Welcome to Sott.net
Fri, 30 Sep 2016
The World for People who Think

Health & Wellness
Map

Cell Phone

Beware 5G technolgy

On 14 July 2016 the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) of the USA made space available in the radio spectrum for consumer devices to operate within the 25 GHz to 100 GHz of the electromagnetic spectrum.

It went on to say:
"The Commission has struck a balance between new wireless services, current and future fixed satellite service operations, and federal uses. The item adopts effective sharing schemes to ensure that diverse users - including federal and non-federal, satellite and terrestrial, and fixed and mobile - can co-exist and expand."
Nowhere in its document is mention made of consumer safety or well-being. I guess that is fair of the FCC because historically, it is not interested in matters of microwave radiation and consequent thermal and non-thermal effects on the population. Let's face it, and most people find this hard to believe, the FCC works purely on behalf of the telecoms industries in granting them access to the airwaves, no more and no less.

Health

Why breastmilk does what a vaccine never could

© Marco Bello / Reuters
To claim that breastmilk is the gold standard in infant nutrition is an understatement. For a newborn, nothing comes close in nutrient density which is so perfectly customized for an infant as it grows. Breast-fed infants gain incredible protection from antibodies, proteins and immune cells in breastmilk. It defends against a myriad of pathogens in ways that are impossible through vaccination and other pharmaceuticals.

The molecules in breastmilk cells help to prevent microorganisms from penetrating the body's tissues. Some of the molecules bind to microbes in the hollow space (lumen) of the gastrointestinal tract. In this way, they block microbes from attaching to and crossing through the mucosa-the layer of cells, also known as the epithelium, that lines the digestive tract and other body cavities. Other molecules lessen the supply of particular minerals and vitamins that harmful bacteria need to survive in the digestive tract. Certain immune cells in human milk are phagocytes that attack microbes directly. Another set produces chemicals that invigorate the infant's own immune response.

Comment: See also:


Monkey Wrench

The modus operandi of the GMA in defeating GMO-labeling

September 1st, 2016 I received an email from the Washington State Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, in which he gave the following updated report that I think readers may be interested in knowing. Why? Because it addresses how issues are strategized and apparently manipulated in the USA, which really should be outlawed at all levels.

Those levels especially involve dealing with federal and states legislators, members of Congress, federal and states regulatory agencies and, particularly, public referenda/initiatives that would influence legislation, since consumers don't have the persuasive financial clout corporations PO$$E$$ and presumably often even use illegally. There needs to be a level playing field in getting all legislation passed without undue vested interest influences! Big Pharma, especially, should have "its sails trimmed," as it is one of the most influential of all "movers and shakers"!

Comment: GMO labeling fight: Grocery Manufacturer's Association found guilty of $11 million cover up


Syringe

Arkansas hit by mumps outbreak - only among the vaccinated

Back to school, feels like back to Mumps season.

It appears that with the return to school and in light of mandatory vaccination laws, increased pressure by physicians to get vaccines, and of course vaccine shedding, Big Pharma is seemingly bringing back Mumps to our nation's children.
"In the last 15 years the highest number (in Arkansas) we've had was 14," said Dr. Dirk Haselow.
Luckily, for those children that have not been vaccinated, the same false sense of security doesn't seem to apply. Avoiding germs and proper hygiene appear to be the best way to avoid Mumps, not relying on a controversial and highly ineffective MMR vaccine.

Comment: Mumps vaccine proves ineffective:
A provocative new study titled, "Epidemic of complicated mumps in previously vaccinated young adults in the South-West of France," reveals that the MMR vaccine, despite generating high rates of presumably protective IgG antibodies against mumps, does not always translate into real-world immunity against infection as we have repeatedly been told. To the contrary, the study details cases where, despite the detection of high levels of antibodies against the mumps virus, patients contracted a malignant form of mumps that only rarely follows from natural, community acquired infection.

Vaccine Failure Is Well Established In the Scientific Literature

While counter-intuitive to those who uncritically accept the official marketing copy of the vaccine industry and their cheerleaders within government and the mainstream media, the research community and general public is beginning to appreciate how prevalent and well-documented vaccine failure really is, especially in the case of measles, hepatitis B,chickenpox, pertussis (whooping cough), HIV, polio,HPV, and influenza vaccines that do not work as advertised.



Attention

Can traffic fumes go to your head? The larger the city you live in, the more magnetic particles enter your brain

Ultra-fine particles of metal in exhaust gases fly up our noses and travel into our brains, where they contribute to diseases associated with the central nervous system, and the more congested the city, the bigger the problem.

Iron nanoparticles were already known to be present in the brain - but they were thought to come from the iron naturally found in our bodies, derived from food.

Now a closer look at their structure suggests the particles mostly come from air pollution sources, like traffic fumes and coal burning. The findings are a smoking gun, says Barbara Maher of Lancaster University in the UK.

Environmental pollution including carbon particles emitted by car exhaust, smoking and long term inhalation of dust of various origins have been recognised as risk factors causing chronic inflammation of the lungs. The link between smoking and autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis has also been established. Diseases associated with inhaled nanoparticles include asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, lung cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases.

Comment: DUH! Car pollution can damage brain:


Magnify

Renowned Harvard psychologist calls ADHD a fraud that only benefits the pharmaceutical industry

Viewed by academics as one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century, Jerome Kagan ranked above Carl Jung (the founder of analytical psychology) and Ivan Pavlov (who discovered the Pavlovian reflex) in a 2002 American Psychological Association ranking of the eminent psychologists.

He is well-known for his pioneering work in developmental psychology at Harvard University, where he has spent decades documenting how babies and small children grow, and is an exceptional and highly-regarded researcher.

So it may be surprising to learn that he believes the diagnosis of ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) is an invention — and only benefits the pharmaceutical industry and psychiatrists.

Mislabeling Mental Illness

"That is the history of humanity: Those in authority believe they're doing the right thing, and they harm those who have no power", says Jerome Kagan.

Attention

The ubiquitous presence of glyphosate - now found in vaccines

© thebreakaway.wordpress.com
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's signature herbicide RoundUp, has become a pervasive toxin in the environment and food system. Many foods are now made with RoundUp Ready soy, corn, canola, and some of these same crops are fed to factory farmed animals for meat and dairy products.

This ubiquitous presence of glyphosate is not all that surprising, considering that U.S. farmland has been drenched with more than 2.6 billion pounds of glyphosate since 1992. Many grain and seed crops receive a dose of RoundUp just before harvest in a process known as desiccation.

Unfortunately, what all this means is that our bodies are receptacles for a chemical that the World Health Organization has labeled a "probable carcinogen."

In 2014, a shocking study found the presence of glyphosate in the breast milk of American mothers, with high levels found in three out of 10 samples. Monsanto soon funded and authored a follow up study which, unsurprisingly, found no glyphosate in breast milk.

Comment: Glyphosate is a serious toxic chemical and an endocrine disruptor to boot, meaning that it seriously messes with the hormone system!
Glyphosate's Toxicity

It should come as no surprise that sickness is becoming the normal state of health. Chronic diseases, once fairly rare, are now how we live and die. Diseases once seen almost exclusively in the elderly are now being seen in children. Autoimmune and neurological disorders are becoming common.

There are many potentially causative and contributory factors, but glyphosate has generally gotten a pass because it was considered "generally recognized as safe" - GRAS - for its apparently low toxicity. Indeed, short term studies appeared to confirm its innocence. However, long term studies of its effects on health weren't done until recently. The most insidious factor in glyphosate's toxicity has been the slow expression of harmful effects. Because of it, studies demonstrating glyphosate's insidious action inside the body - like those Samsel & Seneff reviewed - have been systematically ignored.

So glyphosate is now the most popular herbicide on earth, and that factor is driving the extent of harm it produces. It isn't just the fact of its toxicity that's at issue, it's the sheer volume of usage.

The proven and probable effects of glyphosate are manifold. The meteoric rise in chronic diseases and metabolic disorders has occurred during the same time period that glyphosate was introduced, and has followed a trajectory much like that of the herbicide's massive increase in use.

At some point, officials in power must take their heads out of the sand and address the evidence that ties glyphosate to the epidemic of chronic diseases. Samsel and Seneff have now collected, sorted, and logically extrapolated on evidence from studies, and they leave little question that there must be an association between the herbicide and the phenomenon of mass ill health.



Bacon n Eggs

The sugar industry shifted the blame to fat


The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote
saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show.

The internal sugar industry documents, recently discovered by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggest that five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease, including many of today's dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry.

Comment: "Behaved very badly" is an understatement. By tricking people into low-fat and high-carb diets, one could argue they were complicit in the deaths of many individuals.

See also:


Cheesecake

Sugar industry paid Harvard researchers to bury link between sugar and heart disease and instead blame it on fat in 1960s studies

© Enrique de la Osa / Reuters
Sugar cane is harvested.
The sugar industry paid Harvard researchers in the 1960s to bury research linking sugar intake to heart disease and to instead make fat the culprit, according to a study of archival documents.

"These internal documents show that the Sugar Research Foundation initiated coronary heart disease research in 1965 to protect market share and that its first project, a literature review, was published in the New English Journal of Medicine without disclosure of the sugar industry's funding or role," stated the study.

The internal sugar industry documents were found in public archives by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco.

UCSF researchers analyzed more than 340 documents indicating the relationship between the sugar industry and Roger Adams, then a professor of organic chemistry who served on the scientific advisory boards for the sugar industry, and Mark Hegsted, one of the Harvard researchers who produced the literature review.

The documents showed the sugar industry was aware of evidence in the 1960s that linked sugar consumption to high blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels and was thought to be risk factors for coronary heart disease.

The sugar industry commissioned Project 226, a literature review written by researchers at the Harvard University School of Public Nutrition Department, which concluded there was "no doubt" that the only dietary intervention required to prevent coronary heart disease was to reduce dietary cholesterol and substitute polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat in the American diet.

The sugar industry paid the Harvard scientist the equivalent of $50,000 in 2016 dollars.

Comment: The sugar industry knew exactly what it was doing when it paid these scientists to commit fraud. They just didn't care that their "research" would lead to the early death of millions of people so long as their profits kept going up. See also:


Health

Medical censorship in the 21st century

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." George Orwell.
© Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Org
Many of you may be aware of an article published in the Lancet on the eighth of September. 'Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy.'1 It caused a media stir, and I was asked to appear on a few BBC programmes to argue against it - tricky in two minutes. At one stage I was cut off when I attempted to bring up the issue of financial conflicts of interest amongst the authors. The lead author of this paper was Professor Sir Rory Collins.

In truth, I have been awaiting this article for some time. In fact, I am going to reproduce here a blog I wrote on February 16th 2015, predicting exactly what was going to happen, who was going to be involved, and (in broad terms) exactly what they were going to say:

Read the article here - A humiliating climb down - or a Machiavellian move?

I do not claim to be Nostradamus here. What was going to happen was obvious. The script had been written a long time ago. It was only a question of when, not if, it happened.

However, whilst the article itself is nothing new... and believe me, there is nothing new here. Just the same data stretched into three hundred references, and mind-blowing statistical obfuscation. It does, however, contain a few new Alice in Wonderland statements, such as the following:
'If information on a particular outcome is not available from a randomised trial because it was not recorded, that would not bias assessment of the effects of the treatment based on trials that did record that outcome.'
How can this statement be made? For the first twenty years of trials on statins, no-one had noted that statins increase the risk of type II diabetes. It was not, as far as could be seen at the time, a problem.

Then, in a later study, JUPITER, all of a sudden it was found that there was a significant increase in type II diabetes. Now, it turns out that all statins increase the risk of type II diabetes. Had JUPITER not recorded the incidence of type II diabetes, this would never have been noticed. The cynics among you might say that they recorded this in the hope that the incidence would actually go down.

Here we have a perfect example of an outcome not recorded in the vast majority of statin studies. Had it been, it would have significantly biased the assessment of treatment. We also find that after two trials, 4S and HPS, found an increase in non melanoma skin cancer2, this outcome was not recorded, ever again, in statin trials. Outcomes certainly cannot make a difference if you do not record them. But if you did bother record them - who knows what might have happened.

This type of logic litters this Lancet paper, along with straw man argument after straw man argument. However, the purpose of this blog was not to discuss the evidence, such as it is, such as we are allowed to see, but to highlight why this paper was written and published. For this I shall turn to the editorial, accompanying the paper, written by Richard Horton, who is the editor of The Lancet.

Read this, and be afraid, for it is the most frightening thing you will read this year. Possibly this decade and maybe the entire century as is a direct attack on human freedoms. Whilst couched in the usual life destroying scientific prose, what he is saying is that any who questions current accepted medical dogma should be very tightly controlled, and probably should not be allowed to publish anything at all.