Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Global Warming

The REAL FAKE NEWS exposed: '97% of scientists agree on climate change' is an engineered hoax... here's what the media never told you

Fake news
(NaturalNews) In the current ridiculous battle over "real news" vs. "fake news," the establishment media liars all claim that climate change is the perfect example of how "fake news" keeps interfering with their truthful facts. They repeatedly claim that 97% of scientists agree on man-made climate change, and therefore anyone who disagrees is obviously shoveling "fake" news.

But wait a second. Where does that "97%" claim really come from? They sure repeat it a lot. Is it a legitimate representation of the science?

Author Mark Steyn dug into that question in the search for a more authoritative answer. What he uncovered was so much fraud and deception by climate change propagandists that he compiled an entire book on the matter entitled A Disgrace to the Profession. Here's an excerpt that explains the shocking intellectual fraud behind the "97% of scientists" claim:

An opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change was conducted by Margaret R K Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008.

Aside from his support from Dr Pantsdoumi, Mann often claims the imprimatur of "settled science": 97 per cent of the world's scientists supposedly believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming requiring massive government intervention. That percentage derives from a survey conducted for a thesis by M R K Zimmerman.

The "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.

Of the responding scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America.

Only 6.2 per cent came from Canada. So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

Nine per cent of US respondents are from California. So California is overrepresented within not just the US sample: it has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.

Of the ten per cent of non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them "experts."

Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.

So this is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.

Nonetheless, the compilers also invited comments from respondents and published them in the appendices. In terms of specific scientific material, the hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two not so much.


Wow, you mean the 97% consensus number comes from just 75 scientists that were hand-picked from an email survey?

Yep. Out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, only 75 of them were selected to "count" for the climate change survey that every mainstream media news organization quotes as FACT.

Not quite the "settled science" you've been told, is it? In fact, it all looks rather shoddy.

Yet this is the sort of propaganda that passes as "real news" while anyone who questions obviously faulty science claims is said to be trafficking in "fake news."

So if "real news" is based on the cherry-picked answers from a wildly distorted, misrepresentative group of scientists whose responses were compiled by a pro-climate change "scientist" who obviously altered the responses to fit her own subjective beliefs, just how solid is the claimed authority of "real" news authenticity in the first place?

Furthermore, the very idea that science is "settled" is anti-scientific. Science is never really settled, since the heart of legitimate science is an openness to exploration, discovery and revolutions in new ideas that render old ideas obsolete. Yet today, we are told by the Ministry of Truth fact checkers and monopolistic purveyors of self-proclaimed "real news" that only their views are legitimate and no one else is allowed to even question a "settled" set of beliefs.

"Consensus science" is unscientific by definition... reality isn't decided by a consensus of faulty human beliefs

Thus, the very approach of proclaiming science to be "settled" is, itself, anti-scientific. Any set of supposed facts that cannot withstand questioning, criticism or debate is no science at all. Yet stifling debate is precisely what the new "news truth" brigade is attempting to accomplish: the elimination of scientific dissent and alternative views. They want to turn every discussion (a two-way street) into a stern lecturing (a one-way demand) of those who oppose the "consensus" view being shoved down all our throats.

When scientific dissent is silenced by cognitive totalitarians, what you end up with is a cult of establishment "scientism" rooted in false notions pretending to be science. Perhaps that's why famed physicist Richard Feynman once said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." If he were alive today, there's no question he'd be calling bulls##t on the climate change fraud.

Lies do not become facts just because the New York Times repeats them

All this explains why everything the lying mainstream media tells you about so-called "science" is a collection of carefully constructed lies: Vaccines are completely safe, GMOs have no environmental risks, the stock market will always go up forever, aspartame is safe for babies, pesticides don't cause cancer and human biosludge strewn onto farmers' fields is just "organic fertilizer."

These are the kinds of lies they want to codify as "accepted truth" while decrying any dissenting views as non-credible.

Well, I've got news for Google, Facebook and the mainstream mediaYou've already flushed your credibility down the toilet. Nobody believes you anymore, and by censoring the alternative media, all you're going to do is rapidly lose more readers by the millions as they turn to the only media where they can read the truth: the independent media.

Want to read the real truth on almost any topic? Avoid the entire establishment media as well as "gatekeeper" websites like Google, Facebook and Yahoo. They are now coordinating to silence or censor all views that don't support their twisted, fabricated, false "facts" (which are all politically motivated, by the way).

Use GoodGopher.com as your news search engine. Check AlternativeNews.com for headlines updated throughout the day. Follow your favorite topics on Fetch.news. This is how you free your mind and discover REAL truth in a world full of malicious lies parading around as consensus facts.


Learn more:  http://www.naturalnews.com/056116_fake_news_climate_change_science_hoax.html#ixzz4QlegJQxJ

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Apology - Pesticides

I sincerely apologise for the following post on Pesticides and your inability to read the whole article. Prior to publishing it I received a warning that it would not display correctly. At the same time there was a note saying "fix it". Unfortunately this did not occur.

Fortunayely though you do have the information to go to the website and read the full article as it appeared.

New Pesticide

This smart, harmless pesticide patent could take down Monsanto and change the world

Mushrooms
(NaturalNews) Is bio-agriculture giant Monsanto, king of genetically modified foods and seeds, about to suffer an irreversible decline while the planet Earth gets a huge chemical reprieve?

Well, it may be a bit too early to declare the St. Louis-based corporation dead in the water, but that day may soon be upon us, thanks to a nifty new pesticide patent that would make BioAg chemicals unnecessary.

As reported by the website Anonymous, one man who has dedicated his life to the study of mushrooms may have just stumbled upon the one invention that will dramatically change the way we protect food crops from voracious pests.

Paul Stamets has unearthed medical cure after cure, and he says the key to saving the planet can be found in the mushroom.

Stamets, one of the world's leading mycologists – if not the top researcher of fungi – filed a patent in 2001 that has since been all but ignored. Why? Because most of his research has been viewed as hostile to conventional industries, including the pesticide industry. Anonymous notes that some executives of the pesticide industry have remarked that the patent he filed was the most disruptive they had ever seen.

Kills pests naturally and with zero impact on the environment

And indeed, a read of the patent reveals a remarkable claim.

"The present invention relates to the use of fungal mycelium as a biopesticide. More particularly, the invention relates to the control and destruction of insects, including carpenter ants, fire ants, termites, flies, beetles, cockroaches and other pests, using fungal mycelia as both attractant and infectious agent," the patent says.

In other words, fungus that can be present on crops will both attract destructive pests and then infect and kill them after they have eaten it. In his patent, Stamets claims that more than one fungus can be used in combination, can be dried or freeze-dried, then packaged and reactivated for use "as an effective bioinsecticide."

No more chemicals. No more spraying. No more need for Monsanto's chemical-first approach to growing our food.

In his patent Stamets noted that the widespread use of chemical pesticides is a primary cause of a number of secondary environmental problems that occur besides the death of targeted pests. They include soil poisoning, the toxifying of underlying water tables and aquifers, as well as the pollution of surface water due to runoff.

In addition, they lead to increases in cancer, allergies, neurological diseases, immune disorders Even the deaths of some agricultural workers and consumers have been linked to the use of chemical pesticides.

Increasingly regulated and even banned in some countries, chemical pesticides like Monsanto's Roundup, with the cancer-causing primary ingredient glyphosate, have become so dangerous that many communities are scrambling for natural solutions to pest problems.

Who knew mushrooms could be so lethal to pests? This guy did

"Compounding these problems, many pest type or vermin insects have developed a broad spectrum of resistance to chemical pesticides, resulting in few commercially available pesticides that are effective without thorough and repeated applications," the patent says. "In addition to being largely ineffective and difficult and costly to apply, chemical pesticides present the further disadvantage of detrimental effects on non-target species, resulting in secondary pest outbreaks."

But his invention, he wrote, offers the agriculture industry an "environmentally benign" alternative to insect control by working to attract insects that latent preconidial mycelium that is fresh, dried or freeze-dried, that later infects and kills the host.

Infected insects will then carry the fungal hyphae back to the central colony, then disperse the fungal pathogen even further.

In essence, he wrote, fungal mycelium is both a bait/attractant as well as a food insecticide, and all without harming one thing in the environment.

It's a harmless pesticide that works without genetically modifying our food, poisoning our earth and filling humans with toxins. Using just mushrooms.

Now – who will step up and market it? You can bet it won't be Monsanto.

Sources:

AnonHQ.com

Google.com

Glyphosate.news


Learn more:  http://www.naturalnews.com/055859_mushrooms_Monsanto_pesticides.html#ixzz4Ouv6dtvu

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Vaccination

Australia to hunt down anti-vax nurses and prosecute them for disobeying the medical police state (Hunted Down By The Queen’s Men)

Vaccination
While countries like Australia demonize other nations for their lack of progressiveness, recent developments suggest that its government is taking away people’s freedom to think for themselves, slowly but surely chipping away at those who have dissenting opinions. The evidence?
The newly released vaccination standards provided by The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia in response to what the organization described as, “a small number of nurses and midwives promoting anti-vaccination via social media.”
In their statement, they wrote that the board was merely taking the time to make its expectations in regards to vaccination and vaccination advice very clear to registered nurses, enrolled nurses and midwives.
“The board expects all registered nurses, enrolled nurses and midwives to use the best available evidence in making practice decisions.”
This sentiment might have been acceptable, if it wasn’t coupled with the organization also prompting people to tattle on each other.
You see, the board is also urging members of the public to come forward and report nurses and midwives who may be expounding anti-vaccination beliefs. Surely anyone who goes against the grain deserves to be punished?
If the medical industry was as strictly regulated as it purports itself to be, perhaps so many people wouldn’t be dying each year from medical errors.
An estimated 18,000 to 54,000 people in Australia lose their lives to medical mistakes each year –
but the industry continues to insist that its those pesky thoughts that are really putting people in jeopardy.
How dare anyone want to help people and think for themselves at the same time?
In their statement, the board noted that any reports will not be taken lightly. “The board will consider whether the nurse or midwife has breached their professional obligations and will treat these matters seriously.”
To make matters worse, not only will these brave nurses and midwives be reported by people who may once have been their friends or colleagues, but the promotion of what the government deems “misleading or deceptive information” is a serious offense.
And boy, will they take it seriously. Under national law, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency is able to prosecute anyone who commits such an act.
While we all know that the true deception lies in the promotion of vaccines as a public health necessity, we also know that mainstream medicine will do anything to protect their precious immunizations.
Dr. Hannah Dahlen, a professor of midwifery at the University of Western Sydney and the spokeswoman for the Australian College of Midwives, told The Guardian that nurses and midwives are respected individuals who play an important role in society, and that she believes that people take their advice quite seriously.
She went on to say, “I agree that they have a very serious obligation to provide the best available evidence, and it is of course concerning that some are taking to social media in order to express a position not backed by science.”
But are concerns about what’s in vaccines really not backed by science? Many people might say that continuing to ignore the evidence that there are horrible toxins like glyphosate and mercury in vaccines is what goes against science.
In a rather ironic statement, Dahlen declared, “The worry is the confirmation bias that can occur, because people might say: ‘There you go, this is proof that you can’t even have an alternative opinion.’ It might in fact just give people more fuel for their belief systems.”
Legislating dissenting opinions into extinction, and persecuting those who are raising awareness about a very real problem is proof that alternative opinions are not allowed.
That’s really all there is to it; it’s biased, unjust and frankly, more befitting of the very governments Australia speaks out against.

Friday, October 28, 2016 by: Vicki Batts
http://www.naturalnews.com/055807_vaccination_Australia_medical_police_state.html#ixzz4OPfUMjQB

Friday, October 21, 2016

Heart Disease

Sugar industry paid researchers to say fats cause heart disease

For nearly 50 years, saturated fats were seen as the main culprits behind heart disease, and the discovery of some old research papers has revealed why: the sugar industry was paying scientists to say so. 
Sugar was suspected to cause heart disease in the 1960s, but the Sugar Association threw everyone off the scent by paying the equivalent of $50,000 to three Harvard scientists for a review that minimized the link between sugar and heart disease and, instead, pointed the finger at saturated fats.  
The seminal paper, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, influenced government health policy and was instrumental in launching the low-fat foods industry. 
But the whole thing was a scam, paid for by the sugar industry, as documents uncovered by a researcher at the University of California at San Francisco have revealed. 

One of the Harvard scientists paid by the sugar industry was D. Mark Hegsted, who went on to become head of nutrition at the US Department of Agriculture and who drafted the dietary guidelines for the US in 1977. 
The paper was initiated by John Hickson, a prominent sugar-industry executive, who wanted to deflect the blame away from sugar onto saturated fats, which was in line with the theories of Ancel Keys, who falsified research to demonstrate that saturated fats raised cholesterol levels which, in turn, cause cardiovascular disease. 
(JAMA Intern Med, 2016; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394)

For more up to date news about your health: www.wddty.com

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Cancer

As you, my readers ,will have noted, some of the articles I have endeavoured to reproduce for your information have not re-produced in their entirety. For which I profoundly apologise.

In an endeavour to overcome this problem, I have chosen to list the source, so that you may then read this article in full, on Cancer.

http://www.naturalnews.com/055697_cancer_industry_big_pharma_natural_cures.html

Wishing you every success.

Root Canals and Cancer etc.

Know the facts about root canals and their link to cancer

Root canals
(NaturalNews) Dentists everywhere perform them as a way of removing potentially life-threatening infections from their patients' teeth. But root canals aren't the surefire fix that many people think they are, as they not only cause many of the same infections that they supposedly remedy, but research shows that they also significantly increase one's risk of developing cancer later in life.

Much of it has to do with the structure of teeth and the invasive way that endodontic treatments disrupt the many miles' worth of canals that already exist within them. Removing the infected pulp from a tooth renders that tooth "dead," leaving it prone to further infections that, in some cases, end up being worse than the infection that was removed.

This is one of the biggest concerns with root canals, another being the growing body of research which suggests that many of the most common chronic health conditions from which people today suffer likely stem from folks having previously had root canals. Experts like the late Dr. Weston A. Price, a dentist himself, observed this in many of his own patients.

After hypothesizing that root canals might be silent killers linked to all sorts of health problems, Dr. Price decided to conduct experiments on rabbits using infected teeth, which led him to conclude that teeth with root canals do, indeed, harbor disease-causing bacteria. Root-canaled teeth, he found out, almost always remain infected.

Root canals don't sterilize teeth

One of the purported benefits of root canals is that they sterilize and seal compromised teeth in order to prevent further infection. But one of Dr. Price's discoveries was that root-canaled teeth can't actually be sterilized. This means that they continue to harbor bacteria and viruses that, in most cases, result in conditions of the heart and circulatory system.

There's even been a correlation found between root canals and damage to the central nervous and musculoskeletal systems. Many pathologies seem to have a link to root canals, which Dr. Price outlined extensively in two books he wrote back in the 1920s – work that for many decades was withheld from public purview.

The American Dental Association (ADA) insists that root canals are safe, but it has never released any scientific evidence as proof to back this unsubstantiated claim.

Root canals promote anaerobic bacterial infections

Because they cut off all oxygen to teeth, root canals are also antagonists when it comes to provoking infections by anaerobic bacteria, i.e. infections that thrive in environments where no oxygen is present. Anaerobic bacteria are especially problematic because they can take years to show symptoms, and these symptoms are often non-specific, resulting in generalized damage to the immune system.

Naturally, a weakened immune system acts as an invitation for all sorts of health conditions to emerge, which is why it's often difficult to trace their cause to root canals. But enough is known about how root canals work to safely conclude that they're a recipe for chronic and underlying infections that are difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate without having the entire tooth extracted.

This is why it's so important to take care of your teeth by brushing regularly and flossing, as well as keeping your mouth flourishing with beneficial bacteria that help fight off the harmful kind. Oil pulling is another great way to stay one step ahead in preventing the type of decay that leads to root canals in the first place.

Sources for this article include:

TheUnknownButNotHidden.com

WestonAPrice.org


Learn more:  http://www.naturalnews.com/055700_root_canals_cancer_risk_dental_care.html#ixzz4NZXhJEO5

Sunday, October 9, 2016

ROW Lecture Tour 2016 - Canada & USA

Unfortunately I became so carried away with my travel arrangements, and socialising, that my time in North America was a time when I completely forgot to take many photos. The few that I did remember to take only give a very limited view and I sincerely apologise for my slackness.

My plane journey from the UK to Canada terminated in Toronto, which I have written quite extensively about on earlier blogs. This time I travelled upon arrival, to the nearby centre of Guelph at which there is a University that my grandson has been attending as an exchange student to complete his Masters degree in Business Management. Fortunately I did remember to take a few photos on this occasion.


This is a photo of my grandson holding his son.


Upon leaving Guelph, I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to travel by car to Niagara Falls, prior to catching the Greyhound bus to Cleveland in the US. This is the entrance in Niagara Falls to the Thai Buddhis Centre.

After speaking to a group in Cleveland, I then traveled to Toronto to another group, than flew out to Atlanta in Georgia.

After my arrival in Atlanta, Georgia, my host Nancy and I had the pleasure of visiting with Dr Paul Goldberg and his wife, Bianca, at his nearby retreat.


During our visit we had the pleasure of sharing a raw food luncheon with Dr Golberg and his wife.








The Pill and Depression

 

 › News › 2016 › October › The Pill raises risk of depression, especially in teenagers › October 2016

The Pill raises risk of depression, especially in teenagers

The latest issue of WDDTY magazine highlights some of the dangers of the Pill—and a new study confirms it needs to be taken with caution. It raises the risk of depression, with teenage girls being the most vulnerable: they are 80 per cent more likely to be taking an antidepressant as well.
The greatest risk seems to be with the combined oral contraceptive—containing a mixture of hormones—which is the most commonly-prescribed version of the Pill. Women taking the combined Pill were 25 per cent more likely also to be taking an antidepressant, but the risk rose to 80 per cent among teenage girls aged from 15 to 19.
The risk has been highlighted in a major research study, involving more than one million Danish women aged between 15 and 34. On average, the women were 23 per cent more likely to suffer from depression than those not taking the Pill, and were taking an antidepressant for the first time.
The risk rose to 34 per cent in those taking progestin-only pills, which use synthetic progesterone, and it doubled for women using contraceptive patches.
Researchers from the University of Copenhagen suspect that progesterone may be to blame for the depression as previous studies have shown it has a negative effect on mood, especially during the menstrual cycle. In particular, it may interfere with the nervous system.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Vaccination


Vaccination programme as a criminal racket

Russias Ministry of Health has apparently carried out an investigation into the Wests vaccination programmes and concluded they are a self-perpetuating criminal racket with adverse reactions being hidden, and academics being paid to endorse the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.


www.yournewswire.com/putin-western-governments-are-enslaving-humanity-through-vaccines)

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Dental Amalgalm Fillings

This report from WDTTY is of such importance for those of us seeking to obtain and maintain the highest level of health possible, that I am reproducing it here.

 › News › 2016 › October › Dental amalgam fillings aren’t safe—they leak mercury into our blood stream, say researchers › October 2016

Dental amalgam fillings aren’t safe—they leak mercury into our blood stream, say researchers

Mercury from amalgam dental fillings isn’t safe--it enters the bloodstream and affects the major organs, such as the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs and the immune system itself, a major new study has confirmed.
People with eight or more fillings are at the greatest risk of major organ damage; they have 150 per cent more mercury in their blood than someone who doesn’t have any fillings. In the US, 25 per cent of the population has 11 or more fillings.
But the risk exists for everyone with mercury fillings, say researchers from the University of Georgia. Our gut transforms the mercury into methyl mercury, the most lethal form of the heavy metal, and other research has shown it can cause damage to the organs even at low levels.
Dental amalgam—which is 50 per cent mercury—has been used as the standard filling material for 150 years, and the dental associations have always maintained it is safe, and doesn’t enter the blood stream.
But when the researchers analysed blood samples from 14,703 adults in the US, they discovered a connection between the levels of mercury in their blood and the number of amalgam fillings they had. “As toxicologists, we know that mercury is poison, but it all depends on the dose. So, if you have one dental filling, maybe it’s OK. But if you have more than eight dental fillings, the potential risk for adverse effect is higher,” said Xiaozhong Yu, one of the researchers and an assistant professor of environmental health science.
Our mercury levels can also be increased by eating contaminated fish and from our environment.
Amalgam alternatives, such as dental composite resins, are safer and don’t ‘leak’ into the bloodstream, they say.