For similar reasons as with supressed science, there are important facts and simple treatments for many dis-eases that are kept from the mass population.
For example, Jim Humble and his MMS Protocols have treated many thousands of people in Africa and around the world, annihilating diseases such as malaria, cancer and aids and yet you will not hear anything about these simple treatments in the media - other than disinformation.
The multi-billion dollar medical science and pharmaceutical industries profit from 'treating' diseases, not symptoms and their treatments are highly ineffective - other than for generating enormous profits.
"The drug companies, with the help of the scientific community, have created a scientific “truth” that ensures they will have no competition. And unfortunately they are the group that doesn’t want well people; they want the money that comes from sick people. If you cure a sick person, he won’t pay you any more money. That is a self-evident truth that the laymen of the world do not seem to consider.
Don’t you think it is kind of funny that after 100 years of the new scientific modern technology, not one single cure for a single disease has ever been found? Doesn’t it seem crazy that the exact same cancer treatments have been in use, with no practical improvements, for 100 years, and still less than 3% of patients recover?" - Jim Humble
There are other reasons relating to the elite's fear of over population and a strong desire on their part to control the size of the human race.
"There are a number of alternative healing therapies that work so well and cost so little (compared to conventional treatment), that Organized Medicine , the Food & Drug Administration, and their overlords in the Pharmaceutical Industry (The Big Three) would rather the public not know about them. The reason is obvious: Alternative, non-toxic therapies represent a potential loss of billions of dollars to allopathic (drug) medicine and drug companies.
The Big Three have collectively engaged in a medical conspiracy for the better part of 70 years to influence legislative bodies on both the state and federal level to create regulations that promote the use of drug medicine while simultaneously creating restrictive, controlling mechanisms (licencing, government approval, etc) designed to limit and stifle the availability of non-drug, alternative modalities. The conspiracy to limit and eliminate competition from non-drug therapies began with the Flexner Report of 1910 ." - EducateYourself.org
With personal experience of the amazing power of MMS this is something that
I can thoroughly recommend to anyone for an enormous range of diseases and ailments. The reason why the MMS Protocols are so powerful is because while
it is not a cure in and of itself, it provides the immune system with what it needs
to be able to fight off virtually any disease caused by pathogens, bacteria and viruses.
In a world where our bodies are constantly under attack from toxic chemicals
and additives in our water and food, the benefits of MMS effecetively
super-charging your immune system are quite simply incredible.
This is how the MMS Protocols are able to effectively cure severe diseases including most types of cancer and even engineered viruses such as AIDS and H1N1.
I highly recommend purchasing his e-book, "The Master Mineral of the Third Millenium". It provides comprehensive information on how and why MMS works, how to make it and many protocols for treating a wide range of diseases.
MMS is available in many countries, despite attempts to discredit and shut it down by the authorities. I have been cautioned that there are some online suppliers who are not particularly trustworthy so I would suggest doing your research before purchasing from any particular online seller.
I am happy to recommend two New Zealand based suppliers to anyone, please send us an email.
Hydrogen peroxide treatment is similar to MMS treatments but not as powerful. It has been around for decades and there are good sources of information online.
Related:Healing from Vaccine Injuries through Homeopathy
A storehouse of information, proof and truth about the lies regarding vaccinations. The claim that vaccination has wiped out deadly scourges has reached legendary status. But are these claims backed by historical records or do they represent the most deceptive and successful public relations coup in the history of the medical industrial complex?
And if vaccines-and not better sanitation etc. – saved humanity from disease, then where are today's epidemic of Scarlet Fever victims for which no vaccine was ever administered? It is also imperative to understand that the definition + diagnosis of polio was dramatically changed when the polio vaccine was introduced, further manipulating statistics. VaccinesUncensored.com
Deep Medical Fraud: Logical Insight Cancels Brain Fog & FDA Quietly Bans Powerful Life-Saving Intravenous Vitamin C July 5 2017 | From: JonRappoport / NaturalNews / Various
In the course of an investigation, a clue can turn up that changes everything. It exposes massive falsehoods and fraud.
But the meaning of the clue doesn’t always tap the investigator on the shoulder and reveal its full implications. The force of the rational insight is on a delay mechanism, as it were.
When I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., in the late 1980s, I was surrounded by much confusion. A bewildering number of facts and opinions and lies were being fed to me by various sources. I was taping notes to my walls and trying to sort out the mess of spaghetti.
One day, while I was researching the AIDS antibody test, I spoke to an official at the FDA. He mentioned that, if a vaccine were developed for HIV, anyone who received it would be given a special letter from the government.
The letter would declare that if this person ever tested positive for HIV, the result should be ignored, because the antibodies that made the test turn positive were resulting from the protective vaccine, not lethal HIV in the body.
After I hung up the phone, I tried to think through what I had just heard. Something strange was going on. What was it? About a week later, it hit me. The brain fog was gone.
The official government position implied: if an HIV vaccine were ever developed, it would stimulate antibodies to HIV in the body and thus confer protection against AIDS. But…
If an unvaccinated person, taking an HIV test, registered positive, that result would signal the presence of antibodies to HIV in the body - and THAT would mean the person had AIDS or was on the road to developing it.
However, in either case, THE ANTIBODIES WERE THE SAME. If they were stimulated and acquired through a vaccine, that was a good sign. It meant immunity. But if these same antibodies were acquired naturally, as a response to making contact with HIV, that was a bad sign. It meant AIDS, now, or just up the road.
Vaccine antibodies GOOD. Natural antibodies BAD. THE SAME ANTIBODIES.
Unintentionally implicit in the FDA spokesman’s statements was the logical walkway called reductio ad absurdum; a reduction to absurdity. In other words, if you took the FDA man’s claim about the letter a person vaccinated against HIV would carry with him - and if you thought it through and saw all the implications, you would see the whole proposal was absurd to the highest degree.
A vaccine would produce an effect, X, which would confer immunity. The body, producing the same effect, X, would signal impending disease and even death.
Medical solution GOOD. Body’s natural solution BAD.
Time and time again in my investigations, I’ve found reductio ad absurdum to be a very good friend and ally. Aristotle originally formulated the strategy, and it has stood the time of time quite nicely.
The overall pattern is rather simple: take an assertion; understand what it claims; lay out the chain of implications that follow from the assertion; show that this chain leads to an impossible or absurd consequence. THEREFORE, reject the assertion.
It’s like following a faulty set of directions. You drive through various streets and shift from one highway to another, all in the process of finding your way home from a distant location. But the directions finally lead you to a series of barriers at the desolate end of a highway, beyond which there is no road, only a pile of construction materials and a dank dark river you’ve never seen before.
It’s not home. It’s not useful. It makes no sense. It’s reductio ad absurdum.
The idea that a HIV vaccine would confer immunity, while a person’s own body - producing the same antibodies - wouldn’t confer immunity, is preposterous.
In the years since AIDS INC. was published, I’ve written about the sea-change that has occurred in disease diagnosis and vaccine “protection.” These days, a person receiving an antibody test for ANY given disease is told he is “positive” for the disease if antibodies show up on the test. But if he receives a vaccine that produces the same antibodies, he’s told he’s immune.
It makes zero sense.
Here is a final clue. A positive antibody test is no reason to tell a person he is sick or is going to get sick. A positive test most often indicates the person’s immune system has swung into gear and neutralized the germ in question.
BUT if the medical establishment decides, arbitrarily, to interpret every positive test as a sign of illness, then many, many more people can be diagnosed with diseases. And then…
They can be treated with drugs. And then, pharmaceutical cash registers ring like crazy with profits.
FDA Quietly Bans Powerful Life-Saving Intravenous Vitamin C
It would be naive to think that the FDA endeavors to protect the public’s health as its primary focus. Indeed, that would be a conflict of interest, as it serves its master, the pharmaceutical industry.
Has the Food and Drug Administration engineered a shortage of intravenous vitamin C as part of an overall attack on natural and non-toxic approaches to healing that compete with prescription drugs? An analysis by Natural Blaze would suggest that the answer is yes.
Natural Blaze claims that a critical shortage of IV bags in general followed an FDA ban on the mass production of intravenous vitamin C.
The FDA limited the availability of IV-C and the pharmaceutical industry halted production of injectable vitamins and minerals, after a 60 minute story about the miraculous recovery of a swine flu patient on life support. Because of the shortage of IV-C, doctors called upon compounding pharmacies to produce it.
But the FDA began to limit compounding pharmacies after injectable steroids produced by the New England Compounding Center were contaminated with a fungus that caused a deadly outbreak of meningitis.
Here is an example of an entire industry being punished for the dubious practices of one compounding pharmacy.
Try and follow this convoluted story: Doctors began to source NECC for its more expensive product because cheaper generic versions were in short supply. But it was the FDA’s increased inspection of drug factories that disrupted the supply chain in the first place. So the meningitis deaths were in part caused by the onerous actions of the FDA.
Natural Blaze reports;
“… without anyone noticing, and by many indirect means of banning production of the bags or shutting down those doing the production of the bags and the injectable vitamins and minerals, access to IV solutions for innumerable treatments for diseases, have gone into critical shortage.”
Vitamin C and the Big C
Could the shortage of IV-C be part of an effort to limit alternative cancer therapies? DrWhitaker.com states;
“… vitamin C is a potent antioxidant that has the power to boost immune function, increase resistance to infection, and protect against a wide range of diseases. But there’s an entirely different and largely unknown role of vitamin C, and that is its ability - when administered in very high doses by intravenous (IV) infusions - to kill cancer cells.
Best of all - and unlike virtually all conventional chemotherapy drugs that destroy cancer cells - it is selectively toxic. No matter how high the concentration, vitamin C does not harm healthy cells.”
Dr. Whitaker continues:
“The only way to get blood levels of vitamin C to the concentrations required to kill cancer cells is to administer it intravenously. … For example, 10 g of IV vitamin C raises blood levels 25 times higher than the same dose taken orally, and this increases up to 70-fold as doses get larger.”
Choose Health, Choose Life
When the human body is challenged by pathogens or needs to heal from injuries or surgery, its requirement for vitamin C increases considerably.
If hospitals routinely administered intravenous ascorbic acid, a proven and inexpensive treatment, patient outcomes would improve. When one weighs the risk of infection from deadly superbugs in hospitals today, IV vitamin C as a preventative safeguard makes all the more sense.
To learn how to secure IV-C in advance of a hospital stay for yourself or a family member, check out this very useful advice at DoctorYourself.com. You will learn how to deal with objections from physicians and hospital administrators regarding this “alt-health” remedy. It will require some moxie, but doing so may save a life.
Supporters of Obamacare believe that access to affordable healthcare is the most important consideration. But of even greater concern should be the ability to choose your own treatment modality, such as IV-C. In other words, medical freedom of choice trumps universal access.
Many of us involved in the health freedom movement are outraged by the disregard for our natural rights by unelected federal bureaucracies such as the FDA.
We hope for a day when a critical mass of aware citizens will hold their elected officials accountable to overturn toxic policies that favor Big Pharma’s obscene profits over our health and well-being. And that day is long overdue.
The Ten Most Evil People In The World Today Who Lie About Science, Pharmaceuticals And GMOs July 1 2017 | From: NaturalNews / Various
Are all politicians heartfelt people who only help their countries prosper and who only protect their people from harm? Of course not – so why then would you believe that every doctor only practices honest medicine and only prescribes what is thoroughly tested as “safe and beneficial” for his or her patients?
Does every builder, architect and engineer in the world build perfect structures that never leak, rot, crumble or cave in? Of course not – so why then would you believe that every scientist only formulates vaccines and pharmaceuticals that are thoroughly tested as “safe and beneficial” for adults, children, babies and pregnant women?
Is every plant growing in nature edible and safe for consumption, even ones that are contaminated with industrial pollution and pesticides?
Of course not – so why then would you believe there is a “world consensus” that GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in food are “safe and beneficial,” when most of them contain heavy metal toxins, pesticides and deadly herbicides?
You may be an honest, caring person, but that won’t stop corporations from exploiting your health while taking your money. You may be a religious person who treats others the way you want to be treated, but that won’t stop evil scientists and M.D.s from selling you dangerous chemical-based drugs that slowly poison you and your innocent children until death does you part.
That’s why you need to know exactly who the ten most evil people are in the world today, because they lie about science, pharmaceuticals and GMOs, and the only way to protect your family from them is to never buy, consume or inject what they’re selling.
Meet the 10 Worst Medical Criminals, Profiteers, Insidious Scientists and Corrupt Doctors in America
1. Imagine how many years you would serve in prison if the U.S. government caught you putting a deadly pig virus called circovirus in a vaccine meant to help prevent children and babies from getting a rather benign virus that simply causes diarrhea?
What if ten of those same children and babies injected with the poisoned vaccine containing the deadly pig virus died from intussusception, where their bowels folded in on themselves (like a telescope) and caused a fatal blockage? Is that science terrorism? Would they call it premeditated manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter or insanity?
There is a doctor still practicing medicine today who does exactly that, and he’s made millions from his patent of it. His name is Paul Offit and the vaccine he concocted in his laboratory using two strains of deadly circovirus to treat rotavirus is called Rotateq. He works at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. It’s called CHOP for short and for good reason – the insidious Offit is there injecting children with deadly foreign diseases for profit.
2. If you’re an evil doctor who only cares about money and power, how many years would you serve in federal prison for killing folks with chemotherapy who don’t even have cancer?
The answer is 45 years. The psycho doctor Farid Fata was a Detroit area oncologist who defrauded Medicare and private insurance companies for more than $30 million in the biggest health care scheme the world has ever known, and this was just a few years ago.
Working alongside psycho-blogger David H. Gorski (a.k.a. ORAC) at the Karmanos Cancer Center (where Gorski still operates on women’s breasts), Fata was poisoning innocent people, including children, with a deadly dose of chemo he called the “European Protocol.” His patients endured immense pain while Fata claimed it was their only chance of surviving their cancer – a disorder of the cells that they did not even have.
Assault With a Deadly Weapon Other than Guns, Missiles and Bombs?
Ever heard of chemical warfare? Ever heard of bio-terrorism? You don’t have to be engaged in combat on a battlefield to incur health damage and loss of life from deadly weapons. Millions of people are assaulted every single day in doctors offices and hospitals with deadly chemical weapons designed to corrupt the immune system and the central nervous system.
From SSRIs and chemotherapy to mercury and radiation, and from prescription opiates and ADHD drugs to toxic blood thinners and dangerous cholesterol medications, we are inundated and overwhelmed with deadly chemical weapons on a battlefield that requires no more than a little medical coverage in which to participate.
Isn’t it ironic how many people are screaming for health care coverage right now, naive to the fact that most modern chemical-based medicine is corrupted and dished out by the most insidious people on planet earth?
3. “The Joker,” Dr. Richard Pan is the clown who authored California’s force-vaccination bill that ensures all children in the state are injected with mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde in order to boost his own political stage while padding his wallet.
9. and 10. Exactly what lands you in an oncologist’s office faster than vaccines, fluoridated water and prescription medications?
Answer: eating GMOs daily. Who pushes Monsanto’s GMO propaganda and industry-scripted lies on people? Jon Entine and Kevin Folta. Two Monsanto operatives who push everything chemical that causes cancer as “sustainable” and “safe” for human consumption, these two maniacal shills were recently exposed by the U.S. Right-to-Know group.
Could Light From LED Screens Cause Irreversible Eye Damage? June 29 2017 | From: Uncensored / Various
In John Christian’s books, The Light Bulb Mafia and The Light Bulb Mafia Postscript (on the Internet) he mentions how LED light bulbs, LED slit lamps and ophthalmoscopes, LED backlit computer screens, smart phone screens and TV screens are going to severely damage the retina and accelerate early onset macular degeneration leading to premature blindness.
It was Dr Celia Sanchez-Ramos’s previous study exposing rats to white LED light bulbs back nearly 10 years ago that first motivated John Christian to write his books.
Generally, her research is superb, although it has been largely ridiculed by other ophthalmological scientists and doctors throughout the world. Yet she is courageously holding to her carefully researched, honest views.
In my opinion she is one of the very few, truly great, honest, medical professionals today. She works at Complutense University of Madrid, in Spain. Well, here is her latest research published by Medical Life Sciences, showing how LED computer screens and tablets seriously damage the retina of rats, which supports John Christian’s previous radical allegations and predictions in his two books:
Note that her study involved exposing pigmented rats with eyes similar to humans. The control group was divided into three, a group (not exposed to LED screen light), a second group (exposed to LED displays) and a third group (exposed to LED displays with an Eye Protector Reticare over the screens cutting out the damaging blue light).
The study was performed for 3 months in daily cycles of 16 hours of light and 8 hours of darkness.
After the study was completed, all of the three groups of rat’s eyes were tested. The eyes of the rats not exposed to any screens at all, and the rats exposed to the screens with the Reticare blue light protectors fitted were all the same and had not been damaged at all.
However, the retinas of rats exposed to the unprotected LED screens showed a 23% retinal cell death rate over the 3 month period.
Even the researchers at the university were totally shocked to observe this level of apoptosis (programmed cell death) in such a short period in animals that have a life expectancy of 10 years.
People who use LED computer screens a lot, such as gamers, for a long while have been complaining of serious problems with their eyesight and now most use blue light screen protectors or yellow tinted spectacles to cut out the excessive damaging blue light. However, unfortunately, this usually distorts colour perception.
Interestingly, PB Technology (a big N.Z. computer retailer) recently opened a new branch here in Tauranga, New Zealand, a few weeks ago. I went to have a look on the opening day and much to my surprise, I saw they had a new range of LCD (Liquid Clear Crystal) computer monitor screens in stock.
I have one myself, and they are good, emitting very little damaging blue light at all, but they do emit a lot of UV, which doesn’t damage the retina but it does damage the eye’s lens.
However, if you wear eye glasses with plastic lenses like I do these lenses cut out virtually all of the UV. These screens had been taken off the market and replaced with LED screens a few years ago.
So I asked the manager; Why the new LCD screens? Answer: More and more gamers are going back to them because they don’t hurt their eyes!
All this going on, while the Global Lighting Association (representing over 5,000 lighting manufacturers) wants to convert the whole world to LEDs by 2020, and virtually all the world’s leading optical and ophthalmological scientists and medical doctors say LED light bulbs and LED screens don’t harm you!
On the front cover of John Christian’s book (on the Internet), THE LIGHT BULB MAFIA published in July 2014, he says, “A history of the secret global light bulb cartel – and why the insidious global transformation to modern LED, OLED, and LD lighting technology, if not soon stopped or radically changed – is going to curse the whole world with BLINDNESS!”
Clearly, Dr Celia Sanchez-Ramos’s latest research here in the article points precisely to the inevitability of this soon happening. Yet still. Very few people including the medical profession are not acknowledging this is even occurring.
Seriously. The evidence now is simply overwhelming. Already, some Asian countries have 90% of their school children by age sixteen suffering from serious eye problems and myopia and will probably be blind by age 50.
So why are very few speaking up and why is nothing meaningful being done about this tyranny?
Virtually all smart phones have LED backlit screens as well. Are the over ten million doctors represented by the World Medical Association, in truth, members of one, giant, global lunatic asylum? Certainly looks like it doesn’t it.
Intermittent Fasting: The Perfect Treatment For Diabetes And Weight Loss June 27 2017 | From: Sott / Various "Everyone has a physician inside him or her; we just have to help it in its work. The natural healing force within each one of us is the greatest force in getting well. Our food should be our medicine. Our medicine should be our food. But to eat when you are sick is to feed your sickness." - Hippocrates
Fasting has not received as much attention as it should when it comes to the world of health and medicine. That's because you can't really make any money off of it. The 'pharmaceutical science' studies used in medical schools to teach doctors about human health simply don't focus enough on fasting for doctors to be knowledgable in the subject.
Doctors also learn very little about nutrition and are trained to prescribe drugs as a result.
Dr. Jason Fung is trying to change all that. A Toronto based nephrologist, he completed medical school and internal medicine at the University of Toronto before finishing his nephrology fellowship at the University of California, Los Angeles at the Cedars-Sinai hospital. He joined Scarborough General Hospital in 2001 where he continues to practice and change peoples lives.
He is one of a growing number of scientists and doctors to create awareness about the tremendous health benefits that can be achieved from fasting. It's one of the oldest dietary interventions in the world and has been practiced for thousands of years.
If properly practiced fasting was bad or harmful in any way, as some doctors suggest, it would have been known by now, and studies would not be emerging showing the health benefits that can be achieved from fasting regularly.
For example, a recent study published in the journal cell shows how a fasting diet can trigger the pancreas to regenerate itself, which works to control blood sugar levels and reverse symptoms of diabetes.
Mark Mattson, one of the foremost researchers of the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying multiple neurodegenerative disorders, like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, has shown through his work that fasting can have a tremendous effect on the brain, and could prevent or even reverse the symptoms of multiple neurodegenerative disorders.
You can watch a great TEDx talk he gave on the topic here.
Other studies have shown how fasting actually fights cancer and triggers stem cell regeneration. You can read more about that and access those studies in an article we published last year, here.
There is absolutely no evidence, for the average person, that fasting can be dangerous. If you're on prescription medication, or experience other medical problems, then there are obviously exceptions.
But it's quite clear that the human body was designed to go long periods of time without food, and that it's completely natural.
"Why is it that the normal diet is three meals a day plus snacks? It isn't that it's the healthiest eating pattern, now that's my opinion but I think there is a lot of evidence to support that. There are a lot of pressures to have that eating pattern, there's a lot of money involved.
The food industry - are they going to make money from skipping breakfast like I did today? No, they're going to lose money. If people fast, the food industry loses money. What about the pharmaceutical industries? What if people do some intermittent fasting, exercise periodically and are very healthy, is the pharmaceutical industry going to make any money on healthy people?"
- Dr. Mark Mattson (taken from his TEDx talk linked above)
Fung, like 90 percent of doctors out there was conventionally oriented. He is a kidney specialist, and many of his patients had/have type 2 diabetes as a result of that. It eventually became clear to him that something was very wrong with the conventional treatment of type 2 diabetes.
With Type 2 diabetes, patients who take insulin and follow the recommended dietary guidelines would still have several complications, mainly kidney disease. Because of this, they can go blind, require dialysis or even require amputations.
In the interview below with Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Fung addresses multiple myths and issues that are commonly brought up about fasting. And dives into explaining how fasting does not burn muscle, how it can reverse diabetes, addresses the 'Starvation Mode' myth, explains the role of insulin, discusses different variations of fasting and much more.
Be sure to visit his website, where you can find information on him, his practice, results, lectures and article that he continually publishes every month.
"Humans live on one-quarter of what they eat; on the other three-quarters lives their doctor." - Egyptian pyramid inscription.
Recommendation For Beginners
One recommended way of doing it, which was tested by the BBC's Michael Mosley in order to reverse his diabetes, high cholesterol, and other problems associated with his obesity, is what is known as the "5:2 Diet."
On the 5:2 plan, you cut your food down to one-fourth of your normal daily calories on fasting days (about 600 calories for men and about 500 for women), while consuming plenty of water and tea. On the other five days of the week, you can eat normally.
Another way to do it, as mentioned above, is to restrict your food intake between the hours of 12pm and 7pm daily, while not eating during the hours outside of that time.
It's Good To See More And More People Becoming More Conscious About Our Planet, And What Is Happening On It
It's great to see more people take an active role in doing some independent research and critical thinking. Disease rates are skyrocketing and have been for quite some time.
A large portion of this can be attributed to our eating habits and all of the toxic and harmful substances we put into our bodies regularly.
Over the past few years, the food industry has been exposed in several ways, whether it's issues concerning GMOs and the pesticides that go with them, or all of the examples of pharmaceutical fraud. All of it is a result of a massive shift in consciousness that's happening on our planet, where so much is coming to light in all aspects of our every day lives, food and health is just one.
Fasting is also sparking the interest of many because, along with this consciousness shift, comes awareness of a world beyond our physical one. This realm deals with near death experiences, quantum physics, parapsychology, and our overall spiritual nature and the proof that's emerging that we are more than just this body, and that human beings do indeed have a spiritual nature.
The fact that modern day science, in many instances, is catching up to ancient wisdom is quite exciting. Not only in neuroscience and quantum physics, but health as well.
Related Articles on the Health Benefits of Intermittent Fasting:
Dr. Mike explains the amazing health benefits of intermittent fasting and why you should think about incorporating it into your daily routine. Dr. Mike VanDerschelden is an associate doctor at the Bergman Family Chiropractic clinic.
Your Brain Is Not A Computer June 26 2017 | From: Sott / Various
No matter how hard they try, brain scientists and cognitive psychologists will never find a copy of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony in the brain – or copies of words, pictures, grammatical rules or any other kinds of environmental stimuli.
The human brain isn’t really empty, of course. But it does not contain most of the things people think it does – not even simple things such as ‘memories’.
Our shoddy thinking about the brain has deep historical roots, but the invention of computers in the 1940s got us especially confused. For more than half a century now, psychologists, linguists, neuroscientists and other experts on human behaviour have been asserting that the human brain works like a computer.
[Comment: This article takes into account the currently held mainstream of what a 'computer' is - it does not take into account black project technologies that are far more advanced.]
To see how vacuous this idea is, consider the brains of babies. Thanks to evolution, human neonates, like the newborns of all other mammalian species, enter the world prepared to interact with it effectively.
A baby's vision is blurry, but it pays special attention to faces, and is quickly able to identify its mother's. It prefers the sound of voices to non-speech sounds, and can distinguish one basic speech sound from another. We are, without doubt, built to make social connections.
A healthy newborn is also equipped with more than a dozen reflexes - ready-made reactions to certain stimuli that are important for its survival. It turns its head in the direction of something that brushes its cheek and then sucks whatever enters its mouth. It holds its breath when submerged in water.
It grasps things placed in its hands so strongly it can nearly support its own weight. Perhaps most important, newborns come equipped with powerful learning mechanisms that allow them to change rapidly so they can interact increasingly effectively with their world, even if that world is unlike the one their distant ancestors faced.
Senses, reflexes and learning mechanisms - this is what we start with, and it is quite a lot, when you think about it. If we lacked any of these capabilities at birth, we would probably have trouble surviving.
But here is what we are not born with: information, data, rules, software, knowledge, lexicons, representations, algorithms, programs, models, memories, images, processors, subroutines, encoders, decoders, symbols, or buffers - design elements that allow digital computers to behave somewhat intelligently. Not only are we not born with such things, we also don't develop them - ever.
We don't store words or the rules that tell us how to manipulate them. We don't create representations of visual stimuli, store them in a short-term memory buffer, and then transfer the representation into a long-term memory device. We don't retrieve information or images or words from memory registers. Computers do all of these things, but organisms do not.
Computers, quite literally, process information - numbers, letters, words, formulas, images. The information first has to be encoded into a format computers can use, which means patterns of ones and zeroes ('bits') organised into small chunks ('bytes').
On my computer, each byte contains 64 bits, and a certain pattern of those bits stands for the letter d, another for the letter o, and another for the letter g. Side by side, those three bytes form the word dog.
One single image - say, the photograph of my cat Henry on my desktop - is represented by a very specific pattern of a million of these bytes ('one megabyte'), surrounded by some special characters that tell the computer to expect an image, not a word.
Computers, quite literally, move these patterns from place to place in different physical storage areas etched into electronic components. Sometimes they also copy the patterns, and sometimes they transform them in various ways - say, when we are correcting errors in a manuscript or when we are touching up a photograph.
The rules computers follow for moving, copying and operating on these arrays of data are also stored inside the computer. Together, a set of rules is called a 'program' or an 'algorithm'. A group of algorithms that work together to help us do something (like buy stocks or find a date online) is called an 'application' - what most people now call an 'app'.
Forgive me for this introduction to computing, but I need to be clear: computers really do operate on symbolic representations of the world. They really store and retrieve. They really process. They really have physical memories. They really are guided in everything they do, without exception, by algorithms.
Humans, on the other hand, do not - never did, never will. Given this reality, why do so many scientists talk about our mental life as if we were computers?
In his book In Our Own Image (2015), the artificial intelligence expert George Zarkadakis describes six different metaphors people have employed over the past 2,000 years to try to explain human intelligence.
In the earliest one, eventually preserved in the Bible, humans were formed from clay or dirt, which an intelligent god then infused with its spirit. That spirit 'explained' our intelligence - grammatically, at least.
The invention of hydraulic engineering in the 3rd century BCE led to the popularity of a hydraulic model of human intelligence, the idea that the flow of different fluids in the body - the 'humours' - accounted for both our physical and mental functioning. The hydraulic metaphor persisted for more than 1,600 years, handicapping medical practice all the while.
By the 1500s, automata powered by springs and gears had been devised, eventually inspiring leading thinkers such as René Descartes to assert that humans are complex machines. In the 1600s, the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes suggested that thinking arose from small mechanical motions in the brain.
By the 1700s, discoveries about electricity and chemistry led to new theories of human intelligence - again, largely metaphorical in nature. In the mid-1800s, inspired by recent advances in communications, the German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz compared the brain to a telegraph.
The mathematician John von Neumann stated flatly that the function of the human nervous system is 'prima facie digital', drawing parallel after parallel between the components of the computing machines of the day and the components of the human brain
Each metaphor reflected the most advanced thinking of the era that spawned it. Predictably, just a few years after the dawn of computer technology in the 1940s, the brain was said to operate like a computer, with the role of physical hardware played by the brain itself and our thoughts serving as software.
The landmark event that launched what is now broadly called 'cognitive science' was the publication of Language and Communication (1951) by the psychologist George Miller. Miller proposed that the mental world could be studied rigorously using concepts from information theory, computation and linguistics.
This kind of thinking was taken to its ultimate expression in the short book The Computer and the Brain (1958), in which the mathematician John von Neumann stated flatly that the function of the human nervous system is 'prima facie digital'.
Although he acknowledged that little was actually known about the role the brain played in human reasoning and memory, he drew parallel after parallel between the components of the computing machines of the day and the components of the human brain.
Propelled by subsequent advances in both computer technology and brain research, an ambitious multidisciplinary effort to understand human intelligence gradually developed, firmly rooted in the idea that humans are, like computers, information processors.
This effort now involves thousands of researchers, consumes billions of dollars in funding, and has generated a vast literature consisting of both technical and mainstream articles and books.
Ray Kurzweil's book How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed (2013), exemplifies this perspective, speculating about the 'algorithms' of the brain, how the brain 'processes data', and even how it superficially resembles integrated circuits in its structure.
The information processing (IP) metaphor of human intelligence now dominates human thinking, both on the street and in the sciences.
There is virtually no form of discourse about intelligent human behaviour that proceeds without employing this metaphor, just as no form of discourse about intelligent human behaviour could proceed in certain eras and cultures without reference to a spirit or deity. The validity of the IP metaphor in today's world is generally assumed without question.
But the IP metaphor is, after all, just another metaphor - a story we tell to make sense of something we don't actually understand. And like all the metaphors that preceded it, it will certainly be cast aside at some point - either replaced by another metaphor or, in the end, replaced by actual knowledge.
Just over a year ago, on a visit to one of the world's most prestigious research institutes, I challenged researchers there to account for intelligent human behaviour without reference to any aspect of the IP metaphor. They couldn't do it, and when I politely raised the issue in subsequent email communications, they still had nothing to offer months later.
They saw the problem. They didn't dismiss the challenge as trivial. But they couldn't offer an alternative. In other words, the IP metaphor is 'sticky'. It encumbers our thinking with language and ideas that are so powerful we have trouble thinking around them.
The faulty logic of the IP metaphor is easy enough to state. It is based on a faulty syllogism - one with two reasonable premises and a faulty conclusion.
Reasonable premise #1: all computers are capable of behaving intelligently.
Reasonable premise #2: all computers are information processors.
Faulty conclusion: all entities that are capable of behaving intelligently are information processors.
Setting aside the formal language, the idea that humans must be information processors just because computers are information processors is just plain silly, and when, some day, the IP metaphor is finally abandoned, it will almost certainly be seen that way by historians, just as we now view the hydraulic and mechanical metaphors to be silly.
If the IP metaphor is so silly, why is it so sticky? What is stopping us from brushing it aside, just as we might brush aside a branch that was blocking our path? Is there a way to understand human intelligence without leaning on a flimsy intellectual crutch?
And what price have we paid for leaning so heavily on this particular crutch for so long? The IP metaphor, after all, has been guiding the writing and thinking of a large number of researchers in multiple fields for decades. At what cost?
In a classroom exercise I have conducted many times over the years, I begin by recruiting a student to draw a detailed picture of a dollar bill - 'as detailed as possible', I say - on the blackboard in front of the room.
When the student has finished, I cover the drawing with a sheet of paper, remove a dollar bill from my wallet, tape it to the board, and ask the student to repeat the task. When he or she is done, I remove the cover from the first drawing, and the class comments on the differences.
Because you might never have seen a demonstration like this, or because you might have trouble imagining the outcome, I have asked Jinny Hyun, one of the student interns at the institute where I conduct my research, to make the two drawings. Here is her drawing 'from memory' (notice the metaphor):
And here is the drawing she subsequently made with a dollar bill present:
Jinny was as surprised by the outcome as you probably are, but it is typical. As you can see, the drawing made in the absence of the dollar bill is horrible compared with the drawing made from an exemplar, even though Jinny has seen a dollar bill thousands of times.
What is the problem? Don't we have a 'representation' of the dollar bill 'stored' in a 'memory register' in our brains? Can't we just 'retrieve' it and use it to make our drawing?
Obviously not, and a thousand years of neuroscience will never locate a representation of a dollar bill stored inside the human brain for the simple reason that it is not there to be found.
A wealth of brain studies tells us, in fact, that multiple and sometimes large areas of the brain are often involved in even the most mundane memory tasks.
When strong emotions are involved, millions of neurons can become more active.
In a 2016 study of survivors of a plane crash by the University of Toronto neuropsychologist Brian Levine and others, recalling the crash increased neural activity in 'the amygdala, medial temporal lobe, anterior and posterior midline, and visual cortex' of the passengers.
The idea, advanced by several scientists, that specific memories are somehow stored in individual neurons is preposterous; if anything, that assertion just pushes the problem of memory to an even more challenging level: how and where, after all, is the memory stored in the cell?
So what is occurring when Jinny draws the dollar bill in its absence? If Jinny had never seen a dollar bill before, her first drawing would probably have not resembled the second drawing at all. Having seen dollar bills before, she was changed in some way.
Specifically, her brain was changed in a way that allowed her to visualise a dollar bill - that is, to re-experience seeing a dollar bill, at least to some extent.
The difference between the two diagrams reminds us that visualising something (that is, seeing something in its absence) is far less accurate than seeing something in its presence. This is why we're much better at recognising than recalling.
When we re-member something (from the Latin re, 'again', and memorari, 'be mindful of'), we have to try to relive an experience; but when we recognise something, we must merely be conscious of the fact that we have had this perceptual experience before.
Perhaps you will object to this demonstration. Jinny had seen dollar bills before, but she hadn't made a deliberate effort to 'memorise' the details. Had she done so, you might argue, she could presumably have drawn the second image without the bill being present.
Even in this case, though, no image of the dollar bill has in any sense been 'stored' in Jinny's brain. She has simply become better prepared to draw it accurately, just as, through practice, a pianist becomes more skilled in playing a concerto without somehow inhaling a copy of the sheet music.
From this simple exercise, we can begin to build the framework of a metaphor-free theory of intelligent human behaviour - one in which the brain isn't completely empty, but is at least empty of the baggage of the IP metaphor.
As we navigate through the world, we are changed by a variety of experiences. Of special note are experiences of three types:
1. We observe what is happening around us (other people behaving, sounds of music, instructions directed at us, words on pages, images on screens)
2. We are exposed to the pairing of unimportant stimuli (such as sirens) with important stimuli (such as the appearance of police cars);
3. We are punished or rewarded for behaving in certain ways.
We become more effective in our lives if we change in ways that are consistent with these experiences - if we can now recite a poem or sing a song, if we are able to follow the instructions we are given, if we respond to the unimportant stimuli more like we do to the important stimuli, if we refrain from behaving in ways that were punished, if we behave more frequently in ways that were rewarded.
Misleading headlines notwithstanding, no one really has the slightest idea how the brain changes after we have learned to sing a song or recite a poem. But neither the song nor the poem has been 'stored' in it. The brain has simply changed in an orderly way that now allows us to sing the song or recite the poem under certain conditions.
When called on to perform, neither the song nor the poem is in any sense 'retrieved' from anywhere in the brain, any more than my finger movements are 'retrieved' when I tap my finger on my desk. We simply sing or recite - no retrieval necessary.
A few years ago, I asked the neuroscientist Eric Kandel of Columbia University - winner of a Nobel Prize for identifying some of the chemical changes that take place in the neuronal synapses of the Aplysia (a marine snail) after it learns something - how long he thought it would take us to understand how human memory works.
He quickly replied: 'A hundred years.' I didn't think to ask him whether he thought the IP metaphor was slowing down neuroscience, but some neuroscientists are indeed beginning to think the unthinkable - that the metaphor is not indispensable.
A few cognitive scientists - notably Anthony Chemero of the University of Cincinnati, the author of Radical Embodied Cognitive Science (2009) - now completely reject the view that the human brain works like a computer.
The mainstream view is that we, like computers, make sense of the world by performing computations on mental representations of it, but Chemero and others describe another way of understanding intelligent behaviour - as a direct interaction between organisms and their world.
My favourite example of the dramatic difference between the IP perspective and what some now call the 'anti-representational' view of human functioning involves two different ways of explaining how a baseball player manages to catch a fly ball - beautifully explicated by Michael McBeath, now at Arizona State University, and his colleagues in a 1995 paper in Science.
The IP perspective requires the player to formulate an estimate of various initial conditions of the ball's flight - the force of the impact, the angle of the trajectory, that kind of thing - then to create and analyse an internal model of the path along which the ball will likely move, then to use that model to guide and adjust motor movements continuously in time in order to intercept the ball.
That is all well and good if we functioned as computers do, but McBeath and his colleagues gave a simpler account: to catch the ball, the player simply needs to keep moving in a way that keeps the ball in a constant visual relationship with respect to home plate and the surrounding scenery (technically, in a 'linear optical trajectory').
This might sound complicated, but it is actually incredibly simple, and completely free of computations, representations and algorithms.
Two determined psychology professors at Leeds Beckett University in the UK - Andrew Wilson and Sabrina Golonka - include the baseball example among many others that can be looked at simply and sensibly outside the IP framework.
They have been blogging for years about what they call a 'more coherent, naturalised approach to the scientific study of human behaviour... at odds with the dominant cognitive neuroscience approach'. This is far from a movement, however; the mainstream cognitive sciences continue to wallow uncritically in the IP metaphor, and some of the world's most influential thinkers have made grand predictions about humanity's future that depend on the validity of the metaphor.
One prediction - made by the futurist Kurzweil, the physicist Stephen Hawking and the neuroscientist Randal Koene, among others - is that, because human consciousness is supposedly like computer software, it will soon be possible to download human minds to a computer, in the circuits of which we will become immensely powerful intellectually and, quite possibly, immortal.
This concept drove the plot of the dystopian movie Transcendence (2014) starring Johnny Depp as the Kurzweil-like scientist whose mind was downloaded to the internet - with disastrous results for humanity.
Fortunately, because the IP metaphor is not even slightly valid, we will never have to worry about a human mind going amok in cyberspace; alas, we will also never achieve immortality through downloading.
This is not only because of the absence of consciousness software in the brain; there is a deeper problem here - let's call it the uniqueness problem - which is both inspirational and depressing.
Because neither 'memory banks' nor 'representations' of stimuli exist in the brain, and because all that is required for us to function in the world is for the brain to change in an orderly way as a result of our experiences, there is no reason to believe that any two of us are changed the same way by the same experience.
If you and I attend the same concert, the changes that occur in my brain when I listen to Beethoven's 5th will almost certainly be completely different from the changes that occur in your brain. Those changes, whatever they are, are built on the unique neural structure that already exists, each structure having developed over a lifetime of unique experiences.
This is why, as Sir Frederic Bartlett demonstrated in his book Remembering (1932), no two people will repeat a story they have heard the same way and why, over time, their recitations of the story will diverge more and more.
No 'copy' of the story is ever made; rather, each individual, upon hearing the story, changes to some extent - enough so that when asked about the story later (in some cases, days, months or even years after Bartlett first read them the story) - they can re-experience hearing the story to some extent, although not very well (see the first drawing of the dollar bill, above).
This is inspirational, I suppose, because it means that each of us is truly unique, not just in our genetic makeup, but even in the way our brains change over time. It is also depressing, because it makes the task of the neuroscientist daunting almost beyond imagination. For any given experience, orderly change could involve a thousand neurons, a million neurons or even the entire brain, with the pattern of change different in every brain.
Worse still, even if we had the ability to take a snapshot of all of the brain's 86 billion neurons and then to simulate the state of those neurons in a computer, that vast pattern would mean nothing outside the body of the brain that produced it.
This is perhaps the most egregious way in which the IP metaphor has distorted our thinking about human functioning. Whereas computers do store exact copies of data - copies that can persist unchanged for long periods of time, even if the power has been turned off - the brain maintains our intellect only as long as it remains alive.
There is no on-off switch. Either the brain keeps functioning, or we disappear. What's more, as the neurobiologist Steven Rose pointed out in The Future of the Brain (2005), a snapshot of the brain's current state might also be meaningless unless we knew the entire life history of that brain's owner - perhaps even about the social context in which he or she was raised.
Think how difficult this problem is. To understand even the basics of how the brain maintains the human intellect, we might need to know not just the current state of all 86 billion neurons and their 100 trillion interconnections, not just the varying strengths with which they are connected, and not just the states of more than 1,000 proteins that exist at each connection point, but how the moment-to-moment activity of the brain contributes to the integrity of the system.
Add to this the uniqueness of each brain, brought about in part because of the uniqueness of each person's life history, and Kandel's prediction starts to sound overly optimistic. (In a recent op-ed in TheNew York Times, the neuroscientist Kenneth Miller suggested it will take 'centuries' just to figure out basic neuronal connectivity.)
Meanwhile, vast sums of money are being raised for brain research, based in some cases on faulty ideas and promises that cannot be kept. The most blatant instance of neuroscience gone awry, documented recently in a report in Scientific American, concerns the $1.3 billion Human Brain Project launched by the European Union in 2013.
Convinced by the charismatic Henry Markram that he could create a simulation of the entire human brain on a supercomputer by the year 2023, and that such a model would revolutionise the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other disorders, EU officials funded his project with virtually no restrictions.
Less than two years into it, the project turned into a 'brain wreck', and Markram was asked to step down.
We are organisms, not computers. Get over it. Let's get on with the business of trying to understand ourselves, but without being encumbered by unnecessary intellectual baggage. The IP metaphor has had a half-century run, producing few, if any, insights along the way. The time has come to hit the DELETE key.
Schools: The New "Animal Farm" June 23 2017 | From: BeyondConformity
In a recent Herald on Sunday was an article about Waitetuna school near Raglan, where the school principal agreed to allow a midwife to show a film about the other side of vaccines on the school premises, but the board of Trustees overturned her agreement, on the basis that the topic was controversial.
I have a question. What are schools for? Education, or social engineering? George Orwell wrote a book called “Animal Farm” Have you read it?
If a parent from Waitetuna school objected to nurses and doctors coming into the school and vaccinating children, would the Board of Trustees agree and stop them coming in because vaccines are controversial?
I somehow doubt it.
But I want to tell you a story of a young child, in a school, who along with some other children, returned a consent form for the HPV vaccine, which said, “No, I do not consent”.
What happened next will illustrate that New Zealand schools are not safe for children, and why the Department of Health vaccination programmes should be barred from schools.
The forms were collected and all the children who had returned “no” consent forms, were gathered in a separate group and the nurses berated the girls telling them that their parents didn’t love them, and that they could consent on their own, without their parent’s permission.
One of the girls caved to that, but then another child who had watched the life of an older sibling be trashed and lead to a quality of life less than desirable, fought back. She refused to sign it. The nurses pushed. But she got angry and told the nurse that she wanted to go now.
The nurse refused. The girl then told the vaccinating nurse that she wanted to call her parents and the police because what they were doing was wrong. Nothing like the experience of your own eyes, to firm up your own convictions!
At this point, she was quickly hustled out of the room in order not to freak out the other girls being pressured into going against their parent’s wishes. How did all this situation come about?
The Department of Health, with school consent, seems to have started using the tactic of not telling the schools when they are coming to vaccinate. Their ostensible reason for this, is so that the children don’t get worried in advance.
The real reason is so that the parents of the non-vaccinators can’t keep their children home for that day, which allows the provaccine including the nurses, teachers and other pupils, to bully and berate children whose parents have chosen differently.
So while parents who don’t consent, would rather not send their children to school on that day, the Department of Health deliberately thwarts that option. This could be called revoking democratic decision making.
Mainstream Media Promotes Chemical VIOLENCE Against Children
A mini-documentary revealing how the pharma-controlled mainstream media promotes chemical VIOLENCE against children, via mind-altering medications, pharmaceuticals and dangerous vaccine ingredients such as mercury, a brain-damaging neurotoxin.
Of course in this mind-numbed unethical climate of bullying, emotional blackmail and … yes … controversy, such tactics are considered to be noble, wonderful and lifesaving.
Vaccinations ARE indeed a controversial topic of discussion. I believe that if schools refuse to allow parents to watch a film at a school, describing another side of vaccination, then schools should ALSO refuse to allow the Department of Health to vaccinate children in schools.
The issue isn’t just “controversy”. It’s one of non-hypocrisy. What is “education”? How do you define learning? Only by hearing one side of a story?
Do you send your children to school, and allow the Department of Health to vaccinate your children in school because you can’t be bothered making the effort to follow through on your own convictions? Shouldn’t parents who chose to vaccinate, be responsible for doing that at their doctors?
Would you like schools to also become places where children can also be prescribed antibiotics, prescription drugs, or even, abortion on demand?
Or should schools SOLELY be places where people are educated and learn to think, in particular to figure out how to make their own decisions without being brainwashed by the school or the state?
Privacy Call To Limit Power Usage Monitoring June 22 2017 | From: RadioNewZealand
Smart meters that relay half-hourly power usage are a potential risk to people's personal security and privacy, and standards should be set to curb data collection, Privacy Commissioner John Edwards says.
The commissioner said about 70 percent of households in New Zealand have smart meters.
The devices automatically record and transmit power usage data in half hourly intervals, but that information can also reveal much about the comings and goings of people in a household at a given time.
The information is collected by electricity retailers like Meridian or Mercury, who use it to prepare their bills. It is then passed on to lines companies under information-sharing pacts.
Mr Edwards said it could indicate when people were out, at home or in the shower - and this could put their security at risk if abused.While this had not yet happened it was important to set standards in advance, he said.
The trend all over the world was to require that collection of data about people's private lives be kept to a minimum, he said.
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
"It's going to be quite easy to figure out whether somebody lives alone, what kind of hours they're most likely to be home, what time they have their shower, what kind of appliances they have in their premises.
So when you're starting to get that level of detail it's time I think to sharpen up your policies on personal information."
He also suggested aggregating data into clusters to cover an entire community, or all the people in a street, rather than recording data on individual homes.
That would be enough to provide information that network companies needed when planning to make economically justified investments.
Lines Companies Defend Data Collection
The electricity retailers' chief lobbyist, Jenny Cameron, said some lines companies had been seeking far more information lately than they usually did, which had caused her group to go to the Privacy Commissioner.
"We see the issue as three-fold," she said.
"One is getting data requests that are large - such as three years of half-hour data at individual level.
The second issue is that we want to be sure that it is legitimately being used for network planning purposes.
The third reason is, how is the data being protected?"
The Electricity Networks Association insisted the data its members gathered was safeguarded.
Chief executive Graeme Peters said there was nothing new in what his members were doing - data on customers has been collected for about a century.
And it was more necessary now than ever because of pending electricity reforms, he said.
"We are looking at more cost reflective pricing and we need to get access to data on customer demand at half-hourly intervals and the peaks [of their usage].
That data will be protected - our companies have got privacy statements - [we want] data around how much power might be consumed in a half-hour interval or the absolute peak of electricity that the customer is using in any one day."
Ten Ways To Easily Boost Your Serotonin Levels And Live A Happier Life June 21 2017 | From: NaturalNews
What makes you happy? The answer to this question could be different for every one because happiness is relative.
But one thing’s certain: Increasing your serotonin levels can boost your mood and keep you from sulking and wallowing because of a bad day.
Most commonly known as the “happy hormone” serotonin does more than boost your mood. It also has other health benefits, which is why having more of this will make you happy and healthy at the same time. Here are ways to boost your serotonin levels:
1. Eat some animal protein –Feelings of sadness oftentimes feel like they’re just in our heads. Sometimes when you feel bad, you think that your brain (or heart) is responsible but know that thoughts and feelings are more than that. These are results of physiological reactions that happen inside your body.
An amino acid called tryptophan help produce serotonin so you can start feeling happy. Animal protein is an excellent source of tryptophan so include more chicken, fish, eggs, beef, dairy, even lamb in your diet. Whey and egg protein are scientifically-proven to increase this amino acid in the brain.
2. Get out and enjoy the sun –Natural light have a positive effect on your mood. Sunlight triggers serotonin synthesis. The brighter sunlight you are exposed to, the more serotonin the body produces.
This is a possible explanation why people feel gloomy on rainy weather.
3. Get enough vitamin D – Vitamin D helps in converting tryptophan into serotonin. You can get this from sun exposure or taking supplements.
4. Add more seafood to your diet – Cod liver oil and marine fat contain vitamin D and long-chain omega-3s that are helpful in boosting the serotonin production in the brain. Ample amounts will also help transport it to the neurons efficiently.
5. Try some more curry – Curry has turmeric, which is considered as a potent anti-depressant.
This natural mood-lifter helps increase serotonin in the brain.
6. Perk up – There’s a reason why most people need coffee to jolt them out of lethargy. Caffeine, according to some research, has a positive effect on the levels of serotonin in the brain.
7. Break some sweat – Exercise is known to be effective in increasing serotonin levels because motor neurons activated during physical activity boost the release of serotonin.
Furthermore, regular exercise will spike tryptophan levels in the brain, which means more serotonin for you.
9. Munch on more nuts – Nuts contain tryptophan, so the more of these you eat, the happier you should be.
Also, nuts can help prevent cancer, heart disease and respiratory ailments.
10. Drink green tea – Drinking green tea is relaxing, no doubt. But it’s also good for the mood. It contains 1-theanine, an amino acid that boosts serotonin levels. It also has a powerful antioxidant that prevents brain damage.
Now that you know that there’s more to feeling happy, you can easily find ways to pull yourself out of a rut and start smiling.
1. Vaccine manufacturers have NO liability (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986), so CANNOT be sued for injury from their product and they have no incentive to make their product as safe as possible.
Vaccines are not held to the same double blind gold standard of clinical testing as other pharmaceutical drugs because they are considered biological products under the Public Health Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. They meet the same standards as cosmetics.
Nurse Fired For Sharing Truth About Vaccines Tells All
The per vaccine Federal Excise Tax is used to pay the vaccine injured through the government-created National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). $3.1 Billion has been paid to date (through 2015).
Vaccines contain neurotoxins (aluminum and mercury) far exceeding “safe levels” deemed by the EPA.
The concept of herd/community immunity cannot be achieved by vaccines because vaccines are NOT 100% effective. Unlike lifetime immunity afforded by disease, vaccine-induced immunity lasts 2-10 years.
Doctors receive financial rewards from insurance companies for having patients fully vaccinated (~$400 per patient). They are advised NOT to share all the risks or the vaccine package inserts, so 100% informed choices cannot be made in a doctor’s office when vaccinating.
If someone dies from a vaccine, their family will be awarded no more than $250,000. Most cases of vaccine injury are dismissed because doctors and vaccine manufacturers deny a causation link. The statutory time limit for filing a claim is only 2 years after death and 3 years from the time of vaccine injury.
The government plan “Healthy People 2020” has a goal to fully vaccinate all children and adults by 2020. There are 217 new vaccines being created right now.
Nigerian Court Rules Coca-Cola Products Unfit For Human Consumption, Citizens Call For Boycott & You’ll Never Eat McDonald’s French Fries Again After Watching This June 18 2017 | From: TruthTheory / EducateIndpireChange / Various
The Coca-Cola Company is now in deep trouble. Many people have come to realize in recent times that products of the company do more harm to their health. In fact, all Coca-Cola products have no recorded important nutritional value.
According to health experts, people who drink just 330ml of Coca-Cola would have their blood sugar levels increase dramatically within 20 minutes. If they continue to drink Coca-Cola continuously, they are likely to have serious blood pressure problems.
As a soda drink, it also contributes to obesity. In 2016, it emerged that Coca-Cola and Pepsi have been funding up to 96 health groups in the United States to mislead the public that their products have no links to obesity. When this was made public, Coca-Cola issued a statement denying the claim.
What else can the company do than to deny the claim? Coca-Cola has since increased its advertising campaigns in order to continue to poison its consumers to death. We’re not intentionally scaring you, we’re just pointing out the facts. Soda drinks, including Coca-Cola, are nothing but poison.
In the West African country of Nigeria, a court has ruled that two products of Coca-Cola – Fanta and Sprite – are not safe for human consumption.
Nigeria is Africa’s most populous nation with over 173 million citizens. This makes the country a hotspot for many multinational corporations in Africa. But due to widespread ignorance and endemic government and national corruption, many corporations do not follow due process in the country.
All kinds of products and services are sold or rendered to the public without any thorough checks being done by the country’s regulators to ensure standards. In December 2016, Nigeria’s border officials seized fake rice made from plastic, weighing around 2.5 tonnes and intended for distribution to people during the Christmas festivities.
According to officials, the fake and poisonous rice was smuggled into the country by unscrupulous businessmen. That is how corruption enables corporations and individuals to sell dangerous products to the public.
In the Coca-Cola case, presiding judge Justice Adedayo Oyebanji ruled that high levels of benzoic acid and sunset additives in Fanta and Sprite pose a serious health risk to consumers when mixed with ascorbic acid, commonly known as vitamin C.
The court also ordered the Nigerian Bottling Company (NBC) – a member of Coca-Cola Hellenic group which bottles Coca-Cola products in Nigeria – to place written warnings on the bottles of the two drinks, saying the drinks pose a health risk. This means the two drinks would carry warning labels like cigarettes.
The court didn’t stop there. It went further to award financial costs of two million naira ($6,350) against the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) for failing to ensure health standards in the country.
“It is manifest that NAFDAC has been grossly irresponsible in its regulatory duties to the consumers of Fanta and Sprite manufactured by Nigeria Bottling Company. NAFDAC has failed the citizens of this great nation by its certification as satisfactory for human consumption products … which become poisonous in the presence of ascorbic acid,”Justice Oyebanji said in his ruling.
In fact, the Nigerian public wouldn’t have had this relief ruling aimed at protecting their lives had something not gone wrong between a businessman and the NBC.
Businessman Dr Emmanuel Fijabi Adebo used to do business with the NBC. He buys NBC products and distributes them across the country. In 2007, he decided to go international. Dr Adebo’ company, Fijabi Adebo Holdings Limited, attempted to export Coca-Cola products (Fanta and Sprite) to the United Kingdom for retail.
But authorities in the United Kingdom seized and subsequently destroyed the whole shipment of drinks. Regulators in the United Kingdom said the drinks contained excessive levels of sunset yellow and benzoic acid. According to United Kingdom regulators, benzoic acid can form the carcinogen benzene when combined with ascorbic acid. This means the drinks cause cancer.
The NBC failed to compensate Dr Adebo for his financial loss. This compelled him to go to court to seek redress. After hearing the full facts of the case, the court held that products considered dangerous in the United Kingdom are also dangerous in Nigeria.
“Soft drinks manufactured by Nigeria Bottling Company ought to be fit for human consumption irrespective of color or creed,”the judge said.
When the ruling was given, Mr Adebo expressed his displeasure, vowing to pursue further damages because the costs the court awarded are not enough. He told CNN in an interview:
“I’m happy that I’m victorious and we’ve alerted Nigerians and the entire world to what is happening in Nigeria. What the court fined NAFDAC is not one tenth of the amount I’ve spent on litigation … We should have been awarded at least the amount that we spent in purchasing that product and in exporting it to UK. We are entitled to special damages for what we have gone through.”
Following the ruling, Nigerian citizens took to social media to express their dissatisfaction of all Coca-Cola products. Many lashed out at NAFDAC for handling consumer safety in the country poorly. They accused the agency of placing more priority on generating revenues than protecting citizens.
Shaving before applying underarm antiperspirants can increase aluminum absorption. Could this explain the greater number of tumors and the disproportionate incidence of breast cancer in the upper outer quadrant of the breast near the armpit?
Some also accused NAFDAC for being responsible for numerous health problems and deaths because it allows corporations to sell poison to the public. The majority of citizens called for a boycott against all Coca-Cola products in the country to serve as a deterrent to other unscrupulous corporations taking advantage of endemic corruption to kill the public.
You’ll Never Eat McDonald’s French Fries Again After Watching This
Renowned activist and author Michael Pollan illustrates how McDonald’s insists on using Russet Burbank Potatoes, a potato in America that is unusually long and difficult to grow.
They further insist that their potatoes have no blemishes at all, which is hard because these potatoes commonly suffer from what is referred to as Net Necrosis, which causes unwanted spots and lines on the potatoes.
If they have this, McDonald’s won’t buy them and the only way to eliminate this is through the use of a pesticide called methamidophos (Monitor) “that is so toxic that the farmers who grow these potatoes in Idaho won’t venture outside and into their fields for five days after they spray.”
When McDonald’s is ready to harvest their potatoes, they have to put them in giant atmospheric controlled sheds the size of football stadiums because they are not edible for six weeks.“They have to off gas all the chemicals in them.”
Lawsuit Could End Water Fluoridation Once And For All By Demonstrating Its Neurotoxicity June 17 2017 | From: HealthFreedoms
The practice water fluoridation in the United States has been under growing scrutiny for years by a public that has become conscious of the fact adding toxic chemicals which are proven to be harmful to human health and children’s development to public water is medication without consent.
Never-the-less, the effort to stop fluoridation of municipal water supplies has been an uphill battle against entrenched financial interests and against dated ideas about health.
While each year we hear news of cities heeding the concerns of their citizens and stopping fluoridation, without a major victory at the national level, people will be fighting this for years to come, all the while consuming toxic chemicals in the one thing we cannot live without, water.
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is reporting on a major development to cut the head off of this snake, and an unprecedented lawsuit is now holding promise for a national reversal of municipal water fluoridation.
Based on neurotoxicity studies, the “EPA has been served with a petition that includes more than 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing the risks of water fluoridation to human health.”
“This case will present the first time a court will consider the neurotoxicity of fluoride and the question of whether fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
And, in contrast to most other legal challenges of Agency actions, TSCA gives us the right to get the federal court to consider our evidence ‘de novo’ - meaning federal courts are to conduct their own independent review of the evidence without deference to the EPA’s judgment.”
The lawsuit has been served along with a petition containing thousands of signatures of concerned and well-informed citizens, and includes more than 2500 pages of documents detailing the harm inherent in poisoning the pubic with fluoride.
In detail, the complaint is an attempt to demonstrate how this practice violates the Toxic Substances Control Act.
“The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), along with a coalition of environmental and public health groups has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to their denial of our petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) seeking a ban on water fluoridation.
We believe this lawsuit is an unprecedented opportunity to end the practice once and for all in the U.S., and potentially throughout the world, based on the well-documented neurotoxicity of fluoride. You may read the official complaint here.”
The negative effects of consuming fluoridated water are well-documented, and the body of evidence continues to grow. In 2012 a major Harvard study presented a study demonstrating water fluoridation lowers IQ.
In 2016 a study demonstrated a link between increased diabetes and water fluoridation. In 2015 the EPA had to issue new guidelines for safe levels of fluoride, reducing the amount, citing the potential for fluoridated water damages teeth, which ironically, is the very condition which we are told is the reason we need fluoride in the first place.
Public water fluoridation is slowing being defeated, and this lawsuit may play a major role in this fight.
NZ Media Calls For Compulsory Vaccinations & Sweden Bans Mandatory Vaccinations Over ‘Serious Health Concerns’ June 9 2017 | From: Uncensored / Stuff / HealthNutNews / Various
Somewhere between the leading edge of scientific discovery and the right of people to decide their own medical treatment lies the fate of thousands of defenceless children.
For the last several hundred years, science and, most importantly, the medical profession have been peeling back the dark curtain of superstition, ignorance and profit-driven chicanery which directed the treatment of human illness.
Investigation, experimentation and rigorous testing has slowly replaced guesswork, witchcraft, old wives’ remedies and unmitigated humbug as thinking people sought effective remedies and cures for the many ailments which invaded their lives.
So it was coming wasn’t it? Really hard to read. Whore media doing the cabal’s bidding. The following article was written by someone with cognitive dissonance - oblivious to the dangerous truths about vaccines.
Foremost among these discoveries was the concept of boosting our natural immune systems against invasive disease by vaccination.
I still recall with sadness attending the funerals of two of my young schoolmates who died of tuberculosis more than 50 years ago now. There was also a vivacious and spirited little girl who became horribly twisted and crippled by poliomyelitis (then called infantile paralysis).
She died just before her 16th birthday from complications caused by that terrible affliction. Her bravery in her last hours was inspirational. Then there was the tortured death of a little cousin who died of whooping cough. The unfairness of these very personal and sad events made a huge impression on me in my youth which remains as strong today. Had vaccinations been available back then those children might not have died.
Not all attempts at finding new solutions to old problems were successful and there were not a few tragedies along the way. At each failure, however, lessons were learned, new safeguards put in place and the march of logical scientific investigation slowly loosened the hold of old superstitions on the more vulnerable people in the community.
Sometime after World War II most of those old beliefs, in New Zealand at least, had simply disappeared into history. Those which remained became novelty entertainments at fairgrounds and similar places where so-called Gypsies would tell fortunes with crystal balls, read tea leaves and horoscopes or a dozen other harmless methods for a fee.
Few people were in any doubt that it was harmless fun and entertainment. Most newspapers still carry horoscopes for those bored enough to read their ambiguous messages and few people take them seriously.
Then, about two decades ago, some old superstitions began to reappear, but not simply as entertainments, but as the basis of a lucrative business venture. They were not taken seriously by most people then and most are still not today.
We tolerantly accept that people are free to attend seances, have so-called readings taken by some modern-day medium who claims to be in touch with the dead, play with tarot cards and pay some of these tricksters to clear houses of non-existent evil influences.
It is one thing to observe some of these rituals as part of an inherited culture but something very different when vulnerable, gullible and sometimes frightened people are persuaded to pay for them.
Like a malignant tumour which suddenly reappears after a period of remission, we can no longer ignore some of these practices. They are no longer entertainment or trivial amusements as they have engendered an illogical and very dangerous distrust of modern and proven medical procedures.
The latest and most sinister of these developments is the campaign against vaccinations for children on the spurious accusation that infant vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella can cause autism. The myth was created by Dr Andrew Wakefield, whose flawed research, published in the Lancet 20 years ago, has been extensively studied, proved to be incorrect and discredited by leading medical professionals many times since.
Adults can engage in almost any form of alternative healing processes they like as they are only putting themselves at risk. They can also refuse any medical treatment for themselves as encapsulated in the New Zealand Bill of Rights. However making those decisions for vulnerable children is a very different and dangerous matter.
We have made huge advances in preventative medicine in the last few decades and it would be simply unforgivable to deny that protection to defenceless children simply because adults are stupid enough to believe obvious misinformation and humbug. Ironically though most of them have probably been protected by the very vaccinations they would deny their children.
Compulsory vaccination may be the only alternative if we are to avoid some of the tragic epidemics of the past.
Sweden Bans Mandatory Vaccinations Over ‘Serious Health Concerns’
Sweden has boldly decided to ban mandatory vaccinations citing both “serious health concerns” and the violation of each citizen’s constitutional rights to choose their own healthcare.
Well done Sweden. To see the full report click here. (Once on the page if your browser will allow it you can translate the page, otherwise, you’ll have to translate chunks of it with Google Translate.)
The Swedish Riksdag (parliament) rejected seven motions on May 10th, that would have locked forced vaccinations into law, stating:
"NHF Sweden sent a letter to the Committee and explained that it would violate our Constitution if we introduced compulsory vaccinations, or mandatory vaccinations as was submitted in Arkelsten’s motion.
Many others have also submitted correspondence and many citizens have called up Parliament and politicians. Parliamentary politicians has surely noticed that there’s a massive resistance to all forms of coercion with regard to vaccinations.
NHF Sweden also shows how frequent serious adverse reactions according to the rate at which FASS specifies in the package leaflet of the MMR vaccine, when you vaccinate an entire year group. In addition, one must take into account that each age group will receive the MMR vaccine twice, so the side effects are doubled. We must not forget that, in addition, similar adverse reaction lists apply for other vaccines.
In the letter, we have even included an extensive list of the additives found in vaccines – substances which are not health foods and certainly do not belong in babies or children. We also included for lawmakers a daunting list of studies that demonstrate vaccination is a bad idea.”
I’m both thrilled and shocked. Swedish families are lucky to have politicians working for their best- not for the best of those hiding behind the vaccines that maim and kill.
But, it’s time we do the same. Thankfully, we have people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who recently appeared on the Tucker Carlson Show, on our side to expose the “lawless mafia state” that has become Big Pharma and their “extremely lucrative” vaccines scam.
If you haven’t yet watched the interview, please do, it’s worth your time.
RFK, Jr: My Meeting with Trump on Vaccine Commission
Dr. Peter Gøtzsche Exposes Big Pharma As Organized Crime + Six Ways That The Medical System Makes Us Ill Before Kindergarten June 5 2017 | From: Sott / NaturalSociety / Various
The drug industry buys the professors first, then chiefs of department, then the other chief physicians and so on. They don't buy junior doctors. - Dr. Peter Gøtzsche
Big Pharma drugs kill around 200,000 Americans every year - half of them die while doing what their doctors told them. Sadly, the side effects and medical errors combine to cause the 3rd leading cause of death in America.
In this video interview courtesy of Dr. John McDougall, he exposes how the pharmaceutical companies stealthily act as an organized crime ring unbeknownst to the consumer.
Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD is a Danish medical researcher, and leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark. He has written numerous reviews within the Cochrane collaboration.
Dr.Gøtzsche has been critical of screening for breast cancer using mammography, arguing that it cannot be justified; His critique stems from a meta-analysis he did on mammography screening studies and published as Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?
In The Lancet in 2000. In it he discarded 6 out of 8 studies arguing their randomization was inadequate.
In 2006 a paper by Gøtzsche on mammography screening was electronically published in the European Journal of Cancer ahead of print.
The journal later removed the paper completely from the journal website without any formal retraction. The paper was later published in Danish Medical Bulletin with a short note from the editor, and Gøtzsche and his coauthors commented on the unilateral retraction that the authors were not involved in.
In 2012 his book Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy was published. In 2013 his book Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare was published.
Six Ways That The Medical System Makes Us Ill Before Kindergarten
What do you think needs to be fixed most?
Mothers of small children ask me about natural health all the time. It happens in the line at my favorite natural grocer, or after a yoga class. Sometimes I receive questions through email or through a friend of a friend.
It’s a universal desire for parents to give their children the best start possible, but our medical system is not set up to do that at all. In fact, in 6 key ways, it is harming our children and damaging their prospects for future health. Here’s how:
1. Higher C-Sections Rates Put Babies at Risk
When I recently was preparing for birth through a Bradley birthing class, I was astounded to find out how high the C-section rates are at most hospitals. I understand that sometimes they are medically necessary, and they have their place, but this invasive, and dangerous procedure is getting out of control.
When a baby is born via C-section, there are numerous issues that cause possible long-term harm. Firstly, when a newborn passes through the vaginal canal, they are exposed to billions of beneficial bacteria which become part of their growing immune system. C-section babies are not exposed to this immune-boosting bacteria, and are more likely to become ill.
A baby’s skull is also designed to shift as it comes through the birth canal, and when they don’t, many mothers report the need for cranial sacral therapy to mimic the natural process of child birth to correct behavioral problems and neurological risks imposed by birth trauma.
2. Formula-Fed Babies are at Higher Risk for Depleted Immunity
Since babies can’t go straight to eating organic, non-GMO food from your plate, they rely on sustenance from another form – and Mother Nature has provided the perfect food – breast milk. A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that babies born by C-section and that drank formula instead of breast milk were more likely to be obese when they were older.
They were also more prone to inflammatory bowel disease, allergies, asthma, and even cancer.
"Our study addresses an important knowledge gap, since the infant gut microbiota has rarely been characterized with sequencing methods that provide sufficient coverage of the entire bacterial community,” writes Dr. Anita Kozyrskyj, University of Alberta, with coauthors.
“Our findings are particularly timely given the recent affirmation of the gut microbiota as a ‘super organ’ with diverse roles in health and disease, and the increasing concern over rising cesarean delivery and insufficient exclusive breastfeeding in Canada.”
3. Babies Subjected to 6x as Many Vaccines as They Were 40 Years Ago
The billion dollar pharmaceutical industry now thinks your children should be taking 49 doses of 14 different vaccines before your child even reaches the age of 6. By the time your baby is just two months old, they are supposed to have shots for diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, HIB, Hepatitis B, Rotavirus, and PCV.
To put it simply, this is just too much, too soon.
4. We’re Given Antibiotics Instead of Probiotics
How many children are given amoxicillin or other antibiotics when their health care provider could help parents avoid the over-use of antibiotics which is causing super bugs and other medication-resistant disease by simply educating them about probiotics?
I’ve been giving my six-month-old small doses of probiotics in his breast milk since he was just a few days old. When my husband and I came down with a nasty upper respiratory infection recently, we were down for a week, my infant got over it in a day, and his immune system is still in its infancy, as he is.
Pregnant mothers can also boost their own healthy gut flora by making sure they take probiotics themselves to ensure they have sufficient healthy bacteria when it comes time to give birth.
5. Our Kids Don’t Play Outside Anymore
From the time a child can sit in a high chair, they are taught to look at a monitor or a cell phone. By the time they can run and catch a ball, instead of playing outside they’ve been trained to be chained to an electronic device.
Not only does this keep our children from the infinite wonders of the outdoor world – from worms crawling in the soil, to the wind blowing in the trees – but they miss out on numerous health benefits provided by nature.
Pediatricians’ offices have big screen televisions instead of books or tree houses, and the medical establishment rarely tells parents to make sure their kids are spending time in green spaces.
18% of adults do not wash their hands after using the bathroom
23% do not wash up before handling food
25% do not wash after changing a diaper
So how do we still fight disease? It’s simple. Our immune systems.
When given half a chance to do what they were designed to do, our immune systems protect against foreign germs and viruses very well. Medical doctors spend about 1% of their time in school learning about the diet and how important it is to our overall health.
This means that people who are arguably ignorant about how to keep a child healthy by supporting their immune systems naturally through diet, herbs, rest, and time in nature are telling us how to raise our kids.
Forget about the hand sanitizer; your toddler will probably lick the floor. You don’t have to worry though, if you know about the #1-5 keys outlined in this article and do all you can to boost their natural immunity. Then, those nasty germs don’t stand a chance.
Cover Stories Are Used To Control Explanations & Medical Propaganda Headlines For Gullible Minds May 31 2017 | From: JonRappoport / PublicIntelligence / Various
Years ago James Jesus Angleton left me with the impression that when an intelligence agency, such as the CIA, pulls off an assassination, bombing, or any event with which the agency does not wish to be associated, the agency uses the media to control the explanation by quickly putting into place a cover story that, along with several others, has been prepared in advance.
The fact that it made no sense did not stop many from believing it. It did not occur to people more gullible than thoughtful that a gangster would simply get another woman and not take the risk of assassinating the US president over a woman. The last thing the Mafia would want would be for Attorney General Robert Kennedy to bring the law down on the Mafia like a ton of bricks.
Another cover story was that Castro did it. This made even less sense. JFK had nixed the Joint Chiefs/CIA plan to invade Cuba, and he had refused air cover to the CIA’s Bay of Pigs invasion. JFK would certainly not be on Castro’s hit list.
Another cover story was that Lyndon Johnson was behind Kennedy’s assassination. As I wrote, there is no doubt that LBJ covered up the Joint Chiefs/CIA/Secret Service plot against JFK, as any president would have done, because the alternative was to destroy the American people’s confidence in the US military and security agencies.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court also covered up the plot, as did the Warren Commission, the media, and the Congress.
The “Johnson did it” story is the most preposterous of all. The Joint Chiefs, CIA, Secret Service, Chief Justice, Congress, and Media are not going to participate in the murder of a President and its coverup just for the sake of the VP’s personal ambition. The idea that so many strong institutions would permit a VP to murder a President for no reason other than the personal ambition of the VP is beyond absurdity.
Speaking of cover stories, I wonder if that is what we are witnessing in the leaked information to the New York Times about the Manchester Bombing. The only point of the leak is to set the story in place. The British complaints about the leaked information serve to disguise the leak’s purpose.
Setting a story in place early crowds out other explanations. Remember, the government claims to have had no warning of 9/11 but knew instantly who did it and set the story in place. The same for the Paris events, the Nice event, the Boston Marathon bombing, and I think all the others.
Authorities quickly come up with a story and names of those responsible. The alleged perpetrators or patsies, take your choice, are always dead and, thereby, unable to deny that they did it or say who put them up to it. The only exception that comes to mind is the younger brother who has been associated with the Boston Marathon bombing.
Despite two police attempts to shoot him to death, he inconveniently survived, but has never been seen or heard from. At his orchestrated trial, his court appointed attorney confessed for him, and the jury convicted on her confession.
Remember, Oswald was shot dead by Jack Ruby before Oswald was questioned by police. There is no explanation for an armed private citizen being inside the jail with Oswald and positioned to shoot him at close range. Clearly, Oswald was not to be permitted to give his story. And no patsy since has either.
Aside from filling space, their main function is to assure the public that “advances are always being made” and “good things are right around the corner.” It’s much better, for example, than, “Well, this month we didn’t discover a single important datum. Here’s hoping for better luck in June.”
A brief examination of medical-story headlines reveals that these stories are lacking in a little thing called reality; or they announce something so obvious it hardly merits mention, much less a full-blown study to establish what any person with a few working brain cells already knows.
Here are a few such headlines from a popular medical site (medicalnewstoday). They represent a mere few days’ worth of vital…baloney:
HOW DOES POOR SLEEP AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO LEARN? A STUDY INVESTIGATES.
Well, poor sleep makes it harder to concentrate the next day. End of study. Thanks. We’re newly enlightened. Where’s my check?
LONELINESS MAY HARM SLEEP QUALITY FOR YOUNG ADULTS.
Another stunning revelation. The boy is lonely. He doesn’t sleep well. We never would have imagined such a connection without a meticulous study.
CHRONIC PAIN AMPLIFIES THE BRAIN’S REACTION TO NEW INJURIES.
The insights keep coming. A person already in a state of chronic pain reacts more severely to new pain than a person who isn’t suffering from chronic pain. Give the researchers a Nobel and a trip to Disneyland.
RESEARCHERS PINPOINT HOW DIESEL FUMES COULD CAUSE ‘FLARE-UP’ OF RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS.
Someone with respiratory disease could experience trouble when breathing diesel fumes. Wow. A mind-bending correlation. And we need to know the exact mechanism of the flare-up because…?
Researchers are going to develop a drug that will eliminate the problem? “Do you have TB? Now you can walk through diesel fumes without a reaction.” Sure. The drug is called Thorazine. You’ll still have a severe reaction, but you won’t know it. Or anything else.
LARGE META-ANALYSIS IDENTIFIES NEW GENES ASSOCIATED WITH INTELLIGENCE.
GENES RESPONSIBLE FOR SEVERE CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE IDENTIFIED BY RESEARCHERS.
I love stories about “breakthroughs” in gene research. First of all, try to find one version of gene therapy for any disease that works across the board. Good luck. But you can find thousands of articles about “advances” in the research. They hint at glorious innovations coming to your neighborhood soon.
So let me know when this genetic discovery about heart disease results in a treatment that actually reverses the condition. And as for genes associated with intelligence, it’s easy as pie to make claims, as long as you don’t have to try to increase IQ with an injection.
Getting the point? Researchers can obtain all sorts of money to do studies that then posit some correlation between a condition and various gaggles of genes - as long as they don’t have come up with an actual gene therapy that works. It’s a great con. Nice work if they can get it, and they can.
THE SECRET TO COMBATING PANCREATIC CANCER MAY LIE IN SUPPRESSION OF A COMMON PROTEIN.
Yes, it may. Or it may not. Who can say? We’ll have to wait and see. Give the researchers another decade. Meanwhile, read about lots of “maybes.” It’s possible that a steady diet of “maybe” articles will increase your intelligence, help you sleep better at night, reverse heart disease, and decrease your reaction to diesel fumes.
It’s also possible the articles will turn you into a creature with the IQ of a tree-dwelling sloth.
A Smart Home Mega Sensor Can Track What Goes On In A Room + EKG Evidence That Smart Meters Negatively Affect The Human Heart May 27 2017 | From: Enadget / WakingTimes / Various
The concept digests all environmental data in a space to trigger IoT routines.
Creating a smart home currently requires either linking every connected device one-by-one or adding sensor tags to old appliances to make a cohesive IoT network, but there might be an easier way.
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon developed a concept for a hub that, when plugged into an electrical outlet, tracks ambient environmental data -- essentially becoming a sensor that tracks the whole space. With this in hand, savvy programmers can use it to trigger their own connected home routines.
Synthetic Sensors: Towards General-Purpose Sensing
We explore the notion of general-purpose sensing, wherein a single, highly capable sensor can indirectly monitor a large context, without direct instrumentation of objects.
Further, through what we call Synthetic Sensors, we can virtualize raw sensor data into actionable feeds, while simultaneously mitigating immediate privacy issues. We deployed our system across many months and environments, the results of which show the versatility, accuracy and potential of our approach.
The researchers introduced their sensor nexus -- dubbed Synthetic Sensors -- this week at ACM CHI, the human-computer interaction conference. As the video demonstrates, just plug it into a USB wall port and it automatically collects information about its surroundings, uploading it to a cloud back-end over WiFi.
Machine learning on the device parses results into recognizable events, like recognizing a particular sound pattern as "dishwasher is running" -- making them "synthetic" sensors. Folks can use them as digital triggers for other IoT behaviors. For example, one could use "left faucet on" to activate a room's left paper towel dispenser -- and automatically schedule a restock when its supply runs low.
There's one sensor missing from the device's suite, though: A camera. Its creators are sensitive to privacy issues, which is also why raw environmental data isn't uploaded to the cloud -- just the analyzed results.
The Synthetic Sensor is still in a prototype phase, but it's a promising replacement for the jumble of individual tags needed to hook up old appliances or proprietary smart devices.
Ever wondered why your energy supplier and governments are so keen to give you a smart meter?
We lay out some not-so-good reasons in this 4 minute animation. Your private data, lifestyle and behavioural
choices can be amalgamated into a data-set that is monetised and sold to 3rd party companies. Our usual
satire of dark subjects aim to entertain and inform you.
EKG Evidence That Smart Meters Negatively Affect The Human Heart
There have been numerous whistleblowers to warn of the negative effects of smart meters on human health but perhaps none has been so successful in scientifically proving this claim as Warren Woodward of Sedona, Arizona.
He recently put AMI ‘smart’ meters to the test, and using EKG technology, has proven that smart meters throw the human heart off its balanced beat.
A smart meter digitally sends information about your energy usage to utility companies, ostensibly, so that they can monitor your home remotely. Aside from giving companies access to a trove of information (which can then be used to manipulate energy prices, etc.), these meters infringe on our privacy, and have been said to cause numerous adverse health conditions.
In a first-of-its-kind, video-taped, scientifically documented presentation, Woodward shows how a smart meter adversely affects the human heart in the YouTube video below.
Woodward sits next to a smart meter that is used in Arizona, but that are also commonly used in many countries.
Many people have complained of adverse health conditions, among them:
Ringing in the ears
EMF exposure has been documented as being harmful before, but this is the first time someone has shown what EMF in the form of smart meters do to the human heart directly.
Woodward points out that in his rural location there is cell phone coverage, but that the EMF from cell towers is low intensity. Due to his location, there are no other forms of EMF that he is being exposed to.
Triggering Agents of Electromagnetic Sensitivity
Dr. Rea presented his compelling evidence and recommendations for a healthier world at Creating Safe Havens in a Toxic, Electromagnetic World, a conference hosted by the International Institute for Building-Biology & Ecology.
He also attempts to do a controlled test by hooking himself up to the EKG while not knowing when the smart meter is on or off, so that his body cannot anticipate a response, nor can he affect his heart rhythm with his own free will.
He has no health conditions, and is on no medications, however, when he is exposed to the smart meter, his heart skips beats – literally.
Any device that affects the functioning of the heart should be of profound concern. To wit, Pao L. Chang writes:
“The heart is one of the most important organs in the human body, because it is one of the main mediums for connecting us to each other and the Universe. Conventional science has taught us that the main role of the heart is to pump blood to all the systems of our body.
This definition of the heart is not very accurate. Besides pumping blood, the heart also has an intelligence of its own.
According to neurocardiologists, 60 to 65 percent of heart cells are neuron cells, not muscle cells. This discovery has helped them develop experiments that have proved the heart works similar to the brain and in some ways is even superior to the brain.
This may be the reason that the heart is the first organ to function after conception. Within about 20 days after conception, the heart starts to function, but the brain does not function until after roughly 90 days. This information tells us that the brain is secondary to the heart.”
Knowing what we do now about the intelligence of the heart, and how intimately it is linked to the endocrine system, the nervous system, and even to the signaling of the brain and gut – how would you imagine smart meters might be affecting your neuro-psycho-biology? Is this yet another (attempted) way to control the innate intelligence of the population at large?
EKG Proof That "Smart" Meters Affect the Human Heart
Everyone's health is being affected by "smart" meters. The evidence in this video is a world first, and shifts the debate from whether anyone should have to pay a fee to refuse a "smart" meter to: When does the safety recall start?
We now know that even if people are not showing outward symptoms, their bodies are being unnecessarily and involuntarily stressed by "smart" meters. There must be a complete safety recall of all "smart" meters at once.
According to the Edison Foundation, there are more than 70 million smart meters currently installed, with 90 million expected to be up and running by 2020.
Need another reason to go off-grid?
Heartbreaking Letter From Dying EPA Scientist Begs Monsanto “Moles” Inside The Agency To Stop Lying About Dangers Of RoundUp (Glyphosate) & Monsanto Funneled Money To Front Groups To Attack Anti-GMO Activists, Court Documents Reveal May 26 2017 | From: NaturalNews / Various
The following letter from EPA scientist Marion Copley (now deceased from cancer) has surfaced in the unsealed court documents originally uncovered by U.S. Right to Know and posted in plain text at this Glyphosate.news document page.
In this letter, EPA scientist Marion Copley begs Monsanto “mole” Jess Rowland to do his job and protect the public rather than protecting Monsanto’s profit interests, saying:
"For once in your life, listen to me and don’t play your political conniving games with the science to favor the registrants. For once do the right thing and don’t make decisions based on how it affects your bonus.”
She also accuses Rowland and another EPA scientist Anna Lowit (still with the EPA) of engaging in science intimidation tactics to force EPA scientists and bureaucrats to change their conclusions in favor of Monsanto.
"You and Anna Lowit intimidated staff on CARC and changed MI ARC and IIASPOC final reports to favor industry,” says Copley.
This tactic, by the way, is 100% aligned with the deeply evil corporate culture at Monsanto, which routinely engages in intimidation legal tactics, science intimidation and character assassination campaigns against anti-Monsanto activists.
Copley further warns that EPA scientists are likely being bribed by Monsanto, saying:
"Your Nebraska colleague took industry funding, he clearly has a conflict of interest. Just promise me not to ever let Anna on the CARC committee, her decisions don’t make rational sense. If anyone in OPP is taking bribes, it is her.”
Marion Copley signs off with a plea for humanity, knowing that she is nearing death but wanting to help save humanity from the toxic chemical “holocaust” being pushed by Monsanto and a criminal EPA:
I have cancer and I don’t want these serious issues in MED to go unaddressed before I go to my grave. I have done my duty.
Read the full letter to Jess Rowland (the “Monsanto mole” inside the EPA) from Marion Copley (now deceased, former EPA scientist) to get the full picture. Read the entire unsealed court document that includes this letter at this page on Glyphosate.news.
Letter from Marion Copley to Jess Rowland, March 4, 2013
Since I left the Agency with cancer, I have studied the tumor process extensively and I have some mechanism comments which may be very valuable to CARC based on my decades of pathology experience. I’ll pick one chemical to demonstrate my points.
Glyphosate was originally designed as a chelating agent and 1 strongly believe that is the identical process involved in its tumor formation, which is highly supported by the literature.
Chelators inhibit apoptosis, the process by which our bodies kill tumor cells
Chelators are endocrine disruptors, involved in tumorigenesis
Glyphosate induces lymphocyte proliferation
Glyphosate induces free radical formation
Chelators inhibit free radical scavenging enzymes requiring Zn, Mn or Cu for activity (i.e. SODs)
Chelators bind zinc, necessary for immune system function
Glyphosate is genotoxic, a key cancer mechanism
Chelators inhibit DNA repair enzymes requiring metal cofactors
Chelators bind Ca, Zn, Mg, etc to make foods deficient for these essential nutrients
Chelators bind calcium necessary for calcineurin-mediated immune response
Chelators often damage the kidneys or pancreas, as glyphosate does, a mechanism to tumor formation
Kidney/pancreas damage can lead to clinical chemistry changes to favor tumor growth
Glyphosate kills bacteria in the gut and the gastrointestinal system is 80% of the immune system
Chelators suppress the immune system making the body susceptible to tumors
Previously, CARC concluded that glyphosate was a “possible human carcinogen”. The kidney pathology in the animal studies would lead to tumors with other mechanisms listed above. Any one of these mechanisms alone listed can cause tumors, but glyphosate causes all of them simultaneously.
It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer. With all of the evidence listed above, the CARC category should be changed to “probable human carcinogen”. Blood cells arc most exposed to chelators, if any study shows proliferation of lymphocytes, then that is confirmatory that glyphosate is a carcinogen.
Jess, you and I have argued many times on CARC. You often argued about topics outside of your knowledge, which is unethical. Your trivial MS degree from 1971 Nebraska is far outdated, thus CARC science is 10 years behind the literature in mechanisms.
For once in your life, listen to me and don’t play your political conniving games with the science to favor the registrants. For once do the right thing and don’t make decisions based on how it affects your bonus. You and Anna Lowit intimidated staff on CARC and changed MI ARC and IIASPOC final reports to favor industry.
Chelators clearly disrupt calcium signaling, a key signaling pathway in all cellos and mediates tumor progression. Greg Ackerman is supposed to be our expert on mechanisms, but he never mentioned any of these concepts at CARC and when I tried to discuss it with him he put me off.
Is Greg playing your political games as well, incompetent or does he have some conflict of interest of some kind? Your Nebraska colleague took industry funding, he clearly has a conflict of interest. Just promise me not to ever let Anna on the CARC committee, her decisions don’t make rational sense. If anyone in OPP is taking bribes, it is her.
I have cancer and I don’t want these serious issues in MED to go unaddressed before I go to my grave. I have done my duty.
Recently obtained court documents have revealed that Monsanto has been secretly feeding money to “think tanks,” such as the infamous Genetic Literacy Project. From the document obtained by US Right To Know:
Monsanto quietly funnels money to “think tanks” such as the “Genetic Literacy Project” and the “American Council on Science and Health,” organizations intended to shame scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical producers.
For example, the American Council on Science and Health has recently published articles accusing the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of ignoring the “science” on glyphosate.
Sources say that these allegations are backed up by a string of emails which were used in court as evidence.
Some of these exchanges even involved Monsanto executives instructing their staff to “ghost write” material on their products and then have some phony “independent scientists” sign their names to cut back on costs. One such exchange occurred between Monsanto’s William Heydens and his colleagues:
"A less expensive/more palatable approach might be to involve experts only for the areas of contention, epidemiology and possibly MOA (depending on what comes out of the IARC meeting), and we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections.
An option would be to add Greim and Kier or Kirkland to have their names on the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams Kroes & Munro, 2000."
In addition to the emails and evidence of Monsanto’s collusion with government agencies and “think tank” organizations, there is also reason to believe that Monsanto has been hiring “trolls” to defend the company on the web - and to attack anyone who dares speak out against them.
Evidence presented in the pretrials of Monsanto court cases at the US District Court in San Francisco has revealed that under their ever-so-aptly titled “Let Nothing Go” program, Monsanto reportedly hired individuals who appeared to have no relation to the company for the sole purpose of trolling the internet with positive comments, defend Monsanto, and praise their toxic chemicals and GMO crops.
The goal of the “Let Nothing Go” program is “to leave nothing, not even Facebook comments, unanswered…” and the plaintiffs say that Monsanto has been targeting all forms of social media and other online materials under this initiative.
Anti-GMO activists like Mike Adams, have been particularly susceptible to these attacks. Unsurprisingly, Adams has been a prime target for GMO trolls: The Genetic Literacy Project and other shills have published hit pieces on him and other activists - all with the goal of trying to discredit them and silence journalists who expose Monsanto’s nefarious operations.
The evidence revealed in these court documents certainly leaves Monsanto with a lot of explaining to do. But it seems that they are already losing in the court of public opinion.
Mainstream Media Insults The Public's Intelligence On Vaccines & Vaccinated Vs. Unvaccinated Pilot Study: Early Vaccination Sees Exponential Increase In Chronic Disorders + Lies, Vaccines And The New Zealand Media May 26 2017 | From: Sott / GreenMedInfo / WavesNZ / Various
Mainstream media and medical groups, typically funded or backed by Big Pharma, cast parents who are skeptical about vaccines as conspiracy theorists whose backward beliefs put the public at risk.
Vaccine skeptics cast vaccine promoters as paid shills, hired by Big Pharma to cover up documented vaccine-related injuries.
In mainstream and progressive media coverage (Mother Jones, Alternet, Huffington Post, Truthout, Progressive, The Nation) there is zero tolerance for critical debate about vaccine safety. Question why the hepatitis B vaccine is routinely given to babiesat birth - for a disease mainly transmitted through sex and I.V. drug use - and you're labeled "anti-science."
Suggest that some vaccines, including those such as the highly promoted HPV Gardasil and Cervarix (both of which have been linked to adverse reactions and death) are not exactly "life-saving," and you might as well yell "bring back polio."
The media routinely discredits parents of vaccine-injured children, accusing them of not knowing anything about medicine (except raising their own challenged child of course) and of "imagining" or even causing their child's deficits.
Progressive news sites that would never defend corporate media coverage of Monsanto or GMOs drink the vaccines-are-safe Kool-Aid. Last month, Jezebel ran this headline: "Robert De Niro and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Call Vaccines Dangerous, Which They Are Not."
In a 2015 article, the Atlantic sneered that "Vaccines Are Profitable, So What?" And the Daily Beast has gone so far as to praise Paul Offit, perhaps the nation's most extreme vaccine promoter.
Comment: According to Robert F, Kennedy Jr: Dr. Offit is a "thorough charlatan, a snake oil salesman and he has everyone flimflammed. That made me angry. After that, I learned that he was also venal."
RS: What do you mean "venal"?
RFK, JR: Well, my original assumption was that he was lying in service to the vaccine program. I later learned that vaccines were a lavishly profitable enterprise for Dr. Offit.
RS: How so?
RFK, JR: He is on permanent retainer to Merck to "right vaccine wrongs". And, both Merck and the CDC have rewarded his service with extraordinarily lucrative opportunities. In 1999, the CDC allowed him to sit on the committee that voted the rotavirus vaccine onto the schedule, even though he was working on his own rotavirus patent.
Electing not to recuse himself, he cast his vote to add rotavirus to the schedule. That version of the rotavirus vaccine caused so many agonizing childhood deaths from intussusception that the CDC had to withdraw it a year later, making room for Offit's version, a turn of events that made him a vaccine tycoon.
His rotavirus vaccine patent sold for $182 million; his cut was at least $29 million. When I learned about this caper and his other money schemes, I just thought, "Well, he's a hoodlum."
RS: He's also a misogynist and a bully.
RFK, JR: It's disturbing because the media treats him like a deity. And, like all bullies, he's a coward. He dismisses women who question him as superstitious hysterics.
He lobs vicious bombs at the mothers of vaccine-injured children from the editorial pages and national TV shows which give him a platform for his poison. But, he refuses to debate me or anyone else who knows what they are talking about.
RS: Do you think, when Paul Offit says that babies could safely be given 10,000 vaccines at the same time, that he really believes that?
RFK, JR: I don't feel competent to psychoanalyze Offit. It's hard to look into another person's mind. And Offit's brain has got to be a really dark and scary zip code where I don't really want to spend time. In his defense, we all have some capacity for self-deception and it's possible that Offit is as gifted at deceiving himself as he is at deceiving the public.
Upton Sinclair observed that, "It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." But I do think it's more likely that he knows that what he's saying is dishonest. For years, he claimed Bill Thompson's 2004 study was "the definitive proof" of thimerosal safety.
He's been silent about that since Thompson disavowed his own study. That suggests a purposeful mendacity. Like a lot of other people, Offit seems to have made the self-serving calculation that all of the dead and damaged children are just collateral damage - unfortunate sacrifices in a program that serves the greater good.
RS: Is that even a legitimate moral calculation?
RFK, JR: You mean to kill one child in order to save fifty? Ethicists and theologians could argue the point. But that isn't Offit's real moral dilemma.
Offit's moral Donnybrook is his absolutist defense of the industry position that all vaccines are always safe for all people and that the safety of thimerosal is unassailable. That approach has unnecessarily damaged vulnerable subgroups that could easily have been protected and sacrificed millions of kids, not for the greater good but for the bottom line.
As the vaccine industry's lead pitchman for thimerosal, Offit's been extraordinarily successful at crafting a persuasive alternative to fact-based reality and selling it like a carnival barker. He has made himself the high priest of the weird dogma that it's somehow safe to inject mercury into babies.
One wants to ask these progressive sites: Do you really think Pharma has never steered us wrong, just for the sake of profit? What about all the drugs that had to be pulled from the market, after Pharma insisted they were safe?
The fact is vaccines are not all safe. That's why the National Vaccine Injury Compensation (VICP) program, established to provide monetary compensation to victims of vaccine injuries, exists. The VICP website states:
"Most people who get vaccines have no serious problems. In very rare cases, a vaccine can cause a serious problem, such as a severe allergic reaction.
In these instances, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) may provide financial compensation to individuals who file a petition and are found to have been injured by a VICP-covered vaccine."
"It's true that there have been 24,000 reports of adverse events with Gardasil" and "106 deaths." But the author of the Forbes article rationalizes:
"There have also been 60,000 reports of adverse events with the mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine, and 26,000 following vaccination with . . . Prevnar, for pneumococcus bacteria."
We ask: Do two wrongs make a right, Forbes?
The CDC maintains a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) where people can see for themselves the adverse effects and deaths related to a particular vaccine. A search for people who have died from the measles vaccines MEA, MER, MM, MMR or MMRV revealed 416 deaths. Last summer, the mainstream science outlet
EurekaAlert submitted that reading VAERS info "may not build public trust or adherence."
That is an understatement.
Profiteering and Conflicts of Interest Not Even Hidden
There is no question vaccines are profitable. In some states, Blue Cross Blue Shield gives doctors bonuses for the vaccines they give patients. And an increasing number of drugstore chains now offer vaccines.
There are brazen and unhidden conflicts of interest between mainstream media and vaccine makers who influence reporting and discourage healthy debate about vaccine safety. Mike Papantonio, of the America's Lawyer TV show, reports:
"According to a 2009 study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, with the exception of CBS, every major media outlet in the United States shares at least one board member with at least one drug company. These board members wake up, they go to a meeting at Merck or Pfizer, and then they have their driver take them over to a meeting at a TV station."
The Gates Foundation is deeply entangled with vaccine makers, as are our own government agencies, including the CDC.
It's clearly a fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation. The vaccine industry also "gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters," reports CBS.
In 2013, the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Healthreported that the seriousness with which academics portrayed the 2009-2010 swine flu outbreak was shaped proportionately by how much funding they had received from Pharma.
What Does the Science Say?
When you read the scientific papers published about vaccine safety - and especially about links to childhood autism - it seems as if they are all written by four scientists who know each other and who work for Big Vac.
Despite overwhelming evidence that the mercury used in vaccines, thimerosal, is harmful to children and to pregnant women and the elderly, the official position of pro-vaccine scientists is "it was totally safe but we took it out anyway."
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of The World Mercury Project, disagrees. Vaccines containing thimerosal are neither safe, nor is thimerosal gone from vaccines he claims.
Kennedy offers $100,000 to anyone who can find a published study indexed in PubMed proving mercury levels in vaccines are harmless for infants and developing fetuses at the levels they are given.
Though they are scientists, pro-vaccine researchers use embarrassing non-logic in their vaccine defenses - they actually employ the "Raven Paradox" which many of us learned in Logic 101.
It declares that "all ravens are black; that bird is black; it must be a raven." In other words, according to logic-challenged researchers: "Mercury is safe - and it doesn't cause autism - so all vaccines are safe."
Meanwhile, the pro-vaccine scientists seldom, if ever, address the more complicated scientific questions surrounding vaccines - such as other metals used in them, like aluminum.
Or whether the current series of multiple vaccines administered to children today could overwhelm their immune systems. Or whether live vaccines or disease antibodies could paradoxically cause the disease they're intended to prevent.
According to published articles, it's not just the thimerosal but metals in general, such as the currently used aluminum in vaccines, that are under suspicion. Such metals can cross the child's blood brain barrier and set off increased oxidative stress which is linked to autism, say journal reports.
Oxidative stress is an imbalance between the production of free radicals and the ability of the body to counteract or detoxify their harmful effects through neutralization by antioxidants.
Too many vaccines given too closely together to children that are too young also increases the stress, say those who question vaccines and vaccine schedules.
When a scientific paper appears to clearly show a link between childhood vaccines recommended in the U.S. and impaired neurodevelopment, pro-vaccine scientists savage it.
A 2010 paper published in Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, a quarterly peer-reviewed scientific journal covering neuroscience, found that "rhesus macaque infants receiving the complete U.S. childhood vaccine schedule" did not "undergo the maturational changes over time in amygdala volume that was observed in unexposed animals."
Why does the amygdala matter? The researchers wrote:
"Neuropathological and neuroimaging studies of individuals with an ASD [autism spectrum disorder] . . . have provided growing evidence of a central role for the amygdala." Specifically, it is enlarged in such children "compared with neurotypical controls."
Pro-vaccine scientists pounced. Not enough monkeys were used to establish a scientific finding, said one scientist. Opposite findings about the amygdala have been reached, which invalidate the study, said another scientist.
One angry scientist was even willing to discredit the monkey study by claimingthat monkeys are not a valid model for human disease - thus annulling millions of experiments including the ones on which human drugs are approved! Of course, many in the animal welfare community have questioned the validity of animal "models."
On behalf of Pharma, mainstream science and media set up a strawman called "vaccines cause autism." Then they knocked it down and declared vaccines safe.
It is an insult to the public's intelligence, especially in light of clear injuries that exist, including those documented in the VAERS database - not to mention injured people, especially parents of injured children.
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alone has awarded $3.18 billion in 16,000 claims since 1988.
Do vaccine injury cases prove that vaccines are always unsafe and should always be avoided? Of course not. But those cases do prove that vaccines are not "completely safe" as the well-funded vaccine dogma continues to insultingly tell us.
Vaccine Dangers Being Hidden From the Public
Dr. Suzanne Humphries explains how vaccines became the norm in modern medicine. She also explains why you rarely hear about any risks or dangers associated with them. Find out how those issues are being kept from the public.
Vaccinated Vs. Unvaccinated Pilot Study: Early Vaccination Sees Exponential Increase In Chronic Disorders
The move towards mandatory vaccination is no longer a conspiracy theory. California Senate Bill 277 snapped families into a reality where informed consent and health freedom do not apply.
Presently, the American people are facing 173 vaccine-related bills in 40 states. The language of many of the new bills aims to increase tracking, target non-vaccinating families, force vaccine schedules, and further persecute families who choose not to accept vaccines; the private products of for-profit, legally protected pharmaceutical companies.
The corporate media and medical industries have thrown their full influence behind Big Pharma’s transparent ‘safe and effective’ messaging. At the same time, both industries are simultaneously censoring discussions around the fraud, dangers, mounting injuries, and criminal behavior inherent within the vaccine industry and those pushing for mandatory vaccination.
A central point of contention, and human rights violation, is the fact that historically, no true study has been conducted between vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. However, such a study has now come to fruition.
Since long-term health outcomes of the current vaccination schedule haven’t been studied, Dr. Mawson and his coauthors set out to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children across a broad range of health outcomes.
The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey of homeschooling mothers on their vaccinated and unvaccinated biological children ages 6 to 12. It included mothers of 666 children ranging from fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated.
The mothers were asked to indicate on a list of more than 40 acute and chronic illnesses all those for which her child or children had received a diagnosis by a physician among other questions.
“DIRECT ORDER” An Award-Winning Documentary Tells the Story of Members of the Military who were Ordered Against their Will to Take the Controversial Anthrax Vaccine.
Federal regulators approved a plan by biotechnology company, VaxGen to test its experimental anthrax vaccine on about 100 people.
The vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with the following: allergic rhinitis, other allergies, eczema/atopic dermatitis, a learning disability, autism spectrum disorder, any neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD) (i.e., learning disability, ADHD or ASD) and chronic illness.
The following is a breakdown of the specific results for vaccinated children:
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) was 4.7-fold higher in vaccinated children
ADHD risk was 4.7-fold higher
Learning disability risk was 3.7-fold higher
Vaccinated children in the study were 3.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with some kind of (NDD).
Preterm birth and vaccination was associated with 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD
Vaccinated children were also significantly more likely to be diagnosed with an immune-related disorder. The risk of allergic rhinitis (commonly known as hay fever) was over 30 times higher in vaccinated children, while the risk of other allergies was increased 3.9 fold and the eczema risk was increased 2.4 fold.
Given the current global climate as described in this article’s introduction, the study highlighted three extremely noteworthy conclusions as follows:
“…the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent “dose-response” relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity.”
“Vaccination also remained significantly associated with neurodevelopmental disorders after controlling for other factors…”
“…preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of neurodevelopmental disorder above that of vaccination alone.”
While all three conclusions should be, and are, resonating deeply within the masses of health professionals and parents, the study’s third conclusion is especially timely and relevant beyond its stated assertion.
Over the last year, numerous medical whistleblowers and scientific research papers have warned and demonstrated that routine vaccine injury to preterm infants in hospital neonatal intensive care units (NICU) is occurring. Whistleblower nurses Michelle Rowton James and Joanne [last name unavailable] publicly spotlighted how inhuman and commonplace NICU vaccine injury have rooted in the culture of establishment medicine.
While three major studies ,, have corroborated the nurse’s whistleblowing admissions. Meanwhile, in April 2017 The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) released a statement asking for all Americans to join them in their call for a ban on vaccination of infants in the NICU. Speaking on the call to action Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, CEO, and Director of IPAK, stated:
"We’ve asked the biomedical community to produce studies that show ill effect of vaccines on neonates, and they have not produced them.”
There is currently a clash happening between religious-like vaccine dogma and increasingly aware segments of the public, research, and medical communities. In the balance hangs the opportunity for a truly open discussion on vaccines and a rare chance to reform a pharmaceutically-dominated medical community that has lost its way.
Giving the current trend, the consequences of not seizing the opportunity for open dialogue appears to lead down a road of mandatory medicine and censorship of exponentially mounting human injury and mortality.
Put simply, the battle now rages between openness and transparency versus the protection, through omission and overt censorship, of Big Pharma’s business model and need for ever-expanding bottom lines at all costs.
Bombshell: Study Proves Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier
Studies put to question the safety of current vaccination practices.
Celeste McGovern joins Rob Dew and Owen Shroyer to discuss the first ever study comparing the health levels of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
Another day, another poorly-written and ill-advised scare story in New Zealand’s fabulous ‘print media’. This time, a piece in the Dominion Post claiming measles ‘could have been eradicated by now if it were not for anti-vaccine campaigners and conspiracy theorists’. Nothing to do with faulty live-virus vaccines, is it?
According to the article, posted on Stuff.co.nz, the measles vaccine is safe, and the reason people are refusing it is because of a ‘study’ by Dr Andrew Wakefield that was ‘discredited’ and led to him being struck off the register by the GMC. That or because they listen to ‘conspiracy theorists’.
No mention, of course, that it wasn’t a study – it was a small case series – or that his co-author who was also struck off the register, Dr John Walker-Smith, was exonerated and the case overturned two years ago, following an appeal.
The entire trial against the doctors was dismissed as faulty and the General Medical Council admonished for a trial that was full of ‘inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion’.
The Dominion Post piece states that we were struck off the charities register for promoting a view that vaccination was ‘ineffective and dangerous’ – again, this is not true. The reason for our removal from the register was that we were viewed as promoting a viewpoint rather than advancing education (one of the categories for being on the register).
While we disagree with the basis of the decision, the reality is that it makes little difference to who we are and what we do – we are still a charitable organisation and still work hard to ensure parents have the information necessary to make an informed decision about vaccination.
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
The Ministry of Health tell us that New Zealand has a 93% uptake of vaccination by age two. This is worth remembering when reading the following paragraphs.
According to the article, there were 274 cases of pertussis (whooping cough) in Auckland in 2012, and a further 328 on the West Coast in the same year. In reality, according to the Public Health Surveillance Report for the year on pertussis, there were a total of 5,389 cases reported up until the 7th December 2012 for that year, the majority of which were in vaccinated persons.
According to the report, 252 cases were reported in Auckland up until that date for the year, and the West Coast had just 139 cases. Of the over 5,000 cases reported for the year, there were just two deaths – one in a premature infant too young to be vaccinated, and one in a child with ‘underlying health conditions’.
The data is also available online for the year 2013, so why 2012 was highlighted in the article is something of a mystery…
On to measles. According to Helen Petousis-Harris of the Immunisation Advisory Centre, measles could be eradicated in New Zealand if it weren’t for us pesky ‘anti-immunisation’ groups.
This statement is laughable for a number of reasons (not least that WAVESnz is not an ‘anti-immunisation’ group, but a group lobbying for informed choice and freedom of choice in health decisions).
Firstly, we have 93% uptake of vaccinations in this country by age two, which includes MMR at 15 months. Given the theoretical ‘herd immunity threshold’, or number of vaccinated persons needed to eliminate the disease amongst a population is generally accepted as being somewhere around 92-94%, it’s somewhat astonishing we’re still seeing these outbreaks, don’t you think?
Sounds to me that it’s less a case of rogue families making their own minds up about the health of their families, and more a case of a vaccine that simply does not work the way the media and government would have us believe.
Yes, those naughty parents who think for themselves and decide not to vaccinate make a very convenient scapegoat for a vaccine that simply does not work the way we’re told it does.
According to the 2012 report, the latest available, there were a total of 68 cases of measles reported for that year. Of those, 21 were in children aged under 15 months, which we will discount when assessing vaccination efficacy as they aren’t eligible for vaccination according to the New Zealand schedule (though one was reported to have had a single dose anyway!).
That leaves us with 47 cases of measles in persons aged 15 months and over, 17 of whom had had at least one or two doses of a measles vaccine, with 20 reporting no vaccination and 10 with unknown vaccination status.
Surely, if the vaccine worked so well, we’d see the vast majority of those cases in unvaccinated people, rather than an almost 50/50 split? And while it could be argued that this does lean towards better odds being vaccinated than not given the higher population of vaccinated individuals, one has to question how exactly that works given the vaccine datasheet claims 95% efficacy against measles…
Despite the claims of the pro-vaccine lobbyists, vaccination does not guarantee you won’t get the virus in the first place, as those vaccinated individuals who contract the disease have discovered. Nor does not getting vaccinated guarantee you will get it – and if you do, the chances of it being a serious disease in a healthy individual replete with Vitamin A are extremely low.
It’s worth noting now that the vaccine contains live attenuated measles virus (as well as live rubella and mumps).
The datasheet itself contains warnings about not vaccinating immune-compromised individuals due to risk of infection, notes that the rubella component can be ‘shed’ and spread by recently-vaccinated individuals, and while it states that there are ‘no reports’ of transmission of the measles component from recent vaccinees, it doesn’t mean that it can’t happen.
What it does mention, however, is that a common side-effect is fever or a ‘measles-like rash’ or both (which of course can’t be measles, it’s all a coincidence, it just looks like measles!). Very interesting… could it be that the vaccine itself is responsible for some of these outbreaks?
Next, to call organisations such as ourselves as ‘anti-immunisation’ is misleading to say the least – we have no problem with immunisation. In fact, it is something we actively encourage. Immunisation simply means to ‘make immune’, not ‘to vaccinate’, which often doesn’t lead to any significant ‘immunity’ at all.
We actively advocate for and encourage long-term breastfeeding, good nutrition, healthy lifestyles, sleep, exercise, and generally supporting the body’s natural immune system so that we can all live happy, health lives. All of which can be classed as a form of ‘immunisation’ and protection against these diseases the media love to hype so very much.
Lastly, it’s worth pointing out the glaringly obvious part that the fear-and-blame piece has left out: what to do if your child DOES contract either measles or pertussis (the terror illnesses du jour), and how to prevent them becoming the terrible diseases they’d have us believe…
So, what is really to blame for an uptick in measles cases lately? Is it, despite very high rates of vaccination that should be buoying us up with the mythical ‘herd immunity’ we hear so much about, the naughty few who choose to think for themselves and opt out of vaccination?
Is it terrible organisations such as WAVESnz who promote freedom of choice in healthcare? Is it a nearly 16-year-old case series written by an English doctor who has been thrashed in every media outlet globally since that time, who most people haven’t even looked at and most believe is a fraud?
Or could it be a failing live-virus vaccine that simply does not work the way we’re told it does, which is causing illness throughout the community, and which parents are beginning to question despite the poorly-written anti-choice propaganda churned out by the corporate-owned media on a near daily basis?
New Zealand Has The Highest Rate Of Teen Suicide In The Developed World May 21 2017 | From: Stuff / Various New Zealand has the highest rate of teen suicide in the developed world, an OECD report reiterates. Despite the alarming information the report revealed nothing new.
New Zealand continuously ranked among the worst in the world for our levels of teen suicide.
After 31 years working for Youthline, which operates a crisis line for young people considering self-harm, Bell doesn't think we've got any better. Looking back at when he started, he said the situation was just as bad.
"If you take the hardcore facts, last year there were well over 100 young people who killed themselves. We've gone down and come back. So no. I don't think it's really improved.
There are some good people and good services, but we really haven't made a change."
Bell said the only way to really reduce New Zealand's suicide rate would be to change communities on an individual basis.
"Suicide is the ultimate way of leaving a community. If you want to turn that round we've got to make sure that we've got communities that young people want to be a part of and feel safe and secure," he said.
At any given time, Youthline was working with 30 young people at immediate risk of suicide, Bell said. Ministry of Health mental health director John Crawshaw said improving youth mental health was a priority.
The ministry would focus on "collaboration with communities," he said. A cross-sector approach to improving youth mental health was essential, Crawshaw said.
Programmes to reduce child abuse, family violence and helping "vulnerable families" were just as important as health initiatives, he said.
The Government was spending about $5 million on suicide prevention strategies each year, he said. The funding was announced in 2013 and included education schemes for targeted communities to learn about suicide prevention and mental health.
0800 WHATSUP children's helpline - phone 0800 9428 787 between 1pm and 10pm on weekdays and from 3pm to 10pm on weekends. Online chat is available from 7pm to 10pm every day.
Kidsline (open 24/7) - 0800 543 754. This service is for children aged 5 to 18. Those who ring between 4pm and 9pm on weekdays will speak to a Kidsline buddy. These are specially trained teenage telephone counsellors.
Your local Rural Support Trust - 0800 787 254 (0800 RURAL HELP)
Alcohol Drug Helpline (open 24/7) - 0800 787 797. You can also text 8691 for free.
For further information, contact the Mental Health Foundation's free Resource and Information Service (09 623 4812).
Milk Wars Battle On: Farmer’s Raw Milk Versus Big Dairy's Pasteurized May 20 2017 | From:BlacklistedNews
As more and more people wake up to health there is an increasing demand for raw milk in recognition of its nutritional benefit. It is nutritionally superior to pasteurized milk. However, our freedom to choose raw milk is seriously under threat. The CDC and the FDA are imposing their oppressive views.
To consolidate and favour Big Dairy’s current monopoly of the industry through pasteurized milk sales, the CDC have been using unjust fear-mongering tactics based on questionable claims to quash raw milk interests.
Sadly, this has been quite successful. Through shady science the CDC asserts that raw dairy products including milk and cheese have caused significant numbers of microbial infections leading to illnesses and hospitalizations.
In retrospect, this is the basis for the war on dairy farmers: Governmental authorities are attempting to prevent the unregulated selling of raw milk directly to consumers because the food is deemed ‘unfit for consumption.’ Indeed, this threatens the livelihood of the dairy farmers.
But the shady science supporting the CDC’s so-called ‘unfit for consumption’ claims due to illnesses and hospitalizations is to put it mildly a long way from exacting:
The claimed microbial infections and hospitalizations taken from various U.S public outbreak data only had small numbers and were merely used as estimates. In the report, the CDC stated that on average, 760 illnesses and 22 hospitalizations in a year were due to dairy consumption. Of these cases, the CDC claimed that 96% were due to raw milk contamination.
In the report the CDC said that the lessening of regulatory procedures had allowed easier access to raw (unpasteurized) milk and the illnesses and hospitalizations will further increase. –This is merely an assumption, but it may well serve as cannon fodder to ‘justify’ tight government regulations used to quash raw milk sales, favouring Big Dairy.
The study claims that the microbes’ campylobacter, E. coli (Escherichia coli), listeria and salmonella were the causes of the infections. Of these microbes, the bacteria campylobacter is now the number one cause of airborne food infection outbreak, overtaking salmonella.
However, campylobacter is normally associated with infections from animals fed in overcrowded farming environments, as in the case of those reared by mega-corporations: Mass-produced poultry is a good example. The contaminated poultry spreads its infection when consumed in the undercooked or raw state. It can also cross-contaminate other foods or utensils.
So why single out raw dairy foods produced by small-time farmers who don’t keep their animals in unnatural overcrowded environments?
There is far less susceptibility to infection and illness from small farms, such as those producing organic raw dairy.
Further, ALL foods when sampled at random can sometimes test positive for bad bugs. In line with the governmental authorities’ absurd flawed logic, not just raw milk, why not vilify and ban all foods?!
Pasteurized Versus Raw
Mega-food corporations are under pressure to come up with large produce volumes for profitability. However, the larger the food production, the greater the risk of outbreak infection: So extra-precautionary measures are needed to prevent infection.
In the case of Big Dairy, for efficiency, farmers are obligated to treat their herds with an artificial hormone-based drug used for growing herds and increasing milk production.
Other chemicals are also used, such as antibiotics, which also find their way into the milk. Thus, milk consumers may find themselves developing illnesses such as allergies from the transferred chemicals…
Because the milk is pasteurized to reduce the risk of contamination and preserve the product longer than unpasteurized, enabling it to travel greater distances over time for sales, the nutrition value becomes greatly compromised. For instance, vitamins and enzymes present in the pasteurized milk get destroyed…
Don’t get fooled, this milk is not the highly nutritious and healthy product it has been made out to be. For more on this go, here.
Chemical-free raw milk tastes nicer than the pasteurized option. It is healthier, having superior nutrition because unlike pasteurized milk, its vitamins and enzymes are intact, among other qualities.
Having said that, even when it’s raw, the truth of the matter is that all dairy, including milk, shouldn’t be recommended to everyone. A number of people develop allergies from its proteins. If you’re a diabetic then it would make your insulin resistance even worse as it contains lactose sugar…
However, many healthy people do benefit. With a number a hitting-the-nail-on-the-head points, this video nicely summarizes the comparisons:
Benefits of Raw Milk
Food Freedom and Our Right to Chose
Pasteurized or raw milk, above all, we should have the basic right to chose what we want and where it comes from. Taking a stand on the right to chose to consume raw milk represents a larger picture.
It represents a stand for food freedom. No governmental agency tied to corporate cronies having moneyed interest should ever be allowed to tell you what you should eat or drink.
If the FDA is allowed to get away with banning raw milk on the false pretence that it’s ‘unfit for consumption,’ where will they go next? Will they somehow go on to ban all local or organic farm foods? Will we have no choice other than to eat nutrient-nuked, pasteurized, toxic irradiated or genetically engineered, chemical-laden foods..?
It is greatly encouraged that you get active in the fight for food freedom. For educating yourself, how to take part in the stand for food freedom and where to get good quality raw milk and some useful tips, here are a few highly recommended websites:
So many of the factors that are negatively influencing public heath could easily be prevented or removed from society, yet the decisions of the ruling class continue to ensure that our food supply is toxic, that our environment is compromised, and that our exposure to chemicals and industrial waste is total. Why?
With the stroke of a pen carcinogenic poisons like Monsanto’s Roundup could be banned. Industrial disasters like Fukushima or the Deepwater Horizon could easily get the attention they deserve from world powers, but the will to intervene on behalf of human and environmental health is zero, while the will to intervene militarily in corporate and political affairs is guaranteed.
People are suffering more than ever from a host of chronic conditions and illnesses that can wreck even the healthiest and strongest of us. To be sick is the new normal, and to be healthy is outstanding and unusual.
Concerned citizens are battling grass roots struggles on all fronts, yet, at the top levels of society the corruption, gross negligence, and seeming incompetence continue unabated, ensuring that important decisions always favor the health of corporations and special interests.
With such obvious disregard for life, it would be naive to presume that our national and global leadership have our best interests at heart, and also to assume that any of this could be accidental.
And when we look at comments and statements from some of the world’s most influential people, a dark philosophy is uncovered, and a shocking agenda to depopulate planet earth is revealed. See for yourself:
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
– Bill Gates
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”
– Jacques Coustea
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
– Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder
“This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.”
– Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka
“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”
Make what you will out of these statements, but the fact remains that globally, human health and the environment are in critical condition and there is no sign of relief in sight.
Couple this with the fact that many of the world’s elite do publicly fantasize of culling the human population, and the realization is harsh: we are targets.
Our world simply does not have to be poisoned with chemtrails, radiation leaks, GMO’s, electro-magnetic pollution, frack wells, fluoride, mercury, vaccine adjuvants, depleted uranium, oil spills, antibiotics, endocrine disrupting chemicals, toxic food additives, agro-chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and so much more.
The aggregated, generations long effect of such total contamination is the explosion of a host of bizarre and life-altering illnesses and ‘conditions,’ that chronically sap our energy and vitality, slowly debilitating us, separating us from our power and putting us into the doctor’s office.
The following 11 common symptoms are signs that the global depopulation slow kill is in play and is effective, and that within a couple of generations the human race will no nothing of health, wellness and vitality.
1. Gut and Digestive Issues
The primary attack on the body’s immune system takes place in the digestive system where the body’s natural bacterial defenses live.
Chronic poor digestion, leaky gut syndrome, gastritis, colitis, inflammatory bowel syndrome, candida overgrowth, food sensitivities and other serious issues are become increasingly common, resulting from the consumption of denatured foods laden with chemicals and sugars, GMO poisoning and so on.
Roundup herbicide is known to kill healthy bacteria in the body after being ingested in only residual amounts. Antibiotic overuse and contamination in the water supply means that building a health but biome is nearly impossible.
2. Chronic Fatigue and Low Energy
The body’s natural store of energy is the first thing to become depleted when the body and mind are over-exposed to pollution and stress. The persistent exposure to toxic foods, poisoned spaces, electromagnetic radiation, psychological attacks, continually forces the body and psyche to be in a state of crisis.
The regular amount of energy needed to perform the ordinary rigors of life is not available, and as a result we become chronically tired, low-energy, lethargic and generally slowed down.
Even when we balance diet, exercise and meditation, maintaining personal energy is difficult, so many people are having to constantly dose themselves with caffeine and so-called energy drinks just to accomplish an ordinary day.
3. Dietary Diseases Like Obesity And Diabetes
Dietary illnesses such as the sweeping obesity and diabetes epidemics are a sign that the soft kill is greatly impacting public health. Public relations and social engineering have changed the public’s understanding of what food actually is, and as our consumption of crap corporate foods increases, so do our wastelines and our chances for getting getting chronic disease like diabetes.
Of course, both of these conditions are entirely curable with a proper diet, but in a country where raw milk is illegal, the truth about food and health is rarely spoken in the mainstream.
The maintenance of chronic illness is very profitable for the medical establishment, and obesity is a gateway to many chronic and life-threatening illnesses.
4. Disorientation and Brain Fog
Many people these days suffer from spells of disorientation and fogginess of the mind, without any clear cause or reason as to the mind should be functioning so poorly. Brain fog is a difficult to identify chronic condition where a person feels disconnected, confused and distant, almost an illness of consciousness.
A spell can last for a day, or it can last for years, often persisting until a person finally isolates the primary cause. Candida overgrowth, a condition where negative bacteria is being over-produced within the body, is the result of poor diet and a compromised gut biome, and is thought to cause disorientation and brain fog.
5. Chronic Inflammation
Chronic inflammation is part of a biological response to harmful stimuli and is increasingly being recognized as a serious silent killer because of the health problems it trigger.
The purpose of inflammation is to rid the body of any causes of damage or injury and to initiate repair. It is a defense mechanism that being constantly activated primarily consuming by inflammatory foods.
Modern wheat is an example of a food that has been so genetically altered that it now no longer provides nutrition, but rather instead irritates the tissues of the body, causing chronic inflammation, leading to bigger health problems.
People suffer more seriously from seasonal and random allergy attacks than ever before, and some attacks can be severe enough to temporarily disable a person. Everyone is watching pollen counts on the nightly news, but allergies simply weren’t this serious a generation ago.
Something has changed in the body and in the environment, and with the omnipresence of chemtrails and geo-engineering projects in the sky, suspicion that the respiratory system is being attacked is warranted.
Autism in children is rising frighteningly and without a precise indication of exactly what is causing it, we should be dramatically erring on the side of caution. It could be environmental, it could be vaccines, GMO’s, or household chemicals, but something is taking our children. Will autism rates have to get to one-in-two before a Manhattan Project like effort is initiated to end this?
It is predicted that soon at least 1 in 3 adults will have some form of cancer, which, as we know, has become a booming industry.
Alternative cures, treatments and therapies are targeted for extermination by the state, and the sick are corralled into risky, expensive treatments that fail to address the root causes of cancer and promote healthier living.
9 . Morgellon’s
This strange and scary disease appears to be an infection of sorts by some still unknown type of organic material. Manifesting as tiny living threads or worms that surface at the skin, irritating the patient, it is believed that no Morgellon’s patient has ever been able to undergo an autopsy due to an attempted global cover up.
With no clear answers available from science, many point to geo-engineering and chemtrail spraying as the source.
10. Dental Fluorosis
The public fluoridation of water in the US and other nations is medication without consent and without controlling dosages. This is a form of torture. The US government just admitted that Americans are overdosed on fluoride when they lowered the recommended amounts to put in public water supplies.
Fluoride is linked to many health problems including cancer and lowered IQ in children, yet the government still forces into just about everyone. Dental fluorosis is a sign of overexposure to fluoride, and a sign of deliberate poisoning.
11. ‘Chemical Imbalances’
Some will disagree, but mental health issues like ADD/ADHD, anxiety, insomnia, and depression can all be cured with proper diet, exercise and supplementation. In fact, these conditions are fairly new to the human population, and are on the rise, or at least diagnoses are on the rise.
Of course the medical establishment benefits greatly from having more and more patients consuming drugs to remedy mental health issues.
The soft kill is about distracting you from life, debilitating you, and getting you out of the game and into the pharmacy.
It would take very little to eradicate so much of the toxicity from our modern world, but the initiative of the ruling elite is to destroy, contaminate and compromise all that which is most fundamental to life on planet earth. A deliberate soft kill.
Is this an accident, or the global depopulation soft kill strategy working effectively for the world’s elite? What do you think?
Fluoride Officially Classified As A Neurotoxin In World’s Top Medical Journals & Former EPA Senior Scientist Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ May 17 2017 | From: HealingLifeIsNatural / WakingTimes
Ostensibly, the purpose of adding the fluoride to public drinking water supplies is to improve dental health in the community, yet even the U.S. Government had to modify this claim by lowering the national fluoride levels in 2015, citing increases in dental fluorosis.
In 2012, a major Harvard study found that public water fluoridation poses a risk to the developing intelligence of children, essentially lowering the IQ of those in communities with public water fluoridation. This study invigorated the public debate on this issue, yet, fluoridation continues, despite the known risks, and all the while, scientific evidence continues mounts in the case against fluoride.
"The information now available supports a reasonable conclusion that exposure of the developing brain to fluoride should be minimized, and that economic losses associated with lower IQ’s may be quite large. ”
The research team involved in the study was headed by William Hirzy, PhD, a former US EPA senior scientist who specialized in risk assessment. He offers the following explanation of the significance of this particular study:
"The significance of this peer reviewed risk analysis is that it indicates there may be no actual safe level of exposure to fluoride.
Groups of children with lower exposures to fluoride were compared with groups having higher exposures. Those with higher exposures performed more poorly on IQ tests than those with lower exposures.
Applying two different, standard risk analysis techniques used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to published data on the impact of fluoride exposure in children shows that daily intakes in excess of about 0.05 mg of fluoride may result in depressed intellectual capability. This calculation involved using safety factors designed to protect the most vulnerable child.
One well-conducted Chinese study indicated that children exposed to 1.4 mg/day had their IQ lowered by 5 IQ points. Current average mean daily intakes among children in the United States are estimated by EPA to range from about 0.80 mg/day to 1.65 mg/day.
Fluoride may be similar to lead and mercury in having no threshold below which exposures may be considered safe.”
The study can be read in its entirety, here, and is worth sharing with anyone still on the fence about the so-called benefits of fluoridated drinking water.
Water fluoridation is medication without consent, yet people tolerate this abuse from government in many parts of the world without a full understanding of the negative effects of fluoride toxicity. The struggle to stop public water fluoridation is winnable at the community level, though, and every year, the grassroots movement against it grows.
Former EPA Senior Scientist Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ
Evidence of how negatively fluoride can impact our health has been increasing in rapid pace throughout the past few years. People are hoping that by bringing awareness to this that somehow we can get sodium fluoride removed from the world’s water supply.
A big step has been made here recently. In the most prestigious medical journal. One known as The Lancet. fluoride has been at last classified as a neurotoxin one hundred percent. This puts it in the same category as things like lead, arsenic, and mercury.
This news was released by the author Stefan Smyle who actually cited a report that had been published in The Lancet Neurology, Volume 13, Issue 3 to be exact in the March of 2014 edition. In this, the authors stated that many more of these neurotoxins remain undiscovered throughout the world.
They noted that many children are now being affected by neurodevelopmental disabilities caused by these neurotoxins. These authors have found that while fluoride in our water supplies is a major cause and issue there is another major cause as well, fluoride can actually also be found in heavily processed brands of tea that are grown in most likely overly polluted areas.
Sodium Fluoride is what is added to our water - a toxic insecticide
These authors have found that while fluoride in our water supplies is a major cause and issue there is another major cause as well, fluoride can actually also be found in heavily processed brands of tea that are grown in most likely overly polluted areas.
Most parents have been avoiding fluoridated toothpaste altogether and are jumping on the natural bandwagon in order to help ensure their families safety. A good natural go-to brand is known as Earthpaste for those who may not be aware of it. If you want to get away from fluoridated toothpaste I suggest using it or making your own. I will include a video at the end on how to make natural fluoride free toothpaste.
Fluoride is added to our water supply throughout North America but in most other countries fluoride is banned. Why is this? Because fluoride is extremely dangerous for our health. Fluoride in our drinking water has been linked to many different kinds of cancer. If you haven’t already filtering out the fluoride in your water is a must if you want to help yourself and your family stay healthy.
How To Make Your Own Natural Fluoride Free Toothpaste
Empathy Is Killed By Popular Painkiller Found In 600 Different Drugs May 16 2017 | From: Spring
Acetaminophen - commonly known as Tylenol in the US and paracetamol elsewhere - reduces people’s empathy for the pain of others, new research finds.
Acetaminophen is an ingredient in over 600 different medications, including being the main constituent of Tylenol.
"We don’t know why acetaminophen is having these effects, but it is concerning. Empathy is important.
If you are having an argument with your spouse and you just took acetaminophen, this research suggests you might be less understanding of what you did to hurt your spouse’s feelings.”
The research was carried out on 80 college students. Half were given a dose of 1,000mg of acetaminophen and the other half a placebo. They then read a series of stories about people who had been hurt and were asked to rate their pain.
The results showed that those who had taken the acetaminophen consistently gave lower pain ratings for the people in the story. The researchers carried out a couple of other variations to test people’s’ empathy for physical and social pain.
Dr Way explained the results of the experiment on social pain:
"In this case, the participants had the chance to empathize with the suffering of someone who they thought was going through a socially painful experience.
Still, those who took acetaminophen showed a reduction in empathy. They weren’t as concerned about the rejected person’s hurt feelings.”
The researchers are now moving on to ibuprofen to see if the findings are the same. The study was published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (Mischkowski et al., 2016).
The Body Is Not A Computer, So Stop Thinking Of It As One May 15 2017 | From: Gizmodo
When former DARPA chief Regina Dugan announced on stage last month that Facebook planned to build a brain computer interface to allow users to send their thoughts directly to the social network without a keyboard intermediary, it had all the Silicon Valley swagger of Facebook circa "move fast and break things".
With the same audacity with which any other Facebook product might be announced, Dugan explained that the company hopes to have this revolutionary brain-hack ready to ship "within a few years".
It's an admirable goal, but there's a problem. The body is not a computer. It cannot be hacked, rewired, engineered or upgraded like one, and certainly not at the ruthless pace of a Silicon Valley startup.
Over the past decade, science has made some notable progress in using technology to defy the limits of the human form, from mind-controlled prosthetic limbs to a growing body of research indicating we may one day be able to slow the process of ageing. Our bodies are the next big candidate for technological optimisation, so it's no wonder that tech industry bigwigs have recently begun expressing interest in them. A lot of interest.
Facebook's announcement that it plans to build a brain-computer interface that types at 100 words-per-minute came on the heels of Tesla-founder Elon Musk's announcement that he was forming a new venture, Neuralink, to develop a brain implant capable of telepathy, among other things.
Take the most computational part of the body, the brain. Our brains do not "store" memories as computers do, simply calling up a desired piece of information from a memory bank. If they did, you'd be able to effortlessly remember what you had for lunch yesterday, or exactly the way your high school boyfriend smiled.
Nor do our brains process information like a computer. Our grey matter doesn't actually have wires that you can simply plug-and-play to overwrite depression a la Eternal Sunshine.
The body, too, is more than just a well-oiled piece of machinery. We have yet to identify a single biological mechanism for ageing or fitness that any pill or diet can simply "hack". Research into some of these things is underway, but so far much of what it has uncovered is that the body and brain are incredibly complex.
Scientists do hope, for example, that one day brain computer interfaces might help alleviate severe cases of mental illnesses like depression, and DARPA is currently funding a $US65 million ($88 million) research effort aimed at using implanted electrodes to tackle some of the trickiest mental illnesses.
After decades of research, it's still unclear which areas of the brain even make the most sense to target for each illness.
But as Silicon Valley has begun to dip its toes in the realm of biology, it has brought along its hacker ethos. All you need to achieve ambitious feats of technological innovation are a few all-night hackathons, right?
Within a mere two years, Facebook thinks it will know whether its plan to send 100-word-per-minute status updates from our brains to our screens is possible. The current record for typing with a brain-computer interface, by the way, is somewhere around eight words-per-minute with an implant placed inside the brain.
And Musk, famous for taking on seemingly impossible moonshots with no clear deadline, said he imagines Neuralink's brain-computer interface making its debut within a decade. This is despite the fact that the brain-reading technology it relies upon is, at this point, little more than a fanciful blueprint.
The technology available today can only measure a fraction of the neural activity necessary to link someone's entire brain to a computer, or allow them to communicate with another person without speaking.
In 2009, University of Wisconsin-Madison biomedical engineer Justin Williams oversaw an effort that successfully used a brain-computer interface to send messages from the brain to Twitter.
"Ten years later have we gotten much further? I'm not sure."
"It was both a small and a big step," he told Gizmodo. "Ten years later have we gotten much further? I'm not sure."
Something like an email or a Facebook post, he noted, is infinitely more complicated than a 140-character, text-only tweet.
Just last spring, for the first time a man was able to not only control a prosthetic arm with his mind, but "feel" the arm move, too. That, however, is still a long way off from understanding all the brain's 100 billion neurons and their 100 trillion interconnections, then developing technology good enough to connect every single one of them to a machine. The issue isn't in the technology - it's in the approach to it.
"Twitter is about as simple as you can get," he said. "Sending an email sounds easy, but take a minute to think about all the processes that are involved - filling out the subject, the address field, the body. From a biological and technological standpoint, that's really complicated. There are a lot of moving parts."
Startups like Nootrobox and Halo Neuroscience claim that they are already delivering consumer-ready products to make us smarter, faster and stronger. But with so much of this science still so uncertain, it's hard to either prove or disprove their claims.
The complexity of human biology means that this research doesn't always move at the pace of Moore's Law, and yet when the tech industry approaches these problems, said Williams, "there is a get-it-done kind of attitude that's pretty pervasive."
Over time, as technology has changed, so have the metaphors, but the gist is the same: The body is but a fancy machine.
Conflating machines with the body is a very old human habit. In the 1500s, automata powered by springs and gears led thinkers like René Descartes to suggest that humans are simply complex machines.
In the 1800s, German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz compared the brain to a telegraph. In his 1958 book The Computer and the Brain, the mathematician John von Neumann stated explicitly that the human nervous system is "prima facie digital".
Over time, as technology has changed, so have the metaphors, but the gist is the same: The body is but a fancy machine.
This mode of thinking has spawned a philosophical doctrine, generous research funding, and misleading jargon in both the realms of biology and computing (see the brain's "circuits" or deep learning's "neural networks", which have more in common with classical computational models than anything neurobiological).
But this point of view becomes especially troubling when the realms of biology and computing merge. We risk starting to treat the human body - in all its complexity, fragility, resilience and mystery - like the machines we compare it to.
We risk over-promising on the deliverables, wasting time, money and public patience on far-out research we suggest we can hack together in a few years. And we risk compromising our health and well-being in the process.
Both Facebook and Neuralink have hired top scientific minds to tackle their respective projects. Facebook hired Dugan, and has partnered with UC Berkeley, Johns Hopkins Medicine and other leading academic research institutions. Likewise, Neuralink has brought on high-profile academic researchers.
A flush of Silicon Valley funding into basic research at a time when funding is scarce could very well wind up doing more for scientific progress than every NIH grant combined.
At the same time, many scientists are sceptical that the "move fast and break things" approach will work very well when applied to us. After all, we are living, breathing organisms, not inanimate machines. That's something we should try to remember.
New Leaks Reveals How Facebook Targets Emotionally Vulnerable Youth May 13 2017 | From: MintPressNews
The secret document was put together by two Australian Facebook execs and includes information about when young people are likely to feel excited, reflective, as well as other emotions related to overcoming fears.
Facebook has come under fire over revelations it is targeting potentially vulnerable youths who “need a confidence boost” to facilitate predatory advertising practices.
The allegation was revealed by The Australian which obtained internal documents from the social media giant which reportedly show how Facebook can exploit the moods and insecurities of teenagers using the platform for the potential benefit of advertisers.
The confidential document dated this year detailed how by monitoring posts, comments and interactions on the site, Facebook can figure out when people as young as 14 feel “defeated”, “overwhelmed”, “stressed”, “anxious”, “nervous”, “stupid”, “silly”, “useless”, and a “failure”.
Such information gathered through a system dubbed sentiment analysis could be used by advertisers to target young Facebook users when they are potentially more vulnerable.
But Facebook is not one to rest on its laurels. The leaked document shows it has been honing the covert tools its uses to gain useful psychological insights on young Australian and New Zealanders in high school and tertiary education.
The social media services we use can derive immense insight and personal information about us and our moods from the way we use them, and arguably none is more fastidious in that regard than Facebook which harvests immense data on its users.
The secret document was put together by two Australian Facebook execs and includes information about when young people are likely to feel excited, reflective, as well as other emotions related to overcoming fears.
"Monday-Thursday is about building confidence; the weekend is for broadcasting achievements,” the document said, according to the report.
Facebook did not return attempts by news.com.au to comment on the issue but was quick to issue an apology and told The Australian that it will conduct an investigation into the matter, admitting it was inappropriate to target young children in such a way.
The data on which this research is based was aggregated and presented consistent with applicable privacy and legal protections, including the removal of any personally identifiable information,” Facebook said in a statement issued to the newspaper.
However, there is a suggestion that the research could be in breach of Australian guidelines for advertising and marketing towards children.
Many commentators have suspected Facebook engaged in this sort of cynical exploitation of the data it gathers but the leaked document is scarce proof.
Mark Zuckerberg’s company has not been shy about exploring ways it can manipulate the data it collects on users.
For one week in 2012, Facebook ran an experiment on some of its users in which it altered the algorithms it used to determine which status updates appeared in the news feed of nearly 700,000 randomly selected users based on the post’s emotional content.
Posts were determined to be either negative or positive and Facebook wanted to see if it could make the selected group sad by showing them more negative posts in their feed. It deemed it could.
The results were published in a scientific journal but Facebook was criticized by those concerned about the potential of the company to engage in social engineering for commercial benefit.
Facebook’s Data Use Policy warns users that the company “may use the information we receive about you … for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.”
Currently information about your relationship status, location, age, the number of friends and the manner and frequency with which you access the site is sold to advertisers. But according to the report, Facebook is also seeking to sell ads to users concerned with insights gleaned from posts such as those concerned with body confidence and losing weight.
Leaked: Facebook Targeted Insecure Children & Vulnerable Trendies
People within Facebook have leaked information that exposes how the social media giant uses its power to weaponize useless idiots.
Famous Medical-Journal Editor Torpedoes Medical Journal + Why Isn’t There A Medical Edward Snowden? May 6 2017 | From: JonRappoport / Various “There is a system designed to affect every human on the planet, from cradle to grave. For each person, I’m talking about 30 or 40 diagnoses of physical and mental conditions, many of which are false; and treatment with toxic chemicals that progressively debilitate, confuse, weaken, and destroy health and life. What would you call this system? Who would you blame?” - The Underground, Jon Rappoport
Her name is Dr. Marcia Angell. During her 20 years of work, she looked at, perused, and analyzed more medical studies than all mainstream science bloggers in the world put together.
You want to listen to an actual pro? Listen to her. Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, in the NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.
I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
Before you count Dr. Angell as a hero, consider this: why didn’t she blow the whistle loud and clear while she was editing The New England Journal? Why didn’t she burn her own Journal down to the ground? After all, she was publishing studies of clinical trials of new drugs, and those fake studies were praising the drugs as safe and effective.
And therefore, The New England Journal was aiding and abetting a crime - unleashing dangerous and ineffective drugs on the public. Her Journal was responsible for that.
Yes, the dreaded R word. Responsibility. In many circles these days, it’s not a popular term.
Take drug companies, for example. As I wrote in a recent piece, when lawsuits are launched against these companies for making drugs that kill and maim, the standard defense is:
“Don’t blame us. The FDA approved our medicine as safe and effective. We’re off the hook. We’ve discharged our responsibility.”
Really? Who created the drug in the first place? Who did the clinical trials? Who sells the drug?
There’s an either-or situation here. It needs to be exposed. It goes this way: Either the pharmaceutical company or the FDA is responsible for people dying. You can’t accuse both. Pick one.
That’s a fool’s game. Both entities are responsible; the company that created the drug and the FDA who approved it and certified it as safe and effective. (And the medical journals that published the crooked studies of clinical trials are also responsible.)
The FDA seal of approval doesn’t automatically exonerate the company. “Well, the government said our company’s drug was fine.” So what? Since when does the government have the last word?
Would you say the US military-industrial complex is solely the responsibility of the government, and the defense contractors play no role in launching endless wars? That would be naïve to the extreme.
As my readers know, because I’ve cited the key review dozens of times, pharmaceutical drugs kill 106,000 Americans every year. That’s a conservative mainstream estimate. (See Dr. Barbara Starfield, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”)
All those drugs are approved as safe and effective by the FDA. They’re also created, developed, tested, and sold by drug companies. Anyone with a shred of understanding of RESPONSIBILITY would correctly point to the FDA AND the drug companies. (And medical journals.)
Therefore, a company arguing in court that they’re off the hook for killing people with their drugs, because the FDA approved them, is evading responsibility and trying to shift it to the government. And an honest judge and a reasonably intelligent jury would recognize that in a minute.
From the drug company’s point of view, there is a game going on. The company is doing whatever it can to please and satisfy the FDA, and if it can, then it can walk away without shouldering blame.
Obscuring one’s own responsibility is one of the major industries in any nation you care to examine. The numbers of people involved, the amount of money, the time, energy - this is a field of endeavor that expands every year.
A simple law would go a long way toward righting the ship:
“A government certification of a product does not exempt the creator, developer, and seller of the product from facing legal action in criminal and civil court.”
From the street thug, to the highest corporate boardroom, to professional academic fabricators, the theme is the same: “It wasn’t me.” Oh yes it was. And is.
Let’s break down the word-origin of “responsible.” “Respond” comes from the Latin. “Re”=“again.” “Spondere”=“to pledge.” This construction eventually morphed into: pledging again for one’s actions, standing behind one’s actions, re-affirming one’s actions. And finally, “responsible” also means “legally accountable.”
As opposed to attributing the cause of one’s action to someone else.
“I defend my actions by claiming: ‘it wasn’t me’, someone else was in charge, someone else decided my actions were correct.” No. Not even close.
Of course, the US Dept. of Justice isn’t interested in any of these matters. If they were, they would be arresting drug company executives and researchers, FDA executives and drug-reviewers, and medical-journal editors who permit the publication of obviously fake studies of new drugs.
Understand: When you have medical drugs killing 106,000 Americans a year, this necessarily implies that published studies of clinical trials of those drugs - studies that praise those drugs as safe and effective - are a rank fraud.
Medical journals, the FDA, drug companies (and doctors) - a club. And each member of the club is responsible. Accountable. Culpable.
The next time a doctor, or some “science blogger” who loves mainstream published studies, sounds off about “real science,” show them this piece. And if they say that Dr. Marcia Angell is just one medical-journal editor, point them to the following:
Richard Horton (another pro’s pro), editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”:
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…
The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours.
Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale... Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”
Two famous editors (Angell and Horton) of two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world torpedo their own corrupt practices.
And if that isn’t enough to put a dent in some potato-head, conventional, medical devotee, then just keep going with this, by the same Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet (from the same piece I just quoted:
Horton makes reference to a recent symposium he attended at the Wellcome Trust in London. The subject of the meeting was the reliability of published biomedical research. His following quote carries additional force because he and other attendees were told to obey Chatham House rules - meaning no one would reveal who made any given comment during the conference.
‘A lot of what is published is incorrect.’ I’m not allowed to say who made this remark [at the conference] because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides.
Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in ‘purdah’ - a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll.
Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium - on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week - touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations [biomedical science]”.
Conventional science bloggers, take notice. You’re working in a field where studies supporting the general consensus are tainted and stained.
Starting sentences with “the FDA approves” or “the CDC confirms” or “a study published in The New England Journal established” isn’t a ticket to the truth. Far from it.
You’re wading in a stench-ridden swamp, and you don’t know it; or you do know it and you don’t care, because you want to be part of the club; or someone is paying you to make absurd assertions. One way or another, you’re doomed if you follow the party line.
This is a much different landscape than you think it is. It’s a wholesale fabrication of what looks, sounds, smells, tastes, and feels like truth. But it isn’t. It’s a lying cartoon.
And it has vicious consequences for the health of the millions of people.
Why Isn’t There A Medical Edward Snowden?
The US press is aware that medically caused death is the third leading cause of death in America. But nothing happens in their elite corner of the “information age.”
For years, I’ve been pointing out that the medical apparatus is best-protected structure in the US and the world.
One piece of evidence for that statement: we haven’t had, symbolically speaking, a medical Edward Snowden. Indeed, if you go to WikiLeaks or some other source that routinely exposes leaks, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything substantial about the inner workings of what I call the medical cartel.
And when I say inner workings, I mean memos, emails, and other documents that irrevocably reveal:
How medical studies are routinely twisted and cooked to achieve a predetermined outcome in contradiction to the facts;
How virus-hunters casually claim to have discovered “the virus” that causes a disease, when they have not followed standard procedure, and are merely making insupportable and self-serving assumptions;
How researchers ignore evidence that a “new disease” is indistinguishable from an old disease that has been on the scene for decades or even longer; there is money in new diseases;
How medical drugs are having grave toxic effects on patients and delivering no visible results;
How government health officials are conspiring with drug companies to bring medicines to market, despite the fact that there is every reason to assume the drugs are worthless and destructive;
How public health agencies, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies cover up the widespread harm vaccines are causing;
How fake epidemics are launched to convince the public that they must follow prescribed vaccination schedules.
These are just a few of the many issues we would expect an insider to expose in blowing the whistle. We would expect to see these issues (crimes) revealed in numerous and detailed and irrefutable paper trails.
What the CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, exposed in 2014 (see the film Vaxxed) mainly concerned one study that falsely exonerated one vaccine (the MMR) from a role in causing autism. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Over the years, I’ve gone after the medical cartel from many angles. There is a surprising amount of open-source material.
I have also interviewed medical “dissidents,” doctors who have left the fold and are ready to talk. And using straightforward logic, I’ve discovered deep flaws in spurious medical arguments, and those flaws have led to deeper flaws and lies.
I could easily do a week-long course for honest and independent medical reporters on what I’ve found and how I’ve found it.
Connecting the dots often requires a prior knowledge of basic fallacies in the medical framework of “knowledge.”
I have never encountered a medical insider who had access to miles and miles of damning data and was prepared to release it to the world.
Understand: I’m NOT talking about practicing physicians who are willing to talk about medical lies. I’m talking about people who are buried deep in the heart of the pharmaceutical/government agency/research establishment, who are ready to step forward with documents that turn the establishment upside down, as a matter of duty to their various oaths.
This absence of deep insiders speaks to the wall that has been built around the medical cartel. We’re not just talking about insiders’ fear of going public. We’re talking about more. For example, the refusal of major media to cover deep revelations that threaten to torpedo the whole medical structure.
A potential whistleblower pauses for thought in the face of that. He could risk everything, and then - silence from the press.
No “Snowden coverage.” There would be unanimous press attacks on his person, accusations that the documents are forged or inconclusive, and he is mentally unbalanced. Accusations that he is preventing people from believing in a system that saves lives every day. And so on and so forth.
But that isn’t the end of it. The wall around the medical cartel is, in its origin, a Rockefeller wall. Modern medicine is a Rockefeller production, jump-started in the early 20th century with the famous Flexner Report.
On the basis of the Report, medical systems devoted to discovering and treating disease were gradually transformed into a machine that routinely kills 225,000 Americans a year - and that is a conservative estimate.
Rockefeller influence is no small thing.
The march to include every human on the planet under the umbrella of modern diagnosis and treatment is relentless. It is part and parcel of an agenda to weaken, debilitate, confuse, control, and destroy populations. I do not make that statement lightly.
I have shown, in past investigations, that medical-cartel players are surely aware of the damaging effects of their drugs, and yet, for decades, they have stood by and done nothing.
The profit motive is one thing; but this is, at the least, indifference to human suffering and death. You could call it reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, but these are euphemisms for assault with deadly weapons (the drugs) and murder.
You could say the reason medical insiders do not step forward and reveal key data is fear for their own lives; but this is true of whistleblowers in other professions who do step forward.
Suppose Edward Snowden, considering a plan to obtain and leak NSA data, felt strongly that the leaks would have no effect, that his revelations would be blacked out by the mainstream press, that no mainstream reporters would take his material and publish it?
Suppose there was no Glenn Greenwald to come to Snowden’s aid? Suppose the NSA had such a powerful propaganda arm that the public was utterly convinced the Agency was an angel with wings and was saving countless lives through its technology?
Suppose, the public believed every act of NSA spying was comparable to doctors in an emergency room putting an accident victim back together after a car crash?
Snowden would have paused for thought. He would have wondered deeply about whether his leaks would have any effect at all.
Let me give you an example. For years, I have been writing articles about medically caused death in America. One of the key studies I’ve cited is decidedly mainstream. It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered and honored public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Starfield concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.
That would extrapolate to 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.
Aside from a brief flurry of mainstream press articles that followed Dr. Starfield’s publication, in 2000, the press has been silent. My articles, which have been published at my site and other independent sites, have garnered no mainstream attention. Zero.
I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out the degree of mainstream censorship. The medical cartel has great influence.
A medical Edward Snowden, observing the media landscape, would have every reason to pause and consider his options. Why would he risk his reputation, his job, his paycheck, his future, his life, if the cartel he is exposing is so well protected that nothing would come of his bravery?
This is one reason why I write articles about the expanding power and influence of independent media. The day may come, and soon, when a medical Edward Snowden realizes he doesn’t have to find an editor at the New York Times who will look at his treasure trove of data and consider publishing it.
Instead, he can pass along that data to any one of a hundred independent media operations and strike gold.
Or he can simply dump all the data on to a site he himself has created, comfortable in the knowledge that these same independent media sources will pick up the data, analyze it, and launch an unstoppable attack on the medical cartel.
Not one day’s coverage. A month, a year of coverage. Operation Relentless Medical. Then, the blind spot obscuring medical crimes will recede and vanish. The public will no longer feel queasy about these revelations; the public will not feel they are witnessing a despicable attack on a wonderful messiah who has come to save the planet.
Eventually, the public will be able to make the distinction between emergency/crisis medicine, where competent and careful doctors (not sloppy and ignorant doctors) can save the lives of people who are lying on streets, after car wrecks, who need to be put back together - the public will be able to separate that from long-term fake medicine, where people are falsely diagnosed and drowned in toxic drugs which create a whole array of new symptoms which are then criminally diagnosed as new medical conditions, leading to the prescription of even more toxic drugs…all the way to the grave.
The public will understand how unnecessary and dangerous surgeries, and unnecessary and poisonous vaccines, are being foisted on them and those they love.
The public will understand. And will rise up.
This is not a pipe dream, if independent media continue to expand, and if they realize revelations of deep medical crimes are at least as important as exposures about the military industrial complex or the spying systems of national governments, or corporate pollution, or high-level money manipulation.
True medical insiders will step forward and reveal the secrets of the Temple. I assure you, if we are alert, we are far more important and effective than “they” are.
Facebook Is Working On A Smartphone That Can Read Thoughts May 2 2017 | From: VigilantCitizen
Facebook announced that it assembled a team of 60 people to develop a technology allowing users to “think” commands and messages at their smartphones. The system would be able to literally read your mind - constantly. What could go wrong?
The people at Facebook are going down a path that can only be described as post-Orwellian. Not satisfied with the fact that their users willingly share their most intimate information on a daily basis, Facebook is looking to reshape the world and decipher thoughts that haven’t even been verbalized.
In February, Mark Zuckerberg released the “Facebook Manifesto” which, under a thin veil of altruistic vocabulary, hid a dystopian vision of a “connected world” where the flow of information was overseen and propagated using artificial intelligence and elaborated algorithms. But that’s not enough.
On April 19th, the company revealed its most ambitious (and scary) project to date.
Regina Dugan, head of Facebook’s hardware innovation division Building 8, speaks at F8 – the company’s annual developer conference
Facebook has assembled a team of 60 people, including machine learning and neural prosthetics experts, brain-computer interface engineers and neural imaging engineers, to create a “mind reading” smartphone. It’s system would be capable of typing one hundred words per minute – straight from one’s thoughts.
"Facebook plans to develop non-invasive sensors that can measure brain activity hundreds of times per second at high resolution to decode brain signals associated with language in real time. “No such technology exists today; we’ll need to develop one.”
Facebook is looking at using optical imaging – using lasers to capture changes in the properties of neurons as they fire – to glean words straight from our brain before we say them. If these signals can be read, they can be transmitted silently to other people.
If the thought that a company that makes almost all of its money from harvesting your personal data could also have access to your thoughts is scary, that’s because it is.
Dugan attempted to assuage people’s fears by pointing out that Facebook would only decode the words you were going to say anyway. “It’s not about decoding random thoughts,” she said. “We’re talking about decoding the words you’ve already decided to share by sending them to the speech center of your brain.”
- The Guardian, Facebook has 60 people working on how to read your mind
So Facebook is telling people to not be concerned about their thoughts being constantly read by a machine because it would only be able to decode words one was “about to say”. However, the goal of that technology is to read thoughts – without them being said – and to translate them into computer commands.
How can a clear line be drawn between what can and cannot be read in the nebulous realm of human thought? How can we guarantee that this kind of technology won’t be used to actually monitor and control people’s thoughts?
Are there even people willing to give up the sanctuary of their own thoughts for the slight convenience of not moving one’s finger on a touchscreen?
Another reason why Facebook is looking to be able to read brainwaves is to push its augmented reality technology.
"Another reason why Facebook wants to read our brain activity is to develop the equivalent of a “brain mouse” for augmented reality.
She painted a picture of a future where everyone wears augmented reality glasses that supplement our field of vision with additional information such as directions, and enhanced capabilities such as real-time translation of people’s voice or the ability to “mute” specific people and noises from your soundscape.
What’s lacking in this augmented future is a user interface. When we don’t have a smartphone or a computer mouse, how can we select and click on a piece of digital content?
That’s where the brain-computer interface comes in."
Facebook appears to be keen on answering questions nobody ever asked.
Although the technology is presented as a way of “staying connected with the people around us” reducing the need to look at one’s screen – the true goal of this technology is painfully obvious. They want to know what you’re thinking. All the time.
The Spiritual Consequences Of Alcohol Consumption + The Likely Cause Of Addiction Has Been Discovered, And It Is Not What You Think April 29 2017 | From: CostaRicaNews / HuffingtonPost
Although it is mass produced, mass promoted, legal, and ingested by a multitude of people all over the world, most people don’t ever consider or understand the spiritual consequences of drinking alcohol.
Let’s begin by taking a look at the etymology of the Word alcohol. Etymology means the root of the word… where it is derived from.
The word “Alcohol” comes from the Arabic “al-kuhl” which means “BODY EATING SPIRIT”, and gives root origins to the English term for “ghoul”. In Middle Eastern folklore, a “ghoul” is an evil demon thought to eat human bodies, either as stolen corpses or as children.
The words “alembic” and “alcohol”, both metaphors for aqua vitae or “life water” and “spirit”, often refer to a distilled liquid that came from magical explorations in Middle Eastern alchemy. In the words of writer and health enthusiast, Jason Christoff - “In alchemy, alcohol is used to extract the soul essence of an entity.
Hence its’ use in extracting essences for essential oils, and the sterilization of medical instruments.
By consuming alcohol into the body, it in effect extracts the very essence of the soul, allowing the body to be more susceptible to neighboring entities most of which are of low frequencies (why do you think we call certain alcoholic beverages “SPIRITS?”).
That is why people who consume excessive amounts of alcohol often black out, not remembering what happened.
This happens when the good soul (we were sent here with) leaves because the living conditions are too polluted and too traumatic to tolerate.
The good soul jettisons the body, staying connected to a tether, and a dark entity takes the body for a joy ride around the block, often in a hedonistic and self-serving illogical rampage. Our bodies are cars for spirits.
If one leaves, another can take the car for a ride. Essentially when someone goes dark after drinking alcohol or polluting themselves in many other ways, their body often becomes possessed by another entity.”
I became aware of this phenomenon years ago when I was given a spiritual vision. In this vision, I was transported as an observer above a popular bar and nightclub.
Above the venue where a variety of ghoul-like entities. Inside the bar were people drinking alcohol, socializing, dancing, and so on. I watched as certain people became very drunk. I saw their souls, while connected through a thread, exited the body.
I understood that the soul was leaving the body because of the great discomfort of being in a body highly intoxicated with alcohol. When the soul exited the body, other non-benevolent entities entered or latched on to their vacant shells. Once the entities took hold of the body, they used the body to play out all kinds of dark acts, such as violence, low-level sexual encounters, destructive behaviors, rape, and more.
Years later, while reading a book called Mans Eternal Quest, by Paramahansa Yogananda, this spiritual master clearly explained the exact same thing as I was shown in the vision. I began to look back over my life and remember situations where I saw dark spirits hanging around people who had become very drunk.
Let me elaborate a bit when I say I saw these entities; I have had the abilities of clairvoyance (the ability to perceive things beyond the natural range of the senses which can include: ESP, extrasensory perception, sixth sense, psychic powers, second sight; telepathy, and more), clairaudience (the ability to perceive sounds or words from outside sources in the spirit world), and the experience of being a spiritual intuitive and empath since childhood.
I have the ability to see energies and spiritual manifestations that most people don’t see. As I looked back over my life I could remember many incidents of encountering non-benevolent spirits in the presence of intoxicated individuals. I also have had experiences of looking into the eyes of a few people who were surely “possessed” by dark energies that were not their own.
I also remember a psychology course I once took. In part of this course, we studied advertising and the effects on humans. We looked at the advertising for alcohol.
A master teacher of this subject illuminated the fact that most alcohol advertisements are embedded with hidden messages and images – not typically perceivable to the common sight, yet perceived through the subconscious.
Knowing how powerful the subconscious is in our decisión making, feelings, reactions, beliefs, etc., the slick sales teams of alcohol (as well as tobacco and other products) used this sinister technique to trick us into buying their products and joining the societal cult of mental apathy and cultural obedience.
Many of these hidden messages and images were extremely sexual – working to influence some of the basest urges and primal nature of humans.
Let this example bring you to a place of curiosity and questioning. Why have the marketing teams felt the need to trick us and coerce us through subliminal messages to buy products that are harmful to the human body and to our soul?
How many times have you or someone you know, after becoming quite intoxicated with alcohol, behaved in a manner uncommon to them? Perhaps you experienced the changing of voice, violence, sexual promiscuity, ingesting of harmful substances, destruction to property, conflictual behavior, and other negative expressions.
Consider these experiences and ask yourself - is this the manifestation of light, love, and positivity? Do these occurrences represent a path of consciousness and health?
It is a known by many that ingesting alcohol depresses the nervous system, kills brain cells, is toxic to the liver, weakens the immune system, and has many other harmful effects. We are taught that long-term alcohol use can lead to unwanted weight gain, diseases of the liver, lowering of intelligence, and negative effects on hormones.
Drinking alcohol while pregnant can lead to birth defects, mental retardation, and deformities in the developing fetus. Yet still, it is mass promoted and supported by our mainstream culture.
Have you ever considered that alcohol is a slick tool of the supporters of the Matrix (global mind control and oppression program) to keep people on a path of disempowerment and sickness?
We have to ask why is alcohol legal throughout most of the world, yet in many countries, and specifically the United States, psychedelics are illegal.
The conscious and safe use of psychedelics or “visionary medicines”are known to assist in mind expansion, to initiate spiritual experiences where people have communed with the divine, healed numerous physical and spiritual ailments, increase intelligence, help to re-pattern the brain in a positive way, assist people in aligning with their soul’s purpose, and have inspired many people to create great works of art and other innovative creations.
It seems that these substances would definitely be banned and discouraged if there truly is an agenda seeking to oppress the human potential and keep us “in the dark” regarding who we are as spiritual beings, our innate potential, and the path to empowerment.
As we strive to heal, awaken, and transform our world – I pray that we wise up to the dirty trick played upon humanity in regards to alcohol. Non-benevolent forces have wanted to keep us oppressed, disempowered, and asleep.
How many of us have seen families broken and lives lost because of alcohol and alcoholism?
Do you think it makes us smarter or healthier or overall better people? It’s time to change things. Let’s stand behind replacing the rampant abuse of alcohol with more health enhancing practices and activities and learn how to live awakened and empowered lives!
Before I close this writing, I want to share a little more about the history of the word alcohol. There have been some people who look into the etymology and discover this explanation:
Alcohol (n.) – 1540s (early 15c. as alcofol), “fine powder produced by sublimation,” from Medieval Latin alcohol “powdered ore of antimony,” from Arabic al-kuhul “kohl,” the fine metallic powder used to darken the eyelids, from kahala “to stain, paint.”
Paracelsus (1493-1541) used the word to refer to a fine powder but also a volatile liquid. By 1670s it was being used in English for “any sublimated substance, the pure spirit of anything,” including liquids.
Sense of “intoxicating ingredient in strong liquor” is first recorded 1753, short for alcohol of wine, which was extended to “the intoxicating element in fermented liquors.” In organic chemistry, the word was extended 1850 to the class of compounds of the same type as this.
Upon further research, we can find that in ancient Egypt, the eyes of both men and women were lined top and bottom with a thick black powder known as kohl, kajal, or mesdemet.
The outlined eye resembled the almond-shaped eye of the falcon god Horus observed in the Eye of Horus glyph. It was believed that this shape invoked the god´s protection and warded off evil spirits.
Yet if one were to dig deeper, as a true scientist, researcher, or truth seeker does, you will also discover these interesting facts…
Dr. Rachel Hajar, an accomplished modern-day editor, author and medical advisor, while researching an article on alcohol for her online medical journal, found additional meanings in ancient Arabic texts;
Al kol: Genie or spirit that takes on varied shapes or a supernatural creature in Arabic mythology.
Al kol: Any drug or substance that takes away the mind or covers it.”
The word alcohol is also linked to the fixed star in astronomy known as Algol- also known as “the Demon’s head.”
The current Arabic name for alcohol (ethanol) is الغول al-ġawl – properly meaning “spirit” or “demon”.
It is not a coincidence that alcohol has often been referred to as spirits. There is a deep history behind this intoxicating substance. There are layers of information throughout our culture, sometimes we have to look below the surface of things to find the fullness of truth.
I encourage you to deeply consider the information shared here, look at the effects of alcohol in your life, in the lives of the people you know, and in society at large.
Make conscious, informed, and health enhancing decisions. The more people who awaken to truth and seek health and liberation from mind control agendas, the more likely we are to make positive changes and co-create a world we feel good about living in.
The Likely Cause Of Addiction Has Been Discovered, And It Is Not What You Think
It is now one hundred years since drugs were first banned - and all through this long century of waging war on drugs, we have been told a story about addiction by our teachers and by our governments. This story is so deeply ingrained in our minds that we take it for granted.
It seems obvious. It seems manifestly true. Until I set off three and a half years ago on a 30,000-mile journey for my new book, Chasing The Scream: The First And Last Days of the War on Drugs, to figure out what is really driving the drug war, I believed it too. But what I learned on the road is that almost everything we have been told about addiction is wrong - and there is a very different story waiting for us, if only we are ready to hear it.
If we truly absorb this new story, we will have to change a lot more than the drug war. We will have to change ourselves.
I learned it from an extraordinary mixture of people I met on my travels. From the surviving friends of Billie Holiday, who helped me to learn how the founder of the war on drugs stalked and helped to kill her. From a Jewish doctor who was smuggled out of the Budapest ghetto as a baby, only to unlock the secrets of addiction as a grown man.
From a transsexual crack dealer in Brooklyn who was conceived when his mother, a crack-addict, was raped by his father, an NYPD officer. From a man who was kept at the bottom of a well for two years by a torturing dictatorship, only to emerge to be elected President of Uruguay and to begin the last days of the war on drugs.
I had a quite personal reason to set out for these answers. One of my earliest memories as a kid is trying to wake up one of my relatives, and not being able to. Ever since then, I have been turning over the essential mystery of addiction in my mind - what causes some people to become fixated on a drug or a behavior until they can’t stop?
How do we help those people to come back to us? As I got older, another of my close relatives developed a cocaine addiction, and I fell into a relationship with a heroin addict. I guess addiction felt like home to me.
If you had asked me what causes drug addiction at the start, I would have looked at you as if you were an idiot, and said: “Drugs. Duh.” It’s not difficult to grasp. I thought I had seen it in my own life. We can all explain it. Imagine if you and I and the next twenty people to pass us on the street take a really potent drug for twenty days.
There are strong chemical hooks in these drugs, so if we stopped on day twenty-one, our bodies would need the chemical. We would have a ferocious craving. We would be addicted. That’s what addiction means.
Put a rat in a cage, alone, with two water bottles. One is just water. The other is water laced with heroin or cocaine. Almost every time you run this experiment, the rat will become obsessed with the drugged water, and keep coming back for more and more, until it kills itself.
The advert explains: “Only one drug is so addictive, nine out of ten laboratory rats will use it. And use it. And use it. Until dead. It’s called cocaine. And it can do the same thing to you.”
But in the 1970s, a professor of Psychology in Vancouver called Bruce Alexander noticed something odd about this experiment. The rat is put in the cage all alone. It has nothing to do but take the drugs. What would happen, he wondered, if we tried this differently? So Professor Alexander built Rat Park.
It is a lush cage where the rats would have colored balls and the best rat-food and tunnels to scamper down and plenty of friends: everything a rat about town could want. What, Alexander wanted to know, will happen then? In Rat Park, all the rats obviously tried both water bottles, because they didn’t know what was in them. But what happened next was startling.
The rats with good lives didn’t like the drugged water. They mostly shunned it, consuming less than a quarter of the drugs the isolated rats used. None of them died. While all the rats who were alone and unhappy became heavy users, none of the rats who had a happy environment did.
At first, I thought this was merely a quirk of rats, until I discovered that there was - at the same time as the Rat Park experiment - a helpful human equivalent taking place. It was called the Vietnam War.
Time magazine reported using heroin was “as common as chewing gum” among U.S. soldiers, and there is solid evidence to back this up: some 20 percent of U.S. soldiers had become addicted to heroin there, according to a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Many people were understandably terrified; they believed a huge number of addicts were about to head home when the war ended.
But in fact some 95 percent of the addicted soldiers - according to the same study - simply stopped. Very few had rehab. They shifted from a terrifying cage back to a pleasant one, so didn’t want the drug any more.
Professor Alexander argues this discovery is a profound challenge both to the right-wing view that addiction is a moral failing caused by too much hedonistic partying, and the liberal view that addiction is a disease taking place in a chemically hijacked brain. In fact, he argues, addiction is an adaptation. It’s not you. It’s your cage.
After the first phase of Rat Park, Professor Alexander then took this test further. He reran the early experiments, where the rats were left alone, and became compulsive users of the drug. He let them use for fifty-seven days - if anything can hook you, it’s that. Then he took them out of isolation, and placed them in Rat Park.
He wanted to know, if you fall into that state of addiction, is your brain hijacked, so you can’t recover? Do the drugs take you over? What happened is - again - striking.
The rats seemed to have a few twitches of withdrawal, but they soon stopped their heavy use, and went back to having a normal life. The good cage saved them. (The full references to all the studies I am discussing are in the book.)
When I first learned about this, I was puzzled. How can this be? This new theory is such a radical assault on what we have been told that it felt like it could not be true. But the more scientists I interviewed, and the more I looked at their studies, the more I discovered things that don’t seem to make sense - unless you take account of this new approach.
Here’s one example of an experiment that is happening all around you, and may well happen to you one day. If you get run over today and you break your hip, you will probably be given diamorphine, the medical name for heroin. In the hospital around you, there will be plenty of people also given heroin for long periods, for pain relief.
The heroin you will get from the doctor will have a much higher purity and potency than the heroin being used by street-addicts, who have to buy from criminals who adulterate it.
So if the old theory of addiction is right - it’s the drugs that cause it; they make your body need them - then it’s obvious what should happen. Loads of people should leave the hospital and try to score smack on the streets to meet their habit.
But here’s the strange thing: It virtually never happens. As the Canadian doctor Gabor Mate was the first to explain to me, medical users just stop, despite months of use. The same drug, used for the same length of time, turns street-users into desperate addicts and leaves medical patients unaffected.
If you still believe - as I used to - that addiction is caused by chemical hooks, this makes no sense.
But if you believe Bruce Alexander’s theory, the picture falls into place. The street-addict is like the rats in the first cage, isolated, alone, with only one source of solace to turn to. The medical patient is like the rats in the second cage. She is going home to a life where she is surrounded by the people she loves. The drug is the same, but the environment is different.
This gives us an insight that goes much deeper than the need to understand addicts. Professor Peter Cohen argues that human beings have a deep need to bond and form connections. It’s how we get our satisfaction.
If we can’t connect with each other, we will connect with anything we can find - the whirr of a roulette wheel or the prick of a syringe.
He says we should stop talking about ‘addiction’ altogether, and instead call it ‘bonding.’ A heroin addict has bonded with heroin because she couldn’t bond as fully with anything else.
So the opposite of addiction is not sobriety. It is human connection.
When I learned all this, I found it slowly persuading me, but I still couldn’t shake off a nagging doubt. Are these scientists saying chemical hooks make no difference? It was explained to me - you can become addicted to gambling, and nobody thinks you inject a pack of cards into your veins. You can have all the addiction, and none of the chemical hooks.
I went to a Gamblers’ Anonymous meeting in Las Vegas (with the permission of everyone present, who knew I was there to observe) and they were as plainly addicted as the cocaine and heroin addicts I have known in my life. Yet there are no chemical hooks on a craps table.
But still, surely, I asked, there is some role for the chemicals? It turns out there is an experiment which gives us the answer to this in quite precise terms, which I learned about in Richard DeGrandpre’s book The Cult of Pharmacology.
Everyone agrees cigarette smoking is one of the most addictive processes around. The chemical hooks in tobacco come from a drug inside it called nicotine. So when nicotine patches were developed in the early 1990s, there was a huge surge of optimism - cigarette smokers could get all of their chemical hooks, without the other filthy (and deadly) effects of cigarette smoking. They would be freed.
But the Office of the Surgeon General has found that just 17.7 percent of cigarette smokers are able to stop using nicotine patches.
That’s not nothing. If the chemicals drive 17.7 percent of addiction, as this shows, that’s still millions of lives ruined globally. But what it reveals again is that the story we have been taught about The Cause of Addiction lying with chemical hooks is, in fact, real, but only a minor part of a much bigger picture.
This has huge implications for the one-hundred-year-old war on drugs. This massive war - which, as I saw, kills people from the malls of Mexico to the streets of Liverpool - is based on the claim that we need to physically eradicate a whole array of chemicals because they hijack people’s brains and cause addiction. But if drugs aren’t the driver of addiction - if, in fact, it is disconnection that drives addiction - then this makes no sense.
Ironically, the war on drugs actually increases all those larger drivers of addiction. For example, I went to a prison in Arizona - ‘Tent City’ - where inmates are detained in tiny stone isolation cages (‘The Hole’) for weeks and weeks on end to punish them for drug use.
It is as close to a human recreation of the cages that guaranteed deadly addiction in rats as I can imagine. And when those prisoners get out, they will be unemployable because of their criminal record - guaranteeing they with be cut off even more. I watched this playing out in the human stories I met across the world.
There is an alternative. You can build a system that is designed to help drug addicts to reconnect with the world - and so leave behind their addictions.
This isn’t theoretical. It is happening. I have seen it. Nearly fifteen years ago, Portugal had one of the worst drug problems in Europe, with 1 percent of the population addicted to heroin. They had tried a drug war, and the problem just kept getting worse. So they decided to do something radically different.
They resolved to decriminalize all drugs, and transfer all the money they used to spend on arresting and jailing drug addicts, and spend it instead on reconnecting them - to their own feelings, and to the wider society. The most crucial step is to get them secure housing, and subsidized jobs so they have a purpose in life, and something to get out of bed for.
I watched as they are helped, in warm and welcoming clinics, to learn how to reconnect with their feelings, after years of trauma and stunning them into silence with drugs. One example I learned about was a group of addicts who were given a loan to set up a removals firm. Suddenly, they were a group, all bonded to each other, and to the society, and responsible for each other’s care.
The results of all this are now in. An independent study by the British Journal of Criminology found that since total decriminalization, addiction has fallen, and injecting drug use is down by 50 percent. I’ll repeat that: injecting drug use is down by 50 percent. Decriminalization has been such a manifest success that very few people in Portugal want to go back to the old system.
The main campaigner against the decriminalization back in 2000 was Joao Figueira, the country’s top drug cop. He offered all the dire warnings that we would expect from the Daily Mail or Fox News. But when we sat together in Lisbon, he told me that everything he predicted had not come to pass - and he now hopes the whole world will follow Portugal’s example.
This isn’t only relevant to the addicts I love. It is relevant to all of us, because it forces us to think differently about ourselves. Human beings are bonding animals. We need to connect and love. The wisest sentence of the twentieth century was E.M. Forster’s - “only connect.”
But we have created an environment and a culture that cut us off from connection, or offer only the parody of it offered by the Internet. The rise of addiction is a symptom of a deeper sickness in the way we live - constantly directing our gaze towards the next shiny object we should buy, rather than the human beings all around us.
The writer George Monbiot has called this “the age of loneliness.” We have created human societies where it is easier for people to become cut off from all human connections than ever before.
Bruce Alexander - the creator of Rat Park - told me that for too long, we have talked exclusively about individual recovery from addiction.
We need now to talk about social recovery - how we all recover, together, from the sickness of isolation that is sinking on us like a thick fog. But this new evidence isn’t just a challenge to us politically. It doesn’t just force us to change our minds. It forces us to change our hearts.
Loving an addict is really hard. When I looked at the addicts I love, it was always tempting to follow the tough love advice doled out by reality shows like Intervention - tell the addict to shape up, or cut them off. Their message is that an addict who won’t stop should be shunned. It’s the logic of the drug war, imported into our private lives.
But in fact, I learned, that will only deepen their addiction - and you may lose them altogether. I came home determined to tie the addicts in my life closer to me than ever - to let them know I love them unconditionally, whether they stop, or whether they can’t.
When I returned from my long journey, I looked at my ex-boyfriend, in withdrawal, trembling on my spare bed, and I thought about him differently. For a century now, we have been singing war songs about addicts.
It occurred to me as I wiped his brow, we should have been singing love songs to them all along.
Ten Sure-Fire Ways To Live A Stressful Life April 28 2017 | From: TheUnboundedSpirit
Observe people around you and you’ll see that most of them are stressed out.
Stress in the modern world is a normal, everyday phenomenon, and only a few manage to overcome it and find inner peace and clarity.
If you feel that stress is missing from your life, and you’d like to change that so that you can better fit in with society and be considered by your fellow human beings as a normal, unhealthy person, here are some powerful, sure-fire ways to live a stressful life:
1. Compare Yourself to Others
You are a uniquely beautiful individual who has special gifts to contribute to the world. If you learn to accept yourself as you are and spontaneously express your mind and heart, you’ll feel content and complete.
But that’s not what you want. What you want is to be stressed, and what’s the best way to achieve that other than focusing on your flaws and comparing yourself to others, such as celebrities and internet personas, who always look shiny, beautiful, and happy?
Most people have learned from early childhood to compare themselves to others and this way they manage to always keep their stress levels high. Learn from their example and you’ll soon start hating yourself, which will definitely make you experience unbearable suffering.
2. Follow Orders
Another great way to attract stress into your life is to stop paying attention to your inner voice. Instead, listen only to the voices of others and obey to what they tell you.
No matter what people are trying to impose on you, just passively accept it, and of course don’t forget to be thankful to them. Don’t think for yourself or make decisions of your own - let others do the thinking for you and decide for your destiny.
This way you’ll throw your freedom away, and before you realize it you’ll have no control over your life, which will do wonders to help fill your psyche with anguish that will torment you each and every moment of your life.
3. Eat Crap
We need to have a healthy body to experience life to the fullest. The basic way to keep your body healthy is to eat nutritious food. However, health and stress don’t go hand-in-hand, so be sure to not eat well, no matter what, and you’ll see your stress levels rise slowly yet steadily.
There are two main dietary steps that you need to take in order to ruin your health. First, be sure to consume processed foods as well as increase your animal protein and sugar intake. Then, to make things worse, restrict your intake of organic, whole, nutrient-packed foods, such as grains, legumes, seeds, nuts, fruits and vegetables as much as you can - if possible, don’t eat any of them!
By filling your body with toxins and depriving it of vital nutrients, it won’t take long until you’ll start experiencing the tremendous consequences that this simple yet easy strategy can have on your health - it will immensely complicate your life, bringing you more suffering than you could have ever imagined!
4. Sit All Day Long
Eating unhealthy is perhaps the best way to mess up with your physical organism, but if you’d like that extra push that will make your life even worse pretty quickly, I have another great suggestion for you: move your body as less as possible.
This is an easy thing to achieve, if you are determined to do so - just sit, a lot. When a friend asks you to go for a walk together, find an excuse not to join him or her. When you feel like working out, don’t do it, for exercise is stress relieving, and you don’t want to waste your precious stressful energy.
Helpful tip: To make your sitting time effortless, stay rooted on your couch in front of a TV screen and let yourself be hypnotized by Television’s superficial, nonsensical audiovisual content. Believe it or not, this simple tactic will tremendously help to keep you seated for hours upon hours without you even realizing it!
Another sure-fire way to live a stressful life is to not sleep as much as your body needs to relax and recharge its batteries. Sleep less - as less as possible - so that you’ll feel physically and mentally weak. This will keep you constantly tired, agitated and confused.
By undersleeping, you’ll play havoc with your body and mind, which will make your life extremely complicated, so that you won’t be able to function properly in your everyday life and you’ll have to waste most of your time and energy trying to cope with all sorts of psychosomatic health issues.
If you find it difficult to undersleep, I’d highly recommend you to spend every couple of days partying and getting wasted, or, if you’re not so much into partying and alcoholic drinks, just spend much of your night time in front of an electronic screen, absorbing the blue light that it emanates, which will undoubtedly mess up with your organism’s circadian rhythm.
6. Be Judgmental
Stress is to a great extent the result of how we view the world around us. For example, if we perceive the people we come in contact with as enemies, then we’re bound to feel much more stressful when we socially interact with others than if we perceived them as friends.
A powerful yet oftentimes neglected tactic to make the world seem like a hellish experience is to develop a judgmental attitude towards people.
So from today, be sure to judge people harshly, call them names, gossip about them, and argue against them as much as you can to prove your egoistic superiority over them.
Being judgmental will not only complicate your relationships, but will fill your psyche with so much toxic energy that will transform you into a super-stressed person who won’t be able to stay calm and relaxed around people and who certainly won’t be kind and loving towards them.
7. Keep Yourself Busy
Many people complain that the modern way of living is unbelievably stressful and they are trying their best to simplify their lives, so that they can have more peace of mind as well as more time to pursue their passions.
These people, however, are not like you at all, and you shouldn’t pay any attention to them. You want stress, and the fast-paced, chaotic modern way of living is something to make the most of!
From now on, keep yourself continuously busy, by overworking and being distracted by things that don’t contribute to your well-being. Never let your mind chill and be quiet - no, you don’t want this!
Overthink, especially about the future, so that you’re anxious about what will come next, and you’ll be unable to focus on the present and enjoy the simple yet precious things that life brings on your way. By doing so, I assure you that stress will become your middle name.
8. Hide Behind a Social Mask
To be honest means to feel confident with who you are and to be able to communicate your sincere thoughts and emotions to other people. But honesty has a serious side-effect that you need to avoid at all costs: a relaxed state of mind.
People who are honest tend to be less fearful and are able to form better, more genuine relationships with others, both of which lead to improved well-being.
Since what you want to achieve is the exact opposite, be sure to hide who you are from others as best as you can. This way, you’ll be chronically stressed, out of fear that people might get a glimpse of your inner world.
In addition, people won’t like to spend any time with you, realizing that you are not open to a heart-to-heart communication. The result will be that you’ll feel alienated in a seemingly cold world, which will make you more stressed than you’ve ever been before!
9. Complain, Complain, Complain
In life, we’re regularly faced with problems and challenges that we need to deal with, if we wish to grow and mature into wiser individuals. Indeed, those who use critical thinking to find solutions to their problems and take concrete action to overcome whatever obstacles they are facing, are usually the ones who ultimately manage to live a fulfilled life.
You, however, need problems, because problems equal stress. So why use critical thinking and try to make a positive change in your life? It’s utterly pointless.
Do none of these! Instead, just complain to those around you for the messed up life you’re living, and even blame them for that.
Whether others are truly to blame or not doesn’t matter - what matters is that you passively accept all suffering and react to it just by complaining, which ultimately won’t do anything to help you overcome any problems that you might be facing. The result? A flood of stress running through your veins.
10. Fill Your Space With Clutter
Over the last few years the minimalism movement has been growing dramatically, because more and more people realize the importance of owning less material stuff in living simply and stress-free. But you shouldn’t care about those minimalists! Differentiate yourself by increasing your possessions and hence complicating your life!
Starting today, do your best to collect as much unimportant stuff as you can, both in your house and work space, and remember not to give away or throw out stuff that you don’t need anymore. Trust me, this easy yet often neglected way will immerse yourself in stress in just a few days!
Remember: Don’t hide your possessions - place them right in front of your eyes, so that you can’t avoid being distracted by them all the time.
By doing so, you’ll soon start feeling overwhelmed by stress, without realizing how much of it is actually caused by all the clutter that you’ve gathered around you.
This guide is guaranteed to fill you with a constant mental stream of worries and concerns. Re-read it until you fully grasp all the ideas contained in it, and be sure to diligently implement them in your everyday life to see optimal results.
On Changes In The Earth’s Vibrational Frequency, Known As The Schumann Resonance Frequency April 27 2016 | From: Farouk "They'll stone you when you're driving your car, they'll stone you when you're playing your guitar..." - Bob Dylan.
For those in the know, the Earth’s vibrational frequency, known as the Schumann Resonance Frequency, has been increasing dramatically over the last few years. Traditionally it was very stable around 7.83 Hz which is the frequency humans pass through when going from an awakened mental state to sleep or from sleep to being awake.
Every living thing on Earth is attuned to this atmospheric frequency as this is the beat of the Earth.
But the Schumann Frequency has been changing. A few years ago it was creeping up on 20 Hz. Last year the beat was averaging over 40 Hz. Now in 2017 common recordings are in the 50-60 Hz range (the same as the electrical power grid). Then last Easter Sunday it peaked at over 90 Hz.
What does the mean?
For those that are experimenting in frequencies and their human effects there have been many frequencies that are either beneficial or harmful to human health. Researchers have now mapped out most of these and are now are designing machines (frequency generators) that can replicate and amplify both good and bad frequencies.
Neil Keenan’s latest healing machines are now state of the art in this field scanning and replicating millions of frequencies that heal.
Military and police sonic disruptors are a negative application, as are HAARP and other antenna array devices that directly affect the atmosphere. Metal particulate chemtrails are part of this as they are directly linked to the various types of antenna arrays and atmospheric disturbances.
It is my assumption that the dramatic changes in the Schumann Frequency is the direct result of this artificial HAARP activity being used for weather and other subversive purposes.
This was done in the 60’s and 70’s by both the Russians and US using directed ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) waves which resulted in areas of unrest and rioting (LA Watts riots). This is a Black Ops weapon system.
Of course, the technology has become more sophisticated since then. Now they can cause heart attacks or complete muscular failure (13 Hz and harmonics) or identify and program your brain with images and voices and even transfer “you” and all your acquired knowledge into a “clone”.
What is interesting is the “intentional” recent peaking at 90 Hz as the 90-110 Hz band is known to stimulate human endorphin production in the brain.
Endorphins are “endogenous morphine” which has the effect of dilating the blood vessels throughout the body (making you feel good and allowing you to heal yourself) and giving you a natural “High”!
You naturally make endorphins when you are at rest, exercising or laughing, but they can easily be made with direct electro-cranial stimulation which brings to wonder why the Schumann is ringing so HIGH!
Bob Dylan - “Everybody must get stoned”
Is this an intentional attempt to get the whole world “high”... euphoric? Talk about population control! Who will give a sh**! We’re all STONED! Is this a fake Ascension? Rise up my friends and FLY!
On the Good Guy’s side there are other efforts being done to “awaken” the masses by stimulating everyone’s “Crown Chakra”. This opens up the real awakening.
If in the next few weeks you start to feel like you have a crown sitting on your head, a tingling sensation around your temples or above your ears or a twitching of your Third Eye, that is just the Good Guys running tests. If you experience these feelings, just sit back and relax and meditate on some good thoughts to help family, friends, mankind and your amazing self. Enjoy the experience.
Urgent National Security And International Terrorism Alert April 26 2016 | From: NesaraNews
The following was written to inform you of large-scale human rights violations and systematic physical attacks on the civilian population within all countries of the world using modern electromagnetic weapons and neuro-weapons, often in combination with non-consensual implants and covertly administered nanotechnology.
What makes these weapons particularly dangerous and devastating for societies is that they act covertly. Using the fact that electromagnetic waves propagate without being noticed by humans and can penetrate walls, these weapons can be used to destroy human life and permit the perpetrators to escape detection.
The systematic and clandestine nature of the crimes and their striking similarity around the world indicate that it is a global program run by the international military-intelligence complex committing premeditated mutilation, torture, systematic subjugation and a silent genocide of parts of the population.
It amounts to crimes against humanity and a global death camp program.
I am writing to formally request that under you statutory duty to investigate crimes against humanity, protect the civilian population from acts of terrorism, communicate matters of national importance to your government and uphold human rights, or otherwise, you pass on this message to the relevant authorities and you yourself act within your means to ensure that all victim cases are investigated and that these large-scale criminal operations are shut down in your country by 1st June 2017.
The actions you take in response to this communication will be followed up over the coming months and, should it turn out that you chose to ignore this notification and your duties to act to stop these crimes and to support the victims, you might be charged with, for example, official misconduct, malfeasance in office, dereliction of duty, conspiracy, aiding and abetting crimes against humanity, high treason or your legal system's equivalent of such offences.
Should that be the case, you will be called to account and held liable in one of the upcoming court or tribunal cases for crimes against humanity.
The attacks on victims are launched from mobile directed energy weapon units as well as telecommunication infrastructure such as cell towers and satellite systems. This is an integrated weapons system that has been built up covertly around the world.
The weapons system is now fully operational around the world and is destroying innocent victims' life in the millions and is subverting nations covertly.
Individual victims are hounded and tormented by the national surveillance networks, encircled by perpetrators at all times and systematically tortured and mutilated with electromagnetic as well as ultrasonic weapons in public as well as in their homes.
The assaults exploit the fact that beams from electromagnetic weapons are silent, invisible and can penetrate the walls of buildings such that victims can be assaulted everywhere without leaving traces that lead back to the perpetrators.
By these means, victims are effectively placed into individual concentration camps that are erected around them by the intelligence agencies, corrupted members of law enforcement and their network of criminal operatives.
This operation is accompanied by targeted slander campaigns, infiltration and subversion of every aspect of victims' life, including their social circle, their family, their work place and especially their medical care.
Operatives enter victims' home clandestinely, damage property, sabotage computer equipment directly or remotely, poison food and run harassment campaigns to psychologically disintegrate the victims so that they are eventually driven to suicide or are murdered.
The electromagnetic and neuro-weapons have capabilities that transcend anything that the world has experienced in terms of weapons technology in the past.
Due to their ability to attack and manipulate biological processes, inner organs and the human nervous system as well as neurological processes, these devices are the most dangerous weapons produced by mankind to date.
The effect on humans is devastating as the weapons can simulate many illnesses, cause pain and organ damage, brain damage, strokes, heart attacks and death. The most common form of harm through the use of these weapons is DNA damage and tumour formation and eventually cancer.
DNA damage in the reproductive eggs of women alters the mitochondrial DNA and thus damages entire future generations. The operations of these weapon systems is therefore a threat to the future of humanity itself.
Another insidious aspect of these weapons is that they can be used to impair, alter and control human bodily functions, movement, behaviour and even thought processes often without the realisation of the victim.
This can be used to subvert the functioning of every aspect of human endeavour from personal relationships, business endeavours, to democratic processes and the national security infrastructure of a nation.
Mobile directed energy weapons come in all sizes and have various capabilities. They are hidden by the perpetrators in adjacent properties, cars, drones, planes and even parts of the national infrastructure. Agents of the surveillance networks carry assault weapons in bags and rucksacks.
This covert weapons system is fully integrated and centrally controlled. Victims who fled to other countries discovered that their assault protocol travels with them and is continued by the local surveillance and law enforcement system in whichever country they reside.
From what could be established from declassified documents, the organisational matrix of the assault teams follows the protocol used for the death squads run by the large intelligence agencies in, for example, Vietnam and South American countries. It is of paramount importance for national security to stop this terrorism and shut down the funding and the systems that enable its proliferation.
The weapons technology itself has largely been classified for a very long time. There are, however, countless publicly known cases from around the world where the weapons have been applied to individuals over many years with the intent to intimidate, torture, maim and murder.
From the testimonies of those victims, many of whom have shared their plight online on blogs and through social media, publicly known patents and declassified documents, we know of the devastating effect of these weapons and the staggering scale of the crimes being committed around the world. Please assist us in stopping this global silent Holocaust.
A New, More Rigorous Study Confirms: The More You Use Facebook, The Worse You Feel April 24 2016 | From: HBR
The average Facebook user spends almost an hour on the site every day, according to data provided by the company last year. A Deloitte survey found that for many smartphone users, checking social media apps are the first thing they do in the morning - often before even getting out of bed.
Of course, social interaction is a healthy and necessary part of human existence. Thousands of studies have concluded that most human beings thrive when they have strong, positive relationships with other human beings.
The challenge is that most of the work on social interaction has been conducted using “real world,” face-to-face social networks, in contrast to the types of online relationships that are increasingly common. So, while we know that old-fashioned social interaction is healthy, what about social interaction that is completely mediated through an electronic screen? When you wake up in the morning and tap on that little blue icon, what impact does it have on you?
Prior research has shown that the use of social media may detract from face-to-face relationships, reduce investment in meaningful activities, increase sedentary behavior by encouraging more screen time, lead to internet addiction, and erode self-esteem through unfavorable social comparison.
But some skeptics have wondered if perhaps people with lower well-being are more likely to use social media, rather than social media causing lower well-being. Moreover, other studies have found that social media use has a positive impact on well-being through increased social support and reinforcement of real world relationships.
We wanted to get a clearer picture of the relationship between social media use and well-being. In our study, we used three waves of data from 5,208 adults from a national longitudinal panel maintained by the Gallup organization, coupled with several different measures of Facebook usage, to see how well-being changed over time in association with Facebook use.
Our measures of well-being included life satisfaction, self-reported mental health, self-reported physical health, and body-mass index (BMI). Our measures of Facebook use included liking others’ posts, creating one’s own posts, and clicking on links. We also had measures of respondents’ real-world social networks.
In each wave, respondents were asked to name up to four friends with whom they discuss important matters and up to four friends with whom they spend their free time, so that each participant could name up to a total of eight unique individuals.
Our approach had three strengths that set it apart from most of the previous work on the topic. First, we had three waves of data for many of our respondents over a period of two years. This allowed us to track how changes in social media use were associated with changes in well-being.
Most studies done to date only use one period of data, limiting interpretations of conclusions to simple associations. Second, we had objective measures of Facebook use, pulled directly from participants’ Facebook accounts, rather than measures based on a person’s self-report.
Third, in addition to the Facebook data, we had information regarding the respondents’ real-world social networks, which would allow us to directly compare the two influences (face-to-face networks and online interactions).
Of course, our study has limitations too, including that we could not be certain about how fully representative it was because not everyone in the Gallup sample allowed us access to their Facebook data.
Overall, our results showed that, while real-world social networks were positively associated with overall well-being, the use of Facebook was negatively associated with overall well-being. These results were particularly strong for mental health; most measures of Facebook use in one year predicted a decrease in mental health in a later year.
We found consistently that both liking others’ content and clicking links significantly predicted a subsequent reduction in self-reported physical health, mental health, and life satisfaction.
Our models included measures of real-world networks and adjusted for baseline Facebook use. When we accounted for a person’s level of initial well-being, initial real-world networks, and initial level of Facebook use, increased use of Facebook was still associated with a likelihood of diminished future well-being.
This provides some evidence that the association between Facebook use and compromised well-being is a dynamic process.
Although we can show that Facebook use seems to lead to diminished well-being, we cannot definitively say how that occurs. We did not see much difference between the three types of activity we measured - liking, posting, and clicking links, (although liking and clicking were more consistently significant) - and the impact on the user.
This was interesting, because while we expected that “liking” other people’s content would be more likely to lead to negative self-comparisons and thus decreases in well-being, updating one’s own status and clicking links seemed to have a similar effect (although the nature of status updates can ostensibly be the result of social comparison-tailoring your own Facebook image based on how others will perceive it).
Overall our results suggests that well-being declines are also matter of quantity of use rather than only quality of use. If this is the case, our results contrast with previousresearch arguing that the quantity of social media interaction is irrelevant, and that only the quality of those interactions matter.
These results then may be relevant for other forms of social media. While many platforms expose the user to the sort of polished profiles of others that can lead to negative self-comparison, the issue of quantity of usage will be an issue for any social media platform.
While screen time in general can be problematic, the tricky thing about social media is that while we are using it, we get the impression that we are engaging in meaningful social interaction. Our results suggest that the nature and quality of this sort of connection is no substitute for the real world interaction we need for a healthy life.
The full story when it comes to online social media use is surely complex. Exposure to the carefully curated images from others’ lives leads to negative self-comparison, and the sheer quantity of social media interaction may detract from more meaningful real-life experiences. What seems quite clear, however, is that online social interactions are no substitute for the real thing.
Our TV News here in New Zealand this morning showed part of the interview with him actually saying he would allow exemptions only with a doctor’s medical certificate and no longer would any other reason be accepted, including those from parents who have anti-vaccine views. You can read a report about the announcement here and watch this news clip:
As we’ve covered this tyranny so much before, I don’t want to repeat myself. However, thanks to the Internet, we can all appreciate just how well connected both Malcolm Turnbull and his wife really are.
If you look at this Wikipedia website, you will see that his wife Lucy Turnbull is the Chairman of the biotechnology/ immunotherapy company Prima BioMed Limited headquartered in Sydney Australia and Berlin Germany.
Commonly, this is called conflicting interests, or having the fox looking after the henhouse!
You will note also that this company has licensed its IMP701 antagonist monoclonal antibody to LAG3 for use in cancer drugs licensed to Novartis, the giant Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company based in Basel, Switzerland, controlled by British Anglo / American bankers.
Although Novartis sold most of its giant vaccine manufacturing business to GlaxoSmithKline and CSL Limited in 2014 and 2015, it still has all sorts of cross interests and licence agreements with these and other giant pharmaceutical manufacturing companies as well.
They are all part of this one, huge, corrupt, global vaccine manufacturing cartel.
This is why Turnbull and his wife are so obsessively “pro-vaccination,” and through the Australian Government, URGENTLY want to force their fascist views on on all Australians, on behalf of these giant pharmaceutical companies.
The sad fact is that the way the Australian Government is going at present, Australia may become the first true DICTATORSHIP in the South Pacific very soon.
It’s not that the Turnbulls are unknown or new to most Australians. Lucy Turnbull is a former Lord Mayor of Sydney. She is the daughter of Tom Hughes, a former Attorney-General of Australia. Her great-great grandfather was Sir Thomas Hughes, the first Lord Mayor of Sydney.
Due to the general apathy and ignorance of most of the population, corrupt governments unfortunately find it all too easy to pass repressive legislation.
I wonder how far behind the Australians we will be here in New Zealand if more concerned people don’t urgently start speaking up.
Sorry are we in Nazi Germany? Up next tattoos on the forehead so we know who is and isn’t fully vaccinated!? A never ending media barrage.
Malcolm Turnbull now wants No Jab-No-Play-Nation-Wide so if your child is not fully vaccinated with between 14 to 16 different disease injections (in my day 5) – 37 doses of Vaccines by 18 months they are discriminated against and are unable to go to daycare, kindy or preschool.
Do you know the Adult register just started? Do you know over 65s are listed on the National Immunisation Schedule?
Do you know there is NO ceiling on the number of vaccines, doses or type that can and will be added to the schedule? How many more vaccines are you prepared to take?
How many more will our babies be forced into having? Are YOU up to date with the 14 to 16 different disease injections parents are intimidated and coerced into giving their children? How far is Australia going to let this go? What will it take for people to stand up and say enough is enough?
Up Next No Jab, No Job No Jab, No University Degree No Jab, No Pension No Jab, No Travel No Jab, No Doctor Time to WAKE UP AUSTRALIA – Mandatory Vaccination for EVERYONE is on your doorstep, I suggest people start voicing their concerns because if you don’t NAZI Germany with forced medical procedures soon be in Australia.
The World Health Organization introduced the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) in low-income countries in the 1970s with the goal of universal immunization for all children. In the introduction, the study’s authors state, “Except for the measles vaccines, surprisingly few studies examined the introduction of vaccines and their impact on child survival.”
The purpose of the study was to examine what happens to child survival when DTP and OPV were introduced in low-income countries. A community study [ii] of the state of nutrition and family structure found that severe malnutrition was not evident in urban Guinea-Bissau although it was initially assumed to be the main cause of the under-five mortality rate.
The study findings emerged from a child population that had been followed with 3-monthly nutritional weighing sessions since 1978. From June 1981 DTP and OPV were offered from 3 months of age at these sessions.
Due to the 3-monthly intervals between sessions, the children were allocated by birthday in a ‘natural experiment’ to receive vaccinations early or late between 3 and 5 months of age.
The study included children who were greater than 6 months of age when vaccinations started and children born until the end of December 1983. The researchers compared mortality between 3 and 5 months of age of DTP-vaccinated and not-yet-DTP- vaccinated children in Cox proportional hazard models.
When mortality was compared, the mortality hazard ratio (HR) among 3-5-month-old children having received the DTP (±OPV) was 5.00 compared with not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children [i.e. a 400% increase].
According to the authors, differences in background factors did not explain the effect.
All-cause infant mortality after 3 months of age increased after the introduction of these vaccines (2.12 (1.07–4.19)) [i.e. a 212% increase]. However, the study findings revealed the negative effect was particularly strong for children who had received DTP-only and no OPV (10.0 (2.61–38.6)).
The researchers concluded:
"DTP was associated with increased mortality; OPV may modify the effect of DTP.”
It appears this early Guinea-Bissau study foreshadowed a line of documented injury and mortality caused by the DPT. A 2000 BMJ article found that a population of vaccinated infants, also from Guinea-Bissau, receiving one dose of DTP or polio vaccines had higher mortality than children who had received none of these vaccines.
A 2004 observational study showed a doubling of the mortality rate of infants vaccinated with the single dose of DPT vaccine and increasing mortality rates after the second and third doses.[iii] A 2011 study of Guinea-Bissau females found DTP vaccine administered simultaneously with measles vaccine is also associated with increased morbidity and poor growth in girls.[iv]
In the United States, the DTP vaccine received major public spotlight and pushback after the 1985 book DPT: A Shot in the Dark was published tracing its development and describing its risks.
Recently complied reports show settlements of injury and deaths from the TDap, DTP, and DPT vaccines within the United States Vaccine Court jumped 75% from $5.5 million in 2014 to $9.8 million in 2015.
Why You Should Buy Local Food: 10 Reasons April 19 2016 | From: CountrysideAlliance
1. Food grown locally tastes far better than imported produce. Yes, some vegetables might look wonky but the flavour they are bursting with surely make up for that. Locally grown food is likely to arrive on your dinner table within a few hours of being picked. The same cannot be said for those strawberries we import from Spain.
2. Not only does it taste better, local food also provides more nutrients. Farmers harvest crops at their peak making sure we get the ripest highest quality food. There is also no need to treat vegetables and fruit with chemicals or wrap them in plastic for days of transportation. Not only would you contribute to a healthier lifestyle, but you would also help the environment whilst at it.
3. Now, locally produced food comes in all shapes and sizes. This is because farmers use different varieties of crops to increase the length of harvesting cycle. These crops are not genetically modified unlike the ones being mass produced for larger retailers.
This variety preserves biodiversity and ensures that species do not go extinct. Nowadays, out of thousands of apple cultivars available in the world only a few varieties make it to the big stores. Smaller farms take pride in the crops they grow and some special varieties are passed down as a family secret through generations. That is the kind of authenticity that you would never find in a supermarket.
4. Locally grown crops are safer to eat. Cattle is reared freely on luscious green pastures while crops are fertilized by the manure those animals produce. There is no waste of resources on local farms. So why not go down to a local butcher for a nutrient-packed tender steak rather than a questionable looking chicken breast full of antibiotics and growth hormones from a supermarket?
5. Local farmers and independent businesses are working hard to make it in the world where competition is so fierce. By supporting them we preserve the authenticity and quality of the services they provide. Each one of them adds a personal touch to their produce which is only characteristic of small local businesses.
6. Invest in the community you live in. Local food is produced by your neighbours living nearby trying their best to provide best quality food all year around. It is a much more pleasant experience buying from a farmer’s market or a shop while engaging in conversation and playing an active part in your local community.
7. Local food preserves open space. If you enjoy the picturesque landscapes of the countryside, think about buying local produce to save it. By keeping local farmers in business, you ensure that our beautiful land is being used for agriculture and not sold for yet another development project.
8. Buying locally helps ecosystems in your area because carefully managed farms peacefully coexist with and preserve wildlife. Hedges, ponds and meadows that farmers look after provide natural habitats for a variety of local species. The food takes less miles to reach your plate, which reduces food miles, which in turn is much better for the environment.
9. As a rule of thumb, local farms require less of your tax to operate as they provide more in tax than they take in services. They also use less resources and manage them more effectively than larger scale operations. Think about that next time you go to a supermarket.
10. Buying locally today provides for a better tomorrow. By making this small choice you are having a positive impact on so many different aspects and ensuring that there is fresh, diverse, flavoursome food available for future generations.
“The Diseases Caused By Impure Water Are Numerous And Fatal” Says An MD & Hear What 50+ Other MD's Say About Our Need For Pure Distilled Water April 13 2017 | From: Infowars
Our waterways planet wide are now highly polluted and no longer safe to drink. Consequently, the water that’s fed to us in the town supplies is replete with chlorine, fluoride and other additives to prevent us getting sick.
However, there is a long term sickness cost to that. Only 40% of NZ rivers are safe to even swim in now. The Manawatu river is the most polluted river in the southern hemisphere. Someone got trench mouth from ingesting that river water.
It’s contaminated with spirochetes that cause leptospirosis & lyme disease among other things (all in the article of the last link there). They’ve been polluting our waterways for the past century basically and continue to do so. We can no longer eat what remains of the food in our waterways - the whitebait’s nearly gone, birds are declining, eels are dying. All in the name of profits for the few.
So it’s important to start the conversation on obtaining healthy water to drink. Town supplies are not healthy in the long term. This is a huge subject that’s been widely debated - best to research it & make your own informed decisions before getting sick.
For more info on water & additives the authorities deem necessary for us to consume (even to the point of forcing them upon us), search categories (left of page) or check out our water pages. The Corporation pages are a good starting point for the origin of all the pollution. Profits before people is their mantra. Watch The Corporation movie & see why.
Doctors and Experts With the Courage to Tell the Truth About Distilled Water
Distilled water is the only water which runs through all water-based life forms. Here are the writings of doctors and experts who all support the benefits of Distilled Water. Take note of the STEADY, CONSISTENT VOLUME which is recommended by them…
Dr. Arthur R. Reynolds:
“It may safely be taught that THE ONLY ABSOLUTELY PURE WATER IS THAT PURIFIED BY DISTILLATION. Instruct the public how distillation can readily and cheaply be done. It furnishes a fruitful yield for the genius that will devise a small distilling apparatus for the use of every family.
It would be safe to teach that the GENEROUS USE OF PURE WATER both within and without the body has never yet done any harm; that the functional ailments that afFlict the great host of mankind, are in a great part due to the fact of the imperfect elimination of waste matter, and that GENEROUS LIBATIONS OF PURE WATER is a most potent agent TO FLUSH THEM FROM THE BODY, through the skin, the lungs, the kidneys and the bowels. The diseases caused by impure water are numerous and fatal.”
- Dr. Arthur R. Reynolds, M.D., Health Commissioner of Chicago, from “Distilled Water and Longevity” by Elmer Ellsworth Carey, Chicago, in Suggestion magazine, Volume 10, January 1, 1903
Dr. Gary Null:
You should DRINK AT LEAST ONE GALLON of purified water a day. Most of us drink only at mealtime and when we’re noticeably thirsty. Wrong. You can develop a habit of NOT drinking water and walk around being 66 or 67 percent water, instead of 74 percent, which is what your body needs.
When you don’t have the water in you, you won’t ever have the energy you need. The very first thing I do to get people’s energy up is to increase the amount of water in their diet. Immediately, their energy goes up.
When someone has dementia, the first thing I do is give them lots of cold water all day, every day. About three weeks later, I start to see their dementia dissipate because they have rehydrated their brains.
Unfortunately, your brain actually shrinks as you dehydrate. By DRINKING LOTS OF PURE WATER, you get better neuron activity and better cellular chemistry, and you’re able to detoxify the cells with water.
Instead of Verizon’s deployment plan, it was a neighbourhood resolution that had the final say.
Watch the 15-minute convo that may change how you see activism:
"We made our decision based on love for our neighbors.”
-Craig Hasselbach, Lead Pastor, LifePointe Church, Ft. Collins, Colorado
I was thinking about this, and to me it is increasingly clear that coming from love is necessary if we want to see real and lasting change.
I’ve noticed that when I act from frustration, anger, or “ego,” it pushes away what I want, and usually the problem is either the same or worse. As counterintuitive as this may be to old-world thinking, as annoying as it is when we’re pissed off about whatever corrupt agenda, the dynamic seems to be real.
Have you noticed this also, or is your experience different?
Here’s a slide from my talk a couple years ago at the Building Biology conference, which may help illumine the idea:
Maybe this is what Jesus, Gandhi, and other world-changers were trying to tell us.
Love isn’t a pushover. With any mama bear, you don’t mess with her cubs. Her exceedingly fierce love doesn’t give up, and it always protects life. Several groups, including our team, are charting new ways of activism in this direction.
Perhaps when we act from a position of strength, we are less focused on our own survival, so it becomes easier to also act from love and build relationships. And with agendas such as “5G” now being pushed (see my video on the FCC & 5G), it’s more important than ever to build and embed relationships into our actions for change.
I believe the combination of strength + love is what will create the systemic change we seek. Perhaps the journey to find our way there, is something all humans are being called to at this time, each in our own way.
After you watch the video, consider meditating on this question: Is there an area in my life where, by applying strength and love, I can apply these principles to shift a situation?
By the way, the change-maker in the video is Heather Lahdenpera, LAc. She and a team of leading experts are hosting a free event called Screen Time Colorado in Denver, on April 20, 2017. If you can arrange to be there in person, do so!
Below is Heather’s inspiring perspective. You can read more about the Ft. Collins success story here.
“If we pay attention to what is happening in our country, every day we will see that corporate interests are being put before human and environmental interests in so many areas of our lives. I have always done what I could by signing petitions on line when I see one that speaks to me, but I had never really taken serious action.
It is easy to become paralyzed by the feeling of powerlessness. However, when I found out that a cell tower was proposed to be placed on top of a church roof, right next door to my childrens’ school and within line of sight of my house, I could not stand idle.
I understood the dangers of yet another layer of radio frequency radiation being placed near my children and family."
As new science fuels the debate about cellphone safety, we take a closer look at a little known message inside your cellphone's settings and manual telling you to keep the device 5 to 15 mm away from your body.
We ask why this message exists, why it's so hidden, and whether Health Canada is doing enough to protect us.
“So, I took action. It was the most empowering thing I have ever done. As I began to notify and mobilize the neighborhood, many neighbors began to thank me for taking action.
They believed there was nothing that could be done to stop this. Once people knew they had a forum where they could voice their concerns, the community worked together and we made a small dent in this growing problem.
I found that I shared values with my neighbors, many of whom I didn’t previously know. The church leaders at our neighborhood church, LifePointe, listened to our concerns and decided not to place a cell tower on their roof.
I feel moved to stay involved with this extraordinary church with which I had had no prior connection.
I encourage everyone to take a stand for things that matter, especially our health.”
Peter Gotzsche, Founder Of The Cochrane Collaboration, Visits Australia To Talk About Dangers Of Prescription Drugs April 5 2017 | From: SydneyMorningHerald
Many of our most commonly used drugs, from painkillers to antidepressants, are dangerous and are killing us off in large numbers, says a leading researcher visiting Australia next week.
Peter Gotzsche, a co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, the world's foremost body in assessing medical evidence, arrives in Australia on Monday for a whirlwind speaking tour warning Australians about their use of prescription medications.
He estimates that 100,000 people in the United States alone die each year from the side-effects of correctly used drugs. Similar figures are not available in Australia, although the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that 3000 people died after complications with medical and surgical care in 2012.
"It's remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs," Professor Gotzsche, who heads the Nordic Cochrane Centre, told Fairfax Media ahead of his visit.
Another, sold under the brand name Vioxx, was withdrawn after it emerged it had caused up to 140,000 cases of serious heart disease in the US alone in the five years it was on the market - during which time its manufacturer, Merck was withholding information about its risks. About half the cases were thought to be fatal.
Professor Gotzsche says those deaths are only the tip of the iceberg and are representative of a system of drug regulation that simply does not protect patients.
Even the name for these drugs, "anti-inflammatory", is not supported by evidence, he says. He has conducted a clinical trial and review of the evidence that has found there is no proof they reduce inflammation.
"These terms for our drugs are invented by the drug industry," he said. "They had a huge financial interest in calling these things anti-inflammatory. It lured doctors into believing that these drugs somehow also had an effect on the disease process and reduced the joint damage."
"Those who use arthritis drugs are mostly the elderly who are most at risk of dying of a heart attack caused by the drug or a bleeding ulcer," he said. "We have a high use of psychiatric drugs by the elderly and we kill an enormous amount of them."
He believes many doctors mistake withdrawal symptoms for depression, immediately returning patients to their normal medication dose if they experience symptoms, despite the fact antidepressant medications are supposed to take some time to begin working.
"If you get depressed by lowering the dose and then immediately increase it to the normal dose, you will usually be well in a couple of hours," he said. "But if you get better straight away it is withdrawal, not depression."
But Peter McGeorge, the director of the St Vincent's mental health service, said the hospital will host Professor Gotzsche on Thursday "in the spirit of open inquiry".
"I have seen people respond dramatically to the use of antidepressants so I'm certainly not opposed to the use of medicine," he said.
"But I do think we have to be careful - and I'm talking more generally now - about just seeing medicine as the answer and prescribing it on the smallest indication it might be successful".
He said many hospitals, including the mental health service at St Vincent's, now did not accept drug company representatives, and there was increasing interest in other forms of psychological therapies to help people with mental illness.
Professor Gotzsche's list of what to avoid:
Antidepressants for all, as they very likely don't even work for severe cases of depression
All brain-active drugs in children
Anti-psychotics and other brain-active drugs for the elderly. Psychotropic drugs should be used as little as possible and mostly in very acute situations, as they are very harmful when used long term Anti-dementia drugs, as they very likely don't work
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used for arthritis, muscle pain and headaches, including over-the-counter, low-dose ibuprofen. These drugs should be used as little as possible.
Mammography screening, as it doesn't prolong life whereas it makes many healthy women ill through overdiagnosis and leads to the premature death for some because radiotherapy and chemotherapy increases mortality when used for harmless cancers detected at screening
Drugs for urinary incontinence, as they very likely don't work
Four Reasons To Break A Sweat April 4 2017 | From: GreenMedInfo
Your body has a natural, powerful, built-in system for detoxification that doesn't require trendy juice cleanses or expensive protocols. All you have to do is sweat!
Doctors, health experts, and fitness gurus tell us that we should break a sweat every day – and for good reason.
While sweating has a host of benefits simply because it’s a result of health-boosting exercise, the act of sweating itself heals the body as well. Whether you’re sitting in a sauna, walking on a warm day, or working out, sweating is a necessary bodily function with powerful healing effects.
Specifically, more studies are emerging lauding the detoxifying abilities of sweat. By clearing out a range of toxins, from persistent organic pollutants (POPs) to heavy metals, sweat plays an essential role in your body’s natural detox function. Let’s look at some of the toxins that are cleared from your body when you sweat:
1. Persistent Organic Pollutants (Solvents, Fumigants, and Insecticides):
A clinical study with 20 participants found that sweat samples contained a range of toxins, including pesticides DDT / DDE, endosulfan, methoxychlor, and endrin. In fact, nearly all parent compounds of pesticides were found in the samples studied, which shows that sweating is an effective way of diminishing your body’s toxic burden.
Additionally, the sweat sample contained some pesticides – including DDT, methoxychlor, and endrin - that were not present in the blood or urine samples collected from the same participant, suggesting that some pesticides are only mobilized and excreted through sweating.
2. Phthalate (Plasticizer):
Phthalate, found in plastic products, is another toxic chemical that is removed through sweat. In one study, researchers evaluated blood, sweat, and urine samples from 20 individuals, and discovered that all subjects had mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (MEHP), a common phthalate, in each of the samples.
The concentrations of this compound in sweat were more than twice as high as urine levels, showing that sweating may be the most effective way of ridding your body of this endocrine-disrupting compound.
3. Heavy Metals;
One study with 20 patients reported that when compared to urine, sweat contained about 24 times more cadmium, 19 times more nickel, 16 times more lead, and almost three times more aluminum. Overall, sweat proved more effective than urine at removing 14 out of the 18 heavy metals studied. It also contained larger quantities of 16 out of the 18 metals than the blood samples did.
Click on the image above to view a larger version in a new window
Of all the metals, aluminum was found at the highest concentrations in sweat, with zinc, copper, and nickel also occurring at relatively high amounts in the studied samples.
4. Bisphenol A (BPA):
Researchers examined the blood, urine, and sweat of 20 participants for BPA, an endocrine-disrupting toxin found in canned foods and plastic water bottles, among other things. Of the 20 sweat samples collected, 16 contained BPA, while only 14 urine and 2 blood samples tested positive for the toxin.
Not only does this reveal that sweat is the most effective way of removing BPA build-up in the body, it also shows that testing blood or urine for toxicity levels may not present the whole picture.
When it comes time to break a sweat, there are a host of activities that you can choose from. The majority of exercises and sports will get you sweaty: running/brisk walking, swimming, Bikram yoga, tennis, basketball – the list goes on.
A low impact option is spending time in a sauna. When comparing an infrared sauna to a steam sauna, researchers found that the sweat from the infrared sauna contained more bismuth, cadmium, chromium, mercury, and uranium. The steam sauna caused higher levels of arsenic, aluminum, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, lead, tin, thallium, and zinc to be excreted.
It’s important to note that hydration is essential in maximizing the health benefits listed above. Sweating has powerful effects on your health, but not hydrating properly during and after sweating will lead to a host of separate health problems.
An easy rehydration guideline to follow is to weigh yourself directly before and after sweating – the weight lost is the amount of water you should drink after to rehydrate yourself. For reference, one pound of water is slightly less than a ½ liter.
Additionally, sweat contains minerals that are essential to keep your body functioning optimally. After activities where you sweat excessively, it’s important to replace the minerals lost, especially zinc, copper, selenium, chromium, and potassium. Coconut water is a great source of potassium, and nuts, seafood, whole grains, and legumes generally contain relatively high levels of zinc, copper, selenium, and chromium.
Next time you feel yourself tempted to stay on the couch instead of going for a run, or opt to stay in the air conditioning instead of spending time in a sauna, think of all the “sweaty” benefits that you’re not getting! Breaking a sweat might seem like pain, but it’s worth it to keep your internal detox systems healthy and well-functioning.
Remarkable Ways Cannabis Can Help Prevent Illness April 3 2017 | From: NaturalNews
When it comes to health, “cannabis” is the new buzzword. While this all-natural remedy has been around for thousands of years, scientists are still learning about its many different uses, including the impact it has on human health.
The reason the plant is so effective as a medicine in humans, is because it interacts with a physiological system called the Endocannabinoid System (ECS), which is a “complex network of receptors that acts like a dimmer switch to all other activity in the body,” explains Collective Evolution.
Hemp is also known to help support good health. CBD oils made from hemp are growing in popularity, but they aren’t all created equal - CBD content can vary wildly. The Health Ranger’s very own CWC Labs has launched independent testing for CBD oil, so you can be sure that your product is authentic.
The Human Body Was Naturally Built to Interact With Cannabis
“This means when there is too much or too little activity going on somewhere, the ECS kicks in and brings it back into equilibrium. Our bodies are filled with ECS receptors that are perfect fits both for our own natural chemicals called endocannabinoids and also for the ones coming from plants such as cannabis.”
Human exposure to plant cannabinoids helps balance our ECS when it becomes weakened, reducing the risk of certain diseases. These ailments are often caused by inflammation in the body. Research shows that chronic inflammation leads to all sorts of health problems, including autoimmune diseases, rheumatoid arthritis, heart disease, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
When our bodies are exposed to cannabis, cytokines that cause inflammation are reduced. Fatty acid amidohydrolase, an enzyme that destroys the body’s natural anti-inflammatory endocannabinoid Anandamide, is also reduced, which in turn alleviates inflammation.
In addition to relieving inflammation, cannabis also acts as a powerful antioxidant. Our bodies are constantly subjected to environmental factors that induce oxidative stress, resulting in free radicals that may disrupt important cellular processes. This may result in a variety of health conditions such as heart disease, cancer, early aging and neurodegenerative disorders.
Introducing cannabis into the body may therefore eliminate or even prevent the onset of ailments caused by oxidative stress.
Could Fibromyalgia and Other Hard-to-Explain Diseases Be Caused by a Deficient ECS?
Some theorize that this natural plant may be capable of preventing and curing mysterious diseases. Dr. Ethan Russo suggests that illnesses like Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), fibromyalgia and migraines could be a result of a deficient ECS.
“If you don’t have enough endocannabinoids you have pain where there shouldn’t be pain. You would be sick, meaning nauseated. You would have a lowered seizure threshold. And just a whole litany of other problems,” Russo said.
The ECS is responsible for regulation all sorts of daily processes that take place within the human body.
Cannabis Helps the Human Body Achieve Homeostasis
“The health of the ECS is vital for homeostasis – the stable functioning of all our physiological processes, including appetite, sensitivity to pain, emotions, bone growth, fertility and so much more,” reported Green Flower.
Interestingly, the human body actually produces its own supply of cannabinoids, or endocannabinoids; however, as Green Flower explains, it’s often not enough to keep the ECS functioning optimally.
“We are finding that endocannabinoid deficiencies are the root of many types of illness, be it physical or mental. This is where cannabis comes in. The major cannabinoids in this plant work in concert with the ECS to promote the homeostasis that we depend on to thrive.”
Furthermore, cannabis intake in humans is known to reduce mental disorders such as anxiety, as well as promoting youthful skin and healthy joints, regulating blood sugar levels, fighting cancer, strengthening bones and improving brain health.
Microsoft Study: Human Attention Span Now Less Than Goldfish March 30 2017 | From: IBTimes
A new Microsoft study has highlighted the deteriorating attention span of humans. Comment: There's quite a sense of irony in that this has come from Microsoft.
In a bid to determine the impact of electronic gadgets on our ability to concentrate, Microsoft monitored the brain activity of some people using electroencephalograms (EEGs).
While the research revealed that we are able to multitask better now, humans were found to have worse attention spans than goldfish. The average human attention span was found to have fallen to eight seconds from 12 in 2000, putting humans below goldfish, which are is believed to have an attention span of nine seconds.
Canadians with more digital lifestyles struggle to focus in environments where prolonged attention is needed.
"Canadians [who were tested] with more digital lifestyles struggle to focus in environments where prolonged attention is needed," the study found, reported The Independent.
"Early adopters and heavy social media users front load their attention and have more intermittent bursts of high attention. They're better at identifying what they want/don't want to engage with and need less to process and commit things to memory."
The fall in concentration could also be blamed on our constant need to check our smartphones and browse through social media newslists and whatsapp messages.
While critics of electronic gadgets and social media have another reason to justify their alarm, some believe it's just a natural way of humans trying to consume it all.
Bruce Morton, a researcher with the University of Western Ontario's Brain and Mind Institute said: "When we first invented the car, it was so novel. The thought of having an entertainment device in the car was ridiculous because the car itself was the entertainment.
“After a while, travelling for eight hours at a time, you'd had enough of it. The brain is bored. You put radios in the car and video displays. Why? Because after the first 10 minutes of the drive I've had enough already. I understand this.
Just because we may be allocating our attention differently as a function of the technologies we may be using, it doesn't mean that the way our attention actually can function has changed."
3 Hard-Hitting Truths About Pain Most People Forget March 30 2017 | From: TheUnboundedSpirit
Pain is an inseparable part of life, and so everyone experiences it to one degree or another. Only a few, however, understand what pain truly is and how to best deal with it when faced with it.
Below are three of the most important, hard-hitting truths about pain that people tend to forget, which I’ve learned the rough way from painful experiences that I had to go through during the course of my life, and which helped me to better understand pain and experience it far less in times of trouble.
Most people are seeking to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, not realizing that pain and pleasure are actually two sides of the same coin - you can’t have one without the other.
But why is that so, I can hear you asking.
Because pleasure, just like pain, is a temporary feeling. Like a wave that rises very high above the surface of the sea is bound to soon fall and disappear into the waters, in the same way pleasure arises in our consciousness and soon afterwards dissolves and disappears into nothingness.
Pleasure comes quickly, and goes as quickly as it comes, and although it feels nice while it lasts, after it’s gone the lack of it can be very painful to those who are attached to it. Think, for example, of the intensely pleasurable experience of sexual orgasm. It can feel amazing while it’s there, but once it’s gone its absence usually leads to emotional discontent.
Pleasure and pain always go hand-in-hand, so the more we seek pleasure, the more pain we’re attracting into our lives, which in turn makes us thirsty for even more pleasure, thus creating a never-ending cycle of suffering.
Pain is Necessary for Growth
Pain is, in a sense, a wake-up call - it awakens us to the fact that there’s something wrong with the way we’re living and urges us to take action in order to correct that wrongness.
The more we choose to neglect pain, the more pain we’re going to experience, until a point will come when it’ll be unbearable and we’ll feel forced to do something about it.
Pain, therefore, isn’t a bad thing, as most people believe. On the contrary, the truth is that pain can be quite helpful, if we pay attention to it and learn from it. In fact, as Carl Jung once said, “there is no birth of consciousness without pain.”
With pain comes the need for increased intelligence. Pain is compelling us to find out why it’s there so that we can find ways to cure it and change the way we live so as to make sure we’ll avoid experiencing it in the future. So next time you find yourself in pain, ask yourself: “What can I learn from it?”
Treating the Symptoms of Pain Won’t Cure Pain
To get rid of a tree, you need to remove it from its roots. In the same way, if you want to cure pain, you need to address its root causes. Unfortunately, that’s far from what people usually do.
Do you feel sad? Don’t worry, have a few drinks and you’ll soon forget your worries. Are you still feeling sad? Take this miraculous pill and all your sadness will disappear into thin air!
As idiotic as the above scenario might seem, this is pretty much how most people are trying to deal with pain. The result? Even more pain.
Choosing to avoid feeling our pain, we neglect treating it. And even if we find a ‘quick fix’ that helps us to not sense it for a while, that doesn’t in any way helps us to actually get rid of it.
It’s like taking a pain killer when a part of your body is hurting from an injury - although your consciousness might not register it under the influence of the drug, the wound is still there.
By trying to treat pain on a symptoms-level, we don’t take the time to find out the root cause from where all symptoms are sprouting. This way more and worse symptoms of pain might manifest in the future.
Life can be quite painful sometimes, but it is in our hands to decrease the amount of suffering that we’re experiencing, by paying more attention to our pain, embracing it and learning the important lessons that it always has to teach us.