This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Animals and 6-Month-Old Infants Are Getting Fatter … Which Mean that It’s Something In the Environment
We’ve extensively documented that toxic chemicals in our food, water and air our causing an epidemic of obesity … even in 6 month old infants.
No matter how lazy and gluttonous adults may have become recently, 6-month-olds can’t be lazy … they can’t even walk, let alone go to the gym.
And 6-month-olds can’t “binge” … Gerber doesn’t make corn dogs or milk chocolate truffles with rum.
The same thing is being observed in animals … hardly your stereotypical couch potatoes.
Specifically, the Proceeding of the Royal Society published a scientific paper in 2010 showing that animals – as well as humans – are getting hit with more obesity:
‘Like humans, domestic animals and fish and other wildlife are exposed to contaminants in air, soil, water, and food, and they can suffer acute and chronic health effects from such exposures. Animal sentinel systems—systems in which data on animals exposed to contaminants in the environment are regularly and systematically collected and analyzed—can be used to identify potential health hazards to other animals or humans.’
National Academy of Sciences (1991, p. 1).
***
From 24 distinct populations (12 subdivided into separate male and female populations), representing eight species (see §2 for inclusion criteria), over 20 000 animals were studied. Time trends for mean per cent weight change and the odds of obesity (see the electronic supplementary material for definition) were tested for the samples from each population at an age period that corresponded roughly to early-middle adulthood (35 years) in human development (see the electronic supplementary material for calculation) because on a per cent basis, in United States adults, 30–39 years is the decade of human life in which obesity has increased at least as much as any age interval during the last several decades (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/overweight.pdf).
The animals came from a variety of different settings and environments, which reduces the possibility that all of the animals were lazy or more gluttonous than normal:
Macaques—Wisconsin. Our sample consisted of 65 (23 males, 42 females) rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta—Indian origin) from the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC) measured between 1971 and 2006.
Macaques—Oregon. Our sample consisted of 46 (14 males, 32 females) rhesus macaques (Macaca Mulatta—Indian strain) from the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONRPC), measured between 1981 and 1993.
Macaques—California. Our sample consisted of 77 (30 males, 47 females) rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), primarily of Indian origin from the CNPRC (California National Primate Research Center), measured between 1979 and 1992.Chimpanzees. Our sample consisted of 46 (16 males, 30 females) chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) that had been born and lived their entire lives at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center (YNPRC). These animals were measured between the years 1985–2005.Vervets. Our sample included a total of 117 (36 males, 81 females) vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops sabaeus) living in 18 captive social groups at the UCLA-VA Vervet Research Colony, measured between the years 1990 and 2006.Marmosets. Our sample included a total of 143 (65 males, 78 females) common marmosets (Callitrichix jacchus jacchus) from the WNPRC, measured between the years 1991 and 2006.Mice and rats (laboratory). Our sample consisted of animals from 106 rat and 93 mouse studies. There was some variation in sample size between studies. For both rats and mice, the majority of studies had sample sizes of 60 males and 60 females. However, some studies had fewer (i.e. 50, 49, etc.) or more (i.e. 70) animals. In calculating our sample size, we decided to use a conservative estimate of 50 animals per study. Body weights for only untreated control mice and rats used in National Toxicology Programme (NTP) studies between the years of 1982 and 2005 were analysed.Domestic dogs and cats. Our sample of dogs included a total of 2806 (1366 males, 1440 females) animals measured between the years of 1990 and 2002. Our sample of cats included a total of 574 (265 males, 309 females) animals, measured between the years of 1989 to 2001.Feral rats. Our sample consisted of 6115 (2886 males, 3229 females) wild Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) that were captured in the central alleys of high-density residential neighbourhoods using single-capture live traps, while rural rat populations were sampled from parklands and agricultural areas in areas surrounding the city [12,13], between the years 1948 and 2006.
The results showed across-the-board increases in obesity:
For per cent weight change, 24 out of 24 time trends were positive (i.e. increasing). The probability of all out of 24 independent trend estimates being in the same direction by chance is 1.2 × 10−7. For the odds of obesity, 23 out of 24 cases were positive (p = 3.0 × 10−6; table 1 and figure 1). When we combine males and females of each species into a single analysis, we find that in all 12 populations, per cent weight change and odds of obesity time trends were positive (p = 4.9 × 10−5, for 12 out of 12 in the same direction). Given these overwhelmingly significant results at the ensemble or meta-analytical level, we describe the results below for samples from each individual population focusing on the magnitude of the coefficients. Standard errors, confidence intervals and p-values are shown in table 1 and figure 1.
The study concluded that animals are gaining weight, even though they are not subject to the same factors normally blamed for the human obesity epidemic:
Our findings reveal that large and sustained population increases in body weights can occur in mammalian populations, just as they have occurred among human populations, even in the absence of those factors that are typically conceived of as the primary determinants of the human obesity epidemic via their influence on diet (e.g. access to vending machines) and physical activity (e.g. less physical education classes in schools). Though results were not statistically significant in every population (11 out of 24 are statistically significant for per cent increase in weight per decade, and 7 out of 24 are statistically significant for odds of obesity), viewed as an ensemble, the fact that nearly all independent time-trend coefficients were in the positive direction for both weight gain and for the odds of obesity, is overwhelmingly statistically significant.
That large population level changes in body weight distributions of mammalian populations can occur even when those populations are neither under obvious selection by predation nor are living with or among humans has been documented [15]. The particular upward trend we have observed towards obesity in multiple datasets of non-human animals has been suggested by anecdotal evidence for some time. A 2008 news report indicated that ‘trends in pet insurance are mirroring human healthcare. Obesity… is a growing problem for dogs and cats… (and 2007) saw a 19 per cent increase in claims related to obesity’ (http://www.petfirsthealthcare.com/2008/02/07/petfirst-pet-insurance-to-be-more-popular-in-2008/). According to a recent review by German [16], ‘Most investigators agree that, as in humans, the incidence of obesity in the pet population is increasing’. Despite this strong sentiment that obesity rates are increasing in pets (note that the United States Food and Drug Administration recently approved the first drug to treat obesity in dogs; Food and Drug Administration, 2007), we were unable to find previously published data actually showing this increase.
Others reported that 19 per cent of horses in a large cohort were obese, even among largely pasture-fed animals. Although a direct comparison with a similarly sampled earlier cohort was not available, the investigators remarked that the levels were higher than a 5 per cent rate observed in an earlier study [17]. Similarly, an increase in body weights was observed among rats used in carcinogenicity studies in France between 1979 and 1991, despite similar husbandry conditions [18]. The authors attributed the increase to the introduction of animals of the same substrain but raised under specific pathogen-free conditions, reinforcing the perspective that the presence of viral or other microbial pathogens [19,20] may affect body weight in populations either positively or negatively, depending on the pathogen. It is also noteworthy that the obesity epidemic has also occurred among children of six months of age and under [21], an age group for which explanations involving food marketing, less physical education is schools, and more labour-saving devices seem questionable.
The authors raise numerous possible explanations, including hormone-disrupting chemicals:
One set of putative contributors to the human obesity epidemic is the collection of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (endocrine-disruptors), widely present in the environment [24].
Exactly.
»
- advertisements -
bravo for pointing this out:
they're messing with the natural order of things, the environment we rely on to survive, with all living beings. . .
Exactly. The natural order of things is on the chopping block.
French fries.
Don't keep on blaming the french.
Bingo ...
Yeah, where did our sperm go?
What about peanut allegeries? This is so strange. 20, 30, 40 years ago, this was just unheard of. Suddenly, we have children that are allergic to the slightest amount of peanut residue. Not pecan; not walnut; not brazil nuts... Seriously, I suspect Monsanto, but that's just wrong. Where is the science here?
Thanks George. People need to think about these things.
20, 30, 40 years ago there was no such thing as a serial killer or a child rapist, except there was. We just didn't hear about it.
People have always had allergies, even deadly ones. They are a result of a very clean environment as a child. That is all.
I also think that the very clean environment is the cause of allergies...lack of exposure to germs/dirt as a child robs their immune systems of the ability to identify and develop their defenses. I have observed that kids in super clean/sanitized/bleached households definitely have more allergies. A two year old eating a handful of mud is probably very beneficial.
Yep, back in the old days they just dropped dead due to the complications of their allergies, no one the wiser why.
It's not Monsanto (in this case) ... it's big pharma.
All of these allergies (peanuts, wheat, dairy, eggs, shellfish, etc) are on the increase because immune systems are being deliberately hyper-sensitized way too early with infant vaccinations. The body then later over-reacts to these "foreign" proteins in our diet. The digestive system is an integral part of the immune system.
As 'benb' pointed out above, this is just one of many deliberate tactics by the eugenicists to weaken our defences and [attempt to] induce early demise.
I think it's much more likely (and some would say even more disturbing) that, rather than some eugenic zionist communist fascist plot to depopulate the world, it's the profit motive in the end. If you are a sociopath then you care more about the profit than about society at large, and so any harm you do in the process of making profit is irrelevant- even if it means the extinction of your own gene line ironically.
Vaccines.
What the fuck do you expect to happen when you hyperstimulate and overlaod the immune system of a newborn? I mean, the first vaccine is given within an hour or two of birth! And that one (Hep B) is for a disease thet virtually no child has any chance of catching, it's a disease of whores, homos, and junkies. Babies can get it from mum...that's why we screen expectant mums for it routinely. So WTF do the babies need a vaccine?
It's profit, not health.
Autism off the charts as well..
I routinely tell all my friends and anyone who will listen to specifically instruct their doctor and hospital that they will NOT take the hepatitis vaccine for the newborn........... It is completely fucking assinine
Good for you. When my kids were little my pediatrician was adamant about them NOT getting the, as he called it, Sacramento shot because it was political. No baby is at risk for hep b unless the mother has it. In such a case the disease is often fulminant, no shot would help at that stage. He also told me there was no lasting immunity proven giving the shot at such a young age. Therefore, when most people are exposed to hep b (usually around teenage to young adult) there probably won't be any immunity. I did get my hep b shot because I work in a lab and are constantly being exposed to blood and body fluids. However there's so much hep C rather than B nowadays, it doesn't seem as important. Chronic hep B is around 10 percent vs 40-90 percent with hep C
Gully,
I do not deny your first point. But to consider it to be a evil scare tactic is plain ignorance. Be my guest and consume more BPA. I wish you well.
It's the estrogen in everything. Part of the ongoing War on Men. Soon women will be cloning ea other, and eating bloated faggots.
It is among other things, the estrogen mimickers- soy, BPA, e.t.c. Men are being feminized. Women are being ultra-feminized. This is also the major reason for the explosion in homosexuality. And it’s all by design. The physiological /chemical engineering is being reinforced by the propaganda/social engineering. Humans are being physically changed along with being culled with the introduction with a massive wave of cancers. The release of radiation in the atmosphere accelerates the process. Six year –olds are growing breasts and menstruating and nobody knows why ?… give me a break.
Look at the pictures from the '40s. Women looked like women. Now both men and women look like beachballs with heads.
Watch footage of Woodstock. You won't see one fat person, let alone obese.
It's not one thing. BPA, Bt toxins created in our gut from GMO food, HFCS, Aspartame, vaccines....antibiotics....
GW, Dr. Mercoloa mentioned that BPA can be broken down by some gut bacteria, but if you have taken a course of antibiotics, those bacteria may be dead and you might not get them back no matter how much probiotics you eat. So a course of antibiotics (ear infection?) early in life could increase the ill-effects of BPA exposure.
those pictures from the '40s, did Men look like Men too, or are we just talking Hollywood snaps? ever notice how "chiseled" men's faces looked? and how "old" the Hollywood folks looked in those movies. . . even the 50's flicks that were made for the teen boomers, those "kids" all look in their 30's at least. . .
looking through the family photos of friends, those average people look hella "old" compared to the same age groups now. . . and most "average" people in those photos, when you remove the identifying clothing and hairstyle and makeup, don't look all that women-ly. . .
but yes, people were thinner, overall, which is the point of these articles I believe.
alright, let's not go loonybins just because you're not fond of "women" or "homosexuals" k?
excess estrogen doesn't work for females either, leading to autoimmune diseases such as lupus - it's not either / or on the testosterone, estrogen gig, every-body has a mix of both, unless there's underlying endocrine problems. . .
and if "women are being ultra-feminized" that's gonna blow the "feminists are de-masculinizing men and taking over the country" story, puleeze. what's "ultra-feminized" anyhow - artificial eyelashes, massive boobies, a predilection for pink lipstick and aprons??
edit: we posted at the same time HD, so I'll just add
being "strong, accomplished or successful" were traditionally assigned male traits, so in order to be re-cognised in amrkn culture, it would seem obvious that embodying these traits would serve those women seeking, say, corporate or government "jobs" - read: successful.
“…just because you're not fond of "women" or "homosexuals" k?”
You’re missing the point or I was too lazy to delineate. I have nothing against woman or homo-sexuals in general. The point is we are in a scientific dictatorship and the human race is, as I said, being re-engineered by a bunch of f-ing psychopathic freaks.
don't you get it Cath, they're so feminine, they cross over into the masculine side. It's like a black hole.
isn't that when they re-incarnate, y'know, like karmic balancing act?
((what happens in the black holes stays in the black holes))
"Women are being ultra-feminized"
Where is this happening? Women act more and more masculine everyday. Women have been told that being soft, sweet and nurturing makes them weak brainwashed doormats but being loud, aggressive and angry is empowering.
Women do not need to act more like men to be strong, accomplished or successful.
Have you seen the trends in the decreasing age of menarche?
Welcome ...
Thanks George! I really like your articles. Also, I followed your coverage on the Gulf oil disaster very closely which I thought was very good. However, I was wondering if you think the reaction was a bit overblown as it stands today? True, at the time, the disaster seemed like the end of the world. But today, its completely vanished off the radar.
"But today, its completely vanished off the radar."
People have short memories: once out of sight/out of the news, it's out of mind.... I bet a a radar scanning the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico would show a different picture though
The 48 hour news cycle is a wonderful thing, isn't it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSxihhBzCjk