All Episodes
Previous Next
March 26, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
47:02
Interview with Dr. David Crews, UT Austin, author of Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance paper
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Music playing Welcome, everyone.
This is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, with the Health Ranger Report here at naturalnews.com.
We've got an incredible guest joining us today, a scientist from the University of Texas at Austin.
He's published what is a, I believe to be a groundbreaking paper, potentially one of the most important elements of research that we've seen in understanding the sustainability of life as we know it on our planet.
I know that sounds big, But wait till you hear about the paper.
His name is David Cruz.
He is the Ashbell Smith Professor of Integrative Biology and Psychology at the University of Texas.
And the paper that he has published is titled, The Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Altered Stress Responses.
It sounds like a mouthful, I know, but he joins us by phone now to explain what this test shows and why it is such a big deal for understanding The chemical contamination of our species on this planet.
So, Professor Cruz, thank you for joining me today.
Hello, Mike.
Thank you very much for having me on.
Should I refer to you as Professor Cruz or how do you prefer to be addressed?
You can call me David.
Okay, David.
Well, I thank you for your time, David.
This is a very big story, and I'm sure you're getting lots of requests from media across the country, so we appreciate your time with us.
But please go ahead and explain a little bit about the overview of this study and what it shows and why that's so groundbreaking in terms of understanding biology and chemical exposure.
Okay.
What I wanted to do in this study with Michael Skinner at Washington State University Is to simulate, and I want to be clear that this is what's called a proof of principle experiment, where we simulate the essential nature of life on this planet,
and that is that every individual brings to their life what they've inherited, but also what they experienced during their own lifetime.
And this exposure, the exposure that you experience during your own lifetime, is really what shapes us into the unique beings that we are, because we all have different exposures.
Sure.
The first component, that is the heritability component, the nature component, if you will, is your genetic makeup But in the last 25 years,
we've discovered that the environment actually has a huge effect, not so much on the DNA structure, the sequence that is contained within the genes, but how those genes are regulated.
And that's called the epigenome.
And literally, that means above Epi is above genome, the genetic constitution of the individual.
This is actually a very old principle that was in biology in the 1800s when Darwin and Lamarck were alive.
Lamarck, of course, is associated with the idea that the exposure that you have shapes The individual that you are.
Darwin believed in Lamarck.
He thought that he was correct.
But then in the very early 1900s, 1910 or so, there was the rediscovery of Mendel and his peas.
And that completely changed the nature of biology.
And in a matter of years, everybody became fascinated with the units of heredity.
And they wanted to understand how those worked.
You got the culmination of that, if you will, was the breaking of the DNA code by Watson and Crick, and then most recently the Human Genome Project, where working out the DNA sequence of humans and other animals.
But that work ignored the environment.
And if I could jump in here, what your study is establishing, there are several really important points, but one is that the epigenetic factors are inherited, that they are passed from one generation to the next, and this flies in the face of those who believe that the genes are the only factor that can be inherited.
This is really a paradigm shift in understanding inheritance.
That's true.
And I can tell you now that the classically trained geneticists are not very happy about that.
Yeah, right, because it means there's something else at work.
Right, but there are two kinds of epigenetic modifications that we have to keep in mind.
The first kind is the transgenerational epigenetic modification that Skinner demonstrated in 2005 for mammals, but had been actually developed much more thoroughly over the last two, three decades by botanists working with plants.
And that occurs when there's a, what he showed, a chemical challenge with a pesticide or a fungicide.
When the Pregnant females exposed in her embryos are about 10 to 12 days of age.
It's a very narrow window that opens and closes.
This is corresponding to the end of the first trimester and the beginning of the second trimester in the human pregnancy cycle.
That's when what they call the germline is established.
The germline is what's going to give rise to the subsequent generations.
And these are like the stem cells that we've heard about, but they're perpetuated from generation to generation.
If you hit these cells with a particular chemical, then they will be permanently changed.
Now, the DNA itself has not changed, but how they are regulated has changed.
And that effect will appear each and every generation thereafter without any further exposure to the chemical.
Let me read from the abstract of your study.
Again, the title is The Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Altered Stress Responses.
I'm looking at it in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS. And in the abstract, quote, straight from the abstract, It says, quote, we find that a single exposure to a common use fungicide three generations removed alters the physiology, behavior, metabolic activity, and transcriptome in discrete brain nuclei in descendant males, causing them to respond differently to chronic restraint stress.
So, in layman's terms, you're saying that If your great-grandmother was exposed to a fungicide chemical, that can alter your neurology today.
Yes, and there's no doubt that that has occurred in human populations in instances where there have been industrial spills.
Well, that's a point that I think needs to be clarified here for those watching or listening that the traditional, quote, scientific understanding of these issues is that if, let's say, if a parent is exposed to chemicals, yeah, that may affect their offspring if the chemical exposure happens in vitro during pregnancy, during gestation, for example.
But that if that child is not exposed, then they're going to return to, quote, normal, healthy, and that future generations are going to be okay.
But your research appears to indicate that we've got to rethink that whole thing, that exposure is, or I should say, the harmful or the negative effects of exposure is inherited into generations, into offspring, multiple generations down the road, even though those offspring have never themselves been exposed to the chemical that caused That's correct.
The evidence is that there are certain classes of compounds that will have this imprint and these compounds are typically synthetic organic chemicals that are used in common manufacturing processes or They're not only pesticides and fungicides,
but Skinner has shown that, for example, the insect repellent DEET, plasticizers like bisphenol A and phthalates, dioxin, and hydrocarbons like jet fuel,
We have poisoned our whole population with BPA. Would you call this a mass multi-generational poisoning that we've just initiated here in human history?
Well, we have to be extremely careful about the kinds of chemicals that we use in manufacturing, and we're involved In fact, with green chemists now trying to replace certain of these chemicals in the manufacturing process with chemicals that don't have these effects.
We have to face it.
We have permanently contaminated the world.
We are never going to clean up the world.
We have to recognize this fact.
And in recognizing it, we have to then be able to study Ways in which we can anticipate and also develop therapeutics to try to aid both wildlife and humans.
But I agree with you.
We have poisoned the environment.
There's no turning back.
That doesn't mean we have to continue poisoning the environment.
Well, right.
That's the real point here, too.
Your research would seem to be a red alert that we need to immediately rethink the spraying of fungicides, the spraying of pesticides, even the things you can buy down at the hardware store to spray on your own lawn.
Some of those synthetic chemicals fall into the same classes you just described.
Go ahead.
You have to understand we're dealing with people, money, and politics.
We're never going to get rid of saran wrap.
It's not going to happen.
We're never going to get rid of pesticides.
We have to develop different kinds of pesticides.
Because farmers can't have their crops ravaged.
They have to be able to produce the product.
So we just have to be more geared toward understanding there are consequences to all of our actions.
We're suffering from those consequences now.
We don't need to add to them.
So the fact this recent ruling by the FDA not to ban BPA In the United States, whereas it's been banned in Canada and Europe, is, in my opinion, a disaster.
It's a mistake, a fundamental mistake by our regulatory agencies.
But we're dealing with what's called a cause-and-effect problem.
And I liken it to the smoking, smoking and cancer.
There were years and years and years of experiments demonstrating unequivocally that smoking, the compounded smoking, led to cancer.
But there was no regulation of it.
If you look at the history of that situation, the regulation came after there were internal memos discovered within the tobacco industry that showed that they knew What they were doing.
That's what brought about the regulation, not the science.
Here we have the same kind of problem, and forgive the pun, the smoking gun, is we have an effect that is going to show up generations later, or throughout generations, And way after the exposure.
Exactly.
Where people...
How can you demonstrate to a regulatory body that that exposure caused that effect?
And that, by our experiment, is so important because this is the first empirical demonstration of that.
Well, I can imagine that, of course, organizations such as the American Chemistry Council and the FDA, which the joke in our office is the FDA has never met a synthetic chemical it didn't like.
Yeah, they're powerful people, the Chemical Manufacturing Association.
But here you're dealing with a very complicated issue.
I'm not condoning it at all.
But I'm saying that we have to recognize what we're up against.
Yes.
Well, that's what's crucial about this.
And I would imagine those are some of the reasons why your research is going to be attacked, perhaps aggressively, by the chemical industry.
Because the chemical industry relies on obfuscation.
It relies on the time delay...
An inability to prove correlation or causation between exposure versus harmful health effects.
The chemical industry relies on really bad science to try to cover their butts, so to speak, and not take any responsibility for what their chemicals cause.
The buzzword is the weight of evidence.
The weight of evidence hasn't been sufficient.
But let me say that what our experiment, other people have demonstrated this point very effectively.
What our experiment adds to is it takes, there's a second kind of epigenetic modification that happens throughout our lives that doesn't have anything to do with the germline.
And that is, you know, the common life challenges, and they talk about life as having A series of sensitive periods where the individual is extremely vulnerable.
Those sensitive periods are agreed to be the prenatal period when the individual is an embryo.
Then immediately after that, the postnatal period when the individual is an infant and just developing.
And then the next major period, sensitive period, is adolescence.
That's because The individual is graduating from a dependent state to its parents to an independent state that is becoming a functional adult.
And that's when puberty occurs in what's called adrenarchy.
That is when the adrenals start to be active.
So what we did is we stressed, we took a stress during adolescence Of these individuals who have been modified in terms of their germline.
And we demonstrated that when they became adults, they behaved very differently than did individuals that only got the modification in the germline or only got the stress during adolescence.
I see.
The two elements combined created a different kind of animal.
Both in terms of their physiology, their behavior, their brain chemistry, and their epigenome.
That's one of the things that's so fascinating about your research is that it shows a behavioral change, a maladapted behavior, perhaps, you could argue, following exposure to these synthetic chemicals.
Do you believe that this might help explain some of the The madness of behavior that we see in society?
I mean, I think we could argue that many of today's humans, they seem maladapted to reality, and there's more insanity, there's more pathological behavior, and so on.
Do you think that has anything to do with this?
Well, the way I started this whole line of work, and the way I've worked with what we call naturally occurring Most of my career.
And those are animals in nature, turtles, reptiles, birds, for many years.
And so I know what kinds of events, you know, they talk about the individual that is actually breeding is the survivor, the 1% that survives all of the problems of growing up.
Those survivors are a very peculiar set of individuals.
In humans, just about everybody survives.
And we all have, you know, think back to your own adolescence.
I think back on mine, not very fondly.
You know, junior high school was horrible.
Those kinds of experiences are what shaped How I respond to today's challenges, now I'm 65, and how do I behave to other individuals and that sort of thing.
I wanted to be able to create that same type of situation in an experiment.
And the motivation was because I had seen, for the last 10, 15 years, all of these Speculations, particularly in the press, that the increase in chemical contamination and how that has increased and how we've seen a corresponding increase in autism, bipolar disorder, Cancer.
Obesity.
Earlier you mentioned autism, and I think based on what you've said, you also believe that this phenomenon that you're describing, epigenetic transference inheritance, may also explain the astronomical rise in rates of autism among especially North Americans today.
Can you speak to that?
Well, there are a variety of disorders, as you had mentioned before, that are on sharp increases over the last two decades.
And there are also a lot of physicians who have published studies saying that if we continue this rate of increase, it's going to be out of sight in 2030.
There are a number of studies for cardiovascular disease, for autism, etc., just saying If there's been this increase, there's going to be this increase then.
Those are all correlations.
And I wanted to do a study where I could actually say cause and effect.
And many of the behaviors that we studied were measures of behaviors like autistic behavior, anxiety behaviors.
And the animals behaved in a...
For want of a simple term, they behaved very neurotically, much more so than if they had just been stressed in their own lifetime or if they had had the great-grandma germline effect.
Right.
Also showed a significant...
They were significantly overweight, right?
Much more so than the animals, the control animals that received neither treatment.
You know, there was no exposure to great-grandma, no stress.
The animals that got both were much heavier, which we think is the first empirical or cause-and-effect demonstration for what we're seeing in today In overweight humans.
So we may actually have programmed our species to be obese for the next three, four, ten generations.
It may have already happened.
I mean, some of this, it's been done.
Well, it has.
But no one has demonstrated it.
People have said, look at the relationship.
There must be cause and effect.
But to a scientist, correlation is not causation.
Sure.
And this, our work, is the first actual demonstration that there is a transgenerational effect on body weight.
And so that, in that regard, we can say yes.
In this experiment, These animals are overweight, and it was not because of, you know, they're just being fed.
They have food constantly available.
They're like little couch potatoes.
There's something else that's happening.
And we can say that something else is this exposure three generations before.
That's extraordinary.
Obesity and diabetes are a big focus in the political spectrum right now, not to mention the health industry.
Everybody's asking the question, how do we solve the obesity pandemic?
And it seems like the answer to that is a similar answer that we need to get to in the cancer industry.
How do we stop cancer?
How do we prevent it from happening?
Ultimately, we've got to get to these chemicals.
We've got to reduce our exposure.
I absolutely agree.
Up until the last five years, the cancer community has been absolutely dedicated to the idea that it's genes.
And it's not genes.
It's how the genes are regulated.
And how the genes are regulated Is what epigenetics is all about.
Do you have any idea, or are you willing to discuss this, how many generations might be affected by exposure to a fungicide or a synthetic chemical that you've described?
Your research talks about three generations.
Are you planning on studying more than three?
Could it be ten?
Does it fade out?
This is what I can say.
Skinner has taken it to five generations.
The problem is the nature of generations, and the human generation is 20 years.
The best work has been done in plants, and we have documented cases of over 200 years, 200 generations of epigenetic modification.
Right.
So, when I use the word permanent, I'm meaning I don't see a diminution.
That's the nature of this kind of imprint.
It will not disappear.
There's no evidence, there's no therapeutic that anybody has put forward That will change this.
This is like, you know, the saying used to be, oh, well, it's in your genes, unless you were talking about, you know, the person ate too many Twinkies, and that's why they did what they did.
These things are going to continue.
It's part of our environment.
We need to suit up for it.
You're starting to freak me out, David, because if this goes on, if this replicates and transfers from one generation to the next without diminishing, then we're in deep trouble.
And shouldn't we then especially start looking at what exposures expectant mothers, what they're exposed to?
Just a generation ago, expectant mothers were not typically put on psychiatric pharmaceuticals.
They were typically not given flu shots.
The idea was pregnant mothers shouldn't get flu shot vaccines.
Now, the conventional idea is pregnant moms need twice the vaccination.
They need more psychiatric drugs.
They need antidepressants.
In fact, I saw an article recently saying that pregnant women should be on chemotherapy if they have signs of cancer.
Can you imagine chemotherapy's effect on a developing fetus?
Well, there you're talking about what classically is called teratology, and that's when you start getting the thalidomide type of effect.
Sure.
If you give these mutagens, chemotherapy is basically...
You try to kill the cancer before you kill the patient, and it's a neck-and-neck race all the way up until the end.
Those are exceptionally powerful compounds which do change the DNA. Those are not the same category of compounds.
What we're talking about are common-use compounds used You know, every day, pesticides, fertilizers, detergents, plastics, etc.
Yes, we do have to regulate those better.
Yes, we do have to compound them, manufacture them differently so that they don't have the same byproducts.
How can we control industrial spills?
Well, they're accidents, and by the very nature, you know, they...
They're not controlled.
I would argue that the average pregnant woman's kitchen and bathroom is like a chemical spill.
If you look at all the synthetic compounds in their antibacterial soaps, their perfumes, deodorants, shampoos, skin lotions, dishwashing detergent, laundry, dryer sheets, fabric softeners.
I mean, you put all that together.
I don't know if you've heard this, but the poison control CDC It talks about, you know, underneath the sink is the single most dangerous place in the house.
Right.
Yes, all of those things are the product of modern living.
And what are we going to do when faced with, do I give up plastics or do I not?
A lot of people are going to say, I don't care.
Now, with the idea that, in fact, they're not only harming their children, but their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, that may have an impact.
But getting through to people is a...
You know, I started out in social psychology.
I was a psychologist originally by training.
And people are stubborn.
Well, I think it's also, and I want to ask you about this, it's also that human beings have a tendency to have very short-term thinking.
They don't think in terms of seven generations down the road.
They think in terms of, how do I get my next meal or my next paycheck?
Or maybe, how do I put my kid through college?
But they typically don't say, what am I eating today and how is that going to affect my great-grandchild 75 years later?
They're not normally thinking that.
Yeah, because it's very complicated.
Life is already real complicated.
What you're talking about is a change in the way in which we deal with life.
I am in absolute agreement with you, but you have to realize that what you're asking for is a change in a mind state.
Sure.
And that's very, very difficult.
Yes, it is.
And crisis tends to collapse the temporal perspective into the immediate future, right?
So the more people are stressed with, let's say, unemployment or economic crisis, a relationship crisis, a health crisis, the more their perspective narrows and they go, wow, what do I need now?
And so the future goes down the drain.
Yeah, you have a very accurate...
That's a very accurate statement of where we are today in our lives.
But, you know, it's not going to change, so what we have to do is develop better ways of coping and understanding the complexity of life.
So what do you recommend?
And by the way, David, if you're open to this, I want this to continue to be a dialogue with you.
I'd like to check in with you for all of our listeners and readers and viewers online to continue this conversation with you.
This is important stuff.
This is more important than who gets elected in the next election.
This is more important than the economic problems of a nation like Greece.
We're talking about life on our planet here.
What do you say, David, we need to start looking at in order to, I mean practical steps, to start addressing this issue so that we have a future?
I would be very happy to continue this dialogue because I agree with you.
This is where the rubber meets the road for each and every individual.
This is not a countrywide thing or whatever.
This is a situation that each of us faces, and how do we deal with it?
I think that the first element is just the education, and what you're doing today, bringing what is hard science to the public, is the very first step in what is going to be a I wouldn't call it a rehabilitation.
I would call it a reorientation of how we think of and how we practice our lives.
Yes.
And it's going to have to be a generational thing.
You know, I remember I was powerfully affected by my grandfather, who died when I was about 15, but I had a close relationship with him.
And he passed on to me, it's like in what we call so-called primitive cultures, which are not primitive at all, but the, not the written heritage, but the spoken heritage.
There's a lot of wisdom there, and we have to start imparting that to our children.
I completely agree.
Let me bring up another, I think, an interesting area of social psychology and mate selection in humans, because what your research shows, I think, is going to lead to people starting to select They're reproductive mates based on the history of dietary exposure and environmental exposure of their parents and grandparents.
So, in other words, let's say if I were wanting to choose a mate, date someone and have children, I would want to ask that person, what did your mother do for a living?
What did your father do?
What did they eat?
Where were your grandparents raised?
What did they eat?
Can you see this happening in society?
Well, you know, we demonstrated this in a previous article in the Proceedings of the National Academy in 2007, that the mate preference is different in animals that have this epigenetic imprint, this germline imprint.
What we found, which was very interesting, is that the males didn't care who they, you know, they liked any female so long as she was receptive.
That sounds consistent with human behavior, yes.
Right, but the females cared a lot.
In fact, they avoided the males that had this imprint, and not only the normal females, but the imprinted females did.
Wow.
They knew they could discriminate between...
Animals that had been treated like them versus normal animals, and they didn't want anything to do with those males.
Now, this is important because when we think about, I'm not talking about humans, I'm thinking about animals, how animals, when they reach puberty, in some species, mainly mammals, the males go out.
The males leave the natal area.
And if that's the case, then those males, if this is for mammals, they're going to spread the effects of their heritage.
But in birds, where the females are the ones that leave the natal area, they are not going to spread it.
Now, different animals do it different ways.
But you have to think in terms of the populations and how immigration occurs at puberty and the effects of these chemicals.
And so it gets into population biology.
We already know that in humans there are mate preferences.
Well, I can actually see a day.
I mean, this has been depicted in some dystopian futuristic sci-fi type of movies where individuals get tested and then they carry cards, for example, that certify a certain level of reproductive viability.
And then, you know, mates get together and they check their cards.
Oh, are you a green card person or yellow card or red card?
That's the only kind of person I want to go on a date with.
I mean, I can actually see that happening.
Well, we know from Skinner's work and why his work was so important is that in the rat system that he published in 2005 is that when rats age, just like in humans, we begin to fall apart.
There's immune problems, there are cancers, there's kidney disease, there are all kinds of these physical...
Rats grow old too, and around two years of age, they start to fall apart.
What he found was that when the animals were treated, great-grandmother was treated, for five generations this happened, the onset of those diseases were accelerated.
Oh, wow.
So that males started developing kidney diseases at about a year of life.
You know, a full year ahead.
Wow.
Well, we see that in humans today.
We see heart disease in teenagers sometimes now.
We see diabetes.
Remember, it used to be called adult onset.
Now it's 10-year-old kids got it.
That's right.
And we know from the...
Do you think your viewers and listeners are familiar with diethylstilbestrol, D-E-S? Maybe not.
You should explain it.
Okay, this was a chemical.
It's a very potent synthetic estrogen.
It was developed in the 1930s, and somehow physicians began to think that this would maintain pregnancies in women who were prone to miscarry.
So there were many, many, many women worldwide who were injected with DES while they were pregnant.
It turned out, and this lasted for about 30 years, this administration, this program of administration.
It was finally outlawed in 1970.
It turned out that the children of those women, if they were treated during that narrow window of vulnerability, they developed at puberty cancers and That were characteristic of old women, menopausal women.
Wow.
Serbian cancers, cervical cancers.
The men had testicular cancers.
So these developed after they became mature.
Some of those people were not so affected that they couldn't reproduce.
They had children.
Their children have shown these same cancers.
And now we're in the third generation, and the evidence is beginning to build, because some of these great-grandchildren are now reaching adulthood, that they are also showing, that their children are also showing these same incidences.
And this is the best evidence that we have for, in a human, for an endocrine-disrupting compound to have a transgenerational effect.
And it's a very clean, if you will.
We know the mother got the treatment, and we now know that three generations later, Their children, their great-grandchildren are showing these cancers early.
This is extraordinary.
What you just described is extraordinary.
And I imagine most of those watching are going to start thinking back about their parents and their grandparents.
Where did they grow up?
What did they eat?
I know that my grandparents grew up on a farm So they ate a lot of fresh vegetables and had a lot of minerals in the soil, but I know they used DDT. They sprayed pesticides on the trees.
And again, you have to start wondering, well, how does that affect me?
You know, for those of you watching and listening.
I know you're just about out of time there, David.
I've got really one more question for you and then I'll let you go, but I hope we can pick this up another time.
Okay.
Shifting gears slightly, the press, the media, has been asking you questions and no doubt reporting on it.
The reason I ask this is because I find that mainstream media journalists are scientifically illiterate.
Are you getting any intelligent questions from those journalists?
Or what kinds of things are they actually asking you?
Well, actually, the ones that I've talked with I have asked very good questions.
Good.
But most of the media so far has been reporting the PNAS press release, the same, I think, thing that probably alerted you, or the Washington State University or the UT University press release.
I think that in the next week we're going to start getting or seeing Let's look at this in-depth approach like you're doing.
You're the first one who's really said, okay, let's look at the implications, not simply report on the study.
Right, right.
Look at the implications for this.
And I expect that you're just at the front of what will be a wave of this type of inquiry.
Well, I would think that anyone who had an understanding of the web of life, of basic fundamental biology, would immediately start to see the worrisome implications of your research, if indeed, what your conclusions, if they are proven to be true, in replicated studies and so on.
I hope those are going to be conducted, but it raises obvious and urgent questions.
I'm in a position where some of the science that goes on today, I think, is really out of control.
Some of it is distorted for corporate profits, and it's not serving the interests of humanity, but your science, to me, looks like this is the kind of science we need to have done.
This is why universities should exist and the kinds of things they should put money into, and these are the answers we need.
We don't need, like, another 48-hour erection pill.
We need to know whether we're going to live for another five generations.
This work was funded by the National Institutes of Environmental Health and Safety.
So they actually recognize that epigenetics is really the cutting edge.
This is where it's at in terms of environmental health.
And they are right there.
Funding this kind of work.
Wow.
So my kudos to them for doing this.
Absolutely.
I'd like to bring up that website.
Can you give us that organization name again, please?
It's National Institute of Environmental Health and Safety.
If you put in N-I-E-H-S in Google.
Oh, got it, yeah.
N-I-E-H-S. You should find that.
And is that a department of the National Institutes of Health?
That's right.
Now, this is very different from the EPA. Of course!
Don't get me started.
They're both governmental agencies, but the NIEHS is much more, I consider, firmly grounded in basic science and how it applies to humans, whereas EPA is more Subject to political whims.
Yeah.
We'll have that discussion another time.
We'll talk about fracking for natural gas.
How about that?
Oh, that's a good one.
Well, David, I want to thank you for your time and for your research.
I think what you're doing is absolutely remarkable, and I think we've only just begun to talk about the implications of it, so I appreciate you joining me today.
Well, thank you very much and I look forward to continuing our discussion.
Indeed.
And we'll also put your website URL on the screen so viewers can check out your work.
And please, have a great evening and thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Hello, everyone.
This is Mike Adams, the Health Ranger from naturalnews.com.
I want to encourage you to check out our free infographics, such as this one you see.
It's the top 10 sources of aspartame, and it shows you those sources, where aspartame is really found in foods, and some of those sources may surprise you.
For example, did you know there's a lot of aspartame in chewing gum and children's medicines?
Yeah, find the top 10 sources right now in this infographic at naturalnews.com.
And better yet, share it with your friends.
Get the word out.
Let other people know how they can get to this infographic.
We've got other infographics available, too.
They're all free.
We've got one on raw milk, another one called Nutrition Alert for Patriots.
How people who believe in their country and who believe in liberty can make sure they protect their health with nutrition.
So that they are here to continue to fight for the restoration of liberty in our nation and around the world.
▲
Export Selection