It’s a new month and July is all about the chicken wings! And with 4th of July only a couple of days away, what better way to prep for an awesome outdoor barbecue? Whether you like your wings on the grill, or in an air fryer, it is your day to celebrate. Did I mention I researched some Keto options too? We’ve got chicken wings for days!
This recipe is Keto-friendly and delicious!
2 lbs. of chicken wings (drumettes and flats)
½ of Parmesan Cheese (grated)
1 teaspoon of paprika
1 teaspoon of Herbes de Provence
Salt (to taste)
Pepper (to taste)
Kelapo Ghee Cooking Spray
Begin by preheating the air fryer to 350 degrees and spray the basket with the Kelapo Ghee Cooking Spray. Take the wings out of the freezer and once they’ve thawed completely, dry them with paper towels. In a small bowl, add the parmesan cheese, paprika, herbes de provence and salt and mix it together. Then coat the wings with the parmesan mic and place them in the air fryer. Cook the chicken wings for 15 to 18 minutes. Make sure not to overstuff the air fryer because the chicken wings won’t cook correctly. Garnish with more parmesan cheese on top once the wings are ready!
3 lbs of chicken wings
1 cup of flour
2 teaspoons of salt
1 teaspoon of pepper
1 ½ tablespoon of lemon pepper seasoning
¼ cup of Kelapo Ghee (melted)
1 tablespoon of parsley (chopped)
Oil (for frying)
In a large bowl, add the flour and season with the salt and pepper then stir everything together. If you want to add a bit more salt and pepper, be my guest! Toss the chicken wings in the bowl of flour and coat them completely. Fill a large pot with 4 inches of oil and set on high. Cook the chicken wings in batches and fry for about 15 minutes each, or until they turn golden brown. In a separate bowl add the melted Kelapo Ghee and lemon pepper seasoning. Drizzle over the cooked chicken wings and toss again! If you want a bit more flavor you can also squeeze half a lemon over the wings.
Peace, love and Kelapo
Link Description: Get a sneak peek at this exclusive, free 12-day online event.
Study: Coconut Oil a Healthy Saturated Fat – But the FDA Prohibits the use of “Healthy” in Describing Coconut Oil
by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
Recently we covered a study published in the journal Clinical Nutrition which compared peanut oil consumption with coconut oil consumption among healthy men in India, where those who consumed coconut oil had better health outcomes in terms of heart disease and diabetes. (See: Coconut oil consumption improves fat-free mass, plasma HDL-cholesterol and insulin sensitivity in healthy men with normal BMI compared to peanut oil.)
A researcher at The University of Edinburgh Medical School wrote a Letter to the Editor of Clinical Nutrition commenting on this study, criticizing current government nutritional guidelines regarding saturated dietary fat restrictions.
The cross-over study by Korrapati et al. detailed the potential cardioprotective effect of coconut oil, and I would like to thank the authors for their insight. Whilst the sample size was small, it was well-designed to investigate its primary end-points.
This study is particularly topical as, despite removal of the maximum dietary fat intake restriction from guidelines, a major resistance against saturated fats remains.
Setting aside the issue of whether or not saturated fats should be restricted at all, given the abundance of contrary evidence in the medical literature, the Edinburgh Medical School researcher reported that such guidelines do not distinguish between different types of saturated fats. Saturated fats can be found in animal products, such as butter, as well as plant sources, such as coconuts and date palms.
The rise in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) with coconut oil consumption is certainly a compelling finding. Results from a recent and larger-scale randomised trial by Khaw et al. corroborate this, but, interestingly, a similar HDL-c elevation was not seen with butter intake, which is also largely composed of saturated fatty acids (SFAs). Indeed, accruing evidence suggests that the saturated versus unsaturated distinction of fats is likely an oversimplification.
Korrapati et al. should, therefore, be commended on their focus on the biological properties of coconut oil, particularly the medium chain triglyceride (MCT) dominated fatty acid profile, which may confer atheroprotective effects.
Of note, a recent UK/Danish cohort study elicited that chain length is a major determinant of SFA-associated myocardial infarction risk, with no delineable, or even an inverse, relationship existing with short-tomedium chain SFA consumption.
The researcher also noted the inherent problems with most government nutritional guidelines to replace saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats that are supposed to be more “heart healthy,” when polyunsaturated fats are prone to lipid peroxidation which make them toxic, and are linked to inflammatory causes.
The promotion of polyunsaturated oils (mostly corn and soybean oils in western countries, but sometimes peanut oil in Asian countries like this study) in the modern day diet also leads to an Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio imbalance.
I note that the detrimental impacts of peanut oil consumption were comparatively overlooked in the analysis; it would have been interesting to explore the authors’ interpretation of this data.
The unfavourable lipid profile, with elevation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c), is an especially salient finding given the long-standing recommendations to substitute polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in place of SFAs.
It is difficult to discern from the methodology whether the additional 35 g of coconut/peanut oil daily was provided in a cold formulation, or whether it was heated for meal preparation.
With a significantly greater PUFA content than coconut oil, peanut oil is more susceptible to lipid peroxidation during cooking; numerous studies have demonstrated a deranged metabolic profile, including elevated inflammatory markers and LDL-c, with hot vegetable oil intake , and, thus, clarification on this issue would be greatly appreciated.
Furthermore, whilst Korrapati et al. outline the 15-fold greater concentration of linoleic acid in peanut oil versus coconut oil, I wonder if this could have been further developed.
Linoleic acid represents the most abundant omega-6 fatty acid, and whilst no consensus has been reached regarding its contribution to cardiovascular disease, omega-3/omega-6 imbalance is becoming an increasingly contentious issue. (Source. Subscription or payment needed to view full article.)
USDA Dietary Advice on Saturated Fats Based on Faulty or Corrupt Research
The “lipid theory” of heart disease, the theory that blames saturated fat and cholesterol for causing heart disease, is widely believed to be linked to a researcher in the late 1950s and early 1960s by the name of Ancel Keys from the University of Minnesota.
His original study has been shown to be false, with selective bias being used to only select certain populations that fit his theory.
Journalist Paul John Scott, writing for the Star Tribune in 2011, admitted that Keys’ work was not widely accepted by scientists at the time, and now is considered “junk science.”
We told the world that heart disease is caused by elevated cholesterol and that reducing saturated fat in the diet reduces this risk. That led the country to embrace the lowering of cholesterol with medications. All of those assumptions have proven themselves to be either overstated, oversimplified or wrong, and that has led us astray. Would it be too much for the leading cardiologists in our community to admit as much?
“It was also nearly 60 years ago,” as Dr. Daniel J. Garry extolled on these pages (“Treating heart disease at the U: A story of steady innovations,” April 14), “that University of Minnesota scientists — Dr. Ancel Keys along with Drs. Francisco Grande and Joseph Anderson — defined the relationship between dietary fat and serum cholesterol, which linked cholesterol to heart disease.”
Garry went on to praise the creation of cholesterol-lowering drugs that stemmed from Keys’ work. Keys constructed his hypothesis after studying the diets and heart disease in countries across the globe. But his research left out nations with data that did not match the hypothesis, and even within the data he published, populations existed in which diet and heart disease were wildly out of synch with his model.
By 1970, an English researcher named John Yudkin would argue that sugar in the diet was the cause of heart disease in wealthy nations, but Keys, sensing that his theory was suddenly vulnerable to reconsideration, aggressively led the charge to have that research discredited. (Source.)
Nevertheless, this faulty research was used during the 1970s in a Congressional hearing to decide USDA nutritional advice in, and the infamous “McGovern Report” on nutrition resulted in condemning saturated fats and blaming them for causing heart disease, even over the objections of many scientists who did not believe Keys’ research.
This YouTube clip contains actual film footage by CBS news regarding the McGovern report in 1977, and how scientists cautioned the politicians at that time that the science did NOT support the conclusion that saturated fats and cholesterol caused heart disease.
In 2017, a group of researchers with the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), reviewed historical scientific literature funded by the Sugar Research Foundation since the 1960s, which gives us a great perspective on how the war on saturated fats became public policy.
These researchers at UCSF, Cristin E. Kearns, DDS, MBA; Laura A. Schmidt, PhD, MSW, MPH; and Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, revealed how the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) influenced Harvard medical researchers financially and otherwise to report open-ended inconclusive research that omitted a lot of conclusive negative health data.
Their first article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA Internal Medicine) in 2016.
The title of the study is Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents.
The New York Times, which has given some press to exposing the saturated fat myth for over ten years now, led the mainstream media outlets that covered the UCSF study:
Here are some excerpts:
The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show.
The internal sugar industry documents, recently discovered by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggest that five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease, including many of today’s dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry.
“They were able to derail the discussion about sugar for decades,” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at U.C.S.F. and an author of the JAMA Internal Medicine paper.
The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.
Even though the influence-peddling revealed in the documents dates back nearly 50 years, more recent reports show that the food industry has continued to influence nutrition science.
NPR was another news source that covered the UCSF study in 2016:
The UCSF researchers disclosed how a top executive, John Hickson, vice-president of the SRF at the time took on the task of finding a way to discredit the increasing studies demonstrating sugar’s role in creating bad heart health.
Interestingly, a few years later in the early 1970s, Hickson became part of the tobacco industry’s PR machinery with the Cigar Research Council.
“In 1972, an internal tobacco industry memo on Mr. Hickson noted that he had a reputation for manipulating science to achieve his goals,” and “ …[he is] a supreme scientific politician who had been successful in condemning cyclamates [earlier artificial sweeteners], on behalf of the Sugar Research Council, on somewhat shaky evidence.” (Source)
Hickson had come up the idea of funding their own research which would enable them to legitimately and officially discredit all the anti-health sugar conclusions.
The operational key for this scheme was in Harvard, where “one of the researchers was the chairman of Harvard’s Public Health Nutrition Department — and an ad hoc member of SRF’s board.” (Source)
Their review was published in a 1967 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
The fact that it was published in such a prestigious journal as a scientific literature review was enough to establish legitimacy, at least enough to confuse, if not convince, with their inconclusive commentaries of “further studies needed.”
The review also maintained the now debunked lipid theory of heart disease by encouraging a low fat diet, which led to the McGovern Report.
Public Health SCANDAL! Sugar Industry Hid Science Linking Sugar to Heart Disease – Blamed Saturated Fats and Cholesterol Instead
FDA Prohibits Free Speech on Coconut Oil – Illegal to Call it “Healthy”
After the McGovern Report condemned saturated fats as “bad” and causing high cholesterol levels leading to heart disease, the FDA enacted rules for nutritional labeling and a recommended daily limit to consuming saturated fats.
If any product contains more than their recommended daily limit, that product cannot be labeled as “healthy.”
Since coconut oil is over 90% saturated, although with medium chain fatty acids that an abundance of scientific studies show are health promoting, it can never be marketed as “healthy.”
I learned this first hand in 2005, just 3 years after starting my company Tropical Traditions, the first company to import and sell a “virgin” coconut oil product from the Philippines.
Consumers from all over the U.S. were discovering just how healthy virgin coconut oil was, and we published their testimonies along with peer-reviewed scientific studies backing the claims (that growing body of research is found here.)
But the FDA issued us a warning letter stating that we were selling “unapproved drugs” since they had not sanctioned or approved any of these claims, in spite of the abundance of testimonials and scientific studies.
Since we did not have the funds to go through the drug approval process, which can cost billions of dollars, and since the FDA has never approved of a natural substance that cannot be patented as a “drug,” we were forced to remove all testimonials and links to the scientific literature from the website where we were selling coconut oil.
This body of research now exists at CoconutOil.com.
This FDA rule is being used by attorneys who specialize in class action lawsuits to sue companies who sell coconut oil and market it as “healthy.”
In 2017 we reported on several of these lawsuits being litigated in California:
Coconut Oil is a Threat to U.S. Subsidized Edible Oils and Big Pharma’s Cholesterol Drugs
Coconut oil is derived from coconuts, and must be imported as it is not produced much in the U.S.
Due to its growth in popularity in recent years, it can be seen as a threat to the edible oil industry and the pharmaceutical industry.
The United States is the world’s largest supplier of polyunsaturated edible oils, derived mainly from corn and soybeans, two very highly subsidized crops. As a result, the U.S. dominates the worldwide edible oil industry with these “vegetable oils.”
The concerted attack against saturated fats led to the industrial processing of corn and soy into edible oils. These are not traditional oils that have been in the food chain prior to WWII, as expeller-pressed technology was needed to extract oil from these crops.
These vegetable oils need to be chemically processed to remain shelf-stable as a dietary oil, and over 90% of the crops of corn and soy in the U.S. are from GMO seeds.
Dr. Mary Enig’s excellent treatment of the history of the edible oil industry in America is well worth reading:
USDA dietary advice promotes polyunsaturated oils as “heart healthy,” in spite of strong evidence to the contrary.
In 2013 a report published in the British Medical Journal looked at resurrected data from a 1960s study, the Sydney Diet Heart Study, which supports a completely different conclusion about the effects of polyunsaturated oils on heart disease.
Not only does the evidence not support the claim that polyunsaturated fats prevent heart disease, it shows that just the opposite is true! The conclusion from the abstract:
Advice to substitute polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats is a key component of worldwide dietary guidelines for coronary heart disease risk reduction.
However, clinical benefits of the most abundant polyunsaturated fatty acid, omega 6 linoleic acid, have not been established. In this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease.
An updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed no evidence of cardiovascular benefit.
These findings could have important implications for worldwide dietary advice to substitute omega 6 linoleic acid, or polyunsaturated fats in general, for saturated fats. (Italics added.)
Resurrected Data From 1960s Shows American Heart Association’s Advice on Dietary Fats has been Wrong
Profitable Cholesterol Drugs
It is a well-known fact that historically, drugs designed to lower cholesterol (statins) have been the most prescribed and most profitable drugs in the history of mankind. It is a $100 billion a year industry.
The cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor is the best-selling drug of all time, grossing over $140 billion, with no serious close competitors in the history of pharmaceutical drugs.
It wasn’t until after the patent on Lipitor ran out, opening the door for cheaper generics to flood the market, that the FDA finally published warnings on the side effects of statin drugs, which include liver injury, memory loss, muscle damage, and Type 2 diabetes.
One out of every four Americans over the age of 50 is taking a statin drug to lower their cholesterol, so this is a huge market that depends upon the success of the lipid theory of heart disease which condemns saturated fats and cholesterol as bad.
How Many Lives Have Been Destroyed by Bad Nutrition Advice?
The science clearly shows how the “lipid theory of heart disease,” the belief that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease, is false, but that science can never be published or exposed by Big Pharma, Big Food, or the U.S. Government.
To do so would be to admit that such dietary advice, and the cholesterol lowering drugs that have earned them hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, have been a scam and have led to increased rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.
These are the leading causes of death today.
The polyunsaturated edible oils consumed by over 90% of Americans today, which are not the edible oils of our ancestors, have replaced the traditional saturated fats that our ancestors consumed, such as butter, beef tallow, lard, and vegetable sources such as the tropical oils, coconut oil and palm oil, as well as other traditional oils that have been part of the food chain for thousands of years, such as olive oil.
Until recently, these recent additions to the human food chain, polyunsaturated oils derived from corn and soybeans, had to go through an industrial processing called “hydrogenation” to make them shelf stable and behave like saturated fats.
This process of hydrogenation was found out to be, years later, toxic, as it produced trans fats, which have now been banned in most countries, and require a warning on U.S. food labels.
In addition to the domination of these toxic vegetable oils, official USDA dietary advice, enforced by the FDA, encouraged a low-fat diet, resulting in the consumption of more carbohydrates, mostly in the form of refined sugar.
The fraudulent studies used to exonerate processed sugar and put the blame for heart disease and other diseases on saturated fat, has now been exposed.
The blood of millions of Americans who followed the advice from this faulty science used by the U.S. government now stains the hands of all those who corrupted the science, and the politicians who enforced it.
Virgin Coconut Oil:
How it has changed people’s lives and how it can change yours!
Coming February 19, 2019:
It is a common misconception that coconut oil is bad for you. People all over the world are experiencing the healthy benefits of using coconut…
That is a Classic German family recipe.
I substituted 1/2 cup of coconut milk for your 1/2 cup of the buttermilk, and also adds a very great taste to this soup. You can try doing half an almond milk and half buttermilk if you don’t like the sour buttermilk taste as much. Sometimes we leave the potatoes in chunks, but I like the consistency that the potato puree gives the soup.
Ham Bone and chopped or diced ham
• 3/4 pounds (3 litres ) green beans stemmed and cut in bite sized pieces. (you might also use an equivalent quantity of canned cut green beens for a quicker version).
• 1 pound (4 cups sliced ) of potatoes, peeled, cooked and cut in chunks
• 1-2 cups Bone Stock
• Sour Cream
• 1/2 cups Buttermilk
• 1/2 cup Coconut Milk
• Hot sauce such as Tobasco ( if desired)
• Salt and Pepper
1teaspoon Make ham inventory by cooking the ham bone in enough water to cover it to at least a few hours. Overnight is better.
2. Reserve 2 cups of ham inventory. Add the celery to it, and then cook until they are tender.
3. Lift out the potatoes and puree, in blender or bowl using wire whisk. Set aside and reserve.
4. Add the green beans to the ham stock and cook until just tender. Switch off the heating system.
5. Add the buttermilk, almond milk, ham and pureed potatoes and gradually bring back to a simmer.
6. Taste and add salt, pepper, and hot sauce if needed. Garnish with a shake of paprika and serve.
To produce this a low carb recipe, feature the potatoes. This recipe is particularly good if you are on a coconut oil diet! If you would like to find out more about how to drop weight with coconut oil, then have a look at my site at http://coconut-oil-diet.com.
I have always enjoyed having medical students in my office as I like teaching.
This week, I had a pleasant 4th year medical student, Andrea. The first day Andrea showed up to my office, I handed her a New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) article about statin drugs.[i]
This is an important article that gave statin drugs the indication to use in a healthy population. I asked her to explain how the authors of the article came to their conclusions and I requested that she do her own statistical analysis and report back to me.
When I reviewed the article with Andrea I showed her a different way to look at and dissect the article.
Specifically, I pointed out how the conclusions in the article are not supported by the data in the paper. I performed a statistical analysis with Andrea showing her that the article’s data revealed that the drug failed nearly 99% who took it even though the main stream media ridiculously reported a 50% improvement in cardiovascular outcomes.
In my book, The Statin Disaster, I discuss the failure of statins for the vast majority who takes them.
For years I have used this article for teaching purposes as it shows how the Big Pharma Cartel makes statin drugs appear to be beneficial when they are not.
The next day, I handed Andrea another NEJM article[ii] and told her we would do the same thing. My goal is to teach Andrea and other medical students how to properly analyze a study and come to their own conclusions about whether a drug or therapy is beneficial.
The second article was about Repatha. Repatha is a new cholesterol-lowering medication that works differently from statins. It is part of an expensive class of medications that currently costs about $14,000 per year.
When Repatha first came out I predicted that this class of drugs would (similarly to statins) fail and, furthermore, cause too many adverse effects.
When we reviewed the article, we concluded Repatha was not very effective as it failed to help nearly 98% who took it. As we were about to finish our discussion, I said let’s look at the adverse effects from this drug.
I flipped the page to find Table 3:
This was the first time I had looked at Table 3 even though I had read the article many times. I commented to Andrea,
“Look at the adverse event numbers and look at the serious adverse event numbers.”
(This information appears in the first two rows above.)
Since the Chart is difficult to see, here’s what is in the first two rows: Adverse side effects were encountered by 77.4% of those treated with both Repatha and the placebo.
As for serious side effects, 24.8% of the Repatha group and 24.7% of the placebo group suffered a serious adverse effect.
We were both stunned.
How could a therapy have such a high rate of adverse effects, especially serious adverse effects? And, how could a placebo have such a high rate of adverse and serious adverse events? (One question that immediately comes to mind is what the heck is in the placebo? That will be coming soon.)
Next, I looked up what the authors classified as adverse events and serious adverse effects. [iii]
“An adverse event is defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical trial subject.”
A serious adverse event was defined by the following:
“A serious adverse event is defined as an adverse event that meets at least one of the following serious criteria:”
- life threatening (places the subject at immediate risk of death)
- requires in-patient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization
- results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity
- congenital anomaly/birth defect
- other medically important serious event
So, nearly one in four who either took the drug Repatha or a placebo suffered a serious adverse event that includes all the conditions in the bullet points above.
Who would ever take a drug (or a placebo) that is associated with that many serious adverse events?
And, what is in the placebo that is causing so many problems? I thought a placebo was defined as a substance that has no therapeutic effect and is used as a control when testing a drug in order to ascertain if there are any adverse effects from the drug.
But, what do I know?
In fact, this study should have never been published since it did not contain a true placebo—an inert substance that causes no physiologic response. This study was rigged by Big Pharma in order to minimize the side effects from Repatha. Since the side effect profile between the treatment (Repatha) group and the “placebo” group were similar, the authors concluded,
“There was no significant difference between the study groups with regard to adverse events…”
Based on my findings, I will be calling for the article to be retracted. However, I will not be holding my breath.
Finding out what was in the placebo in the Repatha study was not fun. It was irritating as it was not reported in the original article. The article refers to a Supplemental Appendix for further information. Finding the index and going through it took an inordinate amount of time. More irritations.
However, find it I did on page 49 out of 574 mind-numbing, soul-crushing pages.[iv]
The placebo was described here:
“Respective placebo will be presented in an identical prefilled AI/Pen containing a 1.0 mL deliverable volume of 1.1% (w/v) sodium carboxymethylcellulose, 250 mM proline, 10 mM acetate, and 0.01% (w/v) polysorbate 20, pH 5.0 or in an identical Personal Injector containing a 3.5 mL deliverable volume of 0.7% (w/v) sodium carboxymethylcellulose, 250 mM proline, 10 mM acetate, and 0.01% (w/v) polysorbate 20, pH 5.0.”
The Repatha drug part of the study (the treatment group) was described as:
“Each sterile vial is filled with a 1-mL deliverable volume of 70 mg/mL AMG 145 formulated with 10 mM sodium acetate, 9% (w/v) sucrose, 0.004% (w/v) polysorbate 20, pH 5.2.”
So, what could be causing all those serious adverse effects? It must be something in both the placebo and the Repatha groups.
I would put my money on polysorbate as it is found in both groups. It is a toxic substance that has no place in any medicine.
Polysorbate is also used in vaccines in the form of Polysorbate 80. The difference between polysorbate 20 and 80 refers to the size of the fatty acid chain. Polysorbate 80, found in many vaccines, is more soluble in lipids than polysorbate 20. Both are widely used in medicine as an emulsifier or defoamer to help the drug disperse.
For polysorbate 20, the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) states,
“The toxicological effects of Polysorbate 20 have not been thoroughly studied.”[v]
Furthermore, Polysorbate 20 has been investigated as a tumorigenic (promotes tumors) and reproductive effector (adverse effect of a harmful chemical that interferes with the reproductive organs of an organisms). In Section 2 of the MSDS for polysorbate 20 it states for target organs,
“No data available.”
Later in this section, in regard to signs and symptoms of exposure to Polysorbate 20 the MSDS states,
“To the best of our knowledge, the toxicological properties have not been thoroughly investigated.”
Under medical conditions generally aggravated by exposure it states,
“No data available.”
For personal protection exposure:
“No data available.”
“The toxicological effects of this product have not been thoroughly studied.”[vi]
Gee, that sounds like a product that I would like injected into me. (I said that with strong sarcasm.)
Repatha should be avoided. In fact, it should be pulled from the market. If your doctor prescribes Repatha ask him/her to explain the 25% serious adverse effects associated with it. Please let me know what you hear.
In part II of this article, I will describe the toxicity of polysorbate 80, which is similar to polysorbate 20. Polysorbate 80 is found in many vaccines.
Read the full article at DrBrownstein.com.
Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com.
- 4 chicken breasts
- 2 tablespoons coconut oil
- 2/3 cup almond milk
- 1 big bunch of scallions or green onions, sliced
- 1/3 cup sliced cabbage
- 1 lime
Pound the thicker side of the chicken breast between sheets of plastic wrap to make it longer in thickness in general. Season lightly with salt.
Heat the coconut oil in a skillet over moderate heat. Add the chicken breasts and saute the chicken without bothering the pieces for 5 to 5
Turn the chicken over to other hand and saute, simmer to another 4 to 5 minutes or until the inside is cooked through. You’ll know it’s time to flip the chicken when the top seems opaque.
Remove the chicken to a plate and then squeeze the juice out of the lime into the skillet and stir; include the coconut milk, bring it to a simmer. Return chicken breasts and add onions and green onions. Heat and serve. Great with rice.
Serves 4 people.
This recipe is particularly good if you are following a coconut oil ! If you want to learn more about how to eliminate weight with coconut oil, have a look at my website at http://coconut-oil-diet.com.
Coconut oil becomes solid at temperatures be low 75 degrees F. I keep mine in the cupboard and in the summer as the house warms,…