|Cures, Health & Wellbeing
|Is Psychiatry Bullshit? + Fourteen Lies That Our Psychiatry Professors Taught Us In Medical School
November 26 2016 | From: Sott / GlobalResearch
Some Psychiatrists View The Chemical-Imbalance Theory As A Well-Meaning Lie.
In the current issue of the journal Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Australian dissident psychiatrist Niall McLaren titles his article, "Psychiatry as Bullshit" and makes a case for just that.
Related: The Myth Of Mental Illness: Psychiatry Is A Fraud And It Is All About Control + “Opposition Defiant Disorder” - Non-Conformity And Anti-Authoritarianism Now Considered An Illness
The great controversies in psychiatry are no longer about its chemical-imbalance theory of mental illness or its DSM diagnostic system, both of which have now been declared invalid even by the pillars of the psychiatry establishment.
In 2011, Ronald Pies, editor-in-chief emeritus of the Psychiatric Times, stated;
“In truth, the 'chemical imbalance' notion was always a kind of urban legend - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists."
And in 2013, Thomas Insel, then director of the National Institute of Mental Health, offered a harsh rebuke of the DSM, announcing that because the DSM diagnostic system lacks validity, the: "NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories."
So, the great controversy today has now become just how psychiatry can be most fairly characterized given its record of being proven wrong about virtually all of its assertions, most notably its classifications of behaviors, theories of "mental illness" and treatment effectiveness/adverse effects.
Among critics, one of the gentlest characterizations of psychiatry is a "false narrative," the phrase used by investigative reporter Robert Whitaker (who won the 2010 Investigative Reporters and Editors Book Award for Anatomy of an Epidemic) to describe the story told by the psychiatrists' guild American Psychiatric Association.
In "Psychiatry as Bullshit," McLaren begins by considering several different categories of "nonscience with scientific pretensions," such as "pseudoscience" and "scientific fraud."
"Pseudoscience" is commonly defined as a collection of beliefs and practices promulgated as scientific but in reality mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. The NIMH director ultimately rejected the DSM because of its lack of validity, which is crucial to the scientific method.
In the DSM, psychiatric illnesses are created by an APA committee, 69 percent of whom have financial ties to Big Pharma.
The criteria for DSM illness are not objective biological ones but non-scientific subjective ones (which is why homosexuality was a DSM mental illness until the early 1970s).
Besides lack of scientific validity, the DSM lacks scientific reliability, as clinicians routinely disagree on diagnoses because patients act differently in different circumstances and because of the subjective nature of the criteria.
"Fraud" is a misrepresentation, a deception intended for personal gain, and implies an intention to deceive others of the truth - or "lying." Drug companies, including those that manufacture psychiatric drugs, have been convicted of fraud, as have high-profile psychiatrists (as well as other doctors).
Human rights activist and attorney Jim Gottstein offers an argument as to why the APA is a "fraudulent enterprise"; however, the APA has not been legally convicted of fraud.
To best characterize psychiatry, McLaren considers the category of "bullshit," invoking philosopher Harry Frankfurt's 1986 journal article "On Bullshit" (which became a New York Times bestselling book in 2005).
What is the essence of bullshit? For Frankfurt, "This lack of connection to a concern with truth - this indifference to how things really are - that I regard as of the essence of bullshit."
Frankfurt devotes a good deal of On Bullshit to differentiating between a liar and a bullshitter. Both the liar and the bullshitter misrepresent themselves, representing themselves as attempting to be honest and truthful. But there is a difference between the liar and the bullshitter.
The liar knows the truth, and the liar's goal is to conceal it.
The goal of bullshitters is not necessarily to lie about the truth but to persuade their audience of a specific impression so as to advance their agenda. So, bullshitters are committed to neither truths nor untruths, uncommitted to neither facts nor fiction. It's actually not in bullshitters' interest to know what is true and what is false, as that knowledge can hinder their capacity to bullshit.
Frankfurt tells us that liar the hides that he or she is "attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality." In contrast, the bullshitter hides that "the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him."
Are Psychiatrists Bullshitters?
Recall establishment psychiatrist Pies' assertion:
“In truth, the 'chemical imbalance' notion was always a kind of urban legend - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists."
What Pies omits is the reality that the vast majority of psychiatrists have been promulgating this theory. Were they liars or simply not well-informed? And if not well-informed, were they purposely not well-informed?
If one wants to bullshit oneself and the general public that psychiatry is a genuinely scientific medical specialty, there's a great incentive to be unconcerned with the truth or falseness of the chemical imbalance theory of depression.
Bullshitters immediately recognize how powerful this chemical imbalance notion is in gaining prestige for their profession and themselves as well as making their job both more lucrative and easier, increasing patient volume by turning virtually all patient visits into quick prescribing ones.
Prior to the chemical imbalance bullshit campaign, most Americans were reluctant to take antidepressants - or to give them to their children.
Related: Big Pharma Caught Manipulating Antidepressant Drug Trials Putting Teenagers in Grave Danger
But the idea that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance that can be corrected with Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants sounded like taking insulin for diabetes.
Correcting a chemical imbalance seemed like a reasonable thing to do, and so the use of SSRI antidepressants skyrocketed.
In 2012, National Public Radio correspondent Alix Spiegel began her piece about the disproven chemical imbalance theory with the following personal story about being prescribed Prozac when she was a depressed teenager:
“My parents took me to a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital. She did an evaluation and then told me this story: "The problem with you," she explained, "is that you have a chemical imbalance. It's biological, just like diabetes, but it's in your brain.
This chemical in your brain called serotonin is too, too low. There's not enough of it, and that's what's causing the chemical imbalance. We need to give you medication to correct that." Then she handed my mother a prescription for Prozac. "
Related: 7 Facts About Depression That Will Blow You Away
When Spiegel discovered that the chemical imbalance theory was untrue, she sought to discover why this truth had been covered up, and so she interviewed researchers who knew the truth.
Alan Frazer, professor of pharmacology and psychiatry and chairman of the pharmacology department at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center, told Spiegel that by framing depression as a deficiency - something that needed to be returned to normal - patients felt more comfortable taking antidepressants.
“If there was this biological reason for them being depressed, some deficiency that the drug was correcting, then taking a drug was OK."
For Frazer, the story that depressed people have a chemical imbalance enabled many people to come out of the closet about being depressed.
Frazer's rationale reminds us of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent, the title deriving from presidential adviser and journalist Walter Lippmann's phrase "the manufacture of consent" - a necessity for Lippmann, who believed that the general public is incompetent in discerning what's truly best for them, and so their opinion must be molded by a benevolent elite who does know what's best for them.
There are some psychiatrists who view the chemical imbalance theory as a well-meaning lie by a benevolent elite to ensure resistant patients do what is best for them, but my experience is that there are actually extremely few such "well-meaning liars." Most simply don't know the truth because they have put little effort in discerning it.
I believe McLaren is correct in concluding that the vast majority of psychiatrists are bullshitters, uncommitted to either facts or fiction. Most psychiatrists would certainly have been happy if the chemical-imbalance theory was true but obviously have not needed it to be true in order to promulgate it.
For truth seekers, the falseness of the chemical imbalance theory has been easily available, but most psychiatrists have not been truth seekers.
It is not in the bullshitters' interest to know what is true and what is false, as that knowledge of what is a fact and what is fiction hinders the capacity to use any and all powerful persuasion. Simply put, a commitment to the truth hinders the capacity to bullshit.
About the Author
Bruce E. Levine is a practicing clinical psychologist. His latest book is Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite.
Psychotropic Drugs, Are They Safe?
Fourteen Lies That Our Psychiatry Professors Taught Us In Medical School.
Myth # 1:
“The FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) tests all new psychiatric drugs”
False. Actually the FDA only reviews studies that were designed, administered, secretly performed and paid for by the multinational profit-driven drug companies.
The studies are frequently farmed out by the pharmaceutical companies by well-paid research firms, in whose interest it is to find positive results for their corporate employers. Unsurprisingly, such research policies virtually guarantee fraudulent results.
Myth # 2:
“FDA approval means that a psychotropic drug is effective long-term”
False. Actually, FDA approval doesn’t even mean that psychiatric drugs have been proven to be safe – either short-term or long-term! The notion that FDA approval means that a psych drug has been proven to be effective is also a false one, for most such drugs are never tested – prior to marketing – for longer than a few months (and most psych patients take their drugs for years).
The pharmaceutical industry pays many psychiatric “researchers” – often academic psychiatrists (with east access to compliant, chronic, already drugged-up patients) who have financial or professional conflicts of interest – some of them even sitting on FDA advisory committees who attempt to “fast track” psych drugs through the approval process.
For each new drug application, the FDA only receives 1 or 2 of the “best” studies (out of many) that purport to show short-term effectiveness. The negative studies are shelved and not revealed to the FDA. In the case of the SSRI drugs, animal lab studies typically lasted only hours, days or weeks and the human clinical studies only lasted, on average, 4- 6 weeks, far too short to draw any valid conclusions about long-term effectiveness or safety!
Hence the FDA, prescribing physicians and patient-victims should not have been “surprised” by the resulting epidemic of SSRI drug-induced adverse reactions that are silently plaguing the people.
Indeed, many SSRI trials have shown that those drugs are barely more effective than placebo (albeit statistically significant!) with unaffordable economic costs and serious health risks, some of which are life-threatening and known to be capable of causing brain damage.
Myth # 3:
“FDA approval means that a psychotropic drug is safe long-term”
False. Actually, the SSRIs and the “anti-psychotic” drugs are usually tested in human trials for only a couple of months before being granted marketing approval by the FDA. And the drug companies are only required to report 1 or 2 studies (even if many other studies on the same drug showed negative, even disastrous, results).
Drug companies obviously prefer that the black box and fine print warnings associated with their drugs are ignored by both consumers and prescribers. One only has to note how small the print is on the commercials.
Related: Key Factors To Overcoming Depression Without Drugs
In our fast-paced shop-until-you-drop consumer society, we super-busy prescribing physicians and physician assistants have never been fully aware of the multitude of dangerous, potentially fatal adverse psych drug effects that include addiction, mania, psychosis, suicidality, worsening depression, worsening anxiety, insomnia, akathisia, brain damage, dementia, homicidality, violence, etc, etc.
But when was the last time anybody heard the FDA or Big Pharma apologize for the damage they did in the past?
And when was the last time there were significant punishments (other than writs slaps and “chump change” multimillion dollar fines) or prison time for the CEOs of the guilty multibillion dollar drug companies?
Myth # 4:
“Mental ‘illnesses’ are caused by ‘brain chemistry imbalances’”
False. In actuality, brain chemical/neurotransmitter imbalances have never been proven to exist (except for cases of neurotransmitter depletions caused by psych drugs) despite vigorous examinations of lab animal or autopsied human brains and brain slices by neuroscientist s who were employed by well-funded drug companies.
Knowing that there are over 100 known neurotransmitter systems in the human brain, proposing a theoretical chemical ”imbalance” is laughable and flies in the face of science.
Related: Low-Serotonin Depression Theory Challenged
Not only that, but if there was an imbalance between any two of the 100 potential systems (impossible to prove), a drug – that has never been tested on more than a handful of them – could never be expected to re-balance it!
Such simplistic theories have been perpetrated by Big Pharma upon a gullible public and a gullible psychiatric industry because corporations that want to sell the public on their unnecessary products know that they have to resort to 20 second sound bite-type propaganda to convince patients and prescribing practitioners why they should be taking or prescribing synthetic, brain-altering drugs that haven’t been adequately tested.
Myth # 5:
“Antidepressant drugs work like insulin for diabetics”
False. This laughingly simplistic – and very anti-scientific – explanation for the use of dangerous and addictive synthetic drugs is patently absurd and physicians and patients who believe it should be ashamed of themselves for falling for it.
There is such a thing as an insulin deficiency (but only in type 1 diabetes) but there is no such thing as a Prozac deficiency.
SSRIs (so-called Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors – an intentional mis-representation because those drugs are NOT selective!) do not raise total brain serotonin.
Rather, SSRIs actually deplete serotonin long-term while only “goosing” serotonin release at the synapse level while at the same time interfere with the storage, reuse and re-cycling of serotonin (by its “serotonin reuptake inhibition” function).
(Parenthetically, the distorted “illogic” of the insulin/diabetes comparison above could legitimately be made in the case of the amino acid brain nutrient tryptophan, which is the precursor molecule of the important natural neurotransmitter serotonin.
If a serotonin deficiency or “imbalance” could be proven, the only logical treatment approach would be to supplement the diet with the serotonin precursor tryptophan rather than inflict upon the brain a brain-altering synthetic chemical that actually depletes serotonin long-term!
Myth # 6:
“SSRI ‘discontinuation syndromes’ are different than ‘withdrawal syndromes’”
False. The SSRI “antidepressant” drugs are indeed dependency-inducing/addictive and the neurological and psychological symptoms that occur when these drugs are stopped or tapered down are not “relapses” into a previous ”mental disorder” - as has been commonly asserted - but are actually new drug withdrawal symptoms that are different from those that prompted the original diagnosis
The term “discontinuation syndrome” is part of a cunningly-designed conspiracy that was plotted in secret by members of the psychopharmaceutical industryin order to deceive physicians into thinking that these drugs are not addictive.
Related: Dr. Kelly Brogan's Takedown Of Big Pharma's SSRI Anti-Depressant Drug Lies Hits Bestseller Lists
The deception has been shamelessly promoted to distract attention from the proven fact that most psych drugs are dependency-inducing and are therefore likely to cause “discontinuation/withdrawal symptoms” when they are stopped.
The drug industry knows that most people do not want to swallow dependency-inducing drugs that are likely to cause painful, even lethal withdrawal symptoms when they cut down the dose of the drug.
Myth # 7:
“Ritalin is safe for children (or adults)”
False. In actuality, methylphenidate (= Ritalin, Concerta, Daytrana, Metadate and Methylin; aka “kiddie cocaine”), a dopamine reuptake inhibitor drug, works exactly like cocaine on dopamine synapses, except that orally-dosed methylphenidate reaches the brain more slowly than snortable or smoked cocaine does.
Related: Nutrition And Mental Health + ADHD Is A Fabricated Disease, Says Reputed Neurologist
Therefore the oral form has less of an orgasmic “high” than cocaine.
Cocaine addicts actually prefer Ritalin if they can get it in a relatively pure powder form.
When snorted, the synthetic Ritalin (as opposed to the naturally-occurring, and therefore more easily metabolically-degraded cocaine) has the same onset of action but, predictably, has a longer lasting “high” and is thus preferred among addicted individuals.
The molecular structures of Ritalin and cocaine both have amphetamine base structures with ring-shaped side chains which, when examined side by side, are remarkably similar. The dopamine synaptic organelles in the brain (and heart, blood vessels, lungs and guts) are unlikely to sense any difference between the two drugs.
Myth # 8:
“Psychoactive drugs are totally safe for humans”
False. See Myth # 3 above. Actually all five classes of psychotropic drugs have, with long-term use, been found to be neurotoxic (ie, known to destroy or otherwise alter the physiology, chemistry, anatomy and viability of vital energy-producing mitochondria in every brain cell and nerve). They are therefore all capable of contributing to dementia when used long-term.
Related: The Shocking Truth About Antidepressant Drug Studies + Peter Breggin MD: How Do Psychiatric Drugs Really Work?
Any synthetic chemical that is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier into the brain can alter and disable the brain. Synthetic chemical drugs are NOT capable of healing brain dysfunction, curing malnutrition or reversing brain damage.
Rather than curing anything, psychiatric drugs are only capable of masking symptoms while the abnormal emotional, neurological or malnutritional processes that mimic “mental illnesses” continue unabated.
Myth # 9:
“Mental ‘illnesses’ have no known cause”
False. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM, published by the American Psychiatric Association, is pejoratively called “the psychiatric bible and billing book” for psychiatrists.
Despite its name, it actually has no statistics in it, and, of the 374 psychiatric diagnoses in the DSM-IV (there is now a 5th edition) there seem to be only two that emphasize known root causes.
Those two diagnoses are Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder. The DSM-V has been roundly condemned as being just another book that laughingly pathologizes a few more normal human emotions and behaviors.
In my decade of work as an independent holistic mental health care practitioner, I was virtually always able to detect many of the multiple root causes and contributing factors that easily explained the signs, symptoms and behaviors that had resulted in a perplexing number of false diagnoses of “mental illness of unknown origin”.
Many of my patients had been made worse by being hastily diagnosed, hastily drugged, bullied, demeaned, malnourished, incarcerated, electroshocked (often against their wills and/or without fully informed consent).
My patients had been frequently rendered unemployable or even permanently disabled as a result – all because temporary, potentially reversible, and therefore emotional stressors had not been recognized at the onset.
Because of the reliance on drugs, many of my patients had been made incurable by not having been referred to compassionate practitioners who practiced high quality, non-drug-based, potentially curable psychotherapy.
The root causes of my patient’s understandable emotional distress were typically multiple, although sometimes a single trauma, such as a rape, violent assault or a psychological trauma in the military would cause an otherwise normally-developing individual to decompensate.
But the vast majority of my patients had experienced easily identifiable chronic sexual, physical, psychological, emotional and/or spiritual traumas as root causes – often accompanied by hopelessness, sleep deprivation, serious emotional or physical neglect and brain nutrient deficiencies as well.
The only way that I could obtain this critically important information was through the use of thorough, compassionate (and, unfortunately, time-consuming) investigation into the patient’s complete history, starting with prenatal, maternal, infant and childhood exposures to toxins (including vaccines) and continuing into the vitally important adolescent medical history (all periods when the patient’s brain was rapidly developing).
My clinical experience proved to me that if enough high quality time was spent with the patient and if enough hard work was exerted looking for root causes, the patient’s predicament could usually be clarified and the erroneous past labels (of “mental illnesses of unknown origin”) could be thrown out.
Such efforts were often tremendously therapeutic for my patients, who up to that time had been made to feel guilty, ashamed or hopeless by previous therapists.
In my experience, most mental ill health syndromes represented identifiable, albeit serious emotional de-compensation due to temporarily overwhelming crisis situations linked to traumatic, frightening, torturous, neglectful and soul-destroying life experiences.
My practice consisted mostly of patients who knew for certain that they were being sickened by months or years of swallowing one or more brain-altering, addictive prescription drugs that they couldn’t get off of by themselves.
I discovered that many of them could have been cured early on in their lives if they only had access – and could afford – compassionate psychoeducational psychotherapy, proper brain nutrition and help with addressing issues of deprivation, parental neglect/abuse, poverty and other destructive psychosocial situations.
Related: Officials Declare ‘Eating Healthy’ A “Mental Disorder”
I came to the sobering realization that many of my patients could have been cured years earlier if it hadn’t been for the disabling effects of psychiatric drug regimens, isolation, loneliness, punitive incarcerations, solitary confinement, discrimination, malnutrition, and/or electroshock.
The neurotoxic and brain-disabling drugs, vaccines and frankenfoods that most of my patients had been given early on had started them on the road to chronicity and disability.
Myth # 10:
“Psychotropic drugs have nothing to do with the huge increase in disabled and unemployable American psychiatric patients”
False. See Myths # 2 and # 3 above. In actuality recent studies have shown that the major cause of permanent disability in the “mentally ill” is the long-term, high dosage and/or use of multiple neurotoxic psych drugs – any combination of which, as noted above, has never been adequately tested for safety even in animal labs.
Related: Neuroscientist Shows What Fasting Does To Your Brain & Why Big Pharma Won’t Study It
Many commonly-prescribed drugs are fully capable of causing brain-damage long-term, especially the anti-psychotics (aka, “major tranquilizers”) like Thorazine, Haldol, Prolixin, Clozapine, Abilify, Clozapine, Fanapt, Geodon, Invega, Risperdal, Saphris, Seroquel and Zyprexa, all of which can cause brain shrinkage that is commonly seen on the MRI scans of anti-psychotic drug-treated, so-called schizophrenics – commonly pointed out as “proof” that schizophrenia is an anatomic brain disorder that causes the brain to shrink! (Incidentally, patients who had been on antipsychotic drugs – for whatever reason – have been known to experience withdrawal hallucinations and acute psychotic symptoms even if they had never experienced such symptoms previously.)
Of course, highly addictive “minor” tranquilizers like the benzodiazepines (Valium, Ativan, Klonopin, Librium, Tranxene, Xanax) can cause the same withdrawal syndromes. They are all dangerous and very difficult to withdraw from (withdrawal results in difficult-to-treat rebound insomnia, panic attacks, and seriously increased anxiety), and, when used long-term, they can all cause memory loss/dementia, the loss of IQ points and the high likelihood of being mis-diagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease (of unknown etiology).
Myth # 11:
“So-called bipolar disorder can mysteriously ‘emerge’ in patients who have been taking stimulating antidepressants like the SSRIs”
False. In actuality, crazy-making behaviors like mania, agitation and aggression are commonly caused by the SSRIs. That list includes a syndrome called akathisia, a severe, sometimes suicide-inducing internal restlessness – like having restless legs syndrome over one’s entire body and brain.
Akathisia was once understood to only occur as a long-term adverse effect of antipsychotic drugs (See Myth # 10). So it was a shock to many psychiatrists (after Prozac came to market in 1987) to have to admit that SSRIs could also cause that deadly problem.
Related: Antidepressants Aren’t Needed Most Of The Time
It has long been my considered opinion that SSRIs should more accurately be called “agitation-inducing” drugs rather than “anti-depressant” drugs.
The important point to make is that SSRI-induced psychosis, mania, agitation, aggression and akathisia is NOT bipolar disorder nor is it schizophrenia!
Myth # 12:
“Antidepressant drugs can prevent suicides”
False. In actuality, there is no psychiatric drug that is FDA-approved for the treatment of suicidality because these drugs, especially the so-called antidepressants, actually INCREASE the incidence of suicidal thinking, suicide attempts and completed suicides.
Related: The Roots Of Mental Health - Maybe They’re Not In Our Heads + Rising Rates Of Suicide: Are Pills The Problem?
Drug companies have spent billions of dollars futilely trying to prove the effectiveness of various psychiatric drugs in suicide prevention.
Even the most corrupted drug company trials have failed! Indeed what has been discovered is that all the so-called “antidepressants” actually increase the incidence of suicidality.
The FDA has required black box warning labels about drug-induced suicidality on all SSRI marketing materials, but that was only accomplished after over-coming vigorous opposition from the drug-makers and marketers of the offending drugs, who feared that such truth-telling would hurt their profits (it hasn’t).
What can and does avert suicidality, of course, are not drugs, but rather interventions by caring, compassionate and thorough teams of care-givers that include family, faith communities and friends as well as psychologists, counselors, social workers, relatives (especially wise grandmas!), and, obviously, the limited involvement of drug prescribers.
Myth # 13:
“America’s school shooters and other mass shooters are ‘untreated’ schizophrenics who should have been taking psych drugs”
False. In actuality, 90% or more of the infamous homicidal – and usually suicidal – school shooters have already been under the “care” of psychiatrists (or other psych drug prescribers) and therefore have typically been taking (or withdrawing from) one or more psychiatric drugs.
SSRIs (such as Prozac) and psychostimulants (such as Ritalin) have been the most common classes of drugs involved. Antipsychotics are too sedating, although an angry teen who is withdrawing from antipsychotics could easily become a school shooter if given access to lethal weapons. (See www.ssristudies.net).
The 10% of school shooters whose drug history is not known, have typically had their medical files sealed by the authorities – probably to protect authorities such as the drug companies and/or the medical professionals who supplied the drugs from suffering liability or embarrassment.
Important Comment: It should be noted that in most cases such 'False Flag' shooter events, that Mind-Controlled assets are used in order to carry out events pushing Cabal-driven agenda's such as gun control.
In virtually EVERY case the 'perpetrators' are on multiple prescription drugs for mental health issues.
This is not a comfortable subject but it is one that you will need to confront sooner or later, as the truth will become common knowledge at some point.
Interspersed with the rest of this section are details of the reality which hides behind the prescription drugs and their side effects -
Related: Monarch Mind Control & The MK-Ultra Program
The powerful drug industry and psychiatry lobby, with the willing help of the media that profits from being their handmaidens, repeatedly show us the photos of the shooters that look like zombies.
They have successfully gotten the viewing public to buy the notion that these adolescent, white male school shooters were mentally ill rather than under the influence of their crazy-making, brain-altering drugs or going through withdrawal.
Contrary to the claims of a recent 60 Minutes program segment about “untreated schizophrenics” being responsible for half of the mass shootings in America, the four mentioned in the segment were, in fact, almost certainly being already under the treatment with psych drugs – prior to the massacres – by psychiatrists who obviously are being protected from public identification and/or interrogation by the authorities as accomplices to the crimes or witnesses.
Related: CIA MKULTRA: They Intended To Use Drugs For “Everything”
Because of this secrecy, the public is being kept in the dark about exactly what crazy-making, homicidality-inducing psychotropic drugs could have been involved.
The names of the drugs and the multinational corporations that have falsely marketed them as safe drugs are also being actively protected from scrutiny, and thus the chance of prevention of future drug-related shootings or suicides is being squandered.
Such decisions by America’s ruling elites represent public health policy at its worst and is a disservice to past and future shooting victims and their loved ones.
Related: Confession Of A Human Programmer: Illuminati Mind Control
The four most notorious mass shooters that were highlighted in the aforementioned 60 Minutes segment included the Virginia Tech shooter, the Tucson shooter, the Aurora shooter and the Sandy Hook shooter whose wild-eyed (“drugged-up”) photos have been carefully chosen for their dramatic “zombie-look” effect, so that most frightened, paranoid Americans are convinced that it was a crazy “schizophrenic”, rather than a victim of psychoactive, brain-altering, crazy-making drugs that may have made him do it.
Parenthetically, it needs to be mentioned that many media outlets profit handsomely from the drug and medical industries.
Therefore those media outlets have an incentive to protect the names of the drugs, the names of the drug companies, the names of the prescribing MDs and the names of the clinics and hospitals that could, in a truly just and democratic world, otherwise be linked to the crimes.
Related: Are You A Mind-Controlled CIA Stooge? + The Term “Conspiracy Theory” Was Invented By The CIA In Order To Prevent Disbelief Of Official Government Stories
Certainly if a methamphetamine-intoxicated person shot someone, the person who supplied the intoxicating drug would be considered an accomplice to the crime, just like the bartender who supplied the liquor to someone who later committed a violent crime would be held accountable.
A double standard obviously exists when it comes to powerful, respected and highly profitable corporations.
A thorough study of the scores of American school shooters, starting with the University of Texas tower shooter in 1966 and (temporarily) stopping at Sandy Hook, reveals that the overwhelming majority of them (if not all of them) were taking brain-altering, mesmerizing, impulse-destroying, “don’t give a damn” drugs that had been prescribed to them by well-meaning but too-busy psychiatrists, family physicians or physician assistants who somehow were unaware of or were misinformed about the homicidal and suicidal risks to their equally unsuspecting patients (and therefore they had failed to warn the patient and/or the patient’s loved ones about the potentially dire consequences).
Related: Censorship Shock: Amazon.com Bans Investigative Book ‘Nobody Died At Sandy Hook’ Because It Disagrees With Government Version Of What Happened
Most practitioners who wrote the prescriptions for the mass shooters or for a patient who later suicided while under the influence of the drug, will probably(and legitimately so) defend themselves against the charge of being an accomplice to mass murder or suicide by saying that they were ignorant about the dangers of these cavalierly prescribed psych drugs because they had been deceived by the cunning drug companies that had convinced them of the benign nature of the drugs.
Myth # 14:
“If your patient hears voices it means he’s a schizophrenic”
False. Auditory hallucinations are known to occur in up to 10% of normal people; and up to 75% of normal people have had the experience of someone that isn’t there calling their name. (www.hearing-voices.org/voices-visions).
Nighttime dreams, nightmares and flashbacks probably have similar origins to daytime visual, auditory and olfactory hallucinations, but even psychiatrists don’t think that they represent mental illnesses.
Indeed, hallucinations are listed in the pharmaceutical literature as a potential side effect or withdrawal symptom of many drugs, especially psychiatric drugs.
These syndromes are called substance-induced psychotic disorders which are, by definition, neither mental illnesses nor schizophrenia.
Rather, substance-induced or withdrawal-induced psychotic disorders are temporary and directly caused by the intoxicating effects of malnutrition or brain-altering drugs such as alcohol, medications, hallucinogenic drugs and other toxins.
Psychotic symptoms, including hallucinations and delusions, can be caused by substances such as alcohol, marijuana, hallucinogens, sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics, inhalants, opioids, PCP, and the many of the amphetamine-like drugs (like Phen-Fen, [fenfluramine]), cocaine, methamphetamine, Ecstasy, and agitation-inducing, psycho-stimulating drugs like the SSRIs).
Psychotic symptoms can also result from sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and the withdrawal from certain drugs like alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, anxiolytics and especially the many dopamine-suppressing, dependency-inducing, sedating, and zombifying anti-psychotic drugs.
Examples of other medications that may induce hallucinations and delusions include anesthetics, analgesics, anticholinergic agents, anticonvulsants, antihistamines, antihypertensive and cardiovascular medications, some antimicrobial medications, anti-parkinsonian drugs, some chemotherapeutic agents, corticosteroids, some gastrointestinal medications, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and Antabuse.
The very sobering information revealed above should cause any thinking person, patient, thought-leader or politician to wonder:
“How many otherwise normal or potentially curable people over the last half century of psych drug propaganda have actually been mis-labeled as mentally ill (and then mis-treated) and sent down the convoluted path of therapeutic misadventures – heading toward oblivion?”
In my mental health care practice, I personally treated hundreds of patients who had been given a multitude of confusing and contradictory mental illness labels, many of which had been one of the new “diseases of the month” for which there was a new psych “drug of the month” that was being heavily marketed on TV.
Many of my patients had simply been victims of unpredictable drug-drug interactions (far too often drug-drug-drug-drug interactions) or simply adverse reactions to psych drugs which had been erroneously diagnosed as a new mental illness.
Extrapolating my 1,200 patient experience (in my little isolated section of the nation) to what surely must be happening in America boggles my mind.
There has been a massive epidemic going on right under our noses that has affected millions of suffering victims who could have been cured if not for the drugs.
The time to act on this knowledge is long overdue.
Seeding Doubt: How Self-Appointed Guardians Of “Sound Science” Tip The Scales Toward Industry
November 23 2016 | From: TheIntercept
At a time when public mistrust of science runs high, and non-experts are hard-pressed to separate fact from industry-sponsored spin, Sense About Science, a charity based in London with an affiliate in New York, presents itself as a trustworthy arbiter.
The organization purports to help the misinformed public sift through alarmist claims about public health and the environment by directing journalists, policymakers, and others to vetted sources who can explain the evidence behind debates about controversial products like e-cigarettes and flame retardants.
Related: Scientific American Writer Exposes The Tribal Cultist Arrogance And Dogmatic Lunacy Of Science 'Skeptics'
One reason the public is so confused, suggested Tracey Brown, the group’s director, in a recent Guardian op-ed, is that the media feeds alarmism by focusing on who sponsors scientific studies, rather than asking more important questions about whether the research is sound.
Even when there is no evidence of bias, Brown contended, journalists attack industry-funded research, running exposés on subjects such as fracking, genetically modified plants, and sugar. Brown lamented that what she called “the ‘who funded it?’ question” is too often asked by “people with axes to grind.”
Brown’s downplaying of concerns about such research invites skepticism. Since the mid-1990s, numerous studies have shown that industry-funded research tends to favor its sponsors’ products. This effect has been documented in research financed by chemical, pharmaceutical, surgical, food, tobacco, and, we have learned most recently, sugar companies.
In the 1960s, the sugar industry secretly paid scientists to minimize the role sugar plays in causing heart disease and blame saturated fat instead, according to a study published in the September issue of JAMA Internal Medicine.
Related: The Sugar Conspiracy - Professor John Yudkin: The Man Who Tried To Warn Us About Sugar
For decades, industry-funded research helped tobacco companies block regulations by undermining evidence that cigarettes kill.
Precisely because of the very real risk of bias, prestigious scientific journals have long required researchers to disclose their sources of support.
Journalists in pursuit of transparency have good reason to ask, “Who funded it?”
Sense About Science claims to champion transparency. The organization has campaigned to see the evidence behind policy decisions and asked for pharmaceutical companies to release all the results of clinical trials, not just the positive ones.
Nearly 700 organizations have signed on to the clinical trials initiative since it began last year. These are salutary efforts, and Brown points out that with the exception of one program funded by publishers, none of the group’s projects are underwritten by companies. But this sidesteps a larger issue.
Sense About Science does not always disclose when its sources on controversial matters are scientists with ties to the industries under examination. And the group is known to take positions that buck scientific consensus or dismiss emerging evidence of harm.
When journalists rightly ask who sponsors research into the risks of, say, asbestos, or synthetic chemicals, they’d be well advised to question the evidence Sense About Science presents in these debates as well.
A man holds a tobacco sample at the Seita-Imperial tobacco research center on May 29, 2012, in Fleury-les-Aubrais, France
In 2002, Dick Teverne, an English politician and business consultant, founded Sense About Science “to expose bogus science,” he explains in his memoir, “Against the Tide.”
Through his consulting work, Taverne had cultivated relationships with energy, communications, food, and pharmaceutical companies. Sense About Science’s early sponsors included some of Taverne’s former clients and companies in which he owned stock.
Taverne must have known the power of media narratives about science firsthand, because he had experience with the tobacco industry, which labored mightily to change the conversation about its product in the face of evidence that cigarettes were lethal.
According to internal documents released in litigation by cigarette manufacturers, Taverne’s consulting company, PRIMA Europe, helped British American Tobacco improve relations with its investors and beat European regulations on cigarettes in the 1990s.
Taverne himself worked on the investors project: In an undated memo, PRIMA assured the tobacco company that:
“The work would be done personally by Dick Taverne,”because he was well placed to interview industry opinion leaders and “would seek to ensure that industry’s needs are foremost in people’s minds.”
During the same decade, Taverne sat on the board of the British branch of the powerhouse public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, which claimed Philip Morris as a client.
Related: Here’s How Industry-Funded “Research” Is Making Us Sick And Fat + Like Tobacco And Big Pharma, The Sugar Industry Has Manipulated Research For 50 Years
The idea for a “sound science” group, made up of a network of scientists who would speak out against regulations that industrial spokespeople lacked the credibility to challenge, was a pitch Burson-Marsteller made to Philip Morris in a 1994 memorandum.
It’s not hard to identify traces of this approach in Taverne’s later work. Writing in his 2005 book, “The March of Unreason,” Taverne complained that “eco-fundamentalists” and fearmongers had fomented a backlash against science and technology, which had in turn produced a “multiplication of health and safety regulations.”
That year British Petroleum donated 15,000 pounds to Sense About Science, and Taverne argued in the House of Lords that as much as 80 percent of global warming might be attributable to solar activity, even though that theory had been discredited two years earlier. Taverne, who stepped down as chairman of Sense About Science in 2012, did not respond to The Intercept’s requests for comment.
Sense About Science established an American affiliate in 2014, under the direction of a Brooklyn-based journalist named Trevor Butterworth. In financial documents, Sense About Science claims Sense About Science USA as a sister organization “with close ties and similar aims.”
High-profile scientific publishers, as well as such reputable institutions as the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy and the Columbia Journalism Review, have promoted Butterworth’s services to scientists and journalists.
“Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer
Related: Green Gestapo Says You're Mentally Ill If You Challenge Climate Change + Over 30,000 Scientists Say 'Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming' Is A Complete Hoax And Science Lie
From 2003 to 2014, Butterworth contributed to the website of an organization called STATS, a nonprofit that promoted statistical literacy. STATS had its own connections to the tobacco industry, in this case through founder Robert Lichter, a conservative political scientist and now a communications professor at George Mason University.
Lichter also co-founded and continues to run the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which Philip Morris hired in 1994 to survey news reports about tobacco as part of its strategy, outlined in a memo from March of that year, to counter “personal and public bias” in stories about cigarettes’ health risks.
Lichter, like Sense About Science’s Tracey Brown, has argued that industry money doesn’t necessarily taint the science it supports.
In 2003, a congressional report charged the George W. Bush administration with stacking a government committee on childhood lead poisoning with industry scientists.
Lichter appeared as an analyst on CNN and said;
“Studies have found that scientists who have consulted for industry do not differ in their assessment of risks, of health risks, from scientists who have not consulted for industry.”
Lichter did not respond to The Intercept’s requests for comment or citations to these studies.
Before STATS was dissolved in 2014, and its web site adopted by Sense About Science USA, it received regular grants from free-market sources. Between 1998 and 2014, STATS received $4.5 million, 81 percent of its donations, from the Searle Freedom Trust, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, Donors Trust (a fund largely sustained by Charles Koch), and other right-wing foundations.
Searle, which describes its mission as promoting “economic liberties,” gave STATS $959,000 between 2010 and 2014.
Anti-regulatory foundations, including these, spent over half a billion dollars between 2003 and 2010 to;
“Manipulate and mislead the public over the nature of climate science and the threat posed by climate change,” according to a 2013 study by Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle.
A worker sprays foam before removing asbestos from a ceiling at Jussieu University in Paris, France, on March 25, 1999
With these roots Sense About Science should not surprise anyone when it promotes anti-regulatory voices on issues like asbestos. In a 2006 brochure called “Science for Celebrities” and purporting to correct misperceptions about synthetic chemicals, Sense About Science offers John Hoskins, a toxicologist formerly of the Medical Research Council Toxicology Unit at the University of Leicester.
Under the rubric “Toxic effects depend on dose,” Hoskins reassures us:
“Away from the high doses of occupational exposure a whole host of unwanted chemicals finds their way into our bodies. Most leave quickly but some stay: asbestos and silica in our lungs, dioxins in our blood. Do they matter? No!”
More than two decades ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the International Agency for Research on Cancer declared asbestos a proven human carcinogen.
Since then, as countries continue to mine asbestos, industry groups have argued that certain varieties, including chrysotile and crocidolite, are not so toxic.
In response, several groups, including the Collegium Ramazzini, an international body of occupational and environmental health experts, have issued consensus statements warning that no form of asbestos is safe at any dose.
In calling for a universal ban on all forms of asbestos in 2010, the Collegium Ramazzini observed that the asbestos industry’s attacks on evidence that “irrefutably” links its product to cancer “closely resemble those used by the tobacco industry.”
Brown maintains that Sense About Science has not disagreed with the scientific consensus on asbestos, and she notes that dose and type of exposure are the issue. But when I asked Hoskins why his position differed from the scientific consensus, he shrugged over email, “Once upon a time the consensus was that the earth is flat.”
Hoskins further replied;
“Unfortunately, to say that within a population low-level exposure of many chemicals must be dangerous is not borne out by reality, much to the chagrin of those who live in the fantasy world of ‘chemical-free.’ ”
Hoskins’s résumé states that he has represented the Chrysotile Institute in “discussion with the governments of several countries.” But he did not disclose this relationship to the Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health journal when he co-authored two scientific papers disputing claims that chrysotile or crocidolite caused a rare cancer in exposed populations.
When his industry ties came to light, the journal issued errata for both papers to disclose this competing interest.
(Hoskins denies any conflict of interest, insisting that his role in authoring the papers was confined to providing information the other authors requested. Yet all but one of the other authors had also failed to disclose their asbestos interests, which now appear in the errata.)
Soon after the first paper appeared, eight public health researchers wrote a letter to the editors of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health expressing outrage that the journal would publish a paper with “gross mistakes” and “no scientific content.”
A group that included many of the letter’s signatories asked the journal to consider retracting the second paper, citing “seriously misleading information.”
But the journal’s editors declined to retract the papers, which remain in the technical literature, casting doubt on the scientific consensus that all forms of asbestos are hazardous to human health.
Flames threaten to jump a ridge that firefighting aircraft have painted red with fire retardant above Cajon Boulevard at the Blue Cut Fire on Aug. 18, 2016, near Wrightwood, California
It's hard to make a case for the safety of a substance like asbestos, which most people know causes cancer. Other commercial products are easier to defend, not because they are less hazardous, but because consumers are not as familiar with the evidence questioning their safety and utility.
Scientists have known since 1997 that flame retardants, for example, can cause cancer.
These brominated and chlorinated chemicals are used in a wide range of consumer products, including nursing pads and car seats. For more than three decades, studies in animals and humans have linked them to cancer, developmental delays, and other serious health problems.
By 2010, the evidence was so persuasive that nearly 150 scientists from 22 countries signed a statement warning that flame retardants “are a concern for persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range transport, and toxicity.” Flame retardants’ fire safety benefit not only remains unproven, the scientists asserted, but the chemicals form highly toxic byproducts when burned.
Sense About Science has long relied on dubious numbers to insist on the efficacy of these chemicals.
In 2006 it published a pamphlet on “misconceptions about chemicals” in which it claimed that British laws requiring flame retardants in furniture had reduced fire deaths by 20 percent, citing a 2000 European Commission report called “Flame Retardants.”
A European Commission press officer told me she knows of no such report.
“The reference to the 20 percent reduction in fire deaths is repeatedly quoted in papers and publications from flame retardant industries and associations, and they always refer to ‘Flame Retardants, DG Environment Video 2000,’ which we cannot find.”
On the contrary, she told me, it is simply “not possible to correlate fire deaths to non-flammability requirements.”
Who did make the claim? Flame retardant industry trade groups, including the European Flame Retardant Association and the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, run by Philip Morris’s longtime PR firm Burson-Marsteller.
Where Flame Retardants are Found:
Realted: The Rise Of Scientific Fundamentalism
The U.S.-based Citizens for Fire Safety also repeated the claim until it disbanded, following revelations in 2012 that leading flame retardant producers ran the organization, not the grassroots group of “staff and volunteers committed to national fire safety” its literature asserted.
The same year, Sense About Science again called on John Hoskins, identified as an independent toxicologist, this time to fact-check a study that found potentially carcinogenic flame retardants in sofas. In his response, Hoskins wrote: “The bottom line is that danger of fire is many, many times greater than any imagined danger from chemicals used to prevent it.”
“Everything I wrote about flame retardants was taken from published works,” Hoskins told me.
“Reviewers at the time found nothing to criticize and I have had no comment from the thousands of people who must have read the pieces.”
Sense About Science reprinted its guide on chemicals in 2014. “The trade-off between fire risk and toxicology is changing, and we represented that newer precautionary thinking in our most recent publications,” Brown, the group’s director, told The Intercept in an email.
The new guide acknowledged “allegations of side effects” from flame retardants, including persistence in the environment and toxicity to humans and animals.
But it also retained the unsupported claim that regulations requiring the chemicals saved lives.
The guide even retained the text that countered concerns about traces of flame retardants found in children’s bodies by asserting that because the chemicals protected children from death or injury from fire;
“To fail to expose them to such chemicals could be regarded as negligent.”
Scientists who reviewed human studies had come to a different conclusion the year before. They warned that although such links were impossible to prove conclusively, the evidence suggested that children’s exposure to flame retardants could have serious health consequences, including neurobehavioral and developmental problems. The scientists called for regulatory oversight.
A scientist holds a flask containing bisphenol A, a chemical used to make plastics that numerous scientific studies have linked to developmental and reproductive disorders
Related: The Cult Of 'Scientism' Explained: How Scientific Claims Behind Cancer, Vaccines, Psychiatric Drugs And GMOs Are Nothing More Than Corporate-Funded Science Fraud
Of all the controversial chemicals in the public eye, the one Trevor Butterworth, Sense About Science USA’s director, has most fervently defended is bisphenol A, a compound used to make plastics. BPA is found in hard plastics, the lining of canned drinks and foods, thermal receipts, and other consumer and industrial products, including cigarette filters.
Manufacturers produce billions of pounds of BPA each year. Its market value is projected to reach $20 billion by 2020. And numerous studies and scientific consensus statements have linked BPA, which can interfere with hormone signaling, to developmental and reproductive disorders.
Leading reproductive biologists released a consensus statement in 2007 warning that “the wide range of adverse effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals exposed both during development and in adulthood is a great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans.”
Two years later, while working for STATS, Butterworth published a 27,000-word investigation sharply questioning the validity of the scientific studies and news reports about BPA’s health effects.
Related: Chemical Exposure Linked To Rising Diabetes, Obesity Risk
Butterworth’s central claim was that a handful of scientists, journalists, and environmental activist groups had ignored good science in a crusade to paint BPA as “the biological equivalent of global warming.”
He singled out a widely acclaimed special report by Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporters Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger called “Chemical Fallout.”
These reporters, he claimed, relied on flawed studies by independent researchers and unfairly dismissed the industry-funded studies that found no harm.
But the independent studies were not, in fact, flawed. Regulators just didn’t consider them useful, because, like many such academic studies, they didn’t measure toxicity but tested hypotheses about how BPA could alter living systems.
BPA trade groups have long insisted that the substance is metabolized too quickly to cause harm.
Butterworth cites a 2009 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that measured BPA concentrations in newborns to make the same case. The study, he argues, “provides important evidence that infants - even those born prematurely - are able to detoxify BPA in the same way as adults.”
Related: Why Touching Receipts Can Harm Your Health
The CDC study he cited was designed to gauge exposure, not metabolism. BPA has been detected in the urine of nearly every American tested. Premature babies’ fragile systems make them particularly vulnerable to environmental contaminants.
The researchers suspected that the use of plastic medical devices in neonatal intensive care units might expose premature infants to higher than average levels of BPA. And that’s exactly what they found: Average BPA concentrations in hospitalized premature babies were about 10 times higher than those measured in adults.
The authors noted that although premature babies appear to have some ability to metabolize BPA, their detoxification pathways “are not expected to be functional at adult rates until months after birth.”
Butterworth ended his critique of what he called “the BPA is dangerous thesis” by suggesting that banning the chemical could result in greater harm:
“What if some parents who turned to glass bottles for fear of … ‘leaching’ BPA drop and break them, causing injury to their babies?”
Butterworth’s arguments have reverberated across an echo chamber of free-market organizations, including Philip Morris’s product defense law firm, Koch-funded think tanks, chemical and food-packaging industry trade groups in Europe and the U.S., and an ostensibly neutral environmental health research foundation run by a chemical industry PR firm.
Reached by email for comment, Butterworth did not account for his questionable characterization of the CDC study. He said that his critique relied on the work of scientists from regulatory agencies involved in risk assessment, and that these scientists had criticized smaller studies that claimed adverse effects.
He maintained that studies assessing the effects of low doses of BPA are inconsistent and unlikely to capture significant results because of methodological and statistical problems.
The year after Butterworth’s 2009 investigation, the anti-regulatory Donors Trust awarded STATS $86,000 for its “research efforts,” and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which belongs to the BPA Joint Trade Association, gave Lichter’s Center for Media and Public Affairs $10,000 for “research support.”
Related: The Top 10 Tricks Used By Corporate Junk Science
Butterworth continued to defend BPA in news outlets and in 2013 made his case on a blog for Coca-Cola, another BPA Joint Trade Association member.
That year Coca-Cola gave more than $30,000 to Butterworth’s future partner, Sense About Science, which hosted a BPA forum the next year. (Since then, Sense About Science has not received corporate donations, which “represented less than 3 percent of our income,” Brown wrote in an email.)
In the forum, a Q&A on social media, Sense About Science put forward a representative of the British Plastics Federation and a toxicologist whose longstanding ties to the chemical industry the organization did not disclose. Participants were assured that BPA posed no risk to human health.
Several plastic industry trade sites praised the event. One welcomed Sense About Science’s efforts, reporting that “plastic packaging was stoutly defended.”
Sales staff exhale vapor while demonstrating their electronic cigarette products at the Vape China Expo at the China International Exhibition Center in Beijing on July 23, 2015
The tobacco industry pioneered tactics to fight regulations by manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that cigarettes kill. So it should be no surprise to encounter a strategy among defenders of the e-cigarette that also centers around doubt. If we don’t know for certain that a product is safe, we might urge caution.
Sense About Science has argued the opposite: so long as we don’t know the product is unsafe, medical professionals have no business urging regulation.
E-cigarettes turn chemical solutions into a nicotine-filled mist, which consumers ingest without the added harm of tobacco tar.
When the devices hit the American market in 2007, sales quickly took off. Tobacco companies increasingly dominate the industry, which is projected to be worth $54 billion by 2025. A recent national survey found a sharp rise in e-cigarette smoking among high school students - from 1.5 percent in 2011 to 16 percent last year.
The skyrocketing popularity of e-cigarettes among young people worries public health experts because so little is known about the devices’ safety.
E-cigarettes are too new for scientists to have assessed their long-term health risks. British and American scientific bodies have reacted to this paucity of evidence with different views of the relative dangers.
Last year, Public Health England joined other British public health organizations in encouraging smokers to use e-cigarettes as an aid in quitting tobacco. The Royal College of Physicians effectively endorsed this view in April, when it argued against regulating a product that could help smokers quit.
But American public health officials worry that nicotine, which is as addictive as heroin and cocaine, will hook young smokers and cause lasting harm to their still-developing brains. Nicotine is linked to immunosuppression as well as cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal disorders.
There is evidence that it interferes with chemotherapies and may even play a role in cancer. Researchers are just beginning to study whether the more than 7,000 flavoring chemicals, which typically aren’t disclosed on e-cigarettes, are safe when inhaled.
Back in 2012, the British Medical Association called for a ban on the devices in public in order to:
“Ensure their use does not undermine smoking prevention and cessation by reinforcing the normalcy of cigarette use.”
BMA reaffirmed this judgment as recently as this past June, despite the opposing position of the Royal College of Physicians. Sense About Science reacted to BMA’s call for a ban by asking the association to produce evidence that e-cigarettes caused harm.
“This move towards heavy regulation appears to be driven by the fear that e-cigs might be harmful or act as a gateway to conventional tobacco - despite little or no evidence for either claim,” the organization argued on its website in 2013, two years before Public Health England endorsed e-cigarettes as a tool to quit smoking.
Such regulations, Sense About Science stated, could do more harm than good by inhibiting access to products that may help reduce harm from smoking tobacco cigarettes.
Although Sense About Science has demanded evidence that e-cigarettes cause harm, it seems poised to cast doubt on the evidence when it turns up. In August, the organization challenged the relevance of research presented that month at a cardiology conference showing that nicotine in e-cigarettes can stiffen arteries, an early indication of heart disease.
Sense About Science’s expert dismissively compared the effects of nicotine documented in the research to those of “watching a thriller or a football match.”
In the United States, just this past May, the Food and Drug Administration moved to regulate e-cigarettes, including banning sales to those 18 and under. The CDC, too, takes the health risks of nicotine seriously. Last fall, the centers called for strategies to reduce the use of all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes.
“The potential long-term benefits and risks associated with e-cigarette use are not currently known,” the CDC reported. “What is known is that nicotine exposure at a young age may cause lasting harm to brain development, promote nicotine addiction, and lead to sustained tobacco use.”
David Koch, executive vice president of chemical technology for Koch Industries, listens as U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, not pictured, speaks to the Economic Club of New York on Nov. 20, 2012
Having established itself as a credible voice in debates about science and industrial regulation in the United States and Britain, Sense About Science has set out for what may prove to be its most challenging assignment.
In July, following Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, Sense About Science established an EU branch in Brussels, the headquarters of the European Commission, which has placed tighter restrictions on e-cigarettes, chemicals, and other potentially risky consumer goods than the United States has mustered.
The new branch of Sense About Science plans to “monitor the use and abuse of scientific evidence in EU policy.”
Both Sense About Science and Sense About Science USA undertake some initiatives that serve the public interest. But the founder of the British organization worked with the architects of the tobacco industry’s disinformation strategy, and both groups have been known to promote science that favors private interests over public health.
When an organization claims to serve as a neutral arbiter in high-stakes debates about science, it pays to do what Sense About Science does: ask for the evidence.
Related: Official Science: The Grand Illusion
Do You Really Understand The Health Risks From Microwave Technology? + The Health Effects Of Microwave Radiation Spelled Out
November 19 2016 | From: ActivistPost / EnergyFanatics / Various
One of the most definitive, expansive and inclusive peer-reviewed papers I’ve ever read on any subject was published July 25, 2016 online at Electronic Physician as an “open access article” that I sincerely hope everyone in the media and healthcare industries will take extremely seriously.
Especially those who are promoting more and more ‘smart’ appliances and devices that transmit electromagnetic frequencies and radiofrequencies - microwaves, which damage human health more than we are being told by government health agencies at all levels (local, state and national), manufacturers, employers and school districts that even mandate their uses as “new technologies” to learn and to implement.
Related: Cellphone Radiation Warning Sparks First Amendment Battle
New technologies are fine IF and WHEN they take into consideration and implement safeguards for human health, which is not the case with microwave technology, but has been the "dream warfare" technology for the United States military and other governments, so anything goes, including our being bombarded with so much microwaves, we now are experiencing more adverse health effects attributed to what's scientifically termed "Non-thermal Adverse Health Effects."
Related: Electronic Torture + 21st-Century Bio-Hacking And Bio-Robotizing
The U.S. military has had a GREAT interest in keeping microwave safety standards higher than they should be and not as applicable as the science demands.
Dr Magda Havas, PhD, Environmental & Resource Studies, 1600 West Bank Drive, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada, K9J 7B8 on her website published the following incriminating unclassified U.S. Army documents information as to why microwaves are not safe, nor made safer, due to U.S. military involvement with its electronic warfare techniques, which harm everything.
There are two disturbing paragraphs in the document "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves) - Eurasian Communist Countries (U)". Prepared by U.S. Army Medical Intelligence and Information Agency Office of the Surgeon General and released by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Adams, R.L. and R.A. Williams. 1976. 34 pp. Unclassified, which clearly indicate the U.S. military's perspective opposing more stringent guidelines for microwave radiation.
No. 1: "If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military function.
The Eurasian Communist countries could, on the other hand, give lip service to strict standards, but allow their military to operate without restriction and thereby gain the advantage in electronic warfare techniques and the development of antipersonnel applications." [Page vii]
No. 2: "Should subsequent research result in adoption of the Soviet standard by other countries, industries whose practices are based on less stringent safety regulations, could be required to make costly modifications in order to protect workers.
Recognition of the 0.01 mW/cm2 standard could also limit the application of new technology by making the commercial exploitation of some products unattractive because of increased cost, imposed by the need for additional safeguards." [Page 24]
Below is the copy and paste job of the Introduction from A review on Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and the reproductive system, which I hope my readers will take seriously and also take necessary steps to protect yourselves, your children, your pets and your home environment.
This is SERIOUS stuff no one is taking as seriously as we ALL should. Those ‘smart’ gadgets’ just may be making you more sick than you can imagine. With 61 References, I think the Electronic Physician article needs to be taken seriously with revisions made to EMF/RF standards by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reflect them.
"People in the modern world frequently are exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Human exposure to EMFs comes from many sources, and situations are different in people's everyday lives.
EMFs emanate from power lines, computer devices, televisions, radios, and telephones. There are many factors that influence the degree to which people may be affected by EMFs. For example, body weight, body-mass index, bone density, and the levels of water and electrolytes can alter the conductivity of and biological reactivity to EMFs (1, 2).
Therefore, the effects of this environmental pollution can depend on gender, tissue density of the body, the period of life, and the exposure levels to EMFs.
Beginning in 1960 when the biological hazards caused by EMFs first were studied, human health became an important focus in the workplace and at home (3).
Although, the biological effects of EMFs are still controversial, in general, the negative effects should not be ignored.
Currently, people are exposed to various types of EMFs, which are non-ionic radiation that cannot release electrons.
They are energy in the form of oscillating electric and magnetic fields that are transformed from one point to another. Many forms of physical energy, such as X-rays, UV light, and sunlight produce EMFs (4).
There are several references that classify EMFs, but, in general, they can be considered to consist of four different types. The first type of EMFs refers to extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs, which are EMFs that are below 300 HZ, and they are produced by military equipment and railroads.
The second type, known as intermediate frequency (IF) EMFs, have frequencies in the range of 300 Hz to 10 MHZ, and they are produced by industrial cables and electrical equipment in homes, such as televisions and computer monitors.
The third type is hyper frequency (HF) EMFs that have frequencies in the range of 10 MHz to 3000 GHz and are produced by mobile phones and radio broadcasting. Radio frequencies (RFs) also are a part of this category, which has frequencies up to 100 MHz (4).
There are also static EMFs that are produced by MRI and geomagnetism and have specified with zero frequency (3).
In 1979, Wertheimer and Looper showed that there is a direct relationship between EMFs and the increased incidence of leukemia in infants (5).
If the body's biological system is exposed to EMFs, which produce electric currents and fields, which, in fact, deal with the current and voltage, the normal physiological balance is upset.
If the density of the electric current increases to the stimulation threshold, membrane depolarization of the nerves and muscles may result. Electric and magnetic fields at environmental levels may extend the lifetime of free radicals and result in damage to people's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) (6).
Some epidemiological studies have been done in various populations, but most have been done in laboratory animals and cell lines (4).
The biological effects of EMFs generally can be divided into thermal and non-thermal effects (7). Thermal effects are defined as the heat generated by EMFs in a specific area.
The non-thermal effects depend on the absorption of energy and changes in the behavior of tissues without producing heat. EMFs have high penetration power, and they are capable of moving charged particles, such as the electrons and ions of large macromolecules and polymers (7).
So EMFs can have devastating effects on tissue with high concentrations of electrons and ions.
EMFs that cause changes in the behavior of cells (8) and tissues alter the function of the cardiovascular system (9) and bone marrow (7).
Electromagnetic fields can have several different effects on cellular components (10), including disorders of cell proliferation and differentiation (10), damaged DNA in cells, chromosomal abnormalities (11), blood disorders (9), birth defects (12), and various mutations, including those associated with long-term exposure to EMFs.
Under the influence of these fields, the balance of the CNS and the hormonal and respiratory systems become weak, resulting in decreased activity of the mentioned organs (13, 14).
Research on the effects of EMFs on the endocrine system has focused mostly on melatonin and the derived tryptophan produced by the pineal gland (15).
Most of the harmful effects of EMFs act through the protein synthesis process (16, 17). In this regard, enzymes, due to their combination of amino acids, are affected, and their catalytic activity is decreased (4).
Studies concerning the cytotoxicicity and genotoxicity effects of EMFs mostly have focused on fibroblasts, melanocytes, lymphocytes, monocytes, and muscular cells in people and on the granolosa cells of rats (18).
A declassified 1976 Defense Intelligence Agency report showed that military personnel exposed to non-thermal microwave radiation experienced "headaches, fatigue, dizziness, irritability, sleeplessness, depression, anxiety, forgetfulness, and a lack of concentration (19).
A 2015 study showed that 2.4 GHz WiFi may be one of the major risk factors for brain tumors and other neurodegenerative diseases (20). Another 2015 paper showed that polarized EMF (man-made) was much more active biologically than non-polarized EMF (21).
Another paper showed that rabbits experienced heart arrhythmia and increased blood pressure when exposed to 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi (22). A long-term study conducted by Lennart Hardell, a Swedish scientist, on glioma and acoustic neuroma brain tumors showed that RF is carcinogenic.
The scientist called for RF to be labeled an IARC Class 1 Carcinogen and recommended urgent revision to safety guidelines (23). A 2011 study by Nora Volkow showed that radiation from cell phones, in areas next to the antenna, increased the metabolism of glucose in the brain.
Increased metabolism of glucose is associated with cancer. The study showed that biological changes occur at levels lower than the current FCC guidelines (24)."
The Health Effects Of Microwave Radiation Spelled Out
On 14 July 2016 the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) of the USA made space available in the radio spectrum for consumer devices to operate within the 25 GHz to 100 GHz of the electromagnetic spectrum. It went on to say:
Related: Heads in the Sand
, Pies in the Sky - Health Canada Denies the Proven Dangers of Microwave Radiation
"The Commission has struck a balance between new wireless services, current and future fixed satellite service operations, and federal uses. The item adopts effective sharing schemes to ensure that diverse users – including federal and non-federal, satellite and terrestrial, and fixed and mobile – can co-exist and expand.”
Nowhere in its document is mention made of consumer safety or well-being. I guess that is fair of the FCC because historically, it is not interested in matters of microwave radiation and consequent thermal and non-thermal effects on the population. Let’s face it, and most people find this hard to believe, the FCC works purely on behalf of the telecoms industries in granting them access to the airwaves, no more and no less.
Industry was very happy to hear the FCC announcement on granting access of large portions of the radio spectrum for yet more of its toys and other consumer devices.
Qualcomm for example talks much about ‘the massive internet of things’, yet nowhere on its 5G musings is mention made of consumer safety or well-being.
Related: Why It Matters: Council Votes 7-0 in Favour of Better Cell Phone Warnings on Advice of Brain Tumour Association
That ‘pink elephant’ in the living room regarding safety brings me to the point of this article. The FCC and the telecomms industry rub their hands with glee because lots of money is going to be made as 5G devices rollout yet no recent safety studies have been carried out on consumer safety.
No doubt both the FCC and industry will point regulators to the old, out-dated and one-dimensional so-called ‘safety studies’ (thermal effects) produced by the ICNIRP.
This private organisation is comprised of people and individuals who work in the telecommunications industries with no background in epidemiology, toxicology, radio frequency safety or medical practice.
The implications of 5G on consumer well-being and safety do not look good for one reason: devices that will operate within the 5G electromagnetic spectrum will use antennas that are physically small i.e. from a few millimetres to a centimetre in length.
This means that industry will produce a variety of different antenna systems to do different things.
The weird fact of operating within this very high frequency range is that signals are mostly line of sight or they are easily reflected, refracted or ‘lost’ within the differing build composition of urban environment structures.
Related: The Gloves Come Off On EMF / Mobile / WiFi Radiation + Understanding The Dangers Of The “5G” Rollout
In other words, without careful antenna design and recognition of many of the pitfalls trying to propagate microwave signals within urban environments, the signal can be easily degraded or completely lost.
In response to these challenges, the advantages in using very small physical size antennas in the millimetre wavelength is you can feed many antennas in various configuration arrays e.g. vertical or horizontal arays, waveguide, coned or highly directional beam type designs.
These types of antenna designs focus most of the transmitted power into specified directions.
This is bad news for consumers because these very small physical size antennas will pack a mighty punch to our biological systems if we step into them.
Getting back to consumer safety and well-being and all things microwave, it is clear that the latency period for adverse biological effects from devices using microwave frequencies from say 1 GHz to 5 Ghz is approximately 10 – 20 years.
In 2016 there are now many thousands of peer-reviewed medical and epidemiological studies that show, illustrate or correlate, adverse biological effects with use of mobile phone technology or WIFI.
Related: The Science is “Overwhelming At This Point” Wifi Industry Appeals Brain Tumor Association Ordinance
Using frequencies even higher than 5 GHz (and up to 100 GHz) will compress the timeframe in which cancers and other biological effects show themselves within society.
It is anyone’s guess on what might happen in terms of biological safety yet it is clear to see that the pulsed nature of these high frequency, high signal intensity signals do not harbour good news for humanity, particularly in relation to the functioning of our DNA.
Nowadays, exposure to microwave radiation or frequencies used by WIFI, mobile phones, smart phones, smart meters, WIFI-enabled audio devices, WIFI-enabled fridges, most baby monitors and a whole host of other ‘esoteric’ electrical devices were recently classed as Class 2B carcinogens.
Point of sale literature excludes this fact on any advertising blurb and it is also fascinating that the small print embedded deep within mobile phone product literature say that you should not put these devices directly to your skin, body or face. If you do, you exceed the so-called ‘safe’ exposure thresholds put in place for these devices.
Related: 5G Telecomm Radiation The Perfect Tool To Mass Modify Human Brain Waves + More Studies Reveal Dangers
Getting back to the very small physical length of the antennas that will be used for 5G devices, it is very clear to surmise that if these devices talk to each other using highly efficient, directional antennas, the ERP (effective radiated power) will be huge.
If you happen to walk into this intensely focused beam of microwave radiation, what will this level of signal intensity do to your biology?
Yet again, time will tell unless we get our arses into gear and demand proper safety studies from industry and independent academia that focus on thermal and non-thermal effects on our biology.
Just like the advent of modern mobile phone technology, it is us, the consumers, who provide the guinea pig role in terms of safety.
Sufferers of EHS (electro-hyper-sensitivity) will need to be aware of any 5G device simply because the electron volt assault on their compromised bodies will be easily and instantly felt.
It is they who will suffer first and in time, everyone will be affected because one other fact the telecoms industries have not mentioned is that in order to develop an efficient network of signals within an urban environment, many thousands of new transmitter sites will need to be installed.
Related: Gestapo In The USA: FCC Intimidates Press And Kills Free Speech At 5G Rollout
The physical small size of these antennas means they can be covertly installed into all sorts of urban structures which suggest that for urban dwellers at least, there will be no escape from exposure to these highly damaging microwave frequencies.
I also feel that when these antennas are in place, it will be relatively easy to alter and manipulate brain wave function of its users and others close by.
The amount of ancillary information that can be piped or attached to the main carrier frequency of such a telecommunications network system is potentially, huge. Police forces the world over use ‘Tetra’ as a systems of communication.
This system also includes a sub-carrier frequency of about 16 Hz which is very close to our natural brainwave patterns.
Could this 16 Hz ancillary pulsed ELF (extremely low-frequency) be responsible for instilling aggressive behaviours in our police force personnel?
The ‘zombie apocalypse’ might just be around the corner unless of course, we refuse to comply. That is our choice.
Related: Wireless Mouse, Wireless Keyboard, Tablet - See the Wireless Radiation Measured
Natural Health: The Silver Bullet To Medical Vampires + Australia To Search Out And Prosecute Anti-Vax Nurses And Midwives; Calls For Public To Turn Them In
November 16 2016 | From: Sott / NaturalBlaze / Various
It turns out that unvaccinated children aren't little time bombs walking around ready to blow and spread devastating disease in their wake. That's a myth. It's told by the medical cartel, for their own obvious reasons.
And it turns out that children raised in a healthy way are strong, and have strong immune systems. This was once viscerally known and understood and accepted as a truism.
Related: CDC Blocks Whistleblower From Vaccine Injury Testimony
Those who insist on 50 or 60 shots of germs and toxic chemicals for every child, like it or not, are participating in an ongoing criminal enterprise.
Their vision is unnatural and perverse.
It turns out that stimulating the production of antibodies - which is the purpose of vaccines - is not the be-all and end-all of existence. It isn't the road to health. It isn't an automatic lease on life.
Every aspect of a child's life contributes to, or detracts from, his immune-system health and strength. This is traditional knowledge. This basic tree of knowledge has been shaken and hacked at by decades of remorseless propaganda from official medical/government/corporate mob bosses.
The vaccine establishment has become a protection racket. Take your shots or pay the social and political consequences.
Natural health is a reality. It isn't a stunt.
When smallpox ravaged England, it wasn't the lone work of a virus. It was sewage in the city streets, horrendous overcrowding, lack of basic nutrition, grinding poverty. It was also the smallpox vaccine:
"Smallpox, like typhus, has been dying out (in England) since 1780. Vaccination in this country has largely fallen into disuse since people began to realize how its value was discredited by the great smallpox epidemic of 1871-2 (which occurred after extensive vaccination)." (W. Scott Webb, A Century of Vaccination, Swan Sonnenschein, 1898.)
And then there is this:
“The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization.
In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition."
Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977
Improve environmental conditions and the standard of living, and you pave the way for natural health. It's not a mystery. It never was.
The basic purpose of promoting these dud "epidemics" that come down the pipeline every few years is: to convince the population that they can't live in a state of natural health; there is no such thing as natural health; everyone must live their lives under the constant supervision of doctors.
This is becoming the central myth of our times. It is becoming the primary form of surrender. Natural health is a silver bullet to medical vampires.
Related: Former UK Govt Science Chief Warned Of MMR Vaccine-Autism Link
How many studies can you find that investigate the factors of health in children who do quite well without overriding medical attention? How many studies in peer reviewed journals examine large groups of healthy unvaccinated children? None.
Health is basically a non-medical condition. The primary medical psyop is the effort to erase that understanding.
Every healthy unvaccinated child is a refutation of the medical cartel.
If your business is sickness, and you're unscrupulous, it stands to reason you'll try to find more and more sickness, even, and especially, where it doesn't exist.
You'll never study health, because it would put you out of business.
CDC vaccine science covers up giant conflict of interest
30,000 Indian Girls Suffering From Cancer Vaccine Tests Conducted By The Gates Foundation
The Toxic Science of Flu Vaccines
Media dare not report wave of paralyzed children caused by vaccines
Australia To Search Out And Prosecute Anti-Vax Nurses And Midwives; Calls For Public To Turn Them In
While Australia whines about the lack of democracy and freedom in places like Syria, it is doing everything in its power to ensure that nothing resembling either of those things is allowed within its own borders.
Apparently having found itself in a race with France, Germany, the UK and the United States, for which country can eliminate personal liberties, freedom of speech - or even thought - while launching wars all across the world on the basis of protecting those things, Australia is proving itself to be a capable competitor.
Related: CDC police will eventually arrest the unvaccinated as “diseased criminals”
The examples of Australia’s thought control policies are legion, but the most recent is surrounding the vaccination hysteria in the ability of free adults to choose whether or not they accept toxic chemicals (or life-saving medicines with no side effects) into their bodies.
According to a report by the Guardian, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia has announced a fatwa of jihad against nurses and midwives who discourage vaccination or are critical of vaccines.
After releasing “vaccination standards” the board’s statement reads:
“The board is taking this opportunity to make its expectations about providing advice on vaccinations clear to registered nurses, enrolled nurses and midwives. The board expects all registered nurses, enrolled nurses and midwives to use the best available evidence in making practice decisions."
Of course, when the board says “best available evidence” it means vaccine fanaticism and unquestioning adherence to faith-based science.
Under Australian law, promoting false, misleading or deceptive information will be prosecuted by the Australian health practitioner regulation agency. The NMBA is specifically targeting nurses and midwives who question the safety or effectiveness of vaccination via social media.
The statement goes even further by urging members of the public to report nurses or midwives who are doing so – even on social media.
Obviously, Australia must consider one of its founding documents to be George Orwell’s 1984 although we are afraid Australian leadership may have missed the point of the book.
Related: The end of medical freedom and the rise of mandatory vaccinations
Professor of Midwifery at the University of Western Sydney, Dr. Hannah Dahlan supports the new policy. She says;
“I agree that they have a very serious obligation to provide the best available evidence, and it is of course concerning that some are taking to social media in order to express a position not backed by science.”
But Dahlan also says that she is worried that the policy may have some unintended effects.
“The worry,” she says, “is the confirmation bias that can occur, because people might say: ‘there you go, this is proof that you can’t even have an alternative opinion.’ It might in fact just give people more fuel for their belief systems.”
Actually, this is undeniably proof that you can’t even have an alternative opinion. In case Mrs. Dahlan’s degree did not require an understanding of logic, banning someone from expressing an alternative opinion does indeed serve as proof to them that they are not allowed to have an alternative opinion.
In all fairness, neither Dahlan nor the NMBA are saying you cannot have an alternative belief that contradicts the Borg. They are merely saying that if you express that belief even on social media, you will lose your job, have your license to practice taken away and possibly be sent to jail.
If anyone ever proved Voltaire’s statement that in order to learn who rules over you – simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize – the NMBA has closed the case.
Remember, when Dahlan worries about positions that are not backed by “science,” she does not mean science, but Big Pharma, the NMBA that Big Pharma owns and the Australian government. Coming from a government that only 40 years ago did not even consider its indigenous people to be humans, we definitely say there is room for error.
Predictably, the Australia Medical Association is getting in on the act too. The AMA President, Dr. Michael Gannon stated, “Immunization saves lives. That is an undeniable fact."
Notwithstanding the redundancy of the latter part of the brilliant Dr. Gannon’s statement, that immunization saves lives is very deniable and is in no way a fact.
Gannon also touted the government’s no jab, no pay policy as having improved public health because 6,000 children whose parents who had previously registered as conscientious objectors were effectively threatened with the possibility of not being able to feed those children, losing them, or losing their homes – into vaccinating.
Of course, Gannon’s statement proves nothing, except that 6,000 children were vaccinated, not that public health was improved.
Indeed, according to Gannon’s logic, we could disembowel 795 million people and claim that we eliminated world hunger. Thankfully, no one is arguing to do that, but let’s hope that Dr. Gannon is never made president of the World Food Program.
In all seriousness, however, the new initiative by the NMBA is just yet another example of the downward spiral of Australia and most of the Western world into authoritarianism and into a scientific dictatorship.
While Westerners shiver in fear over Vladimir Putin defending his borders, they are none the wiser as their own countries march directly down the same path as Russia in the early 20th century.
Related: CDC vaccine whistleblower and the silence that kills
10 Monumentally False Claims Made By Conventional Medicine About Health + How Far Has The Medical Profession Fallen From The Hippocratic Oath?
November 14 2016 | From: NaturalBlaze / PreventDisease / Various
The grossly deceptive world we live in couldn’t be better exemplified than by conventional medicine. More and more people are expressing their distrust.
They see right through conventional medicine’s crooked corporate greed-driven hidden ulterior motives.
Related: The Flawed Germ Theory; Unfortunately The Basis Of Modern Medicine
It starts with a deliberately narrow corporate-sponsored curriculum in medical schools. This essentially mechanistic, pharmaceutical drug-based approach to health takes the focus of attention away from other alternative health practices to reduce competition.
In research institutions, ulterior motives find their way into corporate-sponsored bad science to favour desired experimental outcomes related to profit. Crooked approval bodies then turn a blind eye to a new product’s potential harm while there are agendized political self-interests from corrupt politicians having their hand in allowing the product to get into the market.
Then there’s the paid-off mainstream media to repetitively spread the related lies, deception and cover-ups. In short, money is stronger than truth.
The health care system is a dismal failure because of these greed-driven corporations, governments and related crooked institutions. Indeed, they don’t have our best interest at heart and are capable of doing far more harm than good.
In light of this, here are 10 monumentally false claims made by conventional medicine about health:
False Claim #1 – The Zika Virus Causes Birth Defects
Because of a lack of scientific evidence, particularly from Brazil in recent months, the claim that the Zika virus causes microcephaly (severe birth defects resulting in an abnormally small head circumference) has received some major challenges. The CDC claimed that Zika was mainly transmitted via the mosquito Aedes Aegypti.
They stated that the transmitted virus finds its way into the pregnant mother and then infects her foetus causing microcephaly.
However, the Brazilian health authorities admitted that there was some other cause-and-effect relationship because of the lack of evidence supporting the mosquito claim. This was backed up by a recent study from the New England Journal of Medicine. Having examined 12,000 Zika-infected women no microcephaly was found. So it was concluded that Zika does not cause microcephaly.
Consider the media-hyped hysteria prior to this conclusion. What about the unnecessary toxic chemical spraying to kill off the disease-carrying mosquitoes, forced abortions, vaccines and drugs used as countermeasures based on a false pretext? Then there are the biotech companies who greatly benefited from manufacturing their GM mosquitoes.
The Zika claim was a deliberately created scam for profit and the advancement of hidden agendas, such as a depopulation agenda (Agenda 21 aka 2030), typical of a false flag disease. Whether it’s Zika or any other claim more people need to wake up and recognise the patterns that make up a false flag disease to then take the necessary opposing action…
False Claim #2 - EMFs (Electromagnetic Fields) Don’t Cause Harm
The harmful effects of invisible EMFs are only perceived when ill-health manifests as a consequence of usage: Used in conjunction with the various wireless apps, cell phones, laptops, tablets… then there are smart meters, microwave ovens and other radiations sources, these EMF sources interfere with our own natural bio-electromagnetic energy fields.
Do your research and pay heed to the potential dangers of this deceptively harmful technology.
Related: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity From Microwave Technology Finally Medically Proven
False Claim #3 - Only Conventional Medicine Can Effectively Treat The Life-Threatening Illnesses Such As cancer, Heart Disease And Diabetes
As already mentioned with medical schools, when it comes to the treatment of disease, anything outside of conventional medicine’s mechanistic, pharmaceutical drug-based approach is basically ignored.
Very little, or not enough time (if any time at all), is devoted to the highly effective roles played by the mind-body-spirit connection, nutrition, water and the environment in health and healing.
In relationship to health and healing, how can anyone not give these factors serious attention when they address the very fabric of our being?
This wilful ignorance has made conventional medicine blind to the facts that there are cheaper, non-toxic, natural, alternative approaches that have produced highly effective results though addressing the above factors and are capable of curing life-threatening disease.
Related: Medical Establishment Doesn't Like Baking Soda Cancer Treatment Because It’s Too Effective And Too Cheap
False Claim #4 - Diet / Nutrition Does Not Play A Major Role In The Prevention / Reversal Of Cancer
Following on from 2, using cancer as an example and the role nutrition plays in the prevention/reversal of the life-threatening illnesses. Conventional medicine’s wing, the Cancer Research establishment, has basically ignored the life-saving, healing capabilities of diet/nutrition. Take, for instance, the acid and alkaline diets:
Related: Clive de Carle: How You Can Restore Your Health, Enabling Your Body To Self-Repair From Virtually Any Disease Or Affliction
It has been established that the body’s blood pH lies somewhere between 7.3 – 7.45. If your blood pH is outside this range then you’d be dead. If someone eats toxic acid foods (essentially junk food) frequent and long-term, lowering the blood’s pH, then this could lead to a serious illness such as cancer.
The healthier option is to eat alkaline foods (e.g. pineapple juice, greens such as broccoli, spinach, watercress and the anti-cancer B17 rich foods like apricots or almonds…etc) that alkalize the body, give rise to a higher blood pH.
Further, conventional medicine has invalidated, suppressed or even ridiculed a number of brilliant and humane innovators with their cancer cures related to diet/nutrition.
There are, for examples, the highly effective Gerson Therapy pioneered by Max Gerson, Harry Hoxey’s herbal remedies and Dr Tullio Simoncini’s ‘Cancer is a Fungus’ using sodium bicarbonate injections. All these innovations deal with a metabolic dietary deficiency related to a frequent and long-term bad acid diet.
Related: The 20 Biggest Cancer Lies You've Been Brainwashed To Believe By The For-Profit Cancer Industry + Cancer Cures Exposed: Natural Medicine Revealed As The Answer
False Claim #5 - Mammograms Are Saving Lives
Not true. All the cancer establishment can say for sure is that mammograms detect cancer. For breast cancer, the early detection claim is a myth because at this stage it cannot be known whether the cancer will turn out to be benign or harmful.
Although there is no proof, the cancer establishment is more likely to say that the cancer will be harmful: There’s a lot of money to be made from their offered treatment so biasing; erroneously concluding ‘test positive’ results regularly occurs.
For instance, from a recent Swedish study involving some 60,000 women it was found that 70% of the cancer detected mamographically were not tumours as claimed. They were in fact benign.
Incidentally, mammograms increase the chances of cancer because of the radiation effects. The safer, alternative option for breast cancer screening is infra-red thermography.
False Claim #6 - GMOs Are Safe While Feeding The World With Higher Yields
Tainting ecosystems; chemical toxicity, destroying species, wreaking havoc on farmlands, creating superweeds giving rise to superbugs and introducing unnatural factors into our food supplies… the harmful effects of GM foods are beyond dispute.
For well over 50 years, the biotech industry has had one major misunderstanding: It’s the idea that 1 gene codes for 1 protein. After completion of the ‘Human Genome Project’ in the early part of this millennium it was shown that the 1 gene codes for 1 protein theory had not been correct and was oversimplified.
Inserting one gene into a plant’s DNA has not just given rise to 1 protein but a number of other toxic rogue proteins landing to illnesses for consumers of GM foods.
Not ‘feeding the world’ and unnecessary GM foods have produced lower than anticipated yields.
False Claim #7 - Vaccines Are Safe And Effective
Officials of sorts making the blanket statement that ‘vaccines are safe’ should be held morally and criminally responsible. Consider the toxic overload children receive before the age of 6 years from some 30 plus different vaccinations (and ri$ing), assaulting their developing immune systems, resulting in a number of illnesses or deaths.
Often associated with vaccination is the term ‘immunization.’ This in fact is a misnomer. Vaccination is NOT immunization and this needs to be legally and scientifically challenged.
Toxic, poisonous vaccines with their aluminium, mercury-based compounds, carboxylic acids, formaldehyde, protein foreign bodies and the many other nasty little critters have counterproductive synergistic effects when injected into the body: Thus, vaccines do the opposite to immunize, as immunity is not allowed to naturally develop.
Related: Mainstream Medicine Accidentally Handed Us Hard Core Backhanded Proof That Vaccines Cause Autism
False Claim #8 - Fluoride In The water Stops Tooth Decay
The claim that fluoride stops tooth decay is highly questionable with many contradictory findings. For example, tooth decay in fluoridated countries is no different to non-fluoridated countries.
There have also been a number of studies to show that it is a nasty poison detrimental to health. Health institutions such as the American Medical Association have allowed these shocking revelations go by unheeded.
Essentially fluoride - at a concentration a little as 1ppm disrupts our enzymes responsible for DNA repair by half causing premature ageing and:
Affects our nervous and hormonal systems by denaturing (putting out of shape) our enzymes.
Is a carcinogen.
Affects thyroid function
May cause infertility
Causes fractured bones
Calcifies the pineal gland
Don’t drink fluoridated tap water. Drink filtered water (e.g. reverse osmosis) instead.
False Claim #9 - High Cholesterol Means You’ll Have A Heart Attack Imminently
Conventional medicine with the help of the mainstream media’s fanfare and fear mongering has managed to pull the wool over so many people’s eyes on this one.
The claim that high cholesterol means a heart attack is on its way is a myth that has made billions for Big Pharma from statins drug sales as unnecessary treatment.
Contrary to popular belief:
Atherosclerotic plaque formations (narrowing or clogging of arteries) indicative of heart disease can manifest regardless of blood cholesterol levels.
The body produces around 3 times more cholesterol than that from your diet. So a steady diet of low cholesterol foods is highly unlikely to reduce your blood cholesterol.
Stains used to lower cholesterol have failed to reduce heart mortality and totally mortality rates.
Don’t be a sucker for the great cholesterol deception.
False Claim #10 - The Symptoms Are The Cause Of Illness
No! The symptoms are just indicators or the knock-on effects of some underlying root cause.
Treat the symptoms and not address the root-cause then the illness will forever return.
More and more people are becoming aware that this is how conventional medicine’s Big Pharma drug treatment works and why it is failing us while they make tons of money on returning customers who will never be cured…
Sadly, indeed, many people are still clueless to this deception while getting even sicker due to the drugs’ side effects.
Related: Doctor Robert Scott Bell Explains The History Of Modern Medicine + Why Medical Researcher Calls Doctors 'The Most Brainwashed People On The Planet'
Don’t take for granted what health authorities are telling you or don’t blindly go into agreement with the sheep-like masses when it comes to health matters. Save yourself the unnecessary suffering or even death. Know that by doing your own vigilant and careful research your health is in YOUR hands.
You can read more from Paul A. Philips at his site NewParadigm
How Far Has The Medical Profession Fallen From The Hippocratic Oath?
The Hippocratic Oath is one of the oldest binding documents in history. While the classical oath calls for "the opposite" of pleasure and fame for those who transgress the oath, fewer than half of oaths taken today insist the taker be held accountable for keeping the pledge.
Some doctors see oath-taking as little more than a pro-forma ritual with little value beyond that of upholding tradition, but how far have modern Physicians come from the Hippocratic Oath as it was intended to protect patients in doing no harm?
Related: Medical Deaths And The Corruption Of Healthcare
CTV recently reported that 1 in 18 experienced a potentially preventable injury while hospitalized. Of those, 1 in 5 experienced multiple harmful events during their stay. Kelly Kliewer was one of those affected. In 2004, she went in for carpal tunnel surgery.
Once in surgery, though, the anesthesiologist gave her a paralytic instead of an anesthetic. According to Kliewer;
“I stopped breathing, it paralyzed all my organs, went into respiratory distress and had to get put on a ventilator."
She is still seeing a psychologist for PTSD from the ordeal.
Intensive Care Medicine published a study on medical errors in 2001. Five American intensive care units hosting a total of 851 adult patients were reviewed. The study concluded, "Of 5,744 observations in 851 patients, 187 (3.3%) medication administration errors were detected. the therapeutic classes most commonly associated with errors were vasoactive drugs 61 (32.6%) and sedative/analgesics 48 (25.7%)."
In 1999, the Institute of Medicine released a report called To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. In the report, it was estimated that as many as 98,000 hospital deaths per year were a result of hospital errors.
While regulatory authorities sprang to action, putting reporting systems in place and trying to enforce accountability, some recognized that the additional structures would not be enough. Physicians need to be aware of themselves so that errors could be turned around quickly and patients would not suffer consequences.
This is the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath:
“I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Sadly, the rise of the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry proves that this oath often falls by the wayside.
We must take responsibility for our own health.
Natural treatments that bring the body into balance are the best way to avoid damaging hospital visits.
Related: The NWO Depopulation Agenda Is The Only Explanation Why Expensive Mainstream Medicine Is Lethal
$340 Billion Per Year In US Healthcare Costs Linked To Chemicals Found In Plastic, Detergents, Cosmetics And Toys
November 12 2016 | From: NaturalNews
A newly released report, published in the The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology has revealed that exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals is attributed to $340 billion in health costs each year in the United States.
These endocrine-disrupting chemicals, or EDCs for short, are found in many everyday items that are used in homes across the country. Plastic food containers, detergents, flame retardants, cosmetics and even toys for children can be host to these damaging substances.
Related: Who knew? Many wines are contaminated with cancer-causing herbicide glyphosate
Some of the problems related to exposure to EDCs include neurological damage and behavioral problems such as attention deficit/hyperactivty disorder (ADHD), autism and loss of IQ. The report suggests that these issues make up about 80 percent of the problems caused by EDC exposure.
Of course, these are not the only health issues that are caused by EDCs. These chemicals, which are basically toxins, have also been attributed to obesity, diabetes, cancer, male infertility, and endometriosis – a painful condition characterized by abnormal tissue growth outside of the uterus.
The economic impact of the harm caused by EDCs is also quite important. These costs add up to about two percent of the United States' gross domestic product (GDP) each year – a huge financial wound.
Related: 30 Reasons to Never Put Another M&M in Your Mouth Ever Again
The study's lead investigator Leonardo Trasande, an associate professor at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City, said;
“Our research adds to the growing evidence on the tremendous economic as well as human health costs of endocrine-disrupting chemicals."
Trasande also commented that this issue has the potential to become a much more prominent health and economic problem if no policy action is taken.
Endocrine tissue is essential to many of the body's functions. It produces many of the body's hormones that regulate energy levels, reproduction, growth and development. The endocrine system also modulates our response to stress and injury; like every other part of the body, it's clearly important.
What EDCs do is mimic natural hormones produced by the body, such as estrogen and androgen, and then lock onto the receptors for those hormones within cells. This prevents the body's own hormones from binding to reception sites, and in turn, creates a number of different potential health problems.
Related: Are Deodorants Really Dangerous?
Even the Environmental Protection Agency has recently come forward to admit that recent research has been raising a few red flags about environmental contaminants, such as their potential to "disrupt the endocrine system leading to adverse-health consequences."
Some of the most dangerous chemicals prevailing in the US are PBDEs, which are found in flame retardants. This class of man-made substances is suspected of being one of the largest culprits behind human hormone interference. Flame retardants and pesticides have both been associated with a loss in IQ points and are known to affect developing brains.
Bisphenol A, or BPA, which is found in plastic bottles, can linings and other products, has been subject to a lot of public scrutiny – and for good reason. Countless studies have linked it to a myriad of health problems, including changes in metabolism and disruption of the reproductive and nervous systems.
Related: Leading Tea Brands Contain Illegal Levels Of Dangerous Pesticides
Phthalates are another ingredient of concern; these are often seen in plastics and other consumer goods, like cosmetics. They make plastic more flexible and can also be used as suspension or stabilizing agent in solutions (like your lip gloss). These are also attributed to a number of health problems, including reproductive issues.
Together, BPA and phthalates have racked up about $50 billion in health damages. Estimates suggest that the amount of these chemicals circulating in the blood of an average American would be among the top 5 percent in Europeans.
These chemicals are not safe, and should be avoided – even if our government won't do anything about them.
KFC’s Secret Ingredient Revealed: It’s a Neurotoxin
10 Reasons Wheat Is Toxic Whether You are Gluten Sensitive or Not
Soylent food bars 'proudly made with GMOs' causing stomach problems, vomiting and diarrhea
WHO cancer agency under fire for withholding ‘carcinogenic glyphosate’ documents
Canola oil: a chemical carcinogen that doesn't belong anywhere near your food
These 3 Foods are Banned in Other Countries - Avoid Them at All Costs
Cancer, Cancer Everywhere... But Not In The Elite's Presidential Suites
November 3 2016 | From: ActivistPost
A recent cancer symposium, with a surgical focus, met in Boston to discuss how surgical oncology is experiencing “an exciting evolution and the ways in which we treat cancer are changing.”
However, there are indications that the cure for cancer may have already been found and that those who have it are keeping it close to their chests.
Related: The Man Who Discovered The Cause Of Cancer Wrote A Book On Curing It
In order to support this contention, which may be seen as alarming and extreme, one must look at the rates of cancer among the general population and compare these to the rates of cancer deaths among world leaders.
And the latter is almost non-existent.
In the US, cancer is the second leading cause of death, exceeded only by heart disease. According to recently breaking news, Australia now lists cancer as its leading cause of death. In the rest of the developed world, cancer is near the top of the list.
A recent list published by the World Cancer Research Fund International shows that Denmark leads the pack in terms of cancer rates.
Related: 5 Facts On Cancer That Conventional Medicine Is Now Aggressively Claiming Are Myths + Amish Have Lower Rates Of Cancer, Ohio State Study Shows
Indeed, the list of the fifty countries with the highest cancer rates might lead one to believe that cancer is a disease of prosperity. Conspicuously absent from the list are countries in the Third World - in particular Africa.
Cancer will fell approximately ¼ of all those living in the developed world. However, this particular manifestation of the Grim Reaper gives world leaders a wide berth.
Since 1980, when the exiled Shah of Iran succumbed to lymphatic cancer in Egypt, the deaths by cancer of those leading their nations can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And what is most telling about those on this short list is where they stood on the political spectrum.
Related: Modern Life Is Killing Our Children: UK Cancer Rate In Young People Up 40% In 16 Years + 12 Things a Cancer Doctor Should Never Say
Hugo Chavez, the colorful and controversial President of Venezuela between 1999-2013, was a Socialist and prominent adversary of US foreign policy and neo-liberalism. Before succumbing to cancer in 2013, Chavez made a much publicized radio announcement in which he speculated that the US government gave him cancer.
Chavez has been quoted as saying, “Would it be so strange that they’ve invented the technology to spread cancer and we won’t know about it for 50 years?” He is also quoted as saying:
“Fidel [Castro] always told me, ‘Chávez take care. These people have developed technology. You are very careless. Take care what you eat, what they give you to eat... a little needle and they inject you with I don’t know what.’ ”
Since his death Venezuela has crumbled into economic chaos.
Vaclav Havel, who was the last president of Czechoslovakia and the first President of the Czech Republic, is somewhat of a more ambiguous character.
While he is seen as being a pivotal player in breaking up the Soviet bloc, and therefore bringing what is popularly termed “democracy” to a formerly Communist country, he may have also been serving US and CIA interests, either unintentionally or otherwise.
In his period of political dissidence, prior to ascending to power, Havel was imprisoned a number of times, the longest incarceration being four years. As President, Havel was instrumental in dismantling the Warsaw Pact and expanding NATO into Eastern European countries. Havel died of lung cancer in 2011 at the age of 75.
Related: Dangerous Products That We’re Unknowingly Using In Our Day-To-Day Life + The Cancer Risk To People Who Drink Chlorinated Water Is 93% Higher Than Those Who Don’t
Jack Layton, the head of Canada’s New Democratic Party, succumbed to “an unspecified, newly diagnosed” cancer in 2011.
The NDP occupies the furthest left of Canada’s political spectrum. Indeed, there has never been an NDP head of state in Canada.
So when the NDP swept the national parliamentary elections in 2011, winning 103 seats, the NDP became Canada’s Official Opposition. Layton’s tenancy as head of the opposition was short lived, however. Layton succumbed to cancer less than four months later, passing on in August of 2011.
He had been committed to ousting the conservative Harper government. Following Layton’s death, the NDP tumbled from its position and currently occupies third place in Canada’s parliament.
Related: 5 Cancer Myths Busted
As Prime Minister of the tiny island of Barbados, David Thompson could only marginally have been considered a world leader. The population of Barbados is less than 300,000, mostly black. Barbados, also known as “Little England,” is an independent state with the British monarch as hereditary head of state.
Thompson was in office from 2008 until October of 2010, when he passed away from pancreatic cancer, one of the most deadly forms of the Big C.
Statistically, since cancer is listed as cause of death in roughly ¼ of all deaths, one might logically expect that one quarter of the US Presidents and one quarter of the US Vice Presidents, to pick one example, would have cancer listed as cause of death.
With 44 Presidents and 47 Vice Presidents, one might think that somewhere in the realm of 24 or so might have succumbed to cancer.
However, there are none. Zero. Zilch. A search for cancer as a cause of death for German, French or British leaders in the past forty years produces only one name, that of former French President Francois Mitterrand, who succumbed to prostate cancer in 1996 at the age of 80.
Related: Hospital Fires Leading Cancer Surgeon For Telling The Truth About Medical Establishment
Mitterrand was the first French President who was a Socialist and he led the nation for fourteen years, as its longest serving President.
Since the 1972 throat cancer death of Edward VIII - who abdicated the throne in 1936 - no members of British royalty have died of cancer.
In October of this year, the World Cancer Leaders’ Summit will be convening in Paris, France. The announcement for this Summit states that “The World Cancer Leaders’ Summit brings together global decision makers who can shape the way our generation addresses the task of eliminating cancer as a life threatening disease for future generations.”
Their announcement also states:
“The Summit plays a pivotal role in this portfolio of global events by ensuring that the 2020 targets detailed in the World Cancer Declaration are appropriately recognised and addressed at the highest political levels.”
However, those at the “highest political levels” are often seen as escaping repercussions for criminal behavior and worse. The idea of the “Teflon-coated” political elite is an idea that has now gained general - albeit grim - acceptance.
Given the probability that the cure may already exist, in light of the unusual lack of incidence of fatal cancers afflicting the powerful, one might want to ask the Summit if the world leaders might be willing to share... please?
Related: The Truth About Cancer
|Social Engineering - The War On The Higher Mind Of Humans: Here’s Why You Should Consider Converting Your Music To A=432 Hz
November 1 2016 | From: CollectiveEvolution
“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” - Nikola Tesla
“What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” – Albert Einstein
Related: The A=432 Hz Frequency: DNA Tuning And The Bastardisation Of Music
Tesla said it. Einstein agreed. Science proved it. It is a known fact that everything—including our own bodies—is made up of energy vibrating at different frequencies. That being said, it seems logical to wonder, can sound frequencies affect us?
It would appear that this is the case. Frequencies affect frequencies, much like mixing ingredients with other ingredients affects the overall flavour of a meal. The way frequencies affect the physical world has been demonstrated through various experiments, such as the science of Cymatics and water memory.
Cymatics illustrate that when sound frequencies move through a particular medium such as water, air, or sand, they directly alter the vibration of matter. Below are pictures demonstrating how particles adjust to different frequencies. (Click here to watch a video demonstrating the patterns of sound frequencies)
Water memory also illustrates how our own intentions may even alter the material world. This has been demonstrated by Dr. Masaru Emoto, who has performed studies showing how simple intentions through sound, emotions, and thoughts can dramatically shape the way water crystallizes.
We all hold a certain vibrational frequency, and our bodies are estimated to be about 70% water. Given the above experiments, it stands to reason that musical frequencies could also alter our own vibrational state.
Every expression through sound, emotion, or thought holds a specific frequency which influences everything around it - much like a single drop of water can create a larger ripple effect in a large body of water.
With this concept in mind, let us bring our attention to the frequency of the music we listen to. Most music worldwide has been tuned to A=440 Hz since the International Standards Organization (ISO) promoted it in 1953.
However, when looking at the vibratory nature of the universe, it’s possible that this pitch is disharmonious with the natural resonance of nature and may generate negative effects on human behaviour and consciousness.
Some theories (although unproven) even suggest that the Nazi regime had been in favor of adopting this pitch as standard after conducting scientific research to determine which range of frequencies best induce fear and aggression.
Whether or not the conspiracy is factual, interesting studies have pointed towards the benefits of tuning music to A=432 Hz instead.
Mathematics of The Universe
432 Hz is said to be mathematically consistent with the patterns of the universe. It is said that 432 Hz vibrates with the universe’s golden mean PHI and unifies the properties of light, time, space, matter, gravity and magnetism with biology, the DNA code, and consciousness.
When our atoms and DNA start to resonate in harmony with the spiralling pattern of nature, our sense of connection to nature is said to be magnified. The number 432 is also reflected in ratios of the sun, Earth, and moon, as well as the precession of the equinoxes, the Great Pyramid of Egypt, Stonehenge, and the Sri Yantra, among many other sacred sites.
“From my own observations, some of the harmonic overtone partials of A=432hz 12T5 appear to line up to natural patterns and also the resonance of solitons. Solitons need a specific range to form into the realm of density and span from the micro to the macro cosmos. Solitons are not only found in water mechanics, but also in the ion-acoustic breath between electrons and protons.”
– Brian T. Collins
Color Spectrum Resonance
Another interesting factor to consider is that the A=432 Hz tuning correlates with the color spectrum and chakra system, while the A=440 Hz does not.
“The Solar Spectrum & The Cosmic Keyboard
All of the frequencies in the spectrum are related in octaves, from gamma rays to subharmonics. These colors and notes are also related to our Chakras and other important energy centers. I
f we are to understand that… Chakras are connected to the Seven Rays of the Solar Spectrum, then the notes and frequencies we use for the same should be the same.
A432 Hz is the tuning of the Cosmic Keyboard or Cosmic Pitchfork, as opposed to the A440 Hz modern ‘standard.’ It places C# at 136.10 Hz ‘Om,’ which is the main note of the Sitar in classical Indian music and the pitch of the chants of the Tibetan monks, who tell us, ‘It comes from nature.'”
– Dameon Keller
Exploring The Difference
Let’s explore the experiential difference between A=440 Hz and A=432 Hz. Music lovers and musicians have noticed that music tuned in A=432 Hz is not only more beautiful and harmonious to the ears, but it also induces a more inward experience that is felt inside the body at the spine and heart.
Music tuned in A=440 Hz was felt as a more outward and mental experience, and was felt at the side of the head which projected outwards.
Audiophiles have also stated that A=432hz music seems to be non-local and can fill an entire room, whereas A=440hz can be perceived as directional or linear in sound propagation.
“The ancients tuned their instruments at an A of 432 Hz instead of 440 Hz – and for a good reason. There are plenty of music examples on the internet that you can listen to, in order to establish the difference for yourself. Attuning the instrument to 432 Hz results in a more relaxing sound, while 440 Hz slightly tenses up to body.
This is because 440 Hz is out of tune with both macrocosmos and microcosmos. 432 Hz on the contrary is in tune. To give an example of how this is manifested microcosmically: our breath (0,3 Hz) and our pulse (1,2 Hz) relate to the frequency of the lower octave of an A of 432 Hz (108 Hz) as 1:360 and 1:90.”
“The overall sound difference was noticeable, the 432 version sounding warmer, clearer and instantly sounded more listenable but the 440 version felt tighter, with more aggressive energy.”
– Anonymous guitarist
The video below was created by someone with no opinion on whether A=432 Hz or A=440 Hz is better. Therefore, the way both versions of the melody is played is unbiased. It is up to us to tune in and feel which one feels more harmonious to us!
Here’s another example:
David Helpling – Sticks and Stones in 440 hz
David Helpling – Sticks and Stones in 432 hz
I personally have enjoyed many bands, artists, and styles of music even though they were tuning in A=440 hz, however, after comparing a few songs in both A=432 hz and A=440 hz I can say I definitely feel and hear the difference.
I wouldn’t say that my experience of 440hz music has turned me into an aggressive person, but I can understand how an entire population being exposed to music that is more mind directed as opposed to heart directed - not to mention all of the materialistic and ego-driven lyrics in most popular music - is a perfect combination to maintain a more discordant frequency and state of consciousness within humanity.
This is, of course, simply my own opinion.
“Music based on C=128hz (C note in concert A=432hz) will support humanity on its way towards spiritual freedom. The inner ear of the human being is built on C=128 hz.” – Rudolph Steiner
I cannot state with complete certainty that every idea suggested in this article is 100% accurate, nor am I an expert on the subject. I simply gathered interesting information from others who researched this issue more deeply.
For this reason, if we are looking for scientific validation for these claims, I suggest that we each do our own research on the matter with an open yet discerning mind. Perhaps more research on this topic will be done in the near future to help explain the phenomenon.
I believe we all possess intuition and the ability to observe without judgment, which can be more useful than resorting to ridicule when exposed to information that has not yet been accepted by the scientific community.
It is therefore up to us to tone down the urge to jump to conclusions and instead EXPERIENCE the difference between A=440 Hz and A=432 Hz. To do so, we need to listen with our entire body and a neutral awareness as opposed to with our mental ideas, judgments, and preconceptions.
If you are interested in changing your music’s pitch to A=432 hz, click here to learn how to do it.
The Truth About Addiction And Recovery
November 1 2016 | From: Peele / Various
A radical new approach to recovery - using methods proven more effective than medical treatment or twelve-step programs.
Drawing on the latest research and detailed case studies, the authors expose the best-kept secrets in the recovery field:
Addictions - whether to food, cigarettes, sex, alcohol, or drugs - are not diseases, and they’re not necessarily lifelong problems.
Many more people give up addictions on their own than are helped by medical treatment or twelve-step programs.
Developing values, skills, and life resources enables people to quit addictions - and to shed the addict identity altogether.
In their revolutionary “Life Process Program” for overcoming all kinds of addictions, the authors emphasize self-help and treatment through coping with stress and achieving one’s goals. As helpful as it is controversial, The Truth About Addiction and Recovery will forever change the way we view and treat addiction.
“A classic.” - John Norcross, PhD, ABPP, Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of Scranton and author of Changing for Good
What causes addiction? Easy, right? Drugs cause addiction. But maybe it is not that simple.
This video is adapted from Johann Hari's New York Times best-selling book 'Chasing The Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs.'
For more information, and to take a quiz to see what you know about addiction, visit chasingthescream.com
An interactive version of this video click here.
Why It Doesn’t Make Sense To Call Addiction A “Disease”
We frequently hear from people who say: “I drink too much sometimes, but I don’t think I’m an alcoholic. And I don’t want to stand up and talk about myself in front of a group. Is there any other way I can change the way I drink?”
People are much concerned about bad habits (which sometimes reach life-consuming proportions) that they’d like to do something about-drinking, smoking, overeating, taking drugs, gambling, overspending, or even compulsive romancing.
We hear more and more that every one of these things is a disease, and that we must go to treatment centers or join twelve-step support groups like Alcoholics Anonymous in order to change any of these behaviors.
Apparently the 12 step plan concept was taken from the Satanic Bible
Is there really no other way to change a powerful habit than to enter treatment for a disease? Do personal initiative, willpower, or just maturing and developing a more rewarding life have anything to do with people’s ability to overcome addictive habits?
As children, as spouses, as parents, as employers, as consumers, and as citizens we must struggle to understand and master the destructive potential of drugs, alcohol, and related addictions.
The kinds of questions so many people face today include: What do we do if we discover our children are smoking marijuana, or worse? Should we put them in a treatment center that will teach them they are chemically dependent for life?
How can we tell if co-workers, employees, and friends are secretly addicts or alcoholics? What is the most appropriate way to react to people who drink too much or do anything that harms themselves and others?
Click on the image above to open a larger versioj in a new window
Furthermore, as a society, how should we deal with these problems? Are our incessant wars on drugs really going to have the positive impact the generals in these wars always claim? Or is there some more sensible or direct way to reduce the damage people do to themselves through their uncontrollable habits?
Rather than arrest drug users, can we treat addicts so that they stop using drugs? And if we expand the treatment for all the addictions we have seen - like shopping and smoking and overeating and sexual behavior - who will pay for all this treatment?
Finally, does addiction diminish people’s judgment so that they can’t be held accountable for their behavior, or for crimes and financial excesses they commit while addicted?
This book is for those concerned with such questions. But what you will read here is not the same as what you see and hear in newspapers and magazines, on television, in addiction treatment centers, in twelve-step groups, and in most physicians’ and therapists’ offices or what your children are learning in school.
Related: US govt. suppressing herb that can protect your liver from alcohol damage: NTX
For in its desperate search for a way out of the convulsions caused by drug abuse and addiction, our society has seized upon a simple, seductive, but false answer that this book disputes. What we say is, indeed, so different from most things you hear that we have provided extensive documentation at the back of the book.
The simple but incorrect answer we constantly hear is expressed by the familiar statement, “Alcoholism is a disease.” In other words, we can treat away these problems in a medical setting.
This viewpoint has proved so appealing that it has been adopted by professional organizations and government agencies as well as by groups like Alcoholics Anonymous. And now the “disease” label is applied not only to alcoholism, drug addiction, cigarette smoking, and overeating, but also to gambling, compulsive shopping, desperate romantic attachments, and even committing rape or killing one’s newborn child!
A.A.’s image of “powerlessness over alcohol” is being extended to everything that people feel they are unable to resist or control.
But what lies behind the claim that alcoholism and other addictions are diseases? How accurate is it? What evidence supports it? Most important, what good does it do us to believe it? Will it really help you or someone you care about to overcome an addiction?
This book will show that the answer is no - that, in fact, it may do more harm than good. What’s wrong with calling a tenacious and destructive habit a disease?
It isn’t true.
It doesn’t help most people (even those it does help might succeed just as well in a less costly, less limiting way).
It prevents us from doing things that really would help.
In this chapter we will summarize what the disease model says, why it is wrong, and why it is harmful. As you will see, there is no good reason to label yourself or people you know as forever marked by an addictive “disease.” Challenging this useless folklore is the first step toward understanding addiction and doing something about it.
Then we will present an alternative way of thinking about and dealing with addiction called the Life Process Program. The accompanying table previews the major differences between the Life Process Program and the disease model of addiction.
Myths Versus Reality
To highlight some of the surprising facts we will reveal, here are some common beliefs about various addictions:
A person needs medical treatment or a program like Smokenders to quit smoking.
Attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings is the most effective way for alcoholics to stop drinking.
Nearly all regular cocaine users become addicted.
Very few people who have a drinking problem can ever drink in a normal, controlled manner.
Drunk drivers who undergo treatment for alcoholism are less likely to repeat the offense than those who receive normal judicial penalties such as license suspension.
Most people with an alcoholic parent become alcoholics themselves.
Most people who are binge drinkers in their twenties go on to become alcoholics.
Most of the American soldiers who were addicted to heroin in Vietnam remained addicted or became addicted again after they returned home.
The fact that alcoholism runs in families means that it is an inherited disease.
Fat children, because they have inherited their obesity, are more likely to be fat in later life than are people who become fat as adults.
Actually, the best scientific evidence available today indicates that none of these statements is true. Such specific misconceptions grow out of a foundation of false assumptions about the nature of addiction generally.
Ten Assumptions that Distinguish the Life Process Program from the Disease Model
LIFE PROCESS PROGRAM
|1. Addiction is inbred and biological.
||1. Addiction is a way of coping with yourself and your world.
|2. The solution is medical treatment and membership in spiritual groups such as A.A.
||2. The solution requires self-awareness, new coping skills, and changing your environment.
|3. Addiction is all-or-nothing; you are or you aren’t an addict.
||3. Addiction is a continuum; your behavior is more or less addicted.
|4. Addiction is permanent and you can relapse at any moment.
||4. Addiction can be outgrown.
|5. Addicts are “in denial” and must be forced to acknowledge they have a disease.
||5. You should identify problems and solutions in ways that work for you.
|6. The recovering addict / alcoholic is the expert on addiction.
||6. Those without an addiction problem are the best models.
|7. Addiction is a “primary” disease.
||7. Addiction stems from other life problems you have.
|8. Your main associates must be other recovering addicts.
||8. You should associate with a normal range of people.
|9. You must accept the disease philosophy to recover.
||9. Getting better is not a matter of believing a dogma.
|10. Surrendering to a higher power is the key to recovery.
||10. You must develop your own power to get better.
Related: Stop the Madness: Coming off Psych Meds
What Is the Disease Model of Addiction?
At first, it seems hard to understand what is meant by saying that something a person regularly does (such as· drinking alcohol) is a disease.
Habitual, voluntary behavior of this sort does not resemble what we normally think of as a disease, like cancer or diabetes. What is more, A.A. - and even hospital programs for alcoholism - don’t actually treat any biological causes of alcoholism.
After all the claims we have heard in the past decade about biological discoveries concerning alcoholism, not one of these findings has been translated into a usable treatment. Instead, the same group discussions and exhortations that have been used for the last fifty years are employed in hospital programs.
Nor is any biological method used to determine whether someone is an alcoholic other than by assessing how much that person drinks and the consequences of this drinking.
And if we have no special biological information about treating or identifying alcoholism, we surely know nothing about the biological causes of “diseases” such as compulsive gambling, shopping, and loving, which have nothing to do with drugs or alcohol.
There is, however, a standard way those who claim addiction is a disease describe addictive diseases. This description has been developed by groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, by the medical profession, and by various popularizers of the idea that alcoholism is a disease.
What they say is in every regard wrong.
When they tell you that you have the “disease” of alcoholism, “chemical dependency,” obesity, compulsive shopping, or whatever, this is what they mean:
The basis of the disease is inbred and/or biological. There is no need to look for the causes of the disease in your personal problems, the people you spend time with, the situations you find yourself in, or your ethnic or cultural background. Addiction is bred into you from birth or early childhood. Your current experience of life has nothing to do with it; nothing you can do makes you either more or less likely to become addicted.
It involves complete loss of control over your behavior. Once involved in your addiction, you are utterly at its mercy. You cannot choose whether, or how much, to lose yourself in the involvement. No matter how costly it may be in a given situation, you will go all the way. You cannot make reasonable, responsible choices about something to which you are addicted.
Addictions are forever. An addictive disease is like diabetes - it stays with you as long as you live. The mysterious bodily or psychic deficiency that lies at the root of addiction can never be remedied, and you can never safely expose yourself to the substance to which you were addicted. Once an addict, always an addict.
It inevitably expands until it takes over and destroys your life. “Irreversible progression” is a hallmark of addictive diseases as they are conceived today. The addiction grows and grows until it devours you, like AIDS or cancer. No rewards, no punishments, not even the most momentous developments in your life can stay its course, unless you completely swear off the addictive substance or activity.
If you say you don’t have it, that’s when they really know you have it. According to this “Catch22” of the disease theory, anyone suspected of having an addictive disease who insists that he or she doesn’t have the disease is guilty of the added offense of “denial.” In this way, the “disease” label is like a web that traps a person more firmly the harder the person fights to get out of it.
It requires medical and/or “spiritual” treatment. Thinking you can cure your addiction through willpower, changes in your life circumstances, or personal growth is a delusion (like denial), according to disease-theory proponents. Addiction is a disease of the body that can be controlled only by never-ending medical treatments.
It is also a disease of the soul requiring lifetime membership in a support group like Alcoholics Anonymous. Why supposed medical treatment consists mainly of going to group meetings and why people can’t develop their own spiritual approaches to life if they choose are questions disease theory adherents ignore.
Your kids are going to get it, too. Since addiction is an inherited disease, the children of addicts are considered at high risk for developing the same disease - no matter what you or they do or how careful you are. Logical deductions from this viewpoint are that you should have your kids tested for their genetic predisposition to alcoholism or addiction before they start school, or that you should simply teach them never to touch a drop of alcohol or expose themselves to whatever your addiction is.
Obviously, this approach presents special difficulties in dealing with addictions to eating, shopping, and making love. Where did these notions come from - notions that, when examined in the clear light of day, often seem quite bizarre and contrary to common experience?
The disease theory takes a set of precepts that were made up by and about a small group of severe, long-term alcoholics in the 1930s and applies them inappropriately to people with a wide range of drinking and other life problems. The original members of Alcoholics Anonymous, realizing they would soon die if they did not give up alcohol, adopted wholesale the dogma of the nineteenth century temperance movement.
The one major difference was that the A.A. members said drinking was a disease only for them, and not for everyone who drank - therefore not everyone needed to eschew “demon rum,” as temperance advocates had insisted.
Niacin for Treatment of Depression & Alcoholism
When he co-founded Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) to offer a support group for those addicted to alcohol, Bill Wilson made the first major advance in addressing alcoholism.
A fact which is less well-known is that Bill Wilson also made the second major advance when he became aware of, and later promoted the use of niacin vitamin B3 as a treatment for chronic drinkers.
Orthomolecular Medicine and Alcoholism
Even as Alcoholics Anonymous slowly expanded, many of Bill Wilson's personal and financial problems lingered, especially his depression.
Canadian biochemist Dr. Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D., a psychiatrist and physician, writes: "I met Bill in New York in 1960. Humphry Osmond and I introduced him to the concept of megavitamin therapy. Bill was very curious about it and began to take niacin, 3,000 mg daily. Within a few weeks fatigue and depression which had plagued him for years were gone."
Dr. Hoffer, in his foreword to the book "Alcoholism: The Cause and The Cure", describes how he and Bill Wilson investigated together the effect of Niacin vitamin B3 on alcoholics.
Dr Hoffer writes: “Bill understood it first hand, for even though he had been abstinent for many years, he was still unwell. He suffered from immense anxiety, tension, and fatigue, but was able to function in spite of what might have been disabling.
After taking 3 grams of niacin daily for two weeks, his symptoms vanished and he remained free of addiction. This was a peak experience that he never forgot. He became determined to give as many AA members as possible the benefit of the same healing vitamin,”.
Dr. Hoffer further writes: “Without telling me that he was doing so, Bill conducted a trial of niacin on 30 friends and colleagues in New York. Most of them were very productive and sober members of AA, but they all suffered from the common mind and mood afflictions that people formerly addicted to alcohol experience, even when they are not drinking.
After three months he showed me his data. After one month, ten of the subjects were well. After the second month another ten had recovered, and the remaining one-third had shown no improvement after the third month. By this time I had also treated a number of people addicted to alcohol and had seen similar recoveries.”
Beyond AA Meetings
Between 1960 and his death in 1971, Bill Wilson shared this information with physician members of AA in a series of 3 brochures, Communications to Alcoholics Anonymous.
Bill’s findings were unfortunately dismissed by the AA’s International Board, because he was not an "M.D." and the fact that Alcoholics Anonymous is a social support structure, not a medical treatment provider.
Related: DEA Just Banned a Natural Plant that Can Cure Opioid Addiction - Proving Loyalty to Big Pharma
The A.A. model has struck a responsive chord among Americans. Obviously, with the rejection of Prohibition, the United States had decided against a national policy that everyone should abstain from drinking.
Yet Westernn society continues even today to show a deep unease about alcohol and about intoxication, which many people seek even while fearing its disturbing effects. Given this national ambivalence, we have been drawn to the “old-time religion” of temperance, as represented by A.A., now cloaked in the modern language of medicine and the neurosciences.
But, as this book will make clear, the operative assumptions about addiction have never arisen directly from biological sciences. Rather, they have been superimposed on scientific research, much of which directly contradicts the assumptions of the disease theory.
Why the Disease Model Is Wrong
Every major tenet of the “disease” view of addiction is refuted both by scientific research and by everyday observation. This is true even for alcoholism and drug addiction, let alone the many other behaviors that plainly have little to do with biology and medicine.
No biological or genetic mechanisms have been identified that account for addictive behavior.
Even for alcoholism, as the following chapter will show, the evidence for genetic inheritance is unconvincing. By now, probably every well-informed reader has heard announcements that scientists have discovered a gene that causes alcoholism.
In fact, as one of us wrote in The Atlantic, this is far from the case, and the study that prompted these claims has already been refuted by another study in the same journal. Moreover, if a gene were found to influence alcoholism, would the same gene cause drug addiction?
Would it be related to smoking? Would it also cause compulsive gambling and overeating? If so, this would mean that everyone with any of these addictions has this genetic inheritance. Indeed, given the ubiquity of the problems described, the person without this inheritance would seem to be the notable exception.
How could an addiction like smoking be genetic? Why are some types of people more likely to smoke than others (about half of waitresses and car salesmen smoke, compared with about a tenth of lawyers and doctors)?
And does believing that an addiction like smoking is genetic help the person quit (are all those smokers who quit not “genetically” addicted)?
Returning to alcohol, are people really predestined biologically to become alcoholics and thus to become A.A. members? Think about the rock group Aerosmith: all five members of this group now belong to A.A., just as they once all drank and took drugs together.
How unlikely a coincidence it is that five unrelated people with the alcoholic / addictive inheritance should run into one another and form a band!
The idea that genes make you become alcoholic cannot possibly help us understand how people develop drinking problems over years, why they choose on so many occasions to go out drinking, how they become members of heavy-drinking groups, and how drinkers are so influenced by the circumstances of their lives.
Genes may make a person unusually sensitive to the physiological effects of alcohol; a person can find drinking extremely relaxing or enjoyable; but this says nothing about how the person drinks over the course of a lifetime.
After all, some people say, “I never have more than one or two drinks at a time, because alcohol goes straight to my head.”
As we document here and in the following chapter, we can actually predict the likelihood of people’s becoming addicted far more reliably from their nationality and social class, from the social groups they join, and from their beliefs and expectations about alcohol or drugs (or other activities), than from their biological makeup.
Often, people who become addicted set themselves up by investing a substance or an experience with magical powers to transform their beings (“Getting drunk is great”; “When I drink I’m really at ease”; “Drinking makes me attractive to people of the opposite sex”).
It is simply not within the chemical properties of alcohol or a drug, or the experience of an activity like shopping, to offer people what they want and seek from an addiction.
People find this in an addiction when they believe they can’t achieve the feelings they need in ordinary ways. Clearly, attitudes, values, and the opportunities available in a person’s environment have much to do with whether the person has a significant risk for a particular addiction.
People do not necessarily lose control of themselves whenever they are exposed to the object of their addiction.
On the contrary, many practice their addictions quite selectively. For example, military and religious personnel are often deprived of tobacco during training or on retreats, and business people realize they can’t smoke in certain rooms.
Orthodox Jews who smoke heavily abstain from smoking on the Sabbath, showing that their religious values mean more to them than nicotine does. Alcoholics in experiments routinely control their drinking when it is in their interest to do so - say, when they must leave a cozy room with television and companionship in order to get more to drink.
These variations occur in real life just as they do in the laboratory - for example, when people avoid drugs or cigarettes when they are with people who won’t tolerate those habits. When something they really care about is jeopardized if they continue to drink, smoke, or whatever, most people will stop or cut down accordingly.
Addiction usually does not last a lifetime. “Once an addict, always an addict” is a pessimistic notion that is both wrong and harmful. It leaves people two choices: either you stay constantly addicted and miserable until you die; or you abstain for life while attending group meetings and viewing yourself as the perpetually “recovering” person.
Sadly, a small number of people do die of their addictions; and another group succeeds in quitting drinking, drug taking, or whatever by maintaining the role of the recovering addict.
But most people are more resilient and resourceful than that. Most people who have addictive habits moderate or eliminate these habits over the course of their lives.
And they do it without having to say “I am an alcoholic” or “I am an overeater” or “I am a sex addict” as long as they live.
Remember that, today, a majority of adults who have ever smoked have quit and nearly all did so without treatment.
Progression is not inevitable - it is the exception. If the majority of people give up addictive habits, then the idea of “inevitable progression” doesn’t hold water. Calling addiction a “progressive disease” comes from looking at the few who have progressed to severe addiction and tracing the path by which they got there.
The progression of addictive problems only seems inevitable after the fact. For example, the great majority of college overdrinkers, even those who black out at fraternity parties, become moderate drinkers in middle age.
When you consider that even most of the people who use narcotics and cocaine do not end up addicted, you can see that drug-and-alcohol use patterns are many and varied, even when a person uses a substance abusively for a time.
Treatment is no panacea. Contrary to all the advertising we hear, treatment for addictions is often no more effective than letting addiction and recovery take their natural course.
The vast majority of people who have given up addictions (beginning with more than 90 percent of the forty-four million Americans who have quit smoking have done so on their own.
This does not mean that treatment for addictions cannot work - research has shown that some forms of treatment are effective. But the ones that are more effective are not the ones that have become popular in the United States.
You can outgrow an addictive habit on your own or in therapy, but either way the principles of the Life Process Program are the same.
What about joining support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous? Here, too, research reveals the opposite of what we have been led to believe. A.A is a valuable community resource for those who find support in a certain type of religiously oriented group ritual.
But the best we can say about A.A is that it works for those for whom it works. Meanwhile, there are plenty for whom it doesn’t work. There is no scientific evidence that A.A. works better than other approaches when randomly selected alcoholics are assigned to A.A. or other treatments.
In fact, the evidence is that the people who are now often compelled to attend A.A - after being arrested for drunk driving or being sent by a company Employee Assistance Program - do worse than those who are left on their own.
Related: Benzos: A Dance With the Devil
How can we reconcile this finding with the glowing testimonials we hear about A.A.? The people we see in A.A. are the ones who like it, find it helpful, and stick it out. But there are many others who don’t go to A.A. or who don’t like it and drop out.
And as we show below, those who seriously try to stop drinking on their own are more likely to maintain their abstinence than those who attend A.A.
In addition, since many more people try to quit on their own than through therapy or joining a group, the number of self-curers is triple or more the number of successful treatment or A.A cases.
But such self-curers are not very visible, because they are individuals without an organized group to publicize their success.
These, then, are the key fallacies of the popularly held view of addiction. Even generally well-informed people may be astonished that we contradict such widely held beliefs. All of our refutations of conventional wisdom are carefully documented in the notes at the back of the book.
But you don’t need to read scholarly articles and scientific reports to test the accuracy of what we say. Just check it out against your own experience and observation. Don’t you know anyone who used to drink excessively, at times uncontrollably, but who no longer drinks at all or now drinks in a normal, appropriate manner?
Obviously, most people who used to drink excessively but who have now cut back (or even quit) do not attend meetings where they must rise and declare, “I am an alcoholic.”
How many people of all ages do you know who quit smoking? How many of them did it by going through a medical program or joining a support group, and how many finally just decided to quit and made good on that resolve? What happened to all the people you knew who used illegal drugs in college, some quite heavily?
How many of them are “chemically dependent” now? If we simply examine the cases of most of those we are close to personally, we will see how addictions usually do not follow the disease course.
Why the Disease Model Doesn’t Work - Why It Even Does More Harm than Good
The assumption that calling addiction a “disease” actually helps people crumbles when subjected to critical scrutiny. Some people feel comfortable thinking of their addiction as a disease and are able to function better on this basis for a time.
But whatever short-term benefits medical, disease-oriented treatment produces are double-edged even for the individuals who claim it has helped them. Many of the most “successful” recipients of disease treatment might achieve a real breakthrough by learning to think about addiction differently.
Related: Why Social Isolation Leads to Inflammation
Meanwhile, for the majority of people, the disadvantages of the disease approach clearly outweigh the advantages from the start.
The disadvantages of the disease approach are that it:
Attacks people’s feelings of personal control and can thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy;
Makes mountains out of molehills, since it fails to differentiate between the worst alcoholics and addicts and those with minor substance-use dependence;
Stigmatizes people - in their own minds - for life
Iinterrupts normal maturation for the young, for whom this approach is completely inappropriate;
Holds up as models for drinking and drug use the people who have shown the least capacity to manage their lives;
Isolates alcoholism and addiction as problems from the rest of the alcoholic’s or addict’s life;
Limits people’s human contacts primarily to other recovering alcoholics or addicts, who only reinforce their preoccupation with drinking and drug use;
Dispenses a rigid program of therapy that is founded - in the words of the director of the government’s National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIA.A.A) - “on hunch, not evidence, and not on science,” while attacking more effective therapies.
How can therapy that so many people believe in and swear by actually do more harm than good? To illustrate this point, consider the case of a famous psychiatrist who evaluated his hospital’s alcoholism program - one he felt was among the most outstanding in the world.
This program first detoxified the alcoholic in the hospital, then mandated A.A. attendance, and finally actively followed patients’ progress with an outreach counseling program.
When the psychiatrist running the program, Dr. George Vaillant, evaluated how well his patients were doing two years and eight years after treatment, however, he found they had fared about as well as comparable alcoholics who received no treatment at all!
How could Vaillant have been so wrong as to think his patients were doing phenomenally well, when actually they were doing no better than if he had left them alone completely?
Naturally, he wanted to think it worked. But his research prevented his rose-colored views from distorting the actual results of his treatment.
When he counted all his patients, not just his successes, when he scrutinized and verified what they were telling him in order to see exactly how well they were doing, and when he compared them with alcoholics out on their own instead of just assuming that all these people died without the help of treatment like his, Vaillant found that his expensive hospital treatment was close to useless.
Very few people in the treatment industry or in A.A. are as scrupulous as is Vaillant. When we hear from A.A. boosters, they tell us only about those who have stuck with the program and are currently sober. The same is true of treatment programs. They parade their best stars up front.
We don’t hear about all their failures. Yet Vaillant, in a book that is cited as the major source of support for the benefits of treating alcoholics according to the disease model, concluded as follows:
“If treatment as we currently understand it does not seem more effective than the natural healing processes, then we need to understand those healing processes better.”
Indeed, Vaillant repeats another researcher’s conclusion that “it may be easier for improper treatment to retard recovery than for proper treatment to hasten it.”major source of support for the benefits of treating alcoholics according to the disease model
What are the dangers of this kind of disease treatment? Here are explanations of the disadvantages listed at the beginning of this section:
It sets people up for failure. All disease treatments emphasize how much out of control “patients” are, and what a delusion it is for them to feel they can exert any control over their addictions. Is it possible that such a message can do more harm than good?
William Miller and Reid Hester, reviewing all the comparative studies on treatment for alcoholism, made a surprising finding: in the only two studies in which alcoholics were randomly assigned either to A.A., to other forms of treatment, or to no treatment, those assigned to A.A. did no better or actually suffered more relapse than those who received other treatment or who weren’t treated at all!
Intrigued by this outcome, one of us wrote George Vaillant and asked him whether subjects he studied who abstained without entering formal treatment did better if they joined A.A. Again, A.A. members were less likely to maintain their abstinence.
Why would people be more likely to relapse if they entered A.A. than if they quit drinking on their own? There are several reasons. For one, people who enter A.A. are told they cannot succeed on their own. Therefore, if they should stop attending A.A., many are convinced that they will soon resume alcoholic drinking.
A.A. and disease treatments are especially defeatist in dealing with relapse. Accepting the disease-oriented philosophy of inevitable loss of control thus makes it more likely that the alcoholic will binge if he or she ever has a drink. Yet, Vaillant found, nearly all alcoholics will drink again at some time.
It makes matters worse than they are. Can attending A.A. or going into addiction treatment really cause people to develop some of their alcoholism symptoms? In his book Becoming Alcoholic, sociologist David Rudy reports on the time he spent observing A.A. meetings.
Rudy found that most people had to learn their role as alcoholics. An important “rite of passage” is the first time members tell their story for the group, beginning by acknowledging, “I am an alcoholic.” In Rudy’s words;
“The alcoholic’s tale “is made up of two parts: a story about how bad it was before A.A. and a story about how good it is now.”
Narcotics anonymous is the drug users version of AA, although is generally accepting of AA members as well
Related: The Truth About Drugs
This presentation is warmly greeted by the member’s sponsor in A.A., and the entire membership responds with enthusiastic acceptance of the convert.
When alcoholics introduce their experiences and symptoms in or treatment, the group or therapist homogenizes them through interpretation and clarification. For example, most people who enter have not had blackouts, which are more typical of long-term alcoholics than of the younger drinkers now flooding into treatment and A.A.
But blackouts are taken as the badge of alcoholism, and according to Rudy, “members learn the importance of blackouts as a behavior that verifies their alcoholism, and an indeterminable number of members who may not have had blackouts report them.” Rudy continues:
"When newcomers to A.A. claim that they cannot remember if they had any blackouts or not, other members use this claim as evidence of the event in question. As one member put it to a newcomer:
The reason you can’t remember is because alcohol fogs your brain. If it fogs your brain now after not drinking for a few days it must have fogged your brain before. See, you must have had blackouts then.”
A large part of alcoholism and drug treatment consists of group meetings where alcoholics or addicts “confront” one another and their problems. Newcomers who don’t report the correct symptoms are treated with knowing condescension or are actively hazed - sometimes quite abusively - until they “get” and repeat the party line.
When Dwight Gooden entered the alcoholism-andcocaine program at the Smithers Alcoholism Center, he described being assailed by his fellow residents there during the constant group-therapy sessions. “My stories weren’t as good as theirs. . . . They said, ‘C’mon, man, you’re lying.’ They didn’t believe me. . . . I cried a lot before I went to bed at night.”
After he left the Betty Ford Center, Chevy Chase reported that he had often been angry at the counselors, who heckled the residents mercilessly, constantly denigrating them and claiming they had been living worthless lives.
Related: Addictive behavior related to low levels of oxytocin
Does all this sound like good therapy technique? It is simple common sense that belief in your personal value and your own strength is superior to having these things denigrated for getting your life under control.
It stigmatizes people for life. The disease model puts a label on you that you can never outgrow. Once diseased, always diseased. The effects of this defeatist view are especially tragic - and unjust - in the case of people to whom the “disease” label is most inappropriately applied in the first place: teenage binge drinkers, most drunk drivers, “adult children of alcoholics,” recreational drug users discovered through drug tests, and - in areas not involving drugs or alcohol - overweight adolescents or “hyperactive” or “learning-disabled” children.
It brutalizes and brainwashes the young. The largest single age group of people undergoing hospital treatment today for chemical dependency, eating disorders, depression, and so forth is adolescents. A.A. members are also much younger today, on average, than when the fellowship was founded by a group of men with serious, lifelong drinking problems.
Nonetheless, virtually none of these young people meet clinical standards of alcoholism or drug addiction.
Indeed, numerous cases have been identified in which young people have been hospitalized for smoking marijuana or even for being suspected of using drugs.
When one such case was revealed on national television, an unusually forthright consultant for the National Association for Alcoholism Treatment Programs confessed, “I’m afraid this happens far more than people in the field want to admit; it’s something of a scandal.”
Meanwhile, A.A. and Alateen (for teenage children of alcoholics) groups now pervade high-school and college campuses. What is the impact of treatment that forces teenagers to take on the identity of addicts or alcoholics or children of alcoholics?
Young people are warned that their substance abuse is a permanent trait, even though we have seen that a large majority will outgrow substance-abuse problems as they mature.
Presenting this message to the young can only prolong or exacerbate their substance abuse, since it denies their own capacity for change and forces them to believe that any substance use for the rest of their lives will lead them back to excess, addiction, and drunkenness.
Young treatment grads who constantly relapse and return to treatment are the norm, as in the cases of Carrie Hamilton, Erinn Cosby, Drew Barrymore, and other young “patients” whose stories are less well publicized. Of course, the relapses are then attributed to their “disease” and to their failure to heed the treatment’s warning to abstain forever.
These programs fairly frequently involve emotional abuse. Such “treatments” for children include “refusing to allow them to wear street clothes, keeping them in isolation for prolonged periods, or forcing them to wear self-derogatory signs, engage in other humiliation rituals . . . , or submit to intense and prolonged group confrontation” all of which, psychologists believe, “may destroy the youngsters’ already fragile self-esteem.”
When we describe these experiences, treatment specialists often argue in response, “Well, what if the kids would end up dead if we didn’t do this to them?” In other words, to object to these programs is likened to promoting intoxication leading to death.
Certainly, it is crucial to prevent children from harming themselves, and it can be worthwhile to remove children from a problem home, whether through a residential program or a visit to a sympathetic relative.
But brainwashing, emotional blackmail, denigration, and psychological torture never work, except to make people so unsure of who they are or what they value that they will temporarily consent to the demands of those in charge.
Worst of all, therapies that were devised for the most incorrigible children - though they don’t benefit even these unfortunate kids have been spreading down the ladder to more and more children whose behavior represents typical adolescent exploration and insubordination.
Parents are then confronted over whether they want to “save” their kids or allow them to die, as though the latter were the normal outcome of adolescence. The threat of their children’s dying is then used as emotional blackmail to make parents accept the sacrifices necessary to place their children in expensive residential treatment programs.
It presents the alcoholic or addict as someone to emulate. Prominent graduates of treatment programs, like Drew Barrymore, Betty Ford, Kitty Dukakis, and a host of athletes now lecture to others about chemical dependency. If alcoholics and drug abusers suffer from a disease and are now recovering, then they can educate others about the disease and even about how young people should live and behave.
If, on the other hand, we think of them as people who are tremendously poor at self-management, then it is indeed stupid for the rest of us, who have not been seriously addicted, to ask them for advice and information. Someone like former football star Bob Hayes explains that he took and sold drugs as a result of an inherited disease.
One reviewer’s reaction to Hayes’s book, Run, Bullet, Run, could stand for any and all of these confessional tracts: “Aside from a brief closing statement on personal responsibility, he self-servingly portrays himself as a victim throughout the book.”
Alcoholics and addicts like Hayes regularly come into schools to relay their tortured drinking experiences and to reiterate that alcohol is a dangerous drug. But nearly every child in these schools will drink.
It is as though the schools wished to undermine children’s sense of self-control and to attack their chances of becoming normal drinkers, which in most cases their “nonexpert” parents are.
In treatment itself, “recovering” addicts and alcoholics counsel the drug or alcohol abuser - who usually has not drunk as destructively and hurt himself or herself as much as the counselors! In all types of twelve-step groups, the most severely debilitated person tends to become the leader and model for others, so that the most out-of-control shopping addict tells others about the nature of their problems.
Who should be counseling whom? In the case of drug abuse, a number of reviews have found that informational and scare lectures by recovering addicts produce the worst results of all prevention programs. These programs have never yet been found to reduce drug use; on the contrary, several studies have found increased drug use in their aftermath.
It ignores the rest of the person’s problems in favor of blaming them all on the addiction. When someone like Carrie Hamilton lectures about her youthful drug abuse and delinquency (often alongside her mother, Carol Burnett), she makes drug abuse and family failures sound like mysterious, unavoidable illnesses that some people and their parents “have.”
Of course, this excuses her and her mother from dealing with painful problems they would prefer to avoid. But by adopting the disease identity as her protection through the rest of her life, the youthful convert guarantees that she cannot grow beyond the limitations of her adolescent family life. Can people hope for more than this?
When treatment views alcoholics as being victims of a different body chemistry that forces them to become alcoholics, the treatment process ignores the person’s life problems and the functions drinking serves for the alcoholic.
Related: Feds try to suppress herbal molecule that makes your liver nearly 'bulletproof' against alcohol damage
For example, in family therapy where the alcoholic’s drinking is addressed as simply the result of a disease, the therapist and the family are not able to understand that some people use alcohol to air feelings they cannot express when sober.
Ignoring dynamics like these leaves the drinker unable to cope with the things that led him or her to need to drink - such as doubts about self-worth, a difficult relationship with a spouse, roles (such as homosexuality) that create conflict for the person, and so on.
If the labeling of alcoholism as a disease provides welcome relief from the shame of overdrinking. it also prevents people from confronting the emotional tasks they need to accomplish to attain personal wholeness.
It traps people in a world inhabited by fellow disease-sufferers. Many “recovering” people report that they feel comfortable only with others in exactly the same plight. They find they can’t create intimacy outside of treatment and that they are driven constantly to talk about their alcoholism or addiction.
This is a frequent hang-up for recovering alcoholics who attend A.A. meetings so religiously that they can’t maintain a life outside of the group. The phenomenon of compulsive therapy attendance has made many people ask us, “Is there such a thing as addiction to treatment?”
Indeed there is, when people rely on a twelve step group or therapy to the point where it disables them from conducting outside relationships and activities.
One of us has treated a number of A.A. members or treatment graduates who now fear they can’t deal with normal society. One man, who was regularly asked to head his local A.A. group, had dated a series of women he met at A.A. Unfortunately, all of these relationships had ended in bitterness and mutual recriminations.
But when he tried to date outside the group, he discovered that nonalcoholic women found him overbearing and compulsive.
“I don’t want to be limited for the rest of my life to dealing with alkies - I’d like to think I can advance beyond that; “ he plaintively told us.
This man felt that dealing exclusively with alcoholics was debilitating him, and yet he couldn’t escape A.A.
It excludes other approaches, many of which are more successful. Even if one accepts that many A.A. members are happy and successful, it is simply absurd to discourage people from trying to recover without A.A. The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (NCADD) frequently announces statistics about the continually rising costs of alcoholism and the increasing number of alcoholics in our society.
But, then, the NCADD is capable only of calling for more of the standard approach to treating alcoholism that has accompanied these increases, while discouraging all alternative approaches.
Why should things improve all of a sudden if we simply do more of the same? The A.A. approach to people’s drinking problems has shown conclusively that it cannot make a decisive difference for most active problem drinkers, since there are very few alcoholics who aren’t already aware of - or who haven’t already attended - A.A.
Meanwhile, greater numbers of people are being forced to enter private treatment centers and A.A. as a result of court orders, Employee Assistance Programs, or school counseling programs.
Despite the almost universal belief that compelling people to attend standard treatment programs is helpful, these programs regularly demonstrate they are no more effective than self-initiated programs for curing addictions.
Psychologists William Miller and Reid Hester, reviewing all the comparative studies on treatment for alcoholism, made a surprising finding:
“Virtually all of them [the standard treatments] lacked adequate scientific evidence of effectiveness.”
At the same time, they discovered, the “treatment approaches most clearly supported as effective... were very rarely used in American treatment programs.”
What don’t really work in the long run are the conversion-experience type treatments; what do work are therapies that teach people skills at self-management and coping.
Nonetheless, most American treatment personnel seem hell-bent on eliminating any other treatment for alcoholism besides twelve-step programs. In the United States, discredited disease-treatment programs - ones that NIAAA Director Enoch Gordis believes may be “frequently useless and wasteful and sometimes dangerous” - proliferate and spread into whole new areas of behavior.
This issue is important because the United States spends more money on health care than any other country - and the percentage of our gross national product that we spend on health care is growing faster than that in any other country.
The fastest-growing component of the health-care system is substance abuse and related mental-health treatments. According to a hospital trade publication;
“Psychiatric, chemical dependency and rehabilitative hospital care - all largely unregulated by government payment mechanisms - are booming.”
This is one reason so many companies are being forced to cut insurance benefits or are asking employees to pay a greater share. What if your insurance rates were raised to pay for a fellow employee who was undergoing a repeat treatment for cocaine addiction, since he had relapsed one or more times?
How would you feel about sharing the bill for a colleague who entered an expensive hospital eating-disorders clinic?
Do you think that smokers who want to quit should enter treatment programs and be excused from work, with pay, while they concentrate on quitting? And, especially, how would you react if you had quit smoking on your own?
It is morally and economically necessary for us to evaluate the effectiveness of alcoholism and other addiction treatments. For we are wasting limited health-care resources to place people in expensive treatments - treatments that have not shown they do more than inexpensive, straightforward skills counseling or than people accomplish on their own—often more reliably!
Kitty Dukakis: “Chemical Dependency” Reduced to Absurdity
Kitty Dukakis became the paradigm of the addicted person of the 1990s. Kitty Dukakis has been eager all along to accept the “disease” and “chemically dependent” labels. Advertisements for her autobiography, Now You Know, trumpet the opening line of the book, “I’m Kitty Dukakis and I’m a drug addict and an alcoholic.”
Mrs. Dukakis seemingly has been either addicted or in treatment throughout her adult life. Shortly before she joined her husband in his 1988 presidential campaign, she revealed that she had been treated for a twenty-six-year reliance on diet pills, which she began before she married Michael Dukakis.
Soon after her husband’s defeat in the election, she began to drink herself unconscious and underwent a series of treatments for her alcoholism and for a variety of emotional problems.
That treatment did not succeed. Mrs. Dukakis only began getting drunk after the election, for which she first entered the Edgehill Newport hospital.
But soon after this treatment experience, she began having explosive relapses in which she drank rubbing alcohol, nail polish remover, hair spray, and other commercial products containing alcohol.
Moreover, she discovered during the course of writing her book that she suffers from another disease - manic-depressive disorder - and as a result she ends the book with the revelation that she is receiving lithium treatment.
Previously, Mrs. Dukakis had been prescribed Prozac, a drug featured on the cover of Newsweek in 1990 as a new miracle in the treatment of depression, to no avail.
Mrs. Dukakis appears, in the book and on television, a forlorn being. Indeed, syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, who had known Mrs. Dukakis, wrote a column entitled “Do Our Drug Treatment Programs Label Patients as Losers?” Ms. Goodman wondered aloud how labeling oneself as sick and without hope is helpful.
“What happens when those who wrestle with problems of self-esteem are required to wear such a label? . . . Today, Kitty Dukakis describes herself by diagnosis. Drug addict. Alcoholic. Manic-depressive.”
Ms. Goodman ended her column by wishing that Kitty Dukakis might see the brighter qualities that others have seen in her, and which seem entirely to have disappeared thanks to her various diagnoses and cures.
It seems clear that excessive drinking is only the tip of Mrs. Dukakis’s problems, and that medical treatment will never get to the bottom of them. Labeling Kitty Dukakis as a “sick” person who needs medical treatment is a palliative for her uncomfortable marital and personal problems.
Reviewers have commented about how insensitive and unaware of her problems Michael Dukakis appeared to be, yet Kitty never reflects on the limitations of her spouse or their relationship.
Somehow, her never-ending disease-oriented treatment fails to raise crucial issues for Mrs. Dukakis about a life and marriage she seems to have found intolerable.
Will Kitty Dukakis be writing another book in which she reveals she has discovered she is suffering from one more dis-ease that of codependence?
With Kitty Dukakis as a prominent model of the addict/alcoholic, those who look to her life for answers are being fed yet another self-defeating solution. To call Kitty Dukakis’s and her audiences’ problems diseases is to evade reality, much as Mrs. Dukakis used diet pills and alcohol to do.
Whether the pain Mrs. Dukakis and others feel is temporary or persistent, relatively mild or relatively severe, it does not need to rule the rest of their lives. Kitty Dukakis and the rest of us are more than our misery and problems.
Moreover, what troubles her and those like her are life problems, not diseases. And when we have reduced them to life size, we can begin to deal with them reasonably and hopefully.
The Experience of Addiction
The question is: “If addiction isn’t a disease, then what is it?” An addiction is a habitual response and a source of gratification or security.
It is a way of coping with internal feelings and external pressures that provides the addict with predictable gratifications, but that has concomitant costs.
Eventually these costs may outweigh the subjective benefits the addiction offers the individual. Nonetheless, people continue their addictions as long as they believe the addictions continue to do something for them.
It is important to place addictive habits in their proper context, as part of people’s lives, their personalities, their relationships, their environments, their perspectives. The effort to change an addiction will generally affect all these other facets of a person’s life as well.
An addiction may involve any attachment or sensation that grows to such proportions that it damages a person’s life.
Addictions, no matter to what, follow certain common patterns. We first made clear in Love and Addiction that addiction - the single-minded grasping of a magic-seeming object or involvement; the loss of control, perspective, and priorities - is not limited to drug and alcohol addictions.
When a person becomes addicted, it is not to a chemical but to an experience. Anything that a person finds sufficiently consuming and that seems to remedy deficiencies in the person’s life can serve as an addiction.
The addictive potential of a substance or other involvement lies primarily in the meaning it has for a person.
A person is vulnerable to addiction when that person feels a lack of satisfaction in life, an absence of intimacy or strong connections to other people, a lack of self-confidence or compelling interests, or a loss of hope.
Periods such as adolescence, military service, and times of isolation or grief may for a time make people especially susceptible to an addiction.
Related: Sadness: The Problem and The Solution
Under some circumstances, a harmful involvement can become so important to a person that addiction is very likely, as heroin addiction was for many in Vietnam.
Situations in which people are deprived of family and the usual community supports; where they are denied rewarding or constructive activities; where they are afraid, uncomfortable, and under stress; and where they are out of control of their lives - these are situations especially likely to create addiction.
The relationship between hopelessness, lack of opportunity, and persistent addiction is, of course, a template for lives in ghettos. Recognizing the connection between these situational factors and addiction will explain why our wars on drugs, including the latest, never succeed.
The “hook” of the addiction - the thing that keeps people coming back to it - is that it gives people feelings and gratifying sensations that they are not able to get in other ways. It may block out sensations of pain, uncertainty, or discomfort. It may create powerfully distracting sensations that focus and absorb attention. It may enable a person to forget, or feel “okay” about, insurmountable problems.
Related: American Drug Trafficking Pilot Tells All From Prison
It may provide artificial, temporary feelings of security or calm, of self-worth or accomplishment, of power or control, of intimacy or belonging.
These benefits explain why a person keeps coming back to the addictive experience - an addiction accomplishes something for that person, or the person anticipates that it will do so, however illusory these benefits may actually be.
Addiction, drug abuse, alcoholism, obesity, and smoking all involve and are fueled by value choices. Think of people whose lives are “together” - who enjoy strong emotional bonds with others, productive work, satisfying feelings of competence and of fun, and a sense of responsibility toward others.
Will they become addicted to drugs or alcohol because of some physiological susceptibility and allow the addiction to undo the fabric of their lives? For you personally, can you imagine getting so drunk that you would abuse your infant child? It just doesn’t happen that way.
If you have better things to do and value other things more than escape into intoxication, then you won’t make intoxication the center of your life. And if you are addicted, you can best overcome it by creating or re-creating those personal strengths and values.
Related: Guide for Addicted Veterans and their Families
Whatever the subjective benefits of an addiction or the values that drive an addiction, the person pays a price for an addictive involvement. Addictions make people less aware of and less able to respond to other people, events, and activities. Thus, the addictive experience reinforces and exacerbates the problems the person wanted so badly to get away from in the first place.
In the person’s inner, subjective experience, the addiction may make things seem better. But in the real world, it only makes things worse. With the worst addictions, jobs and relationships fall away; health deteriorates; debts increase; opportunities disappear; the business of life is neglected.
The person is increasingly “out of touch” with nourishing contacts and essential responsibilities. This growing disengagement from the realities of life sets the person up for the trauma of withdrawal. When the addictive experience is removed, the person is deprived of what has become his or her primary source of comfort and reassurance.
Simultaneously, the person “crash-lands” back onto an inhospitable world, a world from which the person has been using the addiction to escape. Compared with these existential torments, the purely physical dislocations of withdrawal are, even for most heroin addicts, not particularly debilitating.
After all, nearly everyone who receives powerful narcotics in the hospital gives them up after returning home or when the illness is over. Consider also that drug addicts and alcoholics indicate that the most unbearable drug withdrawal is from cigarettes.
And if one puts all withdrawal on a scale, probably the worst of all occurs in the case of failed love relationships.
The experience of withdrawal, like that of addiction, is shaped by the way a person interprets it. In therapeutic communities like Daytop Village in New York, addicts are not excused from their normal duties when they undergo withdrawal; as a result, withdrawing addicts - even those who have had several withdrawal episodes previously - continue mopping floors and carrying out other duties.
Cultural beliefs also play a crucial role in addiction - for example, beliefs that are widely propagated about the power of a drug to enslave a person and the difficulty of escaping it actually contribute to the difficulties of withdrawal. Equally important are the person’s readiness to confront withdrawal and belief that he or she can manage it.
If you are convinced that withdrawal will be intolerably painful and that you cannot withstand it, or if you don’t have sufficiently powerful reasons to confront withdrawal experiences, you won’t be prepared to withdraw from your addiction.The addict who feels incapable of existing without a drug can never successfully withdraw, and doesn’t want to try.
Ironically, one of the beliefs that most contribute to the susceptibility to addiction is the belief in the power of addiction itself. Believing that drugs are stronger than you are means you will become addicted more easily and stay addicted longer.
But if you recognize that drugs and alcohol never take away your own responsibilities and capacity to control your destiny - even if you have alcoholic relatives or have had addictive problems in the past - you always stand a better chance of avoiding addiction or dealing with it successfully.
A Commonsense Way of Thinking About Overcoming an Addiction
Although the schematic description above is useful for understanding what addiction is and how it comes about, we need not think of all our troublesome habits or fixations in such dire terms.
In fact, when we overdramatize our addictions, we may do ourselves an injustice and make change more difficult. An addiction may be more or less severe - and a person may be more or less able to give it up - depending on the circumstances of the person’s life.
Addiction is more likely in stressful times, times when gratifications are slim, times when a person is less together or secure.
Likewise, one type of excess may be more stubbornly entrenched in a person’s routine, or more closely linked to a person’s self-doubt and insecurity, than another.
Addiction occurs along a continuum - there is no easy test to tell you whether you have an addiction or just a bad habit. For example, by some estimates, half of all Americans are overweight. Are they all addicted overeaters?
Many people encounter significant health risks because of the way they eat (recall that heart disease is America’s major killer). Are these the addicts? Some people are preoccupied day and night with their eating; they are suffused with guilt over eating too much, yet they are unable to change their eating habits.
Surely, these are the addicts, we think. A still more limited group of people encounter major health problems through their overweight, severely restricting their lives, but are unable to modify their eating habits.
At the furthest extreme of addiction are the minuscule number of people who become so fat they are completely immobile - people we sometimes see on television who may not even be able to fit through their doorways.
If we call only these people - people who have given up all effort to control their eating - true addicts, we end up with a fraction of a percentage of addicted overeaters, and books wouldn’t need to be written for millions of people who fear they have food addictions.
Moreover, for this minuscule group, concepts such as “denial” hardly seem to have meaning - does the twelve-hundred-pound man who hasn’t left his house in years really need to be told that he has an addictive eating problem?
For most people, the exercise of drawing the line that divides “addicted” from “normal” is not very helpful. We need to remember that nearly all people cut back and forth across these categories at different points in their lives and in different situations.
Although letting your urges overcome you to gain total control of your life is a relatively rare phenomenon, everyone has addictive urges and sometimes gives in to them. Addiction characterizes some aspect of everyone’s life - this is one reason why it is so ridiculous to think of it as a disease.
Thin people whom we envy for their self-control will tell us there are some treats they can’t keep in the house because otherwise they would eat them all at once. Remember that people whom we admire for having had the strength to quit smoking used to search ashtrays desperately looking for a butt when they ran out of cigarettes!
What we most need to know is not how bad off or how genuinely addicted we are but, rather, how people learn to resist successfully the addictive or unhealthy urges that come with being human.
How do they construct full lives, develop alternatives to addiction, learn the strength to stop after having started or, when necessary, not to start at all?
Let us start, then, with alcoholism, the addiction most commonly referred to as a disease. There must be - there is - a better way to understand and redirect the paths people take into and out of problem drinking.
Here’s How Industry-Funded “Research” Is Making Us Sick And Fat + Like Tobacco And Big Pharma, The Sugar Industry Has Manipulated Research For 50 Years
October 26 2016 | From: DaisyLuther / NaturalBlaze
A scathing new study has put artificial sweeteners under the spotlight and is supporting what health writers have been saying for years.
The researchers have found that most of the previous studies into the sweeteners touting their alleged “health advantages” over using sugar as a sweetener, were written or sponsored by the companies that produce the products.
Related: The Top 10 Tricks Used By Corporate Junk Science
"A trio of researchers from John Hopkins University in Maryland, the University of California San Francisco, and Australia’s University of Sydney took an extensive look at 31 past reviews on the potential weight loss effects of artificial sweeteners.
They found that studies directly funded by sweetener companies or published in industry-funded journals were more likely to find positive health benefits compared to reviews funded independently or by the competing sugar industry.
Similarly, reviews authored by scientists who had a relevant financial conflict of interest were also less likely to shine a harsh light on sweeteners, either directly via positive results or by putting a positive spin on negative results when discussing their conclusions."
Note that even the “healthy” sweetener that is supposedly made from stevia hardly contains any stevia at all - Truvia is still made up of terrible chemical ingredients that are hazardous to your health.
Earlier this month it was discovered that the sugar industry paid the equivalent of nearly $50,000 in today’s dollars to fund a review back in 1967 that concluded fats were the leading cause of heart disease and sugar had little nothing to do with heart disease risk.
"In the 1950s, studies showing a link between coronary heart disease (CHD) and sugar intake started to emerge.
When the sugar industry (which many not-so-affectionately call “Big Sugar”) got wind of this not-so-sweet news, they paid scientists to downplay the link and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, a new study has revealed.
The research, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, was based on thousands of pages of Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) documents, reports, and statements that Cristin E. Kearns, a postdoctoral fellow at UCSF, discovered in the basement at Harvard University.
The SRF (known today as The Sugar Association) sponsored its first CHD “research project” in 1965 – a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The review’s objective was established by SRF, and the group contributed articles for inclusion and received drafts. The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed.
Why is this a big deal?
Big Sugar paid Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to influence the review, and subsequently spent $600, 000 ($5.3 million in 2016 dollars) to teach “people who had never had a course in biochemistry… that sugar is what keeps every human being alive and with energy to face our daily problems.”
- Read the rest of this article here
For years many industries have delayed the publication of research that may put their products in a bad light, others have simply paid off researchers to point the finger of blame at other products, as did the Sugar Association in 1967.
The revelations over sweeteners come as no surprise, but they should remind us that we need to do our own research rather than taking something at face value just because there was a “study.”
Drugs companies, the oil industry, and tobacco companies have all used such tactics in the past.
This isn’t new. The FDA upholds these studies all the time, and products that could literally kill us end up on the store shelves marked as safe, false nutritional information that supports the sugar lobby and the grain lobby is touted as the truth, and Americans get sicker and fatter as a result.
Industries and individual companies have paid researchers to lie or distort the truth on their behalf in order to sell more of their products. Not only is this shameful behavior from the companies, but also from the researchers that compromised their science to accommodate them.
The results of such spurious research have an even further effect. Fewer people start to trust medical and scientific research - including well-executed and honest research.
The answer as always it to look behind the headlines, find the counter arguments, track down the source of the funding, and make your decisions accordingly.
PS: The best quality low-carb sweetener we’ve gotten our hands on is Agave 5 – you can find it here.
Related: The Shocking Story of How Aspartame Became Legal + What Is Aspartame? Five Surprising Facts You Never Know About This Chemical Sweetener
Like Tobacco And Big Pharma, The Sugar Industry Has Manipulated Research For 50 Years
Don’t you love people who cling to scientific research without ever questioning who sponsored that research? Using archival documents, a new report published by JAMA Internal Medicine examines the sugar industry’s role in heart disease research.
The study suggests that the sugar industry sponsored research to influence the scientific debate to cast doubt on the hazards of sugar and to promote dietary fat as the culprit in heart disease. Governments worldwide agreed just like they did with the tobacco industry and big pharma.
Related: The Sugar Conspiracy - Professor John Yudkin: The Man Who Tried To Warn Us About Sugar
The sugar industry was instrumental in influencing the prevailing thinking about fat, obesity and related diseases holding that quantifying calories should be a principal concern and target for intervention.
Part of this thinking is that consumed calories - regardless of their sources - are equivalent; i.e. ‘a calorie is a calorie’. There needs to be a greater qualitative focus on the sources of calories consumed (i.e. a greater focus on types of foods) and on the metabolic changes that result from consuming foods of different types.
Calorie-focused thinking is inherently biased against high-fat foods, many of which may be protective against obesity and related diseases, and supportive of starchy and sugary replacements, which are likely detrimental.
The intake of dietary fructose increased significantly from 1970 to 2000. There has been a 25% increase in available “added sugars” during this period. The average person has a daily added sugar intake of 79 g (equivalent to 15% of energy intake), approximately half of which was fructose.
Related: New Zealand Considers Taxing Sugar While New Zealand Government Invests $240m In Coca Cola And Fast Food Chains
A report - authored by Cristin E. Kearns, Laura A. Schmidt, and Stanton A. Glantz of the University of California, San Francisco - examined internal documents from the Sugar Research Foundation (which later evolved into the Sugar Association).
The Sugar Research Foundation started doing research on coronary heart disease research in 1965; its first project was a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967.
The review focused on fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of coronary heart disease, downplaying sugar consumption as a risk factor.
UCSF researchers have recently claimed sugar should be controlled like alcohol and tobacco to protect public health since it is fueling a global obesity pandemic, contributing to 35 million deaths annually worldwide from non-communicable diseases like diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
Like manufacturers from both Big Tobacco and Big Pharma who denied the presence of any danger in their products and even spent millions of dollars trying to discredit the research that points to problems, the Sugar Industry followed suit.
Related: Rumsfeld & Monsanto Team Up To Bring You Neuro-Toxic Aspartame & Splenda
While the Sugar Research Foundation’s funding and role were not disclosed, internal documents reveal that the organization set the review’s objective, contributed articles to be included, and received drafts - a “smoking gun” linking the industry’s influence over the research it paid for, writes Marion Nestle in a related commentary, also published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“This 50-year-old incident may seem like ancient history, but it is quite relevant, not least because it answers some questions germane to our current era. Is it really true that food companies deliberately set out to manipulate research in their favor?
Yes, it is, and the practice continues,” writes Nestle, the Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU Steinhardt."
“Industry-sponsored nutrition research, like that of research sponsored by the tobacco, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries, almost invariably produces results that confirm the benefits or lack of harm of the sponsor’s products, even when independently sponsored research comes to opposite conclusions,” Nestle adds.
Nestle says the report should serve as a warning to policymakers, researchers, clinicians, and journalists in carefully interpreting studies funded by food companies with vested interests in the results, and highlights the need to find better ways to fund studies and to prevent and disclose conflicts of interest.
Related: Big Tobacco Misrepresented Dangers From Cigarettes, Same For Big Pharma With Vaccines
This Is How Your ‘Aura’ Affects Your Health & Those Around You + Magnetic Fields Of The Human Body And Their Functions & 13 Signs You Are Experiencing A Spiritual Awakening
October 24 2016 | From: CollectiveEvolution / SitsShow / TheUnboundedSpirit
An ‘aura’ field can be defined as a luminous glow or radiation that surrounds a person’s body, almost like a halo. Ancient depictions of religious and spiritual figures often feature this aura, but today, modern science is discovering that we are all, in fact, surrounded by this type of field, and it can actually affect the way we feel.
We know that energy cannot be seen with the naked human eye, which is why attempts to measure invisible phenomena scientifically are often greeted with harsh criticism, but thanks to the groundbreaking work of dedicated scientists from all over the world, the concept of non-material science is starting to become accepted in the mainstream.
This refers to the idea that the physical material reality we perceive with our senses isn’t the only reality that’s available for us to study in a modern day scientific manner.
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
– Nikola Tesla
Before getting into how our aura can affect us and those around us, I’d like to mention that human thoughts, intentions, feelings and emotions - ‘factors associated with consciousness’ - have been shown to have a direct effect on and correlation to our physical material world.
"The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.
Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual."
- Sir James Jeans (“The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005)
To see a more in-depth explanation of how factors associated with consciousness are intertwined with our physical material reality you can read this article:
Physicists Examine Consciousness & Conclude The Universe Is ‘Spiritual, Immaterial & Mental
The Human Aura
Work by the brilliant scientists over at the Institute of HeartMath can perhaps best shed light on one aspect of human aura. A large portion of their research has investigated heart and brain interaction.
Researchers have examined how the heart and brain communicate with each other and how that affects our consciousness and the way in which we perceive our world. For example, when a person is feeling really positive emotions like gratitude, love, or appreciation, the heart beats out a certain message.
Because the heart beats out the largest electromagnetic field produced in the body, researchers are able to gather significant data from it. According to Rolin McCratey, Ph.D, and Director of Research at the Institute:
"Emotional information is actually included and modulated into these fields. By learning to shift our emotions, we are changing the information coded into the magnetic fields that are radiated by the heart, and that can impact those around us.
We are fundamentally and deeply connected with each other and the planet itself, and what we do individually really does count and matters."
Did you know that your heart emits electromagnetic fields which change according to your emotions, or that the human heart has a magnetic field that can be measured up to several feet away from the human body?
Did you know that positive emotions create physiological benefits in your body, or that you can boost your immune system by conjuring up positive emotions?
Did you know that negative emotions can create nervous system chaos, and that positive emotions do the complete opposite?
The bottom line is, feelings of love, gratitude, and compassion – any positive feelings whatsoever – have a larger impact than we could have ever imagined.
The Spiritual Heart - is in a way a little like a smart phone, invisibly connecting us to a large network of information. It is through an unseen energy that the heart emits that humans are profoundly connected to all living things. The energy of the heart literally links us to each other. Every person's heart contributes to a 'collective field environment.' This short video explains the importance of this connection and how we each add to this collective energy field. The energetic field of the heart even connects us with the earth itself.
It’s fascinating to consider how the heart’s magnetic field might be interacting with and affecting other people, and it leads me to wonder if perhaps the electromagnetic fields around our bodies are somehow connected to that of the Earth.
What type of effect, if any, might the information coded into our electromagnetic fields have on the information coded into the Earth’s field? It’s all very exciting, and there are so many questions still left to answer.
Below is a video of Dr. Konstantin Korotkov, a professor of physics at St. Petersburg State Technical University, who believes that our positive and negative thoughts each have a different impact on our surrounding environment.
A Russian scientist is trying to convince people they can change the world simply by using their own energy. He claims that thinking in a certain way can have a positive or negative effect on the surrounding environment. "We are developing the idea that our consciousness is part of the material world and that with our consciousness we can directly influence our world," said Dr. Konstantin Korotkov, a professor of physics at St. Petersburg State Technical University. To bridge our understanding of the unseen world of energy, scientific experiments are being carried out using a technique called bioelectrophotography. The assumption is that we are constantly emitting energy. Bioelectrophotography aims to capture these energy fields seen as a light around the body -- or what some people would call your aura.
He has developed a scientific device based on the ancient Chinese system of energy meridians which measures the bio-energy of living organisms, as well as the environment.
The device, called the GDV, uses a completely painless electrical current applied to the fingertips - taking less than one millisecond to work - to highlight potential health (physiological and psycho-emotional) abnormalities.
The body’s response is measured in the form of an “electron cloud” which is composed of light energy photons. The glow of this discharge is invisible to the human eye (humans can only see one percent of the entire electromagnetic spectrum) and is captured by an optical CCD camera system and then translated into a digital computer.
In the GDV software programs, the glow from the different sectors of the finger images is projected onto the shape of a human body in correspondence with the location of the different organs and systems. As a result, it produces energy field images that allow for intuitive analysis of the physiological level of human body functioning.
It has been approved and received registration as a routine medical diagnostic device by the Russian Ministry of Health upon recommendation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
According to Eastern metaphysical theories of Ayurvedic Indian medicine, there are seven “Chakras,” or integrated energy centers, correlated with physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being.
These energy Chakras are positioned or embedded into the spinal column at various locations beginning with the coccyx, rising all the way to the crown of the head.
Dr. Pradeep B. Deshpande, a Professor Emeritus at the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Louisville, explains:
"Each Chakra is considered to resonate at a different frequency level. With new BioWell software, it is now possible to quantitatively estimate the energy of Chakras and graphically display their level of activation, and indicate whether this level of activation is above or below the level found from large numbers of subjects.
The results from a case study he conducted involving over 100 participants in attendance indicate that imbalanced Chakras are easily detectable:
"Each individual sector or portion of the fingertip is connected energetically with specific organs and organ systems such as the respiratory system. When the data of the 10 individual BIO-grams are collated and interpolated, an image of the entire full body energy field is created.
An example of the full body energy field from a healthy and unhealthy/emotionally unbalanced individual are shown above. The gaps and the reduced emissions and out-of-balance Chakras for the unhealthy individual are quite obvious."
Please keep in mind that clinical studies of more than 10,000 patient cases with various health challenges have also been well documented in Russia.
How to See a Human Aura in 5 Minutes
Magnetic Fields Of The Human Body And Their Functions
Manly P. Hall is a philosopher and mystic from the early 20th century. Some view him as a pillar of esoteric knowledge, while others think he was part of a dark cabal that has infiltrated Masonic lodges throughout the globe.
Hall did not work his way up the degrees as most Masons do. Instead, he was given an honorary 33rd degree after establishing himself as a learned scholar in many fields.
While it is all too easy to label someone "evil" purely for an association to a group that has overall been corrupted to a large extent, those who truly seek knowledge and wisdom beyond armchair judgments can see past a book's cover, for the wisdom within its pages.
Those who dismiss what Hall had to say are the ones who miss out on the knowledge he has to offer but if one can look past appearances, then a wealth of information can be claimed.
I think that knowledge is everywhere, even held within the hands of some of the most diabolical people on the planet. But in receiving these gems of wisdom, we need not consider ourselves evil or supporting those who act insidiously.
Knowledge is amoral. When used in the right hands it can be a powerful tool. but in the wrong hands (usually the ignorant), it can be a destructive weapon. But for the one who foolishly dismisses wisdom because of an appearance alone, they will suffer the pitfalls of their own prejudice.
But for the truly discerning, the ability to absorb data from any source is the key to personal growth and evolution. To the discerning mind, wisdom can be found everywhere, but it will remain hidden behind a veil if we never explore it.
As such, if you have prejudices about Manly P. Hall because of his association with Freemasonry, I ask you to set them aside and open your heart and mind to hear what he has to say.
And I will share that the concept of magnetic fields affecting the body is hardly new and has been well established for years. Our energetic body connects directly to the Earth-mother in many ways, earthing and geomagnetic fields are some of them. Both of these play an important role in restoring the health of mind, body, and soul.
Related: Telepathy will be Enabled by the Earth's Magnetic Field on a Global Scale
Related: NASA Confirms: People Are Capable Of Super Human Abilities Using These Ancient Techniques!
Magnetic Fields of the Human Body and Their Functions is the title of an interview with Manly P. Hall, a Freemason who was very knowledgeable in esoteric teachings.
I do not agree with everything that Manly teaches; however, in the interview, he shared a lot of very important information about energy fields and the human body, so if you want to learn some empowering information about energy fields and the human body, I highly encourage you to watch and listen to the interview.
Manly Palmer Hall (March 18, 1901 – August 29, 1990) was a Canadian-born author and mystic. He is perhaps most famous for his work The Secret Teachings of All Ages: An Encyclopedic Outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy, which is widely regarded as his magnum opus, and which he published at the age of 25 (or 27, 1928)
He has been widely recognized as a leading scholar in the fields of religion, mythology, mysticism, and the occult.
Carl Jung, when writing Psychology and Alchemy, borrowed material from Hall’s private collection.
In 1934, Hall founded the Philosophical Research Society (PRS) in Los Angeles, California, dedicating it to an idealistic approach to the solution of human problems.
The PRS claims to be non-sectarian and entirely free from educational, political, or ecclesiastical control, and the Society’s programs stress the need for the integration of philosophy, religion, and science into one system of instruction.
The PRS Library, a public facility devoted to source materials in obscure fields, has many rare and scarce items now impossible to obtain elsewhere.
In 1973 (47 years after writing The Secret Teachings of All Ages), Hall was recognized as a 33Âº Mason (the highest honor conferred by the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite), at a ceremony held at PRS on December 8th, despite never being initiated into the physical craft.
In his over 70-year career, Hall delivered approximately 8,000 lectures in the United States and abroad, authored over 150 books and essays, and wrote countless magazine articles.
Manly Hall: Magnetic Fields of the Human Body and Their Functions
13 Signs You Are Experiencing A Spiritual Awakening
Here are 13 crystal clear signs that you’re experiencing a spiritual awakening:
1. You desire less stuff and more simplicity. You realize that the less you possess the more unburdened your psyche is, and instead of wanting to acquire material wealth, you are seeking to find your inner wealth.
2. You are drawn to mind-expanding books. You don’t read books anymore just in order to entertain yourself when you feel like having nothing better to do, and choose to read those books that help you to become the greatest version of yourself.
3. You spend more time alone in silence. You go for solitary walks in nature and meditate in silence so as to reconnect and make peace with yourself.
4. You eat healthier and take better care of your body. You start treating your body like it’s sacred, listening to its wisdom, and keeping it as healthy as you can.
5. You feel more connected to nature and all living beings. You recognize the interconnectedness and interdependence of all beings and feel a sense of oneness with everyone and everything.
6. You feel compassion about the suffering in the world. You become aware of how much pain there is all around you and do your best to alleviate it in any way you can.
7. You take responsibility in your hands. You realize that there’s no point in having a victim’s mentality and blaming others for what’s going wrong in your life, and you take conscious action to shape your destiny.
8. You are mindful of your actions. You’ve discovered the tremendous power of your actions and you make sure to act in ways that don’t negatively affect yourself and the world.
9. The past and the future lose control over your life. You understand that the past and future don’t truly exist, and the only moment that was, is, and will ever be is the present.
10. You have a deep yearning for meaning. You comprehend that living a normal life is empty of meaning and purpose, and you seek to create your own path in your life’s journey.
11. You are more creative. You feel an increased desire to creatively express yourself and turn your dreams into reality.
12. You expose your true self to the world. You’ve dropped your social masks of pretense and you are open to communicate your innermost thoughts and feelings with others without feeling guilty or ashamed.
13. You have a loss of interest in competition. You realize that competition brings conflict and suffering, and that the only way to live in harmony with others is by having a loving and compassionate attitude towards them.
US Attorney General Finally Admits Weed Isn’t A Gateway Drug - Prescription Pills Are + Study Proves Medical Marijuana Can Replace Dangerous Pharmaceuticals
October 21 2016 | From: TheAntiMedia / NaturalNews / Various
The National Institute on Drug Abuse is a U.S. federal research institute focused on “[advancing] science on the causes and consequences of drug use and addiction … to apply that knowledge to improve individual and public health. ”
Though it admits “the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, ‘harder’ substances,” it still describes marijuana as a gateway drug.
Related: New Discovery Proves Humans Have Been Using Cannabis for at Least 2,400 Years
But U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently told a group of Kentucky high school students the role of marijuana in the national drug abuse debate has been overstated.
While discussing how heroin abuse and how individuals often develop an addiction, Lynch argued:
'“[I]ndividuals [start out] with a prescription drug problem, and then because they need more and more, they turn to heroin. It isn’t so much that marijuana is the step right before using prescription drugs or opioids - it is true that if you tend to experiment with a lot of things in life, you may be inclined to experiment with drugs, as well. But it’s not like we’re seeing that marijuana as a specific gateway.”
Attorney General Lynch added that instead of trafficking rings, what “introduce[s] a person to opioids … [is] the household medicine cabinet.”
The event she attended was part of the Prescription Opioid Heroin Epidemic Awareness Week, a campaign designed by the White House that includes “250 different events highlighting the importance of prevention, enforcement, and treatment.”
As expected, the campaign focused on advertising the official approach to drug abuse, encouraging the public to support the Obama administration’s approach to the opioid crisis.
Measures embraced by the administration include “expanding evidence-based prevention and treatment programs, increasing access to the overdose-reversal medicine naloxone, and supporting targeted enforcement activities.”
But nowhere in the official campaign page is there a list of practical solutions to the opioid crisis, an admission of guilt, or a concession stating that, despite marijuana’s official federal classification, cannabis is not seen as the root of the problem by the very head of the United States Department of Justice.
In early August, the Obama administration said no to a bid urging the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reconsider how marijuana is classified under federal drug control laws. Currently, the DEA lists marijuana as a Schedule I drug, along with heroin, the pivot drug of the opioid epidemic.
But as the Attorney General’s comments demonstrate, the federal government fails to take its own classification methodology seriously, choosing instead to contend that prescription drug abuse is a much bigger issue.
Related: All signs point to a corporate takeover of the marijuana industry by Bayer, Monsanto
Per its federal classification, marijuana should be seen as a threat as dangerous as heroin, and yet Lynch appears to contend the abuse of legal drugs is keeping federal agents busy - not the enforcement of her agency’s own rules.
What Lynch is failing to discuss on the federal government’s anti-opioid abuse campaign trail is the racist, opportunistic roots of the failed and decades-long drug war in America.
But as American states begin to shift their approach to some of the targets of this nationwide anti-drug campaign, legalized marijuana is able to accomplish what many drug war apologists claimed criminalization would achieve: bringing down the drug cartels. But as the Washington Post report demonstrates, legalizing pot is not enough.
While powerful drug cartels have seen legalized marijuana taking a chunk out of their profits, the criminalization of other drugs such as heroin continues to put addicts in harm’s way.
With drug cartels seeing an increase in demand due to the pressure mounting from the growth of the relationship between the government and the pharmaceutical industry, dangerous alternatives to heroin, such as fentanyl, are sold on the street as regular heroin.
Without legal means to produce the drugs the market demands, these cartels are not concerned with the quality of their product nor the health of their consumer.
When looking at the destruction stemming from the illegal drug trafficking industry, we are able to trace it back to the criminalization of drug commerce and use - and yet government officials prefer to live in the dark ages, upping their involvement with the war on yet another drug epidemic entirely manufactured by crony kingpins.
Opponents of medical marijuana laws have often claimed that legalizing marijuana use would lead to rampant drug abuse and have an adverse effect on society. Now that these laws have been instituted in some states for a few years, however, evidence is mounting that the opposite is actually true.
Study Proves Medical Marijuana Can Replace Dangerous Pharmaceuticals
In fact, it turns out that medical marijuana is so effective at treating pain that it's keeping many patients off prescription painkillers, which are a bigger threat to society than marijuana use, medical or otherwise, could ever be.
In a recent study, researchers discovered that Medicare reported savings of $165.2 million in 2013 on the prescription medications that are used to treat some of the conditions that can also be treated with marijuana.
These included depression, pain, seizures, nausea, glaucoma, anxiety, spasticity and sleep disorders. You may recall that 2013 was the year that 17 states put medical marijuana laws into place, along with the District of Columbia.
These impressive savings accounted for half a percent of the Medicare Part D budget for that year. In the study, all of the claims for prescriptions filed for the medications in question from 2010 to 2013 by Medicare Part D patients were reviewed.
Decreases were noted in the number of prescriptions that were written for medications other than marijuana for most of the conditions studied. For example, in states with legal medical marijuana, the prescriptions for pain medications were lower by a remarkable 1,826 daily doses compared to the states where medical marijuana is not legal.
The researchers estimate that Medicare could have saved $468 million on prescription drugs if every state had a medical marijuana law in place.
The sole exception was glaucoma, and this could be due to the fact that marijuana's effects on the condition tend to only last for about an hour. Prescriptions for medicines that marijuana is not used for, such as blood thinners, did not drop.
Researcher Ashley Bradford of the University of Georgia, who was the study's lead author, said: "The results suggest people are really using marijuana as medicine and not just using it for recreational purposes."
Medical Marijuana Could Alleviate The Nation's Opioid Crisis
This is good news for those suffering with these ailments, with marijuana proving to be a safer alternative to conventional medicine. Take the example of opioids, a type of painkiller that has been responsible for a slew of deadly overdoses.
A University of Michigan study found that patients with chronic pain who used medical marijuana reported a drop in their use of prescription opioids amounting to 64 percent. They also reported experiencing fewer side effects, and a 45 percent improvement in their quality of life since turning to cannabis for pain management.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 40 people die each day from overdosing on these drugs.
Bad News for Big Pharma
Anything that can steer people away from death-inducing prescription painkillers and other dangerous medications is a very positive step, no matter what your personal feelings are about marijuana.
Of course, Big Pharma does not share this view, as it threatens their profits, which also explains why they are hoping people won't catch on to the benefits of CBD oil from hemp for issues such as epilepsy.
Not only is marijuana very effective for many people, but it carries very few side effects, and is often more affordable than the pills Big Pharma is trying to push on people. This latest study showing that marijuana is replacing dangerous pharmaceuticals for many people might be bad news for Big Pharma, but it's good news for everybody else.
Why the War on Cannabis?
WHO Publishes Strategies For EU Healthcare Professionals To Convince Vaccine Deniers Vaccines Are Safe + News On Vaccine Safety Reveals Rampant Corruption
October 14 2016 | From: NaturalBlaze / AustralianNationalReview
Vaccines are taking a big hit on the refusal side from more and more people doing their due diligence and becoming more fully engaged in knowing what supposedly ‘safe’ vaccines really are about: Fraud and deceit on the part of the U.S. CDC and FDA, plus vested-interest ‘tobacco science’ from Big Pharma and vaccine manufacturers publishing falsified research and data, who ‘export’ their brand of pseudoscience.
Nothing confirms that more than the documentary movie VAXXED currently making the rounds in local movie theaters and on the Internet.
Related: VAXXED Documentary Explored with Filmmakers on Antidote
In view of the all the developing negative vaccine research and adverse health issues, the World Health Organization (WHO) apparently is trying to come to vaccines’ rescue by publishing the 44 page 2016 document, “How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public”.
What I found most amazing and ironically ‘curious’, if not pathetic, is the information on page 34 in Chapter 6 “How to Protect Yourself,” referring to the healthcare professional who is encouraged to go out and spread the vaccine ‘gospel’. Paradoxically, the WHO makes the following statement:
You have the right to say ‘No’. Your personal safety comes first. Consider the context and time of the discussion, and weigh up whether it is safe for you to take part.
Your mind stores thousands of pieces of information which it uses to warn you that something is wrong. Trust your instincts when you feel uncomfortable, get away from whatever situation you are in. You will only know if you were wrong if you ignore your instincts – is it worth the risk?"
Apparently, WHO believe doctors have the right of personal safety first, but what are the rights of innocent infants, toddlers, teens and adults from being forced to be vaccinated immediately after birth and into adulthood with Big Pharma’s “poison needles”?
“Trust your instincts when you feel uncomfortable, get away from whatever situation you are in,” is excellent advice to parents when being badgered about vaccines, I offer.
Related: Vaccines Have Become Even More Scary Than Ever
However, the WHO thinks that only applies to medical proselytizers and not those who are bullied into taking vaccines or else suffer untold consequences like your families are discharged from their medical practices! Or, how about having Child Protective Services showing up at a refuser’s front door?
The WHO apparently has concerns about security threats to healthcare professionals from vaccine refusers. I wonder why, especially when children have been damaged for life and parents are getting extremely fed up with how they are treated by the medical and legal professions, healthcare regulatory bodies especially in the USA, e.g., CDC, FDA, state and local health agencies and even school districts.
On page 6 of that report, we see the Goal stated as:
"Make the public audience more resilient against anti-vaccine statements and stories; support the vaccine hesitants in their vaccine acceptance decision."
Readers need to read page 9: how the WHO defines various members of the anti-vaccine movement. However, the WHO does not say anything about all the fines and ethical problems leveled against the pharmaceutical industry because of its inherent bad business practices that have evolved into class action lawsuits and billion-dollar fines from the U.S. CDC / FDA!
Related: Flu Vaccines are Toxic
What is it that the WHO doesn’t seem to be getting about the problems with the pharmaceutical industry for which it apparently is one of its key promoters?
Personally, I just love this remark on page 15:
"Remember, you are presenting the scientific consensus."
And that sad statement is KEY, since the REAL science is totally different than consensus science!
Consensus science is that which researchers agree to lie about or withhold data about or even discard data into a trash can about, e.g., MMR vaccine-Autism connection and CDC whistleblower William Thompson, PhD, admission or perform incorrect vaccine trials, e.g., placing aluminum adjuvant into control subjects’ vaccines, when those vaccines should be adjuvant-free!
That’s consensus science!
Scientific consensus ignores scientific studies, especially when it comes to vaccine ingredients, or so it really seems. My book Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines discusses most of the toxic ingredients in vaccines from what scientific studies have found those ingredients are capable of doing as published in peer review literature.
It’s not what I have made up; it’s what published scientific journal articles say about neurotoxins, aluminum in as many as four formulations, ethylmercury (Thimerosal) that’s still found in trace amounts in many vaccines given to infants (YES, that’s a real FACT), formaldehyde / Formalin, dangerous polysorbate 80 that’s been shown to cause infertility in animal studies plus other problems, sodium borate plus a “shopping list” of ingredients such as foreign DNA from animals like monkeys-mouse brain-cattle-insects, including human diploid cells (a line of aborted fetal cells).
Let me not forget to mention mycoplasmas and genetically modified organisms. How can all that ‘scientific’ crap be injected into a less than 25 pound infant and no health damages occur, especially to their not-fully-developed immune system?
Something is terribly wrong with consensus science when it has to bully others into taking harmful products! The WHO apparently recognizes that and is trying to do ‘damage control’ for the next pandemic that probably is in the wings. Here’s a hint: Zika. Or, the refugee crisis in the EU.
On page 22 we read the admonition to;
"Emphasize high safety instead of low risk."
How ridiculous a mantra, when each vaccine package insert  recites contraindications and adverse events, including Guillain-Barré syndrome. But then, it’s consensus science not to tell patients that information as their right under fully informed consent.
On page 23, proselytizers are cautioned about telling the truth. However, the WHO does not tell them how to keep their noses from growing two feet long or what’s called the Pinocchio syndrome.
On page 24, WHO reiterates the sorry mantra about consensus science:
"11. Underline scientific consensus
Research in the area of climate change shows that the belief in a scientific fact increases when consensus is highlighted . However, identifying a scientific consensus requires a thorough understanding of the specific area of interest and a layperson will not gain that knowledge all by himself .
Therefore, highlighting the scientific consensus in public is a powerful tool to transfer essential scientific knowledge and increase belief in a scientific fact, especially when presented in a simple and short message ."
Underline scientific consensus with regard to vaccine safety and efficacy.
Boy, has WHO really placed itself precariously out on the credibility limb it’s sawing off when it includes climate change as scientific fact.
With weather geoengineering, Solar Radiation Management, “chemtrails,” HAARPs around the globe and the information about “smart clouds” I discussed that’s in the U.S. Air Force report about owning the weather by 2025 in my article “What’s Up With the Newest Presidential Executive Order?”, WHO ought to be embarrassed beyond embarrassment, plus be regarded as the Illuminati’s toady it apparently is.
WHO wants proselytizers to “Emphasize social benefits of vaccines.” Does that mean that ‘herd immunity’ is not discussed for what it really is - treating humans like cattle? What are the social benefits of vaccines when lives and families are damaged?
When there is total denial by doctors and others with almost no recourse at law in the USA because the U.S. Congress disenfranchised healthcare consumers’ rights by giving vaccine manufacturers a “get out of jail free” card from any legal and financial liability for product damage from vaccines?
Related: Shock Report: Testing Reveals Glyphosate Present in Childhood Vaccines
But things are different in the European Union where lawsuits are being filed against vaccine manufacturers, and thus one of the probable reasons for WHO’s “How to respond…” report.
How about the “Algorithm of how to respond” on page 29! Studying that algorithm should give everyone some clever hints on how to respond to the proselytizers, I think.
The WHO’s bibliography of References ought to be studied as a strategy ‘play book’ to use in beating them at their own game regarding vaccine consensus science, I offer. There are 51 member states in the European Union. The recent manufactured refugee crisis in the EU probably is of much concern to WHO, since many refugees obviously will need to be convinced to take those poison needles.
News On Vaccine Safety Reveals Rampant Corruption
When people hear about life threatening conditions such as seizure, cardiovascular ailments and encephalitis, the first thing that comes to their minds is viruses. These are the harmful side effects of Gardasil, an HPV vaccine that are given to 9-year-old children.
There are many more vaccines that pose similar health dangers that are being given to children.
Related: Parents of vaccine-damaged children wrongly imprisoned, as doctors blame 'shaken baby syndrome'
NaturalNews Talk Hour reveals the harmful side effects of vaccination with PhD scholars Judy Mikovits and Jonathan Landsman that our government doesn’t want you to know.
Dr Mikovits feels that the possibility of latent viruses released into the system in the form of vaccines can be unleashed due to the response of dendritic cells in our body, which release inflammatory messages to cytokines, triggering inflammation. She terms this response as ‘cytokine storm’.
The Shocking Truth About Mandatory Vaccines Revealed
This response of the body could lead to permanent damage to the body’s immune system, which would ultimately lead to a lifetime of diseases.
The body can have very severe effects from vaccination, a phenomenon known as ‘vaccine injuries’. Diseases like myalgic encephalomyelitis, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, autism and polycystic ovarian syndrome can also be caused by vaccine injuries.
Related: Vaccine for Flu Has 25000 Times More Mercury Concentration Than Drinking Water
The government has always hidden the harmful effects of vaccination on the grounds of coincidence or no specific reason. Some members of the health administration have even gone as far as saying that the after effects of vaccination are actually psychogenic in nature.
Dr Mikovits’ new publication, ‘Plague’, draws to the many responses that the government have, or have had for vaccine side effects.
The side effects aren’t just caused by the antigens present in the vaccines. The additives used in most vaccines to trigger immune response are also very toxic in nature and are equally harmful to our system, if not more.
The alternative media is flooded with the singular admission of a whistleblower at the CDC that lab results were faked. The alternative media is flooded with 127 papers on the connection of thimerosal with autism.
Here we have a 188 page document with nothing but references to articles DATING BACK TO 1926 WHEN ALUMINUM WAS FIRST USED AS AN ADJUVANT IN VACCINES to the present day with a bloom that was noticed in articles around 1999 when Scientific American had an article called GENETIC VACCINES as noted in my book Timeline.
What we are talking about here makes the recent British expose on the cover-up of vaccine science look like neighborhood kids playing in the sandbox.
Credit to the Red Hens who discovered it @ www.vaccinefraud.com
The use of of ingredients like Polysorbate 80, which have detergent properties, has also been discovered.
Vaccines also have amounts of inflammatory additives and neurotoxins such as MPL and aluminium hydroxide respectively.
Related: Vaccines containing aluminum shown to cause neurological damage
Borax, a sodium compound present in vaccines, depletes important micronutrients from the body such as zinc, magnesium and calcium. Dr Mikovits also reveals that vaccinations should not be given to children under 3 years, as it affects brain development.
Dr Mikovits is a pioneer in the field of immunology and a PhD scholar from George Washington University.
U.S. Federal Court Rules Autism & Brain Damage Caused By Big Pharma Vaccine!
Big Pharma developing baby vaccines for PREGNANT women
Toddler injected with 37 vaccines before the age of two left paralyzed and wheelchair-bound for life
How much money do pediatricians really make from vaccines?
Lead developer of HPV vaccine admits it's a giant, deadly scam
Dispelling Vaccination Myths
San Antonio district attorney states 'Vaccines cause autism'
Prominent District Attorney Blames Vaccines for His Children’s Autism
Press Release: Vaccine Safety Documentary Pulled from East End Film Festival Amid Outside Pressure
BANNED “Man Made Epidemic” Film Available Online
Out Of Hand: More People Are Using More Devices More Often Than Ever Before - Increasingly, That’s A Pain Point
October 10 2016 | From: Buzzfeed
For Cassandra Smolcic, the trouble began at her dream internship. Handpicked to spend a summer working on movies at Pixar, the 26-year-old logged marathon hours, and more than a few all-nighters, at her computer and tablet.
At first, she managed to ignore the mysterious pinching sensations in her hands and forearms. But by the time her internship ended and a full-time job offer rolled in, she could barely move her fingers.
For Skylar, a 12-year-old in South Florida who loves her laptop, phone, and tablet, the breaking point came at the start of sixth grade last fall. Suddenly her neck, shoulders, and back felt strained whenever she rolled her head, as if invisible hands were yanking muscles apart from the inside. All her neck-rolling, she worried, made her look like she was trying to cheat off someone’s test.
To be a perpetually plugged-in, emailing, texting, sexting, swiping, Snapchatting, selfie-taking human being in 2016, a little thumb twinge is the price of admission. There are the media-anointed outliers: the Candy Crusher with a ruptured thumb tendon, the woman who over-texted her way to “WhatsAppitis.”
And then there are people like the 18-year-old woman who said;
“If I’m scrolling down Tumblr for more than half an hour, my fingers will get sore.”
“When I hold my phone,” a 22-year-old complained, cradling her iPhone in her palm, “my bottom finger really hurts.”
A 30-year-old software engineer said his fingers “naturally curl inwards,” claw-like: “I remember my hand did not quite use to be like that.”
Amy Luo, 27, suspects her iPhone 6s is partly to blame for the numbness in her right thumb and wrist.
Compared with her old iPhone, she said, “you have to stretch a lot more, and it’s heavier.”
Dr. Patrick Lang, a San Francisco hand surgeon, sees more and more twenty- and thirtysomething tech employees with inexplicable debilitating pain in their upper limbs. “I consider it like an epidemic,” he said, “particularly in this city.”
To be clear, no one knows just how bad this “epidemic” is. At best, we learn to endure our stiff necks and throbbing thumbs. At worst, a generation of people damage their bodies without realizing it.
In all likelihood, we are somewhere in the middle, between perturbance and public health crisis, but for the time being we simply don’t - can’t - know what all these machines will do to our bodies in the long term, especially in the absence of definitive research.
What we do know is that now more people are using multiple electronics - cell phones, smartphones, tablets, laptops, desktops - for more hours a day, starting at ever earlier ages.
But we weren’t built for them.
Growing up in the Rust Belt city of Greensburg, Pennsylvania, Smolcic was the kid who was always sketching characters from movies and cartoons. And in her adolescent years in the ’90s, computers became an important tool for honing her artistic talents: She made clip-art greeting cards and banners, and high school newspaper layouts, on desktop computers.
At Susquehanna University, she went all in on graphic design as a career after she took a computer arts course on a whim.
That meant long hours on various iMacs, and even more screen time when she went on to earn a master’s in graphic design at the Savannah College of Art and Design. Over the years, she’s also carried a flip phone, a Motorola Razr, a Dell laptop, and, at the moment, a MacBook Pro and an iPhone 6s.
Machines were crucial to Smolcic’s burgeoning artistic career, as they are to so many of our lives. But it’d be hard to call them human-friendly.
Consider the minimum biomechanics needed to work a smartphone. Put aside all the other risks - of getting depressed and lonely; of sacrificing sleep, hearing, eyesight, and focus; of dying while snapping selfies on cliffs, or texting while walking or driving. The act of just using the thing is precarious.
Our heads sit atop our necks and line up with our shoulders and arms, just as a two-footed species’ should. But a forward-leaning head shakes up this graceful arrangement: The upper body drifts back, the hips tilt forward, and pretty much everything else - the spine, the nerves below the neck, the upper limb muscles - tightens up.
Slouching is all too easy when we hold a phone in our outstretched hand or reach for a mouse. When we type on our laptops cross-legged or sprawled on our stomachs, our necks and shoulders strain from leaning into the low screens. (Yes, as counterintuitive as it sounds, you probably shouldn’t put a laptop on your lap.)
Our hands are uniquely capable of grasping objects, a useful trait for our branch–swinging primate ancestors. Especially remarkable are our opposable thumbs, free to flex, extend, curl, and press in all sorts of directions. But their inherently unstable joints didn’t evolve to be constantly pushed beyond their range of motion. Yet they are when we flick through our phones or, worse, tablets.
To Dr. Robert Markison, it’s clear: Virtually none of Silicon Valley’s inventions, from the clunky Macintosh 128K of 1984 to the sleek iPhone 7, have been designed with respect for the human form. Markison is a San Francisco surgeon who depends on his hands to operate on other people’s hands.
He so believes in technology’s potential to harm - and treats so many young startup workers who confirm that suspicion - that he almost exclusively uses voice recognition software. He also has his own line of smartphone styluses that double as pens, with colorful barrels made of manually mixed pigments, pressure-cast resin, and hand-dyed silk.
On a recent afternoon in his office, Markison asked me to make a fist around a grip strength measurement tool, with my thumb facing the ceiling. It felt powerful, easy.
Then he had me turn my palm to the floor, the keyboarding stance of a white-collar worker, and do the same thing; my grip immediately lost a noticeable amount of strength.
“There’s no reason to think a mouse is a good idea,” Markison said.
Of course, many people with office jobs probably suspect that already. During the ’80s and ’90s, when computers - then also known as “video display terminals” - invaded workplaces around the world, employees felt their arms and fingers go numb, and headlines warned of the harm these newfangled devices appeared to be inflicting.
In the early ’90s, telephone operators, journalists, clerical workers, and employees from other fields filed hundreds of lawsuits against the manufacturers of equipment such as computer keyboards, which they blamed for severe arm, wrist, and hand injuries.
All that worry woke a generation up to the physical (and psychological) toll of automated, ultra-efficient work. Then came furniture and appliances to align technology with our bodies.
Ergonomic mice are gripped vertically, and foot mice save clicks.
Slanted and split keyboards let hands relax. Desks convert to a standing position or have adjustable split levels for monitors and keyboards. Some software transcribes speech, other software alerts your boss when you type too fast.
But these inventions have been largely for desktops. The dizzying rise of cell phones, tablets, and laptops, fueled by the rush to make screens ever more portable and ubiquitous, have all but left human-centered design principles in the dust.
Chances are good you’re reading this on your phone. In fact, chances are good your phone was the first thing you looked at this morning and the last thing you looked at last night.
Wake up to a phone alarm. Scroll, bleary-eyed, through email, texts, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Field more news and email on your phone on public transit (or, er, in the car).
Sit behind a computer of some kind at work or school. All day your buzzing phone demands to be held, whether you’re out to lunch or, admit it, on the toilet.
Come reverse commute, you’re once again head down on your phone, or an e-reader, until you finally take a break at home - by watching Game of Thrones on your laptop or tablet. Bonus points if you play Words With Friends while you do it.
Related: Companies Develop “Safe” Screens That Filter Blue Light Emitted By Electronic Devices
Scientists don’t definitively know how all this activity affects our bodies. While some studies link hand ailments to heavy computer and video game use, far fewer have examined new devices like smartphones.
“The phones have only been out 10 to 15 years at best,” said Jack Dennerlein, who directs the Occupational Biomechanics and Ergonomics Laboratory at Harvard University.
“We haven’t had the long-term exposures to start seeing some of the more chronic issues that come up later in life.”
No reliable measurement of technology-related ailments exists. The closest thing is an annual survey of workplace injuries by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, whose data suggests that cases of musculoskeletal disorders, including carpal tunnel syndrome, have dropped over the last two decades.
But these figures are at best “a very crude measure” of problems, said Dr. Kurt Hegmann, who directs the University of Utah’s Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health. As Dennerlein put it: “They’re better than nothing.”
Hegmann offers some theories for why the numbers are shrinking: High-risk jobs like manufacturing are decreasing. Panicked workers in the ’90s likely reported nonexistent ailments before the hysteria subsided. Some offices may have became more ergonomic.
And there are other reasons the numbers are probably off: Non-work-related factors like obesity can contribute to carpal tunnel, and if you’re constantly sending work emails but also Instagramming for fun, it’s hard to blame your sore hand on work alone.
However widespread phone-linked injuries may or may not be, a small cluster of studies suggests that they are real. A 2011 study of nearly 140 mobile device users linked internet time to right thumb pain, as well as overall screen time to right shoulder and neck discomfort.
Another found that smartphone overuse enlarges the nerve involved in carpal tunnel, causes thumb pain, and hinders the hand’s ability to do things like pinch.
Upright, an adult’s head puts about a dozen pounds of force on the spine, according to a 2014 paper. But tilted 15 degrees, as if over a phone, the force surges to 27 pounds, and to 60 pounds at 60 degrees. (That’s the weight of four Thanksgiving turkeys.)
“It’s harmful when you’re younger, because the bones are still malleable and pliable and they may be disformed permanently,” said New York spinal surgeon Dr. Kenneth Hansraj, who wrote the paper after treating a patient “head down in his iPad, playing Angry Birds four hours a day.”
Older people can suffer too, he said, because their spines are prone to narrowing, making them susceptible to injury.
But the doctor insists he’s no “cell phone basher.”
“I love the ability to have a cup of coffee and contact 10 of my friends in 10 countries with one text and say, ‘I love this coffee,’” he said.
“I’m just saying, my message is to keep your head up and be cognizant of where your head is in space.”
Skylar started using an iPad a couple years ago to watch movies in the car.
Then, at age 10, she got a MacBook Air and a rose-gold iPhone 6s, says her mother, who requested to withhold her last name to protect her identity.
Game-playing, filming lip-sync sessions, Snapchatting “weird faces,” checking Instagram, FaceTiming, and texting, not to mention doing homework on the computer, keep Skylar busy three hours or so a day.
Recently, she discovered Friends, a show about “a group of friends that do a lot of weird things and they always meet up at every single day at Central Perk. It’s a coffee shop.”
When the Pew Research Center surveyed teens in 2011, one-quarter had smartphones. In 2015, three-quarters did. According to Common Sense Media, a San Francisco nonprofit that surveyed more than 2,600 young people across the US last year, 8- to 12-year-olds log nearly two hours a day on tablets, smartphones, and other mobile devices.
And the habit starts even younger: 38% of children under 2 have played games or watched videos on a mobile device.
Even lower-income teens, who are less likely to own the latest gadgets, may be catching up to their wealthier peers: In a 2015 study of 350 children under age 5 in a low-income community in Philadelphia, most already had their own mobile device, and in fact had started using one before their first birthday.
“It’s not like an hour that goes by I don’t check my phone, unless I’m asleep, you know,” said Kendall Holle, 15.
“It’s bad. It’s bad. As soon as I wake up, open my eyes, brush my teeth, wash my face, I’m on my phone, making snaps.”
“I wake up and I start snapping,” said Jeff Ren, 19.
“When my phone got taken away,” confessed Sara, 15, “I cracked.”
“I just don’t feel normal without my phone on me now,” said Howard Lin, 18. “It would just feel like something’s missing.”
But researchers aren’t studying how so much gadget exposure, so young, affects children’s physiology - at least not to the degree they’re studying how it affects their learning, playing, and thinking.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under age 2 avoid screen time completely, and that older children have no more than two hours a day. After more than 15 years, it’s now rethinking these guidelines.
“In a world where ‘screen time’ is becoming simply ‘time,’ our policies must evolve or become obsolete,” it has explained.
When I asked if physical risks were being weighed along with social and psychological ones, Dr. Ari Brown, who’s leading the overhaul of the recommendations, told me by email that “the particular question you are asking … is not being addressed by our group.”
Meanwhile, people like Diane Cho didn’t see the pain coming and don’t know what will happen next.
At the news site she recently left, Cho spent her days typing 10 hours at a time, mostly on a laptop, and reading her phone - until her right arm went periodically numb, immune to icing.
“A huge reason why I wanted a career change was literally my arm was falling apart,” she said. “My body was just aching.” She’s 26.
George McIntire, 27, occasionally sees his right thumb act up: “It starts twitching back and forth, it’s shivering, and it’s going really fast too.”
Tanner Bell, a 17-year-old who makes DIY craft videos on YouTube and helps companies digitally market to teens, feels his thumbs cramp twice a week.
“It doesn’t even happen when I’m holding it, it could happen later on in the day or night,” he said. “There’s an extra tension … sort of like a tingling.”
After trading volleys of texts with a long-distance girlfriend, Vincent Hennerty, 26, ended up with early-stage carpal tunnel. Cutting back on video games was annoying, as was doing push-ups on his knuckles.
Still, nothing could prepare him for what one might call the ultimate sacrifice.
“When I was with girls,” he recalled, “I would either have to finger them less during sexual intercourse or messing around, or I’d have to be in a position where my wrists were completely straight.”
This, he said, “weighed on me the most: ‘I need to stop texting.’”
When neck rubs and ice packs didn’t soothe Skylar’s stiff neck, her mother took her to Dean Fishman, a local chiropractor and physical therapist. He sees so many people like her that in 2009 he started the Text Neck Institute outside Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
The clinic now handles 700 visits a month, he says.
“I started to notice very early on, when texting started to become popular as far as communicating goes, that I was seeing more and more younger people coming in with complaints we hadn’t seen before - headaches, neck pain, arm pain,” said Fishman, whose youngest patient so far has been a 3-year-old iPad-loving girl. So-called text neck “is not a blunt force trauma,” he said.
“You’re not going to see a lot of bulging or herniated discs overnight. Over time, it’s going to be microtraumas that end up being a bigger symptom for our patients.”
Patients are utterly, unnervingly unaware of their own bodies.
“When these younger people are in the middle of studying on their digital device, or if they’re in the middle of gaming or the excitement of texting with their friends, they don’t perceive pain,” Fishman said.
“It’s not until they put it down, lay down at night, and feel pain, and don’t attribute it to what they’ve been doing during the day.”
Cyrene Quiamco is not a patient, but has all the markings of a future one.
“I don’t even know when I don’t check Snapchat,” said the 27-year-old, who Snapchats for brands like MTV, Jolly Ranchers, Pixar, and Disneyland - and charges $10,000 to $30,000 per Story.
“It’s like, I’m in a restaurant, and then I don’t spend all of the time I’m there (on Snapchat), but then I spend five minutes checking what’s in my Snapchat feed. It’s not one sitting, it’s various sittings throughout the day.”
How many texts does she send a day? “Oh gosh, more than a thousand.” She added, “I never actually thought about how many that would be.”
Two to three hours a day, Quiamco draws colorful, detailed cartoons for Snapchat on her phone.
“You’re so focused on creating it because you don’t want to stop,” even when a pang runs up her forearm, she said. “I tell my mom, ‘Hey, I’m getting hand cramps by using the phone.’ She says, ‘You’re going to develop something. If you lose your hand, that’s everything.’”
As a 6-year-old, Smolcic fell in love with The Little Mermaid. As a grown-up graphic designer at Pixar, across the bay from San Francisco, she got to make her own mark on films like Monsters University, Cars 2, and Finding Dory. For Toy Story 3, she crafted the logo of pink teddy bear and chief antagonist Lots-o’-Huggin’ Bear; for the Scotland-set Brave, she whipped up Celtic patterns for furniture and costumes.
Meetings with famous directors and other “pinch me” moments overflowed during her five years there.
“There’s just all those amazing little life lessons buried into the entertainment aspect of it that do make an impact on people,” she said of Pixar’s movies. “It felt special to be part of that.”
Despite the grueling hours, Smolcic didn’t seriously believe that hand injuries could be a hazard of the trade. But once the aches arrived, they stayed.
Even when she felt normal after a monthlong break, the stabbing sensations would flare up when she jumped back into work. Pixar was supportive, she said, and gave her an elaborate work station with a motorized standing and sitting desk, a sideways mouse, programmable foot pedals, ergonomic chairs, extra monitors, and a tablet sensitive to touch.
Doctors and specialists put her through one treatment after another, some less conventional than others: acupuncture, acupressure, breathwork, massages, physical therapy, personal training, biofeedback, myofascial release, NeuroKinetic Therapy, reflexology, naturopathy.
According to some of her many medical professionals, her diagnosis was fibromyalgia, a musculoskeletal pain disorder. Others called it a “repetitive strain injury.”
That’s probably the first term that comes to mind for these types of impairments. But occupational health experts shy away from it because it lumps together a lot of different ailments. Take carpal tunnel syndrome: A compressed nerve in your forearm numbs and weakens your hand.
But painful thumb tendons, the cord-like structures that link muscle to bone, might mean de Quervain syndrome. Tendinitis (inflamed tendons) shouldn’t be confused with trigger finger (inflammation around a tendon). And for anything too vague or early-stage to neatly fit a diagnosis, there’s the handy label of “nonspecific pain.”
To make things more confusing, none of these injuries can be easily blamed on technology. You can fiddle with gadgets your whole life without a sore thumb. Or your ailment can build over years, making it hard to know whether gadgets are the sole cause.
Recovery, too, varies. All you may need to do is vigilantly sit up straight and take breaks, whereas others would need anything from a steroid shot to surgery.
These nuances can confound primary care physicians, who don’t necessarily know when to refer patients to specialists - who in turn don’t always have all the answers either.
“People go to the hand surgeons, who are frustrated because they’re not surgical patients, so they send them to therapy,” said Melanie Johnke, who runs Golden Gate Hand Therapy in San Francisco. “And I’m not a doctor, either,” meaning she can’t make official diagnoses or prescribe medications.
As Savir put it: “If I go to the doctor, what is he going to say? ‘Don’t hold your phone that way.’ What’s the point?”
Despite knowing everything we should do, from sitting straight and stretching to taking breaks and using a phone stylus, we probably don’t and won’t follow suit. And maybe that’s just how things are now. Maybe only technology can save us from ourselves.
Tech giants like Apple, Google, and Microsoft are racing to turn their machines into mind readers. Every swipe saved, every “frictionless” convenience engineered, keeps us coming back for more: It’s a business strategy that also happens to be ergonomically friendly.
Speech recognition software - Siri, “OK Google,” Alexa, Dragon - promises to take the manual labor out of internet browsing and looking up directions.
But it doesn’t work perfectly, which isn’t news to anyone who’s yelled at Siri, and it’s still kind of weird, frankly, to talk to your phone in public.
“I’m in a shared office space, and I don’t know how that would work out,” said Saima Jamshed, 42, who has chronic pain in her right arm.
Then there are the machine learning–powered apps that, seemingly magically, cue up the next word in your message, person to call, or video to watch, based on your past activity and keystrokes.
See (as of last week) Google’s new messaging app Allo, which comes with prepackaged responses and predictive texts. But accepting their help does require sacrificing privacy to an unsettling degree.
Related: Whatever You Do, Do Not Use Google Allo: Snowden
Of course, we could also use technology less. We certainly seem to want to. Virtually all 30 or so people who spoke to me wished they could leave their phones at home, stop refreshing their notifications, watch less YouTube. Asked to guess how much time this all amounted to, they answered: too much.
Cutting back would almost definitely be healthier. But we may not be willing to do that.
Skylar has almost fully recovered, thanks to physical therapy at the Text Neck Institute and exercises at home. Her mother says she’s diligent about setting her devices at eye level (and telling everyone else to as well), just like the doctor told her to. But she isn’t actually cutting back on screen time.
The peer pressure is intense: All her friends have phones, and some have iPads and computers.
“Sometimes it gets annoying when I go to a friend’s house and all we do is play on our phone or watch something on our iPad,” Skylar said. “I went to their house to play with them or hang out with them, not just go on our electronics and be silent the whole time.”
“When I was growing up,” her mother, Kerri, recalled, “the phone was in the house, so if you left the house, the phone rang and somebody would call you later.” It was a non-negotiable break when the world had to accept that you were physically untethered from your device. “Now,” Kerri said, “it’s just everywhere.”
Smolcic has largely disconnected from technology, just not by choice.
When she was 28, a pain management specialist gave her the devastating news: She would never fully recover. She hung on for a few more years, but finally left in October 2014 for a San Francisco design agency where, she hoped, her role would be less hands-on. “I really felt like I’d tried everything I could,” she said.
But the work and pain remained more or less the same, so this March, she left the agency, and design, for the foreseeable future. Her life’s work hurt.
Since then, she’s been using money saved up to travel through Hong Kong, Greece, and Iceland, with stops to see shamans and alternative healers in Indonesia, Thailand, and Mexico. She’s also writing, which she now believes to be her true calling.
Composing an 1,800-word essay this spring - through a combination of typing and recording voice memos - took a month and a half because she could only work for an hour a day. Now she says she can write for several hours at a time with almost no pain, and she’s working on a memoir partly about her injuries.
At 33, Smolcic believes that she’s 90% recovered. She can’t be sure it’s permanent - but even if so, she no longer wants a trade design job.
“I think I’d be okay with not having a lot of the luxuries I had in my San Francisco life,” she said, “as a trade for having more time to be actively living and out in the world, as opposed to being behind a desk.”
But despite all that she believes technology has cost her, physically and emotionally, Smolcic hasn’t been able to resist turning to her iPhone and MacBook on the road this year.
They are a source of directions and travel tips, an outlet for writing and music, a camera to record memories, a line of communication to friends and family. “These machines,” she wrote to me this summer, “put so much power at my fingertips.” And now that she’s feeling better, she uses them all the time.
The Flawed Germ Theory; Unfortunately The Basis Of Modern Medicine
October 8 2016 | From: Tbyil
Ever wonder why modern medicine is not helping the populations of the western world to become healthier? Maybe the foundation for health is wrong.
Pasteur's germ theory of disease has helped forward the one germ for one disease concept that has raised Big Pharma to the wealthy business of developing drugs for one germ to purportedly cure one disease while causing autoimmune and chronic diseases to flourish from destroyed immune systems.
Related:The Medical Dictatorship of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England and the USA
Germ phobia, here comes the flu, get your flu shots or you may wind up as one of the 36,000 who manage to die from it each year according to the CDC. It's never more, never less - 36,000 deaths each flu season. Isn't there something fishy about that?
Then get out the antibiotics for every case of the sniffles. Don't forget the pharmaceutical antiviral Tamiflu, expensive, not so effective, and dangerous. The germ theory has turned out to be great for the pharmaceutical business model.
Related: Patients at risk and billions of dollars being wasted because of tests, scans and procedures that don't work
Now we have those nasty mosquitoes carrying the Zika virus, which has no real history of being problematic. So spray everything and everyone with toxic chemicals that do cause disease. And let's not forget those new vaccines. Over a billion dollars of government money has been recently set aside for Zika virus research and vaccines.
Why the Germ Theory is Flawed
The following quote is used by Dr. Robert O. Young in his book Sick and Tired?: Reclaim Your Inner Terrain:
“If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat - diseased tissue - rather than being the cause of the diseased tissue; e.g., mosquitoes seek the stagnant water, but do not cause the pool to become stagnant.”
- Dr. Rudolph Virchow (Father of Pathology 1821 - 1902)
Related:Shocking Report from Medical Insiders: a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent
Pasteur was the original scammer of the germ theory, not considered a worthy scientist by his peers. But he had good press. Media bias and corruption are nothing new.
Other scientists, especially Claude Bernard, claimed the inner terrain, which includes overall and organ specific pH levels and all facets of the immune system countered Pasteur's one germ for one disease theory with claims of pleomorphism within damaged or diseased tissue, which the Medical Mafia and Big Pharma refused to acknowledge.
Pleomorphism was proven when Royal Raymond Rife's universal microscope in the late 1930s revealed structural changes in microbes, up to 16, according their host's environment. Microbes can start out as benign then alter themselves to survive if one's inner terrain is unhealthy.
In other words, inflammation and tissue degeneration with acidic pH levels attract pathogenic microbes or encourage existing ones into morphing as pathogenic microbes if already present and harmless or even beneficial. The germ theory hoax is the basis of modern pharmaceutical medicine and killing good food with pasteurization and irradiation.
Not only do our highly acidic junk and processed foods with add sugars promote acidic pH levels under 7.3, so do overworking, stress, and anger. The combination of our environmental toxic load and inadequate nutrition lead to the stagnant pools within our tissues that become the breeding grounds for existing or new pathogenic microbes to thrive.
Detoxing and seeking fresh whole foods with the proper supplements offer more disease protection from germs than all the vaccines in the world.
Vaccinations offer the following tradeoffs for thwarting germs: Death, lifelong disability, or most commonly autoimmune disease vulnerability.
Haven't you noticed? Autoimmune diseases and allergies have risen with the rise in vaccination schedules.
There have been studies in the USA among Amish children and in Europe among those raised on small dairy farms that demonstrate how being exposed to germs at an early age exercises the immune system and make it stronger, thus rendering natural immunization.
This is where rude, crude, over the top and hilarious George Carlin comes in:
Another Reason to Not Trust the CDC's Fear Mongering
Sharyl Attkinson was the news producer for CBS's Washington Bureau. During the Swine Flu “pandemic” of 2008-9, she was intent at getting to the truth of just how much of an epidemic it really was. Sharyl, who is now independent with her own website and her book Stonewalled in circulation, questioned the authenticity of the CDC's reportage on incidents of Swine Flu.
Related: Sharyl Attkinson On The Hypnotic Power Of Germ Propaganda
After being stonewalled by the CDC with her Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for detailed statistics on the Swine Flu, she and her CBS Washington Bureau news staff did an end around – they went directly to state health departments and discovered only a very few flu cases, mostly single digit numbers, tested positive for Swine Flu.
Those numbers were not nearly enough to justify claims of a level 6 pandemic, considered the most severe and dangerous international pandemic level.
Then the CDC attempted damage control by announcing they had stopped counting because there were millions of Swine Flu cases and they couldn't keep up with it.
Related: Flu Vaccines are Toxic
Wow, if the first lie doesn't work then tell a bigger one, even if it doesn't make any sense at all. This incident forced Sharyl out of mainstream news. Can't question the CDC on mainstream TV.
You're better off sticking with alternative media and holistic health approaches for establishing a stronger immune system by lessening your toxic chemical load and increasing your nutritional level with organic foods and supplements.
Louis Pasteur, Antoine Bechamp and the True Causes of Disease
Modern Medicine: How Healing Illness became Managing Symptoms for Profit
Nutrition And Mental Health + ADHD Is A Fabricated Disease, Says Reputed Neurologist
October 5 2016 | From: BePure / Sott
Last week I attended a conference by Dr Julia Rucklidge from the University of Canterbury where she presented her groundbreaking research on the treatment of mental health disorders such as ADHD, bipolar, depression and anxiety using therapeutic doses of micronutrients.
More and more we are seeing that what we eat, and what we absorb from our food choices, affect more than our physical appearance and physical fitness.
Related: Nutrition And Mental Health
Yes these things are important, but actually there are numerous benefits to eating a nutrient-dense diet with supporting products that don’t get mentioned. And they should. Our mental health is something that affects every interaction we have with ourselves, our families, our work colleagues and our friends.
The takeaway message from this conference is the prevalence of mental health problems in the modern world is concerning. According to Dr Rucklidge:
“There is a very real danger of mental health care bankrupting our society in terms of cost and social implications.”
In this blog I’m going to address the link between nutrition and mental health. There are many other factors involved in the prevention and treatment of mental illness. We are only addressing nutrition in this blog as it is such an important factor to consider.
The Whole Picture
One in ten New Zealanders are on antidepressants. This is an eight-fold increase in total prescription numbers from 1998.
There has been a four-fold increase in claimed disability financial support due to psychiatric disorders in New Zealand from 1991 to now. Both these figures are supplied through Statistics New Zealand’s annual reports.
Related: Getting Real About What Depression IS and ISN'T
In a period of time where more “cutting edge medicines” have been researched, developed and trialled on our population, rates of mental health disorders continue to rise.
The long term results from the National Institute of Mental Health’s (NIMH) MTA study found that children taking medication for ADHD for longer than 24 months showed “significant markers not of beneficial outcome, but of deterioration… medicated children were also slightly smaller, and higher delinquency scores.” Source: The MTA cooperative randomised clinical trial.
It’s fair to say our current gold standards are not working, so what else has changed in this time period?
Food And Stress
This increase in mental health conditions follows the same exponential rise of obesity and type two diabetes from the 1970s to now. We know that the rise in medical knowledge and the availability of medications hasn’t resolved the problem, nor has a 300% increase in gym memberships, so what has changed to negatively affect our mental and metabolic health?
Related: A Mind of Your Own with Guest Dr. Kelly Brogan
I firmly believe, and the evidence supports this idea, that what we are eating and the nutrients we give to our bodies drastically affect our weight, energy, metabolic health AND mental health in both negative and positive ways.
For many people gluten, refined grains and sugar can cause problems affecting everything from digestion, mood, skin disorders like rashes and eczema, to joint pain, weight gain, migraines, thyroid disorders, mental health disorders and behavioural issues such as ADHD.
For an extensive list of gluten-related symptoms, check out this list.
Gluten is a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye, and is what gives bread its stretch. Many nutritionists now believe many people - not just those with gluten intolerance or Celiac Disease - should avoid gluten as it is a known contributor to leaky gut.
Related: Simple changes to your diet can help with mental health issues
This is problematic for mental health conditions because if serotonin is not kept within your gut and digestive tract, it cannot engage in chemical reactions within your brain to increase your mood.
Refined grains and sugar cause blood sugar spikes and energy crashes as insulin is produced to mitigate the quick rush of glucose and fructose. You can read in length about the problem with refined grains and sugar.
Lastly, the stress of modern living has a huge impact on our mental health. Cortisol is a stress hormone that is activated by everything from traffic, fighting with a loved one, worry, anxiety, excessive caffeine intake and even exercise. Cortisol initiates our fight or flight response in our nervous system. In ancestral times this response was necessary for fleeing from danger.
Related: Sadness: The Problem and The Solution
In the modern world, we perceive danger to be everywhere (i.e we release cortisol) despite the fact we aren’t running away from a lion. This constant flood of cortisol prevents our “rest and digest” nervous system from operating. This prevents recovery from exercise or the day’s stressors, the production of growth hormone and serotonin as well as preventing sleep and digestion.
Managing stress is critical for those people with mental health concerns.
The Brain Gut Connection
Current research in the field of microbiome health and mental health conditions confirms the theory our stomach is our second brain. There are several reasons for this. The first is Serotonin.
Related: What Does Your Illness Mean?
Serotonin is your happiness hormone. It is a neurotransmitter that relays messages from all areas of your brain to your cells. An imbalance or deficiency in serotonin is thought to influence the brain in a way that causes depression.
Up to 70% of your bodies total serotonin lives in your digestive tract. If you have leaky gut, a food intolerance or gut dysbiosis through poor diet or antibiotic use, the serotonin can leak out of your gut and is then unable to do its job in your brain.
The second factor has to do with the nutritional and energy demands of our brains. Our brains are approximately 2% of our body weight. However, it consumes 20-40% of our metabolism. In other words, it is constantly and disproportionately demanding nutrients and oxygen. One litre of blood enters your brain every minute, carrying whatever nutrients it has access to.
Giving it nutrient dense food and access to as many nutrients as possible is critical for mental health.
So What Can We Do?
Dr Rucklidge’s research suggests we need to ensure good nutrient-density in our diets and use therapeutic doses of micronutrients to support mental health conditions.
Related: 5 Stages of Transformation
“Micronutrients such as zinc, vitamin D, Essential Fatty Acids and many more have been used in many open label trials across anxiety, sleep issues, bipolar disorder and ADHD.
All have shown significant reductions in psychiatric and psychological symptoms. Response rates range from 50-80% improvements."
Source: Dr Julia Rucklidge at the University of Canterbury.
The current medical model seeks to use medication first before addressing stress, food, sleep and nutrient deficiencies. I would personally love to see this equation flipped. If we can address dietary and lifestyle factors first, along with nutrient support, while using medication sparingly on a case-by-case basis, we can greatly improve the mental health of our nation.
If you or a loved one are currently struggling with depression-like symptoms, bipolar ADHD or anxiety please seek assistance. You can contact your GP or health care provider, the BePure team at email@example.com, www.depression.org.nz or the depression helpline at 0800 111 757.
Related: German psychologists declare "the drugs don't work"
Renowned Harvard Psychologist Calls ADHD A Fraud That Only Benefits The Pharmaceutical Industry
Viewed by academics as one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century, Jerome Kagan ranked above Carl Jung (the founder of analytical psychology) and Ivan Pavlov (who discovered the Pavlovian reflex) in a 2002 American Psychological Association ranking of the eminent psychologists.
He is well-known for his pioneering work in developmental psychology at Harvard University, where he has spent decades documenting how babies and small children grow, and is an exceptional and highly-regarded researcher.
So it may be surprising to learn that he believes the diagnosis of ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) is an invention - and only benefits the pharmaceutical industry and psychiatrists.
Mislabeling Mental Illness
"That is the history of humanity: Those in authority believe they're doing the right thing, and they harm those who have no power", says Jerome Kagan.
In an interview with Spiegel, Kagan addressed the skyrocketing rates of ADHD in America, which he attributes to "fuzzy diagnostic practices."
He illustrated his point with the following example:
Say fifty years ago you have a 7-year-old who is bored in school and exhibits disruptive behavior. Back then, he would be labeled as lazy. But today, that same child is said to suffer from ADHD. That's why we've seen such a dramatic increase in the disorder.
Every child who is having problems in school is sent to see a pediatrician, who then claims it's ADHD and prescribes Ritalin.
"In fact, 90 percent of these 5.4 million kids don't have an abnormal dopamine metabolism. The problem is, if a drug is available to doctors, they'll make the corresponding diagnosis," he said.
"We could get philosophical and ask ourselves: "What does mental illness mean?"
If you do interviews with children and adolescents aged 12 to 19, then 40 percent can be categorized as anxious or depressed.
But if you take a closer look and ask how many of them are seriously impaired by this, the number shrinks to 8 percent.
Describing every child who is depressed or anxious as being mentally ill is ridiculous.
Adolescents are anxious, that's normal. They don't know what college to go to. Their boyfriend or girlfriend just stood them up. Being sad or anxious is just as much a part of life as anger or sexual frustration," Kagan told Spiegel.
What are the implications for the millions of children who are inaccurately diagnosed as mentally ill? Kagan believes it's devastating because they think there is something fundamentally wrong with them.
He's not the only psychologist to raise the alarm about this trend, but Kagan and others feel they're up against:
"An enormously powerful alliance: pharmaceutical companies that are making billions, and a profession that is self-interested."
Kagan himself suffered from inner restlessness and stuttering as a child, but his mother told him: "There's nothing wrong with you. Your mind is working faster than your tongue." He thought at the time: "Gee, that's great, I'm only stuttering because I'm so smart." If he had been born in the present era, he most likely would have been classified as mentally ill.
ADHD isn't the only mental illness epidemic among children that worries Kagan, depression is another.
In 1987, about one in 400 American teenagers was using an antidepressant. By 2002, the numbers leaped to one in 40.
He feels it's another overused diagnosis, simply because the pills are available.
Instead of immediately resorting to pharmaceutical drugs, he thinks doctors should take more time with the child to find out why they aren't as cheerful, for instance. At the very least, a few tests should be carried out - and an EEG for certain, especially since studies have shown that people who have heightened activity in the right frontal lobe respond poorly to antidepressants.
Kagan remembers going into a textbook-type depression after a major research project he was involved with failed. He had insomnia and met all the other clinical criteria for depression. But since he knew what the cause was, he didn't seek professional help. After six months, the depression was gone.
Under normal circumstances, he would have been diagnosed as mentally ill by a psychiatrist and put on medication.
But here lies an important distinction: when a life event overwhelms us, it's common to fall into a depression for a while. But there are those who have a genetic vulnerability and experience chronic depression; they are mentally ill.
It's crucial to look not only at the symptoms, but the causes.
This is where psychiatry drops the ball, as it's the only medical profession that establishes illness on symptoms alone.
Such a blind spot opens the door for new maladies - like bipolar disorder, which we never used to see in children. As it stands today, nearly a million Americans under the age of 19 are diagnosed with it.
"A group of doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital just started calling kids who had temper tantrums bipolar. They shouldn't have done that. But the drug companies loved it because drugs against bipolar disorders are expensive. That's how the trend was started. It's a little like in the 15th century, when people started thinking someone could be possessed by the devil or hexed by a witch," said Kagan.
When asked if there are alternatives to pharmaceutical drugs for behavioral abnormalities, Kagan said we could look at tutoring, as an example, for kids diagnosed with ADHD. After all, it's never the ones who are doing well in school that are diagnosed, it's always the children who are struggling.
Related: ADHD Is A Fabricated Disease, Says Reputed Neurologist
Dangerous Products That We’re Unknowingly Using In Our Day-To-Day Life
+ The Cancer Risk To People Who Drink Chlorinated Water Is 93% Higher Than Those Who Don’t
September 30 2016 | From: NewEasternOutlook / EnvirowatchRangitikei / Varous
In today’s highly controversial and aggressive world, virtually anything can present a threat to the life of a human being, not just wars, climate change, or short-sighted and often criminal actions of certain politicians.
As it has been shown by a number of scientific studies, the activities of a number of American corporations present a very real threat the well-being of the population mainly due to the use of genetically modified substances in their products while manufacturing substandard health and beauty aids.
The truth is that it’s the people of developing countries that are being affected by these fraudulent business practices the most, since Western corporations try to suppress any information about the health effects of their products to obtain maximum profit.
At the end of the twentieth century British scientists have come to a sensational conclusion that parabens are capable of penetrating the skin barrier and are being accumulated in the tissues of the body, causing cancer, hormone system failures, endocrine system suppression, and skin diseases.
Related: Johnson & Johnson Hid Talcum Powder Link to Ovarian Cancer for 40 Years
Research made this finding while studying malignant tumors in breast tissue, all of which contained parabens, Later on, these findings were confirmed by Canadian and French scientists.
Parabens are artificial preservatives that are often used in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry by a number of Western corporations.
Even though they are effectively increasing the shelf life of a product, while remaining relatively cheap to use, parabens pose a serious threat to human health and well-being.
From time to time one can come across articles on the harmful effects of parabens in Europe and the United States, forcing certain companies to replace parabens with less harmful preservatives. However, the markets of developing countries, especially those with hot and humid climates, are flooded with Western cosmetic products that contain the dangerous substance.
In order to attract international attention to this danger, the French Le Monde went as far as to publish a list of the 400 Western pharmaceutical products containing parabens and that are, therefore, dangerous for use or consumption.
Related: A New Study Links Benadryl to Serioud Mental Health Diseases Such as Dementia
In this list one may find the baby cream Biafine, such cough medicines as Clarix, Codotussyl, Drill, Hexapneumine, Humex, Pectosan, and Rhinathiol, stomach relief medicine such as Maalox, Gaviscon, Josacine, and antibiotic Zinnat, along with a list of other drugs produced by Western corporations and actively advertised for mass consumption.
As it has been pointed out by French journalists, numerous studies have shown that drugs from this list compromise the functioning of the hormone system, especially the reproductive ability of men and women, and may result in cancer.
At the same time, scientists are stressing the danger of hydro-alcoholic gels which were brought to the market in the wake of the artificially created hysteria around the “danger” of the so-called “bird flu,” the H1N1. These gels are advertised as the ultimate solution for sanitizing hands and body in the absence of soap.
Related: Hydrogen Peroxide Or Soap And Water To Clean Your Wound? + Why You Should Think Twice Before Using Antibacterial Soap
A study carried out by the University of Missouri and published in the Plos ONE journal shows that hydro-alcoholic gels make a person more susceptible to Bisphénol-A.
In 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officially recognized that Bisphénol-A is harmful to human health due to the negative effect it has on brain functions and the reproductive system. It also causes a number of cancers (in both women and men) – in particular, prostate cancer, breast cancer as well as autism, depression, reproductive and endocrine systems failure, delays in brain development, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.
Yet another study conducted in Argentina showed that 85% of the women’s hygienic pads presented a serious threat to women since they contain the chemically hazardous substance known as glyphosate.
This fact was revealed by researchers of the National Argentine University of La Plata at a recent congress of physicians in Buenos Aires, upon examining sanitary towels and sanitary pads produced with the use of genetically-modified cotton that was grown using Roundup herbicide of the American company Monsanto-Bayer.
As we learn from this study,after the use of this herbicide, all cotton products contain this carcinogenic substance. For this reason, there’s been a massive movement in many countries through the collection of signatures to force such producers as Tampax or Always to state the composition of their products.
Related: Why Are These 25 Carcinogens Still Being Sold?
The Cancer Risk To People Who Drink Chlorinated Water Is 93% Higher Than Those Who Don’t
This information is from well known Dr Mercola. If you go to the link you can download his free ebook, an excellent resource that will show you how to protect yourself and your loved ones from health risks by choosing the best water to drink and bathe in.
Need I repeat? We need to be vigilant in what we expose ourselves to today because corporate interests are such that they will focus on profits not on your health. Be vigilant and be informed.
Related: 'Brockovich' carcinogen found at unsafe levels in tap water supplies of 218mn Americans – report
What if that clear, clean-looking liquid you use every day – to quench your thirst, to bathe and shower in, and to wash your dishes and laundry in contributed to dozens of everyday ailments, including…heart attacks, tiredness, sinus problems, sperm count, risk of miscarriage, a weakened immune system and many more.
Truth is, the water we use in and around our homes is far from the fresh, pure resource you might assume. And the worst part is…
Americans are ingesting from 300 to 600 times what the Environmental Protection Agency considers a “safe” amount while chlorine itself is relatively benign, and was created to help keep us free from infectious diarrheas, it reacts with organic materials which already dissolve in water, forming chemicals (known as DBP’s) that are over 100 times more toxic than chlorine…
According to the U.S. Council of Environmental Quality, the cancer risk to people who drink chlorinated water is 93 percent higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine.
The residents of a small town in Pennsylvania who ate diets rich in saturated animal fats and milk had no heart attacks – until they switched from mountain spring water to fluoridated water.
Research from the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands discovered that people who swam in chlorinated pools or polluted waters as children had 2.2 to 2.4 times the risk of developing melanoma compared to those who did not swim in chlorinated waters.
Male smokers who drank chlorinated tap water for more than 40 years had double the risk of bladder cancer as smoking males who drank non-chlorinated water.
Related: Get this FREE report "Is Your Water Safe? How Modern Water Sanitation Can Damage Your Health and How To Protect Yourself"
|12 Proven Natural Therapies To Prevent And Relieve Migraines + Migraines Linked To Certain Heavy Metals And Mineral Deficiencies
September 30 2016 | From: GreenMedInfo
The World Health Organization in 2007 estimated that migraine headaches are responsible for more lost years of healthy life in the U.S. than multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, ovarian cancer, and tuberculosis combined.
Every year nearly one in five westerners experience some form of migraine attack. One in 25 will have headaches lasting at least 15 days per month.
Related: MSG Proven Highly Toxic: 1 Dose Causes Headache In Healthy Subjects
Migraine is a disorder marked by disabling attacks of severe one-sided, throbbing headaches, and sensitivity to light and sound. It’s often accompanied by nasal congestion, cloudy thinking, or nausea.
What Causes Migraines?
The cause of migraine headaches is still poorly understood. But some things are clear.
Foods are a common trigger of migraines. In a 1979 study in Lancet, 60 migraine patients completed elimination diets.
Results showed the most common foods causing reactions were wheat (78%), oranges (65%), eggs (45%), tea and coffee (40% each), chocolate and milk (37% each), beef (35%), and corn, cane sugar, and yeast (33% each). When patients avoided an average of 10 common foods there was a dramatic fall in the number of their headaches per month. And 85% of patients became headache-free.
Other proven food triggers include cheese, wine, and beer.
Food additives are also a factor. A study published in the Journal of Headache Pain revealed that a single intake of monosodium glutamate (MSG) produces headache in the majority of healthy subjects tested.
The artificial sweetener aspartame has also been linked to migraines. One reason may be that aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde in various tissues. Sucrolose, another artificial sweetener sold as Splenda may also be a migraine trigger.
Exposure to heavy metals is another proven link to migraines. One study from Turkey found that compared to a control group, migraine sufferers had significantly higher levels of cadmium, iron, lead, and manganese.
Conventional medicine offers few effective or even tolerable therapies for migraines. But a combination strategy of avoiding migraine triggers while adding natural therapies is proven to help manage migraines.
The Green Med Info database contains 59 articles on natural remedies for migraines. They include a variety of therapies, vitamins, minerals, and herbs shown to be effective for migraine relief.
Here are just 12 proven therapies to help prevent and relieve migraines:
Studies show that migraine sufferers have significantly lower blood levels of magnesium. But you might not know you’re low in magnesium. Most blood tests are not a true reflection of body magnesium stores since most measure less than 2% of magnesium. The majority of the body’s magnesium (67%) is stored in the bone and 31% is inside cells.
Magnesium is so important that some practitioners believe all migraine patients should be treated with magnesium.
A meta-analysis of 21 studies found intravenous magnesium significantly relieved acute migraine within as little as 15 to 45 minutes. Oral magnesium also significantly alleviated the frequency and intensity of migraine.
And in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial conducted at seven Northern California Kaiser Permanente sites, children with migraine histories received either magnesium oxide (nine mg per kilogram of their body weight per day) or placebo. After 16 weeks the magnesium led to lower headache severity and a significant reduction in headache days.
Acupuncture has been used in China for centuries to treat migraine headache. In a multi-center randomized controlled study published in the journal Headache, migraine patients were divided into three groups. One group received real acupuncture treatments and the other two groups received sham acupuncture.
Each patient received one treatment session and was observed over a period of 24 hours. Pain was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).
After two hours only the real acupuncture group showed any improvement in pain. After four hours the decrease in the VAS score for the real acupuncture group was up to 10 times more than the sham groups. Within 24 hours 40.7% of the patients in the real acupuncture group experienced complete pain relief and 79.6% did not experience recurrence or intensification of pain.
But it’s not just better than placebo. Acupuncture beats drugs and other therapies for migraine relief too. In a 2015 Cochrane review of 22 trials with 4,419 participants researchers concluded there is consistent evidence that acupuncture provides additional benefit to treatment of acute migraine attacks when added to routine care. The researchers noted:
"Studies suggest that acupuncture is at least as effective as, or possibly more effective than, prophylactic drug treatment, and has fewer adverse effects.”
Other studies show that acupuncture is more effective and safer than the drugs metoprolol and flunarizine. Acupuncture had the added benefit of lowering the use of pain medications and improving patients’ quality of life.
Studies suggest that acupuncture may work by redistributing energy metabolism in the brain, or decreasing serum matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) level and activity, or lowering levels of nitric oxide.
3. Chiropractic Treatments
A 2011 meta-analysis of 21 studies found that chiropractic care improves migraine headaches.
In particular, spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) has been shown to relieve migraines. In one randomized control trial of 127 migraine sufferers, 84 patients received two months (16 treatments) of SMT.
Compared to the control group, the SMT group had significant improvement in migraine frequency, duration, disability, and medication use.
About 22% of the SMT group reported more than a 90% reduction of migraines. In addition, about 50% more reported significant improvement in the symptoms of each episode. More than 80% of patients reported stress as a major factor for their migraines, and researchers suggested that chiropractic care improves conditions related to that stress.
Exercise can improve migraine symptoms. In one controlled, randomized study in the Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine a group of migraine sufferers participated in a 6-week, twice weekly, indoor exercise program consisting of 45-minutes of aerobics and 15 minutes of progressive muscle relaxation.
Compared to the control group, the exercise group reported significantly less migraine pain intensity.
Other forms of exercise proven to improve migraines include qigong and yoga.
5. Mindfulness Therapy
A randomized study in the journal Headache reported that migraine sufferers who participated in an 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction program had 1.4 fewer migraines per month than controls. In addition, their headaches were less severe.
6. Gluten-Free Diet
A German study of 72 celiac patients found that 28% suffered with migraines. Conversely, an Italian study in the American Journal of Gastroenterology found that a significant proportion of migraine patients have celiac disease. In the study of 90 migraine sufferers 4.4% were found to have celiac’s compared to only 0.4% of a control group.
After a six-month gluten-free diet, one of four celiac patients had no migraine attacks, and the remaining three patients experienced an improvement in frequency, duration, and intensity of migraine.
7. Coenzyme Q10
A deficiency of CoQ10 may be common in migraine sufferers. Doctors from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center measured CoQ10 levels in 1,550 pediatric and adolescent patients. Those with low levels started taking 1 to 3 mg/kg of body weight per day of CoQ10. After a few months patients on CoQ10 reported fewer headaches and less disability.
Another study from Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia found that CoQ10 is an effective preventive treatment for migraines. Doctors treated 32 migraine patients with 150 mg of CoQ10 per day.
At the end of three months 61.3% of patients had a greater than 50% reduction in the number of days with migraine headache. Mean migraine frequency also dropped by 55.3% and there were no side-effects.
And a double-blind, randomized Swiss study compared 100 mg of CoQ10 taken three times a day to placebo in 42 migraine patients. After three months it found CoQ10 was superior to placebo for attack-frequency, headache-days and days-with-nausea.
Related: The Natural Way to Regenerate Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10)
8. Gingko Biloba
An Italian study of 24 adolescents found that Ginkgolide B, a constituent of ginkgo biloba, was effective as a preventive treatment in reducing migraine frequency. It also lowered the need for migraine medications.
Another Italian study of 50 women showed that Ginkgolide B reduces migraine frequency and duration.
Patients taking 60 mg of ginkgo biloba twice a day for four months reduced the average number of migraines from 3.7 to 1.2, and reduced length of migraines on average from 40 minutes to 17.6 minutes.
A study from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus School of Medicine found that medical marijuana decreases migraine frequency. Doctors treated 121 migraine sufferers with various forms of medical marijuana including inhaled and edible forms. Most subjects used more than one form of marijuana and used it every day.
Headache frequency decreased from 10.4 to 4.6 headaches per month, and 39.7% of patients reported positive effects. In addition, 19.8% reported fewer headaches and 11.6% reported aborted migraines. Another 11.6% reported negative effects especially with edible marijuana.
10. B Vitamins
High homocysteine levels have been linked to migraine. In a randomized, double-blind placebo, controlled trial of 52 migraine patients vitamin B cut migraine disability in half. Every day, patients took either a placebo or a combination of 2 mg of folic acid, 25 mg of vitamin B6, and 400 micrograms of vitamin B12.
After six months homocysteine was reduced by 39% in the B vitamin group but was not reduced with placebo. Headache frequency and pain severity were also reduced, whereas there was no reduction in the placebo group.
Another study published in Neurology found that high-dose riboflavin (vitamin B2) helps prevent migraines. Researchers compared riboflavin (400 mg per day) and placebo in 55 migraine patients in a randomized trial. After three months, riboflavin beat the placebo in reducing attack frequency.
In addition, 59% of patients had an improvement of at least 50% in their number of headache days compared to only 15% of patients taking the placebo.
And a case report from the Mayo Clinic found that one patient’s migraine attacks responded dramatically to a course of niacin (vitamin B3).
11. Lavender Oil
Inhalation of lavender essential oil may be an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches. In a study of 47 migraine patients half inhaled lavender essential oil for 15 minutes.
The control group used liquid paraffin for the same time period. Patients recorded their headache severity and symptoms in 30-minute intervals for a total of two hours.
The mean reduction of headache severity on the Visual Analog Scale was 3.6 compared to 1.6 for the control group. Also in the lavender group 71% of headaches responded entirely or partially to the lavender compared to only 47% in the placebo group.
A German study found butterbur root extract prevents migraines in children and adolescents. Researchers recruited 108 children and adolescents between the ages of 6 and 17 with severe migraines. Patients were treated with 50 to 150 mg of butterbur root extract depending on their age.
After four months, 77% of all patients reported a reduction in the frequency of migraine attacks of at least 50%. Attack frequency was reduced by 63%. And 91% of patients felt substantially or at least slightly improved after 4 months of treatment.
In a study of adults, researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York found that butterbur extract effectively prevents migraines. Doctors gave 245 migraine patients either a placebo, or 75 mg of the butterbur extract or 50 mg of butterbur extract.
Over 4 months of treatment, migraine attack frequency was reduced by 48% for the 75 mg group, 36% for the 50 mg group, and 26% for the placebo group. The proportion of patients with a 50% or more reduction in attack frequency after 4 months was 68% for patients in the 75 mg group and 49% for placebo.
There are many more proven natural migraine therapies. For more information visit Green Med Info’s page on migraine headaches.
Migraines Linked to Certain Heavy Metals and Mineral Deficiencies
For millions of people, migraines can not only be severe, but also mysterious.
When a person tries to connect their migraine with something they might eat or do, they are looking for something typically called a trigger. This is not necessarily the cause of the migraine, but it might be related to the migraine – especially if it repeats itself prior to every migraine.
Related: These Light Bulbs Cause Anxiety, Migraines, And Even Cancer. If You Have Them, Do THIS Immediately!
Better than a trigger is a metabolic diagnostic indicator. This could be, for example, a fasting blood sugar level, a high CRP level during a time with repeated migraines or some other diagnostic measurement.
The reason why diagnostic indicators can be more important than triggers is because diagnostic indicators can also allow us to understand the metabolic cause – and a possible solution for the migraine. This contrasts with a trigger, where a potential solution may only relate to removing that particular trigger, but doesn't get to the root of the problem.
Removing one trigger may lead to continued migraines following other triggers. This can be a never-ending process. This leaves some people dealing with migraines for decades without a solution.
But discovering a diagnostic indicator will help us determine a larger-scale strategy to remove the migraine.
Testing Migraineurs for Heavy Metals and Minerals
New research from Turkey's Yuzuncu Yil University has utilized a diagnostic indicator to discover the potential link between heavy metals, minerals and migraines.
The diagnostic tool is quite simple: A blood analysis using atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
The researchers tested 50 people – 25 of whom had been diagnosed with migraines. The other 25 people were healthy control subjects. None of those tested were taking any antioxidant or multivitamin supplements. Also, none smoked, or had an alcoholic addiction, abused drugs, had liver or kidney disease, a heart condition or inflammatory condition.
Those who suffered from migraines were admitted to the hospital and received a diagnosis and treatment program consistent with the recommendations of the International Headache Society.
Certain Heavy Metals Linked to Migraines
The researchers found that the migraine patients had significantly higher levels of certain heavy metals compared with the healthy control group. The heavy metals found in higher levels among the migraine patients were:
Cadmium: The migraine group had an average of .36 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dl) compared to an average of .09 ug/dl among the healthy controls. That means the migraineurs had on average of four times the cadmium in their blood compared with the control group.
Iron: The migraineurs had an average of .97 ug/dl of this mineral – sometimes considered a heavy metal – in their bloodstream. Meanwhile, the healthy controls averaged less than half that amount, with .48 ug/dl.
Lead: The migraineurs had an average of 1.48 ug/dl of this heavy metal in their bloodstream. The healthy controls had an average of .70 ug/dl – again less than half the levels of the migraineurs.
Manganese: This is considered both a mineral and heavy metal – as are all of the above - depending upon the levels found. This and the others above are normally found in miniscule amounts in healthy persons. The migraine sufferers had an average of 2.30 ug/dl of manganese. The healthy controls had levels of .62 in their bloodstream. This means the migraineurs had nearly four times the manganese levels found in the healthy group.
Certain Mineral Deficiencies Also Linked to Migraines
The research also found that the migraine sufferers had notable deficiencies in certain minerals. Here are the heavy hitters:
Copper: The migraine sufferers had an average of 4.63 ug/dl of copper in their blood. Meanwhile, the healthy group had an average of 8.90 ug/dl of copper. This means the healthy group had nearly double the levels of this important mineral.
Magnesium: The migraineurs had an average of 10.58 ug/dl of this important mineral in their bloodstream. Meanwhile the healthy controls had an average of 34.51 ug/dl in their blood. This means the healthy controls had about 350% - or three and a half times – the levels of magnesium in their blood compared the migraine sufferers.
Zinc: The migraine sufferers had an average of .24 ug/dl of this important mineral. This contrasted greatly with the healthy group, which had an average of 5.77 ug/dl of zinc in their bloodstreams. This means the healthy group had over 24 times the levels of zinc in their blood compared to the migraine sufferers!
The Importance of Mineral Balancing
Mineral balance is critical to health. Many studies have linked numerous conditions with either heavy metal toxicity or a deficiency in certain minerals. As mentioned above, those elements considered heavy metals are present in most natural foods and healthy people, but in very small amounts. They are thus to be considered microminerals within the context of our body.
Other minerals – such as calcium, magnesium, zinc and others – are considered macrominerals within the body because our body requires greater amounts of these minerals. These - and even the microminerals – are used in the body for numerous functions.
These include enzyme functions and the production of hormones, neurotransmitters and many others. Some minerals – such as calcium and magnesium – are also used by nerve cells to facilitate the transmission of electrical impulses.
Interestingly, when the body is deficient of a particular type of mineral, our metabolism will typically substitute another type of mineral for that function – one with a similar atomic configuration. This substitution often leads to suppressed metabolism – which can result in greater amounts of inflammation and greater fatigue, stress - and now we can say - a greater risk of migraines.
Other studies have confirmed that many conditions are linked with heavy metal toxicity and mineral deficiencies.
These include dementias, cancers, autistic spectrum disorders, brain disorders and so many others. Research has linked heavy metals to increased oxidative damage – which are linked to these and many other disorders.
This also includes artery diseases, as high cadmium levels have been linked to thickened arteries and atherosclerosis. This of course can relate directly to migraines, as migraines often relate to poor microcirculation, especially around the brain and neck region.
With regards to brain disorders in particular, lead has been linked with brain cancer and brain issues because it readily crosses the blood-brain barrier.
As for therapeutic use of minerals for migraines, both magnesium and zinc have been used for migraines.
For research on how to detoxify heavy metals naturally read the GreenMedInfo.com article on the topic.
Is October Breast Cancer "Awareness" Or "Industry" Month?
September 29 2016 | From: DrMcDougall
October is commonly known as "Breast Cancer Awareness Month." This is an annual, international campaign organized by major charities to increase the awareness of breast cancer and to raise funds for research.
"A lot of awareness has been created, but unfortunately there has been no useful progress made in finding the cause, or for effectively preventing, treating, or curing breast cancer." - HORSESHIT
Related: Mammograms Send Women To Their Deathbeds Faster And Increase Their Risk of Breast Cancer As Much As 30 Percent
Comment: In 100 years of 'modern medicine' research not ONE cure for ANY DISEASE has ever been allowed to emerge through the medical establishment - because the upper echelons of the establishment are not interested in cures or addressing causes - only in addressing symptoms - for profit.
Slowly people are waking up to this, especially with the news of natural cures being so successful, remedies that the pharmaceutical industry CANNOT PATENT and therefore cannot CONTROL not PROFIT from. And so they lobby to have real, natural remedies SLANDERED and OUTLAWED.
Related: Eugenics & The Depopulation Agenda
So, put your coins in the buckets but know that you are further funding the medical establishment that will NEVER RELEASE A CURE FOR CANCER if they have their way.
We do not have a Healthcare System - that label is a farce. We have
a Sickness Industry. Driven by the mandates and objectives of the 'elite' at the top. They have no interest in wellness nor cures.
They wish to keep you as sick as they can for as long as they can whilst extracting as much money from you as they can in the process. This is not just about money, but consolidation of power and population control, otherwise known as Eugenics.
Related: The Truth About Cancer
Related: Hospital Fires Leading Cancer Surgeon For Telling The Truth About Medical Establishment
The campaign's efforts have, however, increased the number of women diagnosed with breast cancer, primarily by encouraging mammograms, and the use of powerful treatments, such as surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.
The conflicts of interest between businesses sponsoring breast cancer awareness campaigns while at the same time profiting from breast cancer diagnosis and treatment have resulted in October also being known as "Breast Cancer Industry Month."
The same year that the Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign was founded (1985) as a team effort between the American Cancer Society and a pharmaceutical company (AstraZeneca), I wrote McDougall's Medicine: A Challenging Second Opinion.
This book includes a comprehensive chapter on the testing and treatment of breast cancer. After reading this scientifically backed material (click the link over the book cover) you will be shocked to learn that medical doctors and scientists have known for more than 30 years about the harms that are still being done to women.
Related: Cancer Update: There Are Now 100 Scientific Studies That Prove Cannabis Cures Cancer + Watch What Happens When Cannabis Is Injected Into Cancer Cells
Countless women have been subjected to life-damaging fear, testing, biopsies, radiation, breast amputations, drugs, and death, with little, if any, improvement in the quality or quantity of their lives.
The reason this inhumanity continues is that the business of diagnosing and treating breast cancer generates a great deal of money for medical practices, far more than would be generated through alleviating women's suffering.
Three major articles that made worldwide headlines were published this year (2015) during Breast Cancer Awareness Month (October), proving that the ineffective ways women have been cared for is widely known. McDougall's Medicine: A Challenging Second Opinion shows you that this is old news.
Related: 'Cancer Screening Has Never Saved Lives' - BMJ Study Concludes
The first article was published in JAMA Oncology and was a 20-year study of more than 108,000 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)* patients who had undergone treatment.
The headline-grabbing news was the finding that there was no significant difference in survival among women who had a mastectomy, a lumpectomy, or a lumpectomy followed by radiation. Surgery and/or radiation do not save lives (not even for women with invasive cancer).
The second article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and was new advice from the American Cancer Society for when and how often women should have mammograms.
Related: Mammograms Cause Breast Cancer
This organization now recommends that most women should start annual screenings at age 45 rather than at 40, and also advises switching screening to every other year at 55. This update also recommends no routine physical breast exams to be performed by doctors, concluding that there is no evidence that these exams save lives.
The third study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and found the rate of cancers that have spread beyond the breast when detected has stayed stable since 1975, meaning that mammograms are not preventing the most deadly (metastatic) forms of breast cancer.
McDougall's Medicine: A Challenging Second Opinion can be ordered as a PDF and found in libraries and secondhand bookstores. However, you can read this chapter on breast cancer now by clicking on the book cover above.
*DCIS refers to the formal name, ductal carcinoma in situ. This condition is also referred to as stage 0 breast cancer. The implication is that the abnormal "cancer appearing" cells remain in the milk ducts and show no evidence of spread to other parts of the body. Because the cells have not spread, DCIS is really not cancer.
Many doctors and scientists are calling for a new name for this condition in an effort to reduce the fear and over-treatment caused by the word "cancer."
The 20 Biggest Cancer Lies You've Been Brainwashed To Believe By The For-Profit Cancer Industry + Cancer Cures Exposed: Natural Medicine Revealed As The Answer
Watch As Amazing GcMAF Treatment Kills Cancer Cells In Real Time
Cancer Industry Now Admits That Chemo And Radiation Treatments Generate Huge Repeat Business & Repeat Profits
Medical Establishment Doesn't Like Baking Soda Cancer Treatment Because It’s Too Effective And Too Cheap
The Man Who Discovered The Cause Of Cancer Wrote A Book On Curing It
5 Cancer Myths Busted
The Cult Of 'Scientism' Explained: How Scientific Claims Behind Cancer, Vaccines, Psychiatric Drugs And GMOs Are Nothing More Than Corporate-Funded Science Fraud
5 Facts On Cancer That Conventional Medicine Is Now Aggressively Claiming Are Myths + Amish Have Lower Rates Of Cancer, Ohio State Study Shows
Breast Cancer Cover-Up Continues
|Modern Life Is Killing Our Children: UK Cancer Rate In Young People Up 40% In 16 Years + 12 Things A Cancer Doctor Should Never Say
September 25 2016 | From: TheTelegraph / TheTruthAboutCancer / Various
Modern life is killing children with the number of youngsters diagnosed with cancer rising 40 per cent in the past 16 years because of air pollution, pesticides, poor diets and radiation, scientists have warned. These two articles include a massive dump on cancer topics both causes and solutions.
New analysis of government statistics by researchers at the charity Children with Cancer UK found that there are now 1,300 more cancer cases a year compared with 1998, the first time all data sets were published.
Note: As this first article is from the controlled mainstream it makes ridiculous statements like the causes of cancer not being known. Interspresed are links to various other articles and resources.
Related: Electromagnetic fields and their negative effects
The rise is most apparent in teenagers and young adults aged between 15 and 24, where the incident rate has risen from around 10 cases in 100,000 to nearly 16.
Researchers say that although some of the rise can be explained by improvements in cancer diagnoses and more screening, the majority is probably caused by environmental factors.
Related: CT scans increase your risk of cancer by 35 percent
Dr Denis Henshaw, Professor of Human Radiation Effects at Bristol University, the scientific adviser for Children with Cancer UK, said air pollution was by far the biggest culprit, accounting for around 40 per cent of the rise, but other elements of modern lifestyles are also to blame.
Among these are obesity, pesticides and solvents inhaled during pregnancy, circadian rhythm disruption through too much bright light at night, radiation from x-rays and CT scans, smoking during and after pregnancy, magnetic fields from power lines, gadgets in homes, and potentially, radiation from mobile phones.
Children are surrounded by electrical fields, warn scientists
Related: Vaccine ingredients cause tumors to grow
"When you look at cancers such as childhood leukaemia there is no doubt that environmental factors are playing a big role,” said Dr Henshaw. “We were shocked to see the figures, and it’s modern lifestyle I’m afraid."
“Many items on the list of environmental causes are now known to be carcinogenic, such as air pollution and pesticides and solvents. There has been good research to suggest a mother's diet can damage DNA in cord blood. Light at night we know is very disruptive for the body, which is why shift workers have such bad health.
Burnt barbecues, the electric fields of power lines, the electricity supply in your home. Hairdryers. It’s all of these things coming together, and it seems to be teenagers and young people that are most affected.
What’s worrying is it is very hard to avoid a lot of these things. How can you avoid air pollution? It sometimes feels like we are fighting a losing battle.”
More than 4,000 children and young people are diagnosed with cancer every year in Britain, and cancer is the leading cause of death in children aged one to 14.
Related: Brain cancer replaces leukemia as deadliest cancer for kids, study shows
Diagnoses of colon cancer among children and young people has risen 200 per cent since 1998, while thyroid cancer has doubled. Ovarian and cervical cancers have also risen by 70 per cent and 50 per cent respectively.
The charity estimates that the rise in cases now costs the NHS an extra £130 million a year compared with 16 years ago.
Related: Gwyneth Paltrow warns of the dangers of cell phone use and WiFi radiation
But experts believe many cancers could be prevented with lifestyle changes such as allowing children to attend nursery to boost their immune system, not painting children’s rooms with oil-based paints, avoiding night shift work and processed meats in pregnancy.
The figures were released ahead of the Children with Cancer UK conference which is taking place in London this week.
Other cancer experts said they had also noticed a rise in cancer diagnoses but warned it was too early to draw firm conclusions on the causes.
Nicola Smith, Cancer Research UK’s senior health information officer, said: [Bollocks mainly]
“Any rise in childhood cancers is worrying but it’s important to remember that less than one per cent of cancer cases in the UK occur in children.
It’s not yet clear exactly what causes cancer in childhood and research has not shown a link with environmental factors like air pollution and diet during pregnancy.
There are some factors which can increase the risk of childhood cancer like inherited genetic conditions and exposure to radiation – but these are usually not avoidable and no one should feel blamed for a child getting cancer.
Evidence has shown that there are lots of things adults can do to reduce cancer risk and it’s always a good idea to set up healthy habits as a family, like eating healthily, being active and enjoying the sun safely.”
Related: Massive government study concludes cell phone radiation causes brain cancer
Kate Lee, chief executive of children’s cancer charity CLIC Sargent, said that a child cancer diagnosis places a huge emotional and financial burden on the whole family.
"Over the last year CLIC Sargent provided support for more than 7,100 families, more than ever before, but we know that we can still only reach two out of three of those children and young people diagnosed with cancer,” she added.
“As more young cancer patients are diagnosed every year, we know each of those families will need support and are working hard to one day be able to provide those services for every young patient.”
Despite the increase, around 80 per cent of child cancer patients now survive for at least five years. But the aggressive treatments they have as children can have a major impact on their future health, even if they survive.
Related: Apple's new 'wireless' headphones emit radiation ... right next to your brain
Tomorrow, Children with Cancer UK launches a five-point plan calling on the Government and the science and medical community to ensure that all children diagnosed with cancer in the UK have access to precision medicine by 2020.
The politics behind the science of cell phone safety
Teen who was allergic to WiFi commits suicide: mom
Cellphone Radiation Linked to Cancer in Major Rat Study
Latest iPhones Have Almost SIX TIMES More Cancer-Causing Radiation Than Competing Brands
Telecom Company’s Patent Admits: Non-Thermal Exposures To Wireless Radiation Is “Genotoxic”, Causes “Clear Damage to Hereditary Material”
What the Hell is this? Microwave Bursts in most Major US Population Centers Showing up on Weather Radar!
Cancer Curing Doctor Found Shot Dead shortly after Govt. Raid on Clinic
Interview with the late Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez: Chemo drugs are derived from World War I nerve gas chemicals
The cancer risk to people who drink chlorinated water is 93 percent higher than those who don’t
8 Lifestyle Hacks that Ward off Cancer
The Quiet Killer ~ Exploding Autoimmune Epidemics ~ Vaccines & Man Made Cancer ~ Dr. Randy Tent
Why I Said “No” to Chemo
Wi-Fi: The Invisible Killing Fields
Why wireless radiation is dangerous and why the safety guidelines urgently need updating
Cell Phone Technology Disrupts Brain Activity
12 Things A Cancer Doctor Should Never Say
We can all agree that proper communication skills are essential for the best cancer care. While some patients appreciate a direct approach, others need a bit of hand-holding. Some cancer doctors have good “bedside” manners, displaying genuine empathy for their patients. Others can be considered bullies in white coats. But it all comes down to this… what a cancer doctor says or doesn’t say can make all the difference in your outcome.
Doctors frequently take an overly dominant role. Proactive patients are often treated with sarcasm or arrogance. The patient who comes armed with research might be told “I see you have spent some time on Google. I think it is best if you let me diagnose you and tell you the treatment that is most suitable for you.”
Related: Researchers Finally Confirm that Cancer is a Purely Man-Made Disease
Cancer treatment requires a partnership between doctor and patient. A patient needs to be comfortable and confident that the chosen treatment is the best option for them.
As a cancer strategist I hear of all kinds of terrible comments made by oncologists to their patients. Even those patients who intend to comply with the recommendations of their oncologist hear words that should never be spoken. Often times I am sure that these comments are not meant to be callous, but are just spoken in ignorance.
Here are 12 things you should never hear from your cancer doctor. Be on the lookout for doctors who say any of these. It could be a sign that they need an attitude adjustment… and that you need a new doctor:
#1. I’m afraid I have bad news. If you didn’t already suspect you had a problem to deal with, you would not be sitting in the doctor’s office. This statement brings on fear. Doctors do this so that you will comply with their orders. Skip the drama doc.
Related: A DIRE WARNING: The Cancer Industry Owns The Media And Your Mind
#2. You have three months to live. It is rarely helpful to have a doctor pretend he has a crystal ball. While from experience they might have an idea how long the average patient lives given a particular diagnosis, we are all individuals and YOU ARE NOT AVERAGE. Despite what the doctor says, there is always hope. There is always a way to extend life or even reverse the dis-ease.
Just like “bad news,” a prognosis brings on fear and the need to comply − albeit in a different way. Studies show that people are told they have three months to live dutifully fulfill that directive from their doctor. Even worse, a poor prognosis takes away the will to live and ability to think outside the box and to change the direction of the dis-ease.
There are innumerable remissions of advanced and late stage cancers. There are countless stories of patients who were offered little chance of survival or a cure, yet who are here years later to tell their tale. A quick perusal through the articles on The Truth About Cancer website will bring you valuable information on surviving the odds.
Related: Breakthrough Discovery Shows That Resonant Frequencies Can Kill Cancer Cells
Hope gives us the opportunity to do what we must do to heal from cancer. Even in the face of the most advanced of cancers, there is usually room for some words of encouragement and support. This can make all the difference in the patient’s attitude towards their disease and their treatment. While there is hope, there is life.
#3. If you don’t do “X” you will die. For some bizarre reason, cancer doctors think they know everything. Yes, I know that they went to medical school, but there was competent and effective medicine well before Big Pharma taught these doctors. Know that there are many, many options when it comes to managing cancer − don’t let your doctor bully you. In fact, you might point out to your doctor that you are more likely to die if you follow one of the standard protocols instead of opting for a less toxic treatment plan.
Related: Landmark Study Shows Half of Cancer Patients are Killed by Chemo - NOT Cancer
#4. You have no choice. Sorry, doctor, yes, you do. They might also say you have no other options. While it is always a good idea to get a second, third, or even fourth opinion, be sure to get at least one from an alternative or holistic doctor.
The award-wnning documentary The Idiot Cycle (2009) about the companies involved in producing toxic chemicals, cancer treatments and genetically modified crops
Otherwise, you are still limiting your options and overlooking key lifelines to survival.
#5. Calm Down. Given the situation at hand, it is understandable that a patient might be upset. Telling a patient they need to calm down or speaking to him or her in a dominant tone of voice clearly shows a lack of empathy and offers no chance of a partnership.
#6. This treatment will not harm you. Be sure you are clear on what “harm” means to your cancer doctor. Chemotherapy, radiation, hormone therapies, and even surgery harm the body and increase your risk of more cancer. Be aware of the life-threatening and quality of life-threatening side effects, and do not believe that they are always “worth it.” Studies and case studies have not provided evidence of efficacy.
Related: The TRUTH about CHEMO
#7. Here are the statistics. You are a person, not a statistic. You have your own unique set of circumstances; your own history. Statistics are helpful for doctors who use a checklist to make treatment recommendations. As an empowered person who is committed to make lifestyle changes that can affect your health and outcome, statistics do not apply.
Further, statistics are typically skewed in favor of treatment recommendations. For example, a patient might hear that by taking hormone therapy they will reduce their risk of recurrence by almost 50%. Sounds great, right? However in actuality, it may be the case that the risk without the therapy was only 2% and with the drugs 1%. That 50% reduction doesn’t really mean much, does it?
Related: American Cancer Society admits conventional cancer treatment causes more cancer
Or in the case of chemotherapy, a patient might hear that the therapy will decrease risk by 30%. But if the risk of dying was only 10% to begin with, the survival benefit on an absolute basis is only 3%. Considering the downsides of these therapies, one must extrapolate the true benefit and compare this to the possible harm they deliver.
#8. This treatment will cure you. This is a bold statement for sure. If your doctor is not addressing the cause of your cancer, the treatment is not a cure. Cancer is complicated, but most often the root cause can be determined and resolved. Only then can any treatment be considered “curative.”
I have never met anyone who was Tamoxifen- or chemotherapy-deficient, for example, so there is no reason to believe that taking either will resolve the reason for your cancer.
#9. You are wasting your time with nutritional supplements. While there is no one magic bullet, no one cure for cancer, lifestyle factors such as taking supplements can make a difference. There is too much evidence on how nutritional factors influence genetic expression for anyone to ignore the power of food and supplements.
Related: HOW and WHY Cannabis Cures Cancer – Scientific Explanation
What we eat makes a powerful difference. A mostly plant based, whole foods diet and taking nutritional supplements can have a substantial impact. That said, in these days of nutrient-depleted soil conditions and over-farming, food just does not have the nutrient content of years past. Plus, busy lives do not always allow for “perfect” meals. Hence, supplements are a necessary part of an anticancer protocol.
#10. Cancer Just Happens: It’s a Matter of bad luck. This is so ridiculous I just had to include it. Cancer develops for a reason. It is a signal, a cry for help that tells us something or many things are not right within the body. Overexposure to toxins, the genetic inability to manage toxins, and the entire issue of unresolved emotional traumas are some of the biggest triggers of cancer.
Although nutritional deficiencies are not likely the cause of one’s cancer, they do allow it to develop and grow.
Related: The Shocking REAL Cause of Cancer Deaths!
Don’t accept that blanket statement from your doctor. Whether they are saying this out of ignorance or for your emotional protection, it is not helpful when it comes to your healing and survival.
#11. Alternative doctors are quacks. What mainstream cancer doctors consider to be “alternative” was once medicine. Sadly, modern medicine focuses on drug therapies and fails to acknowledge the reasons that cancer has become rampant. We are not sick because we have cancer… we have cancer because we are sick. If we do not correct what created the dis-ease, we cannot cure it. Alternative doctors consider the whole person. They believe that making a person well is just as important or even more important than targeting the symptoms of cancer (such as a tumor).
Related: The Suppression of a Natural Cancer Cure
While every alternative treatment works for someone, not every treatment works for everyone. Part of this is, again, because we all have our own unique circumstances for having cancer. Be sure you work with a qualified practitioner and coach to optimize the healing of your body and your cancer.
And last but not least…
#12. Estrogen causes breast cancer. This is simply not accurate. Estrogen has 400 essential functions in a woman’s body. While estrogen dominance and hormonal imbalance can allow breast cancer to develop and grow, estrogen does not cause breast cancer. More precisely, estrogen can turn on cancer genes, but only if not opposed by progesterone. So blaming estrogen for cancer is a bit like saying that matches cause fires. You have to light the match, right?
Related: Breast Cancer Cover-Up Continues
Progesterone acts as an antagonist to estrogen. While estrogen is associated with breast and other cancers, progesterone has anti-cancer effects.
When the opposing force of progesterone is increased, the toxic effect of estrogen is decreased. So while estrogen can turn on cancer genes, progesterone turns on genes that can prevent breast cancer from occurring. Instead of blocking or eliminating estrogen, you may want to concentrate on increasing progesterone so the fire is not ignited by the match.
A note on receptors: when activated by progesterone, the progesterone receptors attach themselves to the estrogen receptors. Once this happens, the estrogen receptors stop turning on genes that promote the growth of the cancer cells. Instead, they turn on genes that promote the death of cancer cells (known as apoptosis) and the growth of healthy, normal cells.
Hormone receptors are dependent on iodine, which increases the sensitivity of the receptor to the hormone it was designed. So rather than block your receptors, it would be prudent to ensure you have sufficient iodine in your diet so that the receptors can work most efficiently.
Scientist Demonstrates How Cancer Can Be Destroyed By Frequencies
John Grisham is Giving His Book Away for Free to Educate People on an Alternative Cure for Cancer
Cannabis oil cures terminal cancer in 3-year-old after pharmaceutical drugs fail miserably
10 Natural Cancer Treatments Revealed
Olive Oil Compound Kills Cancer Cells in 30 Minutes
Marijuana Kills Cancer Cells, Admits the U.S. National Cancer Institute
TRULY HEAL CANCER with GcMAF WHY THEY BAN RAW MILK
|Bayer's Monsanto Deal To Be Closely Watched By New Zealand Farmers As Agri-Chemical Players Dwindle
September 22 2016 | From: NationalBusinessReview
Bayer's US$66 billion acquisition of Monsanto, creating the world's biggest supplier of seeds and agri-chemicals to farmers, will be closely watched by New Zealand's rural sector as the latest in a series of deals that has shrunk the number of competitors in the market.
Bayer and Monsanto are two of the big seven companies selling agricultural chemicals in New Zealand.
Related: Monsanto to be acquired by Bayer, the Nazi-era IG Farben 'crimes against humanity' poison chemical company
Of the other five, Dow Chemical is in the process of a global merger with DuPont and Swiss seed giant Syngenta is close to being acquired by China National Chemical Corp, which already owns Adama.
Of the others, ASX-listed Nufarm had a distribution agreement with Monsanto for its Roundup glyphosphate products up until 2013, while Bayer rival BASF reportedly held inconclusive talks with Monsanto earlier this year
Bayer chief executive Werner Baumann has indicated the companies would need to file for clearance in about 30 jurisdictions for the deal and get antitrust approval in the US, Canada, Brazil and the EU, the Financial Times reports. The deal has stoked concern among US farmer groups that they may face price increases for agricultural products.
Federated Farmers arable farming chair Guy Wigley called it:
"A significant development for New Zealand farming. It's a very finely tuned marketplace and farmers are highly sensitive to pricing," he said. "The costs and benefits of using all their products are keenly understood."
Wigley likened agri-chemicals to the pharmaceuticals industry, where there was plenty of competition for older products that had come off patent while companies sought a premium to cover research and development costs for new products.
The Commerce Commission said it is unable to comment on whether the transaction would require its scrutiny. However, John Hampton, professor of seed technology and director of the Lincoln University Seed Research Centre, said it may require antitrust approval.
While Monsanto is the world's largest seed company, its GM crops such as Roundup-ready Canola, soybean and maize aren't sold in New Zealand and its local sales in that market are confined to vegetable seeds produced by its Seminis and De Ruiter units.
Related: The Complete History Of Monsanto, The World’s Most Evil Corporation
Bayer has a smaller seeds business but is mainly in the pest and disease product side of the agri-chemical market, including seed treatments, while Monsanto's chemicals were more in the herbicide and weed control side of the market.
All up there were about half a dozen major companies in the seed sector, "so I can't see there would be a major impact in what's happening in seeds in New Zealand," Hampton said, adding that he speculated that Monsanto's GM technology was a major driver for Bayer's takeover offer.
Globally, there was no new herbicide chemistry emerging and increased resistance and regulatory hurdles for some existing ones. At the same time growing demand "for more sustainable methods of weed and pest control," he said.
“Chemicals aren't the future. Now the industry is looking at interactions between microbes and plants - biocontrols," he said.
The past five years have been marked by a number of acquisitions of small biocontrol companies by big agri-chemical producers "being astute and looking to the future". Research was now focussed in two main areas - GM technology and the use of bacteria and fungi to control pests and diseases and to promote plant growth, he said.
Industry group Agcarm, which represents about 85 percent of the New Zealand agri-chemicals market, has 14 members listed as crop protection companies. It estimates the New Zealand market is worth $250 million to $300 million.
Bayer's offer for Monsanto of US$128 a share in cash is about 20 percent more than the last trading price of US$106.76. Bayer said the deal would create "significant value" with annual synergies of about US$1.5 billion after three years "plus additional synergies from integrated solutions in future years".
Related: Monsanto and Bayer: Why Food And Agriculture Just Took A Turn For The Worse
|What Do Smart Meters And Vaccinations Have In Common? + Another Vaccine Dump
September 20 2016 | From: NaturalBlaze / Various
Jerry Day of Freedom Taker.com has produced an exceptional new video wherein he explains in detail what Smart Meters and Vaccinations have in common.
It’s called “Conditional Acceptance,” a term and a legal tactic whereby you can refuse anyone who pressures you to sign either an “opt-out” agreement for a Smart Meter or demands you to accept a vaccination.
Related: Del Bigtree: “Our Children Are Being Sold To The Pharmaceutical Industry”
Opt-out contracts are ones big corporations give you when you refuse corporate offers. Jerry explains what he calls “highway robbery” in this video.
Listen carefully to what Jerry explains, plus take notes, because his logic may be one that you can utilize under “Right of Contract.” Jerry says;
“Always remember that you have Right of Contract. That is the legal term used to describe the fact that on any contract or agreement your signature must be fully voluntary and not coerced in any way. If you’re pressured into signing or agreeing, your signature and agreement technically have no authority or effect."
And legally, there is no contract or agreement if you can show there was coercion or pressure causing you to sign that contract. So your Right of Contract means that you – and only you – may decide whether you sign something or not. And you may not be penalized in any way for refusing to sign anything.”
“They [utilities and governments] are criminally violating utility customers – and they know it. So when they refuse to insure the damage, their equipment will cause to you, you have every right to refuse that equipment.
“If the equipment they are installing was really not harmful and did not violate your rights, the insurance would cost almost nothing. But electronic utility meters are known to be hazardous and harmful – so much so that no insurance company will provide insurance for any price [more about insurance here], because they know that advanced utility metering is a ticking time bomb of damages and litigation. Vaccinations represent a very similar situation to utility metering.”
Listen intently to what Jerry says about “Conditional Acceptance” because that’s the bargaining chip in the ‘song and dance’ you will have to engage in to protect yourself and your family from AMI Smart Meter RFs/EMFs, dirty electricity they produce , plus possible fire loss to your home from Smart Meters proclivity to malfunction.
The same logic regarding “Right of Contract” and “Conditional Acceptance” applies with regard to vaccinations. Jerry delves into vaccinations like you may not have heard before.
Homeowners insurance and health insurance do not cover you for losses from AMI Smart Meters or injured health from receiving a vaccine! The unfair fact about bullying and harassment from utilities and the medical profession has to be understood fully for what it is: You are liable for all damages unless you are prepared not to be left helpless and demand your legal rights by taking Jerry’s advice into consideration.
After listening to the above video, please be certain to check out thedownloadable documents A-2 and A-4 regarding Smart Meters. There’s also a Vaccination Notice Jerry talks about. All are offered as templates at www.FreedomTaker.com.
Yes, they just keep coming - the evidence is in the order of a flood of biblical proportions for this with the eyes to see:
Shocking research confirms vaccines are contaminated with Monsanto's RoundUp herbicide
Anthony Samsel on Vaccines contaminated with Glyphosate
Vaccines: Prevention or Curse?
Vaccination: Serious Concerns
Another Vaccine “Bombshell” Glyphosate – Think Monsanto’s Roundup – Confirmed in Most Vaccines
Intelligent Parents are Refusing Vaccinations
The Average Flu Shot Left This 9-Year-Old Girl Paralyzed And Non-Verbal
Flu deaths continue to mount in people vaccinated against it
Vaccine Quackery Bombshell: Key studies cited to 'prove' vaccines are safe were funded almost entirely by vaccine manufacturers
New vaccines will permanently alter human DNA
New Vaccine Whistleblower Film Premieres To Standing Ovation
How Big Pharma Targets Your Kids!
Actor Rob Schneider Speaks Out Against the Dangers of Vaccines
Shock Report: Testing Reveals Glyphosate Present in Childhood Vaccines
Shocking Research Confirms Vaccines Are Contaminated With Monsanto's RoundUp Herbicide
Folks, I have written about the problems with vaccines in previous blog posts. Now, a new serious contamination problem with our vaccines has been identified.
Researcher Anthony Samsel has published five peer-reviewed articles on the herbicide Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup). A yet-to-be published sixth paper found various commonly-used vaccines contaminated with the herbicide glyphosate.
Yes, you read that correctly: Our vaccines are contaminated with an herbicide that the World Health Organization characterized as"probably carcinogenic to humans."
How can this happen? That answer is easy.
Many vaccines contain animal byproducts such as gelatin, bovine casein, bovine serum, bovine calf serum, or chicken egg protein. The animals from which these products come from are fed grains sprayed with glyphosate. It does not take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that these animals, fed glyphosate in their diet, would contain glyphosate in their byproducts.
Samsel sent a letter to Congress that stated:
“I have run numerous groups of vaccines and identified several vectors of contamination. These include the excipient gelatins, egg protein and or similar substrates used to grow vaccines.
I have found gelatins and egg proteins contaminated with Glyphosate-based herbicides from animals fed a glyphosate contaminated diet.
This contamination carries into thousands of consumer products i.e. vitamins, protein powders, wine, beer and other consumables which use gelatins as part of the product or in fining and processing."
What did Samsel hear back?
He heard nothing.
In other words, our do-nothing Congress, so far, has failed to respond. In his letter to Congress, Samsel also stated that Glyphosate is a synthetic amino acid. It bioaccumulates and is found in all tissue types, particularly the bone and marrow of animals fed a diet contaminated with Glyphosate residues.
You can see Dr. Samsel talk about his research by clicking here.
The following vaccines were found to be contaminated with the herbicide glyphosate:
2. Varicella (chicken pox)
3. Zostavax (shingles)
4. Proquad (MMR, rubella, varicella)
5. Fluzone Quad (flu vaccine)
6. Hepatitis B (B Energix-B)
Multiple vaccines from different manufactures were found to be contaminated. Folks, this is a big deal. Injecting a vaccine contaminated with a known herbicide that is "probably carcinogenic to humans" should be prohibited. We need a Congressional investigation into our vaccines.
We keep hearing the mantra that vaccines are safe. Injecting a vaccine containing an herbicide is safe? Give me a break!
It is time to call your political representatives and tell them to investigate this matter. I can assure you that it is not safe to inject a known neurotoxin such as mercury or aluminum. Nor is it safe to inject a known carcinogen such as formaldehyde.
Guess what? It is not safe to inject an herbicide that is a probable human carcinogen.
Follow Dr. Brownstein's blog for more great articles by clicking here.
Anthony Samsel on Vaccines contaminated with Glyphosate
Scientists Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff have just gotten the fifth peer reviewed paper on Glyphosate published. Its named "Glyphosate pathways to modern diseases V: Amino acid analogue of glycine in diverse proteins".
In this regard Tony Mitra interviewed Anthony Samsel, to cover the newly emerging scientific findings on Glyphosate and how it can and does hurt creatures including humans.
In the course of the interview, Anthony Samsel mentioned the issues being covered in their next paper, the 6th one. This covers a number of vaccines that use animal byproducts such as egg protein and gelatine. He suspected these products might be contaminated with Glyphosate, if the vaccine makers were using factory farmed animals fed with Glyphosate laced GMO feed.
To verify, he got a large number of vaccines that do use egg proteins and gelatine and got them analyzed in multiple labs. The results confirmed his doubt. The vaccines themselves are largely contaminated with Glyphosate and pose serious hazard to those that are and will be vaccinated using these products.
|Not So Smart Technology: Safety Inspector Blows The Whistle On Fire Hazards Of 'Smart' Electronics
September 20 2016 | From: Sott /
If you think your "smart" appliances are the "cat's whiskers," then please think again! Actually, in my opinion, they are the dumbest things ever invented that have been able to buffalo consumers into spending their hard-earned money to purchase, but have the greatest potential for causing consumers harm and grief.
Recently, I received an email from one of my readers who had to attend a fire safety training session for 'their' job. That instructional course was given by none other than a Delaware County, Pennsylvania Fire Investigator, who was quite explicit in his presentation about certain fire causes.
Related: Smart Meters ‘Not Needed’ After All For European Power Grid + How To Opt Out From ‘Smart’ Meters
Here's what the email said for which this sender gave permission to share:
“He [the trainer] mentioned in the beginning of his presentation how fire deaths were down, but house fires were up dramatically across the nation. [CJF emphasis added]
Later during the Q&A, I asked him in front of the whole group [what were] the causes of these fires. He mentioned all the electronics - WiFi/Bluetooth gadgets, cheap phone chargers, iPads, wide screen TVs, etc.
I interrupted to say "how about smart meters" to which he replied: Anything "smart" is a fire hazard.
This [smart] technology is so new, and they haven't tested or developed it adequately enough yet.
He went on to poke fun at "smart" wired houses having everything linked and what a hazard that can cause.
Then after the presentation, I commented how I heard that as this technology ages, it becomes even more potentially hazardous, which he affirmed, and also mentioned that
More car fires occur because of all the electronic gadgetry now.”
All the above information is yet another confirmation with implications for Consumer Protection Law(s) at local and state levels regarding "smart" consumer appliances and fires, which insurance companies - especially AMI Smart Meter fires - are declining coverage for!
But there is even more serious damage happening every minute of the day from microwave technology, which smart appliances operate on. It's called electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs/RFs) that emit non-ionizing radiation which cause adverse health effects known as "non-thermal" effects.
Comment: Dr. Barrie Trower, a British physicist has acquired a great deal of expertise in the microwave field, extending his research to common electronic systems, including cell phones, iPods, computer games and microwave ovens. His research has shown that microwave radiation is extremely hazardous, especially to pregnant women and young children.
The risks are so great that the use of WiFi can lead to permanent genetic damage to our children and subsequent generations.
WiFi to kill millions, with its effects being cumulative over generations
Neurosurgeon Shows How Low Levels of Radiation Such As Wi-Fi, Smart Meters And Cell Phones Cause The Blood Brain Barrier To Leak
The BioInitiative Report - The Dangerous Health Impacts of Microwave Radiation
EMF pollution: The health impacts of wireless RF radiation
Consumers, when they really learn the downside of "smart technology," obviously will have to beef up their activism to get the protection they need for their health and properties, as the industries involved - and more sadly - states public utility commissions - really don't give a hoot about the harms caused, otherwise they would be enacting legislation to deal with them.
And then there's this information that I received from readers whose privacy I respect and honor, but will share their information. In sharing information like the following from a reader in Canada, it is that consumers become aware, physically safer plus empowered:
“People need to be getting documentation about all of these fires. Media articles are often the starting point, but they are anecdotal. Once there is what sounds like a smart meter fire, request and obtain the official fire report from the state or provincial fire commissioner.
Find out what the legal reporting and investigating requirements are. If the fire is believed to be electrical, who does the investigation and how is he informed about the fire? Are the laws being followed?
Are meters being removed? It takes time and digging but I can't find anyone else who is getting this sort of info for fires in their areas. It is only when this documentation is obtained for many fires and patterns are found that things will be taken seriously.
In the US the Consumer Affairs Dept.  has agreed to gather reports on smeter fires. I have sent her a few because the ITRON meters we use are the same used in many places in the US. But in Canada our meters are not considered "consumer" goods since the utilities own them.
This agency should be informed but it requires full documentation - not just media reports."
Note that here's what I think our kind and thoughtful Canadian neighbor is referring to:
“The US Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) is a federal agency that will take complaints on utility smart meters from all US states. If you have or had smart meter electrical or fire problems CALL: (800) 638-2772 Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ET or submit your complaint by email. "
However, I must caution a consumer that, if or when you experience an AMI Smart Meter ('smeter') fire, immediately after the fire has been extinguished and it is safe to do so, take photographs with your cell phone and a regular camera, so you can have "secured" documentation because things can get 'lost' in cyberspace! Remember to attach copies of those photos with the smeter fire report you file with the US Consumer Products Safety Commission.
Additionally, I must share that I've heard stories that the power company immediately removes the fire-damaged meter and does not allow consumers access to it or to keep a fire-damaged meter as 'proof' for insurance purposes. It seems that 'games' are being played, and insurance companies 'buy' into them too!
Fire safety regarding all 'smart' technology should be enforced by consumer products safety commissions, municipalities and code enforcement departments at local and state levels. Obviously they are not doing that when it comes to AMI Smart Meters made with heat-sensitive plastic parts. Analog meters were made of glass and steel parts.
Learn how to protect yourself from smart technology EMFs/RFs and fire hazards.
Radiation emitted from smart meters 100 times greater than cell phones - and exposure is constant, doctors warn
AMI Smart Meter Testing Video Disputes Safety Claims for Smart Meter EMFs
ZigBee Radio Transmitter: How Many Do You Have?
|All This Heart Stuff Including: Is Heart Disease From A Sulfur Deficiency?
September 19 2016 | From: GreenMedInfo
We normally don't think much about it, but sulfur is a hugely important nutrient for the body, and when we lack this critical substance, we may be paying for it with the health of our hearts.
Sulfur is a non-metallic element (number 16) that is a critical nutrient for the body. Unfortunately, so many people don't consume enough. Over the years, it has been forgotten by the FDA and not added to grains/rice as part of the "fortification" process.
Related: Most cardiologists shocked to discover the true cause of heart attacks
Sadly, most diets are deficient in sulfur rich foods like grass fed beef, garlic, onion, and quality eggs. Farmers are not putting sulfur in the soil or feed, therefore plant and animal sulfur content is diminished. The quality of veggies depends on the soil in which they grow. Animals eat those plants. Sulfur is also found naturally in spring water. If you use reverse osmosis, the sulfur is removed.
Sulfur is one of the top 10 most abundant nutrients in the body. There is about the same amount of sulfur as potassium, and there is more sulfur than sodium.
It is an essential element for human life and combines with so many other nutrients including amino acids (building blocks for proteins), metals (sulfur clears them out of the body), vitamins, and even makes our skin, hair, and nails strong. You can thank sulfur for the smell of garlic or the whiff of a skunk. Rotting eggs, same thing.
One of the most important places to find sulfur in the human body is in the glutathione molecule. It is formed from the amino acids cysteine, glutamine, and glycine.
Glutathione serves many functions including:
Anti-oxidant that clears out free-radicals
Detoxifier that binds toxins and metals, making them water soluble, and easy to excrete from the body.
The Endothelial Glycocalyx
Wow, that is a mouthful. But hang in there. As noted in the picture above, lining all major blood vessels is a layer of cells called the endothelium. These cells control what comes into the artery wall and what stays in the inside area of blood flow called the lumen. Interestingly, there is a space that serves as a buffer between blood flow and the endothelium.
This area is called the glycocalyx and researchers are only scratching the surface at its importance. One nutrient that is found extensively in the glycocalyx is sulfur. Given most diets are deficient in sulfur, could this be a major factor in atherosclerosis?
Sulfur and Amino Acids
Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. Some of these amino acids such as cysteine, methionine, and cystine contain sulfur. Cysteine is an important amino acid for the building of glutathione mentioned above. Methionine cannot be manufactured by the body and is considered an essential amino acid. Cysteine and cystine can be made, but an adequate supply of sulfur is needed.
Homocysteine and taurine are similar to amino acids, contain sulfur, and are very important molecules in human biochemistry.When homocysteine gets out of control, bad things happen including heart attacks, strokes, cancer and dementia. On the flip side, low homocysteine is also a problem. We are looking for levels between 5 and 7. Taurine is a component of bile salt for digestion and is known to reduce blood pressure and prevent heart rhythm issues.
Alpha-lipoic acid contains a sulfur molecule and also does some amazing things in the body such as lowering oxidative stress, lowers blood sugar by improving insulin function, chelation, and lowers blood pressure by improving endothelial function.
Sulfur in Food
Sulfur is found in many foods such a Brussels Sprouts, broccoli, cabbage, and onion. But my favorite sources are seafood, eggs, and of course, garlic. Just to be clear, eggs do not cause heart disease as reviewed in a recent article. In fact, eggs raise HDL and improve HDL function (6) and improve blood sugar. Don't fear the egg and don't fear the smell of garlic. That smell is health.
Benefits of garlic include (8,9):
Reduces plaque formation
Lowers blood pressure and lowers blood sugar
Decreases LDL number, oxidized LDL, and lowers triglycerides
Natural blood thinner that inhibits platelet aggregation and increases fibrinolytic activity
Anti-cancer. Lowers prostate cancer risk by 23%. Lowers lung cancer risk by 44%.
Raw milk is an excellent source of sulfur when it comes from grass-fed, pasture-raised animals. When protein in dairy is an amazing source of cysteine. Pasteurization may negate some of the benefit of whey (10). Eat and drink dairy in the raw.
Sulfur in Water
Most spring water contains naturally occurring sulfur. But no brand compares with Pellegrino. Sure, you can add sulfur to water, but Pellegrino is an excellent choice and my favorite beverage. You can add some citrus juice or herbal tea to create a refreshing drink, especially in the summer.
Sulfur in Supplements
Credit Dr. George Mann MD in 1960 with demonstrating that sulfur supplementation protects monkeys from atherosclerosis (11). This is the same Dr. Mann who was a fierce critic of the cholesterol-sat fat-heart disease hypothesis and opponent to Ancel Keyes MD.
There are many choices when it comes to supplementing for sulfur. The most well-known and studied is MSM. Only found in small amounts in food, MSM contains sulfur and is used for conditions ranging from arthritis to leaky gut to inflammation and oxidative stress (12). NAC and alpha lipoic acid have been used with success. Glutathione is typically not well absorbed orally but newer forms of liposomal glutathione and topical preparations may be better options.
Garlic supplements have plenty of data and there are some excellent companies including Kyolic and Biotics Research. Another option is purified chondroitin sulfates. The credit for this research starts with Lester Morrison MD in the 1970’s.
But recent data confirms the role of chondroitin sulfate in heart disease. It interferes with the pro-inflammatory activation of monocytes and endothelial cells driven by TNF-α. This serves to lower cardiac risk (13). As mentioned above, heparan sulfate, chondroitin sulfate, dermatan sulfate, keratan sulfate are all major components of the glycocalyx and healthy endothelial cell function.
Monsanto and Glyphosate
When it comes to the toxicity of glyphosate, Stephanie Seneff PhD is the authority. She views coronary artery disease as a deficiency is cholesterol sulfate.
And what inhibits the formation of cholesterol sulfate? That’s right, glyphosate. Not only does glyphosate destroy gut bacteria, but it inhibits the trans-sulfuration pathway. Read more from Dr. Seneff about the devastation caused from glyphosate.
Related: Bombshell Secret Documents Show Monsanto Knew About Glyphosate Link To Cancer Over 35 Years Ago + How You Can Have Yourself Tested For Glyphosate Contamination
However you choose to do it, get more sulfate into your diet. Given the fact that sulfur containing foods and garlic supplements are proven to lower heart disease risk, this advice is just what the doctor ordered.
Your heart, blood vessels, and the rest of your body will thank you. Now it’s time for me to prepare our dinner of wild salmon with garlic aioli and a side of steamed organic Brussels sprouts. Maybe I will wash it down with a cool glass of Pellegrino. Cheers.
How Statins Degenerate Your Brain Health
Cardiology experts: Statins MUST be avoided at all costs!
Sugar Industry Manipulated Heart Studies, Review Finds
Great Britain’s Most Outspoken Cardiologist Sets the Record Straight on Saturated Fats
Linus Pauling’s Unified Theory and Therapy for Heart Disease
Promoting Artery Health With Garlic and Onion
Unified Theory of Cardiovascular Disease
|5G Telecomm Radiation The Perfect Tool To Mass Modify Human Brain Waves + More Studies Reveal Dangers
September 16 2016 | From: WakingTimes / Mobilize
On 14 July 2016 the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) of the USA made space available in the radio spectrum for consumer devices to operate within the 25 GHz to 100 GHz of the electromagnetic spectrum.
It went on to say: “The Commission has struck a balance between new wireless services, current and future fixed satellite service operations, and federal uses. The item adopts effective sharing schemes to ensure that diverse users – including federal and non-federal, satellite and terrestrial, and fixed and mobile – can co-exist and expand.”
Related: This Is What WIFI, Cell Phones, iPads And More Are Doing To Your Child’s Brain – 100 + Scientists Are Now Petitioning The UN
Nowhere in its document is mention made of consumer safety or well-being. I guess that is fair of the FCC because historically, it is not interested in matters of microwave radiation and consequent thermal and non-thermal effects on the population.
Let’s face it, and most people find this hard to believe, the FCC works purely on behalf of the telecoms industries in granting them access to the airwaves, no more and no less.
Industry was very happy to hear the FCC announcement on granting access of large portions of the radio spectrum for yet more of its toys and other consumer devices. Qualcomm for example talks much about ‘the massive internet of things’, yet nowhere on its 5G musings is mention made of consumer safety or well-being.
That ‘pink elephant’ in the living room regarding safety brings me to the point of this article. The FCC and the telecomms industry rub their hands with glee because lots of money is going to be made as 5G devices rollout yet no recent safety studies have been carried out on consumer safety.
Yes, their official logo is actually that shit
Related: Gestapo In The USA: FCC Intimidates Press And Kills Free Speech At 5G Rollout
No doubt both the FCC and industry will point regulators to the old, out-dated and one-dimensional so-called ‘safety studies’ (thermal effects) produced by the ICNIRP. This private organisation is comprised of people and individuals who work in the telecommunications industries with no background in epidemiology, toxicology, radio frequency safety or medical practice.
The implications of 5G on consumer well-being and safety do not look good for one reason: devices that will operate within the 5G electromagnetic spectrum will use antennas that are physically small i.e. from a few millimetres to a centimetre in length.
This means that industry will produce a variety of different antenna systems to do different things.
Qualcomm’s 5G Vision
“5G is much more than higher peak rates - it needs to enable new classes of services, connect new devices and industries, and empower new user experiences while fully leveraging 4G investments. The envisioned unified platform needs to support all spectrum, below 6 GHz as well as above 6 GHz and mmWave."
Everything is awesome!
The weird fact of operating within this very high frequency range is that signals are mostly line of sight or they are easily reflected, refracted or ‘lost’ within the differing build composition of urban environment structures.
In other words, without careful antenna design and recognition of many of the pitfalls trying to propagate microwave signals within urban environments, the signal can be easily degraded or completely lost. In response to these challenges, the advantages in using very small physical size antennas in the millimetre wavelength is you can feed many antennas in various configuration arrays e.g. vertical or horizontal arays, waveguide, coned or highly directional beam type designs.
These types of antenna designs focus most of the transmitted power into specified directions. This is bad news for consumers because these very small physical size antennas will pack a mighty punch to our biological systems if we step into them.
Getting back to consumer safety and well-being and all things microwave, it is clear that the latency period for adverse biological effects from devices using microwave frequencies from say 1 GHz to 5 Ghz is approximately 10 - 20 years.
Getting back to the very small physical length of the antennas that will be used for 5G devices, it is very clear to surmise that if these devices talk to each other using highly efficient, directional antennas, the ERP (effective radiated power) will be huge.
In 2016 there are now many thousands of peer-reviewed medical and epidemiological studies that show, illustrate or correlate, adverse biological effects with use of mobile phone technology or WIFI.
Using frequencies even higher than 5 GHz (and up to 100 GHz) will compress the timeframe in which cancers and other biological effects show themselves within society.
It is anyone’s guess on what might happen in terms of biological safety yet it is clear to see that the pulsed nature of these high frequency, high signal intensity signals do not harbour good news for humanity, particularly in relation to the functioning of our DNA.
Nowadays, exposure to microwave radiation or frequencies used by WIFI, mobile phones, smart phones, smart meters, WIFI-enabled audio devices, WIFI-enabled fridges, most baby monitors and a whole host of other ‘esoteric’ electrical devices were recently classed as Class 2B carcinogens.
Point of sale literature excludes this fact on any advertising blurb and it is also fascinating that the small print embedded deep within mobile phone product literature say that you should not put these devices directly to your skin, body or face.
If you do, you exceed the so-called ‘safe’ exposure thresholds put in place for these devices.
If you happen to walk into this intensely focused beam of microwave radiation, what will this level of signal intensity do to your biology?
Yet again, time will tell unless we get our arses into gear and demand proper safety studies from industry and independent academia that focus on thermal and non-thermal effects on our biology.
Just like the advent of modern mobile phone technology, it is us, the consumers, who provide the guinea pig role in terms of safety.
Sufferers of EHS (electro-hyper-sensitivity) will need to be aware of any 5G device simply because the electron volt assault on their compromised bodies will be easily and instantly felt.
It is they who will suffer first and in time, everyone will be affected because one other fact the telecoms industries have not mentioned is that in order to develop an efficient network of signals within an urban environment, many thousands of new transmitter sites will need to be installed.
Related: WiFi Radiation – New Device Makes It Visible At Last
The physical small size of these antennas means they can be covertly installed into all sorts of urban structures which suggest that for urban dwellers at least, there will be no escape from exposure to these highly damaging microwave frequencies. I also feel that when these antennas are in place, it will be relatively easy to alter and manipulate brain wave function of its users and others close by.
The amount of ancillary information that can be piped or attached to the main carrier frequency of such a telecommunications network system is potentially, huge.
Police forces the world over use ‘Tetra’ as a systems of communication. This system also includes a sub-carrier frequency of about 16 Hz which is very close to our natural brainwave patterns.
Could this 16 Hz ancillary pulsed ELF (extremely low-frequency) be responsible for instilling aggressive behaviours in our police force personnel?
The ‘zombie apocalypse’ might just be around the corner unless of course, we refuse to comply. That is our choice.
Mobilize is an investigative documentary that explores the long-term health effects of cell phone radiation, including cancer and infertility.
Clear Light Ventures is sponsoring free viewing of Mobilize from September 15 to October 16, 2016 - enter promo code "ClearLight".
In 2011 the World Health Organization stated, “The electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The cell phone industry has vigorously disputed these findings.
Mobilize is an explosive investigative documentary that explores the potential long-term health effects from cell phone radiation, including brain cancer and infertility.
The politically charged film examines the most recent scientific research and the harsh challenges politicians face trying to pass precautionary legislation. Featuring interviews with expert researchers, mobile phone industry representatives, and prominent politicians, MOBILIZE illuminates how industry’s economic and political influence can corrupt public health.
Featuring Gavin Newsom Lt. Governor of California, Lawrence Lessig, Esq., Steve Wozniak, Richard Branson, Devra Davis, PhD, MPH and many more.
To watch Mobilize click here
|How Much Of This Junk Are You Exposed To?
September 16 2016 | From: Inquisitr / Sott / NaturalNews / GreenMedInfo
We all know about toxins and poisons in the environment - the slow kill. Keep the populace sick while the globalist corporatocracy bleeds us dry of money for power whilst they get off on their depopulation Eugenics agenda.
Awareness of 'environmental toxins' that are literally all around us helps you keep some of the crap out of your system...
Related: Lawsuit reveals extent of DuPont's C8 Teflon cover-up
Antibacterial Soap Banned By FDA, Commonly Used Chemicals May Do More Harm Than Good
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has banned antibacterial soap sales in the United States, and the reason why is incredibly disturbing.
Many people have turned to antibacterial soap for years, believing them to be a safe and effective way to remove dirt and germs from the body and hands, and more effective than traditional soap and water. However, when the FDA banned the popular soaps, they informed the public that they might not be so effective after all.
What’s more and infinitely more disturbing, according to the FDA, the chemicals most commonly used in antibacterial soaps may not even be safe.
A total of 19 chemicals often used in antibacterial soaps have been targeted by the FDA, and the agency has given manufacturers only a year to remove them all from the products they are selling (and marketing as safe and effective) to the public.
As The New York Times reports, while nearly 20 chemicals were involved in the decision that led to the antibacterial soap being banned by the FDA, two are the primary culprits. Triclosan and triclocarban are used in both bar and liquid antibacterial soap, and they are almost everywhere.
When the FDA banned antibacterial soap this week based on the risks of using the product often outweighing the benefits, they didn’t ban the questionable chemicals from all products.
Reportedly, at least one toothpaste uses a now-banned chemical, but according to the FDA, in that product it’s risks are less than the benefits it provides to consumers.
While the news that antibacterial soap has been banned by the FDA may be shocking and sudden to some, the truth of the matter is that there have been questions about its safety for years and years.
As Smithsonian Magazine reports, the FDA has been threatening to ban antibacterial soap for years. In the article, published in 2014, cited questions that the FDA had about the safety and effectiveness of antibacterial soap.
Even then, the FDA warned that antibacterial soap would be banned if manufacturers didn’t prove that it was both safe and more effective than using soap and water.
Apparently, the industry was unable to prove that antibacterial soap is safe or provides a public benefit that outweighs the potential risk of exposure of the chemicals used in the product.
At the time of the Smithsonian Magazine article, triclosan (with is banned as part of the FDA’s sweeping decision on antibacterial soap) was used in roughly 30 percent of all bar soap and 75 percent of liquid antibacterial soap. In 2014, the antibacterial soap industry, now banned by the FDA, was worth about $1 billion.
In 2014, the antibacterial soap industry was put on notice by the FDA. They were told to prove the safety of their product by 2016 or see their product banned. Despite the fact that manufacturers had turned antibacterial soap into a $1 billion industry and were given two years, they chose not to put together the required proof that they were selling a product that is safe and effective.
And plenty of people are speculating that the reason that the antibacterial soap industry didn’t prove to the FDA that their product is safe is that they know that it isn’t.
But rather than simply removing it from the market themselves (or demonstrate its safety), the antibacterial soap industry continued to use the questionable chemicals and sell personal hygiene products that may not be safe until the FDA announced that the products were banned.
Even now, antibacterial soap can be legally sold, despite questions about its safety.
In the aftermath of the announcement that the FDA had banned antibacterial soap, public health professionals have overwhelmingly supported the decision, adding that the chemicals in antibacterial soap can alter the hormones of children and even contribute to the problem of antibiotic-resistant superbugs.
“It has boggled my mind why we were clinging to these compounds, and now that they are gone I feel liberated They had absolutely no benefit but we kept them buzzing around us everywhere. They are in breast milk, in urine, in blood, in babies just born, in dust, in water.”
Recent studies into the chemicals found in antibacterial soap products have resulted in some very disturbing discoveries regarding the harm they can do to animals and likely to humans, too.
Among the problems caused by the now-banned products include severe abnormalities having to do with metabolism and reproduction. According to the CDC, the chemicals found in FDA banned antibacterial soap have been found in the bodily waste of 75 percent of U.S. residents.
Related: Why Touching Receipts Can Harm Your Health
Kinder and Lindt Chocolate Bars Revealed to Contain Cancer-Causing Carcinogens
Tests carried out by a German watchdog revealed Kinder chocolate bars and two other brands tested positive for a hazardous cancer-causing substance.
Foodwatchcalled for Ferrero's Kinder Riegel, Lindt's Fioretto Nougat Minis, and Sun Rice Classic Schokohappen by Rübezahl to be taken off the shelves on Monday after tests found "possible carcinogens."
The sweet treats had been contaminated with "so-called aromatic mineral oils (MOAH)," says Foodwatch, but the manufacturers are allegedly reluctant to recall their products.
"The manufacturer is guilty of gross negligence. Instead of clearing the dangerous candy from the shelves and alerting consumers, they [postulate]... that everything was undertaken legally," said Foodwatch's John Heeg.
Foodwatch tested more than 20 different kinds of potato chips and chocolate snacks and found saturated mineral oils (MOSH) which it warned can "accumulate in the human body and [cause] long term damage to organs" with children particularly at risk.
"There is no acceptable levels of mineral oils in food for consumption," Heeg told the German edition of The Local, citing the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) who he says considers MOAHs "likely carcinogenic and mutagenic."
"You can't see it, you can't taste it, but it's in there," warned Hegg. "We recommend not purchasing these products because the levels are simply unacceptable for consumption."
Kinder Riegel, "one of the best-selling chocolate bars in Germany," had the worst MOSH and MOAH values. The chemicals are usually transferred to foods through recycled packaging that previously had been printed with inks which may contain oils.
Foodwatch is calling for strict limits on saturated mineral oils (MOSH) in food and a zero tolerance for aromatic mineral oils (MOAH).
Brain Damaging Heavy Metal Mercury Found in Grocery Products Made With High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)
HFCS is ubiquitous in the modern processed food supply. It's added to pizza sauce, salad dressings, ketchup and "whole wheat" breads. Did you know it's often contaminated with the toxic heavy metal mercury?
The following excerpt is from my new book Food Forensics, available now for preorder on Amazon.com or Barnes & Noble.
Watch the video trailer for Food Forensics at this Youtube link. What follows is extracted from a near-final manuscript of the book:
HFCS and Mercury Contamination
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a highly processed sweetener made primarily from corn and found in a plethora of food and beverages on grocery store shelves.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service estimated in 2011 that the average consumer per capita consumes nearly 42 pounds of high fructose corn syrup per year. Not one, but two studies in 2009 found that HFCS commercially produced in America and American-bought HFCS products were tainted with mercury.
The first study published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health found that, of twenty samples collected and analyzed from three different manufacturers, nine, or 45 percent, came back tainted with mercury.
The second study by watchdog group Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) purchased fifty-five food items from popular brands off grocery store shelves in the fall of 2008 -- items in which HFCS was the first or second principal ingredient -- and detected mercury in nearly a third of them.
The contamination may have been due to the fact that mercury cells are still used in the production of caustic soda, an ingredient used to make HFCS.
The HFCS mercury plot thickens, however. Online news outlet Grist reported that the lead researcher in the Environmental Health study, Renee Dufault, previously worked as an FDA researcher.
Dufault had apparently turned over the information contained in her HFCS mercury study to the agency back in 2005, but the FDA reportedly sat on it and did nothing, so Dufault went public with it after she retired in 2008.
How Big Food Cornered the Market with a Liquid Sweetener
Initial attempts to get corn syrup widely dispersed into the U.S. food supply in the 1970s didn't really take off because sugar was so cheap and abundant at the time. However, this changed, as U.S.- imposed tariffs decreased sugar imports throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, making sugar significantly more expensive in America than in other parts of the world.
The surface explanation for these tariffs was to protect American sugar farmers; behind the scenes, however, Big Agra interests had lobbied for the policy to promote what would become a new source of sugar - derived from corn - which soon emerged as a popular commodity that was sold at a price significantly cheaper than cane sugar or beet sugar.
Archer Daniels Midland opened the first large-scale plant in 1978 (before they acquired the Clinton Corn Processing Company) to produce 90 percent HFCS and 55 percent HFCS. By January 1980, Coca-Cola began allowing high fructose corn syrup to be used as a sweetener at 50 percent levels with regular sugar; Pepsi Cola followed suit by 1983.
By November 1984, both major soft drink brands had approved full sweetening with HFCS, and HFCS quickly captured 42 percent of the sweetener market. The rising dominance of HFCS allowed it to maintain commercial prices similar to sugar until the 1990s.
Government Money Subsidizing Corn Syrup
For the past several decades, the U.S. government has paid subsidies to American farmers to grow tons of corn (much of which -- nearly 90 percent -- is genetically modified) and shifted domestic agricultural policy to maximize corn crops. This made high-fructose corn syrup and other corn-derived processed ingredients much cheaper for industrial food manufacturers to use.
Today, HFCS is nearly ubiquitous on American grocery store shelves. It can be found in a wide range of items, including candy, ice cream, bread, chips, snacks, soups, soft drinks, fruit drinks and other beverages, condiments, jellies, deli meats, and much, much more.
Overall, Americans consume about fifty to sixty pounds of high fructose corn syrup per capita – an insane amount. HFCS has been linked in scientific research to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, fatty liver and other contributors of bad health and early death.
As the biggest dietary source of fructose, HFCS also promotes insulin resistance and increasing uric acid levels, which contribute to metabolic dysfunction and type 2 diabetes. Further, researchers in 2008 found a correlation between high fructose consumption and liver scarring in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which is present in nearly a third of American adults.
Corn Refiners Association Attempts to Hoodwink Consumers
On top of lobbying efforts, the Corn Refiners Association, an industry organization of which Archer Daniels Midland a is a key member, launched the website sweetsurprise.com as a media relations ploy to debunk "myths" about HFCS and clarify "The Facts about High Fructose Corn Syrup."
It also ran well-funded TV advertising starting in 2008 sticking up for the industry's favorite sweetener and asserting that "sugar is sugar," which prompted a lawsuit by sugar producers claiming false advertising in 2011. The FDA also demanded the corn industry stop using the term "corn sugar" without approval.
In 2012, the FDA rejected a petition filed by the Corn Refiners Association in 2010 to change the name of high-fructose corn syrup to "corn sugar" for the purposes of food labeling and advertising. The Corn Refiners Association claims that it wanted the name change to "educate consumers," the majority of whom are "confused about HFCS."
To keep reading, get my new book Food Forensics, available now for pre-order everywhere books are sold.
How Sucralose (Splenda) Affects Health [Artificial Sweeteners in General]
The emergence of sucralose came from the fight against obesity, but did we trade one problem for another?
This video was originally published on NutritionFacts.org and republished with permission.
In the United States, sucralose (the sweet tasting chemical in Splenda brand artificial sweeteners) was approved for use by the FDA in 1998. It was deemed safe, but we no have over a decade’s worth of research to prove that sucralose affects health in a very negative and very unique way.
The only effect they thought it would have on health was that it could potentially trigger migraines in a small percentage of people.
This, they decided, was a small enough issue that the FDA allowed the substance into the marketplace, citing obesity as a more pressing issue. They could not have been more wrong.
One of the major complications that can come from obesity is diabetes, where the body no longer responds to insulin properly. Originally meant to combat issues like obesity-caused diabetes, lab tests show that insulin resistance increases by as much as 20% after ingesting the sugar substitute.
The cause can be traced back to gut bacteria and how sucralose and other artificial sweeteners can alter their environments. For example; Aspartame is another type of artificial sweetener which studies have shown is metabolized in the body as formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.
Furthermore, alterations in gut bacteria are also very likely the culprit behind the rise in inflammatory bowel diseases like Crohn’s disease.
In every part of the world where sucralose has been approved, inflammatory bowel disease has increased. Clearly, there is a causal link between this substance and the health of our gut.
Though the alternative to sugar was created in an effort to combat obesity, with all of the complications and damage it can cause, it’s clear that how sucralose affects health – negatively. This just further proves that we can all do ourselves a service by sticking to natural foods whose benefits don’t have to be decided on by a committee.
Local Councils, Medical Trials And GMOs: Call For Nick Smith’s Resignation
September 8 2016 | From: Scoop
The scaremongering and misrepresentation of the Auckland Unitary council’s long term plan shows that Dr. Nick Smith is deliberately twisting and misrepresenting the facts, and raising fears that important medical research will be banned. Yet he knows any such concern is false.
The AUP expressly excludes medical and veterinary applications stating “Potential GMO activities of relevance include GM food crops, trees, grasses, animals and pharma crops, but,exclude research within contained laboratories involving GMOs, medical applications involving the manufacture and use of GM products…”
Related: Pesticide Special Report
In seeking to mislead the public, the Minister is following the lead of Federated Farmers of New Zealand. Federated Farmers challenged the right of councils, who govern under the Resource Management Act (RMA), to place precautionary GE wording in their plans, in the Environment Court.
The challenge was not upheld. They then appealed the Environment Court’s decision to the High Court, which has now dismissed the appeal.
The Minister's anti-democratic panicked response of introducing a new law that expressly prohibits councils to consider environmental and land use protections around GMO’s, shows a cynical contempt for due process and local democracy.
It is an indictment on Dr. Smith and shows that he is not working for the good of the country but is using his powers and influence to pursue an agenda outside of his responsibilities as a Minister.
This serious breach of conduct transgresses his responsibilities as a minister. He is apparently unable to avoid his conflicts of interest around the GE issue.
This terrible situation leads us to call for his resignation as a Minister of the Crown.
Local Councils, Medical Trials And GMOs
Medical trials involving genetically modified vaccines and other GM treatments will still be allowed under planning changes Auckland and three other local councils are making.
Auckland councillors this week agreed to a ban on the general release of genetically modified organisms under the city's Unitary Plan.
That has led to concerns that a medical trial involving genetically modified organisms would be stopped in its tracks.
Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith said that the Government would review the "appropriateness of councils being involved in regulating genetically modified organisms".
“A trial for liver cancer vaccine Pexa-Vec is being conducted at Auckland Hospital which involves a GMO. The new Auckland Unitary Plan prohibits the release of any GMO and would not allow any such future medical treatments,” Dr Smith said in a press release.
The SMC put together the following Expert Q&A with Dr Kerry Grundy, Team Leader (Futures Planning), Whangarei District Council. (Contact Dr Grundy on 09 430 4200)
Dr Grundy is convenor of the Inter-council Working party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options (comprising Auckland Council, Whangarei District Council, Far North District Council, and Northland Regional Council).*
1: Will existing and/or future medical trials involving GMOs be banned in these regions as a result of the plan changes?
“I can confirm that the GMO provisions in all planning documents do not affect medical applications involving GMOs including present and future applications. These are permitted."
"The plan provisions apply only to outdoor use of GMOs, i.e. GMOs released to the environment or outdoor field trial of GMOs. They do not apply to indoor use in contained facilities, laboratories, hospitals or to medical applications or most veterinary applications."
2. As part of the plan provisions, do the Councils require any additional notification of, or approval for, GM-related trials (medical or otherwise) than is currently required through the likes of the Environmental Protection Authority?
“The councils’ plan provisions make outdoor field trials of GMOs a discretionary activity under the RMA. This means they need a resource consent from council to conduct a field trial in addition to approval from the EPA."
"The resource consent will require strict liability from the party conducting the trial for any environmental or economic damage that may occur as a result of the trial together with a bond to cover any costs should they arise (HSNO does not require this)."
"This does not apply to medical trials as medical applications are specifically excluded from council provisions. In addition, the definition of field trials in the plan provisions refers only to 'outdoor' field trials."
3. Are there any specific provisions relating to patients involved in medical trials who are being treated with GM therapies - such as the Pexa-Vec liver cancer vaccine? For instance, relating to where the vaccines can be administered, or where patients are housed while receiving treatment?
“There are no specific provisions relating to patients involved in medical trials who are being treated with GM therapies presently or in the future. Medical applications are not subject to the plan provisions. They are treated as permitted activities under the RMA. They require no consent from council. Council has no role in relation to them."
4. Are there currently any outdoor trials of GMOs underway in any of the regions governed by the four Councils that have contributed to the plan?
“There are no outdoor field trials that I am aware of underway in any of the jurisdictions covered by the councils in Auckland and Northland who have or are in the process of putting GMO provisions in their planning documents."
5. What provisions have the Councils made for the possible future introduction of new genetic technologies, such as gene-editing techniques, and their evaluation and classification as GM according to the plan?
“Councils have made no specific provisions for possible future introduction of new genetic techniques and their classification as GM according to the plans. Councils only regulate GMOs as defined in the HSNO Act."
"The plans’ definition of a GMO is the same as the HSNO definition. If an organism produced by a new technique is included as a GMO under the HSNO Act it will be treated as such by the plans. If an organism produced by a new technique is not defined as a GMO under HSNO it will not be caught by the plan provisions."
*The GMO plan provisions that are in the Auckland Unitary Plan and in plan changes to the WDC and FNDC GMO plan changes are based on research and documentation produced by the Working Party.
1080: NZ Animals Killed For No Reason In $80m Yearly 1080 Drops
September 6 2016 | From: Various
Over 80 million dollars, including farmers hard earned cash, is spent every year eradicating a disease, that by World standards, doesn't exist...
“The Agency considered that acute exposures to 1080 in humans and animals may give rise to irreversible adverse, target organ [heart and brain] effects. These effects are severe.”
Related: Satanists Escape Plan Involves Killing Natives Of New Zealand
“Continued presence of predators (rats, mice, cats, stoats) [on Rangitoto Island after 1080 cereal operation]..ongoing predation..less than expected bird population recoveries” (2004)
Related Links & Information on 1080:
What DOC doesn’t want you to know about 1080 Poison
"The recent post about 89 dead Kiwis that DOC didn’t bother to test for 1080 poisoning relates to this report of birds that actually were tested. Thanks to the person with a conscience who let the public know what is going on!"
More 1080 videos + If you have your pets, farm stock, deer, trout or eels, native wildlife (including birds), poisoned on or near your property or have any information to share with regard to aerial 1080 poison drops taking place near you, please let us know
Introduction Environmental Risk Management Authority’s 1080 Documents + factual evidence against 1080.
Monsanto Promoting Worldwide Infertility? + Academic GMO Shills Exposed: Fraud And Collusion With Monsanto
September 6 2016 | From: Sott / NaturalNews
Monsanto has a long and infamous history of manufacturing and bringing to market such chemicals as DDT, Agent Orange, aspartame, Roundup and dioxin - chemical compounds from which society continues to feel the effects.
In an effort to distance the current corporation from past deeds, Monsanto refers to the company prior to 2002 as "the former Monsanto" in their news releases. However, nothing has really changed aside from their PR machine.
While Monsanto has branched into genetic engineering (GE) of plants, the sale of patented GE seeds simply feeds the need for the company's pesticides. Monsanto is STILL primarily a purveyor of toxins, not life.
Monsanto began forging a unique and financially advantageous relationship with the U.S. government starting with the company's involvement in the Manhattan Project that produced the first nuclear weapons during World War II. During the Vietnam War they were the leading producer of Agent Orange.
Related: The Complete History Of Monsanto, The World’s Most Evil Corporation
The specialization in the production and distribution of toxic chemicals continues today.
Their influence over government runs so deep that despite the fact 64 other countries have been labeling genetically engineered (GE) foods for years, the U.S. now has the distinction of being the first country to un-label GE foods at the urging of a company producing mass amounts of GE seeds.
Monsanto and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
In the latter part of the 1920s, Monsanto was the largest producer of PCBs. This chemical was used in lubricant for electric motors, hydraulic fluids and to insulate electrical equipment. Old fluorescent light fixtures and electrical appliances with PCB capacitors may still contain the chemical.
During the years PCB was manufactured and used, there were no controls placed on disposal. Since PCBs don't break down under many conditions, they are now widely distributed through the environment and have made the journey up the food chain.
Between the inception and distribution of the product and its subsequent ban in the late 1970s, an estimated 1.5 billion pounds were distributed in products around the world.
Monsanto was the primary manufacturer of PCBs in the U.S. under the trade name Aroclor. Health problems associated with exposure to the chemical were noted as early as 1933 when 23 of 24 workers at the production plant developed pustules, loss of energy and appetite, loss of libido and other skin disturbances.
According to Monsanto's public timeline, it was in 1966 that "Monsanto and others began to study PCB persistence in the environment." However, seven years earlier, Monsanto's assistant director of their Medical Department wrote:
“... [S]ufficient exposure, whether by inhalation of vapors or skin contact, can result in chloracne which I think we must assume could be an indication of a more systemic injury if the exposure were allowed to continue."
In 1967, Shell Oil called to inform Monsanto of press reports from Sweden, noting that PCBs were accumulating in mammals further up the food chain. Shell asked for PCB samples to perform their own analytical studies.
With full knowledge of the devastation expected to the environment and humanity, it wasn't until 11 years later, in 1977, that Monsanto reportedly pulled production on PCB.
PCBs Are Probable Human Carcinogens
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Toxicology Program, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIEHS) have identified PCBs as either probable, potential or reasonably likely to cause cancer in humans.
If it seems like these agencies are couching their words, they are. Human studies have noted increased rates of liver cancer, gall bladder cancer, melanomas, gastrointestinal cancer, biliary tract cancer, brain cancer and breast cancer when individuals had higher levels of PCB chemicals in their blood and tissue.
However, the EPA limits the ability of researchers to link a chemical as a carcinogen unless there is conclusive proof. While this proof is evident in animal studies, you can't feed these chemicals to humans and record the results. Thus PCBs are a "probable" carcinogen in humans.
Other health effects from PCBs include:
Babies born with neurological and motor control delays including lower IQ, poor short-term memory and poor performance on standardized behavioral assessment tests
Disrupted sex hormones including shortened menstrual cycles, reduced sperm count and premature puberty
Imbalanced thyroid hormone affecting growth, intellectual and behavioral development
Immune effects, including children with more ear infections and chickenpox
Once PCBs are absorbed in the body they deposit in the fat tissue. They are not broken down or excreted. This means the number of PCBs build over time and move up the food chain. Smaller fish are eaten by larger ones and eventually land on your dinner table.
Chemical Poisoning Begins Before Birth
A recent study at the University of California demonstrated that PCBs are found in the blood of pregnant women. Before birth, the umbilical cord delivers approximately 300 quarts of blood to your baby every day.
Not long ago, researchers believed the placenta would shield your developing baby from most pollutants and chemicals. Now we know it does not.
The umbilical cord is a lifeline between mother and child, sustaining life and propelling growth. However, in recent research cord blood contained between 200 and 280 different chemicals; 180 were known carcinogens and 217 were toxic to the baby's developing nervous system.
The deposits of chemicals in your body or the body of your developing baby are called your "body burden" of chemicals and pollution.
A steady stream of chemicals from the environment during a critical time of organ and system development has a significant impact on the health of your child, both in infancy and as the child grows to adulthood.
Tracey Woodruff, Ph.D., director of the University of California San Francisco Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, was quoted in a press release, saying:
“It was surprising and concerning to find so many chemicals in pregnant women without fully knowing the implications for pregnancy. Several of these chemicals in pregnant women were at the same concentrations that have been associated with negative effects in children from other studies.
In addition, exposure to multiple chemicals that can increase the risk of the same adverse health outcome can have a greater impact than exposure to just one chemical."
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate - Another Monsanto Product
Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), also manufactured by Monsanto, was recently implicated in cell fat storage. This specific phthalate was found in human fluids and had an effect on the accumulation of fat inside cells.
BBP is used in the manufacture of vinyl tile, as a plasticizer in PVC pipe, carpets, conveyer belts and weather stripping in your home and office.
Like other phthalates used in the production of plastics, BBP is not bound to the product and can be released into your environment. It may be absorbed by crops and move up the food chain. The biggest source of exposure is food.
Drive-through hamburgers and take-out pizzas may be increasing your intake of phthalates. The danger is not in the food itself but in the products used to handle it. The study analyzed data from nearly 9,000 individuals, finding the one-third who had eaten at a fast food restaurant had higher levels of two different phthalates.
Potentially, BBP may adversely affect your reproductive function. However, at lower doses it also has an effect on your kidneys, liver and pancreas. Increased risks of respiratory disorders and multiple myelomas have also been reported in people who have exposure to products manufactured with BBP. An increasing waistline from BBP exposure may also reduce your fertility.
Low Sperm Count and Infertility Affecting Animals and Humans
A 26-year study of fertility in dogs, published recently, has distinct similarities to infertility rates in humans. In this study, researchers evaluated the ejaculate of nearly 2,000 dogs. Over the 26 year period, they found a drop in sperm motility of 2.4 percent per year.
Additionally, both the semen and the testicles of castrated dogs contained by PCBs and phthalates, implicated in other studies to reduction in fertility. Phthalates have been implicated in both decreased sperm motility and quality of your sperm, affecting both fertility and the health of your children.
Researchers used dogs in this study as they live in the same environment as their owners, and often eat some of the same food. This correlation between sperm function and concentration, and environment and food in dogs and humans is significant.
In those 26 years there was also a rise in cryptorchidism in male pups (a condition where the testicles don't descend into the scrotum) born to stud dogs who experienced a decline in sperm quality and motility.
Cryptorchidism and undescended testicles, occurs at a rate of 1 in 20 term male human infants and 1 in 3 pre-term babies.
Problems with infertility are also affecting marine animals at the top of the food chain. In the western waters of the Atlantic, the last pod of Orcas are doomed to extinction. High levels of PCB have been found in the fat of over 1,000 dolphins and Orcas in the past 20 years. Now taking a toll on the animal's fertility, this pod of Orcas has not reproduced in the 19 years it has been under study.
Orcas were living in the North Sea until the 1960s. At that time PCB pollution peaked in the area and the Orca whales disappeared. The same happened in the Mediterranean Sea, where the whales flourished until the 1980s. This pod off the coast of the U.K. is the last living pod in that area.
Monsanto's Argument in PCB Lawsuits
Although Monsanto denies culpability and knowledge of the danger behind the chemical PCB, you'll discover internal documentation in this video that they did, in fact, know of the danger while manufacturing and distributing the product. Monsanto is currently embroiled in several lawsuits across eight cities and the argument is over who owns the rain. The cities are suing Monsanto in Federal Court, saying PCBs manufactured by Monsanto have polluted the San Francisco Bay.
Monsanto attorney Robert Howard argues that because the city does not own the water rights, the city does not have the right to sue. And, because the PCBs have not damaged city property, such as corroding pipes, Howard claims it is a state problem. Scott Fiske, attorney for three cities, countered with the city's regulatory interests in management of storm water as a fundamental function of the city.
While Fiske claims he can prove Monsanto knew the product was hazardous as early as 1969, Howard maintains the company should not be liable for the use of the chemicals it produced.
In 2001, Monsanto attorneys in the Owens v. Monsanto case, acknowledged only one health threat from exposure to PCBs: chloracne, and instead argued that since the entire planet has been contaminated, they are innocent of all liability. The attorney for Monsanto was quoted in the Chemical Industry Archives, saying:
“The truth is that PCBs are everywhere. They are in meat, they are in everyone in the courtroom, they are everywhere and they have been for a long time, along with a host of other substances."
The cities currently engaged in lawsuits against Monsanto for damage to the environment and waterways include Berkley, Oakland, San Jose, Portland, Spokane, Seattle, Long Beach and San Diego. All eight cities attempted to combine their cases against the agrochemical giant but were unsuccessful when one judge found the issues were different enough to warrant separate cases.
Monsanto's Deep Pockets
Monsanto petitioned the Federal Court to dismiss Portland's lawsuit, claiming it would countersue, adding years to the process. It is likely Monsanto would increase the scope of the case and include companies who used the product and released the PCBs.
Meanwhile, three plaintiffs in St. Louis received better news in May 2016 when a jury awarded them a total of $46.5 million, finding Monsanto negligent in the production of PCBs.
This suit claimed Monsanto sold PCBs even after it learned about the dangers, bringing to court internal documents dated 1955, which stated: "We know Aroclors [PCBs] are toxic but the actual limit has not been precisely defined."33 To date this win over Monsanto has been rare. Williams Kherkher, attorney for the plaintiffs, explained in EcoWatch:
“The only reason why this victory is rare is because no one has had the money to fight Monsanto."
Kherkher and other firms pooled their resources in this case and expect wins in upcoming lawsuits. The firm has accumulated the names of approximately 1,000 plaintiffs with claims against Monsanto and PCBs.
Related: The Daily Show takes on Monsanto
SAD NEWS: House Passes DARK Act Compromise
The House passed a compromise to the DARK Act that will force food distributors to disclose the presence of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients with a smartphone scan code. President Obama has signed the bill that removes states' rights for labeling GMOs. The bill is full of loopholes, which may allow genetically modified ingredients to slip through unannounced.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), aka GE foods, are live organisms whose genetic components have been artificially manipulated in a laboratory setting through creating unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and even viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.
GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is "safe and beneficial," and that it advances the agricultural industry. They also say that GMOs help ensure the global food supply and sustainability.
But is there any truth to these claims? I believe not. For years, I've stated the belief that GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet. Genetic engineering is NOT the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be.
Related: GMO ban expands in Russia as Putin halts all production and imports
The FDA cleared the way for GE Atlantic salmon to be farmed for human consumption. Thanks to added language in the federal spending bill, the product will require special labeling so at least consumers will have the ability to identify the GE salmon in stores. However, it's imperative ALL GE foods be labeled clearly without a smartphone scan code because not everyone owns a smartphone.
The FDA is threatening the existence of our food supply. We have to start taking action now. I urge you to share this article with friends and family. If we act together, we can make a difference and put an end to the absurdity.
Related: Venezuela passes new law rejecting GMOs and seed patents nationwide
Boycott Smart Labels Today
When you see the QR code or so-called Smart Label on a food product, pass it by. Products bearing the Grocery Manufacturer's Association's (GMA) Smart Label mark are in all likelihood filled with pesticides and/or GMO ingredients.
The GMA's 300-plus members include chemical technology companies, GE seed and food and beverage companies. Monsanto, Dow and Coca-Cola are just some of the heavy-hitters in this powerful industry group, which has showed no qualms about doing whatever it takes to protect the interest of its members.
Don't waste your time searching through their website, which may or may not contain the information you're looking for. If they insist on wasting your time and making your shopping difficult, why reward them with a purchase?
A little known fact is that the GMA actually owns the "Smart Label" trademark that Congress has accepted as a so-called "compromise" to on-package GMO labeling, and that's another reason why I believe the Smart Label mark is the mark of those with something to hide, such as Monsanto.
Will you financially support a corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system, or a healthy, regenerative one? There are many options available besides big-brand processed foods that are part of the "GMA's verified ring of deception."
Shop at local farms and farmers markets
Only buy products marked either "USDA 100 percent Organic" (which by law cannot contain GMOs), "100 percent Grass-Fed" or "Non-GMO Verified"
If you have a smartphone and you don't mind using it, download the OCA's Buycott app to quickly and easily identify the thousands of proprietary brands belonging to GMA members, so you can avoid them, as well as identify the names of ethical brands that deserve your patronage
Last but not least, encourage good companies to reject QR codes and to be transparent and clear with their labeling. This will eventually ensure that all GMO foods can easily be identified by the GMA's "verified ring of deception" mark that is the Smart Label.
Campbell's, Mars, Kellogg's, ConAgra and General Mills all vowed to voluntarily comply with Vermont's GMO labeling law by labeling all of their foods sold across the U.S.
Will their plans change now that the law has been passed by Congress and signed by the President? That remains to be seen, but if you like these companies, I would encourage you to reach out to them and ask them to remain steadfast in their promise.
Non-GMO Food Resources by Country
If you are searching for non-GMO foods, here is a list of trusted sites you can visit:
Organic Food Directory (Australia)
Eat Wild (Canada)
Organic Explorer (New Zealand)
Eat Well Guide (United States and Canada)
Farm Match (United States)
Local Harvest (United States)
Weston A. Price Foundation (United States)
Few corporations in the world are as loathed - and as sinister - as Monsanto. But the threat it poses to people and planet could be reaching new heights, as the World Health Organization has recently upgraded Monsanto's main product as carcinogenic to humans. With protests against the agrochemical giant held in more than 40 countries in May, learn why the global movement against Monsanto is of critical importance to our future.
Comment: Check out the informative videos in the following article America's monster: Monsanto
In this episode of The Empire Files, Abby Martin issues a scathing expose on the corporate polluter, chronicling it's rise to power, the collusion of its crimes by the US government and highlighting the serious danger it puts us in today.
Academic GMO Shills Exposed: Once-Secret Emails Reveal Gross Collusion With Monsanto, Academic Fraud At The Highest Levels Inside U.S. Universities
U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), a non-profit organization dedicated to exposing the fraud and corruption surrounding the food industry, launched an investigation into the intimate and unethical relationship between the biotech industry and university faculty and staff, which is used to manipulate public opinion about GMOs and to coerce the government into passing legislation supportive of Big Ag's patented seeds and pesticides.
The investigation, which is still ongoing, reveals how biotech industry giants Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences and others, buy academics employed by taxpayer-funded universities to push GMOs and lobby Congress to pass legislation favorable of their products, with one of the most high-profile examples including attempts to derail states' rights to enact GMO-labeling laws.
The collusion between Big Food, its front groups and university staff has been exposed through thousands of emails and documents obtained through a USRTK Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which was meticulously filed over a six-month period.
USRTK: Public deserves to know about flow of money and level of coordination between Big Ag and public university scientists
The FOIA request sought to obtain emails and documents from 43 public university faculty and staff to learn more about the biotech industry's public relations strategies. Records were requested from scientists, economists, law professors, extension specialists and communicators, all of whom are employed by taxpayer-funded public institutions and steadily promote GMO agriculture under the "independent" research.
Currently, USRTK has received thousands of documents in nine of their requests; however, much more information is expected to be released as FOIA requests continue to be answered.
The documents received thus far expose how the biotech industry funds expenses for university faculty to travel the globe promoting and defending GMOs and their associated pesticides, highlighting the shift that scientists have made from being researchers to being actors in Big Ag PR campaigns.
Named the "Biofortified boys" by Alicia Maluafiti, executive director of Hawaii Crop Improvement Association (HCIA), a biotech front group, the academics were awarded thousands, and in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars in unrestricted grant money.
Dr. Kevin Folta, professor and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida, Gainesville, is one of the biotech industry's most cooperative "Biofortified boys." Emails show that Folta was enlisted to travel to Hawaii and later to Pennsylvania to "testify to government bodies to oppose proposed mandatory genetically modified labeling measures."
Folta has repeatedly denied ties to Monsanto or having accepted funds from them; however, newly released documents prove otherwise, exposing him as a bald-faced liar and attack dog for the biotech industry.
Sponsored and organized by the HCIA, which includes Monsanto, DuPont, Dow AgroSciences, Syngenta and BASF, Folta and others were recruited to meet with local business execs to lobby against Hawaii's proposed GMO-labeling law.
HCIA's Maluafiti writes:
"So please know that you are part of our overall public education strategy and specifically – how do we use your valuable time wisely while you are here in Hawaii (besides hitting the beaches!) I'd love to hear your thoughts. Aloha!"
A second email authored by Renee Kester, wife of Dow AgroSciences R&D Leader Kirby Kester, who is also president of the HCIA, thanks them for their support:
"First off I would like to thank you for all of the support you have given us over here in Hawaii with regards to our recent legislative battles, it means a lot to all of us over here."
Monsanto asks academics to author articles promoting GMOs
In an effort to influence "thought leaders and influencers," Monsanto reached out to Dr. Folta and other academics, asking them to author a series of pro-GMO policy briefs to be used for "outreach and engagement with policy makers and consumers." The briefs were to be promoted as being authored by "independent scientists."
Eric Sachs, the chief of Monsanto's global scientific affairs group wrote:
"The key to success is participation by all of you – recognized experts and leaders with the knowledge, reputation and communication experience needed to communicate authoritatively to the target groups."
"You represent an elite group whose credibility will be strengthened by working together."
Recognizing participants' careers are at stake, Sachs offers the academics assurance by promising that he will protect their "independence," as well as their reputations.
Some of the topics the academics were asked to write on include:
Meeting World Challenges (discuss how GMOs will save the world by addressing shrinking agricultural resources, food security, food affordability and environmental sustainability).
Stifling Innovation (discuss how GM crop regulations stifle technological advancements and prevent GMOs from improving overall quality of life).
Holding Activists Accountable – assigned to Kevin Folta (discuss how anti-GMO activist campaigns spread false information and if left unchallenged will limit consumer choice, increase food prices, decrease farmer viability and undermine global food security).
GM Crop Safety (address consumer and policy maker concerns that GM crops aren't tested for safety, convince public that they are proven safe).
Consequences of Rejecting GM Crops (address public health fears and political resistance and concerns about biodiversity and biological safety and intellectual property rights that create barriers to GM acceptance).
Sustainable Crop Systems (discuss how GM crop technology provides environmental benefits, increases yields and improves productivity).
Responsible Choice (highlight the role GM crop technology plays in ensuring increase production and how it balances our needs for food, feed, fiber and fuel). Academics were asked to include a "call to action," which would be used in the briefs to influence the public on a variety of platforms including social media, blogs, websites and allied organizations.
Montano enlists university scientists to pressure EPA to abandon proposed pesticide regulations
Documents reveal that Monsanto also used academics to put pressure on regulatory agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – in one instance pressuring the EPA to abandon its proposal to tighten regulations regarding pesticide use on insect-resistant crops.
"Is there a coordinated plan to maintain pressure and emphasis on EPA's evolving regulations?" asked Sachs in an email to Dr. Bruce Chassy, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign.
Sachs continued, "Have you considered having a small group of scientists request a meeting with Lisa Jackson [referring to the EPA's administrator at the time]?"
With the help of an industry lobbyist, Chassy was eventually able to set up a meeting with Jackson, after which the agency's proposal was ultimately dropped.
Stay tuned for more as Natural News continues to dissect documents exposing the incestuous relationship between the biotech industry and university scientists.
The sheer volume of information exposing Monsanto is overwhelming - yet where are the mainstream media on this?
Owned and censored is where - impotent to report on anything but PR spin, lies, fluff and sports.
World Health Organization Admits Roundup “Probably” Causes Cancer
MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide Will Cause Half Of All Children To Have Autism By 2025
Union Of 30,000 Doctors In Latin America Wants Monsanto Banned!
Zika HOAX exposed by South American doctors: Brain deformations caused by larvicide chemical linked to Monsanto; GM mosquitoes a 'total failure'
The Case of Glyphosate: Product Promoters Masquerading as Regulators?
Bill Gates, Monsanto & Saudi Arabia are Raping Nigeria with Terror & GMO
Monsanto Exposed as Source for White Phosphorus Used in Gaza Massacre
Glyphosate Herbicide Found in 14 Popular Beer Brands from Germany
Venezuela passes new law rejecting GMOs and seed patents nationwide
Glyphosate: Pathways to Modern Diseases
Supermodel Christie Brinkley Christie Brinkley Slams Monsanto, Speaks Out in Favor of GMO Labeling
Genetically Engineered Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
How GMO Foods Turn Your Intestines Into an Insecticide Factory
Oakland sues Monsanto for ‘long-standing contamination’ of San Francisco Bay
EPA Raises Alarm Over GMO Crops that Are Breeding Swarms of These Mutant Bugs
Academic GMO shills exposed: Once-secret emails reveal gross collusion with Monsanto, academic fraud at the highest levels inside U.S. universities
New England Journal of Medicine article calls for labeling of GM foods
Avengers actor Mark Ruffalo is aggressively fighting the Bayer, Monsanto merger
Zika virus or insecticide Pyriproxyfen - which is behind rise in microcephaly cases?
What is the Zika Virus Epidemic Covering Up?
Autism - Made in the U S A - Gary Null's Remarkable Documentary
MIT States That Half of All Children May be Autistic by 2025 due to Monsanto
Bayer defies critics with $62 billion Monsanto offer
Nazi-founded Bayer chemical company wants to buy Satan-inspired Monsanto for $42 billion... it's a perfect match made in chemical Hell
How Monsanto stifles criticism
Monsanto To Merge With Whole Foods For New Health Store ‘365’
GE Food Venture: Chronically Dependent On Deception
September 1 2016 | From: Uncensored
Although it purports to be based on solid science and the open flow of information on which science depends, the massive venture to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply has substantially relied on the propagation of falsehoods.
Its advancement and very survival have been crucially and chronically dependent on the misrepresentation of reality – to the extent that more than thirty years after the creation of the first genetically engineered plant, the vast majority of people the world-over (including most government officials, journalists, and even scientists) continue to be misled about the important facts.
Related: High Court ruling on GE a win for democracy
Moreover, contrary to what people would expect, the biotechnology industry has not been the main source of the deceptions.Instead, the chief misrepresentations have been issued by respected government agencies and eminent scientists and scientific institutions.
The following paragraphs describe several of the key deceptions and delinquencies that have been essential in enabling the genetically engineered (GE) food venture to advance – all of which are more thoroughly documented in my book: Altered Genes, Twisted Truth.
The Disaster Caused by GE’s First Edible Product Was Obfuscated
The genetic engineering venture received an alarming jolt when its first ingestible product caused an epidemic that killed dozens of Americans and seriously sickened thousands, permanently disabling many of them.
The product was a food supplement of the essential amino acid L-tryptophan that had been derived from genetically altered bacteria. Although it met the standards for pharmacological purity, like all other tryptophan supplements it contained minute amounts of impurities.
However, unlike the conventionally produced supplements, one or more of its accidental additions was highly toxic, even at extremely low levels.
Because none of the tryptophan supplements produced via non-engineered bacteria had ever been linked to disease, and because genetic engineering can create unintended disruptions within the altered organisms, there were legitimate reasons to suspect that the process had induced the formation of the extraordinarily toxic substance that caused the calamity.
Consequently, the proponents of genetic engineering, including the United States Food and Drug Administration (the FDA), which admits it has a policy “to foster” biotechnology, strove to convince the public that the technology was blameless.[ii]
But to do so, they had to issue a string of deceptive statements. Those deceptions have been highly successful. Consequently, despite the fact the evidence points to genetic engineering as the most likely cause of the toxic contamination, most people who know of this tragedy are under the illusion that the technology has been exonerated.[iii]
Worse, because GE proponents routinely claim that none of its products has ever been linked to a health problem, most people aren’t even aware that such a catastrophe happened.
The Problems Linked to the First GE Whole Food Were Also Covered Up
The first whole food produced via genetic engineering (Calgene’s “Flavr Savr” tomato) was also problematic. Calgene voluntarily conducted feeding studies, and the FDA scientists who reviewed them expressed concern about a pattern of stomach lesions that raised a safety issue.
The Pathology Branch concluded that safety had not been demonstrated, and other FDA experts concurred. One wrote that the data:
“Raise a question of safety” – and that they “fall short” of satisfactorily resolving it.[iv] Another agreed that “. . . unresolved questions still remain.”[v]
Nevertheless, the FDA claimed that its scientists had determined that all safety questions had been resolved – and that the tomato had been demonstrated to be just as safe as other tomatoes. And because the FDA kept a lid on its scientists’ memos, no one outside the agency was aware of the fraud.
The memos only came to light four years later (in 1998) when my organization, the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, led a lawsuit that compelled the FDA to hand over more than 44,000 pages of its internal files.
However, because the mainstream media has failed to adequately report what those documents reveal, most people are still unaware of the FDA’s misbehavior.
GE Foods Reached the Market Through Governmental Fraud
If the actual facts about the toxic tryptophan and the troubling tomato had been disclosed, the GE food venture might well have been brought to a halt – and at minimum would have been slowed and subjected to more rigorous testing. A similar effect would have resulted if concerns that other FDA experts had expressed about GE foods in general had been publicized.
Those concerns appeared in memos written a few years before the GE tomato entered the market, and they reveal that the agency’s scientists didn’t agree with the biotech proponents’ claims that GE is substantially the same as conventional breeding.
For example, an FDA microbiologist stated:
“There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering.” He added that GE “. . . may be more hazardous . . .” [vi]
A toxicologist warned that GE plants could contain unexpected new toxins.[vii]
The Director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) stated:
“… CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns.” [viii]
He explained that residues of unexpected substances could make meat and milk products harmful to humans.
The pervasiveness of the concerns is attested by an FDA official who studied the expert input and declared:
“The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.” [ix]
In light of the unique risks, those experts called for GE foods to undergo careful testing capable of detecting unexpected side effects.
Moreover, the FDA’s Biotechnology Coordinator acknowledged there was not a consensus about safety in the scientific community at large. He also admitted that the allergenic potential of some GE foods “is particularly difficult to predict.” [x]
Nonetheless, in May 1992 the FDA claimed that:
“The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” [xi]
It also asserted that there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that GE foods are so safe they don’t require any testing. Accordingly, the agency doesn’t require a smidgen of testing and allows GE foods to enter the market without any.
If the FDA had told the truth and disclosed the extensive concerns of its own experts, the subsequent history of the GE venture would have surely been very different – and might well have been quite short. At the least, any GE foods that did reach market would have been subjected to much more rigorous testing than regulators anywhere have required.
The State of the Research and the Degree of Expert Consensus Have Been Misrepresented
Like the FDA, other GE proponents habitually claim there’s an overwhelming expert consensus that GE foods are safe. And the American Association for the Advancement of Science has declared that “every respected organization” that examined the evidence has determined they’re “no riskier” than conventional ones.
But this is flat-out false. For instance, in 2001 the Royal Society of Canada issued a report concluding that:
) it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GE foods are safe.
B) the “default prediction” for each should be that the genetic alteration has induced unintended and potentially harmful side effects.[xii]
Moreover, the British Medical Association, the Public Health Association of Australia, and the editors of The Lancet (a premier medical journal) have all expressed concerns about the risks;[xiii] and in 2015 a peer-reviewed journal published a statement signed by more than 300 scientists asserting that there is not a consensus about the safety of GE foods and that their safety has not been adequately demonstrated.[xiv]
GE proponents also falsely profess that the safety of GE foods has been thoroughly demonstrated when in reality many well-conducted studies published in peer-reviewed journals have detected harm to the animals that ate GE food.
In fact, a systematic review of the toxicological studies on GE foods published in 2009 concluded that the results of “most” of them indicate that the products:
“May cause hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects and may alter hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters the significance of which remains unknown.” [xv]
It also noted that further studies were clearly needed.
Another review that encompassed the additional studies that had been published up until August 2010 also provided cause for caution. It concluded that there was an “equilibrium” between the research groups;
“Suggesting” that GE crops are as safe as their non-GE counterparts and “those raising still serious concerns.” [xvi]
Between 2008 and 2014 eight such research reviews were published, and although some interpreted the data in favor of GE crops, as a whole, they provide no grounds for unequivocally proclaiming safety. As Sheldon Krimsky, a professor at Tufts University, observed in a comprehensive examination that itself was published in a peer-reviewed journal:
“One cannot read these systematic reviews and conclude that the science on health effects of GMOs has been resolved within the scientific community.” [xvii]
Yet, GMO proponents routinely proclaim that it has been conclusively resolved – and that safety is a certitude.
Two Compelling – and Disturbing – Conclusions
Thus, even from this brief summary, it’s clear that the GE food venture has been chronically dependent on twisting the truth; and this dependence can be readily detected in virtually every statement that’s been issued in support of its products.
A striking example is the guide to GE crops published by the UK’s Royal Society in May 2016.[xviii] Although it professes to provide accurate, science-based information, analysis reveals that its case for the safety of these crops is based on multiple misrepresentations.[xix]
So if the world’s oldest and most respected scientific institution cannot argue for the safety of GE foods without systematically distorting the facts, it indicates that such distortion is essential to the argument.
Moreover, when the multitude of distortions and deceptions that have been issued on behalf of these products over the last thirty-five years are compiled and irrefutably documented (as in my book), the conclusion that the GE food venture could not have survived without them becomes virtually inescapable.
And another conclusion is equally obvious. The incontestable fact that the evidence has been methodically misrepresented is in itself compelling evidence of how strongly the aggregate evidence raises reasonable doubts about the safety of these foods – because if it was as favorable as the proponents claim, there would have been no need to distort it.
[i] Druker, Steven, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public (Clear River Press 2015)
[ii] The agency’s promotional policy was acknowledged in “Genetically Engineered Foods,” FDA Consumer, Jan.-Feb. 1993, p.14.
[iii] The demonstrably false statements that have been issued in order to deflect suspicion from the GE process, as well as other deceptive tactics that have been employed, are described in Chapter 3 of Altered Genes, Twisted Truth. That chapter also comprehensively examines the evidence, including important evidence produced by researchers at the Mayo Clinic that had not been previously made public.
[iv] Document #15, p. 3 at: http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents. NOTE: If the URL specified for this endnote (which is also the URL for numbers 5 through 10) is temporarily inactive, the documents can be accessed at: http://www.biointegrity.org/list.htm
[v] Document #16 at: http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents.
[vi] Document #4 at: http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents.
[vii] Document #2 at: http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents.
[viii] Document #10 at: http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents.
[ix] Document #1 at: http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents.
[x] Document #8 at: http://biointegrity.org/24-fda-documents.
[xi] Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, May 29, 1992, Federal Register vol. 57, No. 104 at 22991
[xii] “Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada.” The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001. This report has never been withdrawn or revised.
[xiii] The British Medical Association has clearly expressed reservations about the safety of these novel products. As described in the British Medical Journal, the Association released a 2004 report stating that:
“More research is needed to show that genetically modified (GM) food crops and ingredients are safe for people and the environment and that they offer real benefits over traditionally grown foods.” (Kmietowicz, Z. “GM Foods Should Be Submitted to Further Studies, says BMA,”
British Medical Journal, 2004 March 13; 328(7440): 602)
The Public Health Association of Australia has likewise (and more recently) indicated its opinion that the safety of genetically modified foods has not been adequately demonstrated. Its policy statement on genetically modified (GM) foods adopted in 2013 states:
“Thorough, independent research into the effects of GM foods on agronomy, health, society, the environment and the economy should be undertaken, and until this work is completed, all governments in Australia should impose an immediate and indefinite freeze on: the growing of GM crops for commercial purposes; the importation of GM foods and food components; and the patenting of genetic resources for food.”
The Lancet criticized the presumption that genetically engineered foods entail no greater risks of unexpected effects than conventional foods, stating that there are “good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist” and that “governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.” (The Lancet, Vol. 353, Issue 9167, p. 1811, 29 May 1999.)
[xiv] Hilbeck et al. Environmental Sciences Europe (2015) 27:4. http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/s12302-014-0034-1.pdf
[xv] Dona, A., and I. S. Arvanitouannis. 2009. ‘‘Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods.’’ Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 49 (2): 164-75.
[xvi] Domingo, J. L., and J. G. Bordonaba. 2011. ‘‘A Literature Review on the Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants.’’ Environment International 37 (4): 734-42
[xvii] Krimsky, S., “An Illusory Consensus Behind GMO Health Assessment,” Science, Technology & Human Values, November 2015; vol. 40, 6: pp. 883-914., first published on August 7, 2015.
[xviii] “GM plants: Questions and answers.” The Royal Society, May 2016.
[xix] For a documentation of the major misrepresentations, see my article published in The Ecologist: http://bit.ly/29NN8dk
Steven M. Druker is a public interest attorney and the executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity. He is the author of Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public, which was released in 2015 with a foreword by Jane Goodall hailing it as “without doubt one of the most important books of the last 50 years.
The Eradication Of Natural Alternatives: Big Pharma Wants To Eliminate The Competition
August 25 2016 | From: Sott
Everyone has the simple desire to find happiness within themselves - to find a state of well-being that can be carried throughout their lives. Sara is no different. Sara is a teacher who struggles with mental conditions for which she has been prescribed a bevy of medications.
Over the years she has struggled, as most in her situation have, with addiction and the unbearable side-effects of her FDA-approved "safe" medications.
Related: FDA wants to jail Amish man 48 years for selling herbal remedies people love
Her absolute passion in this life is for the children whom she molds and develops with an unrivaled dedication. As she began to grapple further with the unexpected effects and growing addiction to her medications, she began to see it affecting her ability to be present in her responsibilities, while also stealing her creativity that she so greatly treasured.
So when she discovered kratom, which successfully replaced not one, but all of her medications, with zero side-effects, she thanked God for providing this miracle and natural alternative.
In a time when much of what Westerners thought they knew about themselves and their health has begun to prove unfounded, the ever-present natural and homeopathic alternatives are once again gathering attention.
Due largely in part to the continual effort of the pharmaceutical industry, many are unaware that the majority of natural alternatives to the overwhelming amount of different pharmaceutical medications are not only very effective, but in many cases, a far better option.
To some this might seem a fantastical claim, yet that is exactly what people have been conditioned to think.
Big Pharma has been caught in kickback schemes, exposed for bribery, fraud, and price-fixing, and has made it quite clear to the American people that their primary concern is not the health of the nation, but their own bottom line. Yet the pharmaceutical giants march on, increasing their profit with every passing year.
To think that this or any other company would not attempt to stomp out competition that threatened to rival their products is just naïve. This is seen in business every day.
Yet people seem to cast Big Pharma in a light of righteousness, as if they are some benevolent caregiver providing the country with loving healthcare; as if they are somehow exempt from the cutthroat nature of big business simply because their efforts are incorrectly seen as a public service, even though Big Pharma is not concerned with anything above and beyond its own profits.
What is being witnessed is an all-out assault on any possible natural alternative to Big Pharma medications; and currently in their crosshairs, being heralded as a miracle drug, is the natural root extract kratom.
Just as the nation is witnessing with cannabis, the pharmaceutical industry is beginning to wage war against this natural substance because it threatens to expose the simple fact that natural remedies actually work; and work well.
Kratom has shown to work wonders for pain relief, anxiety, insomnia, and much more. In addition to its list of uses, it has a long and respected history; kratom has been used in Southeast Asia for centuries and is perfectly safe, especially when compared to the obvious dangers known to exist with opiate use.
Opiates are an epidemic in this county, causing more 16,000 deaths a year, and according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, an estimated 36 million people abuse opioids worldwide, with an estimated 2.1 million Americans suffering from opiate addiction.
The number of unintentional overdose deaths from prescription pain relievers has soared in the United States, more than quadrupling since 1999.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that more Americans now die from painkillers than from heroin and cocaine combined. This is due in large part to the industry's efforts to over-prescribe opiate based medications; and this is not a hypothetical.
Many doctors have been arrested, charged, and shut down do to running what is called a "pill-mill," or a location where doctors unanimously and haphazardly hand out prescriptions for opiate painkillers for a multitude of reasons, primarily and most commonly, the pharmaceutical company's direct compensation for being one of their best salesmen.
Americans now consume more than 84 percent of the world's supply of oxycodone and almost 100 percent of hydrocodone opioids.
These "painkillers," which most doctors will tell you do a poor job of living up to that title, are currently listed as a Schedule II controlled substance.
Currently cannabis, the plant being shown to have more health benefits than all of Big Pharma's medications combined, is listed as a Schedule I controlled substance, implying that the plant has zero medical value and is highly addictive - both of which are categorically untrue.
To add insult to injury, the Federal government has a patent on the medical use of cannabis, all while arresting those who use cannabis for its medical value. It's laughably absurd.
Related: Cancer Update: There Are Now 100 Scientific Studies That Prove Cannabis Cures Cancer + Watch What Happens When Cannabis Is Injected Into Cancer Cells
To the resounding cheers of the American people, Big Pharma has been losing the battle to keep cannabis in the dark shadowy recesses of the illegal drug world and out of the hands of those in desperate need of its healing properties.
That in itself is a perfect example of how the industry is not focused on the needs and desires of the people they claim to help, but rather on telling them what they need and creating a situation in which that need becomes a reality; and their profits soar at the expense of real cures as opposed to prolonged treatments.
As kratom continues to rise and its value begins to be clearly demonstrated, Big Pharma has now made it their number one enemy.
It may seem illogical and unnecessary to label a natural root extract that has been used for thousands of years as dangerous while this country's number one prescribed medication is killing people in the millions, yet that is exactly what's happening.
In Alabama, Governor Robert J. Bentley signed a bill Tuesday that would make kratom a Schedule I controlled substance, right alongside heroin, and amazingly, with the same penalties.
The stark contrast between painkillers and a natural substance such as kratom is painfully obvious.
It's clear that opiates are the real problem; so all should be asking themselves why law enforcement chooses to focus on the natural substances alone: It always comes back to money.
There are billions of dollars in profit that the government stands to lose with the rise of natural substances such as cannabis, kratom, or kava, on both a medical and an industrial level. This is why Americans are exposed to fast-tracked drugs with countless known (as well as unknown) side-effects that fly through the FDA, only to be pulled years later due to terrible and often terminal results.
This has almost become an accepted practice. Yet there are drugs with the potential to cure and not just treat that get shelved at the FDA for decades, shrugged off as just the backlogged efforts of the FDA. They can only do so much, right?
The FDA just approved a new super-Vicodin type drug called Zohydro. This drug contains up to five times the amount of hydrocodone and does not have time-release protection, so it can be easily crushed up and snorted or injected by those who would abuse it.
This drug was approved after only one twelve-week trial in which five of the people involved died as a result.
Yet kratom, which has been used for centuries and is widely accepted as extremely safe, is dangerous and unlawful in the eyes of the Feds.
“When you talk to pain specialists in our field, they will all tell you one indisputable fact: opiates are lousy drugs to treat chronic pain" said one FDA committee member who voted against Zohydro approval.
The hypocrisy within this country's medical field, as well as many others, has become something of an established American business model. Lie long enough, with enough confidence and with enough force, and the Truth no longer matters.
Recently the Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet released information showing how at least 50% of all scientific research today is false.
This is becoming business as usual, and it is at the expense of the nation's health. They are bogging down drugs that can cure while fast-tracking highly addictive treatments, producing the perfect return customer.
With Alabama's new law deeming kratom illegal and with other states soon to follow, Sara is left falling back into her old rut of addiction and mental fog brought on by the prescribed "healthcare" that so often left her feeling lost in a world full of potential.
So many fall victim to the pacification and addiction almost certain to rear its ugly head when being subjected to daily and prolonged pharmaceutical drug use. Kratom was the one natural substance that gave her zero side-effects and completely relieved her of her anxiety while rendering her other drugs unnecessary.
It is not hard to see why Big Pharma saw this substance as a threat to its ongoing domination of the drug trade in the United States.
Related: What The Amish Can Teach Us About Modern Medicine
Is Your Multivitamin Toxic? + Is Your Multivitamin Supplement A Multi-Waste Of Your Money?
August 23 2016 | From: GreenMedInfo / TheTruthAboutCancer
In episode #11 (season 2) of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, a woman poisons her husband with the chemical sodium selenite. Strange as it may sound, this exotic murder weapon, and it's close cousin, sodium selenate, are listed as "nutrients" on the labels of most mass-marketed vitamins.
Even though both sodium selenite and selenate are classified as dangerous and toxic to the environment by regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Union, they are the primary forms of this mineral - selenium - sold on the mass market today.
In fact, most mass-market vitamins contain chemicals that the EPA does not allow in our public drinking water at levels above 50 parts per billion per liter. According to the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) standards, the highest allowable level of selenium in public drinking water is 50 parts per billion (equivalent to 50 micrograms per liter).
To get a sense of how small an allowable limit this is, 50 parts per billion is equivalent to a tablespoon of water in an Olympic-size swimming pool.
How can vitamin manufacturers advertise something as being a "nutrient" when the EPA - out of concern for our health - has barred it from our drinking water at all but exceedingly minute levels? Have sodium selenite/selenate really been shown to be toxic?
A brief perusal of toxicology reports from the Hazardous Substances Databank (toxnet.nlm.nih.gov) and PUBMED (pubmed.gov) shows that both forms can be carcinogenic and genotoxic and may contribute to reproductive and developmental problems in animals and humans.
The question is not whether these minerals have toxicity, but rather at what level they overwhelm our capacity for their detoxification and/or biotransformation into non-toxic metabolites?
A word should be said here about the differences that exist between inorganic minerals and biologically active ones:
The selenium that is found in foods like brazil nuts, mustard seeds, and fresh produce grown in selenium-rich soil, is infinitely different from unbound forms being put into some multivitamins. In fact, sodium selenite/selenate can cause DNA damage associated with cancer and birth defects, whereas the selenium found within food, or laboratory chelated forms like selenomethionine, has chemopreventive properties.
The basic principle that explains this difference is that when you isolate a nutrient or vitamin out of the food complex within which it is naturally found, and where it is inseparably bound to thousands of known and unknown food factors (e.g., enzymes, lipids, protein chaperones, glyconutrients, etc.) it is no longer as beneficial to life and in some cases harmful to it.
This is especially true in the case of vertebrate mammals who are equipped to get their minerals from the plants they ingest or through the biotransformation of inorganic minerals to organic ones by microflora in their gastrointestinal tracts.
The primary reason that sodium selenite/selenate are preferred by some vitamin manufacturers over safer, more beneficial forms like chelated or yeast-grown selenium is because it is more profitable to use raw materials of lower quality.
"You get what you pay for" is a saying that almost always rings true for dietary supplements. Buying industrial waste products, or chemicals that are considered hazardous waste, and repackaging them as "dietary supplements" can be extremely profitable.
Indeed, this is not the first time in history that such a hoax has been perpetrated on the public. The FDA-approved use of fluoride in our drinking water and the use of radioactive cobalt-60 culled from nuclear reactors for the irradiation of conventional food illustrates how industrial waste products with known toxicity are eventually converted into commodities or technologies "beneficial to health."
Whereas initially these substances have very high disposal costs for the industries that excrete them into our environment, the liability is converted - through the right combination of lobbying, miseducation and "checkbook science" - back into a commodity, with the environment and consumer suffering health and financial losses as a result.
Unfortunately, inorganic forms of selenium are not the only problem with mass-market vitamins.
Take the multivitamin Centrum, manufactured by Pfizer, the most powerful pharmaceutical companies in the world. This vitamin contains the following chemicals:
Chemical: Amount Found in Centrum/ EPA Maximum Allowed Limit in 1 Liter of Drinking Water
|Stannous chloride (tin):
|Ferrous fumarate (iron):
In the left hand column above you will see the quantities of inorganic minerals found within each dose of Centrum. In the right hand column are the maximum quantity allowed by the EPA in one liter of drinking water.
In the case of stannous chloride (tin), ferrous fumarate (iron) and manganese sulfate there are significantly higher doses in Centrum than are considered safe for human consumption in a liter of water.
Also, cupric sulfate is used as a herbicide, fungicide and pesticide!
Although the others listed are at levels well under the EPA's allowable limit, it is simply amazing that they are found in a product for human consumption at any quantity given their known toxicity.
So, if these chemicals are toxic, how can they be marketed as beneficial to our health?
As of today no law forbids the use of these substances in dietary supplements, despite laboratory research demonstrating their toxicity in animals, and epidemiological and occupational data demonstrating their actual or potential toxicity in humans.
This is due to the widespread acceptance in the U.S. of a chemical and drug industry-friendly "weight of evidence" standard for toxicological risk assessment.
Rather than using the "precautionary principle," which dictates that a substance that is suspected of being harmful should be duly regulated in order to minimize the public's exposure, the "weight of evidence" paradigm requires that a panel of government appointed experts must evaluate all available toxicological data, and must come up with a consensus that the evidence, unequivocally, demonstrates the substance in question poses a serious health risk.
Until such an assessment can be made, a number of substances with obvious toxicity are "innocent until proven guilty" and can be portrayed by irresponsible and/or uneducated manufacturers as being beneficial to human health.
It is sad and ironic that at a time when smaller dietary supplement manufacturers are being accused of being "unregulated" and having poor quality standards (even when they are incurring great costs by using vastly superior ingredients) that massive pharmaceutical companies, who have every resource at their disposal, are allowed to market toxic chemicals to consumers under the banner of USP (United States Pharmacopeia) or "pharmaceutical grade" quality, and get away with it.
Ultimately, we need to use common sense in our purchasing decisions and realize that sometimes companies will intentionally mislead the public - with the complicity of regulatory bodies like the FDA - and will advertise a product that has no health benefits; or worse, may actually detract from our health.
The fact that Centrum may or may not be "the #1 doctor multivitamin brand" is irrelevant, considering that one does not ordinarily go to a doctor to seek wise counsel on nutrition. It is simply not their specialty.
The irony is that billions of dollars in health care cost - and the suffering these costs represent - could be saved every year if people took the simple step of taking a good multivitamin every day.
It is advisable to look for product manufacturers that use high quality ingredients, including those from whole foods, as they are easier for our bodies to absorb and to utilize and therefore contribute more significantly to filling the voids in our diet.
For a toxicological analysis of the ingredients of Centrum visit our product analysis page for Centrum. To view other consumer advocacy exposé pieces visit our Consumer Advocacy page.
Is Your Multivitamin Supplement A Multi-Waste Of Your Money?
When the average person makes the decision to add a nutritional supplement to their diet, a multivitamin is likely to be the first choice. That’s because to most people it feels like “taking out insurance” on their health.
In fact, multivitamin supplements are regularly used by one-third of all American adults and are the most common dietary supplement consumed in the U.S. today. Traditionally, a daily multivitamin is meant to avoid nutritional deficiency. The specific combination of vitamins and minerals is designed to resemble healthy dietary patterns, especially that of regular fruit and vegetable consumption.
The only problem is… many commercially available multivitamin supplements simply don’t work. That’s because they’re made up of isolated, synthetic compounds that are chemically and structurally different from the actual “vitamin complexes” found in real foods.
But before we get into this, let’s be clear as to what exactly vitamins are. By definition, they are organic substances that originate mainly in plants and are essential in small amounts for our health, growth, reproduction, and maintenance.
Vitamins need to be a regular part of our diet since they either cannot be made at all or in sufficient quantities in our bodies to do their job properly. Finally, each vitamin performs a specific function – one vitamin cannot replace another.
This is the problem… most multivitamin supplements today contain chemicals that were never part of our natural diet, do not originate in plants, and are unable to perform vitamin-like activities in our bodies.
All this has led some health experts to suggest that commercially available multivitamin supplements should actually be labeled as “non-food vitamin imitations.”
Do You Really Need a Multivitamin Supplement?
If you’re like the majority of people nowadays, you’re buying your food ready-to-eat instead growing it yourself. This increasing trend has led to the rise of a massive food industry, for which the health of the end-user is considered secondary to profit margins.
Correspondingly, there’s a growing school of thought that the poor nutritive quality of our food lies at the root of all of our health problems today. The nutrition we should get, but don’t, from our diet weakens our immune system and directly impacts our health. This increases our susceptibility to infections and diseases − including cancer.
The Scary Truth About What’s in Most Multivitamins
For decades the “natural” health industry has been talking up vitamin supplements as being essential for a healthy and productive life. However, most commercially available vitamins today are far from being “natural organic substances that originate primarily in plants.”
Instead, the frightening truth is… most vitamins today are derived from petroleum extracts, coal tar derivatives, chemically processed sugar, and industrially processed fish oils. Even worse, acids and industrial chemicals such as formaldehyde are used to make them!
Not surprisingly, synthetic vitamins were originally developed because they were easier to mass produce and cost less.
As an aside, did you know that manufacturers of petroleum-derived supplements cynically call their products “vegetarian” – not because they are from plants, but because they are not from animals?
Also, some brands of synthetic vitamins are labeled “organic” because they contain carbon… which by definition would mean that all hydrocarbon petroleum derivatives should be organic. (That doesn’t entice me to consume some fresh-from-the-ground crude oil). The fact is, most so-called “organic vitamins” commercially available today are not really organic from the true naturopathic, or even the U.S. government’s perspective.
How Do Non-Food Vitamins Differ from “Real” Vitamins in Foods?
First of all, the physiochemical forms of many vitamins present naturally in foods are very different from their synthetically prepared versions which are known as “analogs.”
For instance, vitamin A is present in foods as retinyl esters and mixed carotenoids – while synthetic vitamin A analogs include vitamin A acetate and palmitate, and isolated beta-carotene.
Similarly, the food forms of vitamin C include two variants of ascorbic acid, as well as their salts and other derivatives. The synthetic analog of vitamin C is made up solely of isolated, crystalline ascorbic acid.
In other words, most commercial non-food vitamins are artificially prepared chemical substances obtained from non-organic sources that are chemically and structurally different from the healthful vitamins present naturally in foods.
This fundamental difference has many major consequences for the “bioavailability” and actions of food-sourced vitamins relative to synthetic vitamins in your body. Bioavailability refers to the proportion of a nutritional supplement that enters your bloodstream and is able to have a biological effect in your body – and the physiochemical form of a nutrient is a major factor in this.
Food-sourced vitamins are more easily absorbed and used by your body relative to their non-food, synthetic analogues, for three main reasons:
1. Food-sourced vitamins exist in physiochemical forms which your body has evolved to recognize.
2. Particle size is an important factor in nutrient absorption, and food-derived vitamins appear to have smaller particle sizes for better absorption.
3. So-called “co-factors” present in the same foods as food-sourced vitamins appear to boost their absorption because of their interactions with each other.
In reality, food-sourced vitamins are biological complexes containing multiple components. Functional vitamin activity can only happen when all the co-factors and components of the vitamin complex are present and working together synergistically.
When isolated and separated into artificial chemical forms, these purified, crystalline synthetic compounds are no longer actual vitamins. Indeed, published scientific research shows that food-derived vitamins are nutritionally superior relative to their synthetic analogs.
Unfortunately, we have been brainwashed to believe that synthetic chemicals are superior to naturally occurring, food-sourced vitamins and other nutrients. This false idea has been propagated mainly by the food, drug, and pharma industry, whose sole overriding interest is to sell and profit from their inferior nutritional supplements.
Let’s consider a couple of individual examples of food-sourced vitamins and their synthetic analogs…
Food-Sourced Vitamin A vs. Synthetic Vitamin A
Vitamin A is the name of a group of fat-soluble compounds that include retinol, retinal, and retinyl esters. This vitamin helps to manage immune function, vision, reproduction, and cellular communication. It also supports cell growth and differentiation; and it plays a critical role in the normal formation and maintenance of the heart, lungs, kidneys, and other organs.
Our diet contains two forms of vitamin A: preformed vitamin A (including retinol and its esterified form, retinyl ester) and provitamin A carotenoids.
Preformed vitamin A is found in foods from animal sources, such as dairy products, fish, and meat (especially liver). By far the most important provitamin A carotenoid is beta-carotene. This is a red-orange colored pigment found in plants and fruits, especially carrots and leafy yellow and green vegetables.
Both preformed vitamin A and provitamin A carotenoids are converted within our bodies to retinal and retinoic acid, the active forms of vitamin A that carry out many important biological functions.
The synthetic analog vitamin A acetate is made from methanol, while vitamin A palmitate is either made from fish oil or synthetically derived. Synthetic beta-carotene is prepared by condensing aldehyde (made from acetone – yes, the nail polish remover) with acetylene.
Food-sourced beta-carotene is known to have high antioxidant ability. Antioxidants help to neutralize harmful free radicals generated in our bodies by inflammation, pollution, UV exposure, and cigarette smoke. It also appears to be safer for our health. One possible reason is because in natural foods it is attached to co-factors such as lipoproteins, which may prevent toxicity.
On the other hand, synthetic beta-carotene has clearly been shown to be harmful for health if given alone to smokers, or to individuals exposed to environmental carcinogens. It also acts against vitamin E’s antioxidant ability to protect against LDL oxidation, which is an early step in the formation of atherosclerosis and development of heart disease.
“Food Complex Vitamin C” vs. Synthetic Ascorbic Acid
Vitamin C is crucial for the growth and repair of the body’s tissues, making skin, tendons and blood vessels, helping wounds heal faster, and keeping bones and teeth healthy.
Vitamin C is an “essential” dietary nutrient for us humans because we cannot make it in our bodies. It occurs naturally in two forms, along with bioflavonoids as well as several related compounds with vitamin C-like activity. These forms include salts of ascorbic acid as well as oxidized forms such as dehydroascorbic acid. Hence food-sourced vitamin C should rightfully be called “food complex vitamin C.”
Food-derived vitamin C acts as an antioxidant, protecting against oxidative stress – which happens when there is an imbalance between the production of potentially harmful free radicals, relative to the body’s ability to detoxify them via antioxidants.
Synthetic ascorbic acid, on the other hand, is made by fermenting corn sugar, with acetone (nail polish remover) being used in the final step of its production. This synthetic form does not contain both forms that exist naturally. Neither does it contain bioflavonoids and other co-factors, hence it is very different from food complex vitamin C.
Interestingly, food complex vitamin C has a negative redox potential while synthetic ascorbic acid has a positive redox potential. Redox potential refers to a compound’s ability to acquire electrons and thereby be “reduced.” Compounds with a negative redox potential can counter oxidative stress, whereas those with a positive redox potential cannot.
A U.S. government study found that a food containing only 80 mg of vitamin C produced a greater increase in blood antioxidant levels when compared to over 15 times as much isolated ascorbic acid. The presence of bioflavonoids and other co-factors are believed to be responsible for this difference.
Many studies have shown that diets high in fruits and vegetables are associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and cancer, and with increased longevity.
On the other hand, while some beneficial effects of supplemental synthetic vitamin C have been observed in small studies, large well-controlled studies don’t show any change in markers of oxidation or any obvious health benefits.
[Although lives have been saved with high-dosage intravenous vitamin C treatment and with Liposomal Encapsulated vitamin C treatment.]
What’s the Ideal Multivitamin Supplement?
You’ve probably heard the old expression, “You are what you eat.” I’m not sure who first said it, but this nugget of wisdom has been expanded to… “You’re not what you eat, but what you digest, absorb, and assimilate.”
Our bodies have been conditioned by many thousands of years of evolution to absorb and safely use vitamins in the natural context of their co-factors. In other words, these vitamins are usually present as multi-component complexes, synergistically interconnected with other nutrients and healthful elements present in natural [organic] foods.
Many people today consume mega-doses of isolated pharmaceutical-grade vitamins, which are synthesized, standardized, isolated chemicals that are very rarely made from natural sources. As a result, many of these synthetic vitamin analogs are unable to perform vitamin-like biological activities in our bodies – and may even be toxic at higher levels.
Most commercially available multivitamin supplements are nothing more than a jumbled assembly of many ill-fitting parts, an ineffective combination of metals and inorganic chemicals.
In fact, even if you take so-called “natural” vitamins that have been extracted and purified from natural foods, they will not be as effective, since they have been separated from the other components of their functional complex – and because the necessary co-factors which assist in their functioning have been eliminated.
In summary, an ideal multivitamin supplement should contain the entire intact vitamin complex with all the co-factors and essential trace minerals necessary for the given vitamin to function synergistically in our bodies in terms of its bioavailability, efficacy, and safety.
Related: Are All Vitamins Safe?
|How The Dairy Industry Tricked Humans Into Believing They Need Milk
August 21 2016 | From: TrueActivist
Despite the fact that one can get their daily recommendation of calcium, potassium, and protein from fruits and vegetables, the dairy industry has spent billions of dollars to convince consumers otherwise.
Got Milk? We sure hope not. Despite being a somewhat tasty addition to coffee, tea, and delectable treats, the ingredient – when pasteurized – is highly toxic to the human body.
In fact, physicians such as Dr. Willet, who has conducted many studies and reviewed the research on the topic, believe milk to be more of a detriment to the human body than an aid.
This is because despite popular belief, the food has never been shown to reduce fracture risk. In fact, according to the Nurses’ Health Study, dairy may increase risk of fractures by 50%! This concerning finding is supported by the fact that countries with lowest rates of dairy and calcium consumption (like those in Africa and Asia) have the lowest rates of osteoporosis.
Considering that approximately 3/4 of the world’s population is unable to digest milk and other dairy products, it seems clear the food is not an ideal substance for consumption.
However, the average consumer doesn’t know this.
From celebrity endorsements to advertisements by the dairy industry, most have been taught to believe that dairy is an ideal food for optimum health.
Because there’s so much misinformation surrounding the subject, Vox recently created a video which illustrates the facade of the dairy industry.
One of the points made is that despite the fact that consumers can get the daily recommendation of calcium, potassium, and protein from [properly organic] fruits and vegetables, the dairy industry has spent billions of dollars to convince the populace otherwise.
If you were taught that one must drink milk to grow up “big and strong,” you’re not alone. However, now is the time to get educated on the facts.
Because milk is very mucus-forming in the human body, it is believed to contribute to allergies, ear infections, Type 1 diabetes, anemia, and even constipation. In addition, the food may contribute to various types of cancers as consumption of the product increases the body’s level of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1).
The good news is that there are plenty of tasty, creamy dairy alternatives that are not only easy-to-make, they’re affordable.
‘Milks’ from rice, almonds, cashew, hemp, and even coconut can be found in most grocery stores, and some companies even sell dairy-free ice cream – such as Ben & Jerry’s! In fact, the non-dairy milk market has surged within the past few years. Almond milk sales, in particular, have increased by 250 percent from 2000-2015 to almost $895 million. [Avoid Soy milk as it is not good for you and often GMO].
Is it time to ditch dairy?
|20 Practical Uses For Coca Cola - Proof That Coke Does Not Belong In The Human Body & 22 Ways Drinking Soda Will Shorten Your Life + The Hidden Costs Of Soda
August 20 2016 | From: TrueActivist / GreenMedInfo
Numerous studies have shown the negative health effects of drinking soda on your waistline and your teeth.
To prove Coke does not belong in the human body, here are 20 practical ways you can use Coke as a domestic cleaner:
1. Removes grease stains from clothing and fabric.
2. Removes rust; using fabric dipped in Coke, a sponge or even aluminum foil. Also loosens rusty bolts.
3. Removes blood stains from clothing and fabric.
4. Cleans oil stains from a garage floor; let the stain soak, hose off.
5. Kills slugs and snails; the acids kills them.
6. Cleans burnt pans; let the pan soak in the Coke, then rinse.
7. Descales a kettle (same method as with burnt pans).
8. Cleans car battery terminals by pouring a small amount of Coke over each one.
9. Cleans your engine; Coke distributors have been using this technique for decades.
10. Makes pennies shine; soaking old pennies in Coke will remove the tarnish.
11. Cleans tile grout; pour onto kitchen floor, leave for a few minutes, wipe up.
12. Dissolves a tooth; Use a sealed container…takes a while but it does work.
13. Removes gum from hair; dip into a small bowl of Coke, leave a few minutes. Gum will wipe off.
14. Removes stains from vitreous china.
15. Got a dirty pool? Adding two 2-liter bottles of Coke clears up rust.
16. You can remove (or fade) dye from hair by pouring diet Coke over it.
17. Remove marker stains from carpet. Applying, scrub and then clean with soapy water to remove marker stains.
18. Cleans a toilet; pour around bowl, leave for a while, flush clean.
19. Coke and aluminum foil will bring Chrome to a high shine.
20. Strips paint off metal furniture. Soak a towel in Coke and lay it on the paint surface.
Furthermore, have you ever wondered what exactly Coca Cola is?
After 10 minutes: The sugar contained in a glass of Cola can cause a devastating “strike” on the body. The cause being the phosphoric acid which inhibits the action of sugar.
After 20 minutes: A leap in insulin levels in bloodstream occurs.
After 40 minutes: Ingestion of caffeine is finally completed. The eye’s pupils are expanding. Blood pressure rises because the liver disposes more sugar into the bloodstream. The adenosine receptors become blocked thereby preventing drowsiness.
After 45 minutes: The body raises production of the dopamine hormone, which stimulates the brain pleasure center. Similar to the reaction Heroin creates.
After 1 hour: Phosphoric acid binds calcium, magnesium and zinc in the gastrointestinal tract, which supercharges metabolism. The release of calcium through urine takes place.
After more than 1 hour: Diuretic effects of the drink enters in “the game”. The calcium, magnesium, and zinc are removed out of the body, which are a part of our bones, as well as sodium. At this time, we can become irritable or subdued. The whole quantity of water, contained in a coca cola, is removed through urination.
When having a cold bottle of Coke and enjoying its undeniable freshness are we aware of what chemical “cocktail” we are putting into our bodies?
The active ingredient in Coca-Cola is orthophosphoric acid. Due to its high acidity, cisterns used for transporting the chemical have to be equipped with special reservoirs designed for highly corrosive materials.
The Anatomy of Diet Coke / Coke Light
Let’s have a look at “the anatomy” of one of the most advertised products of “Coca-Cola Co.” – Coca-Cola Light (Diet) without caffeine.
This drink contains Aqua Carbonated, E150D, E952, E951, E338, E330, Aromas, E211.
Aqua Carbonated – this is sparkling water. It stirs gastric secretion, increases the acidity of the gastric juice and provokes flatulency. Filtered tap water is what is primarily used.
E150D – this is food coloring obtained through the processing of sugar at specified temperatures, with or without addition of chemical reagents. In the case of coca-cola, ammonium sulfate is added.
E952 – Sodium Cyclamate is a sugar substitute. Cyclamate is a synthetic chemical, has a sweet taste, which is 200 times sweeter than sugar, and is used as an artificial sweetener. In 1969 it was banned by FDA, since it, as well as saccharin and aspartame, caused cancer in rats.
E950 – Acesulfame Potassium. 200 times sweeter than sugar, containing methyl-ether. It aggravates the operation of the cardiovascular system. Likewise, it contains asparaginic acid which can also cause an excitant effect on our nervous system and in time it can lead to addiction. Acesulfame is badly dissolved and is not recommended for use by children and pregnant women.
E951 – Aspartame. A sugar substitute for diabetics and is chemically unstable at elevated temperatures it breaks down into methanol and phenylalanine. Methanol is very dangerous as only 5-10ml can cause destruction of the optic nerve and irreversible blindness. In warm soft drinks, aspartame transforms into formaldehyde which is a very strong carcinogen.
Symptoms of aspartame poisoning include: unconsciousness, headaches, fatigue, dizziness, nausea, palpitation, weight gain, irritability, anxiety, memory loss, blurry vision, fainting, joint pains, depression, infertility, hearing loss and more. Aspartame can also provoke the following diseases: brain tumors, MS (Multiple Sclerosis), epilepsy, Graves’ disease, chronic fatigue, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, mental deficiency and tuberculosis. Later, this substance was initially illegal due to its dangers but was again made legal in a suspicious manner.
E338 – Orthophosphoric Acid. This can cause irritation of the skin and eyes. It is used for production of phosphoric acid salts of ammonia, sodium, calcium, aluminum and also in organic synthesis for the production of charcoal and film tapes. It is also used in the production of refractory materials, ceramics, glass, fertilizers, synthetic detergents, medicine, metalworking, as well as in the textile and oil industries. It is known that orthophosphoric acid interferes with the absorption of calcium and iron into the body which can cause weakening of bones and osteoporosis. Other side effects are thirst and skin rashes.
E330 – Citric Acid. It is widely used in pharmaceutical and food industries. Salts of citric acid (citrates) are used in the food industry as acids, preservatives, stabilizers, and in the medical fields – for preserving blood.
Aromas – unknown aromatic additives
E211 – Sodium Benzoate. It is used in production of some food products for anti-bacterial and anti-fungal purposes. It is often found in jams, fruit juices and fruit yogurts. It’s not recommended for use by asthmatics and people who are sensitive to aspirin. A study conducted by Peter Piper at the Sheffield University in Britain, found that this compound causes significant damage to DNA. According to Peter, sodium benzoate which is an active component in preservatives, doesn’t destroy DNA, but deactivates it. This can lead to cirrhosis and degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease.
Coca-Cola is undeniably a very useful product. The key is to use it for purposes that do not include drinking! Here is a video about Coca-Cola:
22 Ways Drinking Soda Will Shorten Your Life
Numerous studies have shown the negative health effects of drinking soda on your waistline and your teeth. Drinking soda however, has far more serious health risks than many of us may realize.
According to Euromonitor, the average person in the United States consumes more than 126 grams of sugar per day. That’s equal to 25.2 teaspoons, or the equivalent of drinking a little over three 12 ounce colas.
Numerous studies have shown the negative health effects of drinking soda on your waistline and your teeth. Drinking soda however, has far more health risks than many of us may realize. Regular consumption of sugary drinks is linked to numerous health problems including diabetes, heart disease, asthma, COPD and obesity.
So what are the risks and how much soda is too much? Let’s take a look:
1. Soda can cause a decline in kidney function. In an 11-year-long Harvard Medical School study, including 3,318 women, researchers found that diet cola is linked with a two-fold increased risk for kidney decline.
2. Soda increases diabetes risk. High levels of sugar in soda places a lot of stress on your pancreas, potentially leaving it unable to keep up with the body’s need for insulin. Drinking one or two sugary drinks per day increases your risk for type 2 diabetes by 25%.
3. Soda cans are lined with BPA. Soda cans are coated with the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA), which has been linked to everything from heart disease to obesity to reproductive problems.
4. Soda dehydrates you. Caffeine is a diuretic. Diuretics promote the production of urine, causing you to urinate more frequently. When the body’s cells are dehydrated they have difficulty absorbing nutrients, and it also makes it more difficult for the body to eliminate waste.
5. Caramel coloring in soda is linked to cancer. The artificial brown coloring in colas is a chemical process, it is not made from caramelized sugar. It is made by reacting sugars with ammonia and sulfites under high pressure and temperatures. These chemical reactions result in the formation of 2-methylimidazole (2-MI) and 4 methylimidazole (4-MI), which in government-conducted studies caused lung, liver, or thyroid cancer or leukemia in laboratory mice and rats.
6. Caramel coloring in soda is linked to vascular issues. Dr. Nehal N. Mehta, director of Inflammatory Risk Cardiology at the University of Pennsylvania states that there is a link between vascular problems and caramel-containing products.
7. Soda is high in calories. A 20 ounce can of Coca Cola contains 17 teaspoons of sugar and 240 calories…empty calories devoid of any nutritional value. It would take the average adult over one hour of walking to burn off the 240 calories in a 20-ounce soda.
8. Caffeine in soda blocks the absorption of magnesium. According to Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. Magnesium is essential for more than 325 enzyme reactions in the body. Magnesium also plays a role in your body's detoxification processes and therefore is important for minimizing damage from environmental chemicals, heavy metals, and other toxins.
9. Soda increases obesity risk in children. Each additional soda or other sugary drink consumed per day increases the likelihood of a child becoming obese by about 60%. Sugary drinks are connected to other health problems as well.
10. Soda increases heart disease in men. Each soda consumed per day increases the risk of heart disease by 20% in men.
11. Acid in soda wears away dental enamel. Lab testing on soda acidity shows that the amount of acid in soda is enough to wear away dental enamel. pH levels in soda can be as low as 2.5, as a frame of reference battery acid has a pH of 1, water has a pH of 7.0.
12. Soda contains high amounts of sugar. The average 20-ounce can of Coca Cola has the equivalent of 17 teaspoons of sugar, it's not hard to see that soda can be bad for your teeth and your overall health.
13. Soda contains artificial sweeteners. While many people opt for artificial sugar to lower caloric intake the tradeoff for your health isn’t so sweet. Artificial sugars are linked to numerous illness and diseases including cancer.
14. Soda depletes your mineral levels. Sodas that contain phosphoric acid removes much needed calcium from your bones. After studying several thousand men and woman, researchers at Tufts University, found that women who drank 3 or more cola based sodas a day, had almost 4% lower bone mineral density in their hips, even though researchers controlled their calcium and vitamin D intake.
15. Drinking soda changes your metabolism. Dr. Hans-Peter Kubis, the director of the Health Exercise and Rehabilitation group at Bangor University in England, has found that drinking soda on a regular basis can actually change the metabolism in the human body. Participants drank 140 grams of sugar every day for four weeks (that’s less than two 20 ounce cans of Coke). The results: their metabolism changed after the four weeks, making it more difficult for them to burn fat and lose weight.
16. Drinking more than one soda daily, increases your risk for heart disease and metabolic syndrome. According to Ravi Dhingra, M.D., lead author of the study and an instructor in Medicine at Harvard Medical School states “If you are drinking one or more soft drinks a day, you may be increasing your risk of developing metabolic risk factors for heart disease.” The Framingham study included nearly 9,000 individuals, over a four year period. Researchers found that individuals consuming one or more sodas a day had a 48 % increased risk of metabolic syndrome compared to those consuming less than one soft drink daily.
17. Diet soda does not help you lose weight. A University of Texas Health Science Center study found that the more diet sodas a person drank, the greater their risk of becoming overweight. Consuming two or more cans a day increased waistlines by 500% greater than those who do not consume diet soda.
18. Diet sodas contain mold inhibitors. They go by the names sodium benzoate or potassium benzoate, and they’re used in nearly all diet sodas.
“These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it - they knock it out altogether,” Peter Piper, a professor of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology at the University of Sheffield in the U.K., told a British newspaper.
The preservative has also been linked to hives, asthma, and other allergic conditions, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Note: Some companies have phased out sodium benzoate. Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi have replaced it with another preservative, potassium benzoate. Both sodium and potassium benzoate were classified by the Food Commission in the UK as mild irritants to the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes.
19. Sodas containing ascorbic acid and potassium benzoate can form benzene, a known carcinogen. Benzene can form in beverages and foods that contain both ascorbic acid and potassium benzoate. According to the FDA, when benzoate is exposed to light and heat in the presence of vitamin C, it can be converted into benzene. According to the American Cancer Society, benzene is considered a carcinogen
20. Daily sodas and other sugar sweetened drinks are linked to Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD). The 2,634 individuals in the study completed a CT scan to measure the amount of fat in the liver. They saw a higher prevalence of NAFLD among people who reported drinking more than one sugar-sweetened drink per day compared to people who said they drank no sugar-sweetened beverages.
21. Some sodas contain flame retardant. Brominated vegetable oil (BVO) is added to many citrus based sodas and sports drinks to prevent the drinks from separating. What’s the concern? BVO is patented by chemical companies as a flame retardant. It is also banned in over 100 countries, but it is still used in the U.S. Learn more here.
22. Soda is linked to Asthma. A study done in South Australis of 16,907 participants aged 16 years and older, showed high levels of soda consumption were positively associated with asthma and COPD.
The Hidden Costs of Soda
Just as lifestyle diseases like Type II Diabetes and obesity grow to epidemic proportions in the U.S., the average American now consumes 20 oz of soda every day. For non-diet drinkers that means guzzling an extra 17 teaspoons of sugar daily.
|Cancer Update: There Are Now 100 Scientific Studies That Prove Cannabis Cures Cancer + Watch What Happens When Cannabis Is Injected Into Cancer Cells
August 17 2016 | From: HigherPerspective / HealthNutNews
Cannabis is a Schedule I drug in the United States. That means the government has designated the plant as having no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. No accepted medical use? There are scores of studies that say differently.
Rick Simpson is a medical marijuana activist, and he has been on a crusade of healing. He considers Cannabis to be the most medicinally active plant that humans can use on this planet.
Related: Medical Establishment Doesn't Like Baking Soda Cancer Treatment Because It’s Too Effective And Too Cheap
Marijuana has been shown in some cases to effectively treat numerous types of cancer, improve immunity, and fight anxiety and pain.
Here's the full list of studies:
Cannabis kills tumor cells
Uterine, testicular, and pancreatic cancers
Mouth and throat cancer
Cannabis cancer cures (general)
Cancers of the head and neck
Cannabis partially/fully induced cancer cell death
Cannabis kills cancer cells
Intestinal inflammation and cancer
Cannabinoids in health and disease
Cannabis inhibits cancer cell invasion
Watch What Happens When Cannabis Is Injected Into Cancer Cells
Since 1974 studies have shown that cannabis has anti-tumor effects.
The results of the 1974 study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that cannabis’s component,THC, “slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.”
In 1975 an article in the Journal of the National cancer institute titled “Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids,” they reported that;
“Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabinol (CBD). Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBD had reduced primary tumor size.”
In 1998, a research team at Madrid’s Complutense University Led by Dr. Manuel Guzman discovered that THC can selectively induce programmed cell death in brain tumor cells without negatively impacting surrounding healthy cells.
They reported in the March 2002 issue of “Nature Medicine” they had destroyed incurable brain cancer tumors in rats by injecting them with THC. And in 2007 even Harvard Researchers found that compounds in cannabis cut the growth of lung cancer.
There is also an organization called The SETH Group that showed compounds in cannabis can stop the growth of human glioblastoma multiforma (GBM) brain cancer cells. The SETH Group says:
“No chemotherapy can match this nontoxic anti-cancer action.”
Even in 2012 a pair of scientists at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco found THC stops metastasis in many kinds of aggressive cancer.
Watch as the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, kills cancer cells:
Study Finds Homeopathic Medicine Extremely Helpful For Cancer Patients
Cancer Success Stories: "Alternative" Treatment
Every Cancer Has This Simple Component!
Business of cancer: People who refuse chemotherapy live over 12 years longer than those undergoing chemo treatments
|New Zealand Baby Food Contains 800 Times More Pesticides Than Baby Food In Europe - But Pesticides To Stay In Baby Food
August 16 2016 | From: SafeFood
New Zealand baby food contained nearly 800 times more pesticides than baby food in Europe, according to a recent analysis.
This evidence and why this is a risk to New Zealand babies was presented to the Primary Production Committee by Dr Meriel Watts of the Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa and Alison White of the Safe Food Campaign in December 2014
Related: Why Is Pesticide Used As An Ingredient In Infant Formula?
Their oral submissions are in support of a petition presented to parliament earlier this year calling for zero tolerance of pesticides in baby food.
“We want New Zealand to follow the European directives which basically stipulate a zero tolerance policy", stated Ms White. "Three of the pesticides found in New Zealand baby food are hazardous for young children and babies in the womb. Kiwi babies deserve the same level of protection as they have in the EU."
Analysis of a government study shows more than 30% of New Zealand baby food contained pesticide residues whereas less than 1% (0.04%) of European baby food did so.
Five pesticides were detected in 32 baby food samples of the last NZ Total Diet Survey of 2009, which included testing of formula, cereal based, custard/fruit and savoury weaning foods. The EU analysis of 2,062 baby foods showed residues in only 0.04% of samples in 2010.
“Some of the pesticides found are carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, for which no safe level has been scientifically established, and doses thousands of times lower than those generally considered toxic are known to interfere with normal human development," said Ms White.
"Children have unique windows of vulnerability which adults do not have", said Dr Watts.
"Extremely low doses which may not have an immediate effect on adults can critically interfere with children's ongoing developmental processes. This may result in lifelong alterations in growth and development, organ formation, as well as disease occurrence. One of the key outcomes of exposure to even tiny amounts of pesticides like chlorpyrifos is lowered IQ and delayed development."
Dr Watts is senior scientist for the Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific, and last year published a book Poisoning our future: children and pesticides, in which she collates a substantial amount of research on why children are at risk from pesticides, even from very low doses.
The Safe Food Campaign also thinks the government should do a more extensive analysis of baby food.
“More extensive and regular surveys need to be done of baby food not only to monitor the proposed legislation but also to provide a more adequate baseline for comparison over time and with other countries," said Ms White.
Pesticides To Stay In Baby Food
Pesticides are to stay in baby food, in spite of a petition presented to parliament. The Primary Production Committee decided on May 28 2015 not to act on the Safe Food Campaign petition asking for zero tolerance for pesticide residues in baby food, even though such directives are currently in place in the European Union.
The Committee acknowledged the public interest to New Zealanders and the concern felt about toxins in food, especially for parents of new-borns and young children. However they did not call for a more extensive baby food residue surveillance programme, as suggested by the Safe Food Campaign.
“Every five to six years a mere eight samples of four different kinds of baby food are analysed for pesticide residues," said Alison White, Co-convenor of the Safe Food Campaign, "and this is absolutely inadequate."
Pesticides were found in over 30% of baby food samples in the last Total Diet Survey in 2009. Ms White contrasted this to the EU:
“New Zealand baby food had 533% more pesticide residues. The EU had an average of less than 6% of baby food samples positive for pesticide residues over 6 years."
"We want to make parents more aware of the dangers that certain pesticide residues pose to babies and young children," Ms White stated.
"To this end, we are running a campaign the week of the 15 June to protect our children from toxic pesticides here in New Zealand, following the pesticide awareness campaign of Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific. More details will be available on our website."
"Certain pesticides, including some detected in New Zealand baby food, have been found to be linked to cancer progression and endocrine or hormonal disruption," said Dr Heli Matilainen of the Safe Food Campaign.
"Children, due to their actively developing bodies, have unique windows of vulnerability which adults do not have. This means that it is not the dose which is critical, but the timing of exposure, because doses thousands of times lower than those normally considered toxic may interfere with children's development," explained Dr Matilainen.
"I am sure I am talking on behalf of every parent in New Zealand," concluded Ms White, "when I urge the government to step up and protect our babies from dangerous pesticides that are currently present in baby food."
The Safe Food Campaign is a nationwide organisation that gives consumers information about food so when they buy food they can make a more informed choice.
Related: Chemical preservative in baby wipes found to cause eczema-like rashes