Last year, a team of Australian researchers used a non-invasive ultrasound to assist in removing toxic plaque and lesions from nerve cells commonly associated with the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. This was a big breakthrough, as the researchers were able to reverse the processes commonly associated with the onset of Alzheimer’s, you can read more about that here.
This time, researchers from the University of Glasgow, in conjunction with the Hong Kong Univeristy of Science and Technology, have discovered that one injection of a protein called IL-33 can reverse Alzheimer’s-like symptoms and cognitive decline in mice. The protein is actually made by the body itself as part of its immune defence against serious infection and disease, ones that affect the brain and spinal cord.
After the injection, the mice instantly improved their cognitive function and memory, restored to that of a normal mouse within just one week of having the injections.
Although this is very promising, these trials were not run on humans, and, according to Professor Eddy Lieu, who led the study, “[as] exciting as it is, there is some distance between laboratory findings and clinical applications. There have been enough false ‘breakthroughs’ in the medical field to caution us not to hold our breath until rigorous clinical trials have been done.” (source)
Alzheimer’s disease is caused by multiple lesions in the brain called neurofibrillary tangles and amyloid plaques. The first is found inside neutrons, which eventually disrupt the transportation of nutrients that are needed within the brain. The second (amyloid plaques) rest in-between the neutrons and form heavy clusters of proteins called beta-amyloid.
This disease is expected to affect 65 million people by the year 2030, and developments like this are important to look at. Unfortunately, as with cancer and various other diseases, we are rushing to find a cure without paying any attention to the cause. According to official scientific literature, we do not know the cause of Alzheimer’s disease, but there is a wealth of scientific data that links Alzheimer’s to various environmental toxins, which include environmental pesticides sprayed on our food and near agricultural areas, and various toxic household products, for example.
There have also been a number of studies that warrant the commencement of clinical trials, apart from the ones already mentioned in this article. For example, in 2012 a groundbreaking study was published in the Journal Ayu, titled “Effects of Turmeric on Alzheimer’s disease with behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia.”
According to the study, all of the patients involved exhibited irritability, agitation, anxiety and apathy. They were prescribed turmeric powder capsules and started recovering from these symptoms without any adverse reaction in the clinical symptom and laboratory data.
There are literally hundreds of studies outlining turmeric’s neuroprotective set of physiological actions, and dozens of them are connected to turmeric’s anti-Alzheimer’s disease properties. Some of these studies reveal that curcumin is capable of enhancing the clearance of the pathological amyloid–beta plaque in Alzheimer’s disease patients, and that in combination with vitamin D3, the neurorestorative process is further enhanced. Additional preclinical research indicates curcumin (and its analogs) has inhibitory and protective effects against Alzheimer’s disease associated β-amyloid proteins.
A number of substances have been deemed anti-Alzheimer’s disease items. These include coconut oil, which has been shown to improve symptoms of cognitive decline, as well as cocoa, sage, folic acid, and more. These could all be things incorporated into one’s diet to prevent the onset of Alzheimer’s.
You can find all of these studies and more at Greenmedinfo.com. They have an excellent research database on Alzheimer’s disease for you to learn more. Click HERE to go there.
There Is No Money In A Cure
A few years ago, if you told someone that a pharmaceutical company’s manipulation of science was a real thing, they might have thought you were a conspiracy theorist. But now we have actual proof and statements from multiple editors of some of the most reputable peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. I’ve used these statements and examples in several of my articles, so if you are a regular reader I apologize for the overlap, but we always have new readers coming to our website, and this information is still virtually unknown by many people.
For example, Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet told us not long ago that:
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. (source)
Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal, told us that:
The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful. (source)(source)
Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and long time Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal emphasized that:
It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. (source)
There are literally so many examples of statements and studies that emphasize this. The most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLOS) was Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. In the report, he stated that “most current published research findings are false.” And this was more than 10 years ago.
“If one looks at the (drug) manufacturer studies, they’re often not designed to detect adverse events….Obviously your not going to find what you’re not looking for…” – Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine. (source)
One of the latest documented cases of fraud comes from a study that was published last week in theBritish Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen. The study showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported. These are the reports sent to major health authorities like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and lead author of the study, said:
We found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them. I’m actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if we had the complete data.
Joanna Moncrieff, a psychiatrist and researcher at University College London, elaborates:
[This study] confirms that the full degree of harm of antidepressants is not reported. They are not reported in the published literature, we know that – and it appears that they are not properly reported in clinical study reports that go to the regulators and form the basis of decisions about licensing.
You can access this study, read more about it, and find the sources for the quotes here.
I just wanted to give a very brief introduction into what’s becoming a big problem in the modern day medical industry.
Alternatives To Animal Testing?
Anytime I present a study that has used animals, even if it’s not ‘cruel,’ I am always thinking of this, and I always make it a point to include it within my articles. Presenting a study that uses animals has always been a conflicting issue for me.
During a government meeting about funding for research, former U.S. National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni admitted that experimenting on animals to help humans has been a major failure. He told his colleagues:
We have moved away from studying human disease in humans. […] We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. […] The problem is that [animal testing] hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem. […] We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.
You can check out this article from PETA showing just a few (out of many) examples of the range of state-of-the-art non-animal research methods available and their demonstrated benefits.