Category: Interesting Information

Information I want to share in a non-essay form

Interesting Information: High Fructose Corn Syrup Has a New Name – and It’s Sneaking Back Into Food

Interesting Information:  April 13, 2016

High Fructose Corn Syrup Has a New Name–

And It’s Sneaking Back Into Food

Look for “Isolated Fructose” on the label.

I’m sick of how industry operates in this country.

And I’m sick of how our government is NOT protecting us from obvious health hazards.

I hope you are too.

Here’s a quote from the article below–setting aside for the moment that boxed cereals are a terrible choice for breakfast:

One such product is General Mills’ Vanilla Chex, a redesigned version of the Chex cereal that has been on grocery shelves for years. The label on the front of the box clearly states “no high fructose corn syrup,” but when you flip to the back and read the whole ingredient list, there is the new name for the same old problem: isolated fructose.

Anyway, here’s the skinny on what industry is doing with High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Here’s how the article begins:

As consumers have become more health conscious, and more savvy in their buying habits, the processed food industry is reacting by resorting to subterfuge. When you go down the grocery store aisles, you immediately see that more and more packaging bears the words “100% natural” on its labels. That is why health experts recommend you…

Source: High Fructose Corn Syrup Has a New Name – and It’s Sneaking Back Into Food – Natural Health Center

Interesting Information: How Safe is an Airport Full Body Scanner?

Interesting Information:  April 12, 2016

How Safe is an Airport Full Body Scanner?

I chickened out on this last trip.

I hate to admit it, but I did.

On the outbound trip, I dutifully went through the scanner.

Coming home, I lucked out and was directed toward the older quick-scan machine.

 

Have you ever wondered if the full body scanner at the airport is safe?

Everything I’m reading says these scanners are not safe, especially when used a lot.

Here’s an article for you to read.

I hope you have more courage than I did…as I believe until enough people protest, those giant machines will stay put.

I’ll try to do better next time.

Source: How Safe is an Airport Full Body Scanner?

Interesting Information: ‘Cancer Screening Has Never Saved Lives’ – BMJ Study Concludes

Interesting Information:  March 16, 2016

“Cancer Screening Has Never Saved Lives”

Here’s how the article begins:

Millions have marched for “cancer causes.” Millions more have been diagnosed “early” and now believe screening saved their lives. But a new study confirms something we have been reporting on since our inception: In most cases, screening not only has not “saved lives,” but actually increases your risk of dying.

First, what is The BMJ?

The BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) is an international peer reviewed medical journal and a fully online first publication. The website is updated daily with original articles, podcasts, videos, and blogs and organised into four main content streams—research, education, news and views, and campaigns. In addition, the site is fully searchable, with an archive back to 1840 and numerous topic collections on clinical and non-clinical subjects. Articles of relevance to specific countries and regions are grouped together on country portals.

My understanding is that medical claims of screening efficacy are based on yet another “medical math” con job.  Success is being measured by claimed reductions in a specific disease due to early discovery, not by overall mortality figures.  So, if I am understanding correctly, if someone is diagnosed and treated for disease X and dies from anything but that disease, that disease is not credited with the death.  Nor is the screening.  Nor are the treatments.  By looking at OVERALL death, a truer picture emerges.  Think about it, lots of folks die from conditions caused by screening methods, like cancer from too many x-rays.  When screenings are followed by cut, poison, burn treatments, many of which cause other diseases, other cancers, more death occurs.  But under the current system, the real death picture is not being captured.  Instead, something like pneumonia might be on the death certificate.  But, what caused the pneumonia?  What caused the eruption of other cancers?

Further, the major medical committees that review, say, mammographies and prostrate screenings, are saying these screenings are not reducing survival at all.  Rather, for much of the time, these screenings are leading to unnecessary and ineffective treatments.  Yet, up here in Maine, our newspapers are full of ads urging people to come and be screened.  Why?  Screenings make money not only in and of themselves, but in the treatments that follow.  Science is not involved here.  Or your health.  Money is.

Further still, the cancer industry has Americans by the throat–in that people all over the world are experiencing genuine cancer cures.  But that information, those cures, are not being recognized or utilized by the American cancer industry.  They are making far too much money to shift gears.  So, we are living with a rigged system.  And it’s killing us.

Here’s an abstract:

The claim that cancer screening saves lives is based on fewer deaths due to the target cancer. Vinay Prasad and colleagues argue that reductions in overall mortality should be the benchmark and call for higher standards of evidence for cancer screening

Despite growing appreciation of the harms of cancer screening,1 2 3 advocates still claim that it “saves lives.”4 This assertion rests, however, on reductions in disease specific mortality rather than overall mortality.

Using disease specific mortality as a proxy for overall mortality deprives people of information about their chief concern: reducing their risk of dying.5 6 Although some people may have personal reasons for wanting to avoid a specific diagnosis, the burden falls on providers to provide clear information about both disease specific and overall mortality and to ensure that the overall goal of healthcare—to improve quantity and quality of life—is not undermined.7

In this article we argue that overall mortality should be the benchmark against which screening is judged and discuss how to improve the evidence upon which screening rests.

Source: ‘Cancer Screening Has Never Saved Lives’ – BMJ Study Concludes

Interesting Information: Blood Pressure Meds: Yes or No?

Interesting Information:  February 24, 2016

Blood Pressure Meds:   Yes or No?

In the past few weeks, I’ve run across a handful of friends who have mentioned that they are taking meds to lower their blood pressure.

I love it when the universe begins to send me information regarding something about which I have questions.

I’m reading the winter issue of WISE TRADITIONS, the Weston A. Price journal.  Inside there is a review of an audio CD by Dr. Donald K. Weber, DC called HEALTH 101 SIMPLIFIED, page 80.  (This issue is not yet online but will be eventually.)

Here’s a quote written by the reviewer:

Dr. Weber’s views on blood pressure are a little different from those of most other doctors.  He believes that your blood pressure is what it is supposed to be.  In other words, artificially adjusting it with drugs is not “correcting” anything.  Blood pressure is controlled by oxygen levels in the brain.  If the brain is not getting enough oxygen it raises the blood pressure until it does get enough oxygen.  Normal blood pressure is considered to be around 120 over 80, although the pharmaceutical companies would like to lower those figures so that they can make a whole lot more money selling their drugs to a lot more people.

The ratio of 120 over 80 is 3:2.  If your pressure is higher but is the same ratio (150 over 100, for example), then you are dehydrated, according to Dr. Weber.  I’m pretty sure there is not a drug in the world that cures dehyderation, but I’m not a doctor.  Weber also mentions that chemicals from things like processed lunch meat can raise blood pressure.

Many doctors seem to prefer prescribing expensive drugs to lower blood pressure.  Do they work?  Well, they lower pressure but they do that by weakening the heart.…The result is insufficient oxygen to the brain resulting in dizziness, light-headedness or even blackouts.  That is a known side-effect of blood pressure medication.  Over the long run, brain cells start dying when they don’t get enough oxygen.

My other go-to person with heart and other issues is Dr. Sherry A. Rogers.  She’s a big believer in the notion that we are all low in magnesium–which cause all sorts of heart problems and high blood pressure.  (She backs up everything she says with citations from leading studies and journals.)  She recommends an easy to find magnesium product, Natural Calm, taken twice a day.  She has a book on blood pressure, THE HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE HOAX, but here’s a quote from IS YOUR CADIOLOGIST KILLING YOU?

There are so many ways to lower and permanently CURE high blood pressure that it boggles the mind why we insist on merely bludgeoning it for the rest of our lives with drugs.  Especially drugs that guarantee you will require more drugs, while bringing on an avalanche of more side effects, symptoms and diseases (15).

Remember that docs do not get any nutritional training.  Most don’t begin to know how to use foods to CURE problems.  (Rogers says eating four stalks of celery a day will magically lower blood pressure.)  Docs are practitioners, not scientists or nutritionists.  They only know what those pesky drug companies are telling them about health problems.  They’ve lost the whole vocabulary of “CURE.”  They are now just managing illness–and contributing to it far to often.  AND, they have become “workers in the system,” in that if they do not follow the “standards of care,” they are driven out.  That’s how a strong market works to increase its market share.

So….

Before you buy into thinking you even have high blood pressure, get one of those inexpensive cuffs from the drug store and take your blood pressure over the course of a few days at different times over each day. Figure the ratio.  If it’s “high” or not 3:2, drink water and test again.

My late husband’s blood pressure zoomed so high in ANY doctor’s office that they would threaten to hospitalize him on the spot.  At home it was just fine.

I hope this little post gives you some information on this very serious subject and that you will investigate more before taking any medication.

 

Interesting Information: Vaccines: Why Are So Many People Choosing Not to Vaccinate? | Vision Launch

Interesting Information:  Vaccines:  February 22, 2016

Why Are So Many People Choosing Not to Vaccinate?

This series of 12 essays pretty much covers the anti vaccine argument.  It is chock full of links to further educate–and of course the links are to reputable sources, studies, etc.

Be fully aware that the “story” you’ve been told in the media and in your doctors’ offices that this is “settled science” is far from the truth.  And, remember, that science should never be totally “settled.”  It must always be open to exploration and refinement.  Otherwise, it just morphs into belief system, not science.

You owe it to yourself and your family to read these essays.  The first essay addresses the “famous/infamous” vaccine skeptics.

A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines – Part 1 of 12 What is With All These Vaccine Skeptics?

Here’s a quote from the opening essay:

Most people have a difficult time understanding why any parent would choose not to vaccinate their children. After all, we have been assured by our doctors that clinical trials show that vaccines are safe and effective and that we need to vaccinate to protect everyone. So what’s the reason for these people to refuse vaccination for their children?

Unfortunately, the further we objectively researched the whole body of evidence surrounding vaccines, the more difficult we found it to come to the conclusion that vaccines are safe and effective. The truth is, there isn’t just one reason for vaccine skeptics to forgo vaccination. There are many.

Source: Why Are So Many People Choosing Not to Vaccinate? | Vision Launch

Interesting Information: Officials Cover Up Dangers of HPV Vaccine – Weston A Price

Interesting Information:  January 18, 2016

HPV Vaccine Danger Cover Up

Well here’s another crack in the HPV/Gardasil vaccine corruption/scam.

Enough young women have been hurt now that the truth is coming out.

Baseline truth:  public/private partnerships DO NOT WORK when the “public” part is staffed by those from the “private” part and who are benefitting financially.

Here’s some quotes:  read the story for more details AND for Lee’s letter.

“Dr. Sin Hang Lee, MD, Director, Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, has submitted an official, open-letter complaint to the Director-General of the World Health Organization about the cover up of HPV vaccine risks.”

“Dr. Lee has submitted a lengthy letter detailing communications between health officials from the US, Canada, Japan, and the WHO, which demonstrate that these officials knew that HPV vaccines cause an inflammatory reaction greater than other vaccines, yet reassured the public in official hearings and statements that the vaccines were safe.”

Source: Officials Cover Up Dangers of HPV Vaccine – Weston A Price

Interesting Information: “Denmark Plans To Be 100% Organic”

Interesting Information:  January 11, 2015

Denmark Plans To Be 100% Organic

…and the government is putting money behind this effort.

Here’s a quote from Well Being Journal, November/December 2015, page 36–itself taken from Carola Traverso Salibante’s “The Great Denmark Plan to Become a 100% Organic Country, July 16, 2015, http://finedininglovers.com

The Danish government is investing more than 53 million Euros in 2015 to convert the country’s agriculture into organic farming. Denmark is the most developed country in regard to the trade of organic products  It will also soon become the first in the world to achieve 100 percent organic and sustainable agriculture production.  The export of Danish organic products has increased by 200 percent since 2007.

There is also a huge campaign to get organic food into schools, hospitals, the military and so forth.

Cool!

Interesting Information: The Real Quacks: Internet Trolls Attack Anyone Resisting Vaccine Party Line

Interesting Information:

The Real Quacks:

Internet Trolls Attack Anyone Resisting Vaccine Party Line

 

How many times have you gone to a web site with a title like “Science-Based Medicine” or “Quackwatch” for information?

I would urge some caution as to thinking you are going to find some kind of truth, or even expertise, there.

Take an extra step and try to find out something about who is behind these sites.

For instance, the mainstream press and media in general would have you believe that 99.9% of all doctors and scientists agree that vaccines are safe.  But when you start to list the many doctors and genuine scientists who work in immunology or virology and who do not agree and who are asking questions and calling for adequate research, you can surface one of the internet “trolls” from “science” blogs or web sites who work to disparage your comments and the work of creditable, credentialed, experienced doctors and scientists.  Another term for this process of debunking reasonable people, information, or questions is ASTROTURFING.

Who are these people who are not called trolls?  Let’s take a look.

Here’s a quote from the link below:

Predictably, every time you give the name of a contrarian doctor or scientist in response to the 99.9% figure, what you tend to get is, “Eh, well, he’s a quack, she’s not credible.” Also, you get referred to blogs such as Science-Based Medicine1 or Respectful Insolence,2 or the Skeptical Raptor’s Blog.3 The first two are often written by or associated with a guy named David Gorski, MD, who also goes by the alias “Orac.” Gorski is a surgical oncologist and an assistant professor of surgery at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, MI.4 The third is written by Michael Simpson, who goes by the “Skeptical Raptor.”5 This is how Simpson describes himself on his blog:

I have over 25 years experience in marketing, business development, and product development in the medical products industry, working in a variety of marketing, sales, clinical research, and product development roles with large and small medical products companies. I have also had key executive roles on both the manufacturing and distribution sides of the medical products industry.3

Should you wish to debunk someone, anyone, who dares to disagree with mainstream thinking on vaccines, all you need do is inform Orac or the Raptor, and either will gladly oblige by writing up a boorish piece, long on insult and short on science. Their methods are painfully predictable. In one piece earlier this year, Raptor criticized a prominent immunologist6 who had the nerve to write an open letter on vaccine science to state legislators in California about to vote on a bill eliminating personal belief vaccine exemptions. The piece started out by dismissing the individual’s credentials outright.

Follow the money?

Orac’s defensiveness, in particular, may have something to do with his research on a Sanofi-Aventis drug called Riluzole (Rilutek®),10 which may well eventually be used to treat autism. Riluzole has been approved for clinical trials (for autism) by the FDA, and one can imagine the money that might be at stake if the drug makes it to market.11 12 13

And for heaven’s sake note that Simpson IS A SALESMAN, not a scientist.  And let’s also remember that MDs are practitioners, not scientists like immunologists, virilogists, and so forth.  And surgical oncologists have NOTHING TO DO WITH GIVING VACCINES.

So, take a second and take a look at who is saying what and who is paying them to say what.  PULL BACK THE CURTAIN AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE WIZARD BEHIND IT.

Source: Internet Trolls Attack Anyone Resisting Vaccine Party Line

Interesting Information: Blog, 2015 in Review

Interesting Information:  Blog, 2015 in Review

Every year, WordPress prepares an annual report for its bloggers.

Here is mine:  it’s kind of interesting…

 

 

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2015 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 33,000 times in 2015. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 12 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.