galvanize scientists in the letter-writing campaign. Sachs refers to Bruce Chassy, a scientist who runs the pro-GMO Academics Review website. Sachs writes: “I talked to Bruce Chassy and he will send his letter to Wally Hayes directly and notify other scientists that have sent letters to do the same. He understands the urgency… I remain adamant that Monsanto must not be put in the position of providing the critical analysis that leads the editors to retract the paper.”
In response to Monsanto’s request, Chassy urged Hayes to retract the Séralini paper: “My intent was to urge you to roll back the clock, retract the paper, and restart the review process.”
Chassy was also the first signatory of a petition demanding the retraction of the Séralini study and the co-author of a Forbes article accusing Séralini of fraud. In neither document does Chassy declare any link with Monsanto. But in 2016 he was exposed as having taken over $57,000 over less than two years from Monsanto to travel, write and speak about GMOs.
Sachs is keen to ensure that Monsanto is not publicly seen as attempting to get the paper retracted, even though that is precisely what it is doing. Sachs writes to Monsanto scientist William Heydens: “There is a difference between defending science and participating in a formal process to retract a publication that challenges the safety of our products. We should not provide ammunition for Séralini, GM critics and the media to charge that Monsanto used its might to get this paper retracted. The information that we provided clearly establishes the deficiencies in the study as reported and makes a strong case that the paper should not have passed peer review.”
Another example of Monsanto trying to cover up its involvement in the retraction campaign emerges from email correspondence between Monsanto employees Daniel Goldstein and Eric Sachs. Goldstein states: “I was uncomfortable even letting shareholders know we are aware of this LTE [GMW: probably “Letter to the Editor”]…. It implies we had something to do with it – otherwise how do we have knowledge of it? I could add ‘Aware of multiple letters to editor including one signed by 25 scientists from 14 countries’ if you both think this is OK.” Sachs responds: “We are ‘connected’ but did not write the letter or encourage anyone to sign it.”
A. Wallace Hayes was paid by Monsanto
The most shocking revelation of the disclosed documents is that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, A. Wallace Hayes, entered into a consulting agreement with Monsanto in the period just before Hayes’s involvement in the retraction of the Séralini study. Clearly Hayes had a conflict of interest between his role as a consultant for Monsanto and his role as editor for a journal that retracted a study determining that glyphosate has toxic effects. The study was published on 19 September 2012; the consulting agreement between Hayes and Monsanto was dated 21 August 2012 and Hayes is contracted to provide his services beginning 7 September 2012.
The documents also reveal that Monsanto paid Hayes $400 per hour for his services and that in return Hayes was expected to “Assist in establishment of an expert network of toxicologists, epidemiologists, and other scientists in South America and participate on the initial meeting held within the region. Preparation and delivery of a seminar addressing relevant regional issues pertaining to glyphosate toxicology is a key deliverable for the inaugural meeting in 2013.”
Hayes should have recused himself from any involvement with the Séralini study from the time he signed this agreement. But he kept quiet. He went on to oversee a second “review” of the study by unnamed persons whose conflicts of interest, if any, were not declared – resulting in his decision to retract the study for the unprecedented reason that some of the results were “inconclusive”.
Hayes told the New York Times’s Danny Hakim in an interview that he had not been under contract with Monsanto at the time of the retraction and was paid only after he left the journal. He added that “Monsanto played no role whatsoever in the decision that was made to retract.” But since it took the journal over a year to retract the study after the months-long second review, which Hayes oversaw, it’s clear that he had an undisclosed conflict of interest from the time he entered into the contract with Monsanto and during the review process. He appears to be misleading the New York Times.
The timing of the contract also begs the question as to whether Monsanto knew the publication of the study was coming. If so, they may have been happy to initiate such a relationship with Hayes at just that time.
A Monsanto internal email confirms the company’s intimate relationship with Hayes. Saltmiras writes about the recently published Séralini study: “Wally Hayes, now FCT Editor in Chief for Vision and Strategy, sent me a courtesy email early this morning. Hopefully the two of us will have a follow up discussion soon to touch on whether FCT Vision and Strategy were front and center for this one passing through the peer review process.”
In other email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel, Daniel Goldstein writes the following with respect to the Séralini study: “Retraction – Both Dan Jenkins (US Government affairs) and Harvey Glick made a strong case for withdrawal of the paper if at all possible, both on the same basis – that publication will elevate the status of the paper, bring other papers in the journal into question, and allow Séralini much more freedom to operate. All of us are aware that the ultimate decision is up to the editor and the journal management, and that we may not have an opportunity for withdrawal in any event, but I felt it was worth reinforcing this request.”
Monsanto got its way, though the paper was subsequently republished by another journal with higher principles – and, presumably, with an editorial board that wasn’t under contract with Monsanto.
Why Monsanto had to kill the Séralini study
It’s obvious that it was in Monsanto’s interests to kill the Séralini study. The immediate reason was that it reported harmful effects from low doses of Roundup and a GM maize engineered to tolerate it. But the wider reason that emerges from the documents is that to admit that the study had any validity whatsoever would be to open the doors for regulators and others to demand other long-term studies on GM crops and their associated pesticides.
A related danger for Monsanto, pointed out by Goldstein, is that “a third party may procure funding to verify Séralini’s claims, either through a government agency or the anti-GMO/antl-pesticide financiers”.
The documents show that Monsanto held a number of international teleconferences to discuss how to pre-empt such hugely threatening developments.
Summing up the points from the teleconferences, Daniel Goldstein writes that “unfortunately”, three “potential issues regarding long term studies have now come up and will need some consideration and probably a white paper of some type (either internal or external)”. These are potential demands for
• 2 year rat/long-term cancer (and possibly reproductive toxicity) on GM crops
• 2 year/chronic studies on pesticide formulations, in addition to the studies on the active ingredient alone that are currently demanded by regulators, and
• 2 year rat/chronic studies of pesticide formulations on the GM crop.
In reply to the first point, Goldstein writes that the Séralini study “found nothing other than the usual variation in SD [Sprague-Dawley] rats, and as such there is no reason to question the recent EFSA guidance that such studies were not needed for substantially equivalent crops”. GMWatch readers will not be surprised to see Monsanto gaining support from EFSA in its opposition to carrying out long-term studies on GMOs.
In answer to the second point, Goldstein reiterates that the Séralini study “actually finds nothing – so there is no need to draw any conclusions from it – but the theoretical issue has been placed on the table. We need to be prepared with a well considered response.”
In answer to the third point, Goldstein ignores the radical nature of genetic engineering and argues pragmatically, if not scientifically, “This approach would suggest that the same issue arises for conventional crops and that every individual formulation would need a chronic study over every crop (at a minimum) and probably every variety of crop (since we know they have more genetic variation than GM vs conventional congener) and raises the possibility of an almost limitless number of tests.” But he adds, “We also need a coherent argument for this issue.”
EU regulators side with Monsanto
To the public’s detriment, some regulatory bodies have backed Monsanto rather than the public interest and have backed off the notion that long-term studies should be required for GM crops. In fact, the EU is considering doing awaywith even the short 90-day animal feeding studies currently required under European GMO legislation. This will be based in part on the results of the EU-funded GRACE animal feeding project, which has come under fire for the industry links of some of the scientists involved and for its alleged manipulation of findings of adverse effects on rats fed Monsanto’s GM MON810 maize.
Apology required
A. Wallace Hayes is no longer the editor-in-chief of FCT but is named as an “emeritus editor”. Likewise, Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee who was parachuted onto the journal’s editorial board shortly after the publication of the Séralini study, is no longer at the journal.
But although they are sidelined or gone, their legacy lives on in the form of a gap in the history of the journal where Séralini’s paper belongs.
Now that Monsanto’s involvement in the retraction of the Séralini paper is out in the open, FCT and Hayes should do the decent thing and issue a formal apology to Prof Séralini and his team. FCT cannot and should not reinstate the paper, because it is now published by another journal. But it needs to draw a line under this shameful episode, admit that it handled it badly, and declare its support for scientific independence and objectivity.
New study finds no evidence that maximum lifespan has stopped increasing
Date:
June 28, 2017
Source:
McGill University
Summary:
By analyzing the lifespan of the longest-living individuals from the USA, the UK, France and Japan for each year since 1968, investigators found no evidence for such a limit, and if such a maximum exists, it has yet to be reached or identified
New research suggests there is no detectable limit to how long people can live.
Emma Morano passed away last April. At 117 years old, the Italian woman was the oldest known living human being.
Super- centenarians, such as Morano and Jeanne Calment of France, who famously lived to be 122 years old, continue to fascinate scientists and have led them to wonder just how long humans can live. A study published in Nature last October concluded that the upper limit of human age is peaking at around 115 years.
Now, however, a new study in Nature by McGill University biologists Bryan G. Hughes and Siegfried Hekimi comes to a starkly different conclusion. By analyzing the lifespan of the longest-living individuals from the USA, the UK, France and Japan for each year since 1968, Hekimi and Hughes found no evidence for such a limit, and if such a maximum exists, it has yet to be reached or identified, Hekimi says.
Far into the foreseeable future
“We just don’t know what the age limit might be. In fact, by extending trend lines, we can show that maximum and average lifespans, could continue to increase far into the foreseeable future,” Hekimi says. Many people are aware of what has happened with average lifespans. In 1920, for example, the average newborn Canadian could expect to live 60 years; a Canadian born in 1980 could expect 76 years, and today, life expectancy has jumped to 82 years. Maximum lifespan seems to follow the same trend.
It’s impossible to predict what future lifespans in humans might look like, Hekimi says. Some scientists argue that technology, medical interventions, and improvements in living conditions could all push back the upper limit.
“It’s hard to guess,” Hekimi adds. “Three hundred years ago, many people lived only short lives. If we would have told them that one day most humans might live up to 100, they would have said we were crazy.”
There is no question anymore about it. Chemtrails are real and are not to be confused with contrails. If you’re skeptical, that is okay, though please take a look at the CIA Director’s comments about geoengineering here.
For those understanding that chemtrails pose a real threat to humanity, together we’ll take a look at some foods and health supplements that can be used to help protect yourself against chemtrails.
When barium, nano particles of aluminum, radioactive thorium, mercury, lead, ethylene dibromide and many other toxic chemicals and heavy metals are being sprayed into our atmosphere, it is a good idea to learn how to properly defend your body from such contaminants.
Foods
The first thing to keep in mind regarding detoxification and health is that we must include foods that help us to naturally detoxify our body, while still taking in nutrients. Any food that has lots of chlorophyll in it will help tremendously in detoxing as well as providing essential nutrients our cells need. Ensuring to include plenty of spinach, green salads, arugula, cilantro, parsley, kale, cucumbers and other green veggies into your meals is a great way to begin.
Looking more specifically at cilantro, we find that when combined with chlorella, it can remove a very large amount of heavy metals within a short time frame. In fact, studies done at the Optimal Wellness Test Research Center showed that within 42 days of using cilantro and chlorella, 74% of aluminum, 91% of Mercury and 87% of lead within the body was removed. It was noted that using cilantro and chlorella in conjunction was important because cilantro mobilizes many more toxins than it can remove from the body, whereas with chlorella also in the bloodstream, it can act to remove the excess toxins found in the bloodstream.
Other foods to consider using are spirulina and medicinal mushrooms like Reishi, Lion’s Mane, Chaga and Agarikon. Chaga mushrooms have been scientifically proven to protect against DNA degradation, remove synthetic chemicals and heavy metals, and purify the blood.
Cilantro is a wonderful medicinal herb.
Health Supplements
Fulvic acid is a health supplement gaining massive attention in the health supplement field, thanks in large part to Dr. Dan Nuzum. Fulvic acid is the end product of a process called humification. Microorganisms decompose plant matter in the soil which results in fulvic and humic acids. These are perhaps the most important and nutrient rich substances on the planet. In fact, fulvic acid is the most potent anti-oxidant known as it contains over 14 tetratrillion electrons (that’s 14 with 21 zeroes behind it) that it can donate to neutralize free radicals.
This gives it an incredible ability to provide electrochemical balance within the cell, which is crucial for detoxification. It also is rich in electrolytes, increases the synthesis rate of RNA and DNA, increases assimilation of vitamins and minerals into cells.
It also reacts very quickly with radioactive material and renders them neutral and harmless upon contact with such destructive elements. According to Supreme Fulvic:
“Radioactive elements have an affinity for humic and fulvic acids. They form organo-metal complexes of different absorptive stability and solubility. Uranium and plutonium are influenced by humic substances as are other polluting metals, each being solubilized and absorbed, thereby annihilating that specific radioactivity. Radioactive substances react rapidly with fulvic acid, and only a brief time is required for equilibrium to be reached.”
“Fulvic acid has the power to form stable water soluble complexes with monovalent, divalent, trivalent, and ployvalent metal ions. It can aid the actual movement of metal ions that are normally difficult to mobilize or transport. Fulvic acids are excellent natural chelators and cation exchangers, and are vitally important in the nutrition of cells.”
The source of fulvic acid is important though as Optimally Organic notes that getting fulvic acid from vegetation rather than dried rock beds is best as the excess carbon found in the fulvic from rock beds makes the fulvic ineffective.
An incredible health supplement.
In addition to fulvic acid to help against destructive chemicals in the air, nascent iodine is something to also consider.
Nascent iodine is iodine that is in atomic form rather than molecular form. This form of iodine is easily absorbed by the body and is what is produced by the thyroid gland. Having enough iodine in the body is necessary for normal T3 and T4 hormone production as well as in assisting the detoxification process.
In a person who has given themselves sufficient iodine, radioactive iodine(extremely harmful) can’t bind into our body’s receptor cells and will be flushed out. However, it is important to ensure the body is receiving enough absorbable iodine, which nascent iodine provides.
Solar frequencies directly interact with our DNA.
Why Chemtrails?
There are a couple reasons discussed as to why chemtrails occur in our skies. The first is that some believe that shadow government want to keep people sick and unwell, so the pharmaceutical and western medical establishments continue to financially profit off of sick and unwell people. The second is that the shadow government wants to block out the Sun’s rays as much as possible. The first is that they know sunlight is actually healthy for a person and the second is so that our DNA does not continue to receive upgrades from the light that comes forth from the Sun. Remember that Russian scientists have scientifically shown how light positively affects DNA.
Additionally, engineer and scientist Maurice Cotterell has stated that genetic mutations and upgrades occur through the action of ionizing radiation and that X-rays and gamma rays from the Sun are the key factor in genetic leaps that species have taken and will continue to take.
What are your thoughts on all of this? Which supplements do you take to boost overall health? Do you take any specifically for protection from harmful chemicals being sprayed in the air and on genetically modified foods? What are your thoughts about the Sun affecting our DNA? Why are chemtrails happening?
Lance Schuttler graduated from the University of Iowa with a degree in Health Science and practices health coaching through his website Orgonlight Health. You can follow the Orgonlight Health facebook page or visit the website for more information on how to receive health coaching for yourself, a family member or a friend as well as view other inspiring articles.
A new study has discovered that acupuncture can be more effective in treating pain than intravenous morphine. In addition, the researchers discovered that acupuncture can work faster in relieving pain and have fewer adverse effects. The study was conducted over a one-year period at the Fattaouma Bourguiba University Hospital in Tunisia. The results were published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine.
The Side Effects of Morphine Use
Morphine is an opioid pain medication which can have severe adverse effects. These include drowsiness, dizziness, constipation, stomach pain, nausea, vomiting, headache, tired feeling, anxiety and mild itching. Other risks associated with morphine use include misuse, abuse and addiction.
In addition, scientific research has shown that prescription opioids may actually worsen chronic pain. It appears that a holistic alternative to treating pain is much-needed in order to mitigate the dangers of conventional pharmaceutical pain treatment.
Now, a groundbreaking study shows that acupuncture is one of these effective holistic alternatives. Considering the study results, it may perhaps be even more effective than morphine.
Study: Acupuncture versus Morphine
A study performed in the Emergency Department of Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital, which sees about 100,000 emergency patients per year, evaluated the pain treatment approach for 300 ED patients.
The research evaluated 300 emergency patients. 150 were administered up to 15 mg of morphine per day. The other 150 were given acupuncture treatment for address their pain. The researchers summarized the results as follows:
Success rate was significantly different between the 2 groups (92% in the acupuncture group vs 78% in the morphine group P < .001). Resolution time was 16 ± 8 minutes in the acupuncture group vs 28 ± 14 minutes in the morphine group (P < .005).
From the 5-minute time point, the acupuncture group reported significantly larger pain decrease compared with the morphine group.
Overall, 89 patients (29.6%) experienced minor adverse effects: 85 (56.6%) in morphine group and 4 (2.6%) in acupuncture group (P < .001). No major adverse effects were recorded during the study protocol.
In patients with acute pain presenting to the ED, acupuncture was associated with more effective and faster analgesia with better tolerance.
To paraphrase, the acupuncture group in the study experienced significant pain reduction, and the effect occurred faster and with fewer side effects when compared to the morphine group.
Western Medicine Recognizes Acupuncture as an Effective Medical Treatment
Acupuncture originated in China many centuries ago and soon spread to Japan, Korea and other parts of Asia as an accepted medical treatment. Throughout the Asian continent, it is widely used in health care systems, officially recognized by governments, and well received by the general public.
In 1996, acupuncture became an accepted form of medical treatment endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO based their endorsement on data from numerous controlled clinical trials conducted over the two previous decades. The WHO report that resulted from the analysis of these clinical trials states:
Diseases, symptoms or conditions for which acupuncture has been proved – through controlled trials – to be an effective treatment:
Adverse reactions to radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy
Allergic rhinitis (including hay fever)
Biliary colic
Depression (including depressive neurosis and depression following
stroke)
Dysentery, acute bacillary
Dysmenorrhoea, primary
Epigastralgia, acute (in peptic ulcer, acute and chronic gastritis, and gastrospasm)
Pain in dentistry (including dental pain and temporomandibular
dysfunction)
Periarthritis of shoulder
Postoperative pain
Renal colic
Rheumatoid arthritis
Sciatica
Sprain
Stroke
Tennis elbow
Notice the multiple mentions of conditions that involve pain, such as low back pain, neck pain and headaches. In their report, the WHO also stated that acupuncture has shown to have a therapeutic effect on abdominal pain, cancer pain, facial spasms, and labour pain (although the organization did not have sufficient clinical data to include these in the effective treatment list above.)
Undoubtedly, acupuncture can play a powerful role in pain management. It is an effective drug-free alternative to reducing pain with very few side effects that has been proven over the ages. Finally, science is catching up to reinforce this claim.
As always, do your research. There are lots of things happening right now much conflicting information.
CDC declares medical police state, announces power to detain the sick and punish those who do not comply
Friday, September 09, 2016 by: L.J. Devon, Staff Writer
(NaturalNews) Sinister, hidden motives are being revealed at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The agency recently announced a new invasive plan for the “control of communicable diseases,” by detaining people suspected of being ill and then forcibly medicating them against their will.
The CDC’s new proposal, published in the Federal Register [#2016-18103], will give the agency police state powers, permitting CDC officials to detain and forcibly inject chemicals into anyone they deem a threat to public health. There’s no rationale for such detainments either. According to the proposal, the “CDC defines precommunicable stage to mean the stage beginning upon an individual’s earliest opportunity for exposure to an infectious agent.”
Who owns your body?
This proposal is an open declaration that the U.S. government now owns your body. At least that’s what the CDC seems to be claiming. The truth of the matter is that each individual has certain inherent, inalienable human rights that must be defended. Each human owns their own body, and should never be legally bound to become the government’s property for forced injections or experimentation.
Vaccines cause severe health problems; even the kangaroo court system set up by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program cannot keep up with the increase in cases of realized vaccine damage. Thousands of cases of such damage are dismissed by the court, and in spite of this, over 3 billion in select payoffs have been issued to vaccine injured families since the court was established. (The court basically functions to give vaccine manufacturers immunity from judicial accountability.)
CDC wants to hear from you
The CDC wants to hear from you about their proposed power trip rule. This is an excellent opportunity to tell the agency exactly how nefarious and overreaching their new proposal is.
If the CDC takes on these new powers, all they will need is for the media to build up enough public fear against some new strain of virus, for a new vaccine to be introduced and forced on the public. Anyone who dares to ask questions or refuse could then be forcibly injected and jailed. As the proposal reveals, “… individuals who violate the terms of the agreement or the terms of the Federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional release (even if no agreement is in place between the individual and the government), he or she may be subject to criminal penalties.”
Coordinated vaccine compliance plot unveiled
Be aware that there is a coordinated, global effort to indoctrinate and force people into vaccine and pharmaceutical obedience. You are not only viewed as a subject without rights, but according to internal WHO documents, you are viewed as an adversary who needs to be psychologically manipulated into believing in vaccine “science.” If this new CDC rule goes through, it’s not unrealistic to assume that any information you give out as you declare your opposition to forced injections could be used in the future to track you down and inject you against your will.
If this course of action sounds familiar, you’re probably thinking of the medical experimentation that was forced on Jews during the holocaust. When the Nazis claimed ownership over Jewish people’s bodies they eventually used police state power to round them up and do whatever they wanted with them in the camps. In essence, the CDC’s new rule gives the government authority to incarcerate Americans en masse, relocating them to camps to be medically experimented on with vaccines and other pharmaceutical products.
CDC doing away with informed consent
Personal protection (by whatever means) has never been more important, as the CDC accelerates this same type of Nazi ideology by claiming ownership over your body. Furthermore, it wouldn’t be hard to unleash a United Nations global police force into neighborhoods to round up vaccine dissenters. If the government claims ownership over your body, and has the military power to do whatever they want, people will take orders and do their jobs, no questions asked. As the document states,”When an apprehension occurs, the individual is not free to leave or discontinue his/her discussion with an HHS/CDC public health or quarantine officer.”
Finally, the document reveals that the CDC is doing away with informed consent altogether, (even though the American Medical Association still upholds it): “CDC may enter into an agreement with an individual, upon such terms as the CDC considers to be reasonably necessary, indicating that the individual consents to any of the public health measures authorized under this part, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment; provided that the individual’s consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority under this part.”
The shunning of feelings, especially in Westernized culture, has left a deep scar in our psyches. Some of the most profound therapy for the spirit comes from truly experiencing our emotions, so how do we heal when we simply can’t feel?
Ironically, to ‘shun’ our feelings leaves our ‘shen’ wounded. Shen is what the ancient Chinese called the spark of the divine within us. Shen manifests in many ways including the ability to forgive, show compassion, appreciate beauty, and have mercy for others, but we are taught from a very young age that our feelings are ‘bad’ or ‘wrong,’ and then spend a lifetime wondering why we suffer from ailments as varied as cancer or rheumatoid arthritis.
E-motion is energy that cannot move. It is trapped. It is this stagnation that is thought to cause disease. When we feel an emotion we are actually feeling the movement of energy through our bodies. Our refusal to feel means that we biochemically and biophysically halt energetic freedom.
Science is still trying to catch up with ancient philosophies which understood how important ‘feelings’ actually are to our overall physical and mental well-being. We just now are starting to draw the correlations between certain pains in the body and their correspondence to unfelt feelings.
A woman who was once suicidal until she learned to truly feel her feelings has these four questions you can ask yourself to help you get unstuck from feelings that are difficult to experience:
1. Is it true?
2. Can you absolutely know that it’s true?
3. How does it make you feel when you think the thought (…..)?
4. Who would you be without the thought (….)?
Energy in Motion = Emotion
Socrates understood that energy is separate from matter as we have conventionally defined it. The Universe is made up of oscillating, moving, swirling energy, and so are you. This energy was present long before the earth ever formed.
Since your body is nothing more than an amalgamation of energy vibrating at a certain velocity, then you can understand how stagnant emotion or energy would cause the ‘water to dirty’ in the clear pool of
our divine being.
“It’s not something you can say in 25 words or less. It is a whole new paradigm shift that basically leads you to realize you’re not alone. You are connected to everybody else. Your emotions are key. And you are leaving a wake, changing the world around you in a huge way.” ~ Candice Pert
In fact, unconscious emotion – that is the energy we have ‘frozen’ within our bodies, is usually ruling us. Anger, fear, hatred, lust, greed, cowardice, hurt, sadness, etc. are not inherently ‘bad,’ but if they are not felt fully when experienced we usually form unconscious habits surrounding those emotions which then eventually manifest as disease.
Bruce Lipton, and other researchers, including Russian cosmonauts learned that feelings trigger the release of tiny neuropeptides (NPs). These are absolutely critical for metabolic functioning. NPs are responsible for regulating hundreds of different functions, including the release of hormones in the body.
Still other researchers, including Candice Pert, a Chief Scientist of brain biochemistry at the National Institutes of Health, determined that every emotional state carries with it, a specific, identifiable frequency. When we feel ‘positive emotions’ like joy or thankfulness, our neuropeptides tell the body to release endorphins like oxytocin, which make us feel happy – creating a self-fulfilling prophecy-like feedback loop. While feeling negative emotions doesn’t cause an immediate dump of stress hormones, the prolonged presence of these emotions (usually buried in our subconscious) causes all matter of havoc to ensue within the body’s communication systems and hormonal flow.
“As our feelings change, this mixture of peptides travels throughout your body and your brain. They are literally changing the chemistry of every cell in your body.” ~ Candice Pert
Where do Unfelt Feelings Go?
In ancient yogic texts, we learn that unfelt emotions get stored in the body, but where do they go, exactly?
Rejected feelings not only get stored in our physical bodies, they get warehoused in our energetic bodies. When we bump into someone who triggers a feeling of shame, sadness, or hurt, it usually means that they are triggering the memory of an unfelt feeling which has been shunned and placed (temporarily) into our energetic storage locker – the chakra system. Instead of being angry at those people for showing you where your wounds are, you can use their presence as a cue to start feeling some of your old, dusty, discarded feelings.
The more they make you feel ___________ (insert unpleasant feeling) the more the opportunity for healing is present.
The Chakra system is also connected to the physical body, and can be very telling about energy that is stagnant or stored therein.
The lower three chakras, the Root, Sacral and Solar Plexus chakras are ruled by what is called Goddess or Mother Energy and our intuition. They keep us grounded to the earth – our home. The heart chakra in the middle considered the bridge between our base emotions and the higher, spiritual abilities.
The upper three chakras – the throat, third eye, and crown chakras are governed by divine inspiration. All of the chakras are important, and store emotions according to their governance. For instance, if you are a workaholic, and have issues with trust you have stored unfelt emotion in your root or sacral chakras. If you have issues with speaking your truth, or being honest with yourself or others, you likely have stagnant energy in the throat chakra.
Letting the Flood Gates Open
When we meditate, or practice using other spiritual tools, we are really not changing anything about ourselves or our experience. We are already divine beings. What we are doing, is allowing, with love and consciousness, the stored emotion to flow freely again. Once this energy is consciously felt, it no longer has to be rehashed over and over again by the subconscious mind.
From this more conscious place, we can literally change our vibrations, alter our physiology, and be ‘cured’ from every possible ailment imaginable.
To heal, we must feel, and from this profound place of peace, we return to our wholeness.
Do medicines cure? Can medicine cure? Recently I reported that Webster’s New World Medical Dictionary does not contain the words “cure”, “cured”, “cures”, nor “incurable”. I thought it was an exception. I was wrong. It’s not an exception, it’s the rule.
I’ve done some further checking. The words “cure” and “incurable” do not appear in The Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary, Ninth Edition, 2015. They do not appear in The Bantam Medical Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 2009. “Cure” does not appear in Barron’s Dictionary of Medical Terms, Sixth Edition, 2013, although “incurable” is defined as “being such that a cure is impossible within the realm of known medical practice”. Medical Terminology for Dummies, Second Edition, does not contain the word “cure”.*
Further, “cure” is not defined and not in the index of most, if not all major medical references, including: Merck’s Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, Harrison’s Guide to Internal Medicine, and Lange’s Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment. In consistent fashion the DSM 5, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not contain the word “cure” in the index. Cured is not defined for mental illness.
Today’s medical practice has serious challenges with the word ‘cure’. There are cures, of course, and reference books like Merck’s Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy occasionally refer to them as cures. But much of the use of the word cure in Merck, and other references, is inconsistent. “Cure” is not well defined in medicine. A large number of the uses of the word ‘cure’ in Merck are actually ‘incurable’ or ‘cannot be cured’. And yet, it is not scientifically possible to prove that a disease cannot be cured. I have traced these references back through many editions of Merck; and even in the 1950s, “cure” hardly appeared in Merck, was not defined, and was not used consistently. I do not have resources dating farther back, except the original version of Merck, where cures were commonly suggested, but as near as I can determine, never correctly. If you do have access to earlier versions of Merck’s editions, I would appreciate your assistance to study this question.
It is interesting to take a simple illness: scurvy, for which the cure appears to be well known. Merck, Harrison’s, and Lange’s each contain entries for scurvy. But all recommend treatments – and do not use the word cure. Only one, Merck, actually provides a cure – Harrison’s and Lange’s recommend a treatment that does not cure. According to the U.S. FDA, you cannot claim a nutritional cure, for scurvy, or beriberi, unless you also “say how widespread such a disease is in the United States”. Cures are not defined by science, instead, they are “not defined” by politics.
One common use of cure, in the current edition of Merck, and in many medical reference texts is the phrase ‘cure-rate’. But, what is cure rate if not ‘cure-wait’? A cure-wait is defined by waiting a specified period of time. If you wait 5 years, and the patient is still alive, and the patient is cannot be diagnosed with cancer, then we have established a ‘five year cure-wait’. Calling it a ‘cure-rate’ is unapologetic nonsense.
Most of the organizations that raise funds to ‘fight’ illness also avoid the word ‘cure’. The American Cancer Society’s mission statement does not contain the word ‘cure’. When cure is used, it is seldom defined, and perhaps most important, cures are not defined and not counted. If you do cure your illness, whether it be a cancer, a depression, or even something as simple as obesity, the cure is not recognized, and cannot be counted. Obesity cannot be cured, because the cure is ‘not something’ and ‘not something’ cannot be a cure in today’s medical science.
Cures cannot be counted, because there are no tests for cured, because cured is not defined. Therefore: cures do not exist. There are remissions, and spontaneous remissions, but there are few cures.
One problem presented by modern medicine is this: cure is generally defined as a substance that cures. That’s why there is “no cure for the common cold”, even though every healthy person cures their own, and healthier people cure it faster. Cures accomplished by health, not medicine, are not recognized by the field of medicine. As a result, there are many invisible cures.
Can any illnesses be cured with medicine? Of course. Illnesses caused by parasites, infections, pneumonia, etc. are cured by antibiotics. Illnesses caused by fungal infections are cured by anti-fungal medications. There are well defined tests to ensure that the cure is complete. So, why does cure not appear in most medical dictionaries.
There are many illnesses that can be cured, but not by medicines. Any illness caused by a lack of healthiness – from arthritis, to depression, to heart disease and hypertension, and even obesity – cannot be cured by medicines. They are not caused by a parasite that can be killed. They can only be cured with health. All illnesses caused by deficiencies, whether it be scurvy, caused by a nutritional deficiency, or bedsores, caused by a deficiency of movement, a deficiency of physical stress – can only be cured by addressing the cause. No medicine can cure these conditions. Any illness caused by toxicity, by toxic chemicals, or even toxic social environments, cannot be cured by medicines. These can only be cured by addressing the cause.
Cure and cause are linked. But not, apparently, in modern medicine. Medicines treat symptoms, and ignore cause. As a result, cure is disappearing from our medical systems, our medical texts, our medical dictionaries, and the science and technology of medicine.
Every cause of an illness can also be viewed as a lack of healthiness, even parasitic illnesses. We don’t get an infection ‘because’ of the infecting bacteria, we get an infection because of a cut, or sometimes because of a weakness in our immune system – that would normally defend us. All illnesses are best viewed as caused by a lack of healthiness. The best medicines are those that work by improving healthiness.
But today’s medicines do not produce healthiness. Many of them actually harm healthiness, in hope that the illness will be harmed more. Today’s medicines cannot improve healthiness. So these medicines cannot cure illnesses. So cure is not in the medical dictionaries. How can we cure, if cure is not in the medical dictionary?
We need to define cure, from a scientific perspective, not from a medical perspective. We need a definition, or definitions, such that cures and be tested and found true. We need to define cure for every illness and work to improve our general and specific definitions of cure, and cured. This is the way of science. Until we do this, medicine will always be a practice of superstition, depressing symptoms, and patients and even their families, while never actually curing any illness, never claiming to cure any illness. There is a myth that medicines are intended to cure. But it is only a myth.
Can we define ‘cure’? Can we define ‘cured’? Yes.
(Note: To cure an illness is to successfully address a cause. Only a specific case, only an illness, can be cured. No disease, no general class of illness, can be cured. Every cure is an anecdote.)
An illness is cured when the cause is successfully addressed. We need to cure illnesses, one at a time. A patient might have many illnesses, and many of them might be invisible until we aim to cure, until the most visible illness is cured. When we begin to study cures, we will see these patterns, and be able to predict them and treat them more effectively.
Today’s medicine is stuck on ‘symptoms’, working to treat symptoms. When we work to treat symptoms, we have a problem. A symptom, even in a single patient, whether it be a cough, or depression, or a cancer, can have many individual causes.
It is possible to be infected with TWO colds and a flu. If one is cured, it has been cured, but the patient is not yet completely cured. It is a valid, important cure – even though it doesn’t look like a cure, and many doctors, and many patients might not consider it a cure. But when we develop a science of cures, we will learn that we must cure one illness at a time.
It is also possible, and commonplace for a patient to be suffering from two or three illnesses of depressio, to be two depressed, not too depressed. There might be a depression illness caused by a nutritional deficiency. There might be a different depression illness caused by consuming toxic substances. And there might be a third depression illness caused by lack of sleep due to a stressful job, relationship, etc. Modern medicine makes no attempt to cure depression – although if you go back 50 years, most cases of depression were cured.
An illness consists of the cause and the symptoms. Every illness, every single illness, is a link between CAUSE and SYMPTOMS. Every unique link between cause and symptoms is a unique illness – even if the symptoms are very similar or even identical. Therefore, the illness is an invisible concept that cannot be addressed by treating symptoms alone.
A disease is commonly diagnosed by symptoms, not by cause. As a result, any diagnosis of a disease might actually be several cases of illness. This makes the ‘disease’ very difficult, seemingly impossible to cure. Every illness can be cured. No disease can be cured. But today, when a disease is cured, it’s considered a miracle, not a medicine.
Once we come to this basic understanding, we can begin to cure. We can build a science of cures. We have the technology, but it is not a technology of medicine, it can only begin with a technology of language. We can put ‘cure’, cures, and cured, back into the dictionary – and work to remove ‘incurable’.
*Author’s note: The new, 2016 edition of Webster’s Medical Dictionary, does contain the word “cure”. However, the definitions provided are simplistic pap, food for babies, not for scientists. It offers “to make or become sound, healthy, or normal again” and “a course or period of treatment, esp: one designed to interrupt an addiction or compulsive habit or to improve general health”. “Incurable” also appears in this new edition, but unfortunately it is defined as “impossible to cure”, which sits in contradiction with Barron’s definition, and in contradiction with science and common sense. It is simply not possible to prove that any illness cannot be cured without trying every possible treatment – which is not possible.
But we can hardly fault Webster’s, or Merck’s, or Harrison’s, or Lange’s, or Barron’s or Bantam for not publishing the word cure, or not providing a scientific definition. The fault lies in the science, or the non-science, of today’s medical practices.
The sheer volume of medical findings that have been published during the recent decades is absolutely staggering. As such, it is difficult, if not impossible to test each and every one of them independently. Many contain errors, or even flat out lies.
There are plenty of reasons why this would be the case. Chief amongst them is the fact that scientists and researchers need money to conduct their experiments. Those who provide the funding might have their own agenda, when it comes to results, and will want the findings to reflect that agenda. In other cases, projects run out of funding, or need to be published quickly, to secure more money. In these situations, tests are often conducted improperly, or the results are not thoroughly verified.
Sometimes, a medical journal will publish preliminary, inconclusive results that will get picked up by the media and announced as if they were hardcore facts. If the news is a hit, they will often forget to mention the follow-up research that proved the initial results were incorrect.
1. Any Sort of “Scientifically Tested” Weight Loss Treatment
The truth is we’ve known how to lose weight for a very long time. Regular exercise, and a strict diet are enough to the trick in most situations. There are many different body types out there, so losing weight to the point where you look like an underfed fashion model might not be an option, regardless of how much you try.
However, losing weight the healthy way is a long, and difficult process, and a lot of people are looking for quick fixes to their problems. Popping a pill to slim down sounds like a great alternative to many.
Some products include an asterisk few people bother to check. If there is an actual medical test involved, the sample size of people is often so small it barely qualifies as a sample at all. But it’s enough that get that label attached to your product.
2. Flu Medicine that Actually Cures the Flu
It’s surprising anyone still believes that cold treatments actually work. Anyone who’s ever had the flu knows that it takes at least a few days for the symptoms to go away, even if you’re taking medicine.
The fact of the matter is, it’s not the flu medicine that’s working. At best, these treatments only alleviate the symptoms, but they don’t do anything against the actual virus. Next time you decide to buy pills that are advertised as being effective against the common cold, check their ingredients. You’ll notice they’re the same as those of common painkillers, or anti-inflammatory drugs.
The reason these drugs are marketed as flu medicine is to raise their price. It makes buyers feel like they’re going to be more effective than other drugs against influenza. And that’s going to make them willing to pay more.
3. Cancer Rates Have Increased Dramatically During the Past Decades
You’d think the numbers wouldn’t lie. And looking at statistics, it would seem that there’s a real cancer epidemic going on. While the number may or may not be true, the story that surrounds them is wildly exaggerated, to say the least.
In reality, there have been some major changes in our way of life, during the past decades. People tend to live longer. Since cancer is a disease related to aging, statistically, more people are expected to develop some form of cancer.
Secondly, people are much more aware of what cancer looks like, and medics have gotten better at detecting it. We no longer live in an age when things like ‘catching the evil eye’ can kill you. Now we can identify some of the causes that lead to diseases, and death.
So, why are the stories about soaring cancer rates so popular? It all comes down to money. The scarier the condition seems, the more funding researchers are going to receive.
4. Animal Testing Is a Good Way to Measure the Effectiveness of a Drug
Results of animal testing have very limited applicability when it comes to humans. Mice are usually preferred because they share certain genetic similarities with humans, but the truth is there similarities are not nearly enough to warrant a medical comparison.
The unreliability of animal testing, unfortunately, is often ignored. Drugs and treatments that have only been used on animals are marketed as being scientifically proven to work.
5. The “Talking Cure” Is an Effective Way to Deal with Trauma
Psychologists everywhere never cease to praise the merits of talking about a traumatic experience when it comes to depression, anxiety, and other diseases of the modern age. But patients’ testimonies seem to disprove these assessments. In some cases, the “talking cure” might actually do more harm than good. Some professionals might be so desperate to prove that the method works, that they actually convince patients that they have a deep, underlying issue they are not aware of, when that’s not the case.
And unfortunately, most antidepressants have been proven to be ineffective as well, which means more research should be done on a cure that actually works, rather than trying to prove that the old methods do have some value.
We often hear the phrase ‘Science still has a long way to go’, but rarely is used when it comes to ethics and reliability. It is true that the scientific community still has a lot to offer. But rather than always looking forward, to the next big discovery, it should take care to look to the past as well, and reanalyze the things it takes for granted, for whatever reason.
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2013
Watermelon is so much more than just a highly refreshing summertime treat. From the perspective of a growing body of clinical research, it is a truly medicinal food.
Only this month, research published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry found watermelon juice is an effective remedy for reducing the recovery heart rate and muscle soreness in athletes who were given 500 ml of watermelon juice (16.9 oz) containing 1.17 grams of the naturally occurring amino acid L-citrulline.[1]
Additional research indicates watermelon may possess the following health benefits:
Boosting Your Antioxidant Levels: Watermelon is exceptionally rich in lycopene (hence its red color) and other carotenoids such as lutein and beta carotene.[2] A 2003 study published in the Journal of Nutrition found that regular watermelon juice consumption resulted in significant increases in blood plasma concentrations of lycopene and beta carotene.[3] Keep in mind that lycopene has been found to have over 40 potential health benefits, and beta carotene (especially in its natural, food-complexed form) equally plentiful health benefits, adding extra significance to this finding. Also, the watermelon-induced increase in plasma antioxidant levels may lend explanation to why an epidemiological study of the Chinese found greater watermelon intake to be associated with a lower risk of cancer.[4]
Reducing Blood Pressure/Improving Arterial Health: A 2012 study published in the American Journal of Hypertension found that middle-aged obese subjects with prehypertension or stage 1 hypertension who were given 6 weeks of treatment with a watermelon extract containing 6 grams of L-citrulline and L-arginine daily, experienced reduced ankle blood pressure and altered carotid wave reflection, an indication of improved arterial function.[5] The inability of the blood vessels to dilate and function properly is known as endothelial dysfunction, and is likely the most well-known initiating step in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. If watermelon can ameliorate or reverse this process, it would certainly provide a breakthrough alternative to many of the drugs used for primary prevention, such as the cholesterol-lowering statin drug class, whose side effects, numbering in the hundreds, include heart muscle dysfunction and damage.
Increasing Plasma Arginine Concentrations: A 2007 study published in the journal Nutrition found that watermelon juice consumption increases plasma arginine concentrations in adults, proving that the L-citrulline from this plant origin was effectively converted into arginine. This is a highly significant finding because arginine has a great number of health benefits, especially for ameliorating the aforementioned cardiovascular problem known as endothelial dysfunction. There are at least 20 studies in the biomedical literature documenting its therapeutic role in improving endothelial dysfunction, but you can view over 150 potential health benefits of arginine on the GreenMedInfo database.
Combatting Metabolic Syndrome: A promising preclinical study published in the Journal of Nutrition in 2007 found that watermelon pomace, a rich source of L-citrulline, significantly improved metabolic syndrome in diabetic, overweight rats.[6] This study is of particular interest because it lends support to relatively new research showing that fruit consumption is not harmful for type 2 diabetics.[7] The new study results were described as follows: ” These results provide the first evidence to our knowledge for a beneficial effect of watermelon pomace juice as a functional food for increasing arginine availability, reducing serum concentrations of cardiovascular risk factors, improving glycemic control, and ameliorating vascular dysfunction in obese animals with type-II diabetes.”
Watermelon Seeds, a Rich Source of Protein: It behooves us to mention the fact that all parts of the watermelon have something to offer. The seeds, in fact, are an excellent source of protein. A 2011 study published in the Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology found that “The good nutritional and functional properties of watermelon seed meal proteins suggest their potential use in food formulations.”[8] While seedless watermelon are far more convenient to eat, keep in mind that they can not reproduce without human intervention and so there are several good reasons to choose seeded varieties.
So, next time you are in the mood for watermelon, and are concerned about its notorious sugar content, ‘weight-promoting effects,’ and therefore possible diabetogenic and cardiotoxic properties – think again. Quality and moderation are the only things to make sure you are careful about when deciding to consume watermelon. Otherwise, enjoy it (remember Vitamin P(leasure))and know that it may just be as good for you as it tastes.
[7] Christensen AS, Viggers L, Hasselström K, Gregersen S. Effect of fruit restriction on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes–a randomized trial. Nutr J. 2013 Mar 5;12:29.
