Lovemaking can boost your heart, clear a stuffy nose, and even fight off Covid, study shows

 Have more sex is unlikely to be the advice you expect to receive from your GP.

 HELEN FOSTER FOR THE DAILY MAIL

But to judge from the latest studies, an active sex life could be as important as watching your diet, moderating alcohol intake and quitting smoking to boost health.

'Granted "improving your health" is not usually at the top of your mind when you're thinking about sex, but immunity, cardiovascular health and depression are just some of the areas where studies suggest that sexual activity might have a benefit,' says Kaye Wellings, a professor of sexual and reproductive health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Research shows that it can help reduce the risk of heart disease and incontinence.

 

And last year, a study published in the journal Fertility and Sterility showed that sexual activity at least three times a month was linked with a milder Covid-19 infection. 

The theory is that it primes the body to handle pathogens more effectively.

This followed a 2004 study in the journal Psychological Reports which found that intercourse once or twice a week increases levels of immunoglobulin A, part of the antibody response of the immune system that defends us against infection.

Another study suggested that orgasms can clear a stuffed-up nose as effectively as a nasal spray, reported the journal Ear, Nose & Throat last year — probably because exercise has also been shown to be a decongestant, as the resulting increase in body temperature loosens mucus while the increase in circulation encourages the flow of nasal discharge.

And research from University College London found that women engaging in sexual activity at least monthly had a later menopause than those who weren't sexually active. 

The researchers suggest that if sexual activity is not detected, the body deprioritises ovulation, triggering the menopause.

It can also be good for mental health. A study in The Journal of Sexual Medicine in January found that people who maintained a sexual relationship during lockdown — whether they were living with their partner or not — were 34 per cent less likely to experience depression than those who didn't.

In fact, some experts believe sex to be such an important barometer of general health that it should be more widely discussed by doctors with their patients — yet this rarely happens.

'As a doctor, you're happy to ask women about their menstrual cycle, yet sexual activity is something we rarely discuss,' says Geoffrey Hackett, a urologist and a professor of men's health at Aston University in Birmingham.

'And the issue is even worse with men, yet knowing if a man has regular erections tells me an awful lot about his health.'

An inability to get an erection can have a number of causes but may occur as a result of blockages in the arteries supplying the penis, a potential sign of furred arteries elsewhere in the body.

Being physically able to have sex also indicates a certain level of fitness. 

'We estimate that 20 minutes of sexual activity in a man is the equivalent of walking a mile, and that's a reasonable amount of physical effort if you do it often enough,' says Professor Hackett.

When having sex, men burned on average 100 calories and their heart rate rose to as much as 170 beats per minute — this helps strengthen the heart — according to research published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour in February.

Men having sex two to three times a week have a 45 per cent lower risk of a heart attack compared with those having sex once a month or less, reported the American Journal of Cardiology in 2010. 

Professor Hackett points to the Caerphilly Heart Disease Study, set up in 1979, involving 914 men aged 45 to 59, which found that deaths from heart disease over 20 years were double in men having intercourse once a month compared with those having sex twice a week.

READ MORE>>>>

The World Has a Plastic Problem, as New Study Into ‘Plasticosis’ Disease Reveals.

 "WE INGEST ABOUT A CREDIT CARD'S WORTH OF PLASTIC EVERY WEEK."

BY RAW EGG NATIONALIST

Plasticosis” is the name a group of scientists have given to the damage caused by ingestion of plastics. The research these scientists carried out is based on seabirds, but has clear implications for other animals, including us.

It has been estimated that humans may now be consuming as much as a credit card’s worth of plastic every week, with negative implications that are now starting to become worryingly clear.

The international team, with scientists from the UK and Australia, studied the effects of plastic consumption on flesh-footed shearwater fledglings and show that it causes severe scarring of the birds’ stomachs, interfering with digestion, which can lead to stunted growth and, in some cases, death. Other inorganic materials that were also consumed by the birds, such as pumice, caused no such scarring, highlighting the “unique pathological properties of plastics”.

While the scale of plastic pollution has been a matter of concern for some time now, there is growing concern about the effects of microplastics in particular. These are tiny pieces of plastic, including pieces invisible to the naked eye, that are produced either deliberately or inadvertently as larger pieces of plastic are broken down due to environmental exposure. Scarcely a week passes without a new microplastic study revealing the extent our environment, including the air we breathe and our homes, is contaminated with plastic, and the worrying effects exposure to this contamination is having on living creatures.

Microplastics, as vectors for harmful endocrine-disrupting chemicals like PFAS, BPA and phthalates, are also directly implicated in the global collapse of human fertility we have been witnessing in recent decades. Sperm counts, sperm quality and testosterone levels are all declining precipitously, at the same time as a variety of birth defects, such as genital shrinkage and malformation, are on the rise.

This crisis of fertility was one of the principal subjects of the recent Tucker Carlson documentary The End of Men, which focused on the dire social and political knock-on effects of these widespread biological changes. As much as left-liberals may welcome and even encourage the biological changes that are taking place – Avatar director James Cameron recently described testosterone as a “toxin that you have to slowly work out of your system” – the truth is that, if left uncorrected, they will surely spell disaster for our civilisation and the world.

PLASTICOSIS – WHAT IT IS.

Plasticosis, as identified by the researchers, is a type of fibrotic disease. Fibrosis is caused by excessive scarring in an area, as a result of repeated inflammation which prevents proper wound-healing.

After an injury, scar tissue forms to help in healing. If, however, an area is inflamed repeatedly, more and more scar tissue can form, which reduces the flexibility of the tissue affected, causing changes to its structure that may have serious negative effects.

The researchers had previously looked at the effects of microplastics on animal tissues, and found them in organs such as the spleen and kidneys, where they were found to be associated with the symptoms described in the previous paragraph. The team already knew that the flesh-footed shearwaters which live on Lord Howe Island, some 600km off the coast of Australia, were suffering from acute plastic contamination, and decided to consider them further.

In their latest research, the team found that plastic ingestion caused serious damage to the proventriculus, the first chamber of the birds’ stomachs. It’s this damage that the researchers decided to label “plasticosis”, since they found it to be specifically associated with the consumption of plastic. Although “plasticosis” is not a totally new term – it was already used to describe the breakdown of plastics in artificial joint replacements – it had never been applied in this way before. Other fibrotic diseases caused by inorganic materials such as silicone and asbestos have similar names – silicosis and asbestosis, for instance.

The effects of plasticosis on the birds are extremely unpleasant. As levels of scar tissue in the proventriculus increase, the tissue becomes more and more swollen, eventually starting to break down.

“The tubular glands, which secrete digestive compounds, are perhaps the best example of the impact of plasticosis,” explains study co-author Dr Alex Bond.

“When plastic is consumed, these glands get gradually more stunted until they eventually lose their tissue structure entirely at the highest levels of exposure.”

If the birds lose these important glands, they become more susceptible to infection and also lose the ability to absorb and digest key nutrients. In extreme cases, particularly with young chicks, they can starve to death as their stomachs fill with plastic.

The researchers found that growth was directly linked to levels of plastic in the birds’ bodies. The length of the wing was associated with the amount of plastics the bird had consumed, as was the bird’s overall weight.

It was also clear that it was consumption of plastic, and not other inorganic items, such as pumice stones, that was causing the damage. Pumice itself did not cause scarring. It did, however, help to break plastic down into smaller pieces in the birds’ stomachs, leading to further damage.

THE PLASTIC CRISIS.

By providing evidence that consumption of plastic is associated with a clearly identifiable pathology, and by giving those negative symptoms a specific name, the researchers behind this latest study will provide further impetus to consider plastic pollution a specific threat to life on earth. This is only to be welcomed.

The scale of the plastic threat is truly mind-boggling. Over the last 70 years, just nine percent of the 8.3 billion metric tonnes of plastic produced has been recycled. The remaining 91 percent has either been incinerated or made its way into the environment, where weathering and aging will break it down into smaller pieces, and eventually into microplastics.

Almost everywhere we care to look, we now find plastic. It circulates on the wind and water like a force of nature. A recent study of the coastal city of Auckland, in New Zealand, for instance, suggests that 74 metric tonnes of microplastic fall on the city each year. That’s the equivalent of three million plastic bottles, raining down. We find microplastics in world’s most remote places, at the bottom of the oceans, in Antarctic snow and on mountain-tops. Around 3,000 tons of microplastics are estimated to fall in snow over Switzerland annually. 

Plastic is in our drinking water, our food, and in our homes. At home, we may be inhaling microplastics at levels hundreds of times higher than previously predicted. The young are at particular risk of exposure, as they chew plastic toys and crawl around in carpets made of synthetic fibres that trap dust and microplastic particles. Through analysis of stool samples, babies and infants have been found to have up to 15 times more microplastics in their bodies than adults.

While this new research focuses only on the stomachs of seabirds, there are clear indications that plasticosis is unlikely to be limited to the digestive tissues of birds. Instead, it’s probable that fibrosis will be the response of many other tissues, in many other creatures, to repeated inflammation by plastic particles. Microplastics have been found deep in human lung, liver, kidney and spleen tissue – even in the placentas of pregnant women – and they’re also known to cross the blood-brain barrier.

If its ubiquity is the defining feature of plastic pollution today, there are still things you can do to mitigate your exposure, even if you can’t eliminate it totally. Reduce your reliance on plastics in every aspect of your life, including bottles, Tupperware and clothing; filter your water; ditch processed food and buy locally produced organic food whenever possible, or even start to produce some yourself – doing any or all of these things will absolutely help to reduce the levels of harmful plastic you ingest.

In the long term, though, only a determined political movement can deal with the global scale of the problem. While individual entrepreneurs such as Boyan Slat, whose Ocean Cleanup company has been tasked with removing the enormous Great Pacific Garbage Patch, are trying to take the matter in hand with new technologies, their admirable work cannot address the underlying fact of our modern thralldom to plastic. Yes, we need innovation – to clean our air, water and soils of the plastic that is already there – but there are also sensitive issues around plastic use and disposal that can only be addressed from the top, with political pressure. What good, for instance, are bans on plastic straws in the West when 90 percent of the plastic that ends up in the world’s seas comes from 10 rivers, eight in Asia and two in Africa?

About as good as a paper straw, actually.

SOURCE>>>>

Is Fluoride Bad for You? It’s Not Just in the Water

 

The Plain Truth has featured the negative and dangerous impacts of Fluoride on children's brain development here but let's dig even deeper...

By Rebekah Edwards of draxe.com

• What Is Fluoride?
• Sources of Fluoride You Probably Don’t Know About
• 6 Researched Dangers of Fluoride
• How to Detox Your Body of Fluoride
• Alternatives to Fluoridated Water

There are two sides to any story, and that is definitely true in the case of fluoride. Since being introduced into the public water supplies of much of the U.S. (and several other countries) in the 1960s, a consistent debate has existed on whether or not fluoride is truly safe as a water additive or dental health product.

It’s more complex than you might believe at first. On the one side, many public health organizations hail fluoride as a near-miracle for dental health and insist there are no questions or contrary pieces of evidence whatsoever.

For example, the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) states on their website, “Because of its contribution to the large decline in cavities in the United States since the 1960s, CDC named community water fluoridation one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.” (1) The American Dental Association and American Academy of Pediatrics agree, and have since the beginning of public water fluoridation in the mid 1900s. (2, 3, 4)

Pretty convincing, right?

Unfortunately, the answer isn’t that simple.

The controversy over fluoride in water has been the main point of contention for anti-fluoridationists for the last several decades, since it was introduced widely in 1960. (5) Is it just kooks and conspiracy theorists that are continuing the pointless complaining about a public health victory?

Quite the opposite proves to be true after a bit of digging. A growing body of research has existed since before fluoride was ever approved for dental use finding it has the ability to cause long-lasting negative health effects in various bodily systems. (6)

What Is Fluoride?

“Fluoride” refers to any compound containing a fluorine ion. Sporting a chemical symbol of “F” and an atomic number of 9, fluorine is one of the well-recognized elements on the periodic table. As a pure gas, fluorine is “the most reactive and electronegative of all the elements.” It has extremely damaging effects to any living organism with which it comes into contact. (7)

In nature, calcium fluoride (CaF2) is found in soil and water. Spring water in areas without industries that regularly use fluoride generally contains about .01-.03 ppm (parts per million, also known as milligrams per liter or mg/L) of calcium fluoride naturally, while seawater is closer to 1.3 ppm. (8) These amounts vary greatly depending on location — in some parts of the world, calcium fluoride is found up to 10–20 ppm in water supplies, which is universally recognized as an unsafe ingestible amount of the compound.

Despite the insistence of various organizations to tell the public that this same compound is what’s added to their drinking water, this isn’t actually true. Calcium fluoride is not well-absorbed into the body, whereas sodium fluoride (NaF) is. This chemical compound does not occur in nature and was generally considered industrial toxic waste until 1950, when it was announced as a new dental health initiative.

1945 marked the start of studies in several cities across the U.S. to compare the prevalence of cavities (dental caries) between children and adults drinking fluoridated or unfluoridated water. According to the CDC, dental caries were reduced 50–70 percent in fluoridated communities during the 13–15 years of these “studies.” (9)

However, no data is available for the amount of cavity reduction experienced by the “control” communities in these experiments. As dental health has improved steadily in both fluoridated and unfluoridated communities of the U.S., this data would be very worthwhile but, unfortunately, does not exist or is not readily available to the public. (10)

As of 2014, about 74.4 percent of people in the U.S. with community water systems were provided with fluoridated water. (11) This is a 0.2 drop in the previous 2012 statistic, resulting partly from community efforts of citizens urging their leaders to remove fluoride from public drinking water.

Unlike you may expect, though, the fluoride used in your drinking water is not calcium fluoride nor sodium fluoride. Now, in 90 percent of our fluoridated water, it’s a compound known as hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFS or FSA). HFS is a by-product of the process used to create phosphate fertilizers that used to be considered toxic waste and is now (more than likely) an additive in your family’s water. (12)

In a petition submitted in 2013 by a former EPA scientist, J. William Hirzy, Ph.D., and colleagues requested the EPA to discontinue the use of HFS in public water due to the proven adverse effects it may have on human health, including issues via the presence of arsenic. (13)

That’s correct: The additive used to improve your dental health also contains arsenic, which, incidentally, is allowed in measures of .010 ppm in water by EPA standards, although the MCLG (maximum contaminant level goal) is zero, due to arsenic’s cancer-causing impact. (14, 15)

Not only does hydrofluorosilicic acid contain arsenic, it also leaches lead from piping at much greater rates than sodium fluoride, although both compounds have this effect. (16) Lead crosses the blood-brain barrier — as well as to unborn children in pregnant mothers — and has no known safe level of contamination that won’t cause harmful effects, such as cancer. (17)

Is fluoride safe for you?

According to the CDC and other governmental bodies, there is only one known cosmetic issue that occurs from too much fluoride in water or from other sources: fluorosis (which I’ll discuss a little later). (18) In another section of the CDC’s website, they provide a toxicology guide for fluorines, fluoride and hydrogen fluoride. This guide sets a “minimal risk level” of fluoride at .05 mg/kg/day for chronic exposure, which defines the amount of fluoride that would cause issues when chronically ingested. (19) That figure can be translated to .11 milligrams per pound of weight per day.

Doing the math: This means that a 160-pound person drinking an optimal amount of water (80 ounces) from a fluoridated source would ingest 1.66 milligrams of fluoride from that water alone. The CDC’s given “minimal risk level” of .11 mg/lb/day (.05 mg/kg/day) means that same person should not consistently consume 3.65 milligrams of fluoride each day, or may suffer adverse effects.

Not only is that far too close a margin, in my opinion, but this metric doesn’t consider the additional fluoride from toothpaste, mouthwash, food and drinks that the same person would also regularly ingest. It also is considering a full-grown adult who understands how to not swallow toothpaste, which can’t always be said for a small child brushing his teeth with fluoridated toothpaste with 1,000 times the fluoride as tap water per volume.

The adverse effects this includes should just be that one “cosmetic” problem, though, right? Not quite — the CDC has finally included a prevalence of “increased bone fractures in the elderly” related to drinking fluoridated water after they could no longer avoid the evidence. This is not listed on the community fluoridation material they distribute.

A growing number of professionals have doubted the safety of water fluoridation in its current state for many decades. This problem exists, in part, because the amount of long-term, high-quality, unbiased research available is limited to non-existent.

For example, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (a British governmental body) looked at the evidence about the carcinogenic potential of fluoride. Their results were tentative at best, and they stated at the end of their compilation that, “Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken.” (20)

In 2006, the National Research Council conducted a review entitled “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.” Their research led them to a few conclusions about the safety of fluoride according to available data at that time, such as: (21)

• Athletes, outdoor workers and people with certain medical conditions such as diabetes insipidus and poor kidney function are more sensitive to water’s fluoride content.
• Infants and children are daily exposed to fluoride three to four times more than adults on a body weight comparison basis.
• Even with the “insufficient” data regarding fluoride’s impact on the central nervous system, they felt the results of the existing warranted more investigation.
• They acknowledged effects to the endocrine system caused by fluoride, although they referred to them as “subclinical” and not “adverse,” but agree that they deserve more research, particularly because these issues may impact the sexual development of children consuming fluoride within the US’s current guidelines.
• They point out the major gaps in the scientific evidence regarding fluoride and make several recommendations for future study focus.

Another expert who spoke out about concerns of the safety of fluoride is John Colquhoun, a dentist in New Zealand who was appointed to Principal Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand’s largest city. Dr. Colquhoun, once passionately pro-fluoridation, re-examined the facts and studies available on fluoridation and wrote an explanation of his staunchly anti-fluoridation stance in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine in 1997.

He explains that this dedication to fluoride as the savior of dental health, particularly for low-income families who do not receive regular dental care, is based, in his opinion, on a determination to “bend over backwards to explain away new evidence,” specifically evidence opposing the common view. Colquhoun claims that flawed studies contributed to this issue greatly, but that when he was presented with the evidence of the decline of tooth decay in totally non-fluoridated communities, his conclusion was that fluoride actually does far more harm (to the teeth and other parts of the body) than it ever does good. (23, 24)

As with most things, this view is opposed by many. Herschel S. Horowitz, DDS, MPH, a former Chief of the Community Programs Section of the National Institute of Dental Research, wrote a rebuttal to John Colquhoun’s letter. He concluded that the letter contained poor references to junk science and remains convinced that community water fluoridation is totally safe. (25)

READ MORE>>>>

It's All About the Liver!

 "The only organ that can 100% completely regenerate is the liver...it has 500 function!" ~ Dr. Eric Berg

By Dr. Berg ~ Author of The 7 Principles of Fat Burning which includes the Liver Enhancement Diet 

Many people don’t know they have an inflamed liver until it has progressed. Check out these top remedies for an inflamed liver. 

Today, I want to cover what you need to know about an inflamed liver. In many cases, people are unaware that they have inflammation in the liver. This can allow it to progress leading to scar tissue and cirrhosis. But, the good news is that the liver is one of the only organs that can completely regenerate.

People don’t typically experience any symptoms of an inflamed liver until it has progressed. One of the big symptoms is lethargy. An inflamed liver, scar tissue, or a fatty liver can lead to additional problems like arthritis, decreased thyroid function, and digestive problems. It can also create a weakness in the gallbladder. 

A few causes of inflammation in the liver:

• Sugar

• Refined carbs

• Alcohol 

• Vegetable oils

• Snacking 

Autoimmune conditions can also lead to an inflamed liver. Something else to keep in mind is that cancer tends to travel to areas of inflammation. It’s important to try to eliminate as much inflammation as possible. 

With inflammation in the liver, you slowly lose liver function over time. But, the interesting thing about the liver is that you don’t actually need much of it to function normally. It can take a beating and regenerate as long as you don’t let it get too bad. Cruciferous vegetables are one of the best things to consume to help support the liver.

What you could do if you have an inflamed liver:

1. Take milk thistle (500mg per day)

2. Take vitamin D3 (10,000-20,000+ IUs per day)

3. Do intermittent fasting (at least 18 hours per day)

4. TUDCA (2 in the morning and 2 in the afternoon on an empty stomach)

5. Take tocotrienols (300mg with a meal) 6. Take selenium (200mcg)

See the video below for more info on inflammation of the liver, the causes, and the remedies. 

Here are some great short yet powerful videos on how to enhance your health in so many ways by focusing on the liver.

 

READ MORE>>>>