The term “seed oils” in recent times has become a negative term in the natural/organic food industry. The term appears to have originated in 2018, and then became popular in 2020 after a Joe Rogan program with Paul Saladino. This term became even more popular last year, in 2025, when HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy made it a part of his “Make America Healthy Again” slogan. Until recently, most Americans had never heard the term “seed oils,” even though they’ve likely cooked with and consumed them for decades. It’s the catchy description coined by internet influencers, wellness gurus, and some politicians to refer to common cooking oils — think canola, soybean, and corn oil — that have long been staples in many home kitchens. Those fiery critics refer to the top refined vegetable oils as “the hateful eight” and claim that they’re fueling inflammation and high rates of chronic diseases like obesity and diabetes. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new health secretary, has said Americans are being “unknowingly poisoned” by seed oils and has called for fast-food restaurants to return to using beef tallow, or rendered animal fat, in their fryers instead. What Are Seed Oils? Simply put, they are oils extracted from plant seeds. They include eight commonly targeted by critics: canola, corn, cottonseed, grapeseed, soybean, sunflower, safflower, and rice bran I totally agree with their “eight commonly targeted” seed oils of “canola, corn, cottonseed, grapeseed, soybean, sunflower, safflower, and rice bran” as being highly toxic, and unhealthy. These polyunsaturated oils have only been in the human food chain for a short time, since World War II when we developed expeller-pressed technology to extract oils from crops we never did before that time. They are not shelf stable, and need to be highly processed to make them so, which creates many health problems. However, to state that these toxic oils should only be replaced with animal fats, such as beef tallow, is very short-sighted, because there are many seed oils that have been used to extract edible oils and that have nourished populations for thousands of years.

Bug sprays effectively repel biting insects like mosquitoes, ticks, and flies. They work not by killing bugs directly but by making you less detectable or unappealing to them. Many pests track humans using body heat, sweat odors, skin chemicals, and carbon dioxide from exhaled breath. Bug spray ingredients disrupt these signals, masking your scent or creating an unpleasant barrier when applied or sprayed on the skin or clothing. This forms a "no-fly zone" that keeps insects at bay. While different bug sprays contain different chemicals that serve as their active components, they all share one goal: minimizing insect contact with your skin. However, while commercial insect repellents market themselves as "powerful and effective," their chemical ingredients often pose serious health risks. 5 Chemicals in bug sprays that are poisoning you Mainstream bug sprays are formulated with strong chemicals that not only harm human health over time but also contribute to air pollution when used indoors. Research shows that prolonged exposure to certain insect repellents can lead to skin irritation and respiratory issues; worse, they can also cause severe reactions in people with pre-existing health conditions. N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET) DEET is a colorless chemical with a faint odor that is widely used in bug sprays. According to studies, it works by interfering with the ability of insects to detect humans and animals. But while touted as highly effective, products containing DEET have been reported to cause skin irritation, redness, rashes, and swelling, especially when left on the skin for long periods. Reports have also linked repeated skin exposure to DEET in insect repellents to generalized seizures. When swallowed, DEET can cause stomach upset, vomiting, and nausea. According to a study published in the journal BMC Biology, DEET’s toxicity stems from its tendency to block the activity of cholinesterases — enzymes that are crucial to the normal functioning of the nervous system. The study further warns against using products that combine DEET with carbamates, which are known to inhibit brain enzymes called acetylcholinesterase.

How many of these did you eat this week? • Liver • Kidney • Heart • Bone marrow • Spleen For 99.9% of people... the answer is ZERO. Because people are eating more calories than ever, yet starving for actual nutrients. Just look at beef liver – a single ounce contains more vitamin A than 10 cups of carrots. And it's in the retinol form your body can actually use, not the plant beta-carotene that converts at rates as low as 3% in many people. The answer lies in what we're MISSING, not what we're adding. Our ancestors didn't obsess over nutrition labels… But they instinctively ate in a way that provided complete nourishment – consuming the WHOLE animal, especially the nutrient-dense organs. These organs contain unique compounds that often don't exist in meaningful amounts in muscle meat or plants. For example, beef heart contains 30-40 times more CoQ10 than muscle meat – a critical compound for cellular energy production that naturally declines as we age. No plant food contains meaningful amounts of this vital nutrient. Organs aren't a fad.

This picture speaks by itself. Synthetic vitamins, byproducts of the oil and gas industry, are very hard to digest by the body. In fact, it depletes your energy! Compare to liver, which is Nature multivitamin!

Statins are currently one of the most prescribed medications in the USA. However, their recommendation is based on a faulty promise that cholesterol leads to heart attacks and, therefore, death. The most recent meta-analysis of twenty-one statin trials published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concludes something very interesting! https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2790055 They analyzed more than 10 millions people taking statins over the course of 5 years. They found that statins led to a reduction of: - 0.4% for stroke, fatal and non-fatal. - 1.3% for myocardial infarction – fatal and non-fatal - 0.8% reduction of dying (of anything) (By the way, these numbers are based on relative calculations and are not statistically significant, meaning that they are not related to taking statins.) The average increase in life expectancy after four years is nine months (274 days). However, this is misleading, as this is not for the entire population; it is only for 1.3% of the population. So, to establish the average life extension for the entire population, we need to multiply 274 days by 1.3% 274 x 1.3% = 3.5 days [274 x 0.013 = 3.5]. After five years, it is likely this figure would increase by five-fourths. Divide by four and multiply by five. 3.5 days 4 x 5 = 4.4 days Clearly, these figures are not precise, but they are close. If you look at the study this way, it means that taking a statin for 5 years may add an extra 4.4 days to your life. The researchers then split the results into two. - In primary prevention, the average life extension was 3.2 days (for people who did not have a heart attack) - In secondary prevention, the average life extension was 4.1 days (people who had one or more heart attacks). But on the other side, people who were on statins have more cancer, more diabetes, liver issues, muscle wasting, etc.