research shows our sensitivities are actually pretty spot-on, Nature Know!

In the Energy Balance podcast above, health coach and independent health researcher Jay Feldman and Mike Fave, a registered nurse and independent researcher, discuss how your water and salt intake affect the energy production in your body, and your blood pressure. Feldman and Fave both specialize in bioenergetic medicine, pioneered by the late Ray Peat, a biologist and physiologist who was one of the founders of the pro-metabolic diet based on the bioenergetic theory of health.1

I have only recently been diving into their YouTube channel and am very impressed with their ability to share accurate information about health and bioenergetic medicine. After going through 35 podcasts, I have not heard them make any inaccurate statements.

If you are interested in learning more about optimizing mitochondrial energy production and bioenergetic medicine, I would strongly recommend going to their YouTube channel and start listening to their podcasts — but start from episode 1, which is only about 4 years old as I believe this is the best YouTube channel to learn BioEnergetic medicine that can change your life and the information is free. Hard to get much better than that.

This podcast dispels the myth of drinking eight glasses of water per day. Most in the wellness industry will tell you to drink lots of water and limit your salt intake, but that is the opposite of what you want to do.

Not only do these strategies not improve your hydration, but they may also cause many of the issues they’re supposed to prevent, including headaches, skin problems, detox problems, decreased immune function and lower metabolism.

"We might actually want to be drinking less water and eating more salt," Feldman says. "We’ll also talk about how we can address high blood pressure, and why the general recommendations to drink more water and eat less salt might not be a good idea for high blood pressure."

Unfounded Claims

Surprising as it may seem, the recommendation to drink eight glasses of water (or more) each day "is in many ways a baseless recommendation that isn't supported by research," Feldman says. Even more surprising, perhaps, is that drinking water is not by itself a strategy that will guarantee hydration.

Many different factors can affect your cells’ capacity to use the water available to them, including the mineral balance in your body and your blood volume. Drinking excessive amounts of water, to the point that your urine is clear, also comes at a cost.

The same, but in reverse, can be said for salt. Very low salt intake, which is recommended for cardiac patients and those with high blood pressure in particular, likely does more harm than good. High salt intake is also wrongly accused of causing dehydration.

To learn more about how to optimize your metabolism and cellular energy production — which as Feldman notes may help address your high blood pressure — check out my interviews with biohacker Georgi Dinkov, featured in "Crucial Facts About Your Metabolism," "Important Information About Low Carb, Cortisol and Glucose" and "A Surprising Reason Why You May Need More Carbs in Your Diet."

- Sources and References

• 1 Umzu. Who Is Ray Peat? 
• 2 Dave Asprey EZ Water 
• 3 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Table S-3 
• 4 Harvard Health Publishing, January 23, 2017 
• 5 DietaryGuidelines.gov Food Sources of Pota

Fwd: Do you feel manipulated?

There are literally thousands of peer reviewed studies on vaccine hesitancy and how the government can overcome it. In sum, there are over 6000 such studies on Pubmed. A more narrowly focused search on endnote pulled up about 1250 studies. These studies have a wide range of topics, but most focus on which groups of people are vaccine hesitant, statistics on these populations, as well as how to overcome vaccine hesitancy through propaganda, censorship, the law and behavioral control. The fact is that our government, governments from around the world, the WHO and UNICEF have spent billions of dollars in a misguided attempt to try to figure out how to make people take (coerce, compel, and entice) these experimental medical products (COVID-19 vaccines). This was clearly a coordinated effort. This monumental world-wide effort to manipulate beliefs has eliminated informed consent. Informed consent is the idea that a person must be given sufficient information before making decisions about their medical care. Pertinent information includes risks and benefits of treatments, the patient's role in treatment, alternative treatments, and the person's right to refuse treatment. When people cannot get reliable safety information on whether to take an experimental product or any medical product, when they are being coerced and are not informed of important safety considerations, informed consent is gone. Of particular concern is the vaccine hesitancy clinical trials that are specifically designed to see what types of propaganda, nudging, computational propaganda and behavioral modifications work best to elicit compliance from entire populations. In funding such studies, the government and world-wide leadership have endeavored to eliminate informed consent. Remember, the USA only has Emergency Use Authorized COVID vaccines available. These products have not had to go through the rigors of the clinical trial process to receive full licensure. Of course, much of what has been labeled as misinformation over the past three years has been proven to be truth. People were not allowed to know the truth through propaganda, censorship and coercion. These studies have bought and paid for mostly by the US government, UNICEF or NGO/astroturf organizations working on their behalf. This is basically taxpayer-funded market research to garner compliance for the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. Marketing research and methods to coerce large populations by the US government for the likes of Pfizer and Moderna. So, Dr. Mandy Cohen, the Director of the CDC is right. These experimental vaccines have been studied more than any vaccine in history - to ensure 100% uptake by the global population. Below is a recent paper, whose authors work for the Health and Human Services - our government. From the Abstract: "the US Department of Health and Human Services launched the We Can Do This public education campaign in April 2021 to increase vaccine confidence. The campaign uses a mix of digital, television, print, radio, and out-of-home channels to reach target audiences... The size and length of the Department of Health and Human Services We Can Do This public education campaign make it uniquely situated to examine the impact of a digital campaign on COVID-19 vaccination, which may help inform future vaccine communication efforts and broader public education efforts. These findings suggest that campaign digital dose is positively associated with COVID-19 vaccination uptake among US adults; future research assessing campaign impact on reduced COVID-19–attributed morbidity and mortality and other benefits is recommended. This study indicates that digital channels have played an important role in the COVID-19 pandemic response. Digital outreach may be integral in addressing future pandemics and could even play a role in addressing nonpandemic public health crises." Re-read that last sentence again. Not only did the US government (HHS) have a huge campaign to program our minds during COVID to increase uptake of the "vaccine", they are now planning how to use this "Digital outreach" for non-pandemic purposes... This campaign was bombarded the American people with propaganda, paid for by the US Government. From the article: The We Can Do This campaign aims to influence COVID-19 vaccine confidence and uptake through the dissemination of advertisements (eg, 30-second videos and static images with text) that address key attitudinal and behavioral constructs relevant to these outcomes across a mix of traditional and new media channels. These channels include television, radio, and print media; site direct (digital advertising directly purchased on websites), programmatic (digital advertising purchased through automated marketplace platforms to reach audiences across a range of websites, apps, and platforms), and paid social media (advertising bought directly on social media platforms) advertisements; earned media; partnerships; and influencer engagement. To reach diverse audiences, the campaign has engaged simultaneously with the general population and with specific racial and ethnic audiences through tailored communications in more than 14 languages, including English and Spanish. Between April 5 and September 26, 2021, according to Nielsen Digital and Total Ad Ratings (see Multimedia Appendix 1), the campaign is estimated to have reached more than 90% of US adults an average of 20.9 times across measured television and digital channels (Nielsen Digital Ad Ratings, unpublished data, 2021). In addition to the campaign's national reach, it also delivered extra ads to markets, zip codes, and population segments with higher proportions of vaccine-hesitant adults and higher COVID-19 prevalence. As the vaccination uptake rate varied across designated market areas (DMAs), the campaign also took vaccination rates into account when deciding where to deliver these extra ads to help encourage first-dose vaccination. This campaign not only utilized propaganda, it is also used known neuro- linguistic programming techniques, such as repetitive messaging. They then did a large clinical trial to see how these techniques affected people's decision to get the mRNA "vaccine". The results showed that this huge propaganda campaign was hugely successful in getting people to take the jab. The problem with propaganda and censorship is that the use of such by governments and world leaders is that it is a slippery slope. As documented in the paper above, our government leaders now know that the use of such tools was successful in increasing vaccine uptake. The administrative state is only going to increase their use of such techniques during the next health crisis. Climate change or gun violence seem logical choices for more governmental propaganda and censorship. Yep- there is good evidence that the government is paying for studies such as these: Finally, the public is waking up to these tactics. As the experimental vaccines failed, the masks were again documented to not to work, the economic impact of the lock-downs was exposed and school age children now show cognitive declines from school closures, much of the public is skeptical and untrusting. This is a good thing. This is progress for the people, for our country. The administrative state will not give up easily, they are only going to increase their use of these behavioral modification tools, propaganda and censorship. But next time, they will have a bigger fight on their hands.

Microplastic Everywhere!

In late 2020, research by the World Wildlife Federation International estimated that the average person consumes about 5 grams of plastic every week, which is about the weight of a credit card.17

In the average lifetime, a person will consume about 40 pounds of microplastic. While much of this will pass through you, some will remain and accumulate in your organs.

Over time, that really adds up. According to the WWF’s calculations,18 each month, you consume about 21 grams, or the equivalent of one Lego brick. In a year’s time, you’ve consumed 250 grams, or the size of a full dinner plate’s-worth of plastic.

In 10 years, you’ve ingested some 5.5 pounds, and in the average lifetime, a person will consume about 40 pounds. While much of this will pass through and be eliminated through your stool, some will remain and accumulate in your organs.

How to Lower Your Microplastic Exposure

Considering much of the microplastic in your body comes from food and water, it would be wise to use a high-quality water filtration system for your home, and opt for organic grass fed and grass finished meats whenever possible.

Avoid any meats or animal products from livestock (or farmed fish) that have been fed feed pellets, as these can contain microplastic from food packaging that have been processed in. Also, try to reduce your plastic consumption and generation of plastic trash in general.

For example, use reusable shopping bags when buying groceries, use your own coffee mug when getting coffee to go, skip the plastic wrap on your dry cleaning, and use a fabric shower curtain instead of a plastic one. This will reduce the amount of plastic ending up in landfills and the ocean.

Bring drinking water from home in glass water bottles instead of buying bottled water, and store foods in glassware or mason jars instead of plastic bags. You can also take your own leftover container to restaurants. Strategies such as these will help to reduce the amount of plastic that can migrate into your food. Definitely never microwave food in plastic containers.

These are just a handful of examples. Plastic is all around us and can be extremely difficult to avoid. But if you start looking around, you may find many areas of your life where you can eliminate the use of plastic and replace the it with something inert that won’t harm the environment and your health.

- Sources and References

• 1 Environ Int January 2021, 146: 106274
• 2 Particle and Fibre Toxicology volume 17, Article number: 55 (2020)
• 3 Interesting Engineering July 9, 2022
• 4 Plastic Soup Foundation July 8, 2022
• 5 The Guardian May 1, 2023 (Archived)
• 6 Nanomaterials April 19, 2023; 13(8): 1404
• 7 Interesting Engineering April 25, 2023
• 8, 11 International Journal of Molecular Sciences August 1, 2023; 24(15): 12308
• 9 New York Post August 29, 2023
• 10 International Journal of Molecular Sciences August 1, 2023; 24(15): 12308. Section 3. Discussion
• 12 Science Alert August 20, 2023
• 13 Science of the Total Environment February 10, 2022; 807, Part 2, 150817
• 14 Environmental Science & Technology August 2023; 57(30): 10911-10918
• 15 ACS.org Press Release August 9, 2023
• 16 New York Post August 12, 2023
• 17, 18 New York Post December 8, 2020

day-to-day choices you make

Door to Freedom

To that end, Nass is working with a new organization called Door to Freedom. Their website, which will launch shortly, will contain all the relevant WHO and UN documents, criticisms of those documents, and both long and short explanations of what's going on.

It’ll be a one-stop shop where everyone can learn what the plan is and what we can do to stop it. Door to Freedom also hopes to align freedom organizations around the world to act in concert to get the word out more widely.

Personally, I'm skeptical about the likelihood of winning this battle through legislative efforts because this cabal has been working on this plan for decades, if not centuries. So, they already have everything buttoned up, or close to it. Perhaps someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could get it done, but it will take a small miracle to get him into office as well.

What I do hold out hope for is that public resistance will block attempts of implementation. So, the key, I think, is to educate people. Henceforth, most of the day-to-day choices you make will take the world either closer to freedom, or closer to slavery, so it’s crucial to understand where we are, where the cabal intends to take us, and how they intend to get us there.

That way, you can make decisions and take actions that will move us in the opposite direction. Door to Freedom will be able to help you understand all of that, so please bookmark doortofreedom.org, and check back regularly.

Food Is Less Nutritious Than It Used To Be

Food Is Less Nutritious Than It Used To Be

• The U.S. government admits poor eating has led to nearly half of all Americans living with at least one chronic disease. However, while junk and snack food companies seek to garner consumers interested in organic production, it's essential to note that organic ingredients can't make junk food healthy

Research within the last five years has also demonstrated a decline in nutrients, including iron content in vegetables grown in Australia.5 The researchers looked at the iron content of vegetables and legumes and noted a decrease of 30% to 50% in sweet corn, redskin potatoes, cauliflower and green beans, and pronounced reductions in legumes. The researchers warned that as plant-based diets become more popular, monitoring nutrient composition is "strongly recommended."6

Another study noted a 23% decline in protein content in wheat7 and notable reductions in manganese, zinc, magnesium and iron. The impact of declining nutrient density in produce and grain affects not only vegetarians but also meat eaters. Livestock are fed less nutritious grasses and grains, which in turn has an impact on many animal-derived products that are not produced on biodynamic or regenerative farms, including meat, dairy and eggs.

These studies demonstrate that it turns out you can simultaneously gain weight and be starved of vital nutrients essential to good health. Donald R. Davis of the University of Texas at Austin was the lead author of the 2004 study and worked on subsequent papers on the same subject. He commented:8

"Efforts to breed new varieties of crops that provide greater yield, pest resistance and climate adaptability have allowed crops to grow bigger and more rapidly but their ability to manufacture or uptake nutrients has not kept pace with their rapid growth."

In addition to declining nutrient value, world crises are making a bad problem worse. Ukraine has been called "the breadbasket" of Europe9 as the country is responsible for producing and exporting roughly 12% of all food calories traded on the international market. Russia is also a major exporter, and the two countries together account for nearly 30% of global wheat exports, nearly 20% of the world's corn and more than 80% of the sunflower oil.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture projected that wheat exports from Russia and Ukraine would be down by more than 7 million metric tons in 2022. According to a report in January 2023,10 the exports from Ukraine had reached 23.6 million metric tons of grain, which had fallen from 33.5 million recorded at the same time in the previous season.

Ukraine’s government reported that the grain harvest would reach 51 million metric tons, a decline from the record 86 million in 2021 because of a loss of land and lower yields. By July 2022,11 the UN had brokered the Black Sea Grain Initiative between Russia and Ukraine. This allowed Ukraine to export grain through the Black Sea from ports that had been blocked since mid-February.

While the initiative helped facilitate exports from Ukraine, price volatility for wheat had reached its highest level in more than 10 years. International markets adjusted and adapted, resulting in higher-priced foods that nearly everyone has experienced at the grocery store.

According to data from the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), the change in wheat exports from 2021 to 2022 dropped by 5.3 million metric tons in Ukraine, 8.5 million metric tons in Argentina and rose by 10.5 million metric tons in Russia.12

Perfect Storm Threatens Public Health

As crop nutrient density declines, so does public health. Nutritional deficiencies are linked to a higher incidence of viral illness,13 gluten sensitivity,14 autism,15 dementia16 and depression17 to name a few. Multiple challenges have arisen that appear to be contributing to this issue of food insecurity.

As Davis noted, high-yield plants have resulted in lower nutrient density. National Geographic explains18 that crops with higher yields are grown in fields with finite resources. This means that the nutrients must be distributed across a greater volume of produce, which in effect, dilutes the nutrient value.

Another challenge to growing nutrient-dense crops is soil damage from high-yield practices, such as tilling, monocropping and GMO seeds. Most crops benefit from partnerships with soil fungi as it improves the plant's ability to absorb nutrients and water.19 Yet these high-yield practices hurt beneficial fungal growth.

Growing just one crop species, also called monocropping or monocultures, increases the farmers’ efficiency in the short-term but it also increases the risk of disease and pests, and leads to soil exhaustion.20 Using genetically modified crops gained widespread commercial use by 1996 and today, most corn, soybean, cotton and canola are genetically modified.21

While some continue to promote genetically modified seeds and the subsequent high-dose herbicides and pesticides used to control weeds and pests, further study reveals how this damages soil microbes, and subsequently our food supply. Glyphosate is one of the most widely applied broad-spectrum herbicides in agriculture.

However, as the Soil Association notes,22 glyphosate negatively affects soil bacteria and harms beneficial fungi that live near plant roots. In past years, glyphosate has increased the severity of crop diseases, possibly by altering the balance of soil microbes. It also has had a negative impact on the activity of several earthworm species.

Another factor that plays a role in reducing crop nutrient density is the use of nitrogen fertilizers. These fertilizers consistently favor the growth of pathogenic fungi23 while harming beneficial fungi necessary for strong plant growth. Yet corporate farmers have grown reliant on nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers.

The combination of the breakdown in logistics during the pandemic and the later conflict in Russia and Ukraine led experts to predict fertilizer prices could double in the following growing seasons.

Nearly 40% of the global export of potash, a key fertilizer ingredient, and 48% of ammonium nitrate is exported from Russia.24 Prices rose in 2022 but dropped in the first quarter of 2023. However, experts believe this trend may not continue and likely is giving farmers false hope, as experts anticipate price reductions could be temporary.25

Biodynamic and Regenerative Farming Choices Offer Hope

Chemical-based agriculture has destroyed rural economies, raised air and water pollution, destroyed pollinators and biodiversity, increased soil erosion and lost fertility. The U.S. spends $4.3 trillion on health care each year,29 which is more than any other nation and yet public health just keeps getting worse.30

It's clear that we live in an increasingly toxic environment, eating cheap junk-filled foods, while nearly half of all Americans live with one or more chronic diseases that even the government admits "many of which are related to poor quality eating patterns."31 In 2010,32 over 90% of Americans did not eat the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s recommended intakes of the most important vitamins and minerals necessary for health and the number didn’t change in 2020.33

And it's apparent from mounting evidence that lower nutrient density means it will take more food to achieve the same nutritional goals. Research consistently demonstrates that organically produced foods are significantly higher in antioxidants, especially in no-till regenerative systems.34 While there are separate efforts to create certifications for regenerative agriculture, it's worth noting that the "gold standard" certification already exists.

Biodynamic farming is a holistic approach that focuses on the natural use of the soil. It was first introduced by Austrian scholar Rudolf Steiner,35 and is an approach that provides far superior harvests when compared to conventional chemical-based agriculture. Yet at the same time, it also helps to heal the soil damage caused by conventional growers.

Biodynamic farming provides a higher volume of crops with increased nutrient density and biodynamic farms are completely self-sustaining. For example, most of the feed for the livestock originates on the farm. Organic certifications are not nearly as stringent as biodynamic certification.

For example, a farmer can section off part of the farm for organic goods,36 but 100% of a biodynamic farm must be compliant. The best hope for the future of the world's food supply is for farmers to embrace biodynamic certification in greater numbers rather than trying to invent new regenerative standards to compete with organic certifications.

- Sources and References

• 1 Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 2004; 23(6)
• 2 Oklahoma State University, Protein and the Body
• 3 Nutrients, 2017;9(11)
• 4 NIH, Riboflavin
• 5, 6 Foods, 2022; 11(1)
• 7 Scientific Reports, 2020; 10(21828)
• 8 Scientific American, April 27, 2011
• 9 Wired, March 11, 2022
• 10 Reuters, January 9, 2023
• 11 International Food Policy Research Institute, October 31, 2022
• 12 IICA, March 3, 2023 Figure 2a
• 13 Current Nutrition Reports, 2021;10(4)
• 14 Science Daily, June 24, 2019
• 15 Science, 2012;338(6105)
• 16 Cureus, 2020;12(2)
• 17 British Journal of Nutrition, 2021;1
• 18 National Geographic, May 3, 2022
• 19 PNAS, 2019; 116(46)
• 20 European Commission, December 13, 2021
• 21 Montana State University, The Environmental Impact of Genetically Modified Crops
• 22 Biosafety information center, The Impact of Glyphosate on Soil Health
• 23 Nature Communications, 2021; 12(3484)
• 24 The National Interest, April 11, 2022
• 25 KFYR, April 17, 2023
• 26 PR Newswire, May 6, 2018
• 27 MIC, May 8, 2018
• 28 Processes, 2021;9(9)
• 29 CMS, National Healthcare Expenditure Data, Historical
• 30 CNN, January 31, 2023
• 31 USDA, March 16, 2016
• 32 Journal of Nutrition, 2010;140(10)
• 33 Health.gov National Health Initiatives
• 34 No Till Farmer, February 9, 2022
• 35 Biodynamic Association, Rudolph Steiner
• 36 Farm Raise, October 7, 2022, Section 3 #3