Essential fatty acids such as Omega-3 / -6

Are they even essential and how are they made?

Some fatty acids are supposedly not formed in the body and are therefore called essential and need to be absorbed through the diet.

To extract and produce these types of fatty acids/oils, extraction solvents are used.

They are considered unavoidable for extraction / making the product so they don’t have to list these ingredients. It’s often waste products from mining and oil industry. It is expensive to eliminate waste so it’s a profitable good idea to make people eat them instead :-)

They include things like chloroform, wood alcohol, petroleum ether, n-hexane and acetone.

If we look at just one of them. Anyone can do this to see who produces it and how toxic the product is. Just search for "MSDS" followed by the chemical name of the product.

Here I show one on petroleum ether "msds petroleum ether"

So it's a waste product from oil production that they think you should have along with your "essential fatty acids". Extremely toxic. You can die from swallowing it and it can cause skin problems. Drowsiness and dizziness and organ damage. Remember these details and symptoms of poisoning.

The so-called essential fatty acids were invented by 2 chemists George and Mildred Burr / Burr & Burr

At the top you see 2 references to some of their experiments. They are experimenting with synthetic compound diets and a lot of different fats. But in theory, this could just show that mammals are made up of a certain amount of fat and must also consume a certain amount of fat. They also change a variable that is not the one they are investigating. Namely, the amount of sucrose (sugar) in all the rats. The amount of sucrose increases in the rats on the low-fat diet. They then developed symptoms on their skin. On the face and tail.

They call it a new disease caused by a deficiency of these essential fatty acids.

Let’s take it one step back and look at how they make sucrose or what we know as table sugar.

Most people are aware that sugar in excessive amounts is harmful. But there is no evidence that the natural sweetener in sugar cane, beets, corn or fruit is harmful. That's not what they use as a starting point when studying the subject. It's the chemical extractions they make. What is called sucrose or fructose is not a pure natural extract. There are always various toxic chemicals added in the process. As mentioned above "extraction solvents", "processing aids" or "additives" that they don't have to mention in the ingredient list. Additives are sometimes mentioned but partially hidden by E-Numbers, as most people know. Then you have to research what they are and how they make the product.

To make sucrose (table sugar), they use Sulfur dioxide and phosphoric acid, among other things. This is to form the white powder from the sweet extract.

There are also limits on how much lead, arsenic and copper the sugar can contain, which means there is a chance that these toxic elements are also present.

Many would say that everything is toxic in excessive amounts. Even water. Because that's what the TV has told them. But sugar is not usually eaten in its pure form. It is an ingredient in many things. All other ingredients also have small amounts of highly toxic chemicals in them.

Think about it. If we eat about 1 kg of food a day and drink 2-4 liters of liquid. That's between 3-5 kg a day, all with all the toxic chemicals that the industry is allowed to add to products without informing us on the label. When you then get symptoms, it is always an alleged virus or bacteria that is the cause.

Sugar is actually allowed to contain 70mg of sulfur dioxide per kg.

Phosphoric acid for sugar production

Many people increase their sugar intake during the winter months and these toxic chemicals can also cause respiratory symptoms. But it's probably easier to believe in the existence of fictional imaginary virus particles. There's not a lot of reading material to get through there. Just watch TV or ask your doctor, right?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK596165/

When extracting corn syrup, fiber, starch or proteins, we see the same thing. Different chemicals that have limits that they don't need to mention because it's just part of the process.

Corn-Wet-Milling. Some of the same toxic chemicals are used here too, with the chance of arsenic and lead content. But don't worry. They set the limits 😉 Doesn't matter, right?

The same with fructose. When they come up with the chemical term, it has been through a chemical process. That is, it is NOT the natural sweet substance they are talking about alone, but a chemical mixture they make as they cannot patent nature.

Methylene Chloride is also used, which according to their own safety data sheet is very toxic. Toxic to the lungs, nervous system, liver, mucous membranes, central nervous system. Repeated or prolonged ingestion can damage organs.

https://www.pure-chemical.com/msds/Methylene%20Chloride.pdf

But these sweet chemical products are added to everything we eat, so the vast majority of people consume them on a daily basis. But when you get symptoms, the cause is viruses or bacteria, right?

Studies have also been done on whole fruits and vegetables. That is, where it is not a chemical extraction. There are both specific studies and data collection here. But across the board, the results are the same. Those who eat real fruit and vegetables on a daily basis have better health. So to be afraid of eating too much fruit because of fructose is wrong. Yes, fruits and vegetables are also sprayed with chemicals. But the further we get away from the natural product, the more toxins are added in the industry.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6315720/

So fructose has nothing to do with eating whole fruit. Fructose is the chemical product with more toxic chemicals in it than the pesticides they sprayed on the fruit.

Lets go back to Burr & Burr’s experiments.

They also write that the animals consume very varied amounts of fluid, despite being fed the same diet and having approximately the same weight. In other words, there are many variables here that are not examined. If you want to see if something specific has an effect, you only need to change that variable.

They also don't try natural food. They could have a parallel control experiment where they gave the rats pure natural sugar cane, for example. Very sweet and no fat. To exclude some of the chemicals they use in extracts.

So it's as if they're seeking a particular result rather than presenting any scientific evidence.

29 years earlier In 1900 there was a huge outbreak of people getting sick with heart problems and skin problems (herpes and shingles). They assumed it was beriberi (what they claim is a vitamin B-1 deficiency). But it actually turned out to be arsenic poisoning from sugar supplied to over 200 breweries. In that report, you actually see one of the investigators write that in his opinion there was no doubt that arsenic was the cause of herpes. Another found out because he knew that the only substance known at the time to cause shingles was arsenic.

So pretty much the same symptoms that all the rats got with the synthetic food formulations. Does it show that the rats suffered from a deficiency when they don't even examine the amount of toxins in all their extracts and sucrose, which they also change the amount of in the rats? It's like scientists always ignore poisoning? As if they don't exist 🤔

Under the article about Burr & Burr's invention, there are also other references where you can see that the Carnegie Foundation is helping to fund these studies.

Carnegie, along with the Rockefeller Foundation, began taking over the pharmaceutical industry in the early 1900s. Investing large sums of money in both medical education and universities.

So the whole idea of vitamins and supplements is created, produced and sold by the same people who make vaccines.

Having good experiences with taking vitamins and supplements or giving them to others is not scientific evidence. I'll give you 2 examples of this.

One is placebo. There are countless placebo trials out there that show that our mind has an impact on the feeling of consuming something we believe has a beneficial effect. People can get intoxicated by alcohol essence or their headache can disappear if they are given pure lime if they believe it was headache pills and think it has a beneficial effect.

The other is drugs. If you go out one night with a little cocaine and MDMA. You have an amazing night. You feel like a king. There's lots of hugs, kisses and love in the air. You had a wonderful experience. But that doesn't necessarily mean it was particularly good for your health. Your physical health, right?

With all the different chemicals they put in all the things they sell, it's hard to know if they could also affect the psyche in some way. Especially when they ignore all the toxins in all their studies and experiments.

"food for thought”