By Dr. Mercola

Vaccines: Are they safe? Are they effective? To help answer those questions is Neil Z. Miller,¹ a medical research journalist and director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute.

Miller has investigated vaccines for three decades and written several books on the subject, including “Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?,” “Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners” and, most recently, “Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers.”

“Miller’s Review,” published in 2016, is a magnificent piece of work. In it, he reviews the concern about vaccine safety and efficacy raised by 400 peer-reviewed published studies. The book doesn’t review studies that support vaccination (almost all of which are funded by the industry and the government, by the way) as those studies are available on the CDC website.

“I got started when my own children were born … over 30 years ago … When my wife was pregnant, I felt I had to do due diligence about vaccines. I have to be honest, though. Before I even started to research vaccines, my wife and I pretty much knew intuitively that we were not going to inject our children with vaccines.

When I give lectures, I often tell people, ‘How can you expect to achieve health by injecting healthy children with toxic substances?’ I intuitively knew that … but still felt an obligation to do my due diligence and to do the research,” Miller says.

“The thing is that when I do things, I do them pretty thoroughly … I was doing my research at medical libraries. I was gathering everything and I started to collate it and coordinate it … People started to find out about the information I had organized. They were asking me about vaccines even way back then. I organized it into a booklet. I started to share that with people. Everything snowballed from that first booklet.”

Don’t Believe the ‘There’s No Evidence’ Argument

“Miller’s Review” was created in response to the common refrain that “there are no studies showing vaccines are unsafe or ineffective.”

“I hear this often,” Miller says. “Parents come to me all the time, saying, ‘My doctor told me that vaccines are safe and there are no studies that prove [otherwise].’ I’ve been doing the research for 30 years. I know of literally thousands of studies that document [concerns]. My books all document [those] studies.”

“Miller’s Review” is unique in that it summarizes 400 studies in bullet points with direct quotes from the study — with one study per page — plus citations so that you can find and read the study in full should you decide to do so. All of the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals and indexed by the National Library of Medicine.

“These are valid studies by valid researchers in many journals that people have heard about — The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, all the mainstream journals (and some of the smaller journals, but they’re still valid peer-reviewed studies) that show there are problems with vaccines: There are safety problems, there are efficacy problems.

They’re all in one place so that people, like doctors, can get this information all in one convenient place. This book has been very effective with medical doctors. When medical doctors who are on the fence, or who are pro-vaccine, get this book and read it, I hear back from parents that their doctor is no longer pressuring them to get the vaccines.

Their doctor is now respecting their decisions to not vaccinate or to go to some sort of alternative vaccine schedule if that’s the choice these parents make …

I am all about having uncensored, unfettered access to all of the available information out there about vaccines. Not just what your medical doctor wants you to know. Not just what the pharmaceutical companies want you to know and not just what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is telling doctors to share with their patients.

I want [parents] to be absolutely free to make a decision whether or not they want to vaccinate their children … It’s really a human rights issue. It’s really about the mandatory aspect of vaccines. I think all vaccines are problematic. I think this not just based on my own feelings, but based on the evidence I’ve researched over the years.”

Uninformed Decision-Making Is Part of the Problem

Ultimately, every parent will make a decision about whether or not to vaccinate. The problem is, most of the time, it’s an uninformed decision. An issue brought up in some of his earlier books is that there’s been a deliberate misinformation campaign aimed at making you believe vaccines are far more effective than they actually are.

For example, disease incidence data is used to suggest vaccines have dramatically reduced the incidence of a given disease, when in fact the disease rate had already declined by 90 percent, or more in some cases, before a vaccine was ever available. Measles has been problematic in developing nations, mostly because of malnutrition, vitamin A deficiency, lack of clean water, sanitation and quick access to medical care. As these measures are addressed, the mortality from measles declines on its own.

Vitamin A appears particularly important, and studies sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) have confirmed that high doses of vitamin A supplementation protect children against complications and death associated with the disease.

“By the time the measles vaccine was introduced in the United States in 1963, by the late 1950s, the mortality rate from measles had drastically dropped. This was due to the [fact] that the population had gained protection against the more dangerous ravages of the disease. This happens with a lot of different diseases.

In my book, I’ve got many different types of graphs and illustrations to help the reader understand the main points I’m making … [M]any of these graphs show that these diseases were declining significantly on their own, well before vaccines were introduced.

For example, scarlet fever. Where did scarlet fever go? Why don’t we see cases of scarlet fever when we didn’t have mass vaccinations with a scarlet fever vaccine? That’s an important point to be made.”

Many Childhood Diseases Are Protective Against Cancer

Another significant point is there are dozens of studies demonstrating that contracting certain childhood diseases actually protects you against various types of cancer later in life — everything from melanoma to leukemia.

It’s important to realize that when you have a naturally-acquired infection, you’re really exercising your immune system quite profoundly, developing authentic, lifelong immunity in the process, which is radically different from the type of artificial and temporary immunity you get from a vaccine.

One of the reasons for this is because vaccines stimulate a completely different part of your immune system than does fighting off a naturally-acquired infection. There’s even evidence suggesting childhood diseases help protect against future heart disease.

“[A] Japanese study … looked at over 100,000 men and women of elderly age. They looked back at their history of catching these common childhood illnesses. Did they catch chickenpox, rubella, measles and mumps? What they found was it’s actually protective against heart disease.

You’re protected against heart attacks and various types of arteriosclerotic disease of the artery systems. It’s protecting the arterial system so that you are protected not only — when you catch these diseases — from cancers, but from heart disease, heart attacks and strokes as well … There are different theories on why that takes place. But the important thing is that study after study confirms that it takes place.”

Vaccines Create Problematic Mutations

Another vaccine-related problem that many are completely unaware of is the fact that vaccines cause mutations in the disease-bearing microorganisms, much in the same way antibiotics cause bacteria to mutate. The diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine (DTaP), for example, has caused the pertussis microorganism, Bordetella pertussis, to mutate and evade the vaccine. The same thing happened with the pneumococcal vaccine and the Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine.

“They’re finding, for example, when you’ve got a vaccine that targets only certain strains of disease where multiple strains are actually causing the disease, the vaccine is pretty effective at reducing the incidence of disease from that particular strain. But what happens is the other strains come and take their place …  They come back even stronger.

That’s what [happened] with Prevnar, a vaccine for pneumococcus, pneumococcal disease. All infants that receive vaccines according to the CDC’s standard immunization schedule receive a pneumococcal vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. That vaccine only targeted seven strains. Pneumococcal has 90 different strains capable of causing pneumococcal disease.

They were pretty effective at reducing the amount of disease caused by the pneumococcal strains targeted by the vaccine. But what happened within just a few short years, the other strains became more prevalent … taking the place of the original strains [and] they became more virulent.

They came out with a new vaccine in 2010 … to deal with the vaccine losing its efficacy because of what I just explained. The new vaccine included the original seven strains plus six additional strains, the ones that were causing most of the pneumococcal disease now. Within two years of the new upgraded, updated pneumococcal vaccine, the strains had already mutated … ”

Tragically, parents are being blamed and harassed for many of these vaccine failures. Parents are being told that if you don’t vaccinate your kids, you are responsible for spreading the disease. That’s the idea the CDC, the medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry are promoting.

However, if you actually read the studies, you’ll find what the scientists know —the real problem is evolutionary adaptation. Dr. Meryl Nass expounded on this issue in a 2013 interview. The microorganisms adapt. “What’s happened with pertussis [is] the pertussis microorganism has changed. It’s now not only become more virulent; it’s become more prevalent,” Miller explains. “It’s evaded the actual vaccine.”

Herd Immunity Cannot Be Achieved Through Immunizations

Another core argument for mass vaccinations is achieving herd immunity. Miller believes, and I agree with this belief that herd immunity may never be achieved through vaccination because high vaccination rates encourage the evolution of more severe disease-causing agents. In a vaccinated population, the virulence increases due to selective pressure, as the pathogen is strengthened and adapts in its fight for survival against the vaccine.

Meanwhile, in an unvaccinated population, the environment actually promotes lowered virulence, as the pathogen does not want to kill its host. A wise pathogen is one that’s able to infect many hosts without killing them, because when the host dies, the pathogen loses the environment upon which its own survival depends.

However, once the disease organism mutates and becomes more virulent within the vaccinated population, it raises the stakes not only among the vaccinated but also among the unvaccinated, who are now faced with a far more virulent foe than normal.

“In terms of herd immunity, you not only have … this selective pressure that’s keeping you from being able to achieve herd immunity (because the microorganisms are always attempting to evade the vaccine), but pertussis vaccine is only 60 percent effective. That’s with the best estimates. And that’s only for a couple of years.

Studies show that even after three, four or five years, you’re back to almost no efficacy whatsoever, almost back to the pre-vaccine period.

How can you expect to achieve herd immunity with a vaccine that is only 60 percent effective? You can vaccinate 100 percent of the population and you cannot achieve herd immunity with a vaccine that is only 60 percent effective. Influenza vaccines — many years, these vaccines are not good matches for the circulating virus — so you have zero percent efficacy. In the best years, you only have 30, 40 or 50 percent efficacy.”

Studies Show Vaccinations Increase Infant Mortality

One of the tenets of conventional medicine is that if you vaccinate a population, everyone is going to be healthier. There will be less disease. But when you compare vaccination rates and health statistics, you find the converse is actually true. This is some of the most compelling information Miller shares in his book.

For example, when comparing vaccination rates in 34 developed nations, they found a significant correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccine doses infants received. Developed nations like the United States that require the most vaccines tend to have the highest infant mortality. You can read this study here.²

“I’m the lead author on that study, actually. My co-author was Gary Goldman [Ph.D., who] worked for the CDC for seven years. He quit when he found that the CDC was not allowing anything detrimental [to get out]. Goldman found problems with the chickenpox vaccine and wanted to publish that data. The CDC said, ‘We’re not going to allow you to do that.’ That’s when Goldman quit …

Goldman and I did two peer-reviewed studies … The children in the United States are required — if they follow the CDC’s immunization schedule — to receive the most vaccines in the developed world, actually throughout the world. Globally. Twenty-six vaccines. Other developed nations require less.

Some nations only require 12 vaccines — Switzerland, Sweden, Iceland and other European nations — yet they have better infant mortality rates. That’s what our study looked at. [V]accines are promoted as being lifesaving. They’re given to children to protect them against dying from infectious diseases.

We gathered all the immunization schedules from the 34 nations [and found] the United States had the 34th worst infant mortality rate … It had the worst. Thirty-three nations in the developed world had better infant mortality rates. We did the study and we found what many people would find to be a counterintuitive relationship.

We found a statistically significant relationship. There was a direct correlation between the number of vaccines that a nation required for their infants and the infant mortality rate. The more vaccines that a nation required, the worse the infant mortality rate.”

Why Is This Not Front-Page News?

Many naïvely believe that if all of this is true, if vaccines truly were doing more harm than good, it would be front-page news. The reason you rarely if ever hear anything about studies such as this one is because the vaccine industry has an iron grip on the information being publicly disseminated. Collusion between federal regulatory agencies, the government and the industry is just one of several hurdles preventing this kind of information from being widely known.

You have individuals like Dr. Julie Gerberding, who headed up the CDC and was in charge of infectious disease recommendations for seven years before moving on to become president of Merck Vaccines, one of the largest vaccine manufacturers in the world. That’s just one of many dozens of examples of this revolving door, which in turn has led to the breakdown of true science-based medicine.

“We have a serious problem where top scientists admit that they drop data points from studies that they’ve been influenced by the people who are funding their studies to sometimes not publish the study because it didn’t come up with the results they wanted, and so on,” Miller says.

“We have a serious problem with the pharmaceutical industry controlling which studies get published. Also, there’s a serious problem because the pharmaceutical companies are controlling the advertising dollars that go out to the major media.

Mainstream media makes approximately 70 percent of its income from pharmaceutical ads. They do not want to publish or promote anything, even in their newscasts that would be critical of vaccines because it could compromise their potential to keep bringing in these millions of dollars they make every year from the pharmaceutical companies.”

The greatest, most serious problem we currently face is the concerted push to mandate vaccines and eliminate personal belief exemptions. For example, to go to school in California, you now have to be fully vaccinated. No exemptions are allowed, which is really a violation of human rights.

Giving Multiple Simultaneous Vaccines Is Extremely Risky, Study Shows

The second study³ Miller and Goldman published analyzed nearly 40,000 reports of infants who suffered adverse reactions after vaccines. Here, they found that infants given the most vaccines were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die compared to those who received fewer vaccines.

It’s worth noting that this data was obtained from the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) database, a passive reporting system, and that research has confirmed passive reporting systems underreport by 50 to 1.

What this means is that when you find one report in VAERS, you have to multiply that by 50 to get closer to reality because, on average, only 1 in 50 adverse events are ever reported. Doctors have a legal obligation to report side effects to VAERS, but they don’t, and there are no ramifications for failure to make a report. Parents can also make a report to the database, and I encourage all parents to do so, should your child experience a vaccine reaction.

At present, VAERS has over 500,000 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines, and every year, more than 30,000 new reports are added to it. Miller and Goldman downloaded this database and created a program to extract all the reports involving infants. In all, they extracted the reports of 38,000 infants who experienced an adverse reaction following the receipt of one or more vaccines.

They then created a program that was able to determine the number of vaccines each infant had received before suffering an adverse reaction, and stratified the reports by the number of vaccines (anywhere from one to eight) the infants had received simultaneously before the reaction took place. They specifically honed in on serious adverse reactions requiring hospitalization or that led to death. Here’s what they found:

• Infants who received three vaccines simultaneously were statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die after receiving their vaccines than children who received two vaccines at the same time
• Infants who received four vaccines simultaneously were statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who received three or two vaccines, and so on all the way up to eight vaccines
• Children who received eight vaccines simultaneously were “off-the-charts” statistically and significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die after receiving those vaccines
• Children who received vaccines at an earlier age were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who receive those vaccines at a later age

Childhood Vaccination Schedule Is Based on Convenience, Not Science or Safety

As noted by Miller:

“The industry, the CDC and Dr. Paul Offit tell us that you can take multiple vaccines. Offit said you could theoretically take 10,000 vaccines at one time; that an infant can be exposed to that many pathogens simultaneously without hurting the child. The CDC’s immunization schedule requires that children receive eight vaccines at 2 months of age, eight vaccines at 4 months of age and eight vaccines at 6 months of age.

I ask parents, ‘When did you ever take eight drugs at the same time? … If you did take eight drugs at the same time, would you think it was more likely that you would or would not have an adverse reaction?’ Because toxicologists know that the more drugs you take at the same time, the more potential for some kind of a synergistic or additive toxicity … What this study confirms is that it’s a dangerous practice to give multiple vaccines simultaneously.

The CDC has put together a schedule based on convenience. They say ‘[G]ive eight vaccines at 2 months, give eight more vaccines at 4 months and give eight more booster shots at 6 months’ because it’s convenient. They’re afraid that parents will not come to the pediatrician again and again and again if they have to keep coming back for more vaccines, so they get multiple [shots all at once].

They said, ‘We’re going to make this schedule based on convenience.’ Not based on evidence. Not based on science. There’s nothing scientific about the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule. We’ve shown it with our study …

We also showed that children who received vaccines at an earlier age are statistically significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die than children who receive it at a later age. We divided it up to children who receive their vaccines in the first 6 months of age versus children who receive their vaccines in the last six months of infancy.

Again, off-the-charts statistically significant, it’s much more dangerous to give younger infants multiple vaccines than to give older infants multiple vaccines. This makes sense because they’re giving the same dose to a newborn or a baby that might be 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 pounds at 2 months of age versus a child who might be 15 or 17 pounds … at a later age.”

More Information

You can find “Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers” on ThinkTwice.com. This book is an invaluable resource for parents who want to do their due diligence before making up their mind about whether or not to vaccinate their children. On his website, you will also find his other books, along with studies and publications relating to vaccine safety and efficacy concerns.

Another resource is the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). NVIC is leading the charge when it comes to educating the public about efforts to impose mandatory vaccinations, and how to preserve our health freedoms on the local, state and federal levels.

Ultimately, everyone will have to make a choice about vaccinations. They key is to make it an informed one — to understand and weigh the potential risks and benefits. To do that, you need access to both sides of the debate, and Miller has done us all a great favor by making the largely hidden side of the equation more readily accessible.

Many Americans suffer from various chronic diseases such as diabetes and obesity, and the main culprit is usually the food they eat. The standard American diet contains excessive amounts of protein and carbohydrates, neither of which is good for your health because it eventually causes you to develop insulin and leptin resistance.

As a result, you gain excess weight, develop inflammation and become prone to cellular damage.

To avoid this problem, significant changes in your diet are necessary, and the best way is inducing your body into a state of nutritional ketosis, a condition where your body burns fat as its primary fuel instead of sugar. In order to reach nutritional ketosis, you must follow a ketogenic diet. But what exactly is a ketogenic diet?

This guide will tell you everything you need to know about a ketogenic diet — how you can apply it to your lifestyle and what positives you can reap from it.

The Various Benefits of the Ketogenic Diet

A ketogenic diet is a dietary approach that focuses on minimal carbohydrates, moderate amounts of protein and high healthy fat consumption — the three keys to achieving nutritional ketosis. In fact, it’s what I recommend for most people who would like to optimize their health.

There are many reasons why you should try a ketogenic diet. It can be very beneficial for people suffering from chronic conditions, or for people who would simply like to be healthier than their current state. You’ll be excited to know that a ketogenic diet can help with the following:

Different Types of Ketogenic Diets You Can Try

There are several variations of the ketogenic diet based on specific needs:⁴

Put Away These Foods Before Going on a Ketogenic Diet

Before coming up with an actual ketogenic diet food list, it’s important to take a look at what you’re eating first and take out anything that’s unhealthy. This means that you have to remove sugars, starches, packaged and processed foods from your diet, because a ketogenic diet focuses on eating real, whole food.

Furthermore, avoid drinking milk because it contains the carbohydrate galactose — drinking just one glass can basically eat up your entire carb allotment for the day. In addition, avoiding milk helps lactose-intolerant people to implement the ketogenic diet. Many other products should be avoided, such as hydrogenated vegetable oils (canola, sunflower, etc.), peanut butter, soy products and sodas. They may be low on carbohydrates, but they are unhealthy and can wreak havoc on your health.

The Ideal Foods to Eat for a Ketogenic Diet

So now that you’ve taken out all the unhealthy food sources, what’s the next step? When it comes to the core of an actual ketogenic diet, remember that you need to consume only a moderate amount of protein, or about one-half gram per pound of lean body mass, each day. In addition, carbohydrates must be minimized and high-quality fats increased to serve as your new fuel source.

To ease yourself into a ketogenic diet meal plan, I usually recommend adding C8 medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) oil into your food. It’s typically more expensive than other types of MCT oil, but I prefer it more because it converts into ketones more effectively. You can start with 1 teaspoon per day, then gradually increase your consumption to 2 to 3 tablespoons per day.

If your stomach does not agree with MCT oil, you can try MCT powder, which is easier on your stomach. The table below provides a good overview of other foods rich in high-quality healthy fats:

When building your ketogenic diet meal plan, it’s important to stick to green leafy vegetables because they are rich in fiber, antioxidantsand various nutrients. Your best choices include broccoli, spinach, parsley, Brussels sprouts and zucchini.

While fruits are generally healthy for you, majority of them should be are avoided in a ketogenic diet because of their high amounts of sugar. However, certain berries are safe to eat in moderate quantities, such as blackberry, blueberry and cranberry, because they are rich in antioxidants that can support your health.

As for beverages, there are several you can choose from. The most important is water, but you may also drink organic black coffee (without any sweeteners or milk), which is rich in antioxidants. Coconut milk can be consumed as well, as well as herbal teas because they are rich in various antioxidants and nutrients. If you want a more extensive list, Paleo Flourish Magazine has recommendations that encompass various food groups.¹⁵

Ketogenic Recipes You Can Try

It may look like there are plenty of foods not allowed when following a ketogenic diet, but there are actually many recipes that you can cook that adhere this method. Here are three ketogenic recipes that I personally use in my daily routine:

The Side Effects of a Ketogenic Diet

Starting a ketogenic diet can help optimize your health tremendously in many ways. But like any major dietary changes, it can have several undesirable (but not alarming) side effects, such as:

Going into nutritional ketosis by following a ketogenic diet is one of the most radical but highly beneficial lifestyle changes you can make to improve your health. As with most dietary changes, always remember to listen to your body. If you feel any side effects other than the ones listed above, then necessary adjustments may be needed to your food intake.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Ketogenic Diet

By Dr. Mercola

While all cells in your body can use glucose for energy, when you burn fat as your primary fuel your liver produces ketones that burn far “cleaner” in that they generate fewer reactive oxygen species (ROS) and secondary free radicals than sugars. The conventional view is that you need sugar or glucose to satisfy your energy needs, but only a very small amount of sugar is actually required. Because sugar represents calories, excessive consumption will negatively affect your health.

If you haven’t given much thought to how much sugar you consume and what it may be doing to your health, now is the time to get educated. Overconsumption of sugar is increasingly being linked to brain-related health issues such as depression, learning disorders, memory problems and overeating.¹

Your Body Recognizes Sugar as a ‘Drug’

Writing in The Atlantic, neuroendocrinologist Dr. Robert Lustig, professor of pediatrics in the division of endocrinology at University of California, San Francisco, states:²

“… [T]he [U.S.] war on drugs has taken a back seat, but not because it has been won. Rather, because a different war has cluttered the headlines — the war on obesity. And a substance even more insidious, I would argue, has supplanted cocaine and heroin.

The object of our current affliction is sugar. Who could have imagined something so innocent, so delicious, so irresistible … could propel America toward … medical collapse?”

Previous research³ involving humans and laboratory rats suggests consumption of sugar and sweets can trigger reward and craving states in your brain similar to addictive drugs. Not only can sugar and sweets substitute for drugs like cocaine, in terms of how your brain reacts to them, they can be even more rewarding.

The dramatic effects of sugar on your brain may explain why you may have difficultly controlling your consumption of sugary foods when continuously exposed to them. Another study⁴ suggests a high degree of overlap exists between brain regions involved in processing natural rewards, such as sugar and sweets, and drugs of abuse.

“‘Non-drug’ or ‘behavioral’ addictions have become increasingly documented …  and pathologies include compulsive activities such as shopping, eating, exercising, sexual behavior and gambling. Like drug addiction, non-drug addictions manifest in symptoms including craving, impaired control over the behavior, tolerance, withdrawal and high rates of relapse.”

The Biology of Your Brain: How Bad Habits Like Sugar Addiction Take Root

An article published by CNN Health⁵ reminds us that the connection between your nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex drives intentional actions, such as deciding whether you will take another bite of chocolate cake, for example.

Your prefrontal cortex also activates hormones like dopamine, triggering thoughts such as, “Hey, this cake is really good. And I’m going to remember that for the future.” Lustig explains the biological process that takes place when you consume sugar or any addictive substance:⁶

“The brain’s pleasure center, called the nucleus accumbens, is essential for our survival as a species. … Turn off pleasure, and you turn off the will to live. But long-term stimulation of the pleasure center drives the process of addiction.

When you consume … sugar, your nucleus accumbens receives a dopamine signal, from which you experience pleasure. And so you consume more. The problem is with prolonged exposure, the signal … gets weaker. So you have to consume more to get the same effect — tolerance. And if you pull back on the substance, you go into withdrawal. Tolerance and withdrawal constitute addiction. And make no mistake, sugar is addictive.”

Brain-injury survivor and author Debbie Hampton explains how habits are formed around addictive behaviors:⁷

“Every time you follow the same path, a specific pattern is activated and becomes more defined … and it becomes easier to activate the circuit the next time. … Pretty soon, the bad habit neuronal pathway becomes the unconscious default, and your brain, wanting to be efficient, just takes the easiest, most familiar route. This is particularly true in the case of depression.

In a depressed brain, there’s less dopamine activity happening in the nucleus accumbens, which means that things that used to be enjoyable are not as pleasurable, and the only things that motivate it have to have a big dopamine payoff, which are the baddest of the bad habits, such as junk food, drugs, alcohol [and] gambling.”

Brain Imaging Shows Food Addiction Is Real

Research published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition⁸ examined the effects of high-glycemic index (GI) foods on brain activity, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Twelve overweight or obese men between the ages of 18 and 35 consumed one high-GI and one low-GI meal.

Imaging was completed four hours after each test meal to assess the cerebral blood flow as a measure of resting brain activity. The researchers expected brain activity to be greater after the high-GI meal in regions related to craving, eating behavior and reward. According to the researchers:

“Compared with a … low-GI meal, a high-GI meal decreased plasma glucose, increased hunger and selectively stimulated brain regions associated with reward and craving in the late postprandial period. … [T]he high-GI meal elicited greater brain activity centered in the right nucleus accumbens.”

The study demonstrates what you may experience when eating a high-GI meal. After rapidly digesting net carbohydrates, your blood sugar initially spikes, followed by a sharp crash later. As noted by researchers, this crash in blood glucose stimulated greater brain activity in the nucleus accumbens, the brain’s pleasure center Lustig mentioned above.

Can Too Much Sugar Contribute to Alzheimer’s Disease?

While insulin is usually associated with its role in keeping your blood-sugar levels in a healthy range, it also plays a role in brain signaling. In one animal study, when researchers disrupted the proper signaling of insulin in the brain, they were able to induce many of the characteristic brain changes seen with Alzheimer’s disease, including confusion, disorientation and the inability to learn and remember.⁹

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the same pathological process that leads to insulin and leptin resistance, as well as type 2 diabetes, may also hold true for your brain. As you overindulge on sugar and grains, your brain becomes overwhelmed by the consistently high levels of insulin. Eventually insulin, leptin and signaling become profoundly disrupted, leading to impairments in your memory and thinking abilities.

A study published in Diabetes Care found that type 2 diabetes is associated with a 60 percent increased risk of dementia in men and women.¹⁰ Research featured in the New England Journal of Medicine noted a mild elevation of blood sugar, such as a level of 105 or 110, is also associated with an elevated risk for dementia.¹¹

Dr. David Perlmutter, neurologist and author of the books “Brain Maker” and “Grain Brain,” believes Alzheimer’s disease is primarily predicated on lifestyle choices, including sugar consumption. He suggests anything that promotes insulin resistance will ultimately also raise your risk of Alzheimer’s.

Glucose and Fructose: How Do They Affect Your Brain?

Increases in processed fructose consumption, typically in the form of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), seem to be running parallel to the spikes seen in obesity rates, so much so that diets high in it are thought to promote insulin resistance and weight gain. The Journal of the American Medical Association featured a study¹² involving 20 adult volunteers who underwent magnetic resonance imaging sessions at Yale University to identify neurophysiological factors related to fructose versus glucose consumption.

The research suggests fructose — a type of sugar commonly extracted from corn and found in sweetened products like soda — may activate brain pathways that increase your interest in food, whereas glucose ingestion appears to trigger your brain’s satiation signal, effectively telling you “you’ve had enough.” When participants ingested glucose and were then shown food pictures, their brains registered increased measures of satiety and fullness. The researchers noted:

“Glucose … ingestion reduced the activation of the hypothalamus, insula and striatum — brain regions that regulate appetite, motivation and reward processing; glucose ingestion also increased functional connections between the hypothalamic-striatal network and increased satiety.”

In contrast, when the participants consumed fructose and were presented with images of food, more activity was noted in the orbitofrontal cortex, an area linked to increased motivation to seek out rewards, such as drugs or food.¹³

Subsequent research,¹⁴ presented in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, went a step further to investigate the effects of sugar on food-approach behavior. After ingesting either fructose or glucose, 24 volunteers underwent two fMRI sessions while viewing pictures of high-calorie foods and nonfood items in a block format.

After each block, participants were asked to rate their hunger and desire for food, as well as perform a decision task. The decision task involved choosing between an immediate food reward or a delayed monetary bonus. Hormone levels were measured at baseline and 30 and 60 minutes after the sugars were consumed. The authors of the study noted:

“Parallel to the neuroimaging findings, fructose versus glucose led to greater hunger and desire for food and a greater willingness to give up long-term monetary rewards to obtain immediate high-calorie foods. These findings suggest ingestion of fructose relative to glucose results in greater activation of brain regions involved in attention and reward processing, and may promote feeding behavior.”

Both of these studies underscore the importance of paying attention to the type of sugars you consume. Clearly, fructose disrupts your brain’s signaling mechanism that is designed to tell you when you’ve had enough. Because fructose fails to stimulate insulin, which in turn fails to suppress ghrelin, or “your hunger hormone,” which then fails to stimulate leptin or “your satiety hormone,” you are likely to eat more and develop insulin resistance when consuming fructose.

The second body of research seems to indicate fructose intake can influence you to act impulsively with respect to food, consuming more and more of it even when your body should have told you it’s had enough. As you may imagine, continuing to consume large amounts of fructose will become increasingly problematic if you’ve already developed a bad habit of overeating.

Fructose Packs on the Pounds Faster Than Any Other Nutrient

Because fructose is often consumed in liquid form, mostly as HFCS, its negative metabolic effects are even further magnified. Energy drinks, fruit juices, soda and sports drinks, as well as countless other sweetened beverages, contain HFCS. Like all fructose, HFCS is metabolized as body fat far more rapidly than any other sugar.

Similar to alcohol, the entire burden of metabolizing fructose falls to your liver. This severely taxes and overloads it, introducing the possibility of liver damage. Fructose also promotes a particularly dangerous kind of body fat called adipose fat. This type of fat collects in your abdominal region and is associated with a greater risk of heart disease.

Although HFCS has about the same amount of fructose as cane sugar, it is in a “free” form that is not attached to any other carbs. In contrast, fructose in fruits and cane sugar is bonded to other sugars, resulting in a decrease in metabolic toxicity. Consuming foods containing high amounts of fructose — even if it’s a natural product — is the fastest way to trash your health.  Among the health problems you invite when you consume high amounts of fructose are:

• Arthritis, cancer, gout and heart disease
• Insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, obesity and type 2 diabetes
• Elevated blood pressure, LDL (bad) cholesterol, triglycerides and uric acid levels
• Liver disease, especially non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

In addition, unbound fructose, found in large quantities in HFCS, can interfere with your heart’s use of minerals like chromium, copper and magnesium. Furthermore, as you likely know, HFCS is most often made from genetically engineered corn, which is fraught with its own well-documented health concerns and side effects, many of which are linked to glyphosate or Roundup residues.

How to Manage and/or Limit Your Sugar Consumption

Sugar, in its natural form, is not inherently bad when consumed in amounts that allow you to burn fat as your primary fuel. However, you should avoid all sources of processed fructose, particularly processed foods and beverages like soda. According to SugarScience.org, 74 percent of processed foods purchased from the grocery store contain added sugar.¹⁵

Other sources have suggested it may be as high as 80 percent. I recommend your diet be composed chiefly of naturally occurring whole foods, with 10 percent or less coming from processed foods.

I also recommend severely limiting your consumption of refined carbohydrates found in cereal, bread, pasta and other grain-based foods, as they break down to sugar in your body, which increases your insulin levels and causes insulin resistance. As a general recommendation, I suggest you keep your total fructose consumption below 25 grams per day, including whole fruit. Keep in mind while fruits are rich in nutrients and antioxidants, they naturally contain fructose.

If consumed in high amounts (especially if you are not burning fat as your primary fuel), fructose from fruit worsens your insulin sensitivity and raises your uric acid levels. Also, be sure to avoid artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose due to the health problems associated with them, which are worse than those associated with corn syrup and sugar. Below are some additional tips to help you manage and/or limit your sugar consumption:

By Dr. Mercola

Dr. Tim Noakes, a well-respected scientist, researcher, physician and professor at the Division of Exercise Science and Sports Medicine at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, is one of the world’s foremost experts on low-carb diets. In fact, he was instrumental in getting the low-carb diet revolution off the ground.

He’s also an accomplished athlete. As a long-distance endurance runner with 70 marathons under his belt, he had long promoted high-carb diets, himself consuming 400 grams of carbs a day or more when preparing for a race.

Eventually, he discovered this wasn’t the best way to improve athletic endurance and health, and ended up writing a number of popular books on low-carb diets.

From High to Low Carb

Noakes graduated from medical school in 1974. At the time, he was also running, and this was when the high carbohydrate diet really started to become popularized.

Following the advice of one of his professors at the cardiology unit where he worked, he changed to a high-carb diet and began promoting it in his writings, including the book, “Lore of Running,” which was widely read.

“There it says that you must eat lots of carbohydrates for both health and performance. I continued to do this for 33 years until 2010,” Noakes says.

One day in 2010, he went for a run and had one of the worst runs of his life. He also admitted he was overweight, which didn’t help. By chance, that same day he received an advertisement for Dr. Eric C. Westman’s book, “The New Atkins for a New You: The Ultimate Diet for Shedding Weight and Feeling Great.”

It claimed you could lose 6 kilos (13 pounds) in six weeks, which he didn’t believe because he’d tried many diets and none worked. Despite that, he bought the book, and within two hours of reading, he realized he’d had it all wrong all this time.

“I decided then and there that I was going to go low-carb. I started at lunchtime on that day. I’ve been on that diet now for the last six years. I’ve dropped 20 kilograms (44 pounds) in weight. My running returned to what it had been 20 years earlier,” he says.

“I subsequently discovered that I have type 2 diabetes because of a strong family history and all these carbohydrates. But I’m glad to say today all my blood tests are within the normal range. I am taking medication. But … in six years with diagnosed diabetes, I have not worsened.

In fact, I’m probably slightly better than I was six years ago, which is completely contrary to what would happen if you followed conventional advice. Anyway, I decided that I’d start reading. I read all your work. I read all the books. I started doing research.

That convinced me that this is a really important change that we need to promote throughout the world. Clearly, the diabetes and obesity epidemics started in 1977. It’s caused by the dietary guidelines. I slowly began to understand [how] industry has driven the bad guidelines …

I also do intermittent fasting. I only eat between lunchtime and … 8 p.m. … I found that that’s been really helpful. It’s about a 16-hour fast and an eight-hour period where I eat.”

Diet Revolution Leads to Legal Wrangling

In 2013, Noakes published “The Real Meal Revolution: Changing the World, One Meal at a Time,” which turned into the best-selling book ever in the history of Southern African literature. The success of this book produced major changes in dietary understanding in Southern Africa.

Alas, its success also led to legal action being taken against him by the Health Professions Council of South Africa, which is a professional medical licensing and regulatory board. The action came after he posted low-carb advice to a pregnant woman on Twitter.

As a result, the president of the Association for Dietetics in South Africa wrote a long letter to the Health Professions Council, challenging his ability to practice medicine.

“It is so bad that my own university dissociated itself from me,” Noakes says. “At my hospital, Groote Schuur Hospital, you are not allowed to prescribe a low-carbohydrate diet for any condition. You’re not allowed to discuss the diet among the doctors.

If you do practice it or if you were to prescribe it, something would happen to you. That’s how strong the movement against it is. It’s absolutely astonishing. The worst bit for me actually wasn’t the trial and being accused of malpractice and so on. The worst bit was my university.

The dean of medicine wrote to the local newspaper and said they dissociated themselves from my views and all those who support the low-carbohydrate diet.

Of course, they had no evidence for it, but here I’d worked at this university for 35 years or so, and was one of the better-known scientists. That they could do that was absolutely astonishing. But … it does seem that industry was strongly involved.”

Overwhelming Evidence

During the hearing, he presented five and a half days of testimony about the low-carb diet. He was also cross-examined for three and a half days. Then for another three days, expert witnesses were heard, including Nina Teicholz, Zoe Harcombe and Caryn Zinn, all three of whom presented a remarkably sturdy case for its use.

“For example, when Nina — [who] wrote the book ‘The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet’ — when she finished, the lawyer for the prosecution could not cross-examine her.

He just threw up his hands and quit. He didn’t have anything to say. Zoe Harcombe was the same. She has just completed her Ph.D., showing there was never any proven evidence to change the dietary guidelines in 1977.

She presented her Ph.D. thesis. Again, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. The end result is that we’ve had 23 days in court so far, and we won every single moment for 23 days.

We won everything. They have not been able to pin one thing on me. I think it’s the first time in history that a diet has been put before a legal jury to decide whether or not it’s true.”

The final decision, more than three years after the Tweet was posted, was that Noakes was found not guilty of misconduct.

It remains to be seen whether the health professional council, the statutory party that took action against Noakes, will have to change their nutritional guidelines and update all nutrition and dietetics teaching in South Africa. As noted by Noakes, “That could be a huge moment for South Africa and perhaps for the rest of the world.”

Corporate Influence

At the request of CrossFit founder Greg Glassman, investigative journalist Russ Greene visited Noakes in South Africa. He went through all the transcripts of the trial, and then began digging into the backgrounds of all the expert witnesses testifying against Noakes. Most of them turned out to be linked to an organization called the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), which is a Coca-Cola funded organization.

ILSI is basically a front-group for the beverage industry, and has links to Monsanto, Pfizer, Unilever and, in the past, the tobacco industry. Green wrote an exposé, “Big Food vs. Tim Noakes: The Final Crusade,” which is posted on his website, therussels.crossfit.com.¹

“It’s an amazing exposé, which suggests there was a coordinated effort in South Africa to bring me [down] and that it was driven by industry. The reason was we were getting too close to questioning the role of sugar and carbohydrates in ill health. We haven’t proved it, but there’s enough evidence out there to suggest there were things behind the trial that one would not have thought about,” Noakes says.

Beverage Industry Hurt Athletes With Manipulated Science

This isn’t the first time Noakes has taken on big industry. In 2010, he published “Waterlogged: The Serious Problem of Overhydration in Endurance Sports,” a book exposing how industry influences science, and how the beverage industry has influenced the drinking guidelines for athletes.

He wrote the book because he was angry about people being hurt as a result of these manipulated guidelines. While rarely discussed, exercise-associated hyponatremia — drinking too much or overhydrating — actually contributes to many unnecessary deaths. Noakes explains:

“When I started running marathons in the 1970s, we didn’t drink during races. In fact, I ran a 56-mile race and I think I had four drinks. You’d have a drink every hour and you would literally swirl your mouth out with water and that would be about it. No one came to any harm. Then in about 1974 I began actively to promote drinking during marathon races. I became very active in South Africa saying there was not enough fluid available to marathon runners …

By 1981, the race … had a drinking station every mile. They had 56 drinking stations in a 56-mile race. At the end of that race, a lady was unconscious. She was hospitalized … Her blood sodium concentration had fallen. She wanted to know what had happened. She said, ‘Maybe I took too little sugar or salt during the race. What should I do about it?’ I said, ‘I have no idea.’

I then decided to investigate. Over the next 10 years, we were able to show that … she had overdrunk fluids. She’d retained the fluids, [which] caused her brain to swell, [causing] her to go unconscious. She’d remained unconscious for four days. We provided definitive evidence that it was overdrinking that caused the problem.”

In 1993, the first American marathon runner died from overhydration. Still, in 1996, the American College of Sports Medicine, funded by Gatorade, produced new drinking guidelines stating that dehydration is the killer when you exercise, and you should drink “as much as tolerable” during exercise.

Other deaths followed, all of which were completely unnecessary. In 2002, a young female runner died shortly after completing the Boston marathon. Cause of death: water intoxication. As recently as last year, two American football players died from overhydration. An estimated 3,000 athletes have also been hospitalized for hyponatremia, but fortunately almost all have survived. Yet, there have been at least 16 completely unnecessary deaths of which we are aware.

How Industry Controls Information

Finally, in 2007, the American College of Sports Medicine revised their guidelines to what Noakes had suggested, which is that you should drink to thirst.

“It took a lot of time to change. The only reason we could change was because two scientific journals in the entire world were independent of the sports drink industry. [The] industry … makes sure its key opinion leaders, who have funds to do research, also happen to be the people who draw up the guidelines, whether they be dietary, cholesterol or drinking. In addition to that they are the main reviewers of journal articles.

Over a 10-year period, we would submit papers and I knew they went to exactly the same reviewers every time. It didn’t matter which journal we sent them to … But there were two journals that were independent, the British Journal of Medicine and the Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine. They published our work. I always knew that if there were two journals open to our papers … we would win in the end. In the end, we did win, because in the end all that matters is the truth.

But if those two journals had also been controlled, if they’d had the same editorial boards, we wouldn’t have ever done it. That was how I learned that is how industry controls information. They actively do it. They actively support people to make sure that only guidelines that benefit industry are ever published.”

With Fewer Carbs, You Don’t Need Insulin

One of the absolute worst things conventional medicine does is treat type 2 diabetics with insulin. This only exacerbates the problem. The key to treating and reversing type 2 diabetes is to cut down on net carbs, replacing them with high amounts of healthy fats and moderate amounts of protein. Noakes has researched reversal of type 2 diabetes in South Africans, coming to the same conclusion.

“It seems to me that provided you remove the carbohydrates, you don’t need the insulin,” he says. “We’re looking at the whole body … [W]e’re looking at every organ in the body that we believe has been influenced by type 2 diabetes.

We’re seeing how they differ in people who reversed their type 2 diabetes on this diet, versus those who continue to be treated with standard therapy, including insulin … [This has] not been done anywhere else in the world. It’s just the most exciting work I can think of.”

Removing net carbs is only one side of the equation, though. That will reverse the insulin resistance, but equally important is having the ability to burn fat as your primary fuel. Paradoxically, driving your insulin level too low can result in a rise in blood sugar. The reason this can happen is because the primary function of insulin is not to drive sugar into the cell, but to suppress the production of glucose by the liver (hepatic gluconeogenesis).

In situations like this, eating a piece of fruit, for example, will actually lower your blood sugar. This is what happened to me, as I went a bit too extreme in my ketogenic approach. That got me to explore this whole process, eventually concluding that continuous ketosis may not be a wise long-term approach.

You actually need this cycling, where you go through a one-day-per-week fast and one or two days a week of feasting, where you eat maybe 100 or 200 grams of carbs. Noakes is planning clinical trials with type 2 diabetics where they will be looking at these kinds of variations.

Are Carbs Bad for All Athletes?

It’s worth noting that some athletes may not perform at their best on a ketogenic (high-fat, low-carb diet). I believe that if you’re doing ultra-endurance events like marathons, the ketogenic diet is the way to go. But for high-performance spurt, interval types, it might not be your best bet. It’ll help you from a health perspective, but it may not optimize your performance like it will for long-distance running. Noakes weighs in on the topic, saying:

“I say the ideal diet for sports is the one that’s ideal for life as well … I spent 20 years of my life studying glucose metabolism in the body during exercise. The question I want to know is, how can adding a little bit of carbohydrate make you run faster? For example, if you ingest carbohydrate during exercise, because you’ve got plenty of fat on board, why would you need a little bit of carbohydrate?

To some extent, I think the carbohydrate effect is a drug effect, particularly during exercise. If you’re taking carbohydrates, I think it’s acting like a drug, because metabolically, I can’t see how it would make any difference. It’s really interesting.

When we do these studies, we take people on high-carbohydrate diets and we put them on a high-fat diet. The performance does come down. But I wonder to what extent, as to the withdrawal of the drug effect as much as a metabolic effect … I think even if you’re cycling the Tour de France, you don’t need more than 200 grams of carbohydrate a day.”

Insulin Resistance Is the Real Killer

According to Noakes, “[I]nsulin resistance is the real killer and … we need to understand that … [the] main driver [of chronic disease] is insulin resistance and a high-carbohydrate diet.”

Unfortunately, most medical schools around the world still do not teach medical students about insulin resistance, and one of the primary reasons for this is because medical schools are strongly influenced by the food industry, which wants you to believe that eating fat is dangerous and eating sugars and grains (net carbs) is healthy.

Neither is true, but these ideas are driven by financial motives. We need to remember that diabetes is one of the greatest growth industries in the world. If it can be reversed or prevented by a relatively simple dietary change, then that industry collapses.

“What I would like to dedicate the rest of my time to is trying to get medical schools to change the focus of the teaching of nutrition and to admit that we failed by telling people to eat a high-carbohydrate diet, and that we have to replace that with an understanding that carbohydrates and insulin resistance are the problem. The broad range of diseases that we see is linked to that,” Noakes says.

“There’s a paper in the Journal of American Medical Association … Chinese people with diabetes were compared to Chinese people without diabetes. The risk for all the common chronic diseases was two to three times greater. It was frightening. There wasn’t a condition that wasn’t listed there.

We have to realize we’re heading toward a disaster because we don’t understand that you must treat insulin resistance with a low-carbohydrate diet. Unless we do that, we’re not going to address the health of our nations … We used to be very lean. That’s what we’re designed to be. We have to somehow get back to that original state, because humans are … not designed to be fat.”

Sugar Addicts Are Particularly Intolerant to Carbohydrates

While I believe limiting protein is just as important as cutting carbs, Noakes believes restricting carbs is the primary key for diabetics. As for how much carbohydrate is too much, we agree that an ideal limit for health is 25 grams of net carbs per day. My recommendation for diabetics is stricter than his, however, as I recommend a maximum of 15 grams of net carbs per day until your insulin resistance is resolved.

Noakes suggests a range of 25 to 100 grams, depending on your levels of exercise and of insulin resistance, with 25 grams being the maximum for those with marked insulin resistance/Type 2 diabetes. He also notes that people with sugar addiction or carbohydrate addiction who are morbidly obese tend to be incredibly intolerant to carbohydrates, and need to be particularly mindful not to exceed 25 grams of net carbs.

“The people that I’ve helped lose 80, 100 kilograms, that’s 160 to 200 pounds, they literally cannot eat 26 grams of carbohydrates. They have to stick to 25. Once they get up to 50 grams … they move back toward the addictive nature,” Noakes says.

“They start to eat more carbohydrate, and very quickly, they’re eating 100, 200, back to 400 grams. People don’t understand that if you have a real weight problem and you’re morbidly obese, you’ve really got to be strict 25 grams and no more. I think it’s the same with type 2 diabetes. You’ve got to stick to 25 grams.”

Dr. Noakes was one of the experts I sought to help edit my new book “Fat for Fuel” for accuracy. Unfortunately, he was in the middle of his trial and could not edit it. However, there is little doubt in my mind that “Fat for Fuel” is the finest resource you can obtain to give you the practical details of how to implement the strategies that Noakes discusses.

To Learn More, Join Me at My Upcoming Live Lectures

There are many professionals or others who would like to dive deep into the details and if you fall in that category, I want to offer you some opportunities to learn more. On June 14 and 15, 2017, I will be in Colorado Springs for the SopMed’s third medical ozone and ultraviolet light therapy training. The 14th I will be giving a three-hour course that goes into many of the details that are not discussed in my new book “Fat for Fuel,” either because I learned of them later or there was not room to fit them in the book.

If you are specifically interested in nutritional ketosis, there will be a large number of experts lecturing at the Low Carb USA event in San Diego August 3-6. I will be one of the speakers along with Gary Taubes and Stephen Phinney. You can see the entire list of invited speakers lower on the page. The Early Bird Special, which saves you $100 on the ticket price, ends on April 30.

I am also speaking in Florida in November. If you are a physician and are interested in learning about how you can use the ketogenic diet and other therapies for cancer, heart disease, Lyme and neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, please be sure and come to our ACIM conference in Orlando, Florida on November 2 through 4 at the wonderful Florida Conference and Hotel Center.

If you are a patient, there will be a separate and less expensive track on the same date and location.  However, you will need to come back to this page in a few days as the registration page for the event is still not up. The Early Bird Special, which saves you $100 on the ticket price, ends on April 30.

http://articles.mercola.com/herbs-spices/lobelia.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=secon&utm_campaign=20170424Z1_UCM&et_cid=DM141335&et_rid=1980243242

Lobelia (Lobelia inflata), or Indian tobacco, is a flowering herb that is named after the Belgian botanist, Matthias de l’Obel.¹ It was formerly used as a substance during smoking cessation, but has since been discontinued because of mixed results.

In a broader sense, lobelia can refer to a wide variety of flowering plants, with some botanists claiming that these varieties belong to a separate family, Lobeliaceae.² One of the most common and popular variety of lobelias is the Lobelia inflata variety.

Other varieties of lobelia plants include both Lobelia siphilitica and Lobelia cardinalis. These varieties can normally be distinguished from the Lobelia inflata through the differences in the color of their flowers.

Lobelia siphilitica is the most cultivated variety of this plant and is often called the “great blue lobelia” because of its vivid blue flowers, as opposed to the pale color of Lobelia inflata.³ Lobelia cardinalis is also much easier to differentiate because of the distinct bright red color of its flowers.⁴

Because of its dainty flowers, lobelia plants are usually planted in the garden or window boxes to visually improve people’s surroundings. However, because of its beauty, its nutritional components are typically overlooked.

Nutritional Benefits of Lobelia Inflata

Here are some of the benefits that you’ll likely receive when you start using lobelia therapeutically:⁵

How Do You Use Lobelia?

There are various ways in which lobelia can be used. The tincture of the herb can be usedto help alleviate sprains, bruises and various skin conditions. A poultice can also be used topically and may help relax your muscles, especially smooth ones.⁸

Listed below are the various forms that lobelia is available in along with the recommended intake dosages:⁹

It should be noted that these are only recommended doses and an individual’s tolerance level for this herb may vary. Consult your physician to determine the appropriate dosage for you, so that you can avoid ingesting too little or too much of this herb.

Here’s How You Can Grow Your Own Lobelia

Lobelia is commonly planted in regions with low temperatures. But while they thrive well in cold climates, they are actually very sensitive to frost. Listed below is a step-by-step guide on how to successfully plant lobelia in your backyard either for ornamental or medicinal purposes:¹⁰

Try This Recipe for This Muscle Relaxer Tea

Because of the strong effects of lobelia when taken in its pure form, some people choose to incorporate it into their various tea recipes. One such example is a recipe from Living Herbal Tea that combines lobelia with other tea leaves:¹¹

Watch Out For These Contraindications and Possible Side Effects of This Herb

Lobelia, even though it has a variety of health benefits when taken in moderation, may actually be poisonous when ingested in large quantities. It’s also poisonous for pets and other animals, and should be removed from the vicinity where these pets reside to avoid them from being harmed.¹² Some of the side effects that you may experience when you ingest lobelia include the following:¹³

Lobelia should also be avoided if you suffer from the following conditions and diseases:

Lobelia should also be avoided by people who suffer from liver or kidney disease, seizures and shortness of breath. Like other herbs and medications, the use of lobelia should also be avoided by pregnant and breastfeeding women, as it may cause adverse effects.¹⁶