Depopulation Test Run? 75% Of Children Who Received Vaccines In Mexican Town Now Dead Or Hospitalized.


Vaccine producers have crossed every line imaginable – and they don’t even care. It’s rather frightening, especially because of what just happened in a small town in Mexico. Was it a depopulation test run?

The big pharma, the government, and every other official will tell you that you’re crazy for questioning the authenticity of these vaccines. However, you’re not the only one and it’s time for the rest of the world to open their eyes up! Vaccines today are filled with toxic ingredients such thimerosal or formaldehyde. They cause serious adverse side effects, cancer, and sometimes even death!

 A small town in Mexico has just received some alarming results from the vaccinations. In La pimiento, Mexico two babies have died and 37 other children have been rushed to the hospital due to serious effects from the vaccinations.
“…14 children are in serious condition, 22 are stable and one is in critical condition,” the Chiapas Health Secretariat said in a statement via Latino.FoxNews.com.

Administered by the Mexican Social Security Institute, only 52 children were vaccinated. However, over 75% of them are either dead or being hospitalized. Many people are calling this the start of a new era because they truly believe it was a test run for depopulation.

 It certainly is a terrifying thought to, as vaccines are a huge epidemic right now. No matter how much the government lies about it, the truth always seems to come to the surface. People are going crazy over it too. However, many people dismiss it as a conspiracy theory; you might want to think about the 37 children that are deathly sick or already dead because of this vaccine. They aren’t the only ones either.

The vaccines were intended to protect the kids from tuberculosis, hepatitis B, and rotavirus.At least, that is what they were told. Vaccine denialism is rampant across the entire world, but there is a rising awareness on these dangerous vaccinations. I mean, kids are literally dying! What is it going to take to convince the people we are telling the truth! Everyone should know not to trust politicians, so why are we trusting them with the lives of our children?

According to Natural News:

AS THE VACCINE INDUSTRY HAS NOW COME TO REALIZE, IT’S SO MUCH EASIER TO KILL PEOPLE WHEN THEY VOLUNTARILY COMPLY WITH THE INJECTIONS. HENCE THE AGGRESSIVE MEDIA PROPAGANDA PUSH TO ACHIEVE ABSOLUTE BLIND OBEDIENCE TO VACCINES SO THAT NO ONE WILL ASK QUESTIONS WHEN STERILIZATION OR EUTHANASIA CHEMICALS ARE USED. THAT’S NO DOUBT WHY VACCINES HAVE BEEN ROUTINELY TESTED FOR DEPOPULATION PROGRAMS VIA TWO PRIMARY METHODS:

# 1) ACHIEVE COVERT STERILIZATIONS OF TARGETED POPULATIONS BY COMBINING STERILIZATION CHEMICALS WITH VACCINES. (THE “SLOW KILL.”)

# 2) DIRECTLY KILL VACCINE RECIPIENTS BY INTENTIONALLY LACING VACCINES WITH EUTHANASIA CHEMICALS THAT CAUSE DEATH. (THE “FAST KILL.”)

METHOD #1 HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY USED THROUGHOUT AFRICA, MEXICO AND SOUTH AMERICA TO INFLICT STERILIZATION UPON TARGETED GROUPS VIA IMMUNIZATION AND VACCINATION PROGRAMS. JUST LAST YEAR, IN FACT, I REPORTED ON THE DISCOVERY OF A COVERT DEPOPULATION VACCINE PROGRAM BEING RUN IN KENYA:

TETANUS VACCINES GIVEN TO MILLIONS OF YOUNG WOMEN IN KENYA HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY LABORATORIES TO CONTAIN A STERILIZATION CHEMICAL THAT CAUSES MISCARRIAGES, REPORTS THE KENYA CATHOLIC DOCTORS ASSOCIATION, A PRO-VACCINE ORGANIZATION.

A WHOPPING 2.3 MILLION YOUNG GIRLS AND WOMEN ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING GIVEN THE VACCINE, PUSHED BY UNICEF AND THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION.

“WE SENT SIX SAMPLES FROM AROUND KENYA TO LABORATORIES IN SOUTH AFRICA. THEY TESTED POSITIVE FOR THE HCG ANTIGEN,” DR. MUHAME NGARE OF THE MERCY MEDICAL CENTRE IN NAIROBI TOLD LIFESITENEWS. “THEY WERE ALL LACED WITH HCG.”

METHOD #2 NOW APPEARS TO BE UNDER WAY IN MEXICO AS 75% OF THOSE CHILDREN INJECTED WITH VACCINES ARE NOW EITHER DEAD OR HOSPITALIZED.

As the CDC openly admits, vaccines are still intentionally formulated with mercury, aluminum, MSG and formaldehyde. Some vaccines even use ingredients derived from aborted human fetal tissue. Last year, a CDC scientist blew the whistle on the CDC committing scientific fraudto cover up links between vaccines and autism in young African-American males.

mumps-702x336

There is much evidence out there that proves that vaccines are not only pointless, but they are causing worse issues than preventing. For example, in 2010 there was a huge mumps outbreak in Orthodox Jewish Communities in the US. The teenagers were vaccinated, however, over 97% of them got the mumps. In what world is it okay for a vaccine to cause what it is supposed to prevent?

The bottom line is, never trust the vaccine industry! There job is not to make you healthy, it is to make you sick. When will people learn? How many people have to die, before people begin to realize that the government does not have your best interest at heart?

1

There are many natural ingredients that are proven to boost your immune system and your overall health. Vaccines are essentially the start of an Era of depopulation. You should be afraid, not gonna lie. However, all we have to do is stand up! Say no to vaccines and depopulation! They’re two of the same thing – one just seems less harmless…

Source:http://awarenessact.com

US scientists launch world’s biggest solar geoengineering study.


Research programme will send aerosol injections into the earth’s upper atmosphere to study the risks and benefits of a future solar tech-fix for climate change

 The sun from space
Scientists say the planet could be covered with a solar shield for as little as $10bn a year. 

The $20m (£16m) Harvard University project will launch within weeks and aims to establish whether the technology can safely simulate the atmospheric cooling effects of a volcanic eruption, if a last ditch bid to halt climate change is one day needed.

Scientists hope to complete two small-scale dispersals of first water and then calcium carbonate particles by 2022. Future tests could involve seeding the sky with aluminium oxide – or even diamonds.

Janos Pasztor, Ban Ki-moon’s assistant climate chief at the UN who now leads ageoengineering governance initiative, said that the Harvard scientists would only disperse minimal amounts of compounds in their tests, under strict university controls.

“The real issue here is something much more challenging,” he said “What does moving experimentation from the lab into the atmosphere mean for the overall path towards eventual deployment?”

Geoengineering advocates stress that any attempt at a solar tech fix is years away and should be viewed as a compliment to – not a substitute for – aggressive emissions reductions action.

But the Harvard team, in a promotional video for the project, suggest a redirection of one percent of current climate mitigation funds to geoengineering research, and argue that the planet could be covered with a solar shield for as little as $10bn a year.

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author for the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change, said that despair at sluggish climate action, and the rise of Donald Trump were feeding the current tech trend.

“But solar geoengineering is not the answer,” he said. “Cutting incoming solar radiation affects the weather and hydrological cycle. It promotes drought. It destabilizes things and could cause wars. The side effects are many and our models are just not good enough to predict the outcomes”

Natural alterations to the earth’s radiation balance can be short-lasting, but terrifying. A 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption lowered global temperatures by 0.5C, while the Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 triggered Europe’s ‘year without a summer’, bringing crop failure, famine and disease.

A Met Office study in 2013 said that the dispersal of fine particles in the stratosphere could precipitate a calamitous drought across North Africa.

Frank Keutsch, the Harvard atmospheric sciences professor leading the experiment, said that the deployment of a solar geoengineering system was “a terrifying prospect” that he hoped would never have to be considered. “At the same time, we should never choose ignorance over knowledge in a situation like this,” he said.

“If you put heat into the stratosphere, it may change how much water gets transported from the troposphere to the stratosphere, and the question is how much are you [creating] a domino effect with all kinds of consequences? What we can do to quantify this is to start with lab studies and try to understand the relevant properties of these aerosols.”

Stratospheric controlled perturbation experiments (SCoPEX) are seen as “critical” to this process and the first is planned to spray water molecules into the stratosphere to create a 1km long and 100m wide icy plume, which can be studied by a manoeuvrable flight balloon.

If lab tests are positive, the experiment would then be replicated with a limestone compound which the researchers believe will neither absorb solar or terrestrial radiation, nor deplete the ozone layer.

Bill Gates and other foundations are substantially funding the project, and aerospace companies are thought to be taking a business interest in the technology’s potential.

The programmme’s launch will follow a major conference involving more than 100 scientists, which begins in Washington DC today.

Solar geoengineering’s journey from the fringes of climate science to its mainstream will be sealed at a prestigious Gordon research conference in July, featuring senior figures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Oxford University.

Pasztor says that most scientific observers now see the window to a 1.5C warmed world as “practically gone” and notes that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will continue rising for many decades after the planet has reached a ‘net zero emissions’ point planned for mid-late century.

But critics of solar radiation management approach this as a call to redouble mitigation efforts and guard against the elevation of a questionable Plan B.

“It is appropriate that we spend money on solar geoengineering research,” said Kevin Anderson, the deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. “But we also have to aim for 2C with climate mitigation and act as though geoengineering doesn’t work, because it probably won’t.”

Source:https://www.theguardian.com

5 Topics That Are “Forbidden” to Science.


Article Image

The recent changes in Washington do not seem to bode well for fact-driven, scientific points of view on many issues. But there are already a number of sensitive areas of science where important research is stalling due to outside pressures or serious questions asked by the scientists themselves.

A yearly conference organized by the MIT Media Lab tackles “forbidden research”, the science that is constrained by ethical, cultural and institutional restrictions. The purpose of the conference is to give scientists a forum to consider these ideas and questions and to discuss the viability and necessity of studying topics like the rights of AI and machines, genetic engineering, climate change and others.

Edward Snowden, who appeared remotely at the 2016 conference, summarized its “theme” as “law is no substitute for conscience.“ Pointing to his work against pervasive digital surveillance, he reiterated that “the legality of a thing is quite distinct from the morality of it.”

The major “forbidden” topics discussed at the conference were, unsurprisingly, wrought with political implications –

1. Messing with Nature

How much should we mess with nature? We now have an opportunity to potentially greatly advance our abilities and eradicate diseases with genetic engineering. But how much interference with the way nature designed us is ok? Who should decide how much is ok? 

It is possible to use “gene” drives” to gene-edit an entire species, like, for instance, to get rid of mosquitoes. Not many would miss the pesky insects, but spreading the modified genetic traits throughout their population could have unintended consequences, not to mention the effect on the food chain.

Still, these concerns do not necessarily outweigh the possibility that gene-editing them could be extremely beneficial to us. The questions of how gene-editing can be safely incorporated into our lives will continue to persist as technology keeps improving.

 “Some things are forbidden and arguably shouldn’t be, but other things perhaps we need some more barriers,” says Kevin Esvelt, a synthetic biologist with the Media Lab.

2. Engineering the Climate

One way to help address climate change is via solar engineering. This involves releasing sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to reflect some of the sunlight away from Earth. Doing this could tamp down rising temperatures, possibly bringing them back to pre-industrial levels. 

This approach is certainly open to significant challenges. Atmospheric testing is necessary to see whether doing this could damage the ozone layer while adding more pollutants to the atmosphere. Yet, it’s something that to could work and address global warming. Without a serious discussion, which starts by agreeing that global warming is a real issue, we are just doing nothing while the problem potentially grows worse and worse.

“We have collectively decided we prefer ignorance. We need a serious, open, no-nonsense international research program, and we don’t have one. That is political cowardice,” said Harvard professor David Keith.

3. Robot Ethics

As robotic technology continues to advance by leaps and bounds, the questions of where the lines between the robots and humans will be drawn abound. For example, there is potential to protect children from sexual deviance by creating sex robots for pedophiles. This kind of research is nearly impossible, however, due to the ethical and legal restrictions in the field.

“I want to know [if] we can use robots therapeutically to help,” said robot ethicist Kate Darling from MIT’a Media Lab. “We have no idea if we can, and we can’t research it because of the huge social stigma.”

MIT Media Lab's "Forbidden Research" conference 2016. Credit: MIT Media Lab, Youtube.

MIT Media Lab’s “Forbidden Research” conference 2016. 

4. Secure Communication Technology 

It’s a real challenge to create communication tech that is not being spied on by somebody, from corporations to the government. This was stressed by Edward Snowden and hacker and engineer Andrew Huang, who appeared at the conference.

Snowden elaborated on the distinction between the moral and legal in these examples:

“Our investigation regards countering what we’re calling lawful abuses of digital surveillance. Lawful abuse, right, what is that, doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Seems like it might be a contradiction in terms. (…) But if you think about it for just a moment it might seem to be a little bit more clear. After all, the legality of a thing is quite distinct from the morality of it. Segregation, slavery, genocides, these have all been perpetuated under frameworks that said they were lawful, as long as you abided by the regulations that were sort of managing those activities,” said Snowden.

5. Universal Access to Science

Should all publicly-funded research be available to everyone on Earth? This was the inspiration for SciHub, a Russian science that featured 55 million scientific papers for free. Many of them were pirated and pulled from behind paywalls.

Kazakh student Alexandra Elbakyan, who created the site, said at the conference that she can’t travel to the U.S. or Europe because she might be arrested. On the other hand, because the site has been resilient and not taken down, she thinks “the only thing now is to make it legal”.

The question of whether there is a moral imperative to spread scientific knowledge is tempered by political and business realities. But if science finds the verifiable truth, is there not an inherent obligation for it to be available for all?

You can see the full 2016 “Forbidden Research” conference here.

 Source:http://bigthink.com

SCIENCE An Atomic Bomb went off on Earth 12000 years ago?


Ancient civilizations and pagan religions have left many marks in history with scripts, monuments and numerous objects that make us reevaluate what we know so far regarding our past and where we are going as a civilization.

One of the most important questions most of us have tried to never ask, is if we were visited in the distant past by other civilizations beyond earth. There are hundreds and hundreds of unanswered questions, but there are texts that shed much light, if not almost entirely, illuminating the path of a truly untold story.

The Mahabharata and the Ramayana offer many answers to numerous questions regarding our past, present and future.

The Mahabharata is one of the two major Sanskrit epics of ancient India, the other being the Ramayana. It consists of 100,000 verses divided into 18 parts or books that are equivalent to eight times the Iliad and Odyssey combined. these ancient texts are more than a historical narration. It is a combination of facts, legends stories and myths. A vast collection of didactic discourses written that were written in a beautiful language, nurturing all Hindu mythology and creating one of the major world religions: Hinduism.

Among those historical texts, we see a story of a devastation that occurred in the past, one that cannot be compared to anything else in the past, a devastation much similar to what we know today is destruction caused by nuclear weapons. Historian Kisari Mohan Ganguli, argues that the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are full of descriptions of large nuclear holocausts that are apparently of incredibly higher proportions than those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

When a student asked Dr. Oppenheimer if the first nuclear device that went off was the one at Alamogordo. during the Manhattan Project, he responded… Well … yes. In modern times, yes, of course.

The ancient Hindu text the Mahabharata:

“Gurkha, flying a swift and powerful vimana,
hurled a single projectile
charged with the power of the Universe.

An incandescent column of smoke and flame,
as bright as ten thousand suns,
rose with all its splendor.

It was an unknown weapon,
an iron thunderbolt,
a gigantic messenger of death,
which reduced to ashes
the entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas.

The corpses were so burned
as to be unrecognizable.

Hair and nails fell out;
Pottery broke without apparent cause,
and the birds turned white.

…After a few hours
all foodstuffs were infected…
…to escape from this fire
the soldiers threw themselves in streams
to wash themselves and their equipment.”

A second passage.

“Dense arrows of flame,
like a great shower,
issued forth upon creation,
encompassing the enemy.
A thick gloom swiftly settled upon the Pandava hosts.
All points of the compass were lost in darkness.
Fierce wind began to blow
Clouds roared upward,
showering dust and gravel.

Birds croaked madly…
the very elements seemed disturbed.
The sun seemed to waver in the heavens
The earth shook,
scorched by the terrible violent heat of this weapon.

Elephants burst into flame
and ran to and fro in a frenzy…
over a vast area,
other animals crumpled to the ground and died.
From all points of the compass
the arrows of flame rained continuously and fiercely.” — The Mahabharata


 

There are many other references in the Ramayana which seem to be very similar to those described in the above texts. It is very clear that these texts allude to a great holocaust that killed thousands of lives. One that can be easily traced to nuclear weapons we use today.

But is there evidence, other than the texts supporting the theory that a nuclear device went off on Earth thousands of years ago? In 1992 researchers discovered in Rajasthan a layer of radioactive ash, covering an area of about eight square kilometers, 16 kilometers west of Jodhpur. The radiation is so intense that it still contaminates the area today. Researchers excavated at Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, discovering skeletons scattered throughout the area as if a sudden event occurred that devastated entire cities.

 “(It was a weapon) so powerful
that it could destroy the earth in an instant–
A great soaring sound in smoke and flames–
And on it sits death…” . — The Ramayana

The site where researchers have found skeletons and remains of radioactivity is very similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but with one striking difference: the radiation levels found at Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro were 50 times higher than the remains of the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?

What really happened? Are the Mahabharata and the Ramayana really describing a nuclear device exploding on Earth tens of thousands of years ago? If so where id it come from? Ancient astronaut theorists are talking about a nuclear holocaust which happened around 12,000 years ago. An explosion that according to theories, created a crater with 2154 meters in diameter, located 400 kilometers from Mumbai.
The dating ranges from 12,000 to 50,000 years ago so researchers have a gigantic time frame to work with.

Source:https://spiritegg.com

Absurd Study Claims Omega-3 Fats Raise Prostate Cancer Risk


Omega-3

Story at-a-glance

  • A recent case-cohort study found that men with higher blood concentrations of omega-3 fat had a 44 percent increased risk of developing low-grade prostate cancer compared to those with the lowest levels
  • Specifically, higher blood levels of the omega-3 fat DHA correlated to higher prostate cancer risk, while no correlation was found for EPA and ALA. They also had a 71 percent higher risk of developing high-grade prostate cancer
  • The elevated blood levels of DHA found in the featured study is not necessarily indicative of higher fish consumption. In fact, low-fat diets can increase DHA levels in much the same way omega-3 supplementation can
  • While the researchers warn that fish oil supplements may be dangerous based on their findings, this study cannot show causation. Furthermore, no fish oil supplements were actually given as part of this study

Omega-3 rich fish oil is one of the most well-researched substances on the market. Its wide ranging health benefits have been repeatedly proven, and animal-based omega-3 is one of the few supplements I recommend for virtually everyone to improve overall health.

But omega-3 fat, naturally found in salmon and krill, which are both excellent sources, has received some undeservedly bad press coverage lately. You may have seen some of the following headlines:

  • Link Between Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Increased Prostate Cancer Risk Confirmed (Science Daily1)
  • Omega-3 Supplement Taken By Millions ‘Linked to Aggressive Prostate Cancer’ (Huffington Post2)
  • Men who take omega-3 supplements at 71% higher risk of prostate cancer (NY Daily News3)
  • Omega-3 supplements may trigger prostate cancer (Nursing Times4)
  • Hold the salmon: Omega-3 fatty acids linked to higher risk of cancer (Time Magazine5)

These headlines are perfect examples of gross misreporting of science by the media, and it is instances like this that demonstrate why you cannot trust the conventional press to keep you informed about health. In the words of Jonny Bowden,6 PhD, CNS, the media’s reporting on this particular study is “disgraceful, incompetent, and scientifically illiterate.” I couldn’t agree more.

‘Omega-3 Fats Involved in Prostate Tumorigenesis,’ Researchers Claim

The study raising all this hoopla was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute7 on July 10. This case-cohort study8 examined associations between omega-3 levels in blood and prostate cancer risk among participants in the “Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial,” also known as SELECT.9

The researchers concluded that men with higher blood concentrations of animal-based (marine-derived) omega-3s had a 44 percent increased risk of developing low-grade prostate cancer compared to those with the lowest levels.

Specifically, higher blood levels of the omega-3 fat DHA correlated to higher prostate cancer risk, while no correlation was found for EPA and ALA. They also had a 71 percent higher risk of developing high-grade prostate cancer.

The “grade” refers to the level of abnormality found in the cancer cells.10 The more abnormal the cells appear, the higher the grade of the cancer. Based on these correlations, the researchers concluded that “these fatty acids are involved in prostate tumorigenesis.” But just how did they reach that conclusion?

According to Time Magazine:11

“The study measured omega-3 blood levels in the participating men, and did not include information on the volunteers’ eating habits, so researchers could not differentiate between the effects of fatty acids from fish from those of supplements. However, the overwhelming majority of the participants did not take fish oil supplements.

Based on the results, [lead author, Theodore] Brasky says that men with a family history of prostate cancer should discuss with their doctor whether fish oil supplements are safe for them, since these pills tend to contain concentrated doses of omega-3.

Supplements contain between 30% to 60% of a serving of fish, and if a fish oil supplement is taken every day, that adds up to a lot of daily fish oil. Brasky also suggested that men cut down on their fatty fish intake, though not eliminate it entirely.”

Folks, this is some of the most absurd advice I’ve seen in a long time. How they could possibly come to the conclusion that omega-3 supplements might be dangerous based on this study is a mystery in and of itself. Correlation is not the same as causation, first of all.

Secondly, no omega-3 supplements were actually given in this study. In fact, most participants reportedly did not take them. Another immediate tip-off that something’s awry is the finding that participants who had the highest levels of trans fats in their blood had the lowest risk for prostate cancer… As Dr. Bowden writes in his Huffington Post12 rebuttal:

“How do you explain the fact that reporter after reporter and news outlet after news outlet conveniently equated higher blood levels of DHA with ‘fish oil supplement taking?’

There’s almost no other explanation other than a strong anti-supplement bias and a desire for shocking headlines. And any doubt about the objectivity of the researchers should have been abandoned after one of them—Dr. Alan Kristy—told reporters,13 ‘We’ve shown once again that use of nutritional supplements may be harmful.’”

Indeed, Dr. Kristy sounds like a spokesperson for Senator Durbin’s hypocritically idiotic supplement bill, which threatens the supplement industry by granting the FDA more power to regulate supplements as if they were drugs, potentially putting supplement companies out of business.

Do Omega-3s Raise Men’s Prostate Cancer Risk? Hardly!

Foods rich in omega-3 fats have previously been shown to prevent prostate cancer from spreading. One such clinical study (opposed to the featured study, which was observational and therefore cannot establish causality) was published in the British Journal of Cancer14 in 2006. This study found that while omega-6 fats (the kind found in most vegetable oils) increased the spread of prostatic tumor cells into bone marrow, the spread of cancer cells was blocked by omega-3 fats, suggesting that a diet rich in omega-3 fats could potentially inhibit the disease in men with early stage prostate cancer.

A more recent meta-analysis15 of available research, published in 2010, found that fish consumption was associated with a 63 percent reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality, even though no association between fish consumption and a significant reduction in prostate cancer incidence could be found. GreenMedInfo.com16 recently discussed this topic as well, listing a number of additional studies that have shown fish/fish oil/omega-3 to be beneficial against prostate cancer.

As pointed out by Denise Minger,17 previous research18 has shown that the higher blood levels of DHA found in the featured study is not necessarily indicative of higher fish consumption. In fact, low-fat diets can increase DHA levels in much the same way omega-3 supplementation can. According to previous research:

“Plasma phospholipid fatty acids have the potential to function as a surrogate measure of the potential effects of diet on a whole range of cell membrane lipids… This difference in fatty acid levels after the consumption of similar proportions but varied content of fatty acids suggests competition among the lipid series [(n-3), (n-6), (n-7) and (n-9)] for the enzymes of elongation and desaturation.

When the relative supply of (n-3) fatty acids is abundant, these fatty acids are preferentially desaturated and elongated relative to (n-6) fatty acids)…

In summary… free fatty acid compositions are responsive to total dietary fat content. Specifically, the consumption of a low fat diet promotes an increase in the level of total and highly unsaturated long-chain (n-3) fatty acids and a decrease in the total (n-6) content of plasma phospholipid and cholesteryl ester fatty acids. The observed modifications in phospholipid and cholesteryl ester fatty acids in response to a low fat diet are similar to those observed when (n-3) fatty acids of plant or animal origin are fed.”

Why DHA Levels in Featured Study May Be Meaningless…

Furthermore, the featured study reported DHA levels based on percentage of total fatty acids rather than the absolute value, which in and of itself can be quite misleading,19 as it actually obscures any real differences. Dr. Bowden illustrates the dilemma well with the following analogy:

“Would you like 90 percent of all the money Mr. Jones has or 10 percent of all the money Mr. Smith has?”

How could you possibly tell how much money those percentages of total represent, unless you know how much money Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith each have to begin with? As explained in a 2009 commentary published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,20 the only time percentage of total might be meaningful is when the total fatty acid content is identical for all subjects, which it undoubtedly was not in this case.

As stated by Dr. Bob Roundtree, MD:21

“Considering the extensive body of literature that supports the anti-inflammatory effects of omega-3 fatty acids, there is no credible biological mechanism, nor is one suggested in the article, that would explain why these essential fatty acids might increase tumorigenesis.”

Confounding Factors Ignored

Another problem with studies looking at correlations only, is that the factor you’re looking at may only be a minor player, or completely irrelevant, compared to other factors. For example, in this case:22

  • 53 percent of the subjects with prostate cancer were smokers
  • 64 percent of the cancer subjects regularly consumed alcohol
  • 80 percent of the cancer subjects were overweight or obese

According to a 2011 study published in PLoS One,23 aggressive prostate cancer was associated with obesity. More recently, a cohort study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention24 in April of this year found that men who were overweight or obese increased their risk of prostate cancer by 57 percent—a percentage that falls right smack in the middle of that 44-71 percentage range attributed to high DHA serum levels in the featured study. And this association between obesity and prostate cancer held for all cases— low-grade and high-grade, early stage and late, nonaggressive and aggressive prostate cancer.

Krill Oil vs. Fish Oil: What’s the Better Source?

From my perspective, based on medical experience and overwhelming scientific evidence, making sure you’re getting enough omega-3 in your diet, either from wild Alaskan salmon or a high-quality omega-3 supplement like krill oil, is absolutely crucial for your optimal health. While a helpful form of omega-3 can be found in flaxseed, chia, hemp, and a few other foods, the most beneficial form of omega-3 — containing two fatty acids, DHA and EPA, which are essential to fighting and preventing both physical and mental disease — can only be found in fish and krill.25

Unfortunately, nearly all fish, from most all sources, are now severely contaminated with toxic mercury, which is why I have amended my previous recommendations to consume fish on a routine basis. It’s simply not advisable for most people any longer. About the only exception to this rule is wild-caught Alaskan salmon. This is really the ONLY fish I’ll eat on a regular basis, and the only one I feel comfortable recommending as a good source of healthful fats. AVOID farmed salmon, as they contain only about half of the omega-3 levels of wild salmon. Farmed salmon may also contain a range of harmful contaminants, including environmental toxins, synthetic astaxanthin, and genetically engineered organisms from the grain feed they’re given.

My latest recommendation for a source of high quality omega-3 fats is krill oil. The omega-3 in krill is attached to phospholipids that increase its absorption, which means you need less of it, and it won’t cause belching or burping like many other fish oil products. Additionally, it naturally contains astaxanthin, a potent antioxidant—almost 50 times more than is present in fish oil. This prevents the highly perishable omega-3 fats from oxidizing before you are able to integrate them into your cellular tissue. In laboratory tests, krill oil remained undamaged after being exposed to a steady flow of oxygen for 190 hours. Compare that to fish oil, which went rancid after just one hour. That makes krill oil nearly 200 times more resistant to oxidative damage compared to fish oil!

When purchasing krill oil, you’ll want to read the label and check the amount of astaxanthin it contains. The more the better, but anything above 0.2 mg per gram of krill oil will protect it from rancidity. To learn more about the benefits of krill versus fish oil, please see my interview with Dr. Rudi Moerck, a drug industry insider and an expert on omega-3 fats.

Souce:mercola.com

Do Prostate Cancer Screenings Cause More Harm Than Good?


Be Informed About Prostate Cancer and the PSA Test

Through my 11 years of study, and more recently, the three years it took to produce the documentary “Surviving Prostate Cancer Without Surgery, Drugs, or Radiation,” one issue repeatedly reared itself – why are men routinely screened en-masse for their PSA score, when the data clearly indicates that it results in a huge excess of radical invasive treatments, most of which, up to 85 percent according to some studies, are unnecessary?

If you are a man aged 50 and above, then I am sure you are familiar with the PSA screening. More than that, I am sure you are aware of being bombarded with promotions encouraging you to get your PSA tested, sometimes free-of-charge.

Whole parades and motorcycle rides are organized to drive you to get tested, like it’s a simple procedure with no negative implications. Simple it is, but one thing is for sure, you are not told the entire truth about the prostate cancer “industry” and the large part played in it by you getting a regular PSA test.

Important Stats to Be Aware Of

First, let me say that the PSA test in itself is not the problem, it is what is done with that information following the test.

Let me walk you through the chronology of likely events, before giving you some statistics that you should be aware of, and which at least for me, is a cause for consideration, if not alarm, if your PSA shows a higher number than what is considered normal.

Let’s take a 60-year-old male that is convinced by his primary care physician to take the test and the number comes back as an 8 (normal for a man of that age is to be less than 4, although that in itself is an arbitrary number).

The physician will then likely send you to a urologist for a biopsy. With a 60-year-old (or older), the biopsy will likely show some cancer.

The Data Don’t Lie

According to mortality data, 46 percent of all men in the USA between the ages of 50 and 59 have prostate cancer. The rateincreases significantly as men age. At this point the urologist will likely recommend immediate surgery. (After all, most urologists are surgeons.)

Seventy percent of men who choose surgery do so within 48 hours of the diagnosis – a very significant statistic since one is highly unlikely to die of prostate cancer in the immediate future, while the potential for a life of impotence and incontinence post-surgery is considerable.

So, you can see the unquestionable connection between a simple routine PSA test and the potential of a life without your prostate, but with significant and real life challenges to remember it by.

Is the PSA Era Over?

To quote Richard Ablin Ph.D., the man who discovered the Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) molecule, “I never dreamed that my discovery four decades ago would lead to such a profit-driven public health disaster,” and Thomas Stamey, M.D., an early proponent of PSA screening (published in the Journal of Urology in 2004), “The PSA era is over in the USA.”

Our study raises a very serious question of whether a man should even use the PSA test for prostate cancer screening anymore. If you have a PSA test and find the number elevated, think before you take the next step.

Retest, and have your doctor conduct a PCA3 and a 4K score (there are other exams such as a 3D-color Doppler Ultrasound), before jumping into the “sheep dip” of treatment protocols that the majority of men who are left impotent and incontinent, live to regret.

About the Author

Peter Starr is the founder and director of the Healing Arts Education Foundation in Los Angeles, and producer of the television program “Surviving Prostate Cancer,” seen on many Public Television Stations.

More Information

To learn more, I highly recommend obtaining Peter’s film, now available as a three-DVD set, along with a 40-page resource guide. The name, address, telephone number, and qualifications of each of the 56 featured doctors are included in the guide.

Video/Documenary URL:https://youtu.be/WYLJ-uEd7A0

At present, this documentary is the most comprehensive compilation available on the alternative views on prostate cancer treatment. In closing, Peter offers the following suggestion:

“The thing that seems to be common amongst men who have a prostate cancer diagnosis is the fear in their voice, and in their system, when they come out of the doctor’s office. The one thing I’d like to say to men generally is, ‘You’re not going to die tomorrow.’

Don’t let the fear control the decision making process of that doctor who would like to keep you in his particular path, because if that urologist doesn’t do surgery, he’s not going to get paid. What I like to see people do is to try to get their lives together over a six-month period and monitor it. That’s got to be the better way to go, I would think, in the long term. But don’t let fear rule your decision-making process.”

Source:mercola.com

Taking Statins May Boost Heart Surgery Outcomes.


Heart surgery patients taking statins should keep taking those cholesterol-lowering drugs, even on the day of their operation, because doing so may improve their chances of survival, a new study suggests.

“Based on our findings, we would advise patients to continue taking their statin medication all the way up to and including the day of surgery,” said study author Dr. Wei Pan.

Statins are one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States. One in four Americans 40 or older takes a statin, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In the new study, Pan’s team looked at more than 3,000 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Pan is a cardiovascular anesthesiologist at the Texas Heart Institute in Houston.

The findings showed that the rate of death from all causes within 30 days was about 2 percent for those who took statins 24 hours or less before their operation.

In those who took statins 24 to 72 hours before their operation, the rate of death was nearly 3 percent. And, for those who never took statins or who took statins more than 72 hours before the surgery, the death rate was just under 4 percent, the researchers said.

The study was published online March 16 in The Annals of Thoracic Surgery.

“Patients frequently forget to take their pills on the day of surgery, or they’ve been told to stop certain medications,” Pan said in a journal news release.

“This study shows that not taking your statin for even one day before cardiac surgery may increase your risk of death after surgery,” he said.

“Statins are ubiquitous today, so this study is especially important as it highlights that a patient simply adhering to his or her already prescribed statin medication and not stopping it prematurely could be lifesaving,” Pan said.

The researchers noted that they believe this is the first study to look specifically at the timing of statin medication before surgery.

Dr. Todd Rosengart is a cardiothoracic surgeon at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston who wasn’t involved in the study.

He said in the news release that “this is an important study that clearly extends our understanding of the growing importance of statins in benefiting patients with cardiovascular disease.”

Although the study found a link between regular statin use and increased survival rates in these patients, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship.

Source:www.drugs.com

Mammography Is Harmful and Should Be Abandoned, Scientific Review Concludes


“I believe that if screening had been a drug, it would have been withdrawn from the market long ago.” ~ Peter C Gøtzsche (physician, medical researcher and author of Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy.)

mammography_should_be_abandoned

With Breast Cancer Awareness Month upon us again, a new study promises to undermine the multi-billion dollar cause-marketing campaign that shepherds millions of women in to have their breasts scanned for cancer with x-rays that themselves are known to contribute to breast cancer.

If you have followed my work for any length of time, you know that I have often reported on the adverse effects of mammography, of which there are many. From the radiobiological and psychological risks of the procedure itself, to the tremendous harms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, it is becoming clearer every day that those who subject themselves to screening as a “preventive measure” are actually putting themselves directly into harms way, unnecessarily.

 Now, a new study conducted by Peter C Gøtzsche, of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and titled “Mammography screening is harmful and should be abandoned,” strikes to the heart of the matter by showing the actual effect of decades of screening has not been to reduce breast cancer specific mortality, despite the generation of millions of new so-called “early stage” or “stage zero” breast cancer diagnoses.

Previous investigation on the subject by Gotzsche resulted in the discovery that over-diagnosis occurs in a staggering 52% of patients offered organized mammography screening, which equates to “one in three breast cancers being over-diagnosed.” The problem with over-diagnosis is that it almost always goes unrecognized. This then results in over-treatment with aggressive interventions such as lumpectomy, mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiation; over-treatment is a euphemistic term that describes being severely harmed and/or having one’s life shortened by unnecessary medical treatment. Some of these treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiation, can actually enrich cancer stem cells within tumors, essentially altering cells from benign to malignant, or transforming already cancerous cells into far deadlier phenotypes.

Other recent research has determined that the past 30 years of breast cancer screening has lead to the over-diagnosis and over-treatment of about 1.3 million U.S. women, i.e. tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms, and should never have been termed “cancers” in the first place. Truth be told, the physical and psycho-physical suffering wrought by the harms of breast cancer screening can not even begin to be quantified.

Gøtzsche is very clear about the implications of his review on the decision to undergo mammography. He opines that the effect of screening on mortality, which is the only true measure of whether a medical intervention is worth undertaking, is to increase total mortality.

Mammography Is Harmful and Should Be Abandoned, Review Concludes

Gøtzsche summarizes his findings powerfully:

“Mammography screening has been promoted to the public with three simple promises that all appear to be wrong: It saves lives and breasts by catching the cancers early. Screening does not seem to make the women live longer; it increases mastectomies; and cancers are not caught early, they are caught very late. They are also caught in too great numbers. There is so much overdiagnosis that the best thing a women can do to lower her risk of becoming a breast cancer patient is to avoid going to screening, which will lower her risk by one-third. We have written an information leaflet that exists in 16 languages on cochrane.dk, which we hope will make it easier for a woman to make an informed decision about whether or not to go to screening.

“I believe that if screening had been a drug, it would have been withdrawn from the market long ago. Many drugs are withdrawn although they benefit many patients, when serious harms are reported in rather few patients. The situation with mammography screening is the opposite: Very few, if any, will benefit, whereas many will be harmed. I therefore believe it is appropriate that a nationally appointed body in Switzerland has now recommended that mammography screening should be stopped because it is harmful.”

In the midst of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a cause marketing orgy bedecked with pink ribbons, and infused with a pinkwashed mentality that has entirely removed the word “carcinogen” (i.e. the cause of cancer) from the discussion. All the better to raise billions more to find the “cure” everyone is told does not yet exist.

Women need to break free from the medical industrial complex’s ironclad hold on their bodies and minds, and take back control of their health through self-education and self-empowerment.

Give HPV vaccine to boys to protect against cancers, experts say


With rates of human papilloma virus on the rise, it is vital to immunise males as well as females, researchers believe

 Vaccines against HPV are routinely given to girls to prevent cervical cancer.
Vaccines against HPV are routinely given to girls to prevent cervical cancer. 

Millions of young British men are being denied a vaccine that could protect them from throat cancers in later life. Scientists say the problem is becoming increasingly worrying as rates of human papilloma virus (HPV) – a common sexually transmitted infection and the prime cause of these cancers – are now rising exponentially.

Researchers want the government to include adolescent boys in the current vaccine programme that immunises girls aged 12 and 13 against HPV before they become sexually active. HPV in women is known to lead to cervical cancers. The vaccine, if extended to boys, would protect them in later life against HPV-related head and neck cancers.

“If we want to eradicate male throat cancers – which are soaring in numbers – we need to act speedily and that means giving them the HPV vaccine we now give to girls,” said Professor Mark Lawler of Queen’s University Belfast.

Health experts say increased levels of oral sex are in part responsible for the spread of HPV. “Smoking and alcohol add to risks, but the fact that couples are having more and more oral sex is the main factor,” said Peter Baker, campaign director of HPV Action.

At present more than 3,000 women develop cervical cancer a year in the UK. Most other western nations have since introduced similar programmes.

“HPV is spread sexually. However, this vaccine will not work effectively if a person has already been infected by HPV,” said Baker. “That’s why it is given to girls when they are 12 or 13 – before they are sexually active.”

Tens of thousands of young women are now given the vaccine, although it is too early to say how cervical cancer rates are going to be affected, said virologist Professor Sheila Graham, of Glasgow University.

“However, rates of genital warts in women – which are also caused by HPV – are going down, so there is confidence the vaccine will work.”

However, the introduction of the HPV vaccine for women has come just as infection rates in men have started to soar, with cases of tonsil cancers and cancers of the base of the tongue – both caused by the virus – rising dramatically. Tonsil cancer cases have tripled in numbers since the 1990s, for example.

“Unfortunately, these cancers have very serious outcomes with dreadful morbidity,” added Graham.

Scientists say it would cost about £20m a year to extend the current HPV vaccine programme to boys.

“By contrast, it costs about £30m a year to treat males for genital warts while the costs of treating the rising numbers of throat cancers are even greater,” Lawler said. “So, in purely monetary terms, it makes sense to give boys the vaccine.”

This point is disputed by some health economists. They say the human papilloma virus will have virtually disappeared from sexually active UK women in a few decades, thanks to the vaccine now given to girls at school. As a result men will no longer pick up the virus when having oral sex with women. This effect is known as herd immunity.

But Professor Margaret Stanley, of Cambridge University, said the argument was flawed. “Relying on female-only vaccine programmes to remove HPV from the population is risky.

“In Denmark the take-up rate of the vaccine recently dropped from around 80% to 20% because of a scare story – which was quite untrue – suggesting the vaccine was spreading disease. We need protection for both sexes to be sure we eradicate HPV.”

In addition, reliance on a female-only vaccine programme would mean that gay men would never be provided with protection against HPV, she added.

This last point was crucial is persuading health officials in Australia to extend its school HPV vaccine programme to men in 2013. It is the only country to run a free HPV vaccine programme for both sexes.

The government’s joint committee on vaccination has been considering extending the HPV programme to boys for several years but is not due to give a ruling until 2017.

“Even if it gives approval then, we are unlikely to get the programme extended to boys until around 2020,” said Baker. “By then millions who could have been protected against throat cancers will have lost the chance to get the vaccine.”

Stanley was also emphatic the vaccine programme should be extended. “A great many health experts in this field are paying privately to have their sons vaccinated.

“It costs £160 for a double shot. I have had my grandson vaccinated. The nature of the problem is obvious.

“In any case, it is simply discriminatory not to give a vaccine to men when it could save their lives.”

Should Gene Editing Be a Human Right?


IN BRIEF
  • With technology like CRISPR making gene editing easier than ever before, society is divided on the ethical implications of using the tech to alter simply “unwanted” genes.
  • Given the potential of gene editing to drastically change humanity, it’s good that we’re having this debate on what and who it should be used for right now.

GENETIC EDITING FOR ALL

We are all subject to the genetic lottery. That’s how it’s always been, and for a while, we thought that was how it would always be.

Then, in 2014, a gene-editing technology called CRISPR was introduced. With CRISPR, geneticists could edit sections of the genome to alter, add, or remove parts of the DNA sequence. To date, it is by far the easiest way we’ve found to manipulate the genetic code, and it is already paving the way for more efficient and effective treatments of conditions with a genetic component. However, the technology brings with it the potential to manipulate and remove simply “unwanted” genes.
The potential to change someone’s DNA even before they are born has led to claims that CRISPR will be used to create “designer babies.” Detractors were appalled at the hubris of science being used to engineer the human race. Supporters, on the other hand, are saying this ability should be a human right.While most of the proposed CRISPR applications are focused on editing somatic (non-reproductive) cells, altering germline (reproductive) cells is also a very real possibility. This prospect of editing germline cells and making changes that would be passed on from generation to generation has sparked a heated ethical debate.

RIGGING THE GAME

To be fair, most advocates of genetic editing aren’t rallying for support so CRISPR can be used to create a superior human race. Rather, they believe people should have free access to technology that is capable of curing diseases. It’s not about rigging the genetic game — it’s about putting the technique to good use while following a set of ethical recommendations.

To that end, a panel made up of experts chosen by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine released a series of guidelines that essentially gives gene editing a “yellow light.” These guidelines supports gene editing on the premise that it follows a set of stringent rules and is conducted with proper oversight and precaution.

Obviously, genetic enhancement would not be supported under these guidelines, which leaves some proponents miffed. Josiah Zaynor, whose online company The ODIN sells kits allowing people to conduct simple genetic engineering experiments at home, is among those who are adamant that gene editing should be a human right. He expressed his views on the subject in an interview with The Outline:

We are at the first time in the history of humanity where we can no longer be stuck with the genes we are dealt. As a society we have begun to see how choice is a right, but for some reason when it comes to genetics, some people think we shouldn’t have a choice. I can be smart and attractive, but everyone else should be ugly, fat, and short because those are the genes they were dealt and they should just deal with it.

However, scientific institutions continue to caution against such lax views of genetic editing’s implications. Apart from the ethical questions it raises, CRISPR also faces opposition from various religious sects and legal concerns regarding the technology. Governments seem divided on the issue, with nations like China advancing research, while countries like the U.K., Germany, and the U.S. seem more concerned about regulating it.

The immense potential of gene editing to change humanity means the technology will continue to be plagued by ethical and philosophical concerns. Given the pace of advancement, however, it’s good that we’re having this debate on what and who it should be used for right now.

%d bloggers like this: