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.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." George Orwell.

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 16^th 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.

How is it that supremely educated and well-informed individuals in positions of high authority within government so often make colossal errors in judgment that were so predictably wrong-headed from the start? They just must have known what they were doing, right? The tendency is to assume that the decisions were based on some hidden concern or motivation that the average person cannot begin to fathom.

Perhaps it was a calculated move to draw publicity and create a sense of urgency for the purpose of growing a budget or expanding influence? Or was the person blinded by fear or ideology?

Otherwise, how could intelligent, powerful people with extensive access to the best information available fail to perceive obvious mistakes in making major public policy decisions? Can it be that sometimes intelligent people just do stupid things? Maybe.

I had a long conversation a few weeks ago with a friend who has extensive experience in managing security for the U.S. government. He suggested that one reason poor decisions get made at the highest levels of government is that many heads of departments and agencies go about their jobs in fear of making mistakes that could have major consequences for national security. This situation has become more pronounced since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The current measles outbreak and measles vaccines are a hot topic of debate raging in both the mainstream and alternative media. However, it would appear that the mainstream media's reporting on this issue is leaving out some very important facts that for some reason they do not seem to want to report.

Given the severity of the issue and the current rhetoric, which includes some in the mainstream media calling for criminal prosecution and incarceration of parents who refuse the measles vaccine, it is very important that all the facts involving the measles vaccine are revealed to the public.

Unfortunately, one topic in the discussion about measles vaccines that the mainstream media is completely ignoring is the fact that whistleblowers have come forward to reveal massive fraud connected with the current measles vaccine.

Merck's Alleged MMR Vaccine Fraud According to Whistleblowers

First, as we have mentioned several times in our coverage of this issue, there is currently no "measles vaccine" available. If one desires to get a "measles shot," or if one is mandated by law to do so, there is currently only one vaccine available, and it is a combination of three vaccines: mumps, measles, rubella. One company owns the rights to this vaccine: Merck.

What the mainstream media is not currently reporting, however, is that Merck has been involved in a long federal lawsuit with allegations of fraud over the mumps portion of the MMR vaccine, in a case filed back in 2010 by two whistleblowers, virologists who worked for Merck. Merck has apparently tried hard to get this case thrown out of court, and keep this news out of the media, but late in 2014 a federal judge finally ruled that the case is to move forward.

For Mylan, it was a perfect plan—diabolical, unstoppable. The company made changes in its anti-allergy EpiPen dispenser in 2009, enough to give it patent protection. Then, in 2012, it began to give away free pens to schools, gradually making school nurses at least partly dependent on them. Meanwhile the company was successfully lobbying for the "Emergency Epinephrine Act," commonly referred to as the "EpiPen Law," which encouraged the presence of epinephrine dispensers in schools. Most recently, after raising the price from $100 to $600, Mylan announced a half-price coupon, making itself appear generous even though the price had effectively jumped from $100 to $300.

This is capitalism at its worst, a greedy and disdainful profit-over-people system that leaves millions of Americans sick... or dead. These are the sins of the pharmaceutical industry.

It's fall in the northern hemisphere and more than one type of darkness has set in. Vaccines are being injected at lightning speed. New vaccines, untested vaccines, double-strength flu vaccines for the over 65 group; none of which have been shown to be effective at keeping anyone healthy. The naïve are lining up at clinics, shopping malls, and retail stores. They don't know which kind of vaccine they will receive. Which manufacturer is it? Does it have mercury? What chemicals does it contain? Why should they care? Why would they not trust their doctor (or their local pharmacist)?

These healthcare professionals say it is a good idea to get a flu vaccine to stay healthy this winter, so they allow disease to be injected into their muscles. The people have been mesmerized, duped and frightened by a bogeyman illness called the flu. Ironically, the real bogeyman - the silent monster that can wreak unrecognized havoc - just slipped beneath their skin, completely unnoticed, and masquerading as something healthy, called a vaccine. Despite any logic or science behind the mass marketing of the flu and pneumonia jabs, these vaccines remain the most recommended solution to preventing disease by the uninformed, propaganda-parroting practitioners.

The people who are getting vaccinated and the practitioners who are pushing vaccines are parishioners of the largest church on earth. They can be very devout and unreasonable. They believe this medical religion, vaccination, has saved millions of lives. They've read the holy bible of Merck and believe the mantras of the CDC that vaccines have eradicated disease from the Earth. They must be a gift from some god, right? But what else have these indoctrinated persons in white coats read about vaccines? With few exceptions, precious little. Most who administer these slurries don't even know what ingredients are in them.

In traditional Chinese medicine, emotions and physical health are intimately connected. Sadness, nervous tension and anger, worry, fear, and overwork are each associated with a particular organ in the body. For example, irritability and inappropriate anger can affect the liver and result in menstrual pain, headache, redness of the face and eyes, dizziness and dry mouth.

The exact cause of asthma is not known but it can be triggered by allergies, air pollution, respiratory infections, emotions, weather conditions, sulfites in food and certain medications. Common symptoms include coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness.

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the air passages that carry air from the nasal area and mouth to lungs and vice versa. When a person suffers from asthma, he/she finds it difficult to breathe in outside air and thus, feel suffocated and congested. One does not have to have asthma as an official diagnosis to have and feel difficulty with one's breathing. Our breathing is the most consistent barometer of our wellbeing telling us how we are feeling on a moment to moment basis. Our breathing tracks heart rate variability (HRV) with both being perfect mirrors of stress.

Some people love to hate government regulations. Many believe they're just bureaucratic barriers that waste our time. But the Food and Drug Administration just passed a new regulation that'll actually protect us, and may save you a few bucks and an unnecessary purchase at the store.

If you're one of the millions of Americans who buys antibacterial soaps, you've been, at a minimum, duped. But more importantly, you've been exposed to harmful chemicals.

Antibacterial soaps sound good. After all, no one wants to imagine their hands teeming with bacteria.

We are utterly covered in microorganisms. That idea grosses us out, and some of that bacteria can make us sick. Kill them all, we think.

But in reality, we couldn't survive without beneficial bacteria, some of which help protect our immune system. And antibacterial soaps are no better at preventing disease than regular soap and water.

According to the 2014 Health National Survey, 1 in 45 American children between the ages of 3 and 17 years old have autism spectrum disorder (ASD).¹ It is one of the fastest growing developmental disorders in the U.S.² This figure is concerning for several reasons, one of which is the financial cost to parents for caring for their child. In the U.S., poverty among families with an autistic child is growing rapidly with very limited government-funded programs to assist parents.³ This places a big burden on families with autistic children.

The Lifetime Cost of Raising a Child with ASD

ASD is a neurodevelopmental disorder associated with impaired social ability particularly with respect to communication and interaction. Other characteristics of ASD include restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and limited interest in activities.⁴ The disorder ranges from mild to severe cases that make daily routines challenging and nearly impossible for those affected and their families.⁴ ASD is associated with functional impairments that carry long-term health, social and financial costs for families and the society at large.

According to authors of a 2014 study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the financial toll on families and society "is much higher than previously suggested."⁵ The study finds that the cost of supporting an individual with ASD with an intellectual disability over their lifetime amounts to $2.4 million in the U.S. The study estimates that between 40-60% of individuals with ASD also have an intellectual disability.⁵ The cost of supporting an individual with ASD without an intellectual disability is $1.4 million.

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), currently starring in the new season of the Netflix series "Narcos," is busy trying to class a relatively innocuous alternative treatment to methadone, kratom, as "Schedule I," putting it on par with heroin, cocaine, and the most "dangerous" of them all - cannabis.

Citing questionable claims about its potential to cause fatal overdoses, the DEA hopes to list the natural opioid starting October 1, but a petition against the change has more than 110,000 signatures and counting, and points to studies that claim "it has been shown numerous times in reports from users to help recovering Opiate addicts, treat pain, combat depression and anxiety, and much more."