Health & Wellness


The tricks and lies of corporate junk science

© unknown
Science has been hijacked by corporate junk science, which pretends to be real science but is actually highly fraudulent.
Corporate junk science is an all-pervading presence in our society. It's everywhere. The scientific journals of the entire world, offline and online, have been flooded with so much fake science that it has, sad to say, become practically impossible for the average person to wade through all of it and sort out the wheat from the chaff. However, the fake science I am referring to here is not unintentional or sloppy work, which is more of a minor problem in the scheme of things (since it will eventually be corrected with due diligence), but rather the deliberately fraudulent "scientific studies" which are put out by major corporations with a definite agenda in mind - usually establishing a fake scientific basis of "safety" for their products, whether they be vaccines, mobile phones, GMOs, tobacco, fluoride, soda or soft drinks, etc. It's nothing more than corporate junk science, and many people, including doctors, scientists and academics, have been taken in hook, line and sinker by it.

It's time to shine the light on this ugly phenomenon. Science is meant to be about the pursuit of truth and understanding how our world works. It is truly sickening to see the extent to which it has been hijacked to serve corporate interests - to make a tiny, tiny 0.0001% rich at the expense of harming and killing the rest of mankind.

Comment: Keep these tricks in mind when doing your own research. Fraudulent research is rampant.


High salt diet protects against infection & increases immune function

The dietary tides are once again turning for salt.

You may remember a landmark JAMA study in 2011 that showed that contrary to what the medical community espoused for years - salt actually lengthens your life; it doesn't cut your life or raise the risk of hypertension. That study found that people actually lived longer if they consumed salt. Notably, they were not studying pink Himalayan salt, but regular old, processed table salt.

Additionally, a Cochrane study confirmed that salt did not cause heart or blood pressure problems and that reducing the substance offered no reduction of heart risks.

Some people are consuming salt in their water to help with adrenal function and hydrate better in the summer heat.

Now researchers, in a study published by Cell Press March 3rd in Cell Metabolism reveals that dietary salt could have a biological advantage: defending the body against invading microbes.

Comment: Shaking Up The Salt Myth: Healthy Salt Recommendations: Read more about Why real salt is so important:

Green Light

Idiocracy: Food packaging should have traffic light labels?

The main character in the movie Idiocracy goes to the hospital of the future and tries to tell the clerk about his problem. She apathetically scans her finger over a bunch of picture buttons that indicate a medical problem - she doesn't have to think. Imagine if everything was even further reduced from Idiocracy into nothing but basic colors and shapes. It would almost be like shopping with Big Bird as your guide.

"Should food products be labeled with traffic light symbols to make health-related information on ingredients easier to understand?"

Apparently, this very topic has been up for debate...according to researchers at the University of Bonn. This writer would like to show you that this is really only yet another study that benefits Big Food, not the obesity-ridden consumer.

Comment: Complete Idiocracy! As the author states: "Seriously, the toxic food packaging alone is enough to make every packaged food item deserve a red sticker." To learn more about how toxic food packaging is affecting your health read the following articles:

Book 2

Dr. Jane Goodall helps expose the dangers of GMOs: Altered genes & twisted truth

Dr. Jane Goodall, one of the world's most prominent and popular primatologists, ethologists, and anthropologists, is starting to make a lot of noise about genetically modified foods and organisms (GMOs). She's no stranger to speaking out against them, and joins a very long and growing list of scientists and activists trying to create awareness about the risks they pose to human health and to the environment.

In September of 2014, she called for a complete ban of GMOs on her website, urging the citizenry of the world to boycott them. She's also been very vocal about the pesticides that are commonly sprayed on our food. A simple Google or YouTube search can suffice if you are looking to hear more about her stance on GMOs and pesticides.
"How could we have ever believed that it was a good idea to grow our food with poisons?" - Jane Goodall


How soy affects hormones

I've never been a huge fan of soy. I don't like soybean oil because it contains mostly omega 6 fatty acids, which promote inflammation. I don't like processed soy protein because it impairs nutrient absorption. I don't like how much pesticide is sprayed on soybeans.

Inflammation, impaired nutrient absorption, pesticides. That's why industrially processed soy is bad for hormones. But what about whole bean, organic, and fermented soy? Does it affect hormones? Yes, but possibly not in the way you think.

Is soy an estrogen?

Soy contains phytoestrogens or "plant-estrogens", which sounds a bit scary at first. Who wants to ingest a foreign estrogen? But in reality, we ingest a lot of foreign estrogens (also called xenoestrogens).

⇒Xenoestrogens are not estrogen. They're chemicals that are molecularly similar to estrogen, so they interact with estrogen receptors and with the pituitary-ovarian feedback loop.

We take in a frighteningly large array of man-made xenoestrogens such as pesticides, plastics, and ethinylestradiol (the synthetic estrogen in the birth control pill). Those xenoestrogens are the most potent and concerning xenoestrogens because they cause hormonal problems such as PCOS, endometriosis, infertility, and breast cancer.

Comment: Research suggests that some anti-nutrients are not eliminated with fermentation. Furthermore, GMO cross-contamination is ubiquitous:

Despite ban Monsanto & Bayer's GMO plants contaminate Europe

Soy is not worth it.


American diagnosed with Ebola being flown to Bethesda, MD for treatment

© Michael Duff/AP
A healthcare worker prepares a colleague’s Ebola virus protective gear at a clinic operated by the International Medical Corps in Makeni, Sierra Leone.
An American healthcare worker who contracted Ebola while fighting the outbreak in Sierra Leone will be brought to the US for treatment, the National Institutes of Health announced on Thursday.

The healthcare worker is due to arrive at the NIH facility in Bethesda, Maryland, on Friday. The patient, who has not been identified as male or female, was volunteering in an Ebola treatment unit in Sierra Leone.

News of the American's infection came hours after it was announced that the epidemic in west Africa had a grim milestone: more than 10,000 people had died from Ebola in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, according to numbers released by the World Health Organization. So far, more than 24,000 people in nine countries have been infected.

Comment: And yet Hillary's email is all the major networks can talk about.

The countries have made significant gains in the fight against Ebola in recent months, with the overall number of new Ebola cases slowing significantly. Earlier this month, Liberia discharged its last Ebola patient. Just six months earlier, Liberia - which has recorded more than 9,000 cases of Ebola, including more than 4,000 deaths - was reporting 300 new cases a week.

Healthcare workers are at heightened risk of exposure because of their close contact with ill patients. Since the outbreak began in December, 840 health workers have tested positive for Ebola in west Africa; there have been 491 reported deaths.

The individual being flown to the US will be the second Ebola patient to receive treatment at the facility, specifically designed to provide high-level isolation capabilities and staffed by infectious diseases and critical care specialists. The first patient, Dallas nurse Nina Pham, was treated successfully.

Black Magic

How the sugar industry subverted and influenced public health policy

A recent analysis of nearly 320 internal sugar industry documents from 1959 to 1971 shows how the industry sought to influence the setting of U.S. research priorities during that time. Disturbingly, it's a strategy that continues to this very day.

Forty or 50 years ago, at least in the United States, tooth decay was seen as the major health problem associated with consumption of refined sugars. Back then, many dentists (probably unsuccessfully) warned patients away from sugar, and public health researchers sought ways to reduce the toll of caries, the most prevalent chronic disease in children and adolescents. Few, if any, were looking into the relationship between refined sugars and obesity or diabetes or heart disease. Now, in a remarkable piece of dental-political forensics, researchers at the University of California San Francisco have brought to light the forces that shaped oral-health policy in that era.

In a research article appearing in PLOS Medicine this week, Cristin E. Kearns, Stanton A. Glantz, and Laura A. Schmidt mined an archive of industry papers long buried in the library of the University of Illinois, Urbana, as well as ancient documents at the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR). They skillfully wove a public health whodunit that we didn't even know had been done to us, showing how sugar-industry executives and the International Sugar Research Foundation (ISRF, which later became the Sugar Association) sought, successfully, to influence NIDR policy.

The documents reveal a virtual capture of the NIDR by an affected industry. In the late 1960s NIDR began planning a National Caries Program (NCP) to fund research on the prevention of caries. The cane and beet sugar industry, understandably, was concerned that the committee might recommend measures to reduce sugar consumption, which even it had recognized as contributing to caries. Hence, the industry mounted a campaign to ensure that research focused not on the public health goal of reducing sugar consumption, but instead on prophylactic measures like vaccines, dextranases, and other approaches to reducing caries.

Comment: Greed is driving corporations to work extremely hard to hide the truth behind the negative effects of sugar on the population. Unfortunately, there is a wealth of data that points to sugar being extremely unhealthy:


FDA must be made accountable for scientific misbehavior

A most important FDA file somehow was emailed to me and, as a consumer health researcher, retired healthcare professional, consumer health author/journalist/blogger, and certified paralegal, after reading it, I feel it is my moral duty to share it with all citizens in the USA.

Someone [name redacted] at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/FDA [PDF] sent the then recently-inaugurated president, Barack Hussein Obama, a letter, which I will parse in part below. Also, a CERTIFIED document, including a notarized affidavit signed by Sarah Kotler, the Denials and Appeals Officer in the Division of Freedom of Information, Office of Public Information and Library Services, Office of Shared Services, Office of the Commissioner, United States Food and Drug Administration, was provided to an unidentified receiver, regarding serious ethical and fraud problems within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Since I did not receive copies of what Kotler supplied in No. 4, I cannot speak to them. Furthermore, The Wall Street Journal published an article about some of FDA's problems in its Oct. 22, 2009 online issue.

Comment: Surprise! More FDA corruption: Constitutional attorney speaks out
The FDA continues to be one of the most dangerous government agencies in the United States.
The sheer scope of people it affects with its corruption is staggering. As Jon Rappoport has highlighted, the FDA's own webpage admits that the drugs it certifies as safe contribute to over 100,000 deaths per year.
And as you'll see in the video interview below with constitutional attorney, Jonathan Emord, not only does the FDA routinely approve drugs over objections from its own medical reviewers, but the FDA does zero independent medical testing of its own. It is a system built upon conflicts of interest that leaves consumers completely in the dark about the true consequences of taking Big Pharma products.

Life Preserver

Loneliness comparable to obesity as a threat to longevity and poses even greater risk for younger generations

© fotoforfun / Fotolia
Ask people what it takes to live a long life, and they'll say things like exercise, take Omega-3s, and see your doctor regularly.

Now research from Brigham Young University shows that loneliness and social isolation are just as much a threat to longevity as obesity.

"The effect of this is comparable to obesity, something that public health takes very seriously," said Julianne Holt-Lunstad, the lead study author. "We need to start taking our social relationships more seriously."

Loneliness and social isolation can look very different. For example, someone may be surrounded by many people but still feel alone. Other people may isolate themselves because they prefer to be alone. The effect on longevity, however, is much the same for those two scenarios.

Comment: Other studies have shown how lack of meaningful social relationships can actually worsen disease and addiction. While it is true that people stay in contact using social media, it is questionable how adequate such contact is when used as a replacement for face to face contact. Perhaps there would be more social cohesion and a lot less strife if people would leave their computers and smart phones more often and go out to actually meet people - technology can never replace a hug!

Eggs Fried

Actually, you don't need carbohydrates for energy

Of all the nutrition and fitness misconceptions I hear, this is the front-runner for most ridiculous:

"I need carbohydrates for energy."

If that's the case, how did we survive and thrive as hunter-gatherers on less than 80g of carbohydrates per day? While still managing to chase down a wild boar, climb a tree to escape a pack of wolves, walk five miles and back to gather fresh water, and gather sticks and logs to build a shelter?

Perhaps we subconsciously heard it in an advertisement, or maybe we took a look at our government food pyramid, but for whatever reason, we've all been trained to respond to any mention of cutting carbs with this rehearsed answer.

The reality is, humans are not meant to consume an abundant amount of carbohydrates. Not only because our daily activity is less than the hunter-gatherer, but because there is:

No dietary requirement for carbohydrates! When and if our body is ever desperate for energy, it is perfectly capable of making its own glucose through gluconeogenesis. If absolutely necessary, we are fully capable of taking non-carbohydrate sources and creating carbohydrate structures.

Comment: For more info, see: