A new Australian study has discovered that Enterococcus faecium, a bacteria already resistant to several drugs, has also evolved in response to the alcohol solutions used to disinfect in hospital settings. According to the study,

Alcohol-based disinfectants and particularly hand rubs are a key way to control hospital infections worldwide. Such disinfectants restrict transmission of pathogens, such as multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecium. Despite this success, health care infections caused by E. faecium are increasing. We tested alcohol tolerance of 139 hospital isolates of E. faecium obtained between 1997 and 2015 and found that E. faecium isolates after 2010 were 10-fold more tolerant to killing by alcohol than were older isolates.”

Understanding Balance

Sanitation has been hailed as one way to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria, particularly methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Clostridium difficile (C.diff). Sanitizers with at least 60 percent alcohol are recommended by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Both organizations cite alcohol-based disinfectants ability to annihilate bacteria. This leaves the microbiome like a blank slate, and like with any power vacuum, a new bacteria steps in to fill the void. In this case, it’s E. faecium.

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

Enterococci bacteria are behind some of the most commonly experienced infections, particularly UTIs, pelvic infections, and endocarditis. Most of the E. faecium strains that cause these infections originate in the gut, which isn’t a surprise. Like another likely cause of infection, candida, E. faecium is found in 90% of human intestines. It isn’t an inherently harmful bacteria. The problem occurs when the gut isn’t able to balance out the microbes, and E. faecium takes over to the detriment of the entire system.

Recommended: How to Cure Lyme Disease, and Virtually Any Other Bacterial Infection, Naturally

Looking at It Right Side Up

This is the biggest problem with our understanding of microbes and antibiotics. We talk about how dangerous a bacteria is or how serious infections caused by that fungus are…but odds are good you have been living with those organisms all of your life without issue. What’s changed?

The importance of your gut bacteria and properly balancing them cannot be overstated. By killing all of the bacteria, antibiotics allow the quickest ones to take over more easily. Antibiotics also destroy the hard work of building up your beneficial bacteria. Think of them like a helpful two-year-old. They want to do the right thing and help clean up, but you’re left with an even bigger mess than you started with.

Sources:

• Increasing tolerance of hospital Enterococcus faecium to handwash alcohols – Science Translational Magazine
• 5 facts about Enterococcus faecalis – BioCote
• Hospital Superbugs are Evolving to Survive Hand Sanitizers – Ars Technic

Electromagnetic Radiation From Power Lines and Cell Towers Disorientates Birds, Insects, Affects Plant Health

EKLIPSE is a UK based organization that aims to, “…improve the integration of emerging issues into policy development related to or impacting on biodiversity and ecosystem services.” The Telegraph reports that the nonprofit research group analyzed 97 studies and came to the conclusion that radiation from power lines, wi-fi, broadcast transmitters, and cellular towers pose a “credible risk” to wildlife and also degrades plant health. They warn that the upcoming 5G rollout could cause greater harm.

Animals including birds, mammals, insects and many others use the earth’s geomagnetic field as a magnetic compass. The EKLIPSE report showed that the magnetic orientation of birds, insects, spiders, and other animals including mammals can be disrupted by electromagnetic radiation. The report also established that these radiations also have an adverse effect on plant metabolism.

The report stated that “…serious impacts on the environment could not be ruled out.” They are asking for 5G transmitters to be placed away from areas where placement is likely to harm wildlife. The UK charity Buglife, after reviewing the report, is suggesting that 5g transmitters not be placed near LED street lamps, due to the fact that these lights attract insects and would thereby increase their exposure to the radiation.

The authors of the review concluded that there is

…an urgent need to strengthen the scientific basis of the knowledge on EMR and their potential impacts on wildlife.

… In particular, there is a need to base future research on sound, high-quality, replicable experiments so that credible, transparent and easily accessible evidence can inform society and policy-makers to make decisions and frame their policies.”

Matt Shardlow, CEO of Buglife, brought up a very good point:

We apply limits to all types of pollution to protect the habitability of our environment, but as yet, even in Europe, the safe limits of electromagnetic radiation have not been determined, let alone applied.”

This isn’t the first report on potential dangers with Electromagnetic Radiation.

A study from 2010 suggested that this electromagnetic radiation may be accelerating or causing a decline of certain animal and insect populations.

In the mid-1990s the cell phone industry commissioned a comprehensive research group called Wireless Technology Research to study cell phone health concerns. Dr. George Carlo oversaw the research. The commission started to reveal that there were serious health concerns with cell phone usage and then the industry decided to bury the results.

Researchers have been sounding the alarm for years.

The main health concern with electromagnetic radiation emitted by smart meters and other wireless technologies is that EMF and RF cause a breakdown in the communication between cells in the body, interrupting DNA repair and weakening tissue and organ function. These are the findings of Dr. George Carlo, who oversaw a comprehensive research group commissioned by the cell phone industry in the mid-1990s.” – James F. Tracy

In his continued effort to make America great again, Donald Trump is bringing back asbestos.

Asbestos is a mineral fiber with a lot of qualities desirable for manufacturing. It’s an excellent heat insulator, it dampens sound, and it is fire-resistant, strong, and inexpensive. It also causes cancer. Many studies have confirmed it.

It also causes cancer. Asbestos exposure is the only known cause of mesothelioma, a deadly form of lung cancer that is known to be extremely painful. Asbestos exposure is also linked to other lung diseases. Many studies have confirmed this. Thousands of lawsuits have been won against asbestos companies. In the last thirty years, seventy billion dollars has been spent on asbestos litigation, and more than seventy companies have been driven into bankruptcy because of said litigation. The Environmental Working Group estimates that 12,000 to 15,000 people die yearly in the U.S. from asbestos exposure, but other studies indicate that asbestos could be responsible for 40,000 deaths per year in the U.S. If you find asbestos in your home the EPA strongly recommends that you hire a professional to remove the asbestos. They come in with hazmat suits and respirators.  More than 60 countries have banned the use of asbestos. In the U.S. Here, the EPA only banned some uses of the material but all uses.

Despite all of this, Trump likes asbestos.

There is no new research disputing the health effects of asbestos, but regardless, Trump’s EPA wants to expand the legal uses for Asbestos. Can you guess why? One hint. Russia.

Uralasbest, a Russian mining firm, placed a seal with Trump’s face on their asbestos products. On their Facebook page, they posted their appreciation:

https://www.facebook.com/Uralasbest/posts/531137150617873

The translation reads:

Donald is on our side!

The combine “Uralasbest” produced an unusual batch of chrysotile: on the packaging of pallets with a mineral there is a stamp

“Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States”. In this unusual way, the workers of the combine’s asbestos-processing plant thanked US President Donald Trump for his words in defense of chrysotile-asbestos.

He supported the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt, who stated that his agency would no longer deal with the negative effects that could potentially result from products containing asbestos. Donald Trump supported the specialist and called asbestos “100 percent safe after use.”

“We came out with the initiative to support our chrysotile industry in this way and remind that our” mountain flax “is an important mineral for the whole world. The management has approved! “, They told in the factory.

The EPA declined to ban uses of asbestos that have already been abandoned by industry. They also put forth a “significant new use rule,” or SNUR, that requires manufacturers to notify and seek approval from the EPA before resuming asbestos production and uses.

According to environmental advocates, this new rule gives chemical companies the upper hand in creating new uses for such harmful products in the United States. In May, the EPA released a report detailing its new framework for evaluating the risk of its top prioritized substances. The report states that the agency will no longer consider the effect or presence of substances in the air, ground, or water in its risk assessments.” – The Architects Newspaper

The EPA is ignoring specific exposures to asbestos in the safety assessments, which is reportedly in violation of law, and they are disregarding the safety risks from asbestos that still lingers in old schools, homes, and building materials just about everywhere in the U.S.

The EPA has also eliminated many kinds of asbestos from the FDA’s definition of asbestos.

Recommended:

• Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections
• Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones
• Best Supplements To Kill Lyme and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Lyme Disease

Overweight people are at a higher risk of developing high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, regardless of their age, a new study from the University of Bristol in the U.K. says. Researchers chose to concentrate on the Body Mass Index (BMI) and routinely collected cardiovascular data from young adults aged 17 and 21. Dr. Kaitlin Wade, lead author of the study, says,

Our results suggested that having a higher BMI likely causes higher blood pressure…These findings suggest that BMI is likely to have an adverse causal impact on cardiac structure even in young adults…Our results support efforts to reduce BMI to within a normal, healthy range from a young age to prevent later cardiovascular disease.”

Healthy or Healthier

A healthy BMI is considered to be between 18.5 and 24.9, and the average American (male and female) is objectively overweight at 26.5. This study found a definite link between higher BMI and incidences of high blood pressure in young adults. It also found that a high BMI correlated to other cardiovascular anomalies, even in study participants that were considered otherwise healthy.

Related: Cayenne and Capsaicin, Natures Miracle Medicine

Healthy 17-year-olds with a high BMI were more likely to have an enlarged left ventricle, which develops when the heart’s main pumping chamber has to work harder than normal. This can be due to high blood pressure or a response to a larger body needing a greater volume of blood. The muscle can eventually lose its elasticity and subsequently the ability to pump enough blood.  That can later lead to an irregular heartbeat, stroke, or sudden cardiac arrest.

The Other Factors

So how does this happen? Why are healthy seventeen-year-olds experiencing cardiovascular symptoms more traditionally found in older people?

The 1970s ushered in an era of intense focus on the risk factors surrounding heart diseases such as smoking, “unhealthy” diet, or untreated high blood pressure. They also coincided with the rise of new medications like beta-blockers to treat these issues. These measures resulted in fewer deaths from heart disease and were treated as successes. Meanwhile, the causes of heart disease weren’t necessarily addressed, and in some instances were even swept under the rug. For example, the Sugar Research Foundation discovered that sucrose offset rodent metabolisms, increasing their levels of triglycerides. This leads to clogged arteries and increases a person’s predisposition to cardiovascular disease.

Today’s young person is dealing with an entirely new set of risk factors, the majority of them related to diet. Every single one of the people in this study has been eating or exposed to GMOs since birth, the first generation to claim that dubious honor. They’re also suffered through the modern world’s incredibly confusing relationship with fat. McDonald’s, for example, switched their fry oil from beef tallow to soy-corn oil the year after the subjects for this review were born. Increased agricultural chemicals, plastics of dubious health, and more medicated childhoods are only some of the other factors to examine when trying to diagnose why 17-year-olds are experiencing poor health before their time.

Related: Popular Antibiotics May Increase Susceptibility to Serious Heart Condition

New Discoveries

We predict the number of studies discovering young people experiencing health conditions previously associated with old people will only increase. There are quite a few happening now, and a rise in cancer and heart disease among the next generation is here. The single most important thing we can teach our children is how to eat truly healthy, exercise, and take care of themselves.

Sources:

• Being overweight tied to changes young adults’ heart structure, function – Reuters
• Weight differences contribute to heart health in the young – University of Bristol
• How Obesity Can Affect Your Heart – US News
• Sugar Industry Has Had Evidence Linking Sugar to Heart Disease for Nearly Half a Century – Organic Lifestyle Magazine
• U.S. heart disease rates decline – Reuters

Johnson’s doctors testified that he is probably not going to live past 2020. Johnson is 46. He worked for a California county school system where he reportedly applied the weed killer up to 30 times per year for pest-control.

This was the first lawsuit to make it to trial that alleges that glyphosate does cause cancer. Monsanto was recently bought by Bayer AG for $65 billion. The German conglomerate faces more than 5,000 similar lawsuits in the United States.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

The jury awarded Dewayne Johnson $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages. Dwayne was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in October of 2014, and with a “more aggressive form of the cancer” in March 2015.

BREAKING: Monsanto didn't adequately warn of the danger of weed killer Roundup and must pay $289 million to a man who claims it caused his terminal cancer, a California jury says. https://t.co/qb6Q0dxhLH

— The Associated Press (@AP) August 10, 2018

Monsanto says that decades of scientific studies have shown glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, to be safe for human use. But studies, including a brand new one, show otherwise:

Exposure to environmentally relevant doses of a glyphosate-based herbicide during pregnancy has been found not only to impair female fertility in rats…Argentinian researchers tested the glyphosate-based herbicide – one commonly used in Argentina – in pregnant female rats at two doses, which were added to their food. The rats were mated and dosed from the 9th day after conception until their pups were weaned. This first generation of offspring and their offspring in turn (second generation) were followed and monitored for reproductive effects.”

Johnson’s case was filed in 2016. The case was fast-tracked for trial due to the severity of his cancer.

Within the next few decades, Big Meat and Big Dairy will surpass Big Oil for climate pollution, according to a new study by the non-profits GRAIN and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. The jointly published study quantified emissions from 35 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies.

The non-profit researches analyzed 35 of the meat and dairy industry’s biggest companies. The researchers warned that meat and dairy companies will overtake oil firms as the world’s biggest polluters. The authors of the study say that factory meat and dairy farms are ‘majorly overlooked climate culprits.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

According to the report, the five largest meat and dairy corporations—JBS, Tyson, Cargill, Dairy Farmers of America, and Fonterra—are already responsible for more annual greenhouse gas emissions than ExxonMobil, Shell, or BP.

They also found that businesses did a poor job reporting their emissions and targets, and many failed to report emissions entirely or excluded supply chain figures, which amount to 80 to 90 percent of total emissions.

Watch the video below to see how the meat industry could actually help reduce climate change.

Related: Stop Eating Like That and Start Eating Like This – Your Guide to Homeostasis Through Diet

Related:

• FDA Loophole That Allows Farmers To Administer Antibiotics Indefinitely
• The US Has a 2.5 Billion-pound Surplus of Meat and A 1.39 Billion-pound Surplus of Cheese

Antibiotics benefit farmers by speeding up the time it takes livestock to be ready for slaughter. Cows and chickens and other livestock grow faster with antibiotic use than they would otherwise. For cattle, the time from birth to slaughter can be cut in half. But antibiotic resistance is a growing public health concern.  Antibiotic-resistant bacteria like e.coli can be pathogenic to humans and even deadly. Farm water runoff and animal waste are damaging our ecosystems in a myriad of ways. Consequently, in 2017 the FDA was compelled to act.

The C.D.C. states that 23,000 Americans die each year due to antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections and they estimate that more than 400,000 United States residents become ill with infections caused by antibiotic-resistant food-borne bacteria every year. They believe that one in five of these antibiotic-resistant infections may be caused by pathogens from food and animals.

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

In 2017, the Food and Drug Administration enacted rules that prohibited antibiotics from being used for growth promotion in livestock. Previously these antibiotics could be purchased over the counter but the new rules require a prescription from a veterinarian.

Despite the ban, it’s widely believed that ranchers still use antibiotics to speed growth. The F.D.A. rules have a glaring loophole: farmers can use antibiotics for disease prevention.

You don’t even need a sick animal in the herd to use antibiotics in the feed and water as long as the justification is ‘disease prevention’ not ‘growth promotion,’ ” Avinash Kar, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council

More in-depth reading: Antibiotics in Meat Could Be Damaging Our Guts & New Report Tracks Rise of Antibiotic Resistance in Humans and Livestock

Our health depends on our gut’s ecosystem. Antibiotics, vaccinations, glyphosate, and GMOs are known to disrupt the bacteria in our gut. If you eat meat, we recommend careful consideration regarding who your buy meat from.

Related Reading:

• We Consume Livestock Vaccines When We Ingest Meat
• Majority Of Meat Contain Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
• How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering